VIDEO: A Redefining Moment at the Geneva Motorshow

Overall, I think this is a very solid, well-executed looking car. But for starters, unless I'm misunderstanding what's so innovative about the doors, the idea of having doors that open from the center is nothing new. In fact, the 1961 Lincoln Continental had doors that opened from the center. That proved to be a design flaw since the original frame wasn't properly reinforced to withstand a side impact, giving doors that open like these the notorious name: "Suicide doors". But I trust that this is not the situation with the Meriva and that the pillars have been structurally reinforced sufficiently.

The interior is truly interesting. I love the idea of all the controls being touch sensitive, doing away with knobs and buttons. I think owners will find this very convenient since a flat surface will be easy to clean.

I'm not sure about the windshield. Is it going to be produced with two pieces?I can imagine that if it is produced as a single irregular piece that goes up into the roof that the cost of replacement would be very costly.

Anyhow, nice work. If they were available in the US, I'd consider one myself.

When I said brands need walls in my last post, here is a perfect example, we can call the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel a wall between Detroit and Saab. Because a small car like this I don't think could ever have been created in Detroit. And this is the #2 knock out punch after the Saab 9X that GM's European arms are ready to just take over the mini segment, small car segment, mini-mini van segment, if they don't have it already.

I am just glad Opel has come to the US through Saturn and does indeed, create the "walls" for Saturn and it looks like, if the product sharing expands, the foundations under which Saturn is being build are becoming stronger. We can just talk about the breakthroughs that Opel has produced with small cars alone and take all day from the panoramic windshield on the Astra, and the targa top to the excellence in the Opel Corsa.

This is what happens when we let brands do what they supposed to do. Focus on what they need to do to win with no distraction, but only help from Detroit. If Buick China is given the lead to run Buick USA as Opel does with Saturn then I think GM hits stride world wide.

In short...

Bring it over to the USA, let us get a closer look at it Opel.

Why do you continue to tease us like this?

Instead of attempting to placate us with another in a seemingly endless stream of concept cars, (By the way, whatever happened to the Triplets?) why can't you instead tell us we can go to our nearest Saturn/Opel dealer and actually order one of these Opel Merivas?

We need a fuel-efficient hatchback like this in the U.S. now. That probably means you will wring your hands for months or years before bringing it over here as your marketing people debate, "Are U.S. car buyers finally ready for a hatchback?"

I suppose you will also sell the Meriva to lucky Europeans with a five or six-speed manual transmission and a turbo-charged diesel engine that gets 75 or 80 mpg, while at the same time you'll stick us with a 4-cylinder gasoline engine and automatic that will be lucky to get 35 mpg.

We don't need concept cars -- we need metal like this on the showroom floor -- NOW.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Ok, let's be truthful. Those are suicide doors and they are not really innovative. Those doors have been seen on other vehicles before. It's a good looking car, but it's not ground breaking.

I really like it. Throw in E-Flex with a biodiesel range extender and you have a winner for the US market.

Brilliant ! All round.
As for the FlexDoors, anybody with kids will readily appreciate being able to help them get in an out, buckle up or whatever, without having to go around an opened rear door. When parked alongside an obstacle, like another car, a hedge, a garage wall, you can't even do it without closing the rear door first. This would make a great Saturn. Even a Saab!

Thank you Gary! Amen.

Actually, the term "suicide doors" comes from the risk of injury when attempting to leave the vehicle while it's still moving. I don't recall any automobile being manufactured with front "suicide doors" since the 1950s (MGTD IIRC); I do recall rear "suicide doors" on Lincolns and Studebakers in the 1950s qnd 1960s.

The risk of injury is reduced if the rear "suicide doors" can only be opened when the front doors are opened.

Otherwise, unless there is an idiot-proof, lawyer-proof, failsafe interlock preventing the rear doors from opening except when the vehicle is parked, the risk of injury still exists.

This seems to me to be a questionable feature for a vehicle aimed at consumers with children.

It's nice that GM is having all of these flashy expositions showing their concept cars and everything, but how many of these vehicles have actually been put on the road? The electric car was killed by Gm. Fuel cell cars are not nearly efficient, and even at this writing (through many starts and stops), these cars are only at limited avaiability. Come on, GM, you're just trying to look good in front of a 'green' audience. You have not desire to give up your combustion engine-driven cars. Fess up.

I have to also agree with Gary. I LOVED my Honda accord hatchback back in the 80s. It had split fold flat rear seats and a removable rear deck lid which made it VERY versatile to use.

Beaugrand said: "the term "suicide doors" comes from the risk of injury when attempting to leave the vehicle while it's still moving."

Beaugrand,

Wouldn't there be a risk of injury attempting to leave a vehicle while it's still moving, no matter whether the door was hinged at the back or front?

My understanding of the meaning of "suicide doors" was that it comes from leaving the vehicle on the streetside, while parked on a street.

Attempt to get out on the side on which traffic is passing with a rear-hinged door, and any passing car that sideswipes the door will force the door closed, sandwichng the person who is getting out leading to almost certain injury.

With a front hinged door, if a passing car hits the door as it is opened, the door will be ripped off, but won't be slammed on the person who stupidly opened it into the path of a passing car.

Either way it's a dumb move to get out of a parked car on the side on which traffic is passing, but trying it with a rear-hinged door is more likley to lead to injury, thus the term "suicide door."

It will be interesting to see how GM/Opel gets around the suicide-door issue should they decide to build the Meriva with this "groundbreaking" feature.

By the way, they are hardly innovative or groundbreaking as chief designer Andrew Dyson claims. If they were a good idea, the people who first thought of them decades ago, wouldn't have let their use die out.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Granted it's a risky thing to exit a moving vehicle under any circumstances, but exiting through a "suicide door" while the vehicle is moving will get you mowed down by the door; exiting from a "front-opening" door and you may suffer road rash, but you won't be struck by the door. Both are risky (i.e., "stupid") things to do, but exiting through a normal door is slightly more survivable.

For the back seat, I prefer powered sliding doors operated by the driver anyway.

Who's the competitor, the G8 or the CTS? Seems that both can take on the 5 series BMW with credible performance.

My question is with the cancellation of the new V8, and the use of the small block Chevy in the new CTS-V, How do you keep Caddy's exclusive? I'd say bring an entry level CTS with a 3.0 DI engine an upgrade to the 3.6 and offer the V series with a real Caddy motor, the new V8. Use it in the CTS, STS or an SLS like the Chinese have, and the XLR.