Look at the details like the rear passenger window....and ignore the chrome body trim and placement of license plate.
I disagree. But you can't tell that it's nice from pictures. You have to see it live, as I did at its Chicago Auto Show introduction (and, may I just pat myself on the back for breaking the story -- with photos -- on this forum in January?). Up close, you can see that the parts are all very precisely and cleanly fitted. It's a very nice job and looks expensive.Originally posted by nsap@May 24 2004, 07:02 PM
I hate the back of the LaCrosse... Its ugly and very cheap looking..
It was a Drak Charcoal.Originally posted by PaleGreen@Jun 28 2004, 12:11 PM
Taking the car for what it's worth, I like it. It's a huge step forward from the Century & Regal. Buick's goal is to get this car in front of would-be Lexus ES300 buyers, and I think they've got a good chance.
I saw one at the NY Auto Show & it looked sharp in a dark color. (can't recall if it was black or just a very dark red/blue/?) This is definitely a vehicle that is much more visually appealing in person.
LaCrosse's clean, attractive & conservative lines are a perfect fit for its intended audience of current Buick buyers & import "conquests". It's not like the primary competition offers anything special or groundbreaking:Originally posted by Ming@Jul 2 2004, 08:00 AM
The problem is not that it looks low-rent, the Concorde isn't low rent. The problem is that it looks like something "been there done that" from the 1990's.