regfootball

that cobalt steering wheel is not that bad. it feels fine, just looks cheap. that and the seats are a legit concern, but it won't stop anyone from buying the car.

as far as cutting brands, GM is waiting to see if the merger goes through. then, you will see brands cut.

DODGE JEEP CHRYSLER

jeep will be sold. I feel Chrysler gets laid to rest. same thing with dodge. what GM is waiting on is to see if they are able to kill those brands, not their own (Pontiac, Buick).

Saturn is untouchable as it is and where they are taking it, Chevy and Caddy also. Saab is too unimportant to be involved in this.

So IMO Pontiac and Buick's future waits while we find out what happens to Dodge and Chrysler. It will be cheaper to kill those brands than Buick and Pontiac.

GMC will just get folded into 'Chevy Commercial' over time.

Chevy = Chevrolet world products (GMDAT, GMNA)

Saturn = GME

Caddy = Caddy

Buick and Pontiac = ?

Chrysler = nostalgia t-shirts sold at Steve and Barry's

Dodge = logos on NASCAR jackets

I don't have to drive one to say that 3800 lbs for a tall car is too heavy. The worse thing is how close to that the Aura is, it's a pig too. The Vue may be a great vehicle and a better option than most/all other CUVs out there, but I still find it's weight too high. GM needs to find ways to keep their vehicles just as solid while going on a diet. That's easy mpgs.

by the way, have you driven an Aura? the 4 cylinder has nuts and gets better mpg than many of its lighter competition.

Has to be Auto, unfortunately...I'm going to pick up a beater at some point so she can learn--but with 2 kids in the car--I think it can wait a bit.

I'm pushing the 4cylAWD Escape--I haven't sat online and built one yet....we have multiple F/L/M franchises, so I'm sure I can get the best deal on one of these---The Forrester is her idea (although it could morph into a Impreza OB Sport--just got off the phone her--she saw one today).

To be honest, I've been pushing for a used 06 530Xi Wagon (we pick them up regularly at auction for $24-28k and I've can get BMW to certify it for a grand or so)--my wife thinks only jerks buy BMW's, so the small CUV appears to be where she wants to be--I guess I can't complain, she could insist on a new BMW, right?

We'll see...

the used 5 would be nice. i did drive an outback sport also. in my mind its a better more of a piece vehicle than the forester, but the forester has much better utility. the boxer engines are growly to me.

as good as the escape is now finally for 09, the purchase price of the 6 cylinder is so low, if you want the automatic you should really just test drive both and see what you prefer.

it sucks that gas prices fluctuate so much now. right now with 2 dollar gas, the real world dollar advantage of 2-3 additional mpg probably doesn't justify itself, four vs. six. and the flip side to that is, is a small 6 cylinder CUV much more efficient than say, a Suburban?

Show her the Flex and Taurus X if she still likes the Forester.

Truthfully though, if she is really satisfied with the Subarus then its easy to understand why she'd want to be a repeat customer. Their products just lack heft and security and solidity to me.

Ultimately i guess my point in this thread is I was greatly surprised how vastly improved the Vue is and how much I enjoyed it as a vehicle. You can seriously enjoy it as a canyon carver and day to day driver, and it does not feel cheap or thin. It feels substantial, and serious and has a nice interior. The impression it left me was that it is an upscale premium entry in this segment, and well worth the extra weight it may be carrying around. I found the engines to be quite sprite (the 6 really has some serious kick to it) and at least as far as tactile quality in interiors and driver interface I do not feel it has an equal peer in this segment. The difference between the old Vue and this one is shocking. and so i feel to use the Vue as the purveyor of hybrids for GM has complete merit as well.

Its one of those vehicles that if people actually got into and took for a spin, they would form an opinion for themselves that is quite different than some of the generalizations being made on the internet.

My reservations on the Vue in its first year are some apparent quality issues, and styling. GM had better clean those up.

I don't have to drive one to say that 3800 lbs for a tall car is too heavy. The worse thing is how close to that the Aura is, it's a pig too. The Vue may be a great vehicle and a better option than most/all other CUVs out there, but I still find it's weight too high. GM needs to find ways to keep their vehicles just as solid while going on a diet. That's easy mpgs.

the weight helps it drive better. and is not as big an mpg penalty as you think.

sort of like the same way a Jetta weighs more than its competition. but if you won't open up the mind enough to drive one to see how it drives.......

36 months of silence....LOL

seriously though, Mariner Voga.

Myself, I just don't see ponying up extra for the hybrid, but I realize its a hot feature.

I saw a Vue Hybrid over lunch.

I would say the CRV is a more well finished machine than the Forester. I have not driven the CRV however. If i really were forced to buy a Honda cute ute, it would be the Element. I actually like that vehicle, even though it suffers from cheap plastics and bad mpg. To me the function of that vehicle over the CRV is well worth it.

The RAV4 rental i had one time was one of the worst cars I have driven. The Kia Sportage I had one time was not all that bad, and is significantly cheaper, but its 'just a Kia'.

The 09 escape engines are way smoother and the ride and handling are very good. An the whole, the Escape feels like a good midsize car, just taller and slower steering.

I should mention that my forester test drive was a manual. Aside from the cheapness and tippyness, the shifter felt awful. Very rubbery and transmits all sort of vibration and such to the hand. The boxer motor is a bit of a growler.

The Escape manual's shifter was good, had a nice feel to the hand but was very notchy. I expected it to break in. It had a great hydraulic clutch. Power was decent to very good, i think with another 20-30hp that Escape manual would be a superstar. The new 2.5 engine is quite smooth. Its very quiet. I dropped any notion of getting a Focus or Cobalt after I drove the Escape manual. The escape manual, you CANNOT GET SYNC!!!!!!!

The Vue 4 cylinder is a little loud but not coarse. The one I drove had tapshift for the 4 speed. You had to thumb down to 3 on inclines because its geared to keep the 4 cylinder in the powerband, this is a legitimate concern for going 70+ mph but in in town driving its what makes it sprite. I would like to see a Vue BAS2 with 6 speed automatic.

From a cargo standpoint, the Outlander has the best packaging to me. I like the interior on that one also, with leather.

the thread said smorgasbord and I got hungry. I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE ABOUT FOOD!

CTS coupe is indeed pushing the limits of this.

Who cares though because I am all for the CTS wagon!

CTS coupe is indeed pushing the limits of this.

Who cars though because I am all for the CTS wagon!

I didn't intend my mini-rant at you.

I've been trying to steer my wife to a domestic product---we're planning on leasing--and it's been a frustrating experience--the fact that Saturn doesn't make one of its 2 VUE hybrids as AWD just confounds me.

We have 1 domestic choice in Ford's Escape/mariner--and those are impossible to find and sell at a premium partially because of the choice (FWD/AWD) available.

forget the hybrid. get an escape XLT, save the 10-12 grand, enjoy the ROCK SOLID RIDE AND THE SYNC SYSTEM

better yet, go show her a Mariner Voga edition and she will be sold on the spot. then tell me if you can even stomach that subaru.

Don't get me wrong, I think the current Vue is a pig too.

DRIVE ONE AND THEN TELL ME IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT

the 4 cyl vue is 3800 pounds.

First--It's simply common sense that an 'SUV' looking machine offer AWD---I won't debate the merits of AWD, just that it has become an 'expected' part of the CUV experience---the Escape, Highlander, RX400h all have AWD available...why didn't GM plan to have an AWD, too?

Second--the reason the VUE has no AWD 4cyl is because its a Pig---500lbs more than it should be---your circular reasoning brings us right back to the fact that GM was either:a)too cheap,B) too stupid or C)too arrogant--to realize that the WORLD product (Captiva, Antara, Daewoo Whatever, et al) needed to be BETTER than the competition--that's why an AWD VUE isn't available--there's a RAV4, CRV, Rogue and a slew of others that simply HAVE a 4cyl, AWD option

Your question should be why isn't the VUE designed correctly to have an efficient 4 cyl version--not making more lame excuses as to why GM didn't manage to do it--they've got plenty of management in Detroit doing just that now.

also, don't believe the hype on this. the 4 cylinder Vue has some nuts under the hood. when i test drove it, i had to go look at the sticker again because i was in disbelief at how much gusto it had. I don't hear the same things about the CRAWLING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE

I'm merely stating that a customer that would consider it, now won't. GM had an opportunity with a Subie fan and lost it. Got a feeling there are lots of them out there.

What is the point of a CUV if no AWD is available?

i tend to agree with that, but let me say this. i've driven the 09 forester, it's a piece of sh1t. The Vue is a far better drive. all the hype about the forester is that, hype. Its tinny and cheap and doesn't even have a v6 option. its tippy on the turns. its not only me either, go read user reviews on edmunds etc. that forester isn't even gonna get you real great mpg either.

open your mind and go try a vue and forester yourself and get back to me. if that doesn't work then go drive an edge and escape. the 09 escape i have driven twice, the 4 cylinder and six are both smooth and powerful and they ride so much better than the forester its not even funny.

if you want a vehicle that will last, get the ford.

glad to hear he is breathing better now. here a wish for a good recovery.

threaten to put his but in a kids harness and car seat if he still decides to not wear a seat belt.....

The important question is, how many other people are going to be interested in a hybrid Vue with AWD? I agree with others about having doubts about how well the 2wd 2mode 6cyl will sell. Most of the people buying hybrids want nothing but the best fuel economy. 6cyl already hurts that. AWD would hurt it more. You've said your wife would buy it, that's not nothing, but the question is how many others would? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it may be presumptuous to say that because it's what your wife wants, that it would be a wise move by GM. I do think it is something they should be looking into, because it could be applicable to the lambdas as well, and if it'll sell, they should look into it. Who knows - maybe it's in the works. Of course, knowing how well GM keeps it's development programs secret, I think we would have heard something if it was, so it's probably not.

AWD does hurt mpg. if i bought a vue hybrid 4 or 6 i think i would lean FWD. a lambda hybrid should indeed come with AWD since its bigger and people expect AWD on bigger SUV's. cute utes don't have as much of a take rate for AWD.

AWD or FWD as a decision really is tied to gas prices. Literally 2 months ago when we bought the taurus x, gas was close to 4 bucks i think. I recall thinking giving up the AWD for a few more MPG would be nice. Now, with winter coming on and gas at 2.30 a gallon, i have no issues paying for more gallons to have better winter traction.

If you're telling me a VUE needed 2 hydrid versions while other product with the same engine AND higher price points could have been used....then I cannot accept your explanation.

2 CUV's that don't have a AWD option---that makes the decision even more indefensible, IMO (Full disclosure: my wife wants to lease a Hybrid w/AWD---she likes the VUE---she won't buy w/o AWD, period---the VUE is such a pig, there's no 4 cyl AWD, either).

I'm not crabby, just real. I've been 100% spot on---unfortunately. If GM seeks to lead, a 6 cylinder hybrid VUE w/o AWD is simply dumb.

A CTS hybrid? yes. A Lambda - available yesterday? yes. How about a Saab? Hell yes.

Another VUE with no AWD, no USP vs. Escape & a limited audience at Saturn dealerships? DUMB. And an excellent example of why GM is in the toilet--it's hybrid strategy is nowhere--

You can put a candle on a pile of sh!t, but please don't try to tell me its a birthday cake.

I thought that the fear of GM's ultimate demise now being a real, actual reality (not just something I was repeatedly accused of 'making up'), you guys might think about some critical, creative, constructive criticism. I guess I'm a little too optimistic!

criticism of no AWD is legitimate. on the 6. i dont think 4 cylinder CUV's really benefit much this size from AWD.

CTS hybrid? i dont think that's needed. show me where the Lexus of the world have received net positive benefit from having hybrids. The LS took a beating in the press for having poor mpg and performance with all sorts of weight penalty. saab, not even sure about that. saab has other product issues that require work prior to expanding them into hybrids. Lambdas? again, the dual mode was developed so one day it goes into the Lambdas. The Tahoe hybrid came first, the Vue got the 3.6 dual mode so a Lambda hybrid would not clash in the showroom with the similarly priced Tahoe.

The Vue might be heavy, but drive one and you get it. It feels rock solid on the road. It doesn't feel flimsy as does the forester and rav4. No one with a 4 cylinder CUV is getting much benefit, as real world mpg with AWD and 4 seldom eclispses 23-25 mpg.

2004 86,957

2005 91,972

2006 88,581

2007 84,767

sales sumbers for each model year of the vue. in today's segmented market, that's not bad. its perfectly right to bring out the hybrid technologies in saturns signature model.

You lambast GM for not putting the hybrid in the large lambda but you're probably also contradicting yourself by now saying that the full size trucks shouldn't have gotten hybrids. those who say 'its pointless to put them in an expensive full size truck' still applies because the lambdas are pretty much close to the tahoe in size and weight. Hmmm, maybe GM thought that here........it's ok for the critics to suggest it, but maybe GM was just saying, for now one large hybrid is enough.

In order to amortize the cost of the hybrids that the japanese government didn't pay for, they needed to put it in higher priced models, that's why they don't have a prius.

The latest Vue's failure in the market is threefold, one, all GM's MSRP's are too high, two the styling has been rejected, three is complete lack of any marketing for the saturn brand, and i'll throw in four....mass hysteria about the Vue's weight. If the Vue had come out when gas was 2.25, no one would have bitched about the curb weight. I'd challenge anyone with 28 thousand bucks to go shop a CRv and a Vue XR and i bet if they test drove them both 90% of the people would recognize the Vue is the superior machine in terms of driving dynamics.

although, ask anyone who owned a previous gen jetta, if it had electrical problems, or if it could even maintain combustion

Well, thus far, my Jetta hasn't broken down on me and I'm more faggish than metro... You might be stretching a bit, Reg.

faggish? how bout just dashing. i thoughts fags were smokes.

well there you go. build vehicles that break down, but that the metrosexuals like, and you are IN.

An interesting point you bring up. It could perhaps be generalized a bit further to say that we need the capability of manufacturing machinery in this country. If we do go to war (okay already are) we need to be able to build our own stuff. I'm not saying that our tanks, etc are made in Japan (or wherever) now but with a dwindling manufacturing base, how long before that becomes a possibility? Perhaps it really is an issue of national security?

I remember seeing old posters from WW2. Cadillac powered tanks. Now that's impressive!

any nation that wants to remain strong against any adversary must be able to make their own war tools and also be able to provide people's basic needs within their own boundaries as well.

Don't think for one second that there isn't some other country out there waiting for us to incapacitate ourselves in this way. Same thing goes for technology and medical. We need to have the ability to provide food and supplies, mobility, technology and communication, and medical, all ourselves, in case the sht comes down. And other countries are strategically trying over time to erode our ability to do this. Part of the way they do this is to weaken our economic capacity to do this ourselves.

did it ever occur to anyone that part of the reason we buy oil overseas is so we don't use our own, so we have it in case we need it?

Truthfully, capitalism, has not existed, is not existing and will not exist in its purest form in the world period. The real trick is how much you balance the socialism and capitalism to create the so called free economy. Asians learnt it early and have been doing it for a long time, Americans are learning it the hard way.

It is a necessity in pure capitalism to let those who do not succeed to fall and honestly according to hardcore Adam Smith theory GM and Chrysler should go down, but there is a difference between theory and practice. The practice is that the competition is not following pure capitalism, the practice is that other parts of this automotive ecosystem - which are 10 times more than the auto manufacturers - are going to be endangared with GM failure, the practice is that lawmakers know they have FUBARed the situation and need to cover their hinds, the practice is that failures are going to trigger the collapse of this nation and the entire world. Therefore like it or not bailouts will come for the Big Three.

its not like we would be bailing out incompetents. On some aspects, yes. But look at how successful GM and Ford's products are elsewhere and how much of their sales occur globally. I would maintain even from a global trade balance scenario alone doing a bailout justifies this action.

We have 2 major players in the world auto market, in terms of US presence in the global arena in a broad sense, and not just cars....we need to do this.

You could even argue that its our own internals laws and policies that keep these companies from being successful here when they can be so successful abroad. That alone suggests our system here may be the problem. Doing a bailout may just be righting the ship here, so to speak.

PCS can remind us how much of GM's total business is done outside the US. If we endorse GM going down, then you as a country are saying, 'I do not want a US company to represent us in the global economy'.

Since 10Billion is several times GM's market cap (not sure if Chrysler is added in... but I get the impression that you don't sell Chrysler so much as you pay someone to take them from you), the US government should then own GM/Chrysler. Rename it to USA Socialist Motors (USASM). Resume making average cars that wouldn't exist without the Socialist USA backing it. The US government could use all their finance and insurance firms to sweeten each vehicle purchase. If that doesn't work, change the US laws so that everyone in the US is obliged to own at least two of them. Call it the God-Bless-USA-Is-The-Bestest-Country-In-The-Universe act. If it doesn't pass, roast your opponent in the next election with it, "My opponent voted against God Blessing America and against the USA being the best country in the universe 100% of the time.".

So does true capitalism actually exist anywhere in the world? Is it safe to say that socialism has "won"? Not that I object... the US' aversion to it seemed to me to be the rich fleecing the poor.

BTW, GM ford etc are worth so little partially because of wall street conspiracy to short sell and drive down stock prices, to eliminate the wealth of the middle class, and to extort payoff money from the taxpayer. GM and Ford etc. they see as future profit potential, that once the market turns around, they can make a killing by being able to buy it rock bottom.

If GM's stock were worth 20 bucks a share, their market cap would be much more. Right now their market cap is artifically low vs. what they really bring to the table.

Since 10Billion is several times GM's market cap (not sure if Chrysler is added in... but I get the impression that you don't sell Chrysler so much as you pay someone to take them from you), the US government should then own GM/Chrysler. Rename it to USA Socialist Motors (USASM). Resume making average cars that wouldn't exist without the Socialist USA backing it. The US government could use all their finance and insurance firms to sweeten each vehicle purchase. If that doesn't work, change the US laws so that everyone in the US is obliged to own at least two of them. Call it the God-Bless-USA-Is-The-Bestest-Country-In-The-Universe act. If it doesn't pass, roast your opponent in the next election with it, "My opponent voted against God Blessing America and against the USA being the best country in the universe 100% of the time.".

So does true capitalism actually exist anywhere in the world? Is it safe to say that socialism has "won"? Not that I object... the US' aversion to it seemed to me to be the rich fleecing the poor.

everyone else is already doing it, Japan is the best at it already. Maybe the US needs to do it, just to keep pace.

y'all realize our agriculture is heavily subsidized here......with part of the express purpose of strategy, to ensure we have the basic ability to make our own food and not become dependent on another society to do so. If we went to war, but got all our food from elsewhere, and then had to suffer a complete cut off of food supply, we would be in a weakened position and could be taken over.

Now cars, it can viewed as a luxury, but people, part of what makes us a strong nation is our mobility. Since we all need to be mobile, we need cars. I would maintain its in our national interest to have the capacity to design and manufacture vehicles ourselves. We let GM and Chrysler go down, you might as well call us strategically weakened on that standpoint as well.

That was the plan all along, right?

Destroy our industry, then 'enslave' the consumer for the benefit of the company's OWN society.

See, what most americans FAIL to realize is that NO ONE in the global economy has OUR best interests at heart. The average american seems to somehow think that these companies set up shop here and cannibalize our industry because they are "Proud to do business here" or "Proud to contribute to our 'flourishing' lifestyles" or even worse, so they can "Save the environment" But in reality, these corporations are just that: CORPORATIONS that are BASED in other societies that WANT OUR MONEY. These corporations are the most efficient money making machines to ever exist and they are successfully draining our wealth right in under our noses, ALL THE WHILE turning us against OUR moneymakers and CLOSING THEIR MARKETS so that we have NO chance to get that money back.

It's so simple and so brilliant. It's like feeding a starving kid steak and stabbing him in the back with the steak knife at the same time.

yeah, but so many Americans seem to be fine with. I hope they enjoy flipping burgers and cleaning toilets cause that's all we'll be doing here in the not too distant future. At least 99% of us.

what's NAV?