2010 Buick LaCrosse at 2009 Detroit Auto Show

• Competes with: Acura TSX, Lincoln MKZ, Lexus ES
• Looks like: Buick might have hope yet
• Drivetrain: 255-hp, 3.0-liter V-6 or 280-hp, 3.6-liter V-6 with six-speed transmission; front or all-wheel drive
• Hits dealerships: Late summer 2009

Buick is hoping its complete redesign of the LaCrosse sedan will be as successful at bringing in new buyers as its Enclave crossover was last year. After perusing the specs and these eye-catching pics, we’d have to say it’s got a shot, especially compared to the model’s sedate predecessor. 

The new LaCrosse may look more compact than the 2009, but it’s only 1.1 inches shorter. It’s nearly 500 pounds heavier, however, and that’s without the optional all-wheel drive. Not to worry: The 2010 offers a pair of more powerful direct-injected V-6s that should return mileage similar to the outgoing model’s 17/28 mpg. Both are based on Cadillac’s new V-6.

In the base LaCrosse CX and midlevel CXL, drivers get the 255-hp, 3.0-liter V-6 that was introduced in the 2010 SRX a few days ago. The old LaCrosse had 200 hp. The CXL will also have optional all-wheel drive. The top-of-the-line CXS will have the same 3.6-liter V-6 as Cadillac’s CTS, but with less horsepower, at 280. Both engines are teamed with a six-speed automatic transmission. Mileage numbers have not been released, but we’d expect the CXS to do slightly better than the CTS’ 17/26 mpg.

The LaCrosse is based on GM’s new global midsize sedans, but is slightly larger. GM has not revealed interior specifications, so we don’t how headroom, legroom and the size of the trunk measure up. Because it’s based on the global sedans, we expect/hope that the new LaCrosse will handle better than the old one; perhaps the characteristic floaty driving feel of big Buicks is at an end. The company promises “quiet tuning” to keep the cabin isolated from road and wind noise.

Oh, and did we mention the gadgets? Standard features weren’t broken down, but offered in the car will be navigation, Bluetooth, a USB port, a backseat DVD system with dual screens, and more. Buyers will be lucky if the USB input comes standard. And yes, it has a Heads Up Display too.

Pricing for the 2009 LaCrosse starts at $25,640, and we’d hope the 2010 stays near that mark. Because of the advanced engines, though, it’s more likely to start around the $28,000 range to be competitive with the Acura TSX, which starts at $29,000. More photos below. 

Comments

[joel]

reminds me alot of the ACURAAAAAAAAA

[SG]

O.O
Mann, this car is hot!!! Its totally striking inside and out. Yes, it it actually looks like a cross between a Acura RL and BMW 5 Series had one beautiful child. (

[Nic]

Maybe if I was 100 years old would I consider a Buick. Never would I cross shop if looking for Acura, BMW, or Lexus. By the way, they did good with the front on their own but they sure did slack off and copy the Acura TL in the rear.

[Zerf]

Wow, that's a nice looking car. Hope they are very mindful of the price if those are the cars they want to compete with or most no one will even take a look.

[Zerf]

Wow, that's a nice looking car. Hope they are very mindful of the price if those are the cars they want to compete with or most no one will even take a look.

[L.S.]

I'm actually a bit surprised at how good it looks inside and out. Kudos for that! I agree that the back and side views are maybe a little too generic but the overall package is pretty sweet.

We'll just have to wait and see if it's enough to overcome the brand's image problems of late though. I think a previous commenter was right in that there are probably very few that cross-shop Buick with the likes of Acura or BMW.

[Bowrider]

I think BMWs are not comparable because of the price difference. People will buy this car. The LeSabre was the best selling full-size car in the U.S. for 12 years, which can be largely attributed to value.

[evr]

This is an impressive good looking car, it's like GM pulled another CTS like vehicle. This is the right direction.

I'm so tired of people saying that they won't buy a buick or Lincoln because they are "old people cars", but they will shop for all the other luxury makes. Maybe they haven't noticed, but prior to the explosion of people living beyond their means and on credit, older people where the ones that could afford all of these cars- and I think it is going to go back that way. Lexus doesn't scream cool in a youthful way (save for the IS), nor do any of the sedans from M-B or Audi. If you don't like the car, fine. I am 26 and I have hated almost all previous buicks ( except the last Riviera and Enclave), but that doesn't mean this car isn't hot. I would test drive it.

[Easy E]

Here's a perfect example of how most people unfairly look down on GM:

I showed the pics of this beautiful car to my friends at work and they all said "gorgeous car, is it a new Lexus or Infiniti?; I would buy it in a minute". I said "yes, it is a beautiful car, and no, it's the new Buick LaCrosse"....they all said "oh, what a shame,I would never buy a Buick, never".

[Easy E]

Here's a perfect example of how most people unfairly look down on GM:

I showed the pics of this beautiful car to my friends at work and they all said "gorgeous car, is it a new Lexus or Infiniti?; I would buy it in a minute". I said "yes, it is a beautiful car, and no, it's the new Buick LaCrosse"....they all said "oh, what a shame,I would never buy a Buick, never".

[sheth]

DaveT,

Your review is full of questionable assertions and statements. 500lbs overweight? Based on what? The current car weighs over 3600lbs and is 3800lbs with the V8. This car starts at 3800lbs for the base FWD model. How is that 500 more lbs? The AWD 2010 model is about 500lbs more than the BASE FWD 2009 model.

Also, this car will NEVER compete with the TSX? Where did you get that? The TSX is much smaller and lacks a V6. This car competes with ES350, TL, Genesis V6 and MKS. This is a huge car and is much larger than the MKZ or TSX. You also mention "floaty" rides as if this is 1990. What current Buicks (other than base models) have cushy rides? The Lucerne Super definitely isnt a soft cruiser and neither is the Lacrosse CXL or Super. No Buick today is as weak in the handling department as the sportiest Buicks of 20 years ago. Stop using played out stereotypes. Cars.com is very pro import and very much into stereotypes about brands of cars. While we know few American cars get good reviews here lets not try and twist the facts about Buicks recent efforts in order to support an outdated notion.

[Brady Holt]

You say mileage numbers haven't been released, but they're in the GM press release posted on Autoblog. 18/27 with the 3.0 and 17/26 with the 3.6.

[Mike_B.]

Wow... this looks a LOT like the sketches Hyundai released the other day revealing their newest luxury car design replacing the Equus.

I definitely like it, though. For a Buick, it looks awesome.

[sheth]

"I'm so tired of people saying that they won't buy a buick or Lincoln because they are "old people cars", but they will shop for all the other luxury makes. "

Lexus is the #1 Luxury brand and it makes cars that ride and handle like Buicks with the exception of the IS and GS to some degree. In spite of that the American auto media pretends that any model that cant handle like a 3 series is trash and should be ridiculed. Meanwhile they will praise a Lexus for being quiet, smooth riding and well built- just like a Buick. Its a shame that so many people assume anything good has to be engineered and built in Japan or Germany.

"I would buy it in a minute". I said "yes, it is a beautiful car, and no, it's the new Buick LaCrosse"....they all said "oh, what a shame,I would never buy a Buick, never"."

No surprise there. Thats the attitude of many Americans. They only want a nice car if it has a foreign badge on it. I do think there are enough open minded people out there to give Buick a chance though. The Enclave was doing very well before the credit crunch. Unlike people in Japan or GErman people in the US believe something has to be imported to be a worth owning. Anyone looking at this car knows its nice but some folks would be worried about what people think if they owned a Buick as opposed to an Acura. Hyundai faces the same issues.

[sheth]

I'm almost 30 and this car looks good. Same with Enclave AND Lucerne. How can this be considered an "old man's car" when the media loves Lexus and Toyota? HAve you seen the average ES350 owner? Most are retired. BTW, I dont see lots of young folks buying E classes or S classes or any Audi save for the A4. Older people have money and luxury owners are generally older than owners of lower end vehicles. Lexus does well because it appeals to boomers who have admired Toyotas since the 80s and have owned them for most of their adult lives. Few under 35 aspire to own a Lexus. Buick has as much of shot with those folks as Lexus if you ask me. Why do you think Lexus sales were down 21% last year? Ownership base is aging.

[Dave T.]

Sheth,
You're reading what I wrote wrong or something. I said the old model was floaty and it is compared to other sedans on the market. I say this one should erase that because of the platform.
The specs I have from GM of the old car are CX: 3495 lbs.
Making it a nearly 500 lb difference as I state.
I compare it to other models on price, not size. This will be entry level for Buick, so I compared it to entry on other lineups. People shop price as much as size. I think I gave a good array of models to compare it too and I think the write-up is favorable in most respects.

And if anything I think people would think we've been biased towards domestics, especially during the bailout months. However, I should remind everyone we have a very very strict editorial policy and are biased only towards good cars. Not badges or brands.

I can't believe people are giving this thing a hard time because the back looks a little like a TL. The Hyundai Genesis looks like it got all of it's parts from other luxury sedans. At least the Buick looks different.

[Dave T.]

I think the back end looks way more like a Lexus ES and Mazda6 than the new TL which is very angular and jagged. This is smooth and swoopy.

[john julius]

hello my name is john and i have been waiting for over a year for the production version of the lacrosse to come out, now i know gm can put out some very nice concept cars but when it comes to making that car into a production model they take so much away from the concept and the car becomes less attractive. but for this car i am loosing my mind over this next lacrosse, it remained true to the concept invicta inside and out and i am just crazy about this car. i can,t wait to test drive it this summer. i just paid off a 2003 chrysler sebring coupe lxi and will be in the market for a new car, i have been shopping around but have not found anything i would want to buy. i think i have found my car now, so please don't let me down when this car come out this summer. ps who ever said buick is for old people well i am 34 years old and i am surely considering buying my first buick.

I think the Chinese Buick Regal(aka Opel Insignia) looks slightly better, tho that vehicle may be smaller?! Will the LaCrosse still be sold in Canada under the name "Allure"?

[R.L.]

I really like what Buick did with the LaCrosse. It will probably do much better with this redesign. I've asked around and there were alot of positive responses. Sadly, I admit that I am one of those people who conform to the stereotype of having a greater affinity towards German and Japanese luxury brands. I think it has alot to do with brand seasoning (for a lack of a better term). German luxury brands seem more seasoned and consistant in their technological and design progression (save that fact that most car companies adapt quickly and produce similar tech shortly after), although their reliability can be off the mark sometimes, but hey if you're rich...that's really not too much of an issue unless the car becomes a nuisance. Japanese luxury brands are still considered somewhat new in the luxury market, but it's their consitancy of quality and reliability that brings people a peace of mind. My case is just one of the many examples of the psyche of luxury car buyers. Nonetheless that does not excuse me from being classified as an elitist, narrow-minded car shopper...That sounded almost too ridiculous. Point in case, we all have different attitudes towards certain luxury car brands and we are all entitled to do so. Cheers.

[sheth]

"You're reading what I wrote wrong or something. I said the old model was floaty and it is compared to other sedans on the market. I say this one should erase that because of the platform."

Dave,

Even that is not accurate. The CXS model nor the Super were "floaty" per most reviews. My parents have an Impala LTZ on the same platform and its not floaty. You say the Lacrosse was soft compared to cars in its class- name a few. It certainly is no softer than a Camry XLE or ES350 or Avalon or V6 equipped 300/Charger. The Lacrosse does not compete with the 3 series or C class or any other RWD sports sedan.

"Making it a nearly 500 lb difference as I state. "

Base model 2010 Lacrosse is 3800lbs which is 300lbs more than base 2009 model. Loaded FWD new model is 4065lbs and LAcrosse Super is 3770lbs which is a difference of less than 300lbs. The only way you get to 500 is by comparing the base model current car with the AWD new car. The weight gain on this car is less than the gain on the RX350 which is on the same platform as the 2009 model.

"However, I should remind everyone we have a very very strict editorial policy and are biased only towards good cars. Not badges or brands. "

I disagree. Whil you have rallied for the domestics in recent months (much needed) I find most of your reviews minimize faults of imports and lean towards sporty vehicles even though most Americans dont buy such vehicles. I read the review of the CX7 and it was typical of what I've found here- the mileage, cheap materials, unrefined engine, etc. were excused because it handles well. Meanwhile any domestic that doesn't handle like an M3 seems to be dismissed. You also claimed the cobalt wasnt even competitive in 2004 when it was launched which is laughable. In terms of features, refinement, space and hp the Cobalt was very competitive, if dull. Read C&D's initial road test for details. They praised the car's refinement.

[sheth]

"I think the Chinese Buick Regal(aka Opel Insignia) looks slightly better, tho that vehicle may be smaller?! Will the LaCrosse still be sold in Canada under the name "Allure"?"

The Chinese Regal is smaller. That car has a 107 in wheelbase and is 190 inces long. Its the same length as the Malibu with a shorter wheelbase. There is speculation that it will come to the US in 2010 and be built in Canada. We shall see.

RL,

Glad you can admit your bias. Buick has been making quality cars for years but they were lacking in the powertrain and styling departments until recently. Buick can do quality as well as any faux luxury brand like Acura. Only in America are gussied up Hondas and Toyotas accepted as true luxury vehicles. They dont share that view in Europe which is why Acura isnt sold there and Lexus is not really that successful. It amazes me that americans believe that 20 year old luxury brands are worthy of such admiration and respect. Acura and Lexus make nice cars but they should have the prestige of Cadillac or MB or BMW. They have not been aroung long enough to deserve the reputations they have. Buick and Cadillac were making luxurious vehicles decades before Lexus or Acura were conceived.

[Dave T.]

Sheth
You're wrong on weight ok
2010
CX: 3948 / 1791 (est)
2009
CX: 3495 lbs.

So 453. Sorry if 500 sounded better. But don't spread misinformation.

I've tested every car you mention. The LaCrosse, not the Lucerne, IS FLOATY compared to almost every one of those. They designed it that way on purpose because Buick buyers preferred it that way. I'm not kidding you. It was only recently GM decided to turn Buick towards a different demographic who don't prize the cushiest of rides for better handling.

And if you're going to bring up the COBALT to defend you're statement you're picking the WRONG car. Compare it to the Mazda3 back then and it was/is awful. I reviewed it when it first came out and the plastic was sooooo rough it wasn't even funny. Today it certainly doesn't hold up to the competition.

Do you know what other new car we said the same thing about?! the new 2009 Toyota Corolla.

The CX-7 is a terrific SUV in many ways. It's main fault is really a rough ride, and it originally needed premium fuel. That's why I didn't buy one a few years back. I would say heck out my review of the Saturn Vue when it was redesigned and the praise it got. Or my Malibu review. Funny enough I got identical criticism for my Toyota Venza review (nitpicking small things).

We have to advise car buyers on the best in the segment. Why would we say go buy something inferior simply because it is a "Good" car when there is something stellar at a similar price? That doesn't make any sense.

[J]

Competes with Lincoln MKZ, Lexus ES, and Acura TSX?!
What makes this to compete with the TSX not the TL?

[Dave T.]

J,
Like I said before, I was picking an array of cars based on price and entry level status. The TSX starts at $29K. This LaCrosse will probably start below that, This morning GM mentioned between $25-$35 range. I think the LaCrosse will steal buyers from the TSX who want "more" car for their money. While the TL starts at $35 which will be the high-end of the LaCrosse price range.

For some reason people really take our "Competes With" listings very seriously. They are really there to give the casual car shopper an idea of different models out there you might cross shop based on price, needs, equipment etc. We're not following some wheelbase length + headroom = recommendation type formula.

[J]

Because most of us that picked on that are thinking more about the vehicles themselves as priorities not the price.

[J]

Just a side note, the ES starts at $34,320; the MKZ starts at $32,695. Both significantly higher than the TSX's $29,160.
Not trying to pick on you, Dave. But the TSX just threw me off.

[Dave T.]

J,
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your point. But these reports also show up on Cars.com's auto show page and some readers might be considering different things. Again, I try for a broad brush stroke.

I don't care what badge is on it, this car is sexy. I have been looking at it online for about an hour and I can't take my eyes off of it. :)

Broq

[JRE]

im jus glad they got rid of those encased gauges, i never liked them, i prefer the open tacho etc. interior and exterior much better than previous and doesnt look like any other GM.....for once

[Tony]

"I think BMWs are not comparable because of the price difference"

They not compatible because of what they are - the MACHINE and a car.

Also back is not from Acura, it is from Aura.

[sheth]

"So 453. Sorry if 500 sounded better. But don't spread misinformation. "

My bad, its 450 lbs for the base model and 300lbs for the top FWD trim. Again, not sure how you surmise that is a 500lb gain across the board. When you say the model gains 500lbs that pretty much implies comparable trims have gained 500lbs. Seems to me average weight gain it about 350-400lbs.

The Lacrosse had two different suspension levels. The base (rental) car had the soft suspension. I rented a CXL model 2 years back and it was not floaty. Most reviews of the car focused on the CXS model with the DOHC engine and no one called it floaty. The base model may be somewhat soft but I am not aware of any publications that tested that car. Considering what has been said about cars like the camry (not SE) and ES350 I am amazed that you are insisting the Lacrosse is sloppy and floaty compared to those two cars. I have not read that anywhere else. In MT's testing the ES350 couldn't even muster 60mph through the slalom which is SUV territory. That is a sign of a softly sprung car.

"And if you're going to bring up the COBALT to defend you're statement you're picking the WRONG car. Compare it to the Mazda3 back then and it was/is awful. I reviewed it when it first came out and the plastic was sooooo rough it wasn't even funny. Today it certainly doesn't hold up to the competition. "

You dont get it Dave. How many compact buyers care about sportiness? Not many which is why the corolla whips the 3 in sales every month. THe cobalt (non SS) is not sporty. It is however relatively quiet, fast for its class and full of features. Your reviews seem to focus on interior plastics and such as if that is an indicator of the performance or functionality of the car. My brother has a 3 and I have driven a 2008 Cobalt. Cobalt's interior is worse but its ride it better, its NVH levels are the same (or better) and the features on the lower end cars is as good or better than the 3's. It also gets better mileage. The 3 is a focused sporty vehicle and the corolla doesnt measure up to it any better thant the Cobalt. Against the best selling Corolla the Cobalt is a decent car. Sorry, but I use more than plastics quality to evaluate a car.

[sheth]

The TSX will not be compared to this car. Too small and no V6. Also it has a manual with the LAcrosse and ES350 lack.

[Dave T.]

Sheth,
You're not going to listen with an open mind than don't join a discussion. There are reasons MT and C&D write certain things I'm not going to get into, ask them what their editorial policy is. We don't test acceleration etc because it doesn't have a very strong impact on a car buying decision for most people. We relay basics like if passing power is adequate for the size engine etc. I can tell you the question of 0-60 times has NEVER come up when someone asks me my advice on a new car. Never. Mileage, every time.

As to specifics. You got into the specific car debate. I mentioned the Mazda3 because it came out at the same time as the cobalt and was a far superior car in EVERY respect. It had nothing to do with sporty driving. There's no way on earth a typical car buyer given the choice between the two with identical sticker prices would sit in a Cobalt and test drive both and say "oh yeah I want this one" I mean they were/are worlds apart. Here are the cars I would tell a car shopper to consider over the Cobalt today in no specific order: Honda Civic, Mazda3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Hyundai Elantra, Honda Fit, Toyota Corolla, Scion xB, Ford Focus. I'd maybe pick it over the Caliber. Tough call. A GM product I like but is more $ is the new Pontiac Vibe.

But what I'm saying is if all these cars are in some way (reliability, safety ratings, interior quality etc) better and some far superior, why recommend the Cobalt? Which is not a Cars.com Best Bet. The Cobalt does get good mileage though.

As to the floaty thing, you probably just have a different definition of floaty. I would say the Chrysler 300 has some of that feel too, yes. Happy? Sheesh, not every car rides on rails, the LaCrosse is certainly one of them.

[Dave T.]

J,
Geeze, I had kind of forgotten the ES was that high! You got me. Can you think of something better to put in there? Passat might work.

[Terry]

I sure hope GM does not screw up launching this car. It's one of thier best yet...it may take some sales from those shopping the Caddy CTS.

[sheth]

"We have to advise car buyers on the best in the segment. Why would we say go buy something inferior simply because it is a "Good" car when there is something stellar at a similar price? That doesn't make any sense. "

As the editor in chief of Edmunds has said on numerous occasions: there are no bad cars. I think your comment reveals what I am talking about with the reviews here. Like C&D, you seem to cling to the notion that there is a huge difference between the "best" car and the rest of the cars in a particular class. Stellar? If you believe that vehicles like the CX-7 or Accord or Camry are stellar compared to key domestic competitors I don't know what to say. I remember reading a review of the Aura here and it was typical of domestic car reviews on this site: nice car but you should buy a clearly superior import alternative. Aura is competitive on looks, mileage (I-4 at least), space, crash test ratings and performance but it was given a lukewarm review. Why? If I remember it was due to interior plastics and "lack of refinement". I measure refinement by quiet and ride quality and operation of controls. The Aura does well in all those regards. Even if I were to agree that the Accord and Camry were marginally superior (which I dont) the Aura offers more value. A comparably equipped Accord and Camry are at least $2k more without factoring in incentives. Add that to GM's better warranty and a few hard plastics can be overlooked. I've been in the Camry, 2009 6 and Accord and have an Aura- there is not a substantial difference in the interiors. The Accord has more soft touch surfaces inside but the doors feel and sound cheap. Even if I give the Accord ad advantage in material quality its design is no better and its price is higher if you want features such as leather, heated seats, auto dimming mirror, Xm radio, etc. Its like nothing outside of interior plastics matters anymore. Not pricing, styling or content- just plastics. On the merits an Aura XR-4 with 33mpg hwy is a very compelling alternative to the Accord or Camry. If it were a Honda I'm sure reviews would be MUCH different.

[Scott]

Three Words: "Well Done Buick!"

[Dave T.]

Also to be clear to everyone else:

While I may be slamming one model pretty severely it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the report above and the turnaround GM has done of late. Most new GM products we've tested have received accurate reviews with many positive comments.

[sheth]

Dave,

I am open minded. I agree 0-60 isnt that important but I wasnt relaying 0-60 times so I'm not sure why that was mentioned. I was referring to slalom speed as an indicator of handling. The Es350 is not a car designed for adroit handling.

"There's no way on earth a typical car buyer given the choice between the two with identical sticker prices would sit in a Cobalt and test drive both and say "oh yeah I want this one" I mean they were/are worlds apart. Here are the cars I would tell a car shopper to consider over the Cobalt today in no specific order: Honda Civic, Mazda3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Hyundai Elantra, Honda Fit, Toyota Corolla, Scion xB, Ford Focus. I'd maybe pick it over the Caliber. Tough call. A GM product I like but is more $ is the new Pontiac Vibe. "

But why Dave? That my question. The Cobalt is cheaper, has more standard power and better mileage. Considering how the AVERAGE compact car owner uses their car I would like for you to explain to me how the Cobalt is worlds away from the 3. Most people do not care about handling in this class which is why the corolla does so well. The other cars you mentioned are all largely medicre. The Lancer and Focus have just as many hard plastics as the Cobalt and the Lancer has poor mileage. The Elantra is pretty nice and should rank near the top due to its great interior. Focus has less power, looks worse and gets worse mileage with the manual. It does have Sync. Its a medicre car with a high tech feature. The Fit is not in the same class in terms of body style or hp and gets worse mileage than the cobalt with manual tranny. Thats apples to oranges since the Fit is essentially a wagon. The Vibe is a Toyota which likely explains your position, but it has a weak engine, mediocre mileage (this isnt debatable) and cheap plastics. And again, its a wagon.

I am evaluating the Cobalt on power, price features, ride and fuel economy. I'm not sure what criteria you are using but it appears to be plastic quality.

"As to the floaty thing, you probably just have a different definition of floaty. I would say the Chrysler 300 has some of that feel too, yes. Happy? Sheesh, not every car rides on rails, the LaCrosse is certainly one of them. "

I am saying compare cars with similar missions. The Lacrosse is not floaty compared to key rivals like Camry XLE or Es350 or 300 Touring. The Lacrosse is not geared towards the 335i or EVO or whatever cars you consider to have appropriate levels of handling. Many people (such as Lexus, Lincoln and Buick owners) want a comfortable ride. I just want to know why "floaty" is bad for Buick when it has propelled Lexus to #1 in the US luxury market. Lexus has followed and improved upon the Buick formula, not the BMW formula.

Somebody needs to jackslap Sheth, he thinks a Cobalt is as good a car as a Civic.

[Dave T.]

Sheth,
I think you're repeating what I'm saying with a different angle. The Cobalt compared to the old Cavalier or any car of the 1980s and early 1990s is worlds superior in nearly every respect.

And like Karl we agree, we have to offer advice on what's best for the shopper out of all the "good" cars, what's the Best? In today's market the Cobalt specifically falls short and I, nor I believe any editor here, would rank highly on a shopping list of today's compacts.

The problem really is you're comparing very specific models that may or may not hold up to others with the CX-7 etc. You want me to break each class down? Go to our Best Bets section. That's where we do that. Again, I really liked the Saturn Vue. Are you not reading what I'm posting?

The Aura's fault was/is plainly its interior materials. When I drove it I was in awe of how quiet it was but it had some of the worst plastics I'd ever seen. I think the G6 looked better in some respects. Mike Hanley actually wrote the review. This was a common flaw he also noted. When I reviewed the Malibu it was clear the interior materials were greatly improved.

We have to write everything about a car to be fair to our readers. We're not going to gloss over anything for any reason. That's bad journalism and there's no point to it.

[sheth]

"But what I'm saying is if all these cars are in some way (reliability, safety ratings, interior quality etc) better and some far superior, why recommend the Cobalt? Which is not a Cars.com Best Bet. The Cobalt does get good mileage though."

I dont believe your site measures reliability. Cobalt ranks as average in CR for reliability. I am not familiar with the crash test ratings so I dont know how the Cobalt does there. My point is the Cobalt is OK for low cost, efficient, well equipped transportation for commuters. If you are looking for navigation, HIDs, a $24k price tag or BMW handling its not the best in class car. Its just as good for commuting as a Corolla or Lancer or Elantra. Interior quality is somewhat subjective (although Cobalt is now lagging there due to age) but it does not impact functionality or mileage or ride quality or quietness of ride. I can agree Cobalt does not have most luxurious interior but I have to ask: so what? European cars clearly have the best interiors but there is no correlation between that and reliability or even long term interior durability. VW interiors have been known to wear out prematurely in spite of looking great when new. The Cobalt is cheaper and better equipped than almost every car you named and has class leading hp and a great ride and you are saying its not even worth mentioning in comparison to those vehicles because of its interior plastics. I do not get that. Outside of forums like this I rarely here actual car owners talking about how soft their dashboards are or arent. My real issue isnt so much with the fact that the cobalt isnt best in class (its oldest in class) but with the fact that you claimed it wasnt even worth buying in 2004. That is a stretch to say the least. Its interior design, hp and feature count was very competitive with corolla and civic when it debuted.

[J]

Dave,
The Passat is okay in terms of price, but it is significantly underpowered (I don't see the VR6 on VW's site for the 2009 model year).
I was thinking about the Avalon or the V6 powered Accord. But I already know some might be ready to say they are not luxury cars. Well, guess what? Buick is a sub-luxury car just like Acura anyway.

[J]

Sheth,
Not to break the dream, but aren't you forgetting there was a compact called Mazda3 in 2004?

[sheth]

"Somebody needs to jackslap Sheth, he thinks a Cobalt is as good a car as a Civic."

I never said that. Yes slap me for not engaging in consensus thinking. If everyone says it I must agree. Civic is a more modern looking car with slightly better mileage. Aside from that its not much better than a Cobalt. It superiority is all about style elements, not performance or substance. The top trim Cobalt is most certainly superior to the Si.

Dave:

I'm glad you like the Vue. In the CX-7 review it didnt seem that way. I will check out best bets.

I think you are forgetting the purpose of economy cars and that is likely because you get to drive M3s and AMGs etc. This idea that the Cobalt couldnt be recommended as a CHEAP commuter car for someone on a budget just doesnt compute. YOu talk about its lack of competitiveness without addressing price, incentives, hp or mileage relative to the competition. People who want cheap cars are looking for mileage and value. The Cobalt has those things. Its plastics are not up to Passat standards but niether is its price. YOu insult the car by saying its better than an 80s cavalier. As I said, read the C&D review from 2005 and see if you agree or disagree. They made detailed comments about things like the trunk hinges (not goosenecks like Accord, Altima and Camry), refined suspension bushings, quiet engine, interior layout and power. Those attributes have not gone anywhere so Im confused as to how you wouldnt recommend the car unless it was the last car on earth- especially when its cheaper than many competitors.

"This was a common flaw he also noted. When I reviewed the Malibu it was clear the interior materials were greatly improved. "

I've been in the Malibu. Material quality is largely the same. In fact, the door panels and lower plastic sections of the dash are the same in both cars. Interestly enough when the Aura first came out most liked its interior but once the Malibu came out the Aura was deemed cheap. Worst plastics you have ever seen? Wow. I guess you have not been in camry. My mother in law has one and there is flashing all over the place as well as some hard surfaces on the dash. The Aura has soft touch materials on upper dash and hard plastics below the trim line that bisects the dash. Same as many cars. I dont even know how you even quantify plastics objectively but personally I think its ridiculous to ignore pricing, mileage, styling and features because of plastics. Plastics do not affect the operation of the car. In addition, EVERY car in this class (including the 6) has hard plastics. Every Mazda product I have been in has hard plastics and yet you seem to be a big Mazda fan. I do not understand that. You wouldnt recommend an Aura due to plastics but you would buy a Mazda in a second in spite of hard plastics because of high speed cornering ability.

[sheth]

"Not to break the dream, but aren't you forgetting there was a compact called Mazda3 in 2004?"

No. Are you? The 3 handled better and had more features in the TOP trim. Back then the 3 had a 4 speed auto, no auto climate control, no BOSE (Cobalt had Pioneer), no heated seats, no trip computer, no remote start, no onstar, etc. Trust me, my brother had a 2005 so I know what it lacked- they added a lot of equipment for 2006. The 3 probably was better but not by the margin Dave is suggesting. The two cars were far apart in handling only but the Cobalt was targeted at the Corolla, not Protege. Why would GM target Mazda with their new compact when the corolla/civic are the class leaders? Even today the corolla (and cobalt) outsells the 3.

[sheth]

J:

competition will be Es350, MKZ, MKS, FWD TL and Avalon.

The Passat is so low volume that its not worth mentioning. Also I dont see German car buyers ever considering an American car not called Cadillac.