ponchoman49

In a sea of lookalike bland cars such as Toyota/Lexus it was probably extremely refreshing to see something that had real style. it was ashame that the Aurora didn't last till 04. No reason why it shouldn't have as it's product cycle couldn't possibly have been over as all the other G-bodies carried on untouched for several more seasons. That was one of the few new cars that got my attention for a 4 door sedan, especially with it's flashy chrome wheels.

I have a 2002 Intrigue with base 3.05: gears and of course the Shortstar and love the engine. It's refinement puts any 3800 I have driven to shame and it will beat my 98 Grand Prix 3800 with better 3.29:1 gears in a race by more than a car length and will positively blow it's door off on the highway! My dad's 01 Bonneville was a car that was supposed to have the Shortstar but instead got the hoary old 3800. After driving my Intrigue and hopping into his Bonney, my first thought after 10 minutes of driving was that I was sure glad I didn't have that motor in my Intrigue. The difference is quite surprising. His car has a rougher idle, throbbier take off, much more exhaust noise, way less power from 40-70 and it sounds downright peculiar when started up almost as if it has chirping birds in the starter. We have almost the same miles and my engine has never so much as had a valve cover removed and his has had the upper intake replaced and the recall for stop leak additive and new throttle body bolts replaced. Now the big question mark remains, whos motor will outlast the other. Thats one area where his 3800 will probably win.

I too believe that GM could have done better with the Monaro. The car as you said should have had the good stuff from the get go. The styling could have been tarted up a bit and the dated looking rear end given a pruce up. The 04 GTO will go down in history as the blandist performance car secret from the General. It takes more than a Pontiac Grand Prix grille to make a legend.

Whats the matter Viper, nervous that I know my specs better and that I don't always need to go by what Honda & Driver says. My Grand Prix did 7.8 seconds by not only a stopwatch but also a G-force. The rating was used to support my case, nothing more. HPP magazine tested there car with some break in miles unlike Honda & Driver and Toyota Trend that test green cars from GM so as to give them worse numbers so I would bet HPP numbers are far closer to reality. Your telling me nothing that I don't know about the high output engines. The point I made was that GM only had detuned balance shaft Quad 4 bangers available from 95 onwards on the GA. Obviously they were high output with higher hp numbers. And you are the one saying that your car will blow away any G6 that has a 4 banger in it with your tired quad 4 and you can keep up with a 3500 G6. Thats where I assumed you were agreeing on the 7.8 second time on you 95 GA. Again, a 4 cylinder powered G6 coupe will NOT, repeat not weight 3500 lbs. And with a stick will whoop your beat GA's ass. I would bet money on it. My post was not a waste, it was just intended to correct all the mistakes you made with hp numbers, cars you could beat with you wasted GA and uninformed bias on what the general public wants in these high gas price times. Just because you think everything should have a race car engine in it that costs well over 20 grand doesn't mean thats what the public wants too! Oh and btw, my bud and I test drove a $17990 special G6 with it's lethargic 2.4 Ecotec with but 200 miles and stopwatched it at 8.5 seconds to 60 several times. Going by that number, fully broken in versions would likey beat that by a few more tenths, a 6 speed stick from the GTP would definately improve things even further and the coupe would weight slightly less that the sedan we drove. So much for your theory of whooping a 4 cylinder G6. And your often quoted C&D got 0-60 in 9.0 seconds from a 1995 GA coupe with 150 hp Quad 4 with 5 speed stick that I have lying around at home. What a race car that is! :rolleyes:

This country is getting ever closer to being the laughing stock of the world. No wonder everyone hates us so! It's a sad day when not even americans can support there own products and don't give a rats ass were it came from or how many familes and lives they are screwing but purchasing all the foreign rubbish because Honda & Driver or Toyota reports says so. Toyotas arrogance goes without saying. If the day ever comes when they are on top, I for one will laugh in there faces as they take on all the problems that such a title incurs. Recalls galore, quality control glitches, being in the limelight to constantly produce produce PRODUCE! But don't worry. In 10 more years or less it will be Hyundai who will be clawing Toyotas eyes out for supremecy to be number one and it's doubtfull we will ever see an American company on top again. Good job America!

A definate step in the right direction. Hopefullt cars like the Buick LaCrosse CXS, Grand Prix GT, Cobalt LTZ, all the higher end minivans etc will have more down to earth price tags. People most always compare window stickers and features, not what new fire sale of the month that may come along. I'm curious which vehicles were affected most.

Considering these prices include the DOD 5.3 V8 they seem spot on to be successful. The LTZ model is unnecessary and pricey as with the Impala and Malibu and Cobalt. Almost never see LTZ versions on the road so apparently the public agrees. Can't wait to see these in the steel.

You are very correct about the engine. The 3.8 Buick V6 was all but overwhelmed with the curbweight in these cars. The diesel: need I say more. And the small Pontiac orphan motor was an unwise engine to buy as it was not only underpowered(120 hp) but whos number was up by April of 1981 as all Pontiac engines were retired from production. There are a few good 307 sites, one of which is oldsperformance307.com or something like that. Not sure if you do any work on the car yourself but I got spectacular results cleaning my EGR passages with a piano string under the carb with the EGR valve removed, getting the carb rebuilt, adjusting the base timing to 20 degrees, adjusting the TPS according to specs and tuning up the engine on my friends 1987 Olds Cutlass. 0 -60 litterally went from 14 second to 9.5 seconds doing those things above. His gas mileage went from 14-15 up to around 21 also as an average. You have the better flowing 5A heads on your 307 so it should respond pretty well. Good luck with it.

Looks just like a shrunkin Maxima/Ultima with it's moldings stripped off and it's tail kicked up in a Saturn Ion way. Yet another in the tired/tirade copycat/lookalike crap from abroad that is following the decontenting of most newly introduced vehicles. Besides the new Camaro and to some extent, the Enclave there is not one vehicle at NAIAS that I even remotely like this year.

The Wrangler had sex with a box and a minivan. Why get rid of the reliable and smoother 4.0 liter L6, a Wrangler icon for years!

Cover the grille up and give GM back there steering wheel and it could pass for any dull Asian sedan. Very unimaginative!

Pros: Razzle dazzle for the technology freaks, V6 sizzle, 6 speed automatic, updated interior look. Cons: Can't for the life of me tell what it is from a side view, droopy front and rear styling is dated and dull, still small trunk, center console wider than birtha, same ol 3/36 warrenty on regular versions, hybrid reliabilty questionable, razzle dazzle gimmicky features will be very costly to fix and some are of little use, no door moldings give even more plain look and will after a couple of years look terrible with all the door jams and bumps. Overall: Toyota & Driver will probably love it as will Toyota Reports. Would never own one!

I highly doubt they would ever sell 165K per year. Coupes just don't sell anymore for some unkown reason. Now if it was a new Toyota Crossover vehicle, then sure. Hopefully 165K reflects a certain time period so that GM does make this car. Does anybody have any specs on the car or know a target price? What are the other lower end engines going to be besides the top 6.0 liter LS2? Curbweight etc. One thing for sure that will kill this car before it even hits the streets is a high price tag, too long of a delay of introduction and low production. Remember the T-Bird? If I were GM, I would very closely follow the Mustang formula for this car to succeed.

Nice styling and interior. Finally a decent engine and tranny. Where is the chrome bodyside door molding? This disease seems to be spreading to everything made after 2005 it seems! Kudos for the port holes.

2004 Park Ave Ultras had portholes and all 2005 versions had them std.

The 99-02 grand AMs had the 2.4 Quad 4 vin code "T". The 03-04 versions were vin code "F" 2.2 liter Ecotec. That 2.4 Quad 4 put out 150 hp and 155 torque, not 175 hp! The Ecotec made 140 hp and 150 torque. The 1995 2.3 liter Quad 4 put out 150 hp and 145 torque, less than even the smaller 2.2 Ecotec. HPP magazine tested a fully loaded G6 GT with every conceivable option including Panaramic roof, leather, XM, Onstar etc with the 3500 and 3.29:1 gears and got 7.5 seconds 0-60 not 8 seconds like your saying. Thats faster than any 99-05 GA GT ever got with it's lower output 175 hp 3400. I used to beat non ram air GA GT's with my 3800 Grand Prix with 3.29:1 gears and that car was rated at 7.8 seconds! So much for these cars duplicating these times. And the only G6 that weights 3500 lbs is the fully loaded 4 door GT version with heavier Panaoramic roof. So thus a 2 door coupe with lighter 2.4 can't possibly weight 3500 lbs. Even a retard can see this! Besides your so called wonder car that supposedly does 7.8 seconds to 60 has a STICKSHIFT not an automatic like the current G6 2.4. Put a 6 speed manual behind that car with 3.92:1 gears and your GA will get beat. I have driven 1995 GA 2.3's with stick and they certainly don't go 0- 60 in 7.8 seconds. They had balance shafts starting that year that restricted high RPM for smoothness and quietness. It also dramatically lowered output fom the 175-195 hp Quad 4 days along with torque. They felt far more like 8.8- 9.0 seconds to me and that was supported as I routinely blew the doors off 1995 2.3 GA GT's with sticks with my 1996 3100 powered automatic Corsica that did 8.1 seconds to 60. Back to our normal topic post: yes the 2007 G6 should be available with a 2.4 Ecotec and 6 speed stick or automatic in the coupe for people that want a fun 2-door car that doesn't suck gas like a GTP 18/26 auto, 18/27 stick. Just get a few more horses out of it like 172 as in the HHR or 177 as in the Soltice and it will perform fine.

Sadly these are selling at a turtles pace where I live. Nobody wants coupes anymore. I really hope it stays out long enough so that I can get my hands on a good used example for a great second car. My pro/con table would look like this. Pros: different and neat styling, powerfull engines with both 3500 and 3900, excellent ride/handling on GT versions, nice looking chrome wheel options, legroom above average, has bodyside door moldings, leather seats are comfy and upscale looking. Cons: some versions still too expensive, needs a lower priced 4 cylinder coupe for around $17995, base cloth seat material way below par, center stack could use a redesign, more interior color choices, 6 speed automatic should be included on GTP for price charged, lets get that optional 3.6 DOHC V6 at least as an option or on a GXP version.

I test drove a base Impala and can say it was darn impressive. It's 3500 felt livlier than my previous 3800 cars in similar sized W-body chassis'. Now Comparing the base Lucerne with the weaker 3800 and considerably higher weight I would think that the V6 Lucerne would be a dissapointment. So that makes the thirsty Nortstar a must for this car. My money would go on a LT3 3900 Impala with tan leather and roof for slightly less money than the LTZ version. For $27445 fully equipped and probably 25K with red tags or discounts this model ends where the base Lucerne starts and gives you better performance than either Lucerne, better mileage than the V8, more features than the base Lucerne such as leather seats/wheel, power driver seat recliner, 242 hp, full information center with compass/outside temp, rear spoiler, 17" rims etc. To get a Lucerne up to that level would cost a lot more and bring with it that thirsty V8 with never ending gas gouging. The Lucerne however is the more luxurious of the 2 vehicles and has a larger back seat. The Impala however trumps it in trunk space and doesn't have those intrusive hinges like the Lucerne. Just my 2 cents.

What engine do you have in your 1981 Bonneville? 3.8(231), 4.3(265), 5.0(307) or 5.7 diesel. I love those cars and am currently looking for a 80-81 2 door coupe with factory snow flake alloys and the ultra rare factory bucket seat option. I have seen a few on Ebay but they are really rare.

This is afterall the same rag that claims the Scion xBox as it's first place winner in a comparo of the PT Cruiser, HHR and Element. These guys need to get some new editors and leave the kids at home! :rolleyes:

I had to laugh when Toyota & Driver pitted the xBox to the Element to the PT Cruiser to the HHR and gave the xBox first place. If there ever was a vehicle that could claim the title "strange vehicle concept" this would be it.

It's interesting how most cars from Dodge lately are in your face over bold and are in station wagon formats. Why can't we have a damn car for goodness sakes. What was wrong with the Neon that a refresh couldn't take care of? do we really need yeat another crossdresser type vehicle? Geeesh!

And I thought it was the older people that were supposed to be the smarter ones. Buying boxes with lawn mower engines, ugly uncoordinated black plastic slapped on wherever you look and cheap/hideous interiors with childish center pod dashes and airplane harsh seat materials hardly seems smart. I once rode in a Scion xBox in the passenger seat and laughed my ass off the whole time thinking my 10 year old son could have designed something better than this!

I highly doubt it. The experts and media already have there minds made up that oil will be topping $100.00/barrell for Summer 2006. If you think $3.00/gallon gas is bad wait till it goes to $5.00/gallon. That will have a disasterous affect on the economy at that point because the poor to average consumer won't even think about buying a car/truck at that, just survival. I don't think things will change much from the past couple of years, if anything it will get worse.

The Yaris is butt ugly and really should be called a Scion!