the back is fine.. the front is worse.

 

Why do I get the feeling that the moron who wrote that article had never even sat in any of those cars?

 

This article is so poorly written that I couldn't be bothered to go past the first paragraph. I have seen blog entries by high school girls that are more professionally presented. How can I possible take seriously the author's opinion?

 

The RL is disappointing aesthetically.

GTO sales wice IMO. It's a good car. Both nobody buys them.

 

Lexus is ugly throughout (well, they are so beige, that ugly is not the right word, maybe "un-memorable," "character-less" are better) but they sell pretty well. So I am kind of ok with RL. Those who can afford it most likely don't want something too "different." For proof, look at Lexus.

 

the odyssey is probably seen as disappointing because it isn't as revolutionary or ground breaking as the previous model.

 

Uh, exactly what new ground did the first Odyssey break? It was a minivan. Chrysler invented it in the 80s. Honda made it better, but thats evolution, not revolution.

 

The first Odyssey didn't break any ground. The last model was the 2nd gen. It had fold flat third row seats, Accord-like driving characteristics, etc, which all combined to make it one of the most successful Honda products in history. Dealers were still getting MSRP for them 3 years into the cycle.

Go sit in the new Ody and drive it and tell me it's not a great vehicle...it takes everything the 2nd gen Odyssey has and improved them. Chrysler's 'stow and go' seats are a joke...they can 'stow and go' because they have absolutely no padding or contouring to them.

 

I completely agree that the Odyssey is the king of minivans, and the new one is no exception. However, words like "groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" do not apply. Its no more revolutionary than the iPod -- a great product that improved upon existing designs and sells phenomenally well.

 

Semantics.