samuel

Shrug. I don't really see why this is a problem. It would be one thing if it was a patch on the hood, but a door hinge? I wouldn't be concerned in the least bit unless a rust problem developed.

Relax. I am just pointing out that your judgements about cars are not that accurate (based on your judgements in this thread). No reason to get mad,, maybe you're just not a car person.

Nah, the SS is far from a floppy boat. It actually handles very well, and as I said, it is a far better value than the Passat (and judging from recent VW quality, better built). As I said, if you can drive the car without a pre-determined outcome in your mind, you will realize that your initial impressions were misguided to say the least. No offense intended, just learn to approach these things with an open mind and it will be pretty clear that your impressions were very biased.

Wrong. Perceived interior quality may be higher, actual quality is certainly not. The V8 is easily a better drive than either Passat offering, the ride is superior, and the value is superior. Simply quoting a 0.60 time indicates to me that you have little understanding of the effects of a fat torque curve on how fast a car feels.Yes, I have driven both. If you have (which I doubt) then possibly try and leave some of your bias at home? If it isn't bias, you may just not be a very good judge of things automotive. Try putting down the car mag and form your own opinion. When you do, you'll come to a different conclusion.

You either didn't really drive the SS, or you have been brainwashed into believing what good handling is. The Impala SS is a much more satisfying drive than the weak Passat, and a better quality car to boot. Maybe actually form your own opinions next time, instead of letting car and drive decide for you?

What 5.7? Not since around '99 in a truck.

The Charger is faster and way better looking than a cookie cutter bland 330. Cheaper and more aggressive looking than a CTSV. Anyone who thinks it doesn't handle has never driven one.

Not only that, but pretty soon the GTO won't be available at all...

No, it's only obvious that boring styling doesn't make cars like the Camry sell badly. Why? Because they are not sold to people who care that much about looking cool. They are sold to people who view cars as simple appliances. Boring styling will absolutely sink a car like the GTO because it's target market cares much more about image than people who buy Camrys.Great motor, great interior, bland styling.

The Ventura based GTO was a flop. The original GTOs were, as you say, souped up bread and butter cars. However, that was an era when bread and butter cars were extremely handsome. Tempests, Malibus, Cutlasses, all damn good looking cars in their own right.

If I had one I am sure I would love it too. It's a great car, it just doesn't look good. I did consider buying one when they started discounting them, but, like most Americans, the looks were the deal breaker for me.

Blah, blah, blah. There is ONE very SIMPLE reason that the GTO failed. It looks like a bar of soap. That's IT, nothing else. It is not that it is not retro, it is that it just looks BORING. Not because it doesn't look like a 65, but because it looks BORING. The new Camaro, if it happens, will do well for the same reason the Mustang is doing well, because it looks GOOD. The GTO was a hell of a car, but it's an image car, and you can't sell a BORING looking image car to that many people.That is the whole story right there. You can do all the analysis you want, you can point your fingers at the car mags, etc, etc. The simple truth is that the car looked like a Cavalier and not many people will pay $30K for something that looks like a Cavalier. The proof is in the pudding, not many people did buy it. We live in a very image conscious age, and if you don't look the part, you will have a very hard time proving that you are worthwhile.

Uhhh, isn't the Miata just like it? That's kind of the point...that the Solstice is beating the Jap version...

According to actual facts vs your anecdotal evidence, the general consensus must not be what you are saying. If it was, they wouldn't have moved as many units as they did.

Uhhh, well since sales were UP, they obviously ARE moving.

I think the point is that whoever you talked to was full of it. It's the same thing as "my buddy works at a dealership and he said....". I would not imagine that some guy working the chevy stand for GM really had a clue what was going on at a high level within GM.

That car is f*****g beautiful. THAT is the kind of design that will get the general population thinking American cars are cool again. It's sinister and mean at the same time as being a sensual and flowing shape. The view from the rear is plain flat incredible. The roof line and the taillights are gorgeous. I really hope GM can get this to market not too long after the Challenger.

Actually, it is not trail rated.

Lotus sold the design of the Seven to Caterham a long time ago. So the Seven is still around, but it's no longer a Lotus.

Maybe because 20s or 22s on a vehicle with actual off-road capability are a complete joke?

You hit the nail right on the head. The rear needs to be lengthened. The 300 already looks stumpy. If they stretch the wheelbase without making the rear overhang longer, it will look like a hot dog.

3.5L in a vehicle that weighs what the H3 weighs is pitiful. The point is torque, and that motor can't make enough of it low down with that capacity. GM could have used a DOD 5.3 and achieved far better performance with probably very similar mpg numbers. The 5 banger was a colossal mistake on the part of GM.

Sweet Jesus but that thing is ugly.

There is no reason to expect any more cornering light damage than with any other car. The view out front is fine. The seats in the Bonneville (yes, I have owned a Bonnie of similar vintage and I have driven the DTS) are nowhere near as good as the DTS. I am seriously wondering if you actually drove the DTS at all. If you did, then your review is as innaccurate and biased as any review I have ever read.