Karl on Cars

I say Cadillac CTS & Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. The CTS because they received so many accolades by the press and public. The Tahoe Hybrid base on technology: but if price and all around use the CX-9 will take the prize.

I think I see your point, Chavis. In that case, no CUV should be called an SUV because with their unibody construction and other compromises (eg, independent suspension) they're are not capable of surviving frequent tough outdoor use.
 
To be fair to BMW, they marketed the X5 as an SAV (sport activity vehicle) when it was first released. They clearly stated that it wasn't meant to be used as a regular SUV. It's just that dealers and the public still confused it with real SUVs....and other manufacturers too advantage of the confusion....and so now all CUVs are called SUVs.......
 
Honestly, the CX-9 is capable of doing anything the Enclave can do. Both of them can carry 7+ passengers and are both quiet. They both get more or less the same fuel economy. The Enclave is roomier but that's about it. The CX-9 drives better. The reality is that they're slightly different ways of achieving the same goals. Because it drives better and is more affordable, the CX-9 is better suited for use as an everyday car. The Enclave is more suited for occasional long trips with family.
CUVs have been around since the X5 and I don't see the Enclave or CX-9 as breaking new ground.

Karl made the point that GM has four out of six finalist slots - pretty good going and nobody would have thought that was possible a few years ago. It shows GM is by far the best of the domestic manufacturers - where is Ford or Chrysler??

Blackadder,
  
I don't break down the SUV class into subdivisions as their are plenty that cross line. The Lambdas have full length longitudinal frame rails inside its unibody making it almost a "hybrid" frame. I believe the MDX does as well but I'm no 100% sure. Then you have the pathfinder, Armada, Explorer and Expedition with full body on frames with independant rear suspensions. Any high riding wagon type vehicle that's heavy as hell will be called an SUV in my book.
  
CX-9 "drives" better is an opinion. Again, I don't want my SUV with a harsh ride because the roads here are messed up. My car rides hard enough as is so...

My choice for car would be the CTS. Reasons is that it yes, although a great car, the Malibu pretty much one last year, still better than the Accord which just grew in size and from everything I have read has lost much of its youthful feel.
 
As for SUV (Truck) its tough. My vote probably would go to the Tahoe Hybrid simply because of the technology and the truck is a game changer simply because it gets better city mileage than all three Car of the Year Nominees when equipped with a V6. The Enclave would be my second choice because it has put a little life back into Buick and causing people who have never considered Buick before look. To me the CX9 is just a poor man's X5.

My vote:
 
Car: CTS
Truck: Enclave/Tahoe
 
I'm not a big GM supporter, but the Malibu and Accord bring nothing "new" to the table. The Enclave is a brand changing vehicle, and the Tahoe is the first large SUV hybrid. Everyone already knows that mazda is "zoom-zoom."

i wonder how much the awards will "cost" to win this year...maybe a free ride and exclusive for the Corvette ZR-1? Not to suggest that auto journalists can be easily bought or anything...
 
by the way Karl, did you catch the Top gear episode where they ridiculed the Green car awards here in America? Basically, Carrol Shelby and Jay Leno were among the "judges" for this sham of an award that went to a 6.0L V8-powered SUV (Tahoe) - pretty ridiculous!

I am glad to see alot of support for CTS/Enclave. As far as revolutionary (for the brands, respectively), these two are the winners. None of the other finnalists are nearly as significant.

My votes are: CTS (car) and Hybrid Tahoe (truck).

whats wrong with shelby and leno voteing on cars.
 
i'd rather them judge, then say al gore. Who would probably vote for horse drawn carraige, but only if we found a way of plugging the horse so it does not emit methana gas.
 
and as much as I like top gear, they are in general america bashers.

CTS and Enclave

CTS and the Enclave.

I can predict that Karl voted for Accord and CX-9.
I have no personal opinion since did not drive any of these but I can predict that winners will be CTS and Hybrid Tahoe.
 
I still would vote for Tahoe because it is a category changing vehicle. It is a revolutionary truck with new type of technology appliable where it really matters instead of greedy Toyota's hypocritical pretension to save Earth with worthless Prius.

I say CTS and Enclave, and not just because I'm a GM fan. It's because they completely change the game in the segments they play in.
 
CTS has a world-class interior, for starters, and it's very inexpensive, especially considering the size it is. It also has an excellent, state-of-the-art powertrain, with decent fuel economy too. It's not too shabby in the way it handles, as well. Of course, the CTS tops this excellent dish with jaw-dropping looks and excellent technology features.
 
Enclave is a sexy machine, too, and is definitely the design direction Buick needs to go in the future. The interior of the Enclave, and it's quietness is exceptional. Furthermore, Enclave has lots of 2nd and 3rd row leg space, decent cargo room, and all the seats fold flat. The engine/tranny combo is good for best-in-class fuel economy, too (16/24), despite the Enclave being significantly larger than other crossovers (like the CX-9). It handles reasonably well and tows quite a bit too. In addition, it's rated for really good payload (passengers and their stuff) of something like 1600 lbs. Compared to the Mazda, I think the Buick does a bit better job of hauling people and stuff, in a quieter, more refined way. The CX-9 might outhandle the Enclave, but NACOTY voters tend to be more inclined to vote for a vehicle that does the basics better, rather than voting for the most extreme performance vehicle. It looks like GM's going to sweep again.

What's wrong with Carrol Shelby judging a "Green car of the Year" award? Hmm, that's like saying George Bush is not biased towards big oil isn't it? C'mon, do I have to spell it out for you? I'm certainly not advocating Fat Al Gore to be a judge either - but hey, from my perspective, a judge for such a progressive award should not be some 75+ year old whose claim to fame is how much horsepower he put into whatever car and to hell with the mileage it got.
 
I agree with the arguments about the Enclave - I think it's the last best hope that GM has something to transition to when everyone wakes up and realizes that really, there should only be 20,000 or so body-on-frame SUVs sold in this country per year as opposed to half a million.
 
Have to disagree though on the CTS. Yes, it is a game-changer for GM and most importantly Cadillac - but if you go by sheer numbers, far more Americans will be affected and influenced by the Accord. Furthermore, I think that we all know that even though the CTS has made tremendous strides in quality, etc...the Accord has been doing a heckuva job for a lot longer and is most likely to be more reliable for now. Not to mention the fact that its feature content equals or surpasses the Caddys (bluetooth anyone?) at a far lower price and its engines are far more efficient and emit ultra-low emissions.

You know - I support the Tahoe, but here I'm gonna break with most of you and side with the Accord for the NACOTY. I don't like what it means for Honda (trying to straddle the line between the Camry & Avalon), and I don't think it's staying true to its family car/Accord roots, but the fact is that the Accord brings a level of innovation to the table that the other two don't. We've all debated how effective the Accord's innovation is, but that's beside the point, in my mind. I don't see the CTS or the especially the Malibu as being groundbreaking by any means. In fact, they're only attracting so much attention because they're actually class competitive GM cars. If Honda had put out either, the fanfare would likely be much less, whereas if GM had put out that Accord, it would probably be getting a similar reception.

sddc,
 
your logic is ridiculous in regards to the Accord. You shouldn't win this award for churning out more of the same. To say Honda should win because its been making reliable accords for years makes no sense whatsoever. I think people have to realize this is not MTCOTY and thus the criteria are not necessarily which vehicle changes its segment the most. I agree the CTS should win but the Malibu deserves far more consideration than the Accord. The Malibu surpassed expectations in terms of desgn and performance and ends the era when people could automatically assume midsize imports are clearly superior to midsize domestic vehicles. The Accord brought nothing innovative to the table in terms of design, technology or performance. Its a larger version of the 2007 car with 24more hp. Its not surprising or risk taking in any way. It should not win. I am not sure if Karl voted for the Accord or CTS because he really liked the CTS. We all know he voted for the CX-9.
 
roarram,
 
First of all Honda would not and can not put out vehicles that look like the CTS. Lets get that straight. As for your statement about the CTS merely being class competitive I would disagree. It's nav system, interior design and entertainment package is second to none in this class. Period. This is not an Acura or LExus with a Cadillca badge, its an innovative vehicle that doesnt borrow any styling cues from the imports. The last CTS was equally polarizing and fresh but it came up short on the inside and lacked some of the fancy features found on competitors. This car cures all that and then some.
 
The Accord bring no new technology to the table besides VCM which really isnt new in this class since the Impala has it on the 3.9L engine. NAv and bluetooth are not new for this class. Thats all the Accord has because it sure as hell doesnt offer anything new in terms of design.
 
The CX-9 is a 3 row Murano when you get down to the details. Its not innovative from a design perspective and basically gives Murano owners something larger to buy. The Enclave and Tahoe Hybrid represent two different things but either would be a worthy winner.

Not to be argumentative here, but I think the CX-9 is a larger CX-7, not Murano. However, I agree with all who favor the Enclave over the CX-9. I like the CX-9 a lot. It looks cool, I'm glad to hear that it drives really well. If you don't need the third row every day, it's fine. But there is just not enough room behind that third row, not even for a week's worth of groceries, much less luggage for seven people. I have the same complaint about the Tahoe, but it's third row is even less practical for adults, and there's again virtually no space behind the third row. The Enclave seems to have a significant advantage in cargo space, its performance is more than adequate, and its gas mileage is respectable. I still think a minivan or Suburban would be better yet for a large family. But of these three, I'd probably vote for the Enclave as a well-rounded package with great styling.

GM is going to dominate over these cheap little imports. I don;t know how anyone could consider themselves an American by voting for those other two japanese piles of crap.

Awesome, my Chevy Tahoe is one of the truck finalist. I feel so great having my Tahoe, though it gave me some problem, I feel so lucky that my ride was on the pick list. Now I just have had replaced my car parts and cruise it around the city.