ccap41

Completely agree, Drew. They just look sooooo old at this point. Especially when you have the Renegade, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee all on the same lot.

I love the looks of it but I don't like the "Fiat" name behind it. Everything about this is awesome. I love the looks of it, I love the white, red, and black. I love the spoiler and wheels. I love it's not more power. I just with it wasn't a convertible only.. but I understand the low sales probably don't allow them to justify the cost of making a coupe along side of it(same with the Miata).

lol look at bong trying his damnedest to backhand Ford. Bong: (pretend it's a rental, v6 ,convertible mustang)

^ Yeah my buddy with his 5spd HHR SS said he easily gets around 30 on the interstate and he doesn't exactly have a light foot. He just has an intake on his, no clue the brand or anything though. I didn't realize yours was an auto either. I guess I just assumed it was a stick. Those are even more rare, right?

The rear end has a little too much going on. And when I say a little, I mean a lot too much going on. But other than that it isn't bad looking.

I usually do in anything that isn't a 3.6 V6 SUV. I do really well in their Turbo-4s. I haven't driven a 2.5 recently enough to remember. The 3.6 in sedans gets me just EPA. The Chryslers with a Pentastar I will beat EPA easily. I have two HV V6 a 3.6 Bu and a 3.0 Terrain. The Terrain hits the GM EPA number or does one better. The BU even driven hard in winter gets 23 city and summer 25. Highway I can get 30-32. The HHR 2.0 Turbo gets 25 and 32 even with the tune and driven hard. The EPA numbers were something like 18 and 24. I never came close to that. My 3800SC cars all hit the numbers spot on. GM has done a lot with their tuning with the cam, gearing and transmissions. How they ever got the 4 in the Nox and Terrain to run as well as it did is proof. It is way under powered for what the mass was but it still drove well. One thing to keep in mind is the Lambda models are about as old as you can get at GM anymore and the mass is really a problem. GM just in the last 5 years has come a long way. The new BU, Camaro and new CT6 show just what they can do. For this kind of weight loss sit takes a lot of detailed engineering and GM has finally had the money to do this. To be honest the 300 pound loss in the Malibu is on the scale of like adding 100 HP to the engine as it is that big of a deal. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the others like Ford to try to match that. They went Aluminum in the trucks and really just got caught up with Chevy. The HHR SS 5spd is rated 21/29. The auto is 19/28... FYI...lol

Yeah I usually give it a glance but I don't care as much about the euros and asian makes and their specific models like I do the US brands. I check the overall sales in the one big thread for most everything else. I do like to check on the Tacoma though. I wish I could justify buying one but there is really no good reason for me to own one.. Edit: The only reason I clicked this time was I saw Casa posted in a Toyota thread and I wanted to see what he had to say about them lol. I love his hatred for everything non-US.

I dig it, especially in the dark grey and blue. The only thing I'm not too crazy about is how it will look like a Z06 to most and even us from a driving distance. I don't like the foolery with that but other than that, great car. Well, without all of the extra goodies that will jack the price up, I think it will be competitive performance-wise to the 1LE. I mean before you add additional downforce and carbon brakes it loses huge advantages of braking late and being able to hold more speed EVERYWHERE with additional downforce. Not to say it would ever lose on a track to a 1LE but that it would be fairly close w/o the aero and carbon brake package.

lol thanks for the heads-up.

The negative result is because of the big reduction in rental numbers. "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago." I don't think it matter what the reason behind the negative is, less vehicles were sold, period. Right? How can the claim of "fastest growing full-line brand" when your overall sales are down from last year's? It's honestly confusing to me. If somebody can make it make sense in my head for me I would appreciate that! While it's not clear in the release, I'm sure they are referring to retail sales in their growth. It would have been nice if they cleared it up when showing a negative overall.. At least for the shareholders. I know if I had shares and saw this release I would just be confused..and want to know 'what's up?' Not like it is a bad thing, It just doesn't make sense.

The negative result is because of the big reduction in rental numbers. "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago." I don't think it matter what the reason behind the negative is, less vehicles were sold, period. Right? How can the claim of "fastest growing full-line brand" when your overall sales are down from last year's? It's honestly confusing to me. If somebody can make it make sense in my head for me I would appreciate that!

Tiguan and e-Golf are the two lone bright aspects.. Then again I think those are the only two cars in their US lineup that don't have the diesel option. Oh, I guess the GTI also, as they list it separate for some reason. I'm so curious as to what their fix will be for the diesels and when they will make another proposal.

Wow, my condolences to both families here... Rough couple of days.

Keep up the progress. 'Merica.

Wow, the new Malibu appears to have taken off very well! Seeing it slightly more often and the previous Malibu often enough, the new one looks pretty dang good in comparison. I didn't like it initially but it's growing on me. The brand growth thing kind of confuses me when I see a negative from this year to last year for the Chevrolet name.

Are you sure you're not looking at figures for a 2WD/4WD though? Fueleconomy.gov shows the 2WD version dropped 1mpg highway and the 4WD version dropped 1mpg city and highway from 2015 to 2016 2015 2WD: 16/23 2016 2WD: 16/22 2015 4WD: 16/22 2016 4WD: 15/21

It is fairly new. It isn't innovative, but I still don't like it. It waters all of the names down. F Sport, M Sport, VSport, and now this AMG thing. Is this ffering more performance than the previous C450 of last year? Or did they just rename it?

I like it. Looks good. I just don't understand using the AMG name/badge on it. I feel they're going to slowly water down the brand. I actually don't think the 2016 Toyotas are bland anymore. The new front ends they've thrown on in the last few years with all the hard angles take the bland away. I don't think they look great or anything but no longer bland looking. My bland award would go to Nissan. Not only are Nissans bland but they don't make anything even worth considering. At the very least Toyota has the Corolla, Camry, and Tacoma with all very good reputations. Nissan has..the Altima..?

While that is a super long time if you're traveling and stop at a hotel at night and sleep for 8hrs, wake up, eat and leave in another hour... 9-10hrs of charge isn't all that bad. Plus, it isn't like you got there at 0%. I assume that would be a good 10% to 85% charge? I'm just thinking of the mid-travel type of situation because other than that 700 miles of range will cover anything else.

Fear mongering in this thread made it into a range anxiety thing...even a reliability thing...FAP TURBO has got the right idea... But..when humanity has no knowledge of something, humanity fears it, ridicules it and is biased against it. And yes SMK...when people are pressed for time, and in today's society, it seems that they are always pressed for time...people hardly drive long distances anymore, the take the airplane... And if they must drive for whatever reason, people actually rent cars...in other words, people hardly ever use their personal vehicles for long distance traveling anymore...but...it makes for a more interesting thread to whine and complain... This is the latest whine fest at Cheers and Gears....be sure to turn in tomorrow...as these are the days of our lives at Cheers and Gears. That is how the world turns, at Cheers and Gears. So you're saying I should spend something like a minimum of $80k on a Model S, but if I want to go on a road trip of any distance, I should spend more money to rent a gas powered car SO I CAN TRAVEL AT MY OWN WHIM? Very sound reasoning there. Holds the Tesla up as an $80k toy that has to be put away when shit gets real. No whining here. O get a real auto like a Suburban, convert it to Eletrical and put in the proper battery packs that give you a 600 to 700 mile range. Enjoy your road trip and charge at the hotel that night. How long would it take to charge massive battery packs like that from a 110 outlet?!?!?

You're right but if they're trying to appeal to everybody, which I think that is the long term goal because they're making a sub 40k car, there will be people who will actually made that drive. And honestly the 4.5 hour trip to drive is about the time it would take to drive to the airport, park, get to airport early for check in and crap, fly, get bags, and pick up a rental car. Or drive on your own and not deal with any of that crap and you're on your own schedule.

The current Sprint cup series cars make 725 hp, they lowered it from around 850. I read one of the Waltrips said that 204 mph is the about the max speed for a stock car to stay on the ground with the air flaps they have on them. Elliot's all time record speed is 228 mph, but today's cars are slower. I think they can still hit 200 mph with 450 hp because a lot of that is based off the draft, in a group you don't have as much air so the cars use that draft to add speed and maintain it. Plus gearing comes into play, on Talladega or Daytona they are mostly running a constant speed or in the 175-200 mph window. A Corvette can hit 180 mph or so with 450 hp and it isn't made for a race track. An AMG GT has a top speed of 190 mph with 500 hp. So with racing in mind and the drafting I think 200 mph is doable on 450 hp. The acceleration is lessened, but they don't need acceleration at Daytona. A Veyron has a 268 mph top speed though, in a straight line it would destroy any race car, F1, Indy, LeMans, NASCAR doesn't matter. The Veyron isn't good in corners, but on a track like Talledega or Daytona where corning ability is not really needed, I think the Veyron could compete with a Nascar. Not an Indy cary though as they would hold their speed in the turns better. What we need is someone to lap a Veyron around Indy speedway, Daytona or Talledega so see how fast it is. 190mph in the corners isn't exactly slowing down much for the Sprint Cup cars at Daytona and Talladega. There is no way a Veyron could take those turns at that speed. Actually, it probably couldn't go through the tri-ovals without letting off. Indy would be a no-contest for a Sprint Cup car. Those are real corners which the Veyron would look stupid. Full horsepower and real turns. I actually don't know i it would destroy an F1 car to 100, 150 mph. An F1 car can do 0-100-0 in under 5 seconds. "The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/t (0.93 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (60 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (60 mph). After about 130 km/h (80 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence continuing to accelerate the car at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed] 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds 0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds" "Britain's Autocar magazine recently gathered a formidable roster of supercars (and one of the greatest sportbikes ever produced) for its annual 0-100-0 showdown. The winner of the gathering was the Bugatti Veyron, which continues to walk the walk like no supercar before it. Consider the breakdown of the Veyron's performance: 0-60: 2.8 seconds (!) 0-100: 5.5 seconds (double-!) By the time the car came to a stop, 9.9 seconds had elapsed." The bottom line. The Veyron is not a race car. It will not beat true race cars at what they are designed to do, race. Hahaha There are always the enthusiasts who get their hands on anything they want.. In this case, Teslas.

The article was written in 2004. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/rusty-runs-unrestricted-car-news You had me second guessing my reading there! lol

There would definitely be range anxiety for me still. Check the maps above for how close I am to stations. Yes, it would be VERY seldom that I'm driving more than 200 miles in one day but outside of the STL area, it gets pretty sparse... I could travel to Chicago from where I'm at though!