PurdueGuy

If they can bring them in volume, I agree. If they can't, they may be just as well off to keep it an icon vehicle and stick to the V8, IMO.

that's a pretty good looking wagon, IMO. Yeah, and then they canceled it. At that point, they were talking about bringing the current gen wagon over to sell alongside the current gen Aura, but they've dropped that plan, apparently. Next gen is still up in the air as far as I know.

I forsee a sales flop, but I could be wrong...

Saturn S-Series was getting 40mpg highway, and wasn't as embarrassing to be in as a Metro, and probably safer... But nooo... plastic panel gaps!

And really, when you think about it... 75k per belt - you should be HAPPY to have to replace it more than twice in the car's life. Plus if it's like most maintenance items, it'll actually last well beyond the recommended time frame (not that it's worth it to try the odds with a part like this).

Yeah, but that gearing kills top speed and acceleration... lol

very common. One of the main things that kills honda 4cyls is when people don't service their timing belts. It's an interference engine (as are most modern I4's), so if/when the timing belt goes, so does the valvetrain and likely the pistons. Basically new engine time. There's nothing wrong with using a timing belt, per se (they tend to be more quiet than a timing chaing), but proper maintenance is vital to long engine life.

that is a good commercial They could've gotten more high-mileage trucks, though, I'm sure. My dad got 340k+ miles from his bare bones '92 Sierra (well, I guess that'd be GMC, but since it's the same truck, I'm sure there are more/others out there that have done similar or better).

anyone have a link to a vid of the commercial?

Because some of the changes they made would be unwanted by some consumers? As one person pointed out, the gearing they used for good fuel economy will hurt acceleration, which some consumers may care more about. I would say it would be better applied as a package instead of a model, and it seems odd to only offer a fuel economy model in crew cab form...

While people may be paying well into the $30k range, if people perceive the Volt as too expensive, they may not bite. Especially if the press starts telling everyone it's too expensive, then people will be inclined to stay away, as they don't want to be looked down upon for spending too much on an "inferior GM product", as the press may also decide to label the car if it doesn't please their every desire. Perception is crucial, especially for a PR car like the Volt.

Those two pictures aren't the same model (as seen by the a-pillar slope). I can't tell by the pictures if the door panels are actually different here (Patriot) or not: It looks like they may be the same door panels, seats, and center console (one picture just having the arm rest slid forward), while the dash and shifter area are new.

got any door dings yet?

The Ultralite was a pretty neat concept, IMO. If only it had been mass-producible, it could've been quite the greenie halo car long before the Prius.

Yay, let's point at chernobyl for an anti-nuclear stance! Nevermind that a) it was a retarded plant design, and US plants are designed SO much safer that if they were to manage to fail, the radiation would be contained, and while people would still probably be stupid and freak out, no one would be hurt (see three mile island). b) it was a plant that was in terrible disrepair c) even that craptacular plant still required a long series of human mis-action to get the thing to melt down. That is one of the reasons, but the main is a regulatory nightmare that stems from political reasons. For a long time, the permit to build a nuclear plant, and the permit to operate one were two separate permits acquired at separate times. About 30 years ago, a number of power companies got royally screwed over when they got permits to build, spent gobs on construction, then were denied operating permits for political reasons. After that happened a number of times, power companies started to not bother trying. However, the NRC has been working to combine the processes for the two permits into one, so you either get them or you don't, and there are about a hundred nuclear plants in the works because of this. Power companies aren't lining up to build nuclear plants because they're popular, or neat - they're lining up because once the plant is built, it's DIRT CHEAP to operate. Interestingly enough - the same type of situation that has been preventing new plant construction has been keeping nuclear fuel recycling from having a chance at developing. Companies can't tell if they'll be given operating permits from one administration to the next, and it becomes too risky of a venture, so they don't bother. There is also the issue of the overall process with recycling costing about 10% more (including all costs from production to storage of "waste"). Oldsmoboi - what's the lifespan on those wind generators? That's the other thing with a nuclear plant - not only is it dirt cheap to operate once it's built, but it keeps going, and going, and going, and going... I'm not saying wind doesn't have a place, but I don't see it as a lone, primary giver of power. Because of the fluctuation in output, we would have to build an infrastructure to probably three times our needed peak capacity, an awfully wasteful practice, and one that would tear up a lot of countryside.

That's getting into Astra entry pricing. lol

Better quote a source on that. The gov't isn't helping power companies with nuclear plants with much of anything, yet nuclear is 2nd cheapest only to hydro. You trying to tell me that the utility companies aren't passing their construction and disposal costs on to the customer? Such generosity!

wind should not be the main source of power for the US, nuclear should. Wind is a nice supplemental power source, and is for me a welcome addition to a diverse source of powers for the grid, but it is too costly to be a main power source.

Well, there's two sides to that - get every penny you can at the risk of offending some people, or let some potential immediate profit go in exchange for public goodwill that you hope will turn into future car sales. Squeezing every penny can be awfully tempting, doubly so if you're unsure if there will be a future of the company to build sales for...

I'm seeing an all-new dash and shifter console, but it doesn't seem clear if the seats, door panels, or center console are different. If they are, can someone point out details that show this?

...and by the time we get it, people will complain about how dated it looks.

Or make them less noticable, probably both. I think they overdid the gaps to be safe, so with more study they could reduce the gaps. Plus, all the points where the panels meet are perpendicular to the surface of the overall body panel. If the meeting points were angled, then the gaps would be less noticeable. How they made them: panel I I panel I I _______I I_______ how they could make them: panel / / panel / / ____/ /______ Since the sides of the panels are also painted, instead of seeing a black void at the gap, you would see the same color shaded. This would help reduce the appearance of the gaps. There would have to be very strong demand for the polymer panels, and/or a decision to apply them across a wide number of models for them to return, though. A big part of them being discontinued was that it tied Saturn products to one production facility, and hindered flexibility of GM's manufacturing resources. I'd love to see them return too, but I'm not holding my breath that we'll see it anytime soon.

I agree on the styling being very '90's. It looks like it belongs in the Chevy lineup next to the Lumina & Monte Carlo.

The grill looks better stock, not liking this treatment, and not crazy about the paint. The truck's proportions are very, very nice, though! The bed is way too high, but it looks like that's probably just because they went for a flat floor - a setup with typical wheel well bulges should be at a nice height.

The use of other feedstocks for ethanol doesn't completely sidestep the complaints about running the price of corn up. If another plant is used, then that may decrease the amount of corn being planted, to replace it with another stock. The exception being stocks that can be grown in areas that don't grow corn well.