regfootball

once you drive one, the exterior starts to look better, the exhaust cutout highlights help. it's not a 'looker', but at least it looks aggressive. it's unique, and these days a unique inexpensive car that is fun to drive is rare. i am not sure i would ever purchase one, when new altimas are going for 16 grand. but a good lease deal would alleviate trade in value fears, and would minimize the cost of 3 years of a better than typical driving experience in this segment. i know this seems like a bizarre comparison, but its not much more price than a Cruze, or Jetta, and its got more room and more zoom. the mpg is not as good as the compacts, but i think its tweener size and sportiness hit a unique place in the market that it deserves to at least have a cult following.

see, i think the GS will be more what folks call basic sports sedan. and i think there will be an AWD GSX with a twin turbo v6 that will be the big performer. most boomers looking for a nice near lux car to ride off into the sunset though, a base 4 cyl coupled with the pleasing interior should be popular and be a large chunk of the Regal sales.

anyone think its not just coincidence that they released the EPA figures for the Eco, right about when the IPO may take place? keep in mind one thing regarding the eco......12.5 gallon fuel tank as opposed to the larger one.....

those were all things I liked too. great writeup. I have to admit the epa figures on the Eco have me thinking now the Cruze would be a nice replacement for my Cobalt. I had been keen on that Outlander sport but the epa figures on the Eco are about 25% better which is enough of a difference to me to possibly stay sedan. It's also the same amount better than a Subaru Legacy CVT which was another option I had been thinking hard about. It improves on the Cobalt in vastly every way, and also still has the small car charm to it.

that new outlander sport is pretty nice. i liked the one i drove last week. Its a more quality piece than that new Sportage.

I've heard the Sonata is the world cure for morbid obesity. is the handling good enough to say it's a true 'sport sedan' or is it merely 'tight, taut, and quickly responsive'. I always found the old Astra to feel that way. in other words is the handling a step above the median midsize sedan bunch. The Astra had a uniquely German interior smell. Does the Regal smell different inside than the typical north American offgassing smell? I liked the smell of the Regals I sat in on the showfloor.

yes but at the price you want more than just 'sufficient'. can you determine the mpg over say a 100 mile or 200 mile stretch? the epa ratings on the car are not great. i thought the regal stereo was good, can you comment on that and the seats / driving position? i thought those seemed like they may be quite good. probably the steering / suspension and handling will be what most folks are curious about on this car. also does the car feel heavy? the engine is probably just a bit light off the line and probably easily able to adjust to in everyday driving once you get used to it. armrest and cupholders are a bit non standard on this car also. be interesting to see if they are a pain or not.

my friend who is a Malibu driver (company car) said he liked his cruze rental....said it was way better than corollas which he has rented. said he thought it was a better vehicle (aside from space) than the malibu and said the leather was pretty decent. said he liked the dash, the radio display, said he liked the way it drove. said that the turbo lag and slow reacting transmission kickdown was an issue but not dreadful. Said his neighbors at home just bought a corolla and that they really should have gotten a cruze.

generally i think the mpg of the eco won't be that much more in the real world. one component here is the low rolling resistance tires. generally those suck in cold weather / snow. the eco loses some sound deadener. also the non eco has the better suspension and the last two gears are different i think. real world combo driving what does the regular cruze manual get vs the eco? 2 mpg difference is my guess. i think a non eco cruze manual should peg close to 40 for most folks on semi flat open interstate. i doubt the eco handles very well in comparison.

there should be a CVT Eco to go with the stick.. in my experience the CVT can be programmed to run much lower rpm than a stick or stepped auto at highway speeds. Base cruze engine should be a 1.8 turbo.

9-3 is a very nice driving car and so is the Aura. if the regal is better than its gravy. here is one problem. car and driver hated the car and their specs said the regal turbo has those $h!ty Goodyear RS-A's. I've had those tires and they suck. Why was C/D's review so bad? I still think 220hp is too low the GS spec Regal is right for me. 255/295 would still like to see a higher hp number. Anyone who buys the Regal with stick is prob most interested in the GS. I would like a regal turbo because it has the plain front end but either way it makes no diff to me. Future GSX will have v6 TT and awd and will take care of that. Problem for me, Regal aside from base 4 is too pricey for me. Maybe if things ever turn around Regal would be at the top of list with a couple others. GM needs to crank up the hp ratings on these cars for no other reason than marketing. After all, the Sonata Turbo has rid us of world hunger.

I had heard that Jesus was seen test driving a Sonata Turbo. He had to drive the automatic, his sandals were too worn to drive a 3 pedal.

how many dealers do they have now? i will guess less than 200. that is hard to move product without dealers.

i have to admit, i was very encouraged by it. the turbo / shifting lag at low speeds was a problem. It's not there once the rig is up and running. That is some incompetence showing itself there after all that market delay. It's not like they got massively superior mpg out of the deal. Reprogram the car to act better off the line and getting up to speed and take it in the shorts for mpg. At least make it so the power delivery and shifting is more linear. Of course the reasonable thing to do from the start would have been to use a 1.6 or 1.8 instead of a paltry 1.4. I would not call it a deal breaker however. My old 500 had a similar thing. Some of the CVT cars have that now, also. Slow to get off to the races, once up to speed and higher on the tach it was quite feisty. You learn to adjust your driving a bit and to be honest, then you won't have to deal with wheelspin in the winter or on wet roads, and you won't have 'the delay'. I don't mind it so much because if the car has good passing power / behavior to me it makes up for it a bit. the Cruze's biggest asset is the driver and front passenger coddling and cabin. this is a user friendly car. and it doesn't look like its 25 years old already like the Jetta.

those front seats look like they have decent lateral support......

One of my buddies texted me today. He's got a Cruze rental on his business trip. A nicely loaded one with leather. His company car is a Malibu, so it should be interesting to see what he thinks of the Cruze. His initial thoughts were 'small inside' 'nice dash' 'peppy' 'you gotta wind it up to get the power out of it' (turbo response). Since he has a Malibu his comparative thoughts will be interesting. I asked him how the leather was and he will likely get back to me. He thought it drove pretty nice too, so far. He did not call it cheap.

very inspiring cake! Happy Birthday!

the plastics in the sport are revised, they have a nice grain and are semi soft. the price is close to 20k, the interior plastics are much better than a 20k vehicle.....

Driven 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport SE fwd babyish blue CVT 24+/- MSRP (including several add on packages primarily with extra trim and stuff) HIGHS Excellent front row seats. Great cloth, perfectly shaped, very adjustable, lots of leg, shoulder and hip room. Great cockpit, great view of gauges, steering wheels falls to hand perfectly, window switches etc. Large and useful side view mirrors. Great view out the front. Nice gauges, simply and easy climate controls with auto temp. Option package added illumination, cool shift knob, and piano black trim. Overall interior dash and door plastics and trim are very good. Nice looking rig, not freakish. Plastic front fenders. USB, Bluetooth, Fuse, standard on all trim levels. Low vehicle weight and great mpg. CVT works well mostly. Slick paddle shifters and a decent manual mode which can also be done on the shifter. 2500-2600 rpm at 70 mph. Vehicle is quick once up to speed and going. (not so much out of the gate) Console, shifter, and 3 cupholders laid out nicely. Good armrest. Very very good steering. Well weighted, direct, decently quick, feels good, nice wheel, small turning radius. Aside from initial takeoff getting going, vehicle is quiet to silent in most operation and feels refined. Well done. Pretty good ride. Semi-nimble? feel.... Chairlike rear seating, good footspace. Price can be configured to be a good buy with good warranty 5 yr BTB 7-100 ptrn. Feels well built, fairly refined, and like a quality piece. LOWS POWER, 2.0 engine needs more grunt, mostly at takeoff. If you learn where to put the throttle pedal to make the CVT 'downshift' more, then it improves. SHoulda been a 2.4. Maybe try the manual also. NOISE AND DRONE when hard accelerating from a stop. Also a bit of that with hard roll on throttle. I bet a bigger engine, this is not a problem. CVT could respond quicker from a stop (up to like 30 mph). Also, it returns to low rpm quicker than it maybe should (a gas mileage thing no doubt, thanks CAFE). Radio looks drab and not very exciting controls, of course they want you to get the NAV. Even though the climate controls work nicely, they look plain. Rear side and rear visibility could be a little better. REAR SEAT LEG ROOM is tight, possibly a deal breaker? You cannot adjust the seat foreaft like the larger Outlander. REAR SEAT BACKREST, no recline adjustment, its a bit upright. The SPortage does not have this issue. TRUNK SPACE, BORDERLINE not acceptable. Maybe a bit more than the Kia Soul, but less than a Tucson probably. Its trimmed out nice and the rear seat does have a pole pass thru. A nice cover is available. Tall vehicle will catch wind. But it was a windy day out, must have also been why i heard wind noise on the back doors. Vehicle is a better buy at lower price levels or without all the looks options packages. SUMMARY I would write this as a glowing review except for the rear seat leg room and cargo space issues, and will defer to each shopper to determine if these are deal breakers. No doubt an Escape will have a bigger trunk, a Sportage probably has more back seat leg room. Shop around and see what is important to you. Regarding the engine, I didn't think the power was inadequate, just mildly sluggish at certain throttle inputs. And I will say that there are plenty of vehicles that put out the same adequate power level and please the owners. Especially for this vehicle type. Once past 30 mph or so its actually quite quick. Chevy's new Cruze has acceleration issues also even. But I do think a 'Ralliart' of this model or even just the 2.4 upgrade is needed for this vehicle. Even as it as once you learn the CVT and play with the paddle shifters too there is enough here to simulate a good time. All while still allowing comfortable quiet cruising when you want it which is most of the time. The little things like the super seats, great front seat space and comfort, good touch points, nice armrests, great gauges, etc and good plastics go a long way towards making the vehicle feel like a good place to be and worth it. It feels much more sporty than a regular outlander (hence, sport) and has combined the attributes well of a large comfy SUV with a nimble small car. Its really a nice blend of the two. Its a good urban getabout that I also think would handle 2 person road trips equally well. AWD is available with hardly any mpg penalty. Its a good vehicle, I like it better than the Sorento / Tucson (more refined than them) and it compares well across the board and helps you to believe that this small crossover segment is going to explode. Just check the back seat and trunk and make sure you are ok with it. Also, make sure the powertrain is ok with you and maybe even try the manual. I want to give it an A but the power thing and rear leg room and trunk make me keep it a B+. I'll just add that today also I test drove the Tiguan and I liked this better than the Tiguan. Also my review I think is very consistent with most reviews I have read on this model. A caliber likely blows chunks compared to this. I may look at actually replacing my Cobalt with this, or that Kizashi I drove last week, sometime down the road.

Driven 2010 VW Tiguan S manual trans, FWD, Black w/ Charcoal cloth 17" wheel option MSRP 24,400 +/- Highs Room and Space, both rows, lots of it. Could serve as family transport. Upright seating, good cabin visibility. Nice center armrest. Most cabin ergonomics and controls are good. Nice dead pedal. E Brake. Very good 'Pre 2011 Jetta' VW plastics, textures. Well trimmed cargo area. second row seat slides forward if need be. Tiguan has a very compact footprint Good power rating on the engine Quick steering ratio. Decent and comfortable ride. Heft and quality build feel. 2nd gear is a good gear for fast speed building in urban driving. 4th gear is a great gear for freeway passing. well spaced gearbox. VW 'fashion'. Lows That quick steering feels numb and hard to gauge accuracy. Keeps the vehicle from feeling sporty. Clutch is sort of sloppy. Not terribly so, but this is a VW. Shifter has long throws and is rubbery and not snick snick like other VW's (Escape, Sorento, SPortage all have better shifters) Tall height of the vehicle, its easily blown around in the wind. Vehicle feels heavier than a vehicle this footprint ought to (not painstakingly so) Rear cargo space could be a little more. Small side mirrors, you don't see much in them and they are hard to adjust. Steering wheel is kind of a bitch to get the tilt and telescope right. Seat bottom felt kind of wimpy. German style seat recline knob. Seats you sit 'on' rather than fall into. EPA mileage figures are weak. I would almost dare say 'turbo lag', this is a strong engine, but it never feels super powerful, never pins you in the seat. Vehicle is more of a cruiser than a crossover GTI. Road noise is too much, engine noise a bit too much and sounds coarse. 3000 rpm at 70mph in 6th is too much. Certainly is not nimble or sporty, despite the quick steering. Steering wheel sans leather and SWAC feels cheap. VW blandness, austerity, and monotony. Price on upper models. SUMMARY I can't slam this vehicle, its got a bunch of good attributes, and its built well, attractive etc. Higher trim levels of this vehicle are pricey, at this price its got a lot to offer. Perhaps this vehicle and most crossovers like this would be better off dumping the stick off the option sheet if they can't make it sporty. This vehicle felt like a 7/8 scale Ford Edge (plus turbo lag) to me. That is, heavy, not sporty, but still solid and comfortable, good utility. If you are a VW fan, you will like the inside and outside. I found the interior too bland VW for my liking. I somehow felt that since this had the turbo it would have been more entertaining rather than just 'nicely capable and solid'. The steering mush and clutch shifter letdowns doesn't mean someone else may not like it, it just didn't resonate with me. If this were an SE with automatic and AWD and pleather.....perhaps it becomes a different vehicle. The mild turbo lag was more of a minor annoyance than a problem. I think there are some non turbo fours or even a v6 that would be more suitable. Better steering with better tires and better tuned suspension might help bring up the sport factor. Or, maybe it simply needs to be abused at higher speeds to bring out any sport in the personality. This just seemed like a mall cruiser to me. ANd maybe that is all it wants to be. I thought it might be a tall GTI, and it certainly was not that. Certainly 'good' power, but no 'turbo rush', no fast reflexes. Much better for a Mocha run and trip to Pilates than anything. B- (with this level of trim and manual). disclaimer, VW's really aren't my cup of tea to begin with. To be honest, if you are looking at this vehicle, you might as well just look at the Ford Edge instead. Even the final gen Saturn Vue seemed more fun to me.

a 2.5l update with 200hp would be entirely appropriate.

i'll take issue with that to a point. first off, and i know this is a third party observer pointing it out, but most magazine reviews I read on the 3.5v6 whether it was in a saturn vue or a saturn aura etc. in comparison tests they did not speak favorably of the NVH of that powertrain, even in comparison tests against 4 cylinders from other makers. my own test drives of the aura and other epsilon cars with the high feature vs. the 3.5, the 3.5 is not as refined as the high feature was. so i would disagree the first part of your post.

but that's exactly my point, a larger car engine should have no excuses at all for smoothness at little more than half the rpm of the tiny motor.

some motorcycle engines can run 12,000 or 13,000 rpm, and they are smooth at that speed. why? engineering effort and manufacturing effort and design. point is, the engine needs to be agreeable in all parts of the rpm range, as the driver will use all parts of the rpm range at times.