bcs296

Too bad there aren't going to be strides in negotiations. GM execs put brakes on labor-savings hopes So retiree health-care costs aren't budging until 2011. That's not one of GM's biggest cost issues right now or anything. Ah, reading this just solidifies in my head that the union has to go. People getting full pay for sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. What a great way for GM to waste precious money.

Here is a 10 min Photoshop job I did, and VOILA! No more 4x4 CTS.

This looks low, sporty and aggressive. This looks tall and narrow and not aggressive.

Ugh. GM needs to stop designing all these cars with so much damn wheel gap. It's hideous, and makes it look anything but sporty. The rest of the car looks so good, if it was just an inch lower it would be perfect. Maybe it's not necessarily ride height, but BMW, MB, Lexus and Infiniti all have proportions when it comes to wheels/wheel wells.

Haha.

Most of the print magazines are going to be seriously biased, although they will occasionally go on sprees of fairness. It really depends on who authored the articles you read, which is stupid if you ask me. It'd be nice if these people didn't let their feelings show through so much in their writing. I recommend you check out New Car Test Drive, or www.nctd.com. They tend to be very reasonable and appreciate every car for what it is, always highlighting the good aspects in a car. They don't nitpick very much and don't search for stupid little things they can use to spin the article in one direction or another.

On another note, what does GM have for plans for these trucks? They obviously have been getting knocked for their size, and maybe rightfully so -- Tacoma, Dakota, and Frontier have really grown into "midsize" pickups. I happen to like the size of the Chevy/GMC twins but apparently the compact pickup market has died. In any case, I love the styling of the trucks and have since they came out. I never really thought there was anything wrong with them at all. They fixed everything that was wrong with the S-10/Sonoma but in the end, the segment changed and left them behind. I have always thought it was a waste for GM not to use the 4.2 I6 in more vehicles. The 3.5(3.7)/4 speed is just not competitive at all anymore. I think GM has what they need to build a truly competitive midsize pickup. They never screw up the styling of their pickups, they have PLENTY of engine choices (4.2, which is a good engine to begin with, and could be hugely improved with some attention; 3.6 and it's many variations; 3.7; and 2.9), and the 6 speed is slowly making its way into everything. It's too bad their current financial situation limits them to focusing only on so many segments at once.

I find it interesting that enzl has yet to justify his statement that Colorados/Canyons are unreliable, or elaborate on his post at all. On the contrary, ocnblu provided real world experience with his Colorado that he owned new since January 2004. His experience was nothing but good. Good size, durable, solid performance, and very reliable the time in which he owned it. $15k for a 3 year old truck with 43k miles surely isn't Toyota level resale, but it's not as terrible as some (enzl) would make it out to be. I'll take actual knowledge based on ownership over random commentary any day.

Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Extremely annoying.

Booooo. If the Pats hadn't royally screwed up, they would have had the 4th ring.

Care to elaborate?

Maybe I spend too much time on web forums -- I don't know -- but I'm not quite sure I would consider what FOG did as "trolling." I don't think I would go ahead and say that his actions were fueled by "personal vendettas" either. I don't see anything wrong with an occasional "stick in the mud" once in awhile. It is necessary to keep people realistic and humble around here. If anyone's behavior was indeed questionable, insiders or not, FOG would be the first to do something about it. Who else would? Maybe some would disagree, but that is valuable to a community like this. In any case, FOG, I will be glad if you stick around. I, as well as many others, thoroughly enjoy your posts. For some time now, I have felt as though GM's situation required nothing but the harsh truth. No more sugar coating and padding the truth. No more making excuses. Some might consider your brutal honesty "too much" but I don't. If anything negative has come out of this, it's this idea of having "allies" and "enemies." There is no doubt in my mind that we are all GM enthusiasts here, and most likely passionate about the success of American automakers in general. We all want the best for GM and if that means telling it like it is and questioning people's decisions, no matter who they are, good! GMI, CAG, The Source, etc. -- we're in this one together, for the same cause.

GM needs to implement this in as many engines as possible, as fast as possible.

Well look at that, the Big Three have 3 out of 10 spots on the list. Oh, wait. All three domestics on the list are GM. And Toyota only has 2 spots. Go GM.

As much as a lot of people complain about this car, I think the R/T is a great deal. Knock the styling all you want, it is aggressive or at the very least, not a bland vanilla mobile like the rest of the cars in this class. I also really like the design of the interior, whether or not it has the softest plastics in the industry. An aggressive (or maybe just "different") looking midsize sedan that handles AND rides really well, with a pretty powerful engine mated to a 6speed auto, AND a stylish interior for $23,500? Maybe it's just my opinion, but that is a real good deal. I suppose an extra $1500 could get you an Aura XR, and $23,500 gets you an Accord SE V6 but then again, I think the Accord is a rather ugly vehicle. A Camry LE V6 runs $23,500 but you can't even get wheels larger than 16".

Maybe, but the idea is to burn LESS gas, not more. Propelling a 3100+ lb vehicle to 60 in 7.6 seconds is impressive with a 1.4 liter engine.

Agreed - a cynical moment on my part, but I suppose I had high hopes of a situation where there would be no question whose truck is the best. Admittedly, the Titan absolutely does NOT deserve to be anywhere near 1st place, however it is disheartening to see the Tundra ahead of the Silverado again (re: edmunds). Just a result of the difference between GM's and Toyota's financial situations I guess.

How about this thread gets a copy in the C&G Feature Articles section under "To GM:"

And it has finally happened. The Big 3 can't even say that they are the best in that one segment anymore: full size trucks. The sad thing is they knew it was coming for years and they still couldn't manage to stay on top.

Aura sales will take off when GM learns how to market it's vehicles, especially ones that are as good as the Aura. I would love to see a commercial that says something like, "The Saturn Aura, declared a better overall package than the Toyota Camry by Autoweek, is comparably equipped for nearly $2,000 less."

I remember that... it did seem strange for a Cadillac to have a Corvette engine... I would have rather seen the CTS-v have a Northstar variant, that would be more appropriate for a Cadillac, IMHO...though there is really nothing wrong with the 5.7/6.0. There is a difference. Nobody ever said, "Oh, that LS6/2 is so thrashy, unrefined, and sounds like crap. It really takes away from this car." There was some initial whining from people who never actually drove the CTS-V that as a Cadillac, it should have DOHC. On the other hand, nobody has ever actually complained about the Corvette engine. If anything, the LS6/2 added to the CTS-V's character. It has earned a reputation as being more raw and having more "muscle" than its competitors, and some people actually find that to be a good thing. Basically, the pushrod 'Vette engine in the CTS-V never brought it down. Plenty of reviews of other GM vehicles HAVE complained that their pushrod V6's really took away from the driving enjoyment and made Honda's and Toyota's offerings more appealing. I'm game.

The M5 is an incredible car and everything but.... Magnum SRT8 for me.

Looks ok. I still like the current C-class. I like the interior of the new CTS better too.

300: 340hp, RWD, 5 speed auto. Lucerne: FWD. 4 speed auto -- maybe 10 years ago it would have been on the list. 500: Bland people mover. Nothing wrong with C&D's list.

While I can appreciate your sarcasm, I think you are missing something. Nobody ever complains about GM's pushrod V8s. It's the V6's that are lame.