regfootball

promises that are really just vaporware, but be sure to get the customers money and tell them 'it's on the way'

What/where is that word from?? it was bounced out there on 'another site' Avista may become an EV. Avista styling plus EV

good deal, GM will be at the forefront of that, and will buy all the Tesla scraps. Word is GM has a tesla S beater in the works for many thousands less......and possibly the Avista styling.

fuelly had a couple reports on the new Malibu 2.0 premier. low 20's. The previous malibu 2.0 and current fusion 2.0 are in that range as is the Regal 2.0. I think this is why you're seeing the displacements for those turbos ever shrinking. The EPA and fuelly etc. numbers show the mpg's improve when say you go to a 1.5t instead of the 2.0. BUT then you lose the power.......... everything goes in cycles. govt got ballsy forcing insane mpg standards. so most of the lineups need smaller motors. Those who opt for the bigger motors pay much more $$$ and don't get the mpg benefits. in the end your real mpg still comes down to weight, aerodynamics, gearing. Look at the new Cruze vs the old one. If you see them on the lot side by side, you see how much narrower and sleek the front of the car is. Its quite a bit lighter and has improved engine and tranny. It gets an amazing combined mpg increase from 30 to 35 for what is essentially the same transport pod. Look at the Regal's fuelly numbers, any engine. All pretty bad. I think the Verano was brought in to pump up CAFE. Now they may dump verano. I think the new Regal next year will probably have the 1.5t as a base motor as well. Regal's mpg should go way up and be a much larger car (malibu clone). The 2.0 won't improve much tho. Malibu 2.0 gets the new 9 speed auto for 2017 now I guess, BTW

Musk and his tap dancing. Rudderless boat

this likely means Mitsubishi can be the brand for the 'lesser markets' and emerging markets, and to be honest is probably a lifeline for them. And, they can have a better chance of remaining relevant and keeping up on tech. I think a cpl years back everyone predicted that there would be some consolidation in the Japanese companies and this is a step to that. Toyota may ultimately end up with all of Subaru and Mazda. Honda may be left pissing in the wind. Nissan will absorb Mits. Suzuki will probably get sucked up by Tata or something.

^^^^^^ what he said, assuming Dodge still has RWD. Chrysler would want to sell as many of the next 300's with AWD anyways, just to keep the pricing justified. Plus, then it amortizes the AWD system development to enable it to be put into the Pacifica, which will give that a competitive advantage (although likely forcing the AWD Pacifica to lose stow n go). Chrysler sold a lot of Concorde / LHS / 300's in the day No one is buying a 300 anymore to circle the Nurburgriung. I would $h! my pants if i new someone was auto crossing with their 300. A charger, maybe. The luxo buyer here is going to but this for cush and pony up for AWD

wish i had more time to add some thoughts but their argument may be spun to make sense, but the reality is Verano kept Buick in the game for a few years and brought new buyers to the brand. Just because they didn't update it is not necessarily a reason to axe it. The new Astra is a great base for the Verano. Not everyone who wants entry to Buick (i.e. the cheap lease vehicle / small vehicle) wants the crossover. For this to work, there has to be a better base trim new Regal that is cheaper and has better gas mileage. Something you want to drive because the new Malibu is not nice enough. Notice for this model year Buick finally got a clue and brought the base price of the Regal down because honestly the price is part of the problem with the current Regal. When the new one comes out they may be able to get some higher prices again because the car will be roomier, but they have to make a version of it that is price accessible if they do get rid of the Verano. Buick cannot push their whole price structure up too much...it would be just like Cadillac's problem. Buyer revolt.

just curious what any lessees have for mileage overage. I can't remember if mine is .25 or .20. But a real basic way to justify the cost.....just figure your anticipated miles times your extra. 800 miles at .25 is 200 bucks you'd have to shell out when turning in the lease......

I rented a couple times last fall one for a 700 mi round trip but that was so i would not be inflicted with having to use my cobalt. Then I got the weekend deal on the rental car for the typical compact or intermediate. A great way to sample a car you may have interest in, but you rent cars for work also. I looked at it as cheap miles as far as what i paid for it, and i took the insurance too. Had i taken our leased vehicle it would have cost more. I'm an advocate of renting the car if the price is not bad and you are putting off maintenance or wear or mileage on your own vehicle.

i dare cadillac to actually get their sales up

ah, there you are......tell us more

saw that, wonder if that's an indicator of the whole thing blowing apart at the seams

moment of truth is coming nigh for Tesla. If they were smart, they would either fix the Model X's complexity (ditch the doors) or add a model 3 crossover. You can't build cars with subpar quality for too long before it comes back to hurt you. if they go belly up, i would not want a furrin company to swoop in and buy the scraps at pennies on the dollar. If anything, some Chinese company would buy it up and turn it into just a design center, and fund them so they could make the cars in China. A better scenario is Ford or GM buys them, strips the meat off the bone, and throws away the scraps.

current Equinox is super popular due to passenger space and that sliding rear seat. Four large adults can ride in it all day long. It's cargo area is not as good though. Some of the room is due to to a larger wheelbase. It looks like the new one in the spy photos has a shorter wb, but also a lot less hood. It's proportioning is on the way to minivan (kind of like the newest Escape). The current CRv for as much of a terrible device as it is, has pretty good packaging and room and space. I would expect that Chevy has improved how much of the space it is using, even if overall space goes down some. The new Acadia which is a major gaffe to bring that nameplate down in size, actually is probably what the Terrain should have morphed into. Enlarge the Terrain or call it Envoy instead of undermining everything about the Acadia brand. Chevy won't bear that sin here, there should be a new model to slot between this new Equinox (which then won't have to squeeze in a useless third row) and the Traverse, which they ought to keep the same size as it is now or we really know there are complete idiots running GM. As per classic GM though, they will probably still try to jack up the price on the model change, while at the same time reducing room and downsizing the motors. If they weren't under the tyranny of agencies and governments, they could just make their vehicles the size customers want, with the engines they want. The 1.5 in the new Malibu is actually a bit of a dog and i think it will struggle with a few hundred more pounds. I've driven the Escape 1.6 and the new 1.5 has about the same specs, and it's not a complete dog. Why GM's 1.5 is deficient to the Ford, I'm not sure. There are a lot of GM vehicles that would benefit from a 1.75 liter displacement (that matches my whiskey bottles)......a nice happy medium between the 2.0 and the 1.5 for power and mileage. The 2.5 is a boat anchor, i really hope it doesn't surface here. I get mixed reads in my research for the current Equinox and Terrain. I have rellies and friends who have them and like them. I read online that their gas mileage is not near as advertised. I have another friend who got a 15 equinox for a company vehicle and he hates it (and he apparently already had a cracked intake manifold). I didn't really like the way they drove myself but realize this is not a sports sedan. If the new Equinox is as quiet inside and pleasurable for its class as a new Cruze, then I think their strong sales will continue. If there is one area they need to keep their advantage over the Escape, it's rear seat space. The Escape's rear seat is too tight and chintzy looking. Sedan sales keep going down, so many people i see in newest Escapes, Rav's, Equinoxes, Rogues etc. I hope the Equinox is somewhat stylish, it will need whatever help it can get to compete vs. import names.

Cadillac is making 10best sedans and they aren't selling because they screwed up the pricing and trims. I don't see how Buick can afford to have the same mistakes when the design is blah / dated and the engines are not worth it either.

i dug into their trims for 2107 a bit more on Buick.com. The 2016 version was a rush job, as they just appeared to want to get something of a 2016 trim to market and that is why it is so expensive. Only the loaded ones are for 2016. This allows them to justify higher prices at the start. They work in lesser trims in 2017 and the boat anchor 2.5. I'm surprised its not something like a 1.8t as standard. In any case, the base price of 35 or so its an ok place to start maybe and it does have power seat, dual climate, and remote start and other options an equivalent base chevy would not get. So that helps eliminate crossover (no pun intended). A front driver base at 35 and with some discounts is essentially a 32-33 thousand dollar ride. Its above the Encore and has less content than say, a loaded Malibu Premiere. I am sort of getting sick of the way Cadillac and buick are introducing these stupid trim level names (Lincoln does it too). We don't want to give our cars real names any more but now we make up stupid trim names. Select, Essence, etc. Give me a break. There is a too much of a price spread IMO to go from the boat anchor engine to the 2.0. The market should sort out of it all the goodies and the better powertrain will guide buyers into the upper trims. I don't think the market will support too many of these crossing the 40-42k price mark when so many other good choices are available.

Subaru's have one of the best crash safety records around and have for years. They are a Japanese Volvo in that regard. There really is no extra cost in running snow tires, just an early cost. You extend the life of your summer tires by 10s of thousands of miles of vehicle travel (If you drive 14,000 miles a year, in theory, you only put 7,000 miles on your summer tires)... that means a 40,000 mile set of summer tires will last 5 years instead of 2.5 years. you can explain that rationale to anyone of your friends and neighbors till you are blue in the face and what it really comes down to is people don't want to change their underwear more than once a day. They want to 'fix the problem once', which is, the tread wears out on your tires, and you replace them, you're done till they wear out again. Snow tires means, every fall, and every spring, you have two more tasks to do. In addition to that, you have to find storage for your out of season tires. The convenience aspect of all season tires far outshines the 'work' involved in doing the snow tire thing. American human nature being what it is, you might be lucky if 5% of the driving populace in snow states will ever use dedicated snows, despite the obvious benefit they provide. All wheel drive then, is the next step to band aid the all season tires. AWD comes on the vehicle and requires nothing from the user to use. Snow tires means changing them out twice a year. So Subaru then, no one gives a hair about Subaru and safety. They only add that on to their AWD rep. AWD is why Subaru sells cars, plain and simple. In the consumer's mind, there is no other reason at the forefront to direct you to a Subaru. What Subaru has done that has made their sales go through the roof is now finally there is no cost penalty or fuel mileage penalty for their giving you all wheel drive. That's why Subaru is booming, they give you extra for free, and does not require you to do anything. Many people never even look under their hood or check their oil or change it. Asking them or trying to get them to swap tires twice a year on their car will get met with an ef you. I've been looking at lawn mowers lately. The big rage is an engine you can never change the oil. 'just add and go'. Presumably once the oil finally wears out, you'll get another mower. But you don't have to change the oil! I am sure marketing told them many customers would like that.

AWD makes it easier to gain grip taking off in snow etc. also like Drew said, some really do need it. It does provide more sure footedness in bad weather on travel outside of cities when the roads are crappy and haven't been cleared. Yes overall it improves traction. Snow tires do also however people don't like the hassle that comes with swapping out tires like that. Not to mention the cost. There is no sense berating the customer for what they think they need. You're better off pandering to those people willing to open their pocket books. An AWD car with snows will be better than a fwd car or rwd car with snows. An AWD car with all seasons will be better than a fwd car or rwd car with all seasons. Subaru being a great example. If Subaru was not AWD why would anyone buy one?

The people who don't have Jag dealers near them... Not the mention the people who don't want Jaguar maintenance after the warranty runs out. That was number 2 on the reasons I wouldn't want a Jag but if I was buying brand new I wouldn't be overly concerned about that part. That's more what I, personally, would worry about as I'm more of a 2nd hand car purchaser where I probably won't have much, if any, warranty remaining. right now i think you get a 6 yr warranty on Jags. I'll check that. I'd choose a Jag before a Chinese vehicle at 45-50k. I'd have a lot more trust in that. 45k for 340 +/- hp supercharged v6, big ass moonroof, etc. sure it may not be real leather at that price? but often GM's leather feels more like vinyl anyways. This is a serious machine, not a next gen downsized Equinox http://rules.config.jaguar.com/jdx/en_us_seatoff/f-pace_k17/3c3m9/a-30p-340aawd_a-crossover_jt0/b51d_jt1b-1_ner_z88d/jaguar.pdf

i think some would, however, GM is putting all the marbles in the pot with the Malibu hybrid. Makes sense......a larger car can see more mpg gains and bury the high cost easier. I think that GM will bring the diesel Cruze for 2017....the current one has some teething pains but this new one will be 4 years old (the powertrain) by the time it gets here. The car itself will be 10-15% lighter and the engine itself will be more efficient. I would predict a combined era of over 40mpg easily. Gas prices may be on the way back up (they may reopen wells in ND plus the cheap pre election gas will go away after the election). i will predict 35/56/43 mpg for the Cruze diesel...... this should find a niche of at least 15-20k diesel drivers a year, if they offer it in LT trim

the combined mpg on the new gas Cruze is 35 mpg. The combined mpg on the outgoing diesel is like 33. There is huge mpg improvements over the last gen. I will not be surprised to see a combined 40+ out of the 17 Cruze diesel. If it gets here........and the global diesel witch hunt doesn't take it out.

After pricing out a new Jaguar F Pace on line for like 45k, I scratch my head to figure who is gonna pony up for this, especially with its already past due styling, and Chinese build.

i like that they still put in the effort for this. I like the interior.

Prince's Paisley Park and home was in the same town where i lived for a few years. We had a townhouse, was about maybe like 5 miles from his studio. One night i was dropping off a rented video ten before midnight close on a snowyish night, and found myself in the store being the only other customer besides Prince and whoever his GF and a couple of his security men. I was interesting to really see how small in physical size he was, but he definitely had a presence. He looked at some vids while his GF chatted up the store folks about something. The security folks car was a mustang. Just sort of a brush with greatness i guess.