Honey I shrunk the Buick!!
New Buick Encore
- Thread starter GMBoy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Racerjk
My wife likes the Encore. We both didn't realize how small it is until now though. She's flopped between this,a BMW,a G8,or one of the new Malibus.
You should get the new ATS when it comes out. Be the first BITOGER to have one.
My wife likes the Encore. We both didn't realize how small it is until now though. She's flopped between this,a BMW,a G8,or one of the new Malibus.
You should get the new ATS when it comes out. Be the first BITOGER to have one.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
Yup, my Laser XE turbo was right their with you. Man I miss that car.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
Yup, my Laser XE turbo was right their with you. Man I miss that car.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
They were fast little cars - but they also were not burdened with all the latest safety requirements and "customer demanded" techno features that has added so much weight to today's cars. That's why I felt the horsepower was a bit low for the new Buick.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My only concerns are that it comes with a 4cyl making just 140hp (although it weighs only 3300lbs).
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/...ick/0110_encore
An early 90's Taurus weighted 3100 lbs and had the same HP and torque with a 3.8L v6. What once was on the high end of power is now underpowered. How things have changed.
Yeah, I always find that laughable. People felt "safe" because they had a v6 in their taurus - they could merge on the highway without fear.
But the 4cyl buick? No way I could merge onto the highways in my area with it... Lol!
My Daytona TurboZ C/S was rated at all of 146hp. I can assure you that it provided adequate acceleration.
They were fast little cars - but they also were not burdened with all the latest safety requirements and "customer demanded" techno features that has added so much weight to today's cars. That's why I felt the horsepower was a bit low for the new Buick.
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
It couldn't possibly be your GM bias playing tricks on you could it? LOL
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
It couldn't possibly be your GM bias playing tricks on you could it? LOL
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
It couldn't possibly be your GM bias playing tricks on you could it? LOL
No, as even my grandfather agreed with me, after he rid and drove both. Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have always thought that new GM 2.4 I-4's sound just awful - very 'hissy' and 'clattery'. Neighbour of ours has a new 'Nox with this engine and it sounds like carp when he starts and drives it.
I don't know where you are coming from on the comment about the 3.0L Duratec V-6, Nick - it's one of the smoothest and quietest engines out there! About the only noise 'problem' with these engines is they develop a noticeable 'tick/knock' when warmed up. It's a well-known problem that has to do with the way the cam is mounted...there is a TSB out on it.
When my grandfather was up here with his escape for christmas addy, I drove them back to back. The Equinox's 3.0L was MUCH smoother, and MUCH Quieter. The duratec felt more powerful, probably due our nox being AWD and weighing quite a bit more.
It couldn't possibly be your GM bias playing tricks on you could it? LOL
No, as even my grandfather agreed with me, after he rid and drove both. Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Personally, I hate this car--and I while I guess the sales numbers will ultimately decide, I think GM is completely missing the boat.
The "ultra-compact SUV" is a ridiculous idea on its face. It's a higher, slower, less fuel-efficient version of the Cruze hatchback--with the added bonus of dramatically decreased utility since it's harder to load stuff on the roof.
There are an increasing number of good 5 door options out there; the new Impreza, the Focus 5 door, new Mazda 3. All of these offer similar room, but much better performance since they're pushing less weight and have better aerodynamics. Sorry, but this car seems like a loser to me. Obviously, I'm biased towards wagons, and this is the anti-wagon.
I'm willing to bet that if GM brought in the Cruze 5 door, they'd discover what other companies have already figured out: hatchbacks sell when you offer them- LINK. Instead, they're foisting this bloated thing on people. No thanks. It almost seems that they're purposely avoiding bringing in the Cruze hatchback to try and force people 'up-market'. Fortunately, there are other options out there.
The "ultra-compact SUV" is a ridiculous idea on its face. It's a higher, slower, less fuel-efficient version of the Cruze hatchback--with the added bonus of dramatically decreased utility since it's harder to load stuff on the roof.
There are an increasing number of good 5 door options out there; the new Impreza, the Focus 5 door, new Mazda 3. All of these offer similar room, but much better performance since they're pushing less weight and have better aerodynamics. Sorry, but this car seems like a loser to me. Obviously, I'm biased towards wagons, and this is the anti-wagon.
I'm willing to bet that if GM brought in the Cruze 5 door, they'd discover what other companies have already figured out: hatchbacks sell when you offer them- LINK. Instead, they're foisting this bloated thing on people. No thanks. It almost seems that they're purposely avoiding bringing in the Cruze hatchback to try and force people 'up-market'. Fortunately, there are other options out there.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Absolute Baloney....the Tribute/Escape are very, very car-like. They are far more like a Taurus than an Explorer. They are not a 'heavy duty' vehicle at all!
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Absolute Baloney....the Tribute/Escape are very, very car-like. They are far more like a Taurus than an Explorer. They are not a 'heavy duty' vehicle at all!
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Racerjk
My wife likes the Encore. We both didn't realize how small it is until now though. She's flopped between this,a BMW,a G8,or one of the new Malibus.
You should get the new ATS when it comes out. Be the first BITOGER to have one.
OH, I forgot about that one! She likes those too. Choices,Choices,Choices....
Originally Posted By: Racerjk
My wife likes the Encore. We both didn't realize how small it is until now though. She's flopped between this,a BMW,a G8,or one of the new Malibus.
You should get the new ATS when it comes out. Be the first BITOGER to have one.
OH, I forgot about that one! She likes those too. Choices,Choices,Choices....
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Absolute Baloney....the Tribute/Escape are very, very car-like. They are far more like a Taurus than an Explorer. They are not a 'heavy duty' vehicle at all!
Ummmm, neither is the '02+ Explorer.... Are you perhaps thinking I was comparing it to the older "ranger-based" Explorer? If so, I wasn't. I was comparing it to the 02+ with the 4-wheel independent suspension.
I think it is more "truck like" in its ride than some of the GM SUV's I've been in. But it definitely doesn't ride like a 2nd gen Explorer in the sense of truly riding like a truck, which they sure as heck did.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Also that our Nox is more "carlike" than the escape which is more 'Trucklike'.
This I can believe. The Escape rides a lot like the Explorer.
Absolute Baloney....the Tribute/Escape are very, very car-like. They are far more like a Taurus than an Explorer. They are not a 'heavy duty' vehicle at all!
Ummmm, neither is the '02+ Explorer.... Are you perhaps thinking I was comparing it to the older "ranger-based" Explorer? If so, I wasn't. I was comparing it to the 02+ with the 4-wheel independent suspension.
I think it is more "truck like" in its ride than some of the GM SUV's I've been in. But it definitely doesn't ride like a 2nd gen Explorer in the sense of truly riding like a truck, which they sure as heck did.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Personally, I hate this car--and I while I guess the sales numbers will ultimately decide, I think GM is completely missing the boat.
The "ultra-compact SUV" is a ridiculous idea on its face. It's a higher, slower, less fuel-efficient version of the Cruze hatchback--with the added bonus of dramatically decreased utility since it's harder to load stuff on the roof.
There are an increasing number of good 5 door options out there; the new Impreza, the Focus 5 door, new Mazda 3. All of these offer similar room, but much better performance since they're pushing less weight and have better aerodynamics. Sorry, but this car seems like a loser to me. Obviously, I'm biased towards wagons, and this is the anti-wagon.
I'm willing to bet that if GM brought in the Cruze 5 door, they'd discover what other companies have already figured out: hatchbacks sell when you offer them- LINK. Instead, they're foisting this bloated thing on people. No thanks. It almost seems that they're purposely avoiding bringing in the Cruze hatchback to try and force people 'up-market'. Fortunately, there are other options out there.
While I don't disagree that hatchbacks and wagons have an inherent utility and styling (this is subjective) advantage over their sedan counterparts, I'm gonna have to disagree about them welling *well*.
Did you read the article? Hatches sell well in the subcompact market and that's about it. Mazda 3? More sedans sold. Jetta vs. Golf? More Jettas sold. Focus hatch vs. sedan? More sedans sold. Anything larger than a compact wagon or hatch is all but extinct. As you go up in size, the buyers stop looking for that utility factor. Why? Because if they want utility, they buy an SUV or crossover!
Now, on to the Buick.
It's not a large vehicle. As a comparison, it is 6" taller than a Mazda 3 hatch. As a reference, that's the same height as an HHR. The Encore has a 3" shorter wheelbase and is 9" shorter overall when compared to a Mazda 3 hatch. A loaded up Mazda 3 hatch with an auto weighs 3,100 lbs. A FWD Encore weighs 3,200 lbs.
It's a a little bit smaller than an HHR and has about the same power as the 2.2L did. I'm not seeing how this is an OMG overweight, bloated monstrosity that is so underpowered it's not even able to do freeway speeds. The numbers say otherwise.
Dramatically decreased utility when loading things on the roof because of the height? Seriously? Besides the fact it's no taller than an HHR, which isn't tall, the Mazda 3 doesn't even have roof rails! Nor does the Focus or the Golf. How much utility is present when the manufacturer doesn't think it's worthwhile to even put a roof rack on?
You're bummed you can't buy a Cruze hatch. OK. Say that. Don't make up reasons to hate on the Buick though.
The Cruze hatch doesn't have roof rails either
Personally, I hate this car--and I while I guess the sales numbers will ultimately decide, I think GM is completely missing the boat.
The "ultra-compact SUV" is a ridiculous idea on its face. It's a higher, slower, less fuel-efficient version of the Cruze hatchback--with the added bonus of dramatically decreased utility since it's harder to load stuff on the roof.
There are an increasing number of good 5 door options out there; the new Impreza, the Focus 5 door, new Mazda 3. All of these offer similar room, but much better performance since they're pushing less weight and have better aerodynamics. Sorry, but this car seems like a loser to me. Obviously, I'm biased towards wagons, and this is the anti-wagon.
I'm willing to bet that if GM brought in the Cruze 5 door, they'd discover what other companies have already figured out: hatchbacks sell when you offer them- LINK. Instead, they're foisting this bloated thing on people. No thanks. It almost seems that they're purposely avoiding bringing in the Cruze hatchback to try and force people 'up-market'. Fortunately, there are other options out there.
While I don't disagree that hatchbacks and wagons have an inherent utility and styling (this is subjective) advantage over their sedan counterparts, I'm gonna have to disagree about them welling *well*.
Did you read the article? Hatches sell well in the subcompact market and that's about it. Mazda 3? More sedans sold. Jetta vs. Golf? More Jettas sold. Focus hatch vs. sedan? More sedans sold. Anything larger than a compact wagon or hatch is all but extinct. As you go up in size, the buyers stop looking for that utility factor. Why? Because if they want utility, they buy an SUV or crossover!
Now, on to the Buick.
It's not a large vehicle. As a comparison, it is 6" taller than a Mazda 3 hatch. As a reference, that's the same height as an HHR. The Encore has a 3" shorter wheelbase and is 9" shorter overall when compared to a Mazda 3 hatch. A loaded up Mazda 3 hatch with an auto weighs 3,100 lbs. A FWD Encore weighs 3,200 lbs.
It's a a little bit smaller than an HHR and has about the same power as the 2.2L did. I'm not seeing how this is an OMG overweight, bloated monstrosity that is so underpowered it's not even able to do freeway speeds. The numbers say otherwise.
Dramatically decreased utility when loading things on the roof because of the height? Seriously? Besides the fact it's no taller than an HHR, which isn't tall, the Mazda 3 doesn't even have roof rails! Nor does the Focus or the Golf. How much utility is present when the manufacturer doesn't think it's worthwhile to even put a roof rack on?
You're bummed you can't buy a Cruze hatch. OK. Say that. Don't make up reasons to hate on the Buick though.
The Cruze hatch doesn't have roof rails either
MrHorsepower beat me to the punch. Good response. America does not want hatchbacks. They went out with the 80's. Not that they are not a great idea - they are - its just that very few sell today so automakers don't make them. Wagons are slowly coming back, however.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
MrHorsepower beat me to the punch. Good response. America does not want hatchbacks. They went out with the 80's.
Sorry, but a critical look at the data shows you're dead wrong. Unfortunately, those making the decisions at GM seem to be thinking like you!
When you look at the subcompact market, (Yaris/Fiesta/Accent, etc), hatchbacks easily outsell sedans, significantly. In the compact range, the split is 40-50% hatchbacks, when like models are offered. The Mazda 3 is a poor example; there's almost a 5K difference between the lowest-priced hatch and sedan--of course they sell more sedans, they offer far more models. The companies that bring them in sell them, period. The only instance of this not being the case is with VW and the Golf/Jetta, but I think that are other factors at play there, namely the branding of the two models. People hear "Golf" and they still think "Rabbit", while the Jetta somehow seems to have a more upscale appear. In all other instances though, hatchbacks do very well in the US.
That said, focusing on what's sold over the last 5 years only tells you so much. The real key is to figure out where the market is going. More and more people are going to ask themselves "do I really need that extra ground clearance?", "can my stuff all fit in a well-designed hatch" and "would I like to get 30-40mph"? As gas prices continue to climb, more and more people are going to be asking themselves these questions, and as it stands right now GM doesn't really have an answer for them. And I just don't think the Encore is that answer. Other companies (Ford, Hyundai, Subaru) are providing that answer in spades, and GM's going to miss the boat, IMO.
I think Ford's guy said it best in the article to which I linked earlier:
"Ford sales analyst George Pipas nutshells what he sees as a growing trend:
"American car buyers have grown accustomed to the convenience of hatch bodystyles after years of owning SUVs and crossovers. Combined with a generation of younger drivers who have been exposed via the Internet to popular high-performance hatchback offerings in Europe and Asia, we may be seeing the beginning of a shift in buyer acceptance of hatchbacks.'"
MrHorsepower beat me to the punch. Good response. America does not want hatchbacks. They went out with the 80's.
Sorry, but a critical look at the data shows you're dead wrong. Unfortunately, those making the decisions at GM seem to be thinking like you!
When you look at the subcompact market, (Yaris/Fiesta/Accent, etc), hatchbacks easily outsell sedans, significantly. In the compact range, the split is 40-50% hatchbacks, when like models are offered. The Mazda 3 is a poor example; there's almost a 5K difference between the lowest-priced hatch and sedan--of course they sell more sedans, they offer far more models. The companies that bring them in sell them, period. The only instance of this not being the case is with VW and the Golf/Jetta, but I think that are other factors at play there, namely the branding of the two models. People hear "Golf" and they still think "Rabbit", while the Jetta somehow seems to have a more upscale appear. In all other instances though, hatchbacks do very well in the US.
That said, focusing on what's sold over the last 5 years only tells you so much. The real key is to figure out where the market is going. More and more people are going to ask themselves "do I really need that extra ground clearance?", "can my stuff all fit in a well-designed hatch" and "would I like to get 30-40mph"? As gas prices continue to climb, more and more people are going to be asking themselves these questions, and as it stands right now GM doesn't really have an answer for them. And I just don't think the Encore is that answer. Other companies (Ford, Hyundai, Subaru) are providing that answer in spades, and GM's going to miss the boat, IMO.
I think Ford's guy said it best in the article to which I linked earlier:
"Ford sales analyst George Pipas nutshells what he sees as a growing trend:
"American car buyers have grown accustomed to the convenience of hatch bodystyles after years of owning SUVs and crossovers. Combined with a generation of younger drivers who have been exposed via the Internet to popular high-performance hatchback offerings in Europe and Asia, we may be seeing the beginning of a shift in buyer acceptance of hatchbacks.'"
Most of the new Foci I've seen have been hatchbacks, not sedans. Just saying.
- Status
Similar threads
