Croc

Trust me I know. I got really excited the other day when I saw a Gen II on the freeway because yea, you just don't see many of them. SO...we are going to try to repair it, because frankly I need a car and $2500 doesn't buy $h!, not after $$$ for clunkers. Just what body shop and how much of a repair for what price.

Considering I have a high school diploma and then some, I really feel like I should have known to check twice before turning in front of that car the other day while I was driving into the sun. Clear road wasn't so clear once the sun wasn't shining directly at me, and I now have a $4000 repair bill for a perfectly drivable car (with a crunched passenger door and barely-damaged B-pillar) I need to have that is only worth $2500 now. Boo.

Good luck with it; that's all I've gotta say.

I saw and climbed around the 9-5 at LAIAS, and it truly is a work of art. This car is the single reason why I was so passionate for SAAB to live on, regardless of who were to own it. SAAB and America deserve this car to be on sale because it is simply fantastic, and I also cannot wait to test drive it.

I don't think the word "fortunate" could ever be used to describe anything about Joshiepoo's existence.

Is GM producing any Pontiacs? No. Is Pontiac receiving any development money? No. Is Pontiac listed on the GM website as part of the company? No. I'd say it's dead. And in this economy, nothing is in flux regarding launching a (new) brand/division. No companies are expanding right now, and none will until things start looking up.

I'm stealing that prank now.

Dead, gone, fini. Seriously, it ain't coming back. Just like GM won't make another Oldsmobile Aurora, Cutlass Supreme or Toronado. It's over, so please, get counseling, get some happy pills, hold a little funeral in your backyard...whatever you have to do to move on...but just do it.

I think that means it had a spoiler? FTW

Yes, I've heard of them, and they really aren't that relevant here. This isn't about gas so much as it is about emissions. Two sides to the same coin, but not quite the same thing. Think of this as the "Energy Star" auto legislation. It doesn't matter how much you tax household electricity, the fact is that appliance STILL consumes X amount when running.

Yes. I'm talking about the physical temperature of interiors, not the color of them. Far more of an impact than interior color is the glass and its solar properties. ...which is why these ideas were PROPOSED last year, and have been studied, and are now being amended based on realistic constraints/obstacles. Thing is, while a small number of people would have no change because of your point, the vast majority would, resulting in a pretty decent net benefit.

False. The government has a compelling interest in matters of public health, safety and/or welfare. Poor air quality is a serious public health risk, and therefore falls under jurisdiction. Don't forget, the legislation sets benchmarks for efficiency. Things that may seem like they'd be "banned" often have some kind of technological breakthrough to allow them to continue while meeting the standards. Look at Blutech and diesel. Just charging people more money still doesn't really address the issues of energy efficiency. And black interiors aren't even close to the main culprit.

Wrong. If you want to grossly oversimplify everything, then of course it sounds ridiculous. Unfortunately, the world is complicated, and there are some incredibly compelling reasons for managing auto emissions, especially in California. Do some research--look at air quality data, fine-particulate literature, asthma literature, and then start to look at land use patterns, especially in Southern California. Schools, low-income housing, and even many middle-class homes are located right next to freeways because that's where these facilities can feasibly be built. The emission standards aren't ridiculous, and really many other states with dense urban populations are adopting these exact same standards. Maybe you're in a low-density area, rural, or in a small city--that's fine, but you don't live with the reality of poor air quality from vehicular emissions. As far as the cooler interiors, well guess what, more fuel gets burned the more air conditioning you use. If cars were more energy-efficient, and subject to less heat gain, less air conditioning would be required, and fuel and emissions savings would be realized. Barring some major game-changing technological breakthroughs, this is going after incremental, low-hanging fruit from a regulatory standpoint. There is no debate on this in California--emissions must be reduced and greater fuel efficiencies achieved. Even if it saves just 1mpg per car, multiply that by the entire fleet of vehicles. The savings add up, quickly. As for the salt issue--uh, salt is basic seasoning. Salt is also required for baking. This is asinine and will not go anywhere.

LOL!!

+1

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-toyota-deaths-list28-2010feb28,0,2542318,full.story While many are of middle-aged or older drivers...well, who buys Toyota and Lexus brands? Many are also of people young enough to avoid that suspicion.

No, he was able to stop it, while receiving instruction from CHP over the bull horn. Read the actual article, not the quoted text in the original post--that report contained errors.

Link? Here's the article Jalopnik referred to. The guy did not try to shift into neutral, nor did he try to turn off the car on his own. CHP instructed him how to do so, and it worked. Still, though, enough is enough. I want those cars off my roads until this is taken care of. There are so many Toyotas out there on my freeways, and if my 2001 Aurora gets hit or totaled by a f@#king Toyota out of control, I'm gonna lose it.

Yeah you're missing the real point here.

What's been overstated? That this problem was first brought to Toyota's and the NHTSA's attention years ago, yet nothing was done about it? That there have been three confirmed cases of this? That there have been many accounts of similar strange behavior by cars reported? That more than a few people have been reported to return/trade-in their Toyotas to the dealerships because they've had the car accelerate on them to the point their terrified to drive them? That several drivers have been found post-collision with both of their feet firmly planted on the brake? That Toyota has obfuscated the investigation into this problem by the NHTSA? That the NHTSA failed to investigate the affected models fully? Please, tell me which part has been overstated. I've yet to see where this is reported as widespread or frequent, but merely that the floodgates have opened on what was previously suppressed knowledge.

There's more wrong with them than just their age--even the new/reconstructed sections are awful. I don't have a problem with the navigation of them--their design just really pisses me off because the poor design leads to unnecessary congestion. Almost universally.

As an urban transportation planner, they just piss me off with how poorly-designed/built they are. That's why I could never live there; it would just drive me absolutely nuts.

Wow, not my experience in Tulsa at all--chains galore when/where I went. And the freeways were designed by committee--bad, cheap designs and lots of poor signage.

latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-docs22-2010feb22,0,5030188.story