Whistler

Likewise, to claim it about any Lexus/Toyota isn't accurate either. The only ones that have anything in common are the ancient Landcruiser/LX470. Even the Camry and ES relationship is almost unrecognizable now if you sit in/drive both cars.

Guess theres also a running joke in Detroit... "Hey Mr. Lutz, how do you get an American businessman to spend 20-30k more on a GMC truck?" "Dunno, how" "Slap on a Caddy badge ahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

Well, considering its PLASTIC wood and not real wood, I doubt it costs anymore to make than any other plastic part. In fact, it would probably cost more to manufacture an entire seperate dash trim for the 9C1s than it would to just use the fake wood that they are already making for the LTs. Just because the dealer charges extra for fake wood on civvie cars doesn't mean it actually costs more to make .

Found some pics of the new Impala 9C1 being tested by a police dept in Indiana... looks pretty good.

The people that were expecting Toyota to "reinvent the truck" are the same people who think the Ridgeline deserved truck of the year. Take a look at Ridgeline sales and see how many truck buyers wanted it to be reinvented.

I was at Detroit too and shift knobs, climate/radio controls, and parking brakes were ripped off in EVERY car basically... GMs, Fords, Hondas, Chryslers, and yes, Toyotas.

I just hooked up XM in my car not too long ago and I WISH I had a casette deck... Sure, nobody LISTENS to cassettes anymore, but cassette based car kits come in handy. I have to listen to XM throught the $h!ty FM modulator now because I don't have an XM ready headunit or cassette deck to plug the car kit into .

Camrys never got their quiet, smooth, well put together reputation until the 1992 redesign. Before that they were nothing special, the Lumina and Taurus were better in the early 90s... but the 1992 changed all that and is what made Toyota the benchmark. It blew the Lumina and Accord out of the water, and the entire 1996 Taurus redesign was a direct response to the 92 Camry. Camrys (and most imports) are good cars... its stupid to underestimate them. Thats what got Detroit in trouble in the 80s. What they need to do is accept the fact that the Japs make good cars and match/exceed them. GM and Ford are finally doing this.

Well, all I know is that when I try to convince my import loving friends that an Impala is worth considering against a Camry and Accord, it would sure help if the specs at least compete...

I hope they get it in ALL brands ASAP... I understand that Chevy is the lower of the GM brands, but that doesn't mean they have to be totally behind the curve. Just about EVERY competitor is putting out 5 and 6 speed autos now... Toyota, Honda, Nissan... even Ford. GM needs to get it across the board as fast as they can build them.

I asked this on a couple other forums I go to but I still havent decided which one I want... We just got them in Canada. Sirius seems to have some better talk stations, but XM has a better variety in music (from what I can see in the 3 day trial). Also, with XM I can sign up using a US address and get ALL the channels. Because of Canadian laws, if you sign up to the US service you miss out on a bunch of them.

Toyota puts a little cruise control stalk on the right side bottom where its in the pefect place to be used by your right hand while driving. I really like that system. I don't really like the ones where they put the buttons right on the steering wheel.

No... overall, I don't think their cars are all that competitive if you take price out of the equation. I love GM... but its a love hate relationship. They have such great potential with their products but ALWAYS seem to find a way to f*ck it all up. I think most GM fans are like me too... They may try to blame it on the media, on consumers, or whoever... but deep down everybody knows that GM has a great capacity to shoot themselves in the foot.

Too bad its giving Toyota a great reputation across the country while people continue to bash GM for building "gas guzzling dinosaurs". I'd never drive a Prius but it would be nice if GM would get their damn Hybrid Malibu out so I would stop having to defend myself all the time for being a fan of a car company that "doesn't care about the environment".

Absolutely. It will be no competition from the pinnacles of exciting and modern design that makeup the Malibu and Impala :P .

The Highlander is just about finished... its very old by Toyota standards. From what I understand, the next Rav4 is taking over the midsize SUV role, and the Highlander will become a large crossover (think Lambda) in its next redesign.

I agree. The 500 looks weird in traffic. Its no bigger than the Crown Vic, but its ride height makes it look out of scale with the other cars around it. The Fusion has much better proportions.

I think it looks fine. It did rip off the Q45 lights a bit but so did the Lucerne... and hey, whens the last time you saw a Q45 on the road anyway? Its basically a Sonata, so it will be a pretty good car.

The Corolla got the exact same side impact score as the Cobalt. It actually did better than the Cobalt if you use the NHTSA test. Do you consider the Cobalt unsafe too? Or is it only unsafe if its and import? The ONLY compact car that I have found which beats the Corolla in side impact tests is the new 2006 Civic with side airbags which got a "Good" rating. Focus? Poor. Mazda 3? Poor. Saturn Ion? Poor (WITH SIDE AIRBAGS!). Sentra? Poor. Neon? Poor. The Corolla is at or above average in all catagories except for the head restraint design (on cars without the hight adjusting seat). So, you have a chance of getting whiplash in a crash at "low to moderate speeds". And you say I'm being misleading? The title of the thread is "LEAST safe cars of 2006". Not "LEAST safe cars of 2006 which get 5 stars in frontal collision, 4 stars in side impact, but have a poor head restraint which may cause injury in low to moderate speed rear collisions". You, Forbes, and Dan Leinert would have us believe that a poor rating of the Corolla's headrest at low to moderate speeds means the car is unsafe and un-crashworthy. Forget the fact that it holds up spectacularly in a frontal collision, or the fact that it has average/above-average scores in side collisions, if you have a POSSIBILITY of injury at LOW TO MODERATE speeds it MUST be an unsafe car. Logic, the IIHS, and NHTSA state otherwise. Anyone with half a brain who looks at the Corolla's ratings with these two agencies and compares them with the scores of other cars in the same class would see that it is a VERY safe car. Dan Leinert has no idea what hes talking about. I'll take the cold data from the IIHS and NHTSA before I take Leinert's perverted interpretations any day. If Leinert threw a domestic in there you guys would be whining about how biased and stupid he was, just like you whined about how biased and stupid he was when he bashed GM in the HHR article. But, as long as he bashes imports his word is gospel. Whatever :rolleyes: .

Sorry Brian I didn't catch that B) . And I never even realized that it was a different guy in the reviews with Anita... I guess bad writing runs in the Lienert family...

BTW I did a search on that Forbes article... Guess who wrote it: Dan Lienert The same moron who wrote the HHR bash fest that was so harsh against GM that Bob Lutz himself came out to defend himself against it. The same Dan Lienert who does all the "Dan and Anita" reviews, the least useful and most incomprehensible column in the automotive press. Why am I not surprised :rolleyes: .

I didn't miss your point. The 95 Grand Am was moderately safe in 1995. That was 11 years ago, and even so, it is still considered a moderately safe car today. Nobody ever rated with a top score, went to sleep, and then woke up the next morning to find that it had transformed into a deathtrap. The 2003 Corolla got 5 star ratings all around in 2003 and a best pick. This was 3 years ago. It got the same ratings (slightly better) in 2004, 2 years ago. In 2005, last year, nothing changed. Finally, it repeated its stellar performance again in 2006, this model year. Nothing has changed according to the IIHS and NHTSA. Now Forbes is saying it is all of the sudden one of the least crashworthy cars on the road. In what way? Wheres the explanation? In what kind of tests? By who? They offer no supporting data other than saying that "cheap cars are like the cheap parts of the neighbourhood", Forbes "doesn't normally cover these types of brands", and that people who buy economy cars "are not social climbers". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry we aren't all elitist pricks who drive Bentleys and light our cigars with $100 bills, Forbes. Even the most die hard GM fan who hates Toyota with all their heart should be wondering how that makes sense. Unless they are completely ignorant and blind to facts. GM fans ALWAYS complain about media ignorance and how the general press has no clue what they are talking about when it comes to automotive issues. Now, here is a blatant example in your face, and people are parading it around as gospel just because it makes imports look bad and not GM.

:rolleyes: Its called raising the bar. Nissan wasn't the first one to ever raise it, and Toyota wasn't the first one to ever follow them. Look at the history of cars, that is the way its always been. One company does something, the other company matches it and improves on it, the first company responds again, infinity. Look at Ford, GM, and Chrysler all through the muscle car era. It was exactly the same! You could say that the Camaro wasn't original either. The only reason Chevy designed it was because Ford came out with the fabulous mustang and established a benchmark. Chevy all of the sudden decided they needed to meet it. They would have never thought up building a Camaro on their own. :P

Seriously I don't see Britain with their own space program. Britain doesn't even have their own CAR industry anymore.

All three of those GMs I listed were still in production in 2005. You can still go pick up a "brand new" Grand Am, Sunfire, or Malibu Classic on a lot of GM's lots. It is nothing to be proud of that it took GM until 2005 to FINALLY come up with a small car that wouldn't fold in half in a frontal collision. And then they wonder why nobody respects their small cars... DUH. But thats not the point. Take another look at the pic of the 03-06 Corolla. Be it 2003, 2006, or 2026, I'd feel safe in that car. A 95 Grand Am? Sorry, not so much. Even now, the Cobalt does NO better than the 2003 design Corolla in any IIHS test, other than seat design in rear collisions (Acceptable on Corolla, Good on Cobalt). The Corolla beats the Cobalt in all catagories of the NHTSA test. I want to know how Forbes came up with that list. I don't understand how a car that was given 5 stars each by the NHTSA for passenger/driver in frontal tests, 4 stars for side tests, and was rated an IIHS best pick for frontal collision can all of the sudden become unsafe because Forbes magazine says so. NHTSA Corolla VS Cobalt: http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3445.html http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3583.html