Croc

I found no problem with the GM interior from a materials standpoint.

happy bday

Looks great! Can't wait to see how this sketch translates into real-life. Can you ever say anything nice about a japanese import car brand? I find the Accord "hump" to look nothing like the Monte's hump...and that's definitely for the better.

Oh God...I just knew the link would be to either Britney or Christina. Softer, angsty song? "Set the Fire to the Third Bar" by Snow Patrol featuring Martha Wainwright

So why hasn't that happened? If cell phones = drunk driving, then why haven't people been prosecuted for violating cell phone laws? Surely in the past 5 years there would have been at least ONE wrongful death lawsuit over a cell phone in NYC??

I have never been in a Navigator before. All I know is that these seats were $h!acular. My bro and I were going in and wanted to check it out...and we opened the door and both stopped at the same time and went "what the f@#k??" I still got in it and looked around briefly, but he didn't.

They don't NEED it...but evening out the skin tone goes a long way into making them look softer and more feminine. I just look at it this way: I put 15-20 minutes into myself before I go out (excepting an early-morning class...I just roll out of bed and go like everyone else) so I would expect any prospective female to do the same.

I didn't take any...and I never promised any. I've given some impressions here and there (which is all I mentioned I'd do)...and I'll comment in appropriate threads if I feel I have anything to add... As for the Navigator's seats...let's just say my bro and I found it hilarious that here is this big, classy SUV that looks awesome in person, with a very nice interior to boot, except the seats have the look and feel of the leather seats you get on an airplane in coach. New vehicle, already crackled leather. We got there 4pm first public day of the show. PATHETIC. The effect was also intensified by the seats being dark, with some kind of contrast piping around the edges. Just hideous. I may be mistaken on this, but I thought Volvo worked on the Navigator's seats? Because these are about as dissimilar to Volvo seats as you can get...thinly padded and very cheap. Volvos have excellent seats.

Oh don't even play the victim. You acted all surprised when I disagreed with the study up a few posts by saying: So don't act like I'm baiting you because I'm not. There's no "running at the mouth" here, simply what I thought was an intelligent, CIVIL, mature discussion about this. We clearly have two differing opinions, and I am just explaining mine. If you really want to believe that study, that is your prerogative; but I have questions regarding its validity and have now expressed them. No personal attacks, no arguing. Just discussion.I have no idea what you did to get your warning level as high as you say it is, but that's your problem and not mine. I really have no vested interest in your remaining on this site or being banned. That's between you and the mods.

Same study as above.BUT, it at least further explains how they came to their conclusions: Drivers who were "drunk" had a BAC that "matched the legal limit of .08." So many would argue they weren't really drunk...because that is one mixed drink for a petite female. Also, they measured driver performance via "number of accidents" while following a simulator pace car. The study was also of 40 people...very small sample size. I just don't think that this study is statistically significant, especially given the sheer numbers of possible "sources of error" and the small sample size as well as the measurement used to make the conclusion. The other thing that makes me disbelieve the claim that cell phones = drunk driving is that I have life experience. Most people have driven when they prolly shouldn't have at least once in thier lives...and I'm no exception to that. Driving while impaired is most definitely harder than driving while on a cell phone and the reaction time is much, much slower. I can honestly say on a cell phone it takes me maybe half a second tops additional reaction time (compared to no-phone driving) if even at all...but then again if the driving gets hectic I'll tell whoever to hold on a second or I'll call em back when traffic gets better "cuz I need to pay full attention right now." ETA: And no, you don't have to be the Google bitch...I just wanted to see a study, or at least an article that better explained the study.

The gist of several studies? Only one made mention of the cellphones=driving drunk. ONE. The conclusions of the others make sense and I agree with them. But talking on a cell phone being as impairing as driving drunk is absolutely false from the big picture stand point and I'm betting it may equate in ONE category...but not in any meaningful ones.

I agree. Of course, that point is MY perception of beauty. The problem is the masses of girls who refuse to put anything on their faces when they go out. I put something in my hair if I'm going out in public or wear a hat...girls generally don't put crap in their hair since it's longer...but a bit of makeup is really necessary.I just love it when girls complain about how guys don't pay attention to them yet they walk around looking foul all day long. Hmmm...what could the problem be? That reminds me...my roomie's girlfriend is an Alpha Phi, and one of her sisters made the announcement about finals week going: "OK girls, we know it is almost finals week and we want you to study real hard and do really well...but--this is gonna sound so Pi Phi--if you haven't showered in 2 days and your hair is a mess and your makeup is all smeared...for the love of God respect the house and PLEASE DON'T WEAR YOUR LETTERS AROUND CAMPUS!! Thanks girls, study hard!"

By "link us to one" I meant the actual study, not an article merely talking about it. That part was not even in a quotation, so author bias could have figured into it. If you have seen an actual study, or even an article with a link to the study it talks about, then that's what I wanna see so I can read it and come to my own conclusions.The only thing I got out of that article is: 1) Texting is extremely distracting 2) Teen (girl) drivers find their emotional state resulting from texting to be distracting 3) Dialing is distracting 4) Redialing is just as distracting as dialing 5) People can get too absorbed with conversation Talking on a phone is no more distracting than talking to a live human in the vehicle. And about the hands free/no hands free...who here drives with two hands on the wheel?? I have one at 12:00 and the other on the armrest or holding a phone. Or drinking my beverage of the commute. EDIT: And what Fly said too.

Where's a link? Or five since "most" are trashing it.

Link us to one. Every single one from the last few years I have seen showed cell phones as no more distracting than in-car conversation or listening to the radio. The studies also said hands-free phones were no less distracting than the others.

Read my post above...in person it is stunning. These photos make it look like ass. It also IMO doesn't look just like a G35...it is just very nice-looking.

I dial at stop signs, red lights, or when the road is straight and wide with no one around me.

Well exactly...that's what I was going for...it isn't hard to do, so the people who can't must really be struggling with the whole car thing. Or just have a SEVERE affliction of ADD...

Why? Dialing and Driving isn't that hard to do...study after study shows it isn't any more distracting than conversations inside the car or the radio.

Even in our 1980 Sedan de Ville, the front passenger seats are wider than the rear. The front and center seat is very narrow...to the extent that only a small child would be comfortable there, and small children should NOT be in the front seat. The driver has a steering wheel in front of him/her, and the passenger has the (usually) soft dash top. The center passenger has a lot of protruding knobs made of not-soft plastic in front of them. Actually, having someone RIGHT NEXT TO YOU versus being several feet away would hinder right side mirror vision. You should be able to turn your head quickly to see the right mirror without having to lean forward. Drivers should be able to have room to their right also in case of an emergency situation so they can react quickly and steer/swerve without jabbing someone's face with their elbow. What about cupholders? They can get in the way of stalks if located on the left-hand side. Also, with a sixth passenger front-center, how do you operate climate controls and audio controls? Their knees are often in the way due to the drivetrain shaft, which is STILL in FWD cars (knees aren't an issue with a small child, but again they should NOT be in the front seat). So you're saying a 6-passenger sedan would have more cargo space than a 7-passenger wagon? The integrated interior with connected cargo area is the most space-efficient design because it is essentially a box. SUVs and wagons have the same overall shape. Also, you're comparing a 6-passenger sedan with a 7-passenger SUV/wagon. The SUV/wagon would have more space if in a 6-passenger configuration (split third row is offered in many minivans and crossover SUVs, including the lambdas). Measured by...exterior size or interior width? I don't think the interiors have gotten dramatically narrower, I think the decreased overall size is due to much better packaging. I DO think automakers are making the front buckets with better side bolsters so the driver isn't sliding all around while driving around curves. I think people just got tired of sliding around while driving in front benches with no side bolsters.

Two vehicles? When we have all of our family members in town for holidays, we carpool with multiple vehicles. You should try it--it's safer and more comfortable.

Because putting a seat there is: a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors) d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space e) is extremely low-demand. People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan. Why? Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle.

Nice, I always liked that generation of the Intrepid.

The Bruins played damn well though. I know their stats for the season aren't that impressive, but they exploited Booty's weakness perfectly: Booty cannot read the field for $h! and is only able to throw decently when he can stop and plant his foot down. His passes are pretty inaccurate when he has to think on his feet and pass while in motion. He's been the Achille's heal of the team all season long, and I personally think he will be as long as he is the starting QB. I wish Pete would have put Sanchez in during the 4th. Whatever, Rose Bowl it is. Oh, and Booty needs to just pick a name!

I can agree with that. I was impressed by the interior quality (minus the plood). Also, I'm hoping the problem was just with the show car I sat in, but the sliding cupholder cover looks slick when you open it and it automatically retracts, but it wouldn't close again without some pretty awkward adjusting of the latch!