PurdueGuy

They see me rollin'

They hatin'.

Wait, the Car and Driver article says no manual trans option? FAIL. No manual = not on my list.

It's also good to note that much of the negativity of the Car and Driver review is based on the earlier estimated 42mpg highway. It would be interesting to see their thoughts updated with the new 46mpg estimate.

isn't Dart 41 mpg highway?

Looks like the Dart Aero with manual trans is, so it goes on the list. We'll see how the reliability shakes out in the next couple years. I like the looks & what I've heard about it so far, but where it's still brand spankin' new, and Chrysler doesn't have quite as consistent a record on reliability (and throw in the whole it's-essentially-a-Fiat thing) I can't help but feel a bit extra need for a cautious eye on the Dart until it proves itself. It also has a serious ding against it in that it requires premium, where some others like the Sonic and Cruze Eco don't.

Same goes for the Fiat 500 - it gets 40mpg highway, but requires premium.

The diesels require some similar comparison - what is the difference in fuel cost, and thus the real operating cost. However, diesels have more appeal to me since they tend to be hearty engines that last a long time, and seem to generally be easier to beat the ratings with. Plus there's just a cool factor with owning a diesel car.

Passat or Jetta TDI? But people who buy those usually keep them forever, now that I think of it...

Not sure I'm ready to deal with VW quality issues, but I may glance at them when the time comes.

Now that I actually look up some numbers, I see that some of the cars I was looking at don't fit the bill either:

Chevy Cruze manual - 38mpg highway

Chevy Cruze Eco manual - 42mpg highway

Chevy Sonic manual 1.4L - 40mpg highway

Chevy Spark manual - 38mpg highway

Ford Focus manual - 36mpg highway

Ford Fiesta manual - 39mpg highway

I've started looking at options for my wife's next commuter car. Looking for some input on options I might not have thought of. She currently drives a '99 Saturn SC1.

Requirements:

- near or better than 40mpg highway

- manual trans

- 2000 or newer (newer preferred)

- not a hybrid (we buy vehicles for long-term, I'm not interested in replacing a $5k+ battery one or twice in the timespan we expect to own the car)

- reasonable to expect to be able to buy with under 50k miles for about $10k or less in a couple years

Options so far:

- Chevy Cruze Eco

- Chevy Sonic

- Chevy Spark

- Ford Focus

- Ford Fiesta

The rental car inclusion is interesting.

Not digging the headlights at all, and do they even point at the road? Looks like the area in front of them is upward sloped. People ask all the time about doing fixed headlights in the openings of first gen Saturn SC2s with pop-ups, and that's the issue - you can put them in, but you can't aim them at the road.

And is the roof scoop functional? Can't help but suspect it's there for looks only, which is lame IMO.

They've grown on me, and I like the color - congrats! I think I'd have to up for the Sonic personally, but when you put the numbers out there packaged the way you would want each one, it's clear that the Sonic would've been a chunk more cash. Hope it proves to be a faithful zippy little car.

I spent the better part of today replacing the fuel supply/return lines and the fuel cooler on my DuraMax. No way I would want to be a mechanic on modern, post-computerized stuff.

IMO it totally depends on the car. My S-Series have a computer, and they're cake to work on.

why does the gallery link not show in the forum view, but does in the article view?

Yeah... booooooring. The car was kind of cool for the first few years. That was over a half decade ago.

It's a good looking car, but doesn't really stir me. But it probably doesn't need to, this seems like something to compete with Lexus designs - soft, pretty, understated, not overly bold or exciting.

This new CTS looks more premium and more mature. I really like it. I can see the maturity of the design coming across as boring in some views, though. Previous generations probably pushed the envelope a bit more, challenged what people thought of when they thought of Cadillac. This more mature design doesn't push the envelope as much, but comes off as significantly more refined, which should result in higher customer satisfaction. It results more in envy than shock.

Also, why would you go from a font that's close vs just grabbing the real logo's shape? A little magic wand in photoshop & you've got the shape, especially on something like GMC where it's a solid color & well defined shape.

It's likely not from an existing font, but made custom. I would expect there to be some similar style fonts out there though.

Because of the grill.

and the ugliness.

I agree with you about new cars, I think I have bought my last one and will keep my current auto's refurbished and keep driving them till I cannot take care of them. I hate most of the new cars with all the stupid nanny technologies being forced on us by the gov.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to think about some of it. I'm a big nerd & into tech stuff, but it's all so integrated. I'd like to know & control how the information is communicating (know who can see my location, driving info, etc), and I'd like to not have all the tech so tied into each others' systems that one glitchy piece screws with everything. I test drove a Focus a while back that was loaded up with tech stuff, and couldn't believe how many buttons were on the steering wheel. Plus all the tech will be outdated in a few years, maybe less. They can update it some, but they won't update it for very long - the manufactures have no motivation to.

I can just see a car less than ten years old that no longer interfaces properly with anyone's phone/tablet, runs apps that are no longer supported, and all in a stereo that can't be replaced because it's integrated into all the other computers. Perhaps the radio will still work?

I much prefer the setup in my current work car, a '98 Saturn SW2. The $160 stereo has built in bluetooth for phone and streaming, which is really nice, but I can rip it out & swap in another one in a jiffy if they come out with some new spiffy tech. Soon the car will have heated seats as well. Top it off with fuel economy that's only a few mpg behind some of the better economy cars available new, and it's hard to complain.

Reviewed the pictures and it still has an ugly nose, Porsche shaped rear quarter panels and an ugly butt for a car. Someone will end up liking it but it is a bust for me.

Call me "someone", cuz I think it's hot.

Do you find it so hot that you would spend your hard earn money sending profits over seas supporting jobs in Europe compared to buying and supporting an American company?

I don't see how that's relevant to whether a car is hot. I gave an emotional response, it wasn't meant to have economic implications.

But to answer your question: From what I've seen, this is expected to cost in the ballpark of $80k, perhaps more. I wouldn't spend that on any car. I also don't see myself buying a new car at all in the foreseeable future. I could, but it's a waste of money.

My household's next car purchase will probably be a new commuter car for my wife. It'll probably be a 2010-2013 model purchased in '14 or '15. Something with good fuel economy and a manual trans. I'm eyeballing the Cruze & Sonic mostly.

Back to the Alfa: it's hot.

Reviewed the pictures and it still has an ugly nose, Porsche shaped rear quarter panels and an ugly butt for a car. Someone will end up liking it but it is a bust for me.

Call me "someone", cuz I think it's hot.

Other than using Google, how do I see a photo larger than a thumbnail?

It's still a V8 with good power output, so I don't see a problem.

I'd rock it, but not at that price.

Guys, let's compare apples to apples here. Keep in mind that the Cruze diesel automatic (42mpg) beats the Cruze Eco automatic in highway EPA (39mpg) and has a 135 lb-ft more torque standard and then 152 lb-ft more in the 10 second boost mode. ... so 42mpg plus better than than a FWD Northstar torque with that torque coming on at a much much lower RPM.

The Cruze diesel sounds like it will be a different animal than the Jetta TDI. Rather than a super sipper with "meh" acceleration, the Cruze sounds like it could have V6 like scoot with TDI like fuel economy. It is likely to be an LTZ level car, so you can't compare it to base model ECO or base model Jetta TDI.

I can't help but think that most people who are going to be interested in the diesel would rather have another 5-10mpg and more "meh" acceleration.

You guys are over blowing it on the Manual. The % of manual take is so low here they are going after the segment that wants 40+ miles but with auto.

The % of manual take is much higher than average in our household. I'm watching cars for good options for a commuter car for my wife in a couple years (used). Her requirements: good mpg and a manual trans.