regfootball

pretty much nail on the head. multigear autos in smaller cars with quicker shifting will keep mpg and performance up. die hards still like the sticks, and that's fine, but unless the engine's torque curve is tuned so an average shifter can bolt from a dead stop up to traffic speed in order to avoid oncoming traffic, there is no reason really to have a stick other than just to say you enjoy it. my new cobalt is a stick, its ok, it would be a lot more fun if it had a decent clutch, and a decent shifter. i would not call it bad, but it certainly is not good. to get the most out of driving a stick, the engine needs to be a willing partner, because the days of buying a stick for the mpg reason are over. my taurus x and 500 both had 6 speed autos. the 500 absolutely needed it, the taurus x it allows better highway mpg. i got done testing the subaru legacy again today with CVT. i used to want that car with a stick, but after a couple test drives each way, the cvt is a far better choice for 90% of my driving. That doesn't mean I still wouldn't consider the stick for the 10% fun part, its just that the engine kicks down better with the cvt than i can get it to with the stick and it can run at a lot less rpm at highway than with the stick. i think CVT's in ten years will probably have a market penetration of 50%...when you consider all the research invenstment that has been put into step gear trannies and the comparatively little in CVT's i think CVT responsiveness will advance rapidly and be the perfect mate for a lot of non turbo 4 cylinders on smaller cars because they will allow really wide ratios. Once a tranny gets past 6 or 8 speeds you should consider variable ratio trannies for pedestrian vehicles. Japan and Nissan in particular really seems to have a leg up on the CVT. The Nissan Altimas CVT is good now and the Subaru one is decent also. Too bad the subies is mated to a boxer engine. Even the Jeep Patriot i test drove today, the CVT was better than i expected.

transmissions are nothing to mess with. from the point mine starting feeling like something was amiss til the time i decided to cut bait because i figured it would go out on me soon was a period of about 9-10 months. well, closer to a year. I wasn't going to be the one stuck with the 3,000 dollar bill. i drove my tek 115,000 without paying for a repair of any kind. its one thing to consider if the vehicle is paid for. but if you are shopping used cars, and it looks like too good of a deal, there is usually an asterisk after the price. a great deal plus money you didn't intend to spend to fix it all of a sudden can equal 'crap we spent too much for what we got'. If you buy the car with cash, now you've sunk a ton of money into a car that is now not near worth what you gave up in money. If you took out a loan, now you are pretty much permanently upside down and are stuck with the car. All I know is I have heard if from multiple parties (friends who owned chryslers, a relative to buys and sells used cars for a living and has done so for like 20 years) just have all said on a lot of the chryslers you have to do your due diligence on the transmission. lots of em went out at 60k miles and under is what i heard. By the way tell the sellers its not tranny 'oil', its tranny 'fluid'.

the powertrains look good, except the curb weights are quite porky. where's the all wheel drive? 22/32 mpg for the 'common model' is promising. ATS is distant, they should really bring out 8 speeds for them. If GM does indeed do something like a nice 4.8l 72 degree v8 DOHC i'd much rather see that in the ATS than a pushrod.

farrrrrrr too many "fly over state" votes to lose by doing that. that's no different then appeasing 'the other groups' however. at least the folks in the flyover states make a tangible product people need. instead of other countries doing it and holding us hostage by doing so. iowa for example, first primary state. pretty important to appease them.

exactly

i try to avoid anything with too much sugar these days and i drink all diet pop (not that that is good for you either). i've actually read articles about HFCS and things like cane sugar are really not much different chemically or in terms of how the body processes them. sugar is sugar. so i can see why they want to change the name. to be honest, they should be allowed to if they can prove that it is no more harmful than regular sugar. regarding the throwback pop, i haven't tried any but my father in law actually says he doesn't like the throwback mountain dew compared to the HFCS stuff. i put creamed honey and regular honey on my peanut butter sandwiches now when i use the trader joe's unsweetened / unsalted peanut butter. MMMMMMM. honey and PB go together like whamma lamma lamma ding dong. there isn't much point in avoiding sugar for you unless you are also going to make efforts to reduce your starch intake. IMO. avoiding salt is more important or as important is not overconsuming sugar. I need to follow my own advice more lately!

Nissan has a 7 speed also in the Infinitis.

if the engine hasn't made anough go juice before 7000 rpm then there are other issues. ultimate question. is a 4.8 litre 60 degree v8 or a 3.6 or 3.0 twin turbo a better uplevel option for cadillacs. fuel efficiency, packaging, power. at least if the v8 can be force fed then it perhaps can become a top level engine and the extra money spent by consumers on the force fed version can help amortize the base v8. i think chrysler having an 8 speed means GM will have to at least develop one.....

could they force induction the v8? any breathing difficulties with a 60 degree v8 beyond the same issues on a 60 degree v6? i.e. the intake design not having much room to work with.

i would be fine with a new family of motors, a 2.0 and 2.5 four. and a 4.0 v8 and maybe a 5.0 v8 if they can make them 60 degree to fit in transverse applications (i.e. lambda).

yeah, that sort of fact has been brought up, its the sort of thing GM thinks customers are oblivious to. imagine how the elantra will price up vs. the cruze.

My SHO v8 (3.4 litres) apparently was safe for production at up to about 325hp I guess. and it had a high redline (like over 7,000 rpm I think) and was smooth from idle to redline and loved revs. it was unlike any other v8 i had driven. unfortunately it was detuned to mate to the available crappy transmission so it limited the hp and torque greatly and the transmission was extremely unresponsive and slow overall. but the engine configuration and characteristics themselves I thought were fantastic and they crammed it under the hood of a typical fwd car. the packaging alone was worth beholding. that would make a great mid engine sports car motor configuration.

what really jacks up the price of this car....the nav system and required pioneer audio. that's about 2500 bucks to basically add nav. an LTZ w/o sunroof or nav is still under 23k. IMO, if they could add the sunroof but not the nav, and keep the car right at say, 22,995...then that probably would not constitute sticker shock. it's the NAV equipped units that will cause the heart palpitations. Perhaps those when they don't sell will get the big rebates end of year. 23k list with invoice pricing, and some rebate would be around 20 and change or about 21, and that wouldn't be all that abusive even despite the tiny motor. it probably would be a bargoon against the loaded Jettas in the units that don't have the NAV. Those TDI VW's don't get as great an mpg as people think. Truth is if the Cruze you buy gets a combined 31, for example, lots of folks who only do city driving in their slow as molasses/my DSG won't shift TDI's only get 32,33. And those TDI's are not cheap. The 5 cylinder's mpg is horse's arse and even then the engine is a groaner. There in that case is no real worthwhile advantage to owning a VW, unless you like 70 dollar oil changes. Speaking of, what is the oil spec on that 1.4 turbo.

one of my then coworkers had her son on 9/11/01.

if someone wants to use mine for that, i'll offer it as a donor....

my dad'd electra diesel popped the headbolts.

all of what you say is true but the cruze really should have one more powertrain offering in the 170-180hp range, and the other part of this is that it looks like the malibu will regress in styling. the malibu will get larger on a shorter wheelbase? ugh. impala is left pissing in the wind, why not just sell them exclusively at costco. I just think the Cruze has so many positive attributes that it seriously limits its appeal as a step down car without something beyond the 1.4 as an option, because the rest of the car seems to have turned out nicely. there are still people who venture outside the urban envinronment with their cars, who take more than one person on a trip and would like a car with great passing reserves and the ability to travel well at 75mph etc. yet still have a nice blend of economy and low cost of ownership. leaving out a more powerful option leaves those people out of the market. at least VW fixed one of the Jettas fatal flaws, they added real human leg room to the back. kudos. it might be a difference maker for them in the market, despite the cheap interior. still the Jetta has to be cheaper than the Altimas and Sonatas of the world if they plan to sell big.

yes. the only turbo manual will be the eco which is not on the configurator yet. maybe the eco is vaporware until they pay off the feds enough to fake the 40mpg highway rating. probably more like the new civic came down from the planets of saturn and uranus cause i am sure it will look an anus of some kind...... you know, i actually like the CRZ in person though, even with the 5 foot front overhang and huge overbite. Jessica Simpson just keeps getting fatter.

my SHO v8 had a 60 degree block. it had a balancer (ran smooth as glass BTW). would the 60 degree block require a balancer on a v8?

mazda3 has three engines. the 2.0, 2.5 and turbo.

ah,but the competition moves on. they (GM) have to eat the lunch they pack. just sayin, the cruze is not a 'new' car. its been out over two years, but people want to sugar coat that. for some to suggest it should get the 'its a new product, it gets the exemption' on having a more developed product line is a sorta hogwash. especially with all that cheap korean engineering and manufacturing labor at their disposal. all the same folks who lambasted ford for not having the euro focus here and yet 2 years late the cruze gets a pass.

the spy photos show an awful two tier dash that is worse than the current one.

but there was a Jetta Wolfsburg the last couple years, turbo, DSG, leatherette, sunroof. about 22 and change. and i don't think the cruze outperforms it. i test drove that jetta but hated the DSG so it was off the list. that said, VW prob won't put out a wolfsburg of the new one for a bit. but it does go to show that cars like that and the mazdaspeed3 can combine lot of virtues for a good value. the cruzes i configured that seemed to represent the most value, an LS with connectivity for about 17,500 (which is actually less msrp than the cobalt i just got) the LT1 with alum wheels and some things for around 20,700, and the LT2 with sunroof for like 22,700. i expect most cruzes in the showroom to be in that price range. i can't fathom how they will hook someone on a loaded LTZ at near 27 grand, until the end of the model year and tack about 4 grand in rebates on it. I really would be fine with the LS except with the turbo in lieu of the n/a 1.8. actually when i was wanting the astra, the 1.8 was a nice powertrain with the opel manual aside from an overall lack of pep. its nvh was decent. The cruze in LS trim should only weigh a tish more and have the extra gears to bring the 75mph rpm down. but still i am guessing the 1.8 n/a/ is still fairly dog slow considering the turbo is only adequate. at least the 1.8 with the sixth gear now should run a lot less rpm on the freeway. the LS is actually the cruze i want to test first because it is the best value. the eco might be fine except for the low rolling resistance tires, those would be crap in snow.

Considering that the cruze has already been on sale globally for 2-3 years I think it makes the cruzes incomplete powertrain and body style offerings even more inexcusable.

"front drive 3 cylinder BMW" "A1" "A CLass"