Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About invertigo

  • Rank
    Stock Member
  1. There used to be a list of qualifications for MT Car of the Year which included that the car must be an all new design or have at least 70% of the body panels changed over the previous model. I think Motor Trend changed the rules for this one. I don't deny that the 2010 Fusion is a good product but does not show the same level of class changing improvement that the 2008 Malibu did. There is a reason I canceled my subscription after over a decade, this is further proof of that lack of credibility.
  2. Despite the fact that this comparison comes from C&D, I happen to find it very relevant. I am frequently frustrated with the bulk of reviews of super-cars or $50K+ luxury vehicles when so few buyers can afford such. There was a letter submitted to MT, I believe, regarding this issue a couple of years back. The letter asked why the magazine didn't review many entry level or "normal" cars. The editors reply stated that the testers didn't want to drive boring cars. Well, that was when I decided not to renew my subscription that I started in 1989. It's not that I don't care about expensive cars, its just that I want some reality. If I wanted to look at pictures of a Bugatti or a Maybach I'd just buy one of those damn car calendars. As to the review, I'm surprised that such a "dated" Accord can still hold the top spot. That this is something of favoritism is pretty obvious. The fact that a Kia can beat a Toyota, well that's pretty amusing. My mother is currently looking to replace her 1999 Alero, and these cars represent part of the field of candidates. We won't buy a Honda product because of issues we had with their finance company (Beware of American Honda Finance Co.) She has over $800 in GM credit, but there really isn't anything compelling in the under $25K price point. I doubt she can wait the 5-7+ months for the new Malibu, so what is she left with? I have big issues with the Aura. First off, she can't (for some reason) use her GM credit on a Saturn. Second, while the sticker price on an Aura seems attractive, you cannot negotiate for anything under sticker price (not counting factory rebates), despite the fact that there is $1300-$1800 between the listed invoice and the original sticker price. That, in addition to kick-backs and advertising credits result in a huge profit margin on every sale. I personally have tried to buy a Saturn no less than 3 times (1991,1995 and 1999) and each time I walked away and purchased something else. The second time I had a nasty argument with a salesperson regarding the no-haggle policy and then factory ordered my '96 Cavalier Z24 the same day for less than $400 over invoice. Anyway sorry for the rant, but I'm just not much of a Saturn fan I guess.
  3. Why are so many of you folks even "entertaining" this ridiculous plot? No offense , but I'm not really thinking that some of you can see the bigger picture. I see absolutely NO way that this would make good business sense. Any GM sponsored buyout will result in massive numbers of lost jobs. Operating Chrysler as an independent entity will not prevent this from happening. If they are primarily concerned with maintaining that magical #1 spot, then that is pathetic as well. That kind of mentality is partially what drove GM to near ruin. They are not going to be #1 unless they can fix the problems they already have, buying Chrysler can, in no way, fix that. The idea that there can be a product integration is complete nonsense, it would not work. You can't have a myriad of different platforms and make that economically viable, GM has already realized this. Furthermore, what would be the point of re-badging GM platforms and selling them as a Caliber, or 300 or Ram? Having to much of a similar thing will not work either. Why would having a inventory blowout sale help GM? If they sold all of those acquired Chrysler vehicles at a fraction of their value, GM would lose sales of their own products, how is that going to help? There is nothing technologically advantageous about assuming Chrysler. The have nothing that is significantly better. I could care less if they "own" the minivan market... that's not worth the other entanglements. Chrysler does not "deserve" to die, by any means. The thing is, GM cannot afford to risk it's own future by becoming tied up with a huge logistical nightmare that is well beyond what they are already facing. Maybe we can all breathe a little easier when some investment company buys Chrysler and saves it from ruining GM or being ruined by another foreign car maker. Just my two cents
  4. Perhaps to some degree, Will & Grace brought a bit of "gay" to the american living room. However, I hate the reinforcement of gay stereotypes presented, and the idea of making fun of being gay. I found the show repellent. I idea here is that Brokeback Mountain, although far from perfect, gave viewers a glimpse of the real emotions and conficts that gay people live with even today.
  5. Well, the Avalon is an exception... even the Camry V6 (20/28) falls short of those perhaps inflated MPGs. Please also consider the economy ratings for the vehicles with the HF 3.6 V6... the Lacrosse is rated at 19/27 with the 3.6 vs. 20/30 with the 3800. Using the HF3.6 engine as it is currently utilized provides significantly lower EPA ratings than those "outdated" pushrod designs. In order to keep its CAFE average up, GM will continue to use its most efficient powertrains in volume products. BTW the Aura as pictured is a concept NOT production... it is likely that the production version will differ in several ways... notably fender flares and front/rear fascias. OHC designs are more complex, more expensive to build and offer few real-world advantages to a well designed "pushrod" engine.(Look at those lame GMT900 or corvette engines :P ) The press continues to exagerate the rev-ability (what good is torque above 4000-5000rpm?) and "smoothness" of particularly asian OHC engines. Either way, judge a product on it's own merits. You can't compare Avalons to G6's. The G6 3.5 with 201hp/222torque and 22/32mpg compares very favorably to the Camry V6 with 190hp/197torque and 20/28mpg.
  6. What is that hideous buick concept? It looks like a nastified 1st-gen Tiburon. :puke:
  7. Thank you everyone for the responses! I guess I wasn't expecting such a passionate debate. Certainly it proves that it is primarily a regional thing, and there is nothing wrong with that.
  8. The 1st-gen SC2 was definitely the bestest Saturn until the SKY. Though I must admit that I much prefer the original dash of the 91-94 before they made it all rounded and cheaper looking. Oh, and did someone say SAUSAGE? :AH-HA_wink:
  9. invertigo


    Happy Birthday!!! :) ...from a fellow Scorpio Olds lover... :AH-HA_wink:
  10. Okay, these chevy commercials make me cringe every time they say the word "Impala." Is this a regional thing? I live in the pacific northwest, generally considered to have a very "clean" american english dialect and I have NEVER heard ANYONE pronounce the word IM-PAL-AH ("pal" as in friend) until these commercials. Everyone I have asked, from young to old has clearly pronounced it IM-PAULA (just like the girl's name) and that just sounds a heck of a lot better to me. I really wish chevrolet would change the commercials and fix this, unless, of course, everyone I know is saying it wrong So I guess I would like to conduct a informal poll... Which pronunciation do you use? 1. Just like the commercial... IM-PAL-Ah 2. Like me... IM-PAULA Thanks
  11. Call me crazy, but my first two will probably just annoy everyone here. :P 1. Why 20/28mpg? The HHR with the 2.4 and similar gearing(plus 350 more lbs.) manages 23/30 let alone the Cobalt figures. Boost the MPG, it's important now. 2. OMG that trunkspace borders on ridiculous. What, u couldn't manage to wrangle more that 3.8 cu. ft. of space? While maybe not a priority in a roadster, maybe I'd like to have a suitcase or two, or maybe some groceries AND a passenger. Reconfigure something to get just a bit more storage space please. 3. The GT model or whatever the supercharged/turbo model is called, needs at least 240hp, anything less would be pointless. 4. While I like the look overall, I'd like to see a slightly more agressive front fascia, definitely less snub-nozed. Perhaps some subtle changes could fix that a bit. I still haven't seen one yet, waiting for the Seattle auto show... 10 more days :lol:
  12. A few months back i recall reading about a future upgrade to the 3.6 HF V6 consisting of a new fuel injection system... supposedly boosting output to at least 300hp. Now I can't find the article, figures. Anyway, those output figures seem resonable, now if they could just get better mpg...
  13. Hmm this isn't as obvious as it seems... Unfortunately I don't feel that the Solstice will live up to the "redefining the roadster" that MT would expect, despite it really being a great car. They will probably pick something annoying, maybe Lexus IS or Infinti M. My guess is the the stupid Lexus hybrid or maybe the Ridgeline for the TOTY.
  14. I beefed on CR a few months back... so i won't bother here. But I have to agree, the car mags have been getting progressively more pointless. Granted, they are published for car enthusiasts, but not all "enthusiasts" only care about super cars comparos or super luxury match ups. I'm sick and tired of the same damn cars being reviewed over and over as if there are only like 20 vehicles on the market. Ever see reviews for something that isn't loaded out with the biggest engine and options? Rarely. Even ten years ago they did things like "bang for the buck" or best car under $12000... Now they wouldn't touch a car that list for less than 20 grand. I think it was an issue of MT a few years back had a letter to the editor asking WHY they didn't test many real-world cars. The response was so infuriating to me... Basically they said only fast and expensive cars are appealling to drive/review, so they don't feel they have to test anything else. HA! Cancel your subscriptions please!
  15. Well for my vote, I say that the Fusion seems at least competent and mildly handsome. (tho the Mercury iteration seems much better looking) That aside, realize several things: 1. The Fusion seems to be focusing on driving dynamics... not a Camcord buyer priority 2. Despite being passionate in form and function, the Mazda6 has not dented the leaders 3. The old sales champ gag was the Taurus, one of the ugliest vehicles ever 4. Most of the media and other biased resources will continue to favor Camcords no matter what detroit can muster. The number one selling-point of vehicles in this class is PERCEIVED REPUTATION and that's not going to help the Fusion in any way, great car or not.

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...