[eaton53]

And yet, as far as I'm aware, he's the only car reviewer to ever win a Pulitzer.

Thomas Friedman won one too... and he's a retard. 'Nuff said about the 'ol Pulitzer.

 

[1487]

And yet, as far as I'm aware, he's the only car reviewer to ever win a Pulitzer.

well that changes everything. The man is a genius. He is yet another writer who has somehow been relegated to auto reviews and doesnt seem to happy about that fact. Car reviews should be written by someone who actually knows something about cars. Not someone who aspires to write about "important" things but has to pay his dues reviewing cars. I cant stand a review that preaches about how boring or exciting a particular class may be. family sedans have a purpose and they are a huge segment of the market. They may be dull according to people like Neil but obviously millions of Americans want them. Neil's attitude is like "I dont care about this boring class of car and thus I dont care about this average Malibu". BTW, just because he has knocked camry and accord for being a little dull doesnt mean he is suddenly objective. The bottom line is he isnt enthusiastic about many vehicles but he is especially critical of domestic vehicles. I read a review of the Enclave that he wrote and one of his main criticisms of the Buick was that it wasnt conservative enough and was too over the top styling wise compared to superior imports like the RX and MDX.

 

[Aromanances]

And yet, as far as I'm aware, he's the only car reviewer to ever win a Pulitzer.

Then a Pulitzer must not mean much anymore.....

 

[Dynamo]

Obviously you haven't read a signature "Plane" Post before. They're are usually the most inverted, sarcastic, best written replies on GMI. Get used to them. and Plane, never stop posting, your reversed intellect and sarcasm reflects the true lack of informed intelligent shoppers present in todays society.

So if I said he was an idiot, it would be a compliament?

 

[mkaresh]

Thomas Friedman won one too... and he's a retard. 'Nuff said about the 'ol Pulitzer.

Well, there is a difference here.

Thomas Friedman didn't win a Pulitzer for writing about cars. And when he does write about the auto industry, he's clearly venturing beyond his area of expertise.

Dan Neil won the Pulitzer for writing about cars. Why he won it, though, I'm not sure. Maybe for the right reasons, maybe not.

 

[TriShield]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1257936&postcount=144

The verdict is in from Edmunds and it isn't good for the Malibu. As usual Dan Neil is right on target, and his writing is as witty as ever. He is easily one of the best automotive reviewers in North America.

As I've said before GM put a nice wrapper on a mediocre car. The Malibu is not the home-run product it should have been and more of you really should have seen that from the moment it was unveiled.

 

[1487]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1257936&postcount=144

The verdict is in from Edmunds and it isn't good for the Malibu. As usual Dan Neil is right on target, and his writing is as witty as ever. He is easily one of the best automotive reviewers in North America.

As I've said before GM put a nice wrapper on a mediocre car. The Malibu is not the home-run product it should have been and more of you really should have seen that from the moment it was unveiled.

you people kill me. "the verdict is in"? WHat are you talking about? edmunds barely had anything negative to say about the car. In fact it primarly lost because it doesnt have expensive options like BT and nav. apparently Edmunds didnt get the memo that most people dont pay $32k for their family cars and thus they essentially gave the Altima, Camryand Accord points for being more expensive.

MT feels the Malibu is superior to the Atima and Accord. how come you didnt post a link to that comparo Probably because it doesnt mesh well with your "Malibu is mediocre" agenda. Nothing better than selective fact reporting to get your point across. 10Best, All-star, beating stalwarts like Accord in a MT comparo, etc. Yeah the car sucks all around. C&D has a road test in their current issue and has almost no criticism of the car.

 

[1487]

PS

anyone who reads edmunds knows that domestic vehicles never win their comparos when imports are involved. They have been worshipping the 2008 Accord since they first tested it and thus the results are no surprise. The Malibu costs less and generally outperforms the competition (per their test results) and looks best (again, according to them) and that is enough for me.

 

[minnfang]

What a dork. I hate it when a reviewer decides on a theme, and then clouds and distorts the whole review to fit it. (Whether he likes the car or not.)

 

[mtndrew1]

The bottom line is he isnt enthusiastic about many vehicles but he is especially critical of domestic vehicles. I read a review of the Enclave that he wrote and one of his main criticisms of the Buick was that it wasnt conservative enough and was too over the top styling wise compared to superior imports like the RX and MDX.

From Dan Neil's review of the 2008 Buick Enclave:

"The key to three-row crossovers is rear-seat access, and it's here that I think the 2008 Buick Enclave steals a march on the competition. With a simple lift of a lever, the Enclave's second-row captain's chairs spring forward and jackknife so that the bottom cushion folds against the front seat back, creating a large gap that passengers can step through to get into the back. Easy."

"In a lot of three-row vehicles -- BMW X5, Jeep Commander, are you listening? -- the third-row seats are so inaccessible they might as well be in Pyongyang."

"the Enclave's spacious interior gleams with upscale polish and sham-glam details, such as the Deco-style Lucite cover on the gearshift indicator; the brightwork bezels around gauges, switches and air vents; the miles of French stitching on the optional leather; and extravagant use of imitation wood"

"the Enclave interior reflects a major investment in materiality, and the result is the best Buick interior since the 1950s."

"the projector beam lenses are surrounded by fetching, cobalt-blue rings"

"Buick has been drumming the phrase QuietTuning into our collective heads for a few years now, and the Enclave makes it real. This is a surreally hushed cabin that manages to all but mute the idling of the 3.6-liter V6. At highway speeds, the Enclave sails along in a great galloping whisper with just the barest runnels of wind turbulence wrapping around the A-pillars. The body structure is stiff, quiet and well isolated from the road. You'd have to give the Enclave top marks for ride refinement."

"I've now driven two GM products that were exemplary in every way but weight (the new and otherwise excellent Saturn Vue is also quite the porker). I wonder whether there's been a strategic decision at the product planning level to de-emphasize curb weight in the interests of soundness and content."

"this is the first crossover to successfully unriddle the problem of rear-cabin access, so in a way, it's one-third more efficient than vehicles carting around faux-row seating."

The more time I spend at GMI, the more I feel that a substantial segment of posters here are absolutely convinced that there's some sort of anti-GM conspiracy amongst auto reviewers. That no, in fact, GM never built any of the horrendously uncompetitive vehicles over the last two or three decades and that, even if they did, we should all just forget RIGHT NOW and pretend that the company hasn't set a precedent.

The reviews of both the Malibu and Enclave put them as class-competitive at worst, class-leading at best, and paint a pragmatic picture of their strengths and weaknesses.

Much like the new Malibu is a quantum leap forward compared to scores of crap GM midsizers (can I sell anyone a '96 Ciera?), the Enclave is a giant jump over the Rendezvous and Rainier.

It seems that if the reviewer doesn't just ignore faults and praise the respective GM vehicle endlessly, they're "biased," even though doing exactly that defines bias.

-Drew

 

[tgagneguam]

In the end, it actually was a positive review:

Yah, I kinda saw it that way, too, HoosierRon. As some here seem to miss the oft-repeated, some might say vapid, sarcasm of plane's posts, I think some missed what Dan was trying to say in the article. If a review of the new Malibu isn't ostensibly glowing, it's considered biased crap. There exist extremely competent entrants in the Malibu's field. That it at least meets their standards after years of being so far from those standards says a lot. And I do think that that nicely sums up the '08 Malibu. While I would have liked to see the Malibu move to the head of the class-maybe we'll see that in the next generation?-I'm happy that GM has finally delivered a no excuses mid-size family sedan. That many outlets typically unfavorable to GM's past efforts can find reason to praise it-as cryptic as the praise may be-is icing on the cake.

Overall, this is not a negative review.

 

[prototype66]

Long winded arsebag trying to make a name for himself.
Put away the dictionary dude.

 

[DuSpinnst]

And what do you consider reality?

My reality is that I've worked at GM, internally, watching engineers laugh endlessly about whatever garbage car they had to implement endless fixes and TSBs for.

My reality is that all of my GM cars have been at least somewhat problematic, with lousy fit/finish and lead-balloon resale value.

I mean, let's look at the last decade or two:

Pontiac 6000 / Honda Accord Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Aztek / Highlander Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Rendezvous / RX330 Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Cavalier / Civic Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Lumina / Camry Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Regal / ES300 Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Cimarron / 190E Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Uplander / Odyssey Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Monte Carlo / Solara Resale? Reliability? Appeal?

Let's be honest here, most of those up there from the General were big duds with big cash on the hoods chasing buyers that were sick of GM's crap. While those cars were peddled, market share dwindled, profits evaporated, record losses were incurred, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink was sold off, and lowly Toyota took their place.

So Dan Neil, one of the most critical writers in mainstream newsprint, writing an article putting the Malibu up there with the excellent Accord and Camry (both of which he took to task for their faults) should be celebrated.

Competitive non-truck products are a new thing for GM. The Malibu may seem like God's gift for those that treasured such fine products as the Chevrolet Celebrity EUROSport and the Buick Reatta, but it's truly just (finally, OMG, BBQ) competitive with its competition.

Going from a '97 Malibu to an '08 Malibu is an "oh my God, look at this!" moment. Going from a '97 Accord, less so. This article reflects that.

-Drew

So basically you are living in the past, like I said a reality check.

Bringing up a Honda in any thread and trying to win me over to your opinion (or even consider it valid) is foolish.

Honda's to me are unimpressive, both mechanically, stylistically, and reliability wise. I have been unimpressed with them as a company.

All they have impressed me with is their ability to sucker a bunch of people into buying their products, their marketing department is genius. Their cars, not so much.

 

[DuSpinnst]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1257936&postcount=144

The verdict is in from Edmunds and it isn't good for the Malibu. As usual Dan Neil is right on target, and his writing is as witty as ever. He is easily one of the best automotive reviewers in North America.

As I've said before GM put a nice wrapper on a mediocre car. The Malibu is not the home-run product it should have been and more of you really should have seen that from the moment it was unveiled.

It beat the Camry, which says something about Toyota.

Also, I can't take any writer seriously who picks a Honda over anything. I don't care what the comparison is, if the Honda or the Acura wins then those people obviously don't share anything with me on any level.

As I've said before, Honda has convinced people they make good products. They have marketing, and a good fan base, but the fact of the matter is they make very unimpressive machines. In fact whatever they consider "style" is very Frankenstein to me, I will NEVER get over the solid red bar rear tail lights of the now 2 generations old Accord (I didn't like when Buick did it either for the record).

Regarding Dan Niel, anyone who likes him as a writer is the same type of person who gives TTAC credence. As in they are amused by humor instead of substance. When I see a car review, I want facts not witty banter. If I want banter I'll go read a book.

Dan Niel is a hack, and even if he praises GM on something he still is a hack, just like Robert Fargo.

 

[DuSpinnst]

Well, there is a difference here.

Thomas Friedman didn't win a Pulitzer for writing about cars. And when he does write about the auto industry, he's clearly venturing beyond his area of expertise.

Dan Niel won the Pulitzer for writing about cars. Why he won it, though, I'm not sure. Maybe for the right reasons, maybe not.

Pulitzer isn't about the substance of your writing. It never has been.

Most of the people who win it do so because someone likes their style, whatever that may be.

Dan Niel's style would be fine for a sitcom writer, not for a serious Journalist.

Freedman is another story, his style is something I can stand, but his substance in some fields (notably cars) is lacking.

Regardless, it proves that the major US newspapers (LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post) are good for only one thing, Toilet Paper.

It is why I only read the WSJ, and I do so for the economic and financial information.

 

[1487]

From Dan Neil's review of the 2008 Buick Enclave:

"The key to three-row crossovers is rear-seat access, and it's here that I think the 2008 Buick Enclave steals a march on the competition. With a simple lift of a lever, the Enclave's second-row captain's chairs spring forward and jackknife so that the bottom cushion folds against the front seat back, creating a large gap that passengers can step through to get into the back. Easy."

"In a lot of three-row vehicles -- BMW X5, Jeep Commander, are you listening? -- the third-row seats are so inaccessible they might as well be in Pyongyang."

"the Enclave's spacious interior gleams with upscale polish and sham-glam details, such as the Deco-style Lucite cover on the gearshift indicator; the brightwork bezels around gauges, switches and air vents; the miles of French stitching on the optional leather; and extravagant use of imitation wood"

"the Enclave interior reflects a major investment in materiality, and the result is the best Buick interior since the 1950s."

"the projector beam lenses are surrounded by fetching, cobalt-blue rings"

"Buick has been drumming the phrase QuietTuning into our collective heads for a few years now, and the Enclave makes it real. This is a surreally hushed cabin that manages to all but mute the idling of the 3.6-liter V6. At highway speeds, the Enclave sails along in a great galloping whisper with just the barest runnels of wind turbulence wrapping around the A-pillars. The body structure is stiff, quiet and well isolated from the road. You'd have to give the Enclave top marks for ride refinement."

"I've now driven two GM products that were exemplary in every way but weight (the new and otherwise excellent Saturn Vue is also quite the porker). I wonder whether there's been a strategic decision at the product planning level to de-emphasize curb weight in the interests of soundness and content."

"this is the first crossover to successfully unriddle the problem of rear-cabin access, so in a way, it's one-third more efficient than vehicles carting around faux-row seating."

The more time I spend at GMI, the more I feel that a substantial segment of posters here are absolutely convinced that there's some sort of anti-GM conspiracy amongst auto reviewers. That no, in fact, GM never built any of the horrendously uncompetitive vehicles over the last two or three decades and that, even if they did, we should all just forget RIGHT NOW and pretend that the company hasn't set a precedent.

The reviews of both the Malibu and Enclave put them as class-competitive at worst, class-leading at best, and paint a pragmatic picture of their strengths and weaknesses.

Much like the new Malibu is a quantum leap forward compared to scores of crap GM midsizers (can I sell anyone a '96 Ciera?), the Enclave is a giant jump over the Rendezvous and Rainier.

It seems that if the reviewer doesn't just ignore faults and praise the respective GM vehicle endlessly, they're "biased," even though doing exactly that defines bias.

-Drew

i do get tired of self righteous "objective" people who feel they are authorized to say when something is fair and not fair. First of all no one is denying that GM made some boring vehicles in the past. Talking about how sorry the '96 Ciera is makes no sense to me since the worst car in 2007 is likely better than some of the best cars 11 years ago. The problem with many of these reviewers is that EVERY time they review a decent Gm product they totally ignore GM's past decent efforts and prounounce the new vehicle the "first" gm vehicles that are competent. The fact that Dan Neil thinks the Enclave and Vue are amongst the first GM vehicles ever made to not be total crap proves my point. When the 2004 Malibu came out it was actually seen as a decent car, if a little dull. Now that the new car is out everyone is saying the car is a HUGE improvement over the last malibu which was essentially a piece of crap. Honda and Toyota dont have to deal with this. Each prior generation of their cars is seen as nearly perfect and the new model is simply a tweaking of a vehicle that really didnt need it. With every GM vehicle its like "what the hell was GM smoking before? This is 50 times better than the last generation". The new CTS is another example. Its a better looking car with richer interior but the old car was pretty revolutionary and successful in its own right.

BTW, you didnt quote any of the comments in the Enclave review that I was referring to. BAsically he liked it because it was big, which is fine. I didnt read the part where he said it matches the RX350 in quality and design and value. Overall the review was good, but he still wasnt feeling the styling which is interesting seeing as though he blasts conservatively designed cars for being boring.

 

[crooner214]

It's finally time to face facts.
The new Malibu simply isn't competitive.
It's like an 80's Hair Band poised for just one more tour.

The interior isn't up to snuff.
The gas mileage is merely 3 ticks ahead of a Mack truck.
The usable passenger and truck space falls far behind rivals.
"A rear seat fit only for contortionists and toy poodles".
GM is still using that tried and true 4-speed transmission with vintage 70's technology.
For the real die-hard GM fans, a vintage 1890's technology pushrod engine is still available.
As numerous other reviewers have noted, the fit and finish is horrific,
the transmissions are ready to whine, grind, and break down five minutes after they leave the factory,
and the hybrid delivers worse mileage than the plain jane four-cylinder.
And did anyone mention the ridiculous Tupperware feel that still persists?
Why cannot General Motors spend more than $25 putting together an interior?
Lest we forget, Chevrolet is far below average in reliability. Yes this a sure winning combination to convince doubtful import intenders.
Or that the Aura has numerous problems and recalls and bad-word-of-mouth?
That the Malibu is filled to the brim with hundreds, if not thousands of cut lines, mis-aligned panels, and cheap switch gear?
And that the Malibu is made with more foreign content than either the Camry or the Accord?
And the Malibu provides a 4-cylinder engine with none of the refinement offered by the Accord or the Camry.
Of course, if you like that chainsaw, Jake Brake, 747 takeoff deafening ride, well, then of course, the Malibu is for you.

Nope. There is absolutely nothing at all to convince the loyal Camry and Accord buyers to switch to this pathetic, has-been-wannabe-red-headed-stepchild-just-waiting-for-the-next-breakdown-and-crappy-customer-service-
from-a-dilapidated-run-down-stinky-Chevrolet-dealership.

The new Malibu will do little if anything to solve the issues plaguing a General Motors that is just three steps away from bankruptcy.
At best, the new Malibu will strongly reinforce Toyota's sterling reputation for reliability, quality, and environmental responsibility.

And in summation,
please consider this my dual application for the automobile editorial board at USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.


Sincerely,

plane

Gee, Plane, I didn't realized you worked for Consumer Reports...

 

[mtndrew1]

i do get tired of self righteous "objective" people who feel they are authorized to say when something is fair and not fair. First of all no one is denying that GM made some boring vehicles in the past. Talking about how sorry the '96 Ciera is makes no sense to me since the worst car in 2007 is likely better than some of the best cars 11 years ago. The problem with many of these reviewers is that EVERY time they review a decent Gm product they totally ignore GM's past decent efforts and prounounce the new vehicle the "first" gm vehicles that are competent. The fact that Dan Neil thinks the Enclave and Vue are amongst the first GM vehicles ever made to not be total crap proves my point. When the 2004 Malibu came out it was actually seen as a decent car, if a little dull. Now that the new car is out everyone is saying the car is a HUGE improvement over the last malibu which was essentially a piece of crap. Honda and Toyota dont have to deal with this. Each prior generation of their cars is seen as nearly perfect and the new model is simply a tweaking of a vehicle that really didnt need it. With every GM vehicle its like "what the hell was GM smoking before? This is 50 times better than the last generation". The new CTS is another example. Its a better looking car with richer interior but the old car was pretty revolutionary and successful in its own right.

BTW, you didnt quote any of the comments in the Enclave review that I was referring to. BAsically he liked it because it was big, which is fine. I didnt read the part where he said it matches the RX350 in quality and design and value. Overall the review was good, but he still wasnt feeling the styling which is interesting seeing as though he blasts conservatively designed cars for being boring.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

The CTS is a fantastic car to have chosen for your rebuttal. Why? Because it sold in ever-increasing numbers with low incentives and low fleet percentages to a largely enthusiastic fan base ready to embrace a changing Cadillac.

The CTS point: It was a great car, it's now a better car, and the sales, profits, press comparisons and enthusiasm from both models support that logic.

The 2004 Malibu? C'mon. It was 1999 tech missing lots of features, styled like a Lada and dragging around boat-anchor powertrains. By the time the model run was over, sales were skidding and nearly HALF were going to fleet. Big cash was on the hood and free financing was the order of the day. It was clearly a flop with retail consumers.

And retail consumers are what matter. That's where the profits are, that's where the brand loyalty is, and pleasing that group with well-styled, reliable, competitive vehicles will keep them coming back for more.

The '96 Ciera was up against the '96 Accord and '96 Camry, both outstanding cars with well-documented durability, solid resale, low fleet percentages, and an enthusiastic fan base. Whether or not DuSpinnst is feeling the Accord's tail lamps is neither here nor there. I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that the Ciera was the class leader. Same with Rendezvous, Uplander, TransSport, Lumina, Cimarron, Beretta, Monte Carlo, blah blah blah blah. GM has generations of not-quite-there product tainting the opinions of retail consumers, and the '04 Malibu clearly didn't resonate with them, just like the Ciera didn't.

GM has a very, very bad rep. It doesn't matter *why*, all that matters is that they get into the hearts of retail customers. Don't like the '03 Accord's tail lamps? Tell that to the guy who's had six of them in a row, happy with each one, maintaining value and putting very little into repairs. Tell him that the tail lights are why he should buy a Malibu.

You're right that there are no longer many truly bad cars available. Everyone's up to snuff more or less, even Hyundai. But that doesn't matter. If I'm going to plunk down half a year's income on four wheels, I'm going to buy the *best* one. The one that resonates most with me. The one that is most likely to give me very little trouble and hold the highest percentage of value. The one I'm least likely to park in a row of 20 others bearing Enterprise plate frames.

Dan Neil gets this and simply doesn't sugar-coat it. Maybe the Enclave isn't as good as the RX350. The Enclave is pretty, but I've spent lots of time in the RX and it's mighty well done.

Do you really think that the Enclave is the end-all, be-all CUV? Really? It has no flaws? It is styled so perfectly that EVERYONE loves it?

Am I to believe that you have extensively tested both for weeks on end, putting them both through a battery of tests, and concluded that Dan Neil is simply wrong?

Or are you cranky because the Enclave is a GM product and "everything GM makes is the best product on the market with no flaws, and anyone that says otherwise is clearly biased?"

The Enclave is good, the Malibu is good. Both look to be right in the thick of things with their competition. Neither one is head-and-shoulders above anyone else though, and these reviews reflect that.

-Drew

 

[mkaresh]

When the 2004 Malibu came out it was actually seen as a decent car, if a little dull. Now that the new car is out everyone is saying the car is a HUGE improvement over the last malibu which was essentially a piece of crap. Honda and Toyota dont have to deal with this. Each prior generation of their cars is seen as nearly perfect and the new model is simply a tweaking of a vehicle that really didnt need it. With every GM vehicle its like "what the hell was GM smoking before? This is 50 times better than the last generation". The new CTS is another example. Its a better looking car with richer interior but the old car was pretty revolutionary and successful in its own right.

GM's own PR efforts set this up. They essentially say, "We know the old car wasn't so good, but the new one is much better!"

Also note how often GM tosses a model name in order to dump old baggage rather than improve it. Every time they do this, they're broadcasting that the old product was unsalvageable even in their own eyes.

How often do Honda and Toyota do this?

 

[KillerMRK]

Wow! This guy really sounds anti-GM. :yup:

Because he didn't give an absolutely glowing review of the Malibu? Do you not realize that most of the issues he brought up was nitpicking? Thats not bad at all.

So he wrote a negative review of Toyota once or twice.

If anything it just proves he is anal retentive. He still recommends the Toyota's.

Thats because, contrary to popular belief, not all Toyotas are crap. I would still never buy one though. Wouldn't have a terrible amount of trouble recommending a 4 Cylinder Camry to someone. Because its a perfectly milquetoast appliance that is perfect for people who simply dont like cars at all.

I think this is essentially what Dan Neil is saying.

Also, realize that he tested the four-cylinder LT. I've driven the LS 4-cylinder, similar to the car he drove, and the 2LT V6. The V6 is much more impressive. As it is in the Accord and Camry.

I've come across the same problem when writing my own reviews. If all of the leading offerings in a segment are very good, they're all essentially average. By definition, every car can't be "better than average." But there are a still some second-tier players that field cars worse than the leaders. So I end up giving the leaders a "better than average" rating, but not a "much better than average" rating. For "much better than average," a car must be pretty much perfect in many segments these days.

Which is why it should be taken as a compliment to be considered "slightly better than average". :yup:

Wow, people are hardly complimentary towards the Malibu in my eyes here on this board. The Malibu has something over the competition that has been ignored by the sporadic postings I've read, on GMI. That oversight is that the Malibu has alot more value I think than anything else out there.

What about a Hyundai or a Kia?

The truth is GM doesn't deserve this nasty designation. They deserve a real look by all people willing to be openminded to a company changing its ways. Hopefully, people will realize in large numbers that the stuff they make is on the map and people who wouldn't have considered a GM car in the past at least checkout their offerings at the dealership. At that point, whether these people want to admit it or not the Malibu is worthy of real praise regardless how anti-GM/Chevy these people have been in the past.

I agree somewhat. Once GM replaces the weaker vehicles of its lineup (Equinox, Torrent, G6, G5/Cobalt, Lacrosse, Lucerne, Uplander, Impala, Colorado/Canyon, Trailblazer/Envoy, and the no-longer-competitive STS and DTS.) then it can be said that its a true-blue first-rate automaker. There is just waaaay too many weak points in its lineup. Its sorta sad when quite a few of the interiors of a 25K+ car can't match up to a base model Malibu. Even if it would just be a slight freshening. Look at what a difference the facelift was to the Aveo. Its actually tolerable now.

And yet, as far as I'm aware, he's the only car reviewer to ever win a Pulitzer.

Because he's a damn good writer.

Thomas Friedman won one too... and he's a retard. 'Nuff said about the 'ol Pulitzer.

I agree. Auto reviews just aren't his thing.

So basically you are living in the past, like I said a reality check.

But GM couldn't stop making crap. It was all they could do. They weren't competitive from 1978-2004.

Bringing up a Honda in any thread and trying to win me over to your opinion (or even consider it valid) is foolish.

What's wrong with a Honda? We preach "Keep an open mind" and we discount a car because its had a history of quality and its Japanese?

Honda's to me are unimpressive, both mechanically, stylistically, and reliability wise. I have been unimpressed with them as a company.

All they have impressed me with is their ability to sucker a bunch of people into buying their products, their marketing department is genius. Their cars, not so much.

You = Nuts. Honda has always been a benchmark of reliability and driving driving dynamics this side of 30 Large.

The problem with many of these reviewers is that EVERY time they review a decent Gm product they totally ignore GM's past decent efforts and prounounce the new vehicle the "first" gm vehicles that are competent. The fact that Dan Neil thinks the Enclave and Vue are amongst the first GM vehicles ever made to not be total crap proves my point. When the 2004 Malibu came out it was actually seen as a decent car, if a little dull. Now that the new car is out everyone is saying the car is a HUGE improvement over the last malibu which was essentially a piece of crap. Honda and Toyota dont have to deal with this. Each prior generation of their cars is seen as nearly perfect and the new model is simply a tweaking of a vehicle that really didnt need it. With every GM vehicle its like "what the hell was GM smoking before? This is 50 times better than the last generation". The new CTS is another example. Its a better looking car with richer interior but the old car was pretty revolutionary and successful in its own right.

BTW, you didnt quote any of the comments in the Enclave review that I was referring to. BAsically he liked it because it was big, which is fine. I didnt read the part where he said it matches the RX350 in quality and design and value. Overall the review was good, but he still wasnt feeling the styling which is interesting seeing as though he blasts conservatively designed cars for being boring.

de·cent [dee-suhnt]
–adjective
1.conforming to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc., as in behavior or speech.
2. respectable; worthy: a decent family.
3. adequate; fair; passable: a decent wage.
4. kind; obliging; generous: It was very decent of him to lend me his watch.
5. suitable; appropriate: She did not have a decent coat for the cold winter

Not good, not bad. The perfect descriptor of the previous Malibu.

It beat the Camry, which says something about Toyota.

Pretty much any one who gives a flying fark about cars knows that a Toyota Camry isnt the best choice for a remotley satisfying car to drive.

Also, I can't take any writer seriously who picks a Honda over anything. I don't care what the comparison is, if the Honda or the Acura wins then those people obviously don't share anything with me on any level.

Do you have a GM tatoo somewhere on your person?

As I've said before, Honda has convinced people they make good products. They have marketing, and a good fan base, but the fact of the matter is they make very unimpressive machines. In fact whatever they consider "style" is very Frankenstein to me, I will NEVER get over the solid red bar rear tail lights of the now 2 generations old Accord (I didn't like when Buick did it either for the record).

If you make a good product at a good price, and it isn't Aztek ugly, It doesn't take much to convince someone that you might not peddle crap to the masses. For the most part, GM had the last 2 down. Never was a really good product. Just decent.

Dan Niel is a hack, and even if he praises GM on something he still is a hack,

Because he at one point in time ACTUALLY TOLD IT LIKE IT IS. HONDA AND TOYOTA BOTH HAVE A PRETTY DAMN GOOD TRACK RECORD.


One more thing. Use the multi-quote button. Its there for a reason.