Intrepidation

I was riding by the local Dodge dealership, which sells primarily trucks, but they had one white Caliber up front, it looks really nice, even in white (white usually makes cars look like rentals, but the Caliber looked pretty good in it)

Hwn I was down in Wichita, KS I saw a tone of Chargers and Magnums, and a good amount of 300's. Up here in Massachusetts I see more 300's than anything else, though I see quite a few Magnums and I'm seeing more and more Chargers. They seem to be selling well. I hardly ever see a new Dakota, only about 15 since they came out... There's a Caliber at my local dealership, I would go look at one...but today my car got into an accident

I've sat in a Dakota once, the gauges are nice, the switchgear is well made and the seats are comfy...but the interior plastics sucked: rock hard, and badly textured, and the grab handles on the A-pillar flexed when i pulled on them..not a good sign for any vehicle, let alone a truck. I asked the dealer why they were so cheap feeling, and he couldn't come up with a response for it

See now that's totally wrong if the Cobalt's plastic, an economy car, is better than a 30k+ SUV...and it's even worse when the cheaper Liberty has nicer plastics...and then it's just kicking the dead horse when the previous gen GC had nicer overall materials. I like the looks of the new GC a lot, but someone needs to fix that interior...there's no excuse for it.

Oh i see them now, but they aren't all that noticeable. Does the Beetle get a new interior with the refresh?

You know which G6 I like best? This one: Can you imagine how ell the G6 would sell if it looked this good? The concept is a sexy beast, the production model is meh...it's ok, but lame compared to the concept. Maybe the next gen will look just like the G6 concept, with the 285 hp supercharged V6. Then Pontiac would have an awesome sedan. The coupe I don't care for, it looks like a Camry Salora from the back and in overall profile. It looks stupid from the front as far as proportions go. Bleh. and why oh why is their wood trim in a Pontiac?!?! It should be metal/metallic...the idiocy at GM never ends.

The Maxx is hideous, though not as bad as the Malibu sedan. Those are the ugliest things on sale in America right now. The revised front end helps a little, but it's still not a pretty car (and the sedan is still ucking fugly).

lol i know but i thought it'd be funny to toss the l33tsp3k in. I think most people won't care, I mean, the original aspen was a car, this thing is a big SUV, plus it's Chrysler branded. Although I see your point, but at the same time I like the name, I don't care about the original Aspen, I'm sure a lot of average people will feel the same.

Well duh, I know the Caliber falls under the C-segemt, but base models are still priced at "economy" it was a joke, like your joke about there being a 300 hp econobox in the first place. I am well aware of the class differences. damn

I could see them taking cheap shots at it for a joke, but since the Durango has been a good vehicle with pretty good reviews, it's hard to imagine them coming up with an excuse that some fancy interior trim and a new nose makes it worse lol. Reviewer: omg teh @$p3n...1t suxorz cuz 1t h@$ a d1f3rnt noz3 th@n teh dur@ng0 1t w1ll bl0w up w/ 1ts n3w fr0nt 3nd cuz I @m teh 1337 @uto m@n i knoz @ll!1 l0lz!!1! @m3ric@n c@rz suxorz!11!1 h0rjay for r1ce m0b1l3z!1l

They do: it's called the Caliber SRT-4 (it's a C-segment but still). Hey I have a Dodge Shadow (first car) and it's a great little car. It's not a speed demon, but it's not that slow. Man if only I had the 2.2L Turbo version...that has 174 hp and 210 pounds of torque...cuz that's a pretty quick Shadow. But oh well. I'm curious to see edmunds to a comparosin test against the new/redesigned Accent, Yaris, Fit, and Aveo...and later the Dodge Hornet.

Nice to see the Charger in there. Some people like to gripe about it, for stupid things like the number of doors on it or it being too boxy. But it's a great car that can appeal to everyone from the average car driver who wants something bolder than a lame ass Camry to the car enthusiest who wants a fire breathing 425 horsepower Hemi. It's big and roomy, you can get plenty of options for it, it's modern, has a gearboxc more advanced than a 4-speed (GM take note), and can be had with performance packages to change the ride from touring to more sporty. Something for everyone. go Dodge As for the Ridgeline...I hate it something fierce. It's ugly as sin. The interior isn't that pretty looking either. Honda should learn how to design decent looking vehicles, cuz the only thing they have the looks nice is the Civic Si coupe, S2000, and uh...that's it. It has some cool features, but if I was in the market for a truck I'd look at the Nissan Frontier, that looks pretty sweet and has lotsa cool features. I've seen probably 4 Ridgelines on the road since it came out...I've seen more than 20 revised PT Cruisers. So if it sells well, it doesn't where I live. The Avalon is ugly outside, but looks nice to spend time in, like a budget Lexus. The S80 surprises me...a lot, especially since it's not the redesigned version they named. Everything else seems right, though hopefully the redesigned Caravan will steal the spot back from the Odyessy.

Funny how one SUV will bring back memories of K-car and P-bodies. I'm 19, so the Aspen name doesn't mean much to me. I took a look at the Dodge Aspen...I dunno I think it looks pretty nice That interior is hideous, but such was the norm of most cars of the era. -- Anyway I think it's a nice name, in fact Aspen sounds more classy than Durango to me, which is the mission of the Chrysler Aspen anyway. I also think Chrysler did a nice job cleaning up the Durango...I hate that front end, worst one in the Dodge lineup...hope the refresh fixes it. 1 The interior looks way nicer too, with lighter colors and a guage binnacle shade that doesn't go halfway across the dash (I hate those huge shades that Dodges had up until recently)

I get such pleasure out of the naysayers about the PT Cruiser dying out having to eat their own words. Sales are up this year, and the revisions make it better than ever. The new interior is way nicer than the old one, and the subtle tweaks outsider are just enough to show it's a revised. The revised beetle has nothing more than new headlights and tail lights as far as i know. It's a classy looking car, and probably the most graceful aging car on the road...well that and the Mini. Congrats PT and Chrysler!

You know, cars break down, it doesn't matter who builds them. God himself could build a car and make it perfect, yet it's very possible it could hit a tree...then it's broke Anyway, CR is full of crap. All cars have issues. My `89 Dodge Shadow has a busted motor mount and a fried wiring harness that connects to the HVAC controls..also it has a gas leak on the return line (which shall be fixed tomorrow I hope). It's an old car, it's gonna have problems. But you know what? It's got 204k miles on it and it still goes without complaint, and the engine and drivetrain are original. Now my friend has a `92 Toyota Corolla. Last week the clutch stopped working he said and it's not driveable, then he told me it's actually something to do with the engine not getting fuel properly...point is it doesn't go, lol. As far as interior quality goes, his car has the $h!tiest window cranks and handles I've ever seen. One of the cranks broke once, since it was made out of such chinzy plastic. I can happily say nothing is wrong with the interior of my car Another friend has a 93 Cavalier, and as far as I know he's had no real problems with it. Someone else I know has a `00 Dodge Neon, and not a single problem with it. It just goes to show that every car breaks down eventually, and that while the media bashes domestics for being unreilable, cars like her Neon prove otherwise.

lol bummer. But since legroom is apparently a factor, i think the Charger's got plenty more than the CTS So HAH all of you non-believers

lol that thing looks silly

Man, it's like going circles. The Dodge is not and never will be a premium car, you want one, buy the 300C SRT-8, or get the Caddy if that is what you wish. The Charger is in a different size class than the Caddy, and the extra money you pay for the SRT-8 Charger over the R/T is for the performance parts, not pretty plastic. Get over the damn interior. It could be worse, it could be the Grand Cherokee's hard plastic everywhere, yet somehow a lot of people don't mind that in that thread I started, hell some say the interior doesn't matter much. Yet here we are, talking about a PERFORMANCE car and people are instead focused on the bloody interior and how soft it is. It's not about if it's got baby-butt smooth materials inside, it's how well the car performs, hence, why it is a performance car and not a luxury car. Also, the interior materials aren't that bad to begin with. And once again, a more fair comparison size wise is the STS-V VS the Charger SRT-8, and you cannot say that the STS-V is cheaper or anything like that (starts at 77k). Remember when you factor in money here that you factor in the size of the car. The CTS is closer to the Charger, but it is in a smaller size class, so it better not be much more expensive. I have nothing against the CTS or the GTO as a whole, i like them both, but at the same time, the arguements are stupid about which is better and why or why not the SRT-8 is a good value. Also, it starts at 38k...so yeah, according to the SRT site at least, you can get it cheaper than 44k. Compare perfromance specs not plastic, it's a performance car after all.

Mine's a`89 Shadow 2.5L - Black with gray interior. It's got 204k miles on it lol. It needs work, but it still goes, and as long as it doesn't get totaled or anything I plan to hang onto it even after I eventually get a new car. Wouldn't get much money off of it anyway I see a lot of Shadows around still, but mine is the only one I've seen in person that is black, and I think that's the best color for it (plus the spoiler, Shadows doesn't look right without them).

Wow, a lot more replies than I was expecting lol. Anyway I think the Yaris is way better looking than that ucking fugly Echo...is it the best looking? Nope, that grill has gotta go, but I think it's cute other than that, the sedan in S trim has nice wheel-to-body proportions. My gripe stems from the guages being in a stupid place. Why put them in the middle? Even if it's "cheaper" that way, Toyota has more than enough money to cover extra costs, I mean damn, they're worth more than Wal-Mart now. So, there's no ecxuse. I'd never buy a car with the all the guages in the middle. It's stupid, because instead of just looking down at a galce to see teh guasges you have to look down and to the right, meaning more time eyes are off the road, and it's an unnatural position. Yes I know the time it takes would only be slightly more than if they were conventionally located, but sometimes that's all iit takes not not see a car stopping suddenly or something. Then..BAM!! I agree that the new, and even current Aveo look way better than the Echo, and it has a nicer front end than the Yaris.

I thnk it is, both TCC and Edmunds say the Avenger/Sebring will be built on a stretched version of the all new Lancer platform. Wonder why they didn't build it off the Project America platform? Maybe the Lancer's is better overall, who knows.

It's alright You had an 89 Shadow too? Kewl. It's my first car, and I've grown to love it. I dunno if the soft materials on the dash and armrests are vinyl or not, but they are soft and feel nice to rest my arm on. It's just not comfortable to rest your arm on hard plastic. The hard plastic in the car feels nice to me, it's not overly grained. Anyway I think it proves my point that if a subcompact from the 80's can have soft stuyff any car (especially a 30k+ SUV or car should). Heck even the doors were covered in frabric. It's a comfy car, way better than my friend's 92 Corolla or my other friend's 94 Cavalier (omg that thing has a hidious looking interior)

omg it does look like a 5.5 floppy drive! lmao You know from the reviews I've read the CTS's weakness is some cheap interior materials, I've never sat in one, and the materials probably for the most part are better than the Charger's...but remember: the CTS is a premium car, the Charger is not. Obviously a car that starts in the mid 20's isn't gonna have the opulance of a premium car car. You know, looking those shots of the interiors. the Charger's may be plainer, but the overall design is cleaner and not nearly as busy as the CTS's...looks like Caddy tried to hard to make a busy BMW interior. Also note, that while not much in the interior of the Charger changes, the things that matter, like substantial sport seats are present and accounted for. And I agree that the the Caddy's seats look cheap in comparion, while the Charger's look solid. I do like the look of the CTS' steering wheel though.

Yeah, that pissed the crap out of me. I mean...the comapraison to see which car was the best performance car, not the cushiest. The SRT-4 left the other cars in the dust. If it were me I'd have put it SRT-4, Colbalt SS, RSX, and Ion...but what do I know

One word for that photo: Priceless