Edmunds CarPool

1487,
 
You seem to come off with a grudge everytime Karl releases a new blog on a new GM product. Personally, I don't think Karl said anything negative about this vehicle yet. He likes the outlook for it (no pun intended). Of course that could all change when it gets in a comparison test. One apple in a bushel could look pretty good at first sight, but when you start comparing it to the better apples in other bushels, your opinion could change.
 
I have no clue why you come off this way. For as much as you know, the Outlook could thrash all in its class. It could be class leader for its entire existance on this planet, consequently making all of its competitors struggle to keep up. You never know until it actually happens.
 
Then again... it IS a GM.

The CX-9 and the Outlook are looking to be the best full-sized on-road non-luxury SUVs.

I saw both the Outlook & the CX-9 at the LA Auto show recently and came away impressed with both of them. In terms of innovation and utility, they blow away a whole lot of other things on the market, including Chevy's own full-size SUVs and anything Ford offers right now (particularly the disappointing Edge). The Outlook had a noticably larger interior than the CX-9, and its build quality was equal. That said, the CX-9 had a more interesting interior design, and the CX-9 Grand Touring was more luxurious than the Outlook XR. Still, I'd bet that a whole lot of families will choose the Outlook over the CX-9 based solely on the Outlook's interior volume, which is arguably the most useful and most user-friendly on the market.  It's also large in usable and tangible ways, which is more unique on the SUV market than one might think.  One caveat with the Outlook: the Sliding seat worked well...but felt rickety. I'm worried about long-term longevity, but it was just that piece. The rest of the car was impressively solid and impeccably built.  The CX-9 was likewise beautifully finished and exquisitely detailed.

Roar,
 
While I can't say anything because of the embargo, you brought up several great points based on your impressions from the auto show (none of which is embargoed). I agree with all of them.

Is the sliding seat similar to what is used in the Equinox? You might be able to use the long-term reliability of the seat in the 'nox to guesstimate on the one in the Outlook if it is. (I haven't heard or read any complaints about the seat in the 'nox, but I haven't exactly been looking for them either)

I sat in the Acadia at the car show in Tampa recently. Nice.

I'm not trying to necessarily disagree (haven't seen an Outlook in person yet)...
 
roar02ram notes that the Outlook _which was on display at an auto show_ was "impressively solid and impeccably built". As much as folks (myself occasionally included) lambast auto makers for various acts of stupidity, I will challenge you to show me a manufac. that wouldn't hand-pick the units that go on the show floor, making sure they're showing the best-possible vehicles in the best-possible light. (not literal light in this sense, but you get my point...)
 
So without trying to take anything away from his statements (which I found encouraging for Saturn), my jury would still be out on build quality until the embargo is off and I see more reviews coming in, also heading out to view one myself at some point.
 
Just a general thought, as I've seen other folks talk about build quality based on cars they view at the auto show, whereas I feel any car at such a show is "best of the best" (in its production lot) and so not necessarily a representative example of what you, the consumer, would see in the dealer lots or for your daily long-term use.

Rennf- There's definitely a chance for that, but most of GM's stuff was high quality. I'm not saying that the Outlook was Honda-grade, but it was at least up to the high bar set by the pickups and full-size SUVs and felt just as study and well-made as anything else on the show floor. Whether that's true for the production versions, as you rightly pointed out, remains to be seen, especially since the one I saw had a carefully folded (but blank) Monroney label stashed in the glovebox. Jerry- The sliding seat mechanism isn't anything like the one on the Equinox. It's far more complex, mainly because it's supposed to be the way to get to the back seat, much like the passenger seat in a 2-door coupe. The backrest tilts forward, the rear of the seat bottom lifts up, and the whole thing slides forward. It sounds neat, and it really is, but the operation is less than smooth, and the plastic that shrouds where the seat bottom glides felt cheap. Plus, the thing didn't go back easily, which is a trait that mechanism shares with the one in the full-size SUVs.

flipmode,
 
YOu need to relax. This is a forum for exchanging ideas with Karl and he decided to do this so he is obviously a big boy. At least he has the guts to engage readers in a forum like this unlike his cowardly counterparts who write for monthly mags. I only wish I had access to them because they are completely off base in many cases. Of course if I wrote the type of stuff they do (epecially C&D) I wouldn't want to communicate with readers either.
 
reenf,
 
I dont think your logic about build quality makes much sense. The Outlooks at autoshows are some of the preproduction or early production units available. Since GM has just started production I seriously doubt they were able to pick a few "unusually well built" Outlook out of a large selection and send them to an autoshow. On top of that, you have to remember that tight fap tolerances and high quality assembly processes will yield a very small difference between two models coming off an assembly line. You wouldn't say Toyota picked "good" camrys to display at an autoshow because you believe that Toyota's design and manufacturing process dictate that every camry is well built. That same truth applies to the Outlook and other contemporary GM products. This is GM 2006, not 1986.

The Washington Post car pages does a full test on a vehicle each week. The week before last they tested the Saturn Outlook. They did not say anything negative about it. The writer said they drove it over the roughest pavement they could find to see if the passengers would complain and they didn't. They also mentioned it handes a lot like vehicles much smaller and lighter than it. From those and other good comments the writer made I think the Saturn Outlook will be a great crossover.

Lemont,
 
If the Washington Post really said all that stuff two weeks ago I think they broke the embargo.
 
Notice I'm not saying their comments were inaccurate...
 
(How much closer to the line can i get? :))

Isn't the Outlook on sale now? If it is I don't think there should be an embargo anymore.

I've seen manufacturers pick bad examples for car shows (namely the SF auto show), including GM. But the only REALLY bad one I saw was a previous-gen BMW 530i. It was advertising their pre-owned car program... and the passenger seat was broken. The seat was leaning 20º towards the driver's seat, no exaggeration.

Yeah, if cars are on the lot it seems screwy to not be able to talk about them. But I tend to be pretty conservative about embargoes (probably too conservative).
 
Is it breaking the embargo to say, after driving both, that I like the Outlook better than the Acadia???

Jan. 4th, 1987,
 
Last time I checked, I was relaxed. No need to assume things now.
 
I wasn't defending Karl on anything. It just seems like you jump his back every time he makes a statement about GM. I thought I'd just point that out. Sounds like a GM fanboy to me. But that's just what I gather over this contraption called the internet. I could be wrong, but who knows considering the ambiguity of your comments in a lot of your posts.
 
I respect Karl for actually blogging on this site. I'll agree that other mag writers don't have the balls to do the same. I never said anything about other mag writers, however... just you.
 
'Nuff said. Looking forward to you comments in a newer blog.

I dont see why we can't hear about the Outlook now because cars.com has a full review up as of yesterday. The cat is out of the bag so Karl might as well tell us his opinion.
 
flicmod,
 
GM fanboy is a term used by people who make an internet career out of trying to convince everyone that GM does is wrong and GM makes no competent vehicle. I have never identified myself as one of those at any point in time. Unlike most people, I like a wide variety of vehicles and GM makes some of them. I know it's hard to understand that anyone who doesn't swear up and down that all GM products are trash isn't a "fanboy" but that is the case shocking as it may seem. You can hate GM all you want, it's your choice but your personal dislike of a corporation doesn't mean that those who don't share your views are somehow biased or blinded by some sort of "Buy American" patriotic fanaticism. I dont like Toyotas but I dont call those who appreciate Toyota products "Toyota FanBoys" and try to discredit them.
 
There is no ambiguity in my posts, my statements are quite clear.

GM should stick with the Saturn/Opel combination and not build this crossover. As a GM worker I just think sometimes the Generals brands compete with each other. The Buick Enclave is going to compete for the same first time GM buyers as the Saturn and I think the Enclave is a way sweeter looking ride. The GMC version is for a domestic shopper while the Saturn/Buick looks to be fighting for the same import buyer.