pow

You'll get proper Bluetooth and an electronic parking brake (no more non-functional panel aft of the shifter), too.

The Uplander actually has a fairly decent dashboard and nice door panels with some stitching on them. It's just hard to imagine families buying them because of the below-average safety and the lack of interior room/flexibility, especially when you can get a modern Sedona or Grand Caravan for the same money. Still, if that means people are using vans instead of pick-ups, that's great. European plumbers and builders and florists seem to doing fine in their diesel Transits and panel vans.

They prolly mean direct ignition.

Sorry to hear about that. Walt experienced a similar frustration with his G6: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...howtopic=18965t Did you ever get the noises resolved on your Equinox?

Fuel economy for the 1.8s are the same as last year's, except for manual versions on the highway - down from 33 to 32 MPG.

No, it's Toyota's. The same powertrain as the xB, and the same poor fuel economy. GM's own 2.4 Ecotec offers slightly better economy and more power.

STS Platinum -- everything is covered in leather, yet unlike many full-leather interiors, it's subtle. You don't notice it unless you touch it or examine it carefully. The new steering wheel and trim help out the design, and the wood selection is less gloomy than the STS-V's. The Corvette is an example of poor usage of leather, IMO. Sure, it covers nearly everything, but it does nothing for the design. You've got the same Cobalt steering wheel, the same flimsy seats, and the same overwhelming cheesiness. It comes from a time when GM actually started trying improving interiors, but before they got really good at it (Acadia, CTS).

The more I look at it, the more I like it. Many of the styling cues are starting to make sense. The rear view is particularly distinctive. The AWD 2.4 version might be a decent alternative to a small SUV, if you live in snowy areas.

What a shame it has the big, gas-guzzling Toyota 4-cylinder. For most people buying it for practicality, comfort, and value, the 1.8 is the one to get.

Maybe next generation, when we'll have a new BTS, a more expensive CTS, and hopefully a 7/S/LS-competing DTS. But now I see it as an entry-lux car that's oriented towards design/styling, and consequently, size. Keep in mind the G35, TL, and ES all have comparable interior volume, yet they're arguably entry-lux vehicles with different attributes and specialties. The CTS doesn't have the critical features, powertrains, depth of engineering, and even price that all mid-lux competitors have, and in my opinion, it doesn't have the interior of a leading mid-lux car (both materials/build-quality wise and room; I found the CTS's rear seat nowhere as accommodating as the 5er's, especially in real-life headroom, width, and airiness). But who the hell cares? It's an absolutely brilliant $35-45K car.

Really, it doesn't matter. *Everything* needs energy, whether you're creating electricity for li-ion plug-ins, hydrogen for fuel cells, or biofuels for ICEs, so we need to find a way to produce more of it cleanly and to reduce individual consumption of it. There isn't a no-compromise magical bullet; conservation has proven to be the most immediate, cost-effective, and feasible.

I'm sure TWENTY years after the introduction of the Volt, we *will* see an average of 55 MPG. These changes don't happen over night, but we have to get started eventually.

OK, so the ICE kicks in after 6.6 city cycles (40 miles), and then it will run for 1 more cycle (6 miles). The Volt uses 8 kWh per 40 miles. 600g CO2 are produced from a NG power plant per kWh, so that's 4.8 kg CO2 in EV mode over 40 miles. 4.8kg CO2 is equivalent to .55 gallons of gasoline, so that means a Volt (running on electricity from NG) gets an equivalent 73 MPG in EV mode. Factor in the 50 MPG in gas mode over 6 miles, and that's an average of 66 MPG.

Cool. $10K for a Volt. And plug-in hybrids will definitely boost manufacturer averages. The proposed method to calculate FE of range-extender-EVs is to drive "repeatedly through federal city cycles (6 miles) until the ICE kicks in, then it is driven one more. The fuel economy would then be calculated as the amount of gas used divided by the miles and controlling for electric consumption."

From the Tour Eiffel...

"[The IS] received high marks for build quality, scoring 2nd to the Mercedes." Mercedes usually has excellent build quality, though maybe not material quality. We had an '07 (last-gen) C280 for a week, and I was impressed by the solid door slam "thunk", the heavy, chunky door handles that don't giggle about, and the thick sheetmetal.

That's a great result... who could imagine ten years ago a Cadillac beating a Mercedes or Lexus? Keep in mind the cars in this comparo are the latest and greatest, with the TL, A4, 9-3, etc, not included, so third place overall is very strong, far above "average." Basically it depends on your priorities... Infiniti - value BMW - performance Cadillac - styling Lexus - isolation Mercedes - build quality Since I'm pragmatic, I'd get the BMW as a "daily drive", since it's the perfect driving appliance - great dynamics, driving feel, ergonomics, visibility, etc. But if I wanted something original, glamorous, and breathtaking, something to pull up in front of a hotel in and make a statement, I'd get the Cadillac.

It seems like this year's contestants are all alternative-fuel vehicles; Stanford has a Passat TDI, UPenn has a Prius, Virginia Tech has an Escape Hybrid, and Carnegie Mellon has a Tahoe, which is likely E85-capable. The local high school, our crosstown rival, entered an MDX for a few years, but not in 2007 apparently.

All US Rabbits come from Germany. The Rabbit may have a lower MSRP, but interestingly, Jettas often have better lease deals.

I think it's a great value... funky styling, apparently sporting driving dynamics, nice warranty, lots of features (ESP, keyless ignition). Its fuel economy could probably be better.

Agreed. The Camry, Altima, Accord, Fusion, Milan, Avenger, Sebring, and Passat all have Bluetooth. I have a feeling OnStar has too much of an influence on product planning; not everyone wants to switch to Verizon.

Daniel Pund is good. I've always enjoyed reading his reviews back when he wrote for C&D. I'm looking forward to trying out the LTZ four-cylinder six-speed when it becomes available.

RJB is talking about how ethanol *fuel* burns quicker than gasoline, leading to decreased economy, not the fact that growing corn for ethanol is inefficient. A Tahoe that gets 14/20 on gasoline gets 11/15 on E85.

I think overhyping it can have some serious consequences... 2010 is still far off. But at the present time, I guess GM needs the Volt's "greenwashing" effect, to convince the public and policymakers to not increase fuel economy standards.

Oh, I thought it was this thing... Stop Crime! Pretend You're a Vending Machine! http://209.237.250.100/news/geek/22569/