balthazar

>>"Interesting...never heard of filling the trans via the dipstick."<< You forgot the jokey smurf smilie...

I dunno- the 'blogs' pics just look dated to me; mersedes generally does much better at regurgitating the same design cues over & over (isn't that sport grille spot-on for one from circa 1990?) than bmw, but the interior looks dated and drab: airbag-obvious buldge in an all-plastic steering wheel, ergonomically-questionable HVA/C location -couldn't be any lower, riveting cutline around the NAV door... this is a "cheap" mercedes, right? High 20Ks?

>>"IMO the fact that one nation's automobiles are responsible for *five percent* of the world's net CO2 is staggering. "<< Curious: what percentage of the world's automobiles are in the U.S.?

>>"Again, the sensitivities of some posters is unbelievable...you can't win. GM gets the best enthusiast press in years for product excellence and the English Professors here come out of the woodwork to pronounce their concerns."<< Oh, I'm sorry, missed the memo; I did not realize we (General Motors) were done and it was time to sit back and relax. After all, the collective ingrained perceptions will disappear like cigarette smoke in a stiff breeze after but a few months of good reviews on 5 models. Halleluia and Yay- we made it !!! It's the '65 Comeback Tour !!! FOG & CARBIZ see the bigger picture, but a bunch of you other people seem to think 'good is good enough (now let's get back to our monthly allotment of 'interesting' BMW road tests)'.

>>"The lambdas get a great review in general. Why? Because all three are great vehicles. But no, we don't like that they are all lauded in the same paragraph, so let's argue about the semantics of the journalist's choice in the terms he uses for his article along with how it should have been written. Apparently, unless it reads like it came out of the mouth of a robot it isn't a credible review."<< This approach by journalists is all you've ever read, so why question it, right? A pat on the head and everything's fine. The writer's credibility is not under attack, only his methodology. These are subtleties & subliminals, but they DO have an effect on the reader and they are inclusive in GM's fight to change public & media perception. It's NOT merely the product that needs to work 100% here, there's more to it than that. There are still people that have sworn off domestics in general because their aunt's '79 Fairmont was a ran like crap, and having cars like the CTS & Enclave will not change that because generalities like these still persist, regardless of their validity. >>"As far as ES and Camry, the Lexus occupies a different segment and price from the Toyota"<< Just because toyota prices them farther apart, does not change the physicality of their 'twinness'. If the Lambdas were the same degree apart in pricing, you would not be arguing with me. Didn't the previous altima & maxima share the exact same platforms & powertrains, ala the Lambdas? I remember reading a few comments that the altima pretty much rendered the maxima redundant.

>>"The last thing I want to hear is that my luxury sedan is based on a camry"<< Are you sure the last thing you'd rather not hear is that your luxury car IS a camry, ie: a camry "twin"? We didn't ask for & we don't need 'creative cuteness' from journalists, just facts. They're supposed to be reporters, not lyricists. >>"Would you rather have them say "fraternal triplets" instead?"<< What I would immensely prefer is that these 3 vehicles are referred to individually and not incessantly lumped together. ANYONE OBJECT TO THAT? >>"they may share some different sheet metal here and there "<< ??? >>"that doesn't make one more distant from another"<< Only as much as a camry & es are different from one another. But of course different sheetmetal and a different interior makes 2 (or 3) vehicles 'more distant from one another'- this is the primary interface for the consumer: exterior & interior! How many buyers slide underneath their car, then slide underneath another make/model to compare?

>>"refused to pay the widow the usual compensation for a spouse's work-related death"<< Just how common is this ???

>>"I think you're reading way too much into it. "<< I don't. It's there, whether intentional or subconscious, and it's not entirely balanced. That's all I ask for : balance. "Triplets" is dismissive, openly implies identicality, which is not the case in this instance. 'camry-based' is far lighter, and does not imply identicaility. The 2 scenarios are the same, but editorially treated in 2 different ways.

>>"The Altima and Maxima aren't twins"<< >>"they are nearly identical under the skin"<< yet still never called "the twins". And 'camry-based' does not conjure the same dismissive perception that "twins" would, yet still they resist calling them that. Must just be a co-inky-dink.

satty= >>"The triplets takes up less space on a page than Acadia, Enclave and Outlook. "<< So, edit out 2 or 3 really bad, really overused cliche's, and type out the damn names. No one will close the magazine. >>"The bias talk is, was, and will continue to be asinine. "<<

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

Congrats to GM- those that hang on the rags' opinion should be turning their heads by now. Article aside, this still jumps out at me as Very Bad. It perpetuates the perception that "badge-engineering" is still widespread at GM and these are grille-n-badges changes on the exact same vehicle, instead of having the complete interior & exteriors all being unique. It's a fat finger pointing right back at the 'journalist' who persists in using this type of outmoded generalization, and IMO it still points to at least a perceptual bias. Have you ever heard the altima/maxima or the camry/es called 'the Twins'?

Sounds like something with the starter, like its not disengaging immediately. Either physically, or something electrical connected to the starter circuit. I never go underhood of anything computer-contolled, which places me the better part of 30 years away with my point of reference here.

>>"you waited until the perscribed break in period written in the manual was reached BEFORE you took her to 120 MPH, right?"<< Cadillac has 'break-in' periods now? I'm almost surprised.

I have little use for articles that are fast-n-loose, cliche-ridden rants of generalization.

No; empowah wants the trunk opening button (not a handle) on the decklid itself. Apparently he wishes to share whatever he may have in his trunk with whomever walks by.

Took many mamy years for the accord & camry to get up to their current sales levels. Decades. You want the Malibu to reach the same levels in a few months?? Even tho there are "too many brands and models now"? Take a consistancy pill or 2 and post us in the morning. >>"it isn't on dealer lots. They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. "<< Weren't the 3000 sold last month "on the lots"? There's a difference between having dozens & dozens of cars moldering away on lots and having very few because they are selling extremely quickly. Does toyota have 40,000 camrys on the lots the first model-year month? I know you're pulling hard and have only the best intentions for the Malibu , but have an ounce of patience for a change.

'turbo200' :>>"what are you attempting to prove?"<< Not attempting to prove anything, merely correcting a completely erroneous statement. You don't object to the objective, do you? >>"at times when Ford and GM had almost no competition, maybe 1/4 of the nameplates currently sold in today's marketplace, they had a command of a much smaller market?"<< Here's another one I unfortunately have no time for right now. There were FAR more namplates in the U.S. market in the first 25 years than there are now. Hundreds and hundreds, perhaps as high as a thousand. Some amounted to nothing, most amounted to a short run, very few 'made it'- but as long as vehicles were rolling out factory doors, they were competition. >>"like GTP said, that GM sold that many Malibus in the '60's is totally irrelevant."<< Again, the statement was that the Malibu never sold 40,000 units monthly. I supplied the numbers that strongly supported otherwise. No where was a limiting year span stated, therefore 1969 is relevent to the initial erroneous claim.

>>"At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T."<< No. The Model T's annual U.S. marketshare peaked at 62.3% in 1924. The T's cummulative share of the U.S. market was reached in 1925, with 52.0% of all cars built in the U.S. since the beginning of the industry (figures used were totals from 1909 thru 1927). When will toyota reach 62% of the U.S. market, smk?

>>"The Malibu has never sold anywhere close to 40,000 units per month like the Camry"<< Actually, the Malibu (alongside it's trim variants the Chevelle 300 DeLuxe and the SS396) sold 455,000 units in 1969. In a straight 'divide-by-12' thats 38,000, but considering plants are shut down for about 1 month during the re-tooling for next year, and that winter months are ususally down months, undoubtedly the Malibu sold OVER 40,000 per month. Has the camry reached 455,000 units annually yet?

Trans was filled via the dipstick tube then, and it's filled via the dipstick tube now. What's old is new again, boo-hoo.

NAV is also frivolous- on today's roads the last thing we collectively need is people staring at a tiny moving video display instead of the road. A voice-centric system is fine if that's something one things they 'need', but the screen is yet another distraction when the car's moving.

>>"Saturn's image since they were founded was friendly dealers and small 4-cylinder cars. An 8 seater, and a $35,000 one at that, doesn't fit with the low cost, small car image Saturn had all those years. Same reason the VW Pheaton failed, didn't fit the brand image."<< Uhh, wasn't the phaeton like $85,000 ??? Who the f**k is going to pay that; the car failed before it was unveiled. Comparing that vs. the rest of VW's line, and the Outlook to the rest of Saturn's line is like comparing a 5-yr old kid jumping a mud puddle vs. an Olympic long jumper. But Saturn isn't even 20 yrs old vs. VW's circa 70 yr history; that image is a lot deeper ingrained, esp considering it's on the humped back of 15 million beetles- a dirt-cheap car. Saturn has flown under the image radar for the most part- it's already moved upscale from the '90 coupe & sedan. The Outlook is more fitting to a family-vehicle-oriented brand than a vw-built SUV is to the hardcore sports-car porsche image (60-some yrs in the making). >>"GM's model lineup and dealer network is set up for when they had 40% market share "<< Really, how so? How many models & dealers did GM have in 1975 vs. today?

I love how something new to somebody is illogical or stupid simply because it didn't smack them out of their sneakers in 0.1 seconds. No wonder the typical owner's manual is now 350 pages long, 300 pages of which is comprised of legally-mandated warnings and cautions. Auto trans' have been filled via the dipstick tube for the majority of the history of the automatic. I cannot think of a single vehicle I've been under the hood of where the manufacuter decided TWO separate tubes leading down to the trans pan was more intuitive and technically necessary than 1. Then again, as mentioned above: BMW feels even 1 is too many. NOW we have grounds for name-calling. Same thing with the glove-box trunk release; it was put there to facillitate security. My '59 Buick & '64 Pontacs all had locking gloveboxes standard, tho I think the remote trunk release (in the glove box) for Pontiac first appeared in '64- none of mine had that option tho. Back when cars usually had a separate trunk key- this made all the sense in the world. Now with 1-key scenarios (so no one gets confused) and non-locking gloveboxes (so no one gets flustered), and the trunk release on the key fob (so no one loses it), I suppose the glovebox release can go away and take that crushing stress away from today's young motorists, thusly 'proving' how stupid it really and truely was.

>>"Here's what I got back from my auction question: That banshee does not exist anymore according to its owner. Thanks, Ben Clements, Napoli Motors"<< Wh-haaAA? How can something that does not exist have an owner? The convert was in excellent shape in the Joe Bortz Collection as recently as 2006- I undoubtedly would have heard had it been inadvertantly destroyed. Frankly, without verification, I just do not believe the statement. Article from July 2006 Autoweek BTW- the coupe sold at Barret-Jackson in 2006 for $214,500.... wonder if someone is trying to pump up the rarity (from 2 to 1 ?!?!?) for a better sale chance? Anyone heard that the Banshee convert is no more? Don't bother Googling it- the same source is repeatedly quoted many times.