Northstar

That's two different things. Obviously, all 3-Series don't break down three times in one test-period. If they did, they wouldn't sell like they do. The Malibu, on the other hand, lacks NAV, bluetooth, dual-zone climate, etc., whether you want them or not. The Malibu lacks those features, period. Not all 3-Series break down all the time. I'm guessing since that is a rare occurrence they gave it a pass and looked at the vehicle when it was in working condition. Almost all vehicles break down at some point, after all. Not saying the 3-Series should have been given the gold, but I'm guessing it was given the 1st spot because of how it worked when it was working. Basically, what I'm saying is that any review can rightly bash the Malibu for not having the features it lacks that many cars in its class have. That's like the 3-Series breaking down every time someone tested it and none of them caring about it.

Don't the T900s have tri-zone climate control, and maybe the Lambdas too? I'm sure cars in the S-Class range probably do, too.

If there's nothing for someone to complain about in a car (like the CTS), then they really can't write a review that bashes it. GM's other cars aren't quite as good, hence they have stuff to bash them for (see Malibu: no NAV, no dual-zone climate, no 6-speed on the 4cyl yet, no bluetooth, etc).

I don't think that's that many hours... I have never worked that many hours, but my parents certainly have. Around tax season they'll work 8-6 with a 1 hour break for lunch, take dinner, and come back and work 4 more hours, plus work on the weekends. I'd guesstimate they work 10 hours total on the weekend and 13 hours on the weekdays, so that's 75 hrs/week for a couple months... That's like 140 hours overtime per month for 2 1/2 months.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I agreed the Malibu should have NAV, dual-zone, etc., and that saying that that's what the other brands are there for is wrong.

But if Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, and Buick are there only for NAV, dual-zone climate, and a few other little features, we might as well only have the "C" brands. Why should GM keep 4 brands so that those 4 can offer 4 features that Chevy doesn't? Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, and Buick have to differentiate themselves in ways other than NAV, dual-zone, bluetooth, etc.

What are you guys talking about? This host has provided impeccable service from the beginning. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it and I say we stay with it forever!

Looks pretty good. I'd say it shows about the usual amount of modification from concept to production, and the changes don't look bad. You can certainly tell it is more aerodynamic already.

Cadillac has DOHC in everything except the CTS-V and Escalade line. Obviously having OHV engines in the Escalade hasn't affected its sales much, and the CTS-V's niche is all about going fast. I don't see anything wrong with beating the competition at going fast if that's the name of the game, whether you do it the same exact way as them on not.

If the Malibu had as many features as the other cars, it likely would have come in 1st or second (look at the scoring explanation). I wonder what the results would be if they were doing $22k 4cyl versions (the bulk of sales)? I would be surprised if the Malibu did not do better in a test like that... none of the cars will have many more features than the others if all are $22-23k. The Malibu wouldn't score so poorly in the features category, in that case.

Oh, I think end the end they might care if they get embarrassed by a "pooprod" powered CTS-V. But, perhaps they won't care since their DOHC engine is a better performance engine no matter the outcome of a race. Define "perform similarly or completely better." To me, that means makes the car faster, and the engine in the CTS-V most certainly would make the M5 or M3 perform better if it was put into either of them.

The 2002 M5 is considered to be a better driver's car than the current M5. Seeing as how that would imply that BMW is taking steps backward, yes, a car that is similar to the 2002 M5 could compete with the 10 years later version. What you don't get is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CARS COST that are on a platform, it can still be world class when compared to most any other platform, and Zeta is world class compared to most any other platform. The ULS was actually tentatively on a stretched Sigma, though I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being scratched. Still, why wouldn't an aluminum version of Zeta work? AGAIN, IT'S A WORLD CLASS PLATFORM, whether it costs $.01 or $1 mil. GM could easily cut weight down in Zeta by making it all-aluminum as you want, but that's not economically feasible for the cars it is currently underpinning. If GM came out with a new platform called "Omega" and said it's an all-new all-aluminum platform but was really just an all-aluminum, slightly-modified Zeta, you, and no-one else, wouldn't know the difference. You just want a platform that seems like it's something more "special" than Zeta because Zeta is on cars that don't have a price tag that makes them seem "special," and you don't realize that Zeta is already an awesome platform. You can only make a platform so good, and Zeta is an excellent platform. If your beloved S-Class platform is a 100/100, then Zeta is a couple small modifications and all-aluminum throughout from being 100/100. As for Edmunds' future vehicles... two of those models are M3s, one is the long-overdue 1-Series, one is the hydrogen 7-Series (which is going to sell how many units?), and two are the X6 and V5, which seem like the same thing to me, but I guess we'll find out. It's not like they're adding a ton of new models that are actually going to put a ton of new volume out there. The X6 and V5 will more or less cannibalize each other from their descriptions. As for MB, they have 7 models listed, only of them being the totally-unattainable-to-anyone-who-isn't-rich-and-famous SLC. They may have more models coming than Cadillac does, but Cadillac just released the Escalade line and CTS not long ago.

Well in that case, the picture quality is terrible. I personally don't like it much. It looks like its from the late 90's/early 2000s to me. It's better than the current one I suppose, but I'd take a T900 or F-150 over it in the looks department.

Oh my, where to begin... Who says the CTS-V won't be able to perform with the M3? Let's wait and see some test numbers before we make any statements like that, mmkay? What future product plans have you seen? Any? Or are you just guessing? Not long ago (within the last year), the "ULS" was on track to go into production in a couple years, I don't know about now. Is that not an elite car? An S-Class competitor? So Zeta is a Chevy-only product, and therefore it sucks? I'll remind you once again(for the 1,000,001 time): MT said the SS-V reminds them of one of their favorite cars: the last-gen M5. What platform does it use? Zeta. Is that not an elite enough car for you? It's quite obvious that Zeta is a world-class platform for any car, so get your facts straight and quit BSing.

Umm, am I the only one that thinks its 100% clear that this is a photoshop? Look how fake the headlights look, look how weird the bumper looks (specifically the left side where it connects to the painted part). There are also some oddities in the paint (right in front of the first front door cutline), and the headlight on the left side clearly is more curved on the top than the one on the right. I would be very surprised if this was the real deal.

That's unfortunate. At least you shouldn't have to pay much for it (assuming your homeowner's insurance covers it). Maybe you could hide a video camera with it on the door?

I think I'd take the 3er coupe over the G37, though the G37 is a great performer. Perhaps he'll buy a 2010 CTS coupe in a couple years.

You have to be kidding. The body moldings look plasticky? Do you really think the body moldings on a M3 or M5 are any less plasticky? I think at least a couple of pictures over-exaggerate the rear-to-front slope. Look at how much closer to the ground the front end is in some pictures than others... it's obvious it is under heavy breaking in a couple of those, the front end is almost touching the ground! As for the hood, the M3 has one, I don't see much difference...

I emailed him about it (I am the one they are talking about in the autoblog posting) and basically said I was not happy to see that it was a Chevy and not a Pontiac, and his response was "Totally untrue, don't believe everything you read on the internet."

Awesome!

Well, he certainly didn't say "Pontiac is getting an Alpha-based vehicle," he simply said the article was totally untrue. I guess that doesn't confirm that Pontiac is getting one, just that Chevy is not. The article could be untrue in many ways, I suppose. I'm sort of surprised this got all 'round the car net.

The rear and side are awesome, the front I'm not sure... it looks kinda... crosseyed(?). The front does look mean though, at least. I'll have to see the front in person to get a full impression, but the rear and side look great.

Perhaps a Mustang, used M3, RX-8 (would have to see how the rotary engine is first, though -- not sure I could go from the LS1 to the tiny rotary), I'd probably consider a WRX/EVO (perhaps used), 350Z (used), G35 (used), and perhaps a used Challenger, though I really don't care for its looks. Basically anything that's sporty and under $30k or so.

Oh, forgot to add, if you want the tire to be fatter (I assume you mean a taller sidewall) then go with a smaller rim. That's the easiest what to do it. The second number in the tire number is the sidewall height with respect to the width. Example: 225-50-16: This means that the tire is 225 mm wide, and 50% of 225 (or 112.5) is the sidewall height. 16 is the diameter of the wheel. A 245-50-16 would be have a taller sidewall than a 225-50 because 245>225. Be careful getting to tall of sidewall, though. It will throw of your speedo if it is much different than stock.

I went to tirerack.com and searched for wheels for the 99 Malibu. http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/results.jsp...mp;autoModClar= It appears the offset is ~40mm. I'm not sure of the width but it recommends 225 width on the tires.