Northstar

Wow, looks pretty nice.

I think the first one (Dolbo) would actually look decent if the wheels weren't like 10". I don't think 95% of the people buying these for utility reasons will care how they look. Plenty of poor looking cars sell in droves. From my experience the Sprinter is much more popular as an airport shuttle service van than anything from Ford or GM, and the Ducato looks like it has the same packaging as the Sprinter with a different front end.

Interesting. Please comment on which vehicles are present when you go. I went to an ASIM in the Chicago area, I believe it was at Arlington Park, and there is now a MSIM there in October.

That's weird they don't make them in that size. The M/S are available in that size, so that must be what we got. You might want to note that your Cross Terrain SUV tires get only an 8.1/10 on treadwear while the M/S gets a 9.1/10 (Fortera gets 7.7/10, which if you got 40k miles out of your 8.1 Michelins, 35k out of 7.7 Goodyears seems correct, which is about what we got out of them on the TrailBlazer). They do make the Michelins that are ranked 3rd in the TripleTred's category in the correct size for your G6, and they're $143 per tire compared to $199 per tire for the TripleTreds. That's $224 less for the set, plus the Michelins have the $70 reward card.

I wish they'd breakdown the CTS in sedan/coupe/wagon. It looks like those Cruze, Malibu, and Regal lease deals got people into the showrooms.

If you read nothing else from this post, DO NOT GET THE TRIPLETREADS on the Envoy. Those Michelins you picked out are overkill for a G6. I would HIGHLY recommend Michelins for both, and I have experience with both Epsilon and GMT360/370 vehicles. The Maxx had OEM Bridgestones, which my dad replaced with the same tires without consulting me with the same thing because they were really cheap and he didn't care I guess. Needless to say, those tires were garbage (poor in wet/snow, squealed if you took a turn at more than grandma speed), but the second time they needed replacing (after only 60k miles we went through two sets) we went with these: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot+Exalto+A%2FS Highest rated High Performance All-Season tire on tirerack based on user reviews. I don't know how they were wearing on the Maxx when it got totaled, but they have an 8.7/10 treadwear rating. The highest in the class is 8.8/10 and only two other tires in the class are above 8/10. Here is a link to that page: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=HPAS Anyways, those tires totally transformed the Maxx. It was like it was at totally different car. Handling in both wet and dry was much improved, and the ride was much smoother. I'm not sure what you have on the G6 right now, and if it's the same crappy Bridgestones they threw on the Maxx as the OEM tire, probably any tire will greatly improve the ride. That said, we put the TripleTreads on the Alero. It had Eagle RS-A's previously (OEM tire) and I didn't think the improvement was that great going to TripleTreads. I'm not sure how the wear is on the tires, however it gets an 8/10 on treadwear. There are 3 Michelins with 8.9 or higher in that class. The Goodyear is ranked 2nd in class, with the three Michelins 1st, 3rd, and 4th. So it looks like the Michelins get better treadwear, and I was very impressed with the Exalto's on the Maxx. Here are the survey results for that class: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=AS (note the Exalto we put on the Maxx is High Performance All Season, not just All Season, so it is not listed on this survey, but the one I posted above). As for the Envoy... After the again crappy OEM Continentals wore out, we replaced them with Fortera TripleTreads. As I said in the first line of the post, DO NOT BUY THESE! They are actually very good tires (much improved ride/handling), but they wore out on our Trailblazer (we have a EXT, but same thing basically) after only about 35k miles. We bought them before they were out for very long, and they got very good reviews, but there obviously wasn't much information on tread life. As you can see at tirerack, they are rated 2nd in their category, but only get a 7.7/10 for treadwear (2nd lowest out of the top 10 tires in the class). I believe we replaced them with Michelin LTX M/S2 (either M/S2 or M/S). As you can see, both of those are also highly rated and get 9.6 and 9.1 on the treadwear rating. We haven't had our on very long so I can't tell you how long they lasted on the TrailBlazer yet, except that I would say they made it ride and handle even better than the Goodyears. Of course, we're talking about worn out Goodyears vs. new Michelins, but both ride and handling vastly improved, and I think by a bigger margin than when the Goodyears were put on to replace the Continentals. Here is the survey results on tirerack for the Michelins and Fortera in that class: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=HAS Michelins do cost a bit more, but based on the information I've read and from my experience they are definitely worth it. They improved the Maxx more than the TripleTreads improved the Alero, and the Forteras didn't last long on the TrailBlazer. Note that the Michelins and Fortera have similar ratings (the top Michelin is on average about .2-3 better on most categories) except when you get to treadwear the Michelin blows the Fortera away.

The Civic actually looks much more catroonish and worse in person than the pictures. I was not one bit impressed when I saw it in person yesterday.

The CTS isn't that small. It's the same length as the E-Class and less than 2 inches shorter than the 5-Series. The 3-Series is significantly shorter (13 inches) than the CTS. Hopefully the next gen addresses this issue without having to make the vehicle any longer. It simply isn't space efficient compared to the E and 5. Also forgot to mention that I sat in the Sonic. It seemed pretty cheap to me, but I guess that's what you get in the entry-level subcompact market. Forgot to sit in the Fiesta to compare.

I totally forgot to even go to Kia, I wanted to sit in the Optima. I did sit in the Equos or however it's spelled, but I wasn't that impressed. Yes, it has a ton of gadgets and features, but it just feels a bit unfinished. It also doesn't seem like it's much of a step up from the Genesis aside from the added features. Didn't sit in any Mazdas. Only sat in the Nismo 370Z, which had great seats but the rest of the interior is quite underwhelming, and at $41k it's the same price as a Boss Mustang, which while I said wasn't that impressive, is certainly better than the 370Z, and is basically the same sort of "track package" car.

So this is a nationwide clearance at AAP? May have to go tomorrow, though I can't say I really need any more detailing products at the moment.

Not sure how long of a write up I'm going to do, just going to throw out some thoughts from what I remember... Volt is pretty nice inside, really looks good outside too. Think it has great potential to change the perception of GM amongst many people. It was also one of the busiest areas in the show. ZL1 is pretty "meh" to me. At the end of the day, it's still a Camaro and doesn't look that much different than an SS. Camaro convertible is pretty nice as well. I'm a little underwhelmed by the interior, however; the Mustang is nicer. Regal and LaCrosse are both quite nice (but I already knew that from before), Verano looks okay but nothing spectacular. CTS seems quite cramped for its size, when compared to A6/5-Series/E-Class. The Chrysler group interiors are very improved, but still not top of the class. The 200 was perhaps the biggest improvement, but it feels quite small, and one of its main competitors (Regal) is significantly better. The Grand Cherokee was very nice. I liked it better than the Explorer, which seems overpriced. Totally forgot to sit in the Durango. Wasn't that impressed with the 300 or Charger. The 300 had a sunroof and I hit my head on the roof, and I'm only 6' tall. Charger's seats were way too flat, you sit on them not in them. Also didn't like the front end on the Charger, though the rear end is pretty cool. I was very impressed with VW. The Jetta is incredibly spacious for a compact, and the materials all feel of good quality for the class. The Passat is also very spacious for a midsize, and while the interior is a bit bland, so are most of the cars in the class. Again I felt the materials were all of good quality. Yes they both look like appliances, but so do most of the cars in their classes. The TDI's were quite popular as well, and VW was perhaps the busiest non-luxury brand. BMW was probably my favorite brand. The 7-Series blows the S-Class out of the water. Same with the 5-Series vs. E-Class (E-Class is just terrible though). Didn't sit in a 3-Series because I have quite a few times. The Z4 fit me like a glove, and at $53k seems pretty well priced considering the price of some of the other convertibles (G37 was $52k, and while it does have a back seat, it's not very useable, and the interior on it is crap). Audi disappointed me a bit in their display. Almost all of their vehicles were silver (boring) and you couldn't sit in the A8. I really like the A5 a lot, however. Ford was pretty busy. The Focus is nice but I think the Jetta and Cruze are nicer. Explorer is nice, but I liked the Jeep GC better as I said earlier, and the Explorer seems quite expensive. I didn't really understand the Boss; some of the versions of it or whatever you want to call the different paint schemes seem tacky, and for the extra money it doesn't seem like you get much more.

It sure would be nice if the Cruze LS got cruise control as at least an option, if not standard.

The Forte is a copy of the last gen Civic, and this new Civic is clearly evolutionary. I don't see your point here? Kia copying Honda and Honda copying itself does not mean Honda copied Kia.

On the doors on all sides of the cladding. Below, in front, and in rear of each piece of cladding (obviously on top too, but that's how it's supposed to look). It's like the cladding is 98% as big as it should be.

The Avenger interior is tasteful if a bit bland/dated looking. It actually reminds me a lot of the GTO interior, with the way the center stack kind of wraps around on the dash. On the Patriot I don't like how you can see the exterior color between the gaps on the black plastic. Looks kind of cheap or unfinished.

I don't think that's the Si interior. The current one spins to 8k rpm (redline) and this one shows a redline below 7k rpm. That's probably the EX-L interior, since that's the only model you can current get with leather (except maybe the Si, I'm not sure). Plus you can't even get an auto in the Si currently.

How did they mess up the front window so much? Aside from that I think it looks pretty good for what it is, though this is the SI model. It will be interesting to see if what basically looks like an MCE, both interior and exterior, will hurt Honda or not. There's nothing really wrong with it, it's just that we've already seen a car that's 80% the same for 5 years. The shifter looks obnoxiously big, and they made the little "hood" thing where the speedo is bigger, with some sort of screen on it (for fuel economy, etc?). The current hood is small enough that it's really not that noticeable once you get used to it, but this hood seems too large.

For what you can get on the Regal I think it is a better deal than the Malibu. For only about $40 more a month you can get a Regal with a lot more equipment than a Malibu 1LT. The LS is very cheap and probably has more equipment than the Cruze. I'm not sure if she wants something as big as the Malibu though. The Ally website is sort of annoying because it does 15,000 mile per year leases. So it tells me it would cost $95 a month for the Cruze rather than $50 because of the increase in price for the extra miles. It would be nice if you could chose how many miles you wanted. Obviously you can get either, why can't it show either?

The dealer advertising the Regal for $25.5k on the $28.8k model said it could be had for $195 a month. I'm guessing that includes tax, etc. but not sure, and they haven't responded yet after I asked. The Cruze is only a good deal on the LS, which is a shame, because as you said you can't even get cruise control on it. That Regal deal is really good, but I'm not sure that my sister wants that much of a car payment right now. I only ever drive around town, though that may change if I get a full-time job not here, otherwise I could probably get $500 for the LSS and pay $75 a month for the Cruze. I'm going to push this hard on my parents tonight. My sister drives 50 miles a day to work, so the 39 months, 39000 miles probably wouldn't work very well. But she could have the Civic that my brother currently has and run up the miles on that while my brother drives the Cruze around town. $50 a month is simply too good of a deal. The Cruze will probably save my sister $50 a month in gas over the Alero, plus it has a warranty and the Alero has had a lot of repair costs.

So it appears that my sister could trade in her Alero and get a Cruze LS for about $50 a month. ($900 down, $159 a month for 39 months = $7100). Haggle that $100 off, take off $3500 in GM credits and $1500 or so in trade (that's on the low side) and you're at $2000 for 39 months = $51 a month. However, I don't know what the residual value or money factor (interest rate/2400) are on the Cruze LT leases, which is obviously more desirable. Similarly, for a base Regal (agreed upon selling price of MSRP, $27k) can be had for $249 a month for 39 months, $2000 down. I found a $28.8k model (adds heated seats, sunroof, dual power seats, some other stuff) for $25.5k, so not knowing the lease info I figured it would be safe to take about $500 off the total lease price of the lease term to determine how much it would cost us to lease this... $249*39+2000 = $11700. Take off the $500 adjustment for price, $3500 GM credits, $1500 trade, $1000 loyalty bonus (that's already factored in on the Cruze) and you're at $5200. Divide by 39 months and we can get the Regal for $133 a month with nothing down. However, it's hard for me to calculate the exact prices without nothing the residual value and interest rate or money factor. Somehow Edmunds admins (or whatever they're called) can find them, but I don't know where they are, can someone please help and post the RV and IR/MF for Cruze LT and Regal? TIA!

I really could care less about minivans, so I have no comment on the Caravan. The Journey interior looks nice and the screen is awesome, but I can't help but feel that it looks too much like a station wagon. I don't think it looks bad and it wouldn't turn me off from buying it, but I think it will turn off a large amount of the general buying public. Perhaps I'm wrong, I just get the feeling that it looks too station wagon-like for the general public. Like the first gen SRX, it may be a fantastic vehicle that doesn't sell well because of this one "flaw." The Durango looks pretty sweet, I originally didn't like it much but these pictures make it look much better than the press release pictures. I'd buy one if I needed an SUV. Interior is a bit bland but it looks nice enough. The dealer should probably take the plastic off the wheels The 200 is pretty lackluster to me. The interior is okay, but it seems so bland except for the brightwork/chrome to add a little contrast. The rear seat looks pretty terrible as well. Not a whole lot of legroom (and no cutout in the back of the rear seat to help, either), and the seats seem very flat. Those headrests also don't appear to be adjustable, which is a big problem if you have taller passengers.

I have posted a picture of the article now.

Yeah I could probably do that. Was thinking about taking a picture of it as well. Forgot to mention the Toyota's person answer for "Gearhead car" or whatever it was they said "Scion tC."

So I live about 2 hours south of Chicago, and today there's an article about the Chicago Auto Show, where they ask 4 or 5 "car people" some questions about which vehicle they'd buy in certain classes. How they picked them I do not know (one of them was a Toyota spokesperson, who of course answered with a Toyota product each time, didn't make much sense). Drew was also in the article, and it mentioned C&G. I can't find the article online or I would post it, but I thought it was pretty cool since it was an article written by an editor of the newspaper, not just some random article they took from somewhere else. EDIT: Here is a picture of the article:

So if this comes in at $70k you think people are actually going to buy it? A GT500 is $48k. Very few people are going to spend $70k on a Camaro. There are much better options at that price point. At $50k it makes sense. I'm not complaining, I was simply stating that it wouldn't be $65-75k as moltar originally stated, and gave examples of why it wouldn't be that much.