Polish_Kris

Cause it's much smaller than the "$h!ty" Corollas and Civics, and it has worst resale value, and not big of a brand recognition.

So how do u explain the Accord, that is in the same price range and feels 100 times more expensive and well-built?

The CTS interior is comfy! However, Ted should post a video of how well some of the interior pieces are put together. The centre console lid was squeeking like on a ten year old car!

The pre-production excuse I thought would work with the Aura we sat in last year, like I said before, they didn't change anything, and I doubt they will change anything for this. And, no it's not fine, this interior is out-dated, poorly built, and there should be no excuse why GM can't do better. The City Jetta and City Golf are built by Mexicans and Brazilians, and for some reason, those interiors are lightyears ahead, even though they were designed in 1998. BTW, knowing you FOG, if this was an import, you'd be dissing the $h! out of it, you're saying it's fine becuase it's a GM.

Good point Dodgefan Loki is claiming that the centrestack blows, but doesn't the GM Cobalt/G5 have an almost identical design? Why isn't he dissing the GM interior design? It's a double standard I assume on this board

Hmmmmm... this, or City Jetta?

Ohhhhh...k

Yeah, they just introduced them, people just can't adjust themselves to these new things called "cars", it will be a generation before people will leave their dog-sleds and canoes for these new-aged inventions.

HUH??? How in the world do you see 500 on that?

Yes! Looks! until I felt it in real life, and no it will not change. That's the same thing we thought last year when we sat in the Aura for the first time, they did F**k-All with the material quality, I truly doubt they will here too.

This is how the City Golf will look like: http://www.vw.com.br/NovoSite/

To me it felt like I was sitting on a sponge.

I saw it at the autoshow on the weekend, and it's a nice car, except I didn't like the rear that much, looks very unfinished. However, it's still lightyears ahead of the new Malibu in terms of features and quality

Ted took more pics, but his computer is down, so I uploaded whatever I have from my camera. Overall, impressions, well let's just put it that GM can do allot better than this. It feels allot like the Aura. Interior plastics feel cheap, disappointed. With all the time GM had to improve the flaws the Aura had, it feels like they have done nothing. We sat in this car first at the show, so we got to compare. The new Accord, the Camry, even the Magentis, yes the KIA MAGENTIS feels like a car with higher quality than this. I know you guys hate hearing this, especially on a GM fan msg site, however this car is not the promise of "gotta have cars" Lutz is praising about. So much for Lutz's promise of quality, the guy's gotta retire, an American Reolution? Yeah, maybe in 1998.

"You always have time for Tim Hortons"

Oh quiet with that "IMPORT HUMPING" excuse, the Aveo is a matter of fact an import too, you're just bitter because the new Aveo is not selling as well as it used to, and that the Imports are stealing your commission away.

Explain...?

This is suppose to be an all-Suzuki car though, no Daewoo or GM rebadges. Except I think it may have the 3.6 from the XL-7, which is GM.

New mid-size Suzuki sedan, will have the 3.6 v6 as an option interesting... http://www.globalsuzuki.com/kizashi/index.html http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...5010760,00.html

I'm sorry and the Chrysler isnt a sea of plastic?

The main problem with Chrysler, and Ford for that matter... GM is getting there but not with all it's models is that their interiors always look good on pictures, until you sit inside and feel the plastics. I don't understand why they always cheapen out on interiors, somebody explain to me, besides the obvious bean counter excuse!

Jee.... North American mentality of numbers numbers numbers sales sales sales. They just have so many models because of the different markets they cover. Plus, not all countries are as first world as Canada and the US, so not that many people can afford to go off and buy new cars.

Yeah, I see your point, it's gotten better. No, the whole point of your thread was, to start another nerveracking Toyota bashing debate. No one is drinking kool aid here relax. See there you go again, there is no such thing as good press when it comes to car makers having defects in their cars. As for the comment that was posted I think by Flybrian, you have a point about the Avalon as being point less. However, I think it's for people who want something between a Camry, and a Lexus. Although, I might argue that for similar money, you can get an ES. As the for SUV debate, I believe that there are many. However, they all run on different platforms. The RAV4 is off a stretched Corolla, the Highlander off a stretched Camry, the Land Crusher is off it's own, and the Sequoia is off the Tundras (with or without the snapping camshafts :-P). Oh yeah, I forgot the 4RUNNER, which runs off the Hilux if I'm not mistaken. It all depends what the customer wants, I think it's a matter of choice. Although, if we have the Sequoia, then why do we get the Land Crusher for? Might as well rename the Sequoia into the Land Crusher badging. However, one might argue that the GMC/CHEVY debate might be a matter of customer's choice. Some perfer GMC, some might chevy, you choose.

Don't you have anything better to do than to start these $h!-disturbing threads just to create attention. Every time I come onto this forum to check up the latest automotive news, I see you starting stupid bashing threads like this. This is becoming boring, that's why I replied to this non-sense. Grow up, you're like thirty-nine years old, stop acting like a seventeen year old gossip queen. True that, but having the same trucks under GMC and Chevy is still point-less, it should be either Chevy or GMC, you choose GM.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/31/autos/gm_v...sion=2007083112