Why not? You do it all the time.

 

redzed was banned...

 

That's because the all new Solara was not released until the 2004 model year - two years after the new 4-door Camry.

 

That is fine... I understand that...

I still find centirc's comments to be believable.

Between the exhaust pipe , and his comments, I certainly have reason to believe that Camry's "all-new" platform is no more "all-new" than the 2006 Impala's or the C6's platform is.

 

Yup.

I believe in it's segment, the Lucerne will either be an absolute failure because let's get real....this car is horrrrrrible. Or, it'll do great because of all the Buick faithful only have so much to choose from.

I really don't like this car.

 

Why? Is it styling, because nobody can fault you for your taste. Or are you just judging it without reasons?

 

Actually I don't mind the styling, that's the only decent part of the car to me.

What I don't like about it

A) FWD
B) FWD!
C) 3.8.... C'mONN!!! This engine is ancient in a rapidly improving segment! There is no way this engine should still be used in new cars. At least give it a big revision! 22/30 MPG isn't impressive anymore either.
D) Four-speed automatic.................god .
E) Age of chassis. It's 11 years old now....8 years from now after a minor facelift in 4 years, it will be 19 years old and GM will be stuck wondering where their market share went on this car.
F) Give it 20 airbags, a 3.9, 6-speed auto, revolutionary crush zones, LED headlights, anything to give it something the competition hasn't alreaddy slaughtered. But no...This car has almost nothing unique outside of the magnetice ride control. I just really don't see GMs goal with the Lucerne...maybe old folks will surprise me and go flocking to this car. But, anytime I see one on the road I'll be shaking my head and thinking about how bad that owner got hosed.

 

Get a C5 and C6 on the rack and tell me what changed. The front cradle allows them some more wheelbase, yep, but it's the same basic car underneath . . . a fact that was pointed out, over and over, ad nauseum, by the magazines (who conveniently ignore the geriatric underpinnings of German marques, and say nothing about the age of the chassis beneath SIX different Toyota and Lexus models).

The fact that the same C5/C6 chassis with a helping of aluminum and carbon fiber destroyed all the world's supercars but one is something I want to see the magazines rationalize.

Just because it's an old chassis doesn't mean it's bad.

 

Quoted because I liked the post.

 

Agree with all of the above!!

Also, let it be known I am not bashing the Camry's platform... obviously it has done very well in most if not all aspects.

Funny how the "old does not have to equal bad" point came back up that I brought into the mix a few replies back.... I suppose some folks have a different view of that when it wears a Toyota badge?

(*NOTE: Prior comment is tongue-in-cheek, since it seems every thread anymore becomes an import vs domestic biased perspective thread of some sort... )

 

FWIW I don't like the current Camry or its chassis. Much more impressed with the Honda Accord from a chassis standpoint and several other standpoints as well.

 

He was? What was the final straw?

 

Ah, the Accord that's riding on a platform substantially the same as the one introduced in 1990?

 

Quit it. Just because they look somewhat similar when you're underneath them doesn't mean they are literally the same chassis.

 

Well... come on now... the same can basically be said for the 3800 and the Lucerne's platform, both of which you were quick to point out the same things you are saying are basically not worth mentioning for Camry and Accord????

What's fair is fair.