Duncan

Man, do I love A-bodies!

But that color...

...is fantastic. Totally 1970s - as it should be.

And yeah, something about the Olds 455 sound...just beautiful.

If I were Chrysler I would AX the Jeep Patriot (and what is to become of the Liberty?) and I would move the Patriot name or something like it to this chassis / clone. Patriot is a nasty ride, if Jeep wants a CUV below the Grand Cherokee, it needs to be here.

Well, I agree with you partially.

Kill the nonsensical Compass, keep the recently-refreshed and decent-selling current Patriot for a bit longer, and then redesign it on an evolution of the Journey's platform in a few years. Keep it reasonably-sized (no third seat for the Jeep version, thank you), make it nimble in town, and add an optional Trail Rated package for those who want it (like me).

The current Patriot is admittedly a pretty substandard beast even with its revised interior, but it does one thing right in attempting to get some real off-road ability out of an economical package. I'd appreciate more work along those lines from Jeep in the future - along with the usual harder-core stuff like the new Grand, the Liberty (hopefully with the new 3.6 engine soon) and the Wrangler.

I mean, if the Russians have been selling crossovers like this successfully for decades...

...I'd think Jeep could get on the same bandwagon by now, and do an even better job of it.

(By the way, this is my first post in a while - good to see the C&G crew remains as sharp as ever!)

Fixed, since the 3rd row would be fine for kids if American kids weren't so fat. If people didn't give their tubby-tubby-fat-fat children so many empty calories, they wouldn't need Suburbans to haul 3 children.

My parents used to haul me and my brother and sister around in an '88 Dodge Colt Vista, which was about the same size as a Mazda 5 but had 4WD to boot. That was a neat little wagon. Got better mileage than the Caravans and Aerostars everyone else was driving, too.

Yes, and incidentially, I think the Jetta will be the only C-segment wagon (estate) sold in the US this year... (not counting the strange tall wagons like the HHR, Vibe,Matrix, or Rondo)

Anyone else see an easy opportunity? Ford used to have the Focus wagon here, but that recently disappeared.

Maybe Saturn can capitalize with a version of the Astra wagon.

It's about $5,000 less comparably-equipped.....that's not insignificant for a vehicle that shares a large portion of it's architecture, not to mention it's fabulous engines, with it's more expensive 3-series cousin.....

But it begs the question - if it's that similar, what's the point? Why sell a slightly smaller, less spacious version of the same vehicle?

The same vehicle with BMW's new four-cylinder engine would make a lot more sense. Maybe that's BMW's plan - I hope so.

Lemme just edit what you apparently forgot to emphasize.

GMNA has had the radiation and chemotherapy treatments and the disease in North America is getting worse not better. Perhaps now is the time GM Europe has to look at what is better for GM Europe as a whole, should it risk death with a diseased limb, or amputate the affected limb and move on with it's life.

That's closer to what you intended, right? It would fit your usual pattern...

It's not going to be lighter.

The platform will have to be engineered with heavier components for the added power either way and the Turbo V6 will be just as heavy.

And FWIW, no. I'd choose the V8 anyday.

I have to agree, as the V8 is kinda the whole point of the Camaro.

My only compromise would be the choice of an automatic over a stick, since that's probably the only way to get DOD and the extra economy it provides.

Who's talking about Europe or Korea? We are talking about GMNA, as in North America. Did you even read the article?

I did, thanks. And this is what I read:

One far-out idea, which sources close to the company say has been floated by a New York investment firm, would be to split off the troubled North American business from the profitable overseas units and issue stock in the latter.

Translation: Remove GME/Holden/Daewoo from the company as the "stronger" side, leaving GMNA to survive on its own (perhaps called something else, though we would know better).

You may personally translate that in the opposite direction - removing GMNA and leaving GME/Holden/Daewoo to survive - but my definition is how such a move would eventually pan out in regards to the home country's industry. (Remember, GM is still an American company. Remember?)

Feel free to ask yourself how the separation of Chrysler from Daimler panned out. My view is that a stronger Daimler took what it could use, then excised Chrysler and threw it out like so much dead weight - allowing Chrysler's stock to plunge, since clearly Daimler had "no faith" in their American arm's abilities.

I'd rather not see a similar situation as to what has happened/is happening with Chrysler (merger with large auto company, later buyout by investment group, subsequent misdirection and economizing, and probable eventual sale as a tax write-off) or MG-Rover (basically the same, but with complete collapse of the organization first before the tax sale).

Australians should consider this an ominous prospect as well - what use would GME/Daewoo have for anything that Holden is able to provide, except on a token level?

well, detroits cars are damn good today but the fact that so many people think they still build crap pisses me off.

japan's cars are not really much better if at all yet the press and public opinion is that japan inc is gold and us stuff is feces on the sidewalk on a hot day. there is not hardly that much difference in most price classes.

My 60-year-old father, a long-time import buyer (most recently Toyota for my mom and Honda for him), was amazed at the quality of the Malibu when we saw it at the Denver Auto Show recently. As he said, "I'd be proud to own this car. I'm glad GM finally gets it." He also really liked the Buick Lucerne (he was surprised that it offered a V8 engine), but is amazed at the amount of energy expended on the marketing of full-size trucks and SUVs.

Keep in mind that my dad generally views cars from a design/practicality standpoint. For instance, despite all of its other fine features, he immediately discounted the Ford Five Hundred for having a "crappy trunk" (specifically, with exposed hinges and poor finishing). He was also very impressed with the new Challenger and the Mustang Bullitt ("that's what these cars need to look like" - he never liked the last-gen Camaro, as it was too futuristic for his tastes), and has finally been vindicated by the HHR Panel in his wish for someone to build an economical panel truck (though he still wishes it came with 4WD of some kind). I suspect he'll be even more impressed when Ford finally brings over the Transit Connect.

He has also grown quite appreciative of my sister's Kia Sedona (perhaps the best cargo space value on the American market), is only half-convinced about my own Mazda 626 (since he hates its low stance compared to Mom's Camry), loved his old Subaru Justy and Suzuki Swift purchases, and thinks the Toyota FJ Cruiser is an overpriced plaything that doesn't justify its poor fuel economy or compromised design. And don't get him started about people who use pickup trucks as family sedans. The current Toyota Tundra, to him, is a bad mistake that Toyota never should have made - too big, too lacking in quality, and too much of everything he didn't like about American pickups.

Finally, he sees no reason why EVERY car shouldn't have a hybrid system. He wishes his own Element came with one, and still laments that Honda won't put their system on more vehicles that need it. He might have seriously considered the Saturn Vue Hybrid at one point, but it has never had enough usable cargo space for him.

What does all this tell us? That intelligent design, practical engineering, and competitive products can win over even the jaded import buyer. If the American makers keep that in mind, and continue working toward great products rather than easy profits, a turnaround IS possible.

Well, Chrysler might be owned by a foreign company, but not Ford or GM.

Correction - the plants and employees of Chrysler will be owned by a foreign company.

And wouldn't it be ironic if Renault, who Chrysler squeezed out of their company once (via AMC), came back along with Nissan to take them over entirely?

It makes sense...

No, it doesn't.

Half of GM's engineering that it will need to survive in the next decade - EcoTec engine development, smaller platform architectures - is centered in Europe and Korea.

Stock analysts like these kind of moves because they shake up the market and increase speculation, which is good for them - but $h!ty for actual product development. Not to mention the effect on corporate morale - it turns everything into a saleable asset, rather than an integral part of the company.

For those who will instantly compare this to Ford's sell-off of Jaguar and Land Rover, that's not an apt comparison because neither of those brands did much that was innovative on their own - they borrowed from the larger engineering centers of Ford Europe and Volvo Cars. (This is why I still think selling Volvo Cars would be a horrible mistake - they have done, and continue to do, a lot for Ford.)

What needs to happen is a serious rethink of how GM develops its vehicles - every vehicle should have the strongest possible case to be able to be sold to as many buyers around the world as possible. Whether this is derived from something as simple as offering different powertrain choices in various countries, or is more complex like substantial platform-sharing arrangements, each vehicle needs to make a case for itself.

Splitting the company into digestible chunks, however, is the fastest way to having no company at all.

Certainly looks Photoshopped and a rather crude attempt at that. Nonetheless the roof line looks attractive and if the actual Cobalt shares that with whatever this car is, then I am a happy camper.

I doubt the 1.4 turbo will be the powerplant of choice. The added cost of the turbocharger, intercooler assembly and additional maintenance intervals isn't worth the fuel savings over say a 1.8 liter engine of the same 140hp rating. If you ask me, I'll like to see a non-turbocharged 2.0 LNF derivative with around 170 hp as the base engine with the 2.0 liter turbo in the SS. Using the same engine with or without forced induction saves on parts inventory and supply chain costs. A 2.0 liter DI DVVT powerplant should be plenty efficient enough and still give the Cobalt a modest power advantage over the competition. It wouldn't be a step backwards from the 148 hp 2.2 in performance and the fuel consumption figures wouldn't be more than 1 MPG off that of the Civic or Corolla -- if that. The excellent 6T40 and 6T70 6-speed autos ought to be standard equipment. It'll buy the vehicle more efficiency gains than going to a smaller displacement and adding forced induction while sticking to an outmoded 4-speed auto. If Chevy wants to make a big splash with the greenies, make the BAS and the mild hybrid system standard on all Cobalts -- it is basically a fancy alternator and a 36V battery which doesn't cost much.

Contrary to popular believes engine displacement is not the biggest determinant of fuel consumption -- not even close. Weight is the leading cause, and things like gearing and drive train parasitic loss all account for more than displacement. Think about it for a second... The Honda Accord with a 3.5 liter 268hp V6 does 19 City / 28 Hwy MPG. A Corvette with a whopping 6.2 liters of LS3 power does a not too shabby 16 City / 26 Hwy! Why? Because the Corvette is a 3250 lbs car... very modest around the belly by today's standards.

I would think one of the 6T automatics is a given. Having a NA 2.0 DI is also a good idea, but a smaller engine - maybe a 1.6 DI? - in base models would not hurt.

However, adding the hybrid tech is probably a bit much - GM is already having problems with battery supplies, so there's no need to aggravate that further until things stabilize in that regard.

Finally, has anyone heard anything about a two-door version of this car? All I've heard and seen relates to the four-door...I'll be sad if the coupe disappears.

I was thinking that too or Mako Shark III.

I get a hunch this may be like the Stingray Concept they did a few years back that showed us the exposed head lights and afew other things that showed up in the C6. I think it is too soon and too radical for a C7.

Agreed. But thinking back to the Mako III (1993, I think?), it's impressive how much actually made it into the C5.

If this so-called XR1 is a similar forecast, color me intrigued.

Also, is Bumblebee still using fake wheels, or are those the real alloys this time?

I can't comment on the quality of the information...only that source is probably about the only one equating that era of Accord with the Lumina on any level.

My main point was that if one is going to denigrate a resource in one post, but then use the same info to make a point in the next one--I'm going to call BS.

Fair enough. Keep in mind, that's a review of the Lumina as a used car - if I'm remembering correctly, CG's new-car reviews for the Lumina grew steadily less forgiving after 1992 or so. (This makes sense, considering some of the best-ever versions of the Camry and Accord were arriving about that time.)

perhaps that same logic is why the next impala will remain fwd

My problem with that is, why the hell should Buick be FWD, too? (I mean, if it's good enough for Pontiac...)

I thought Edmunds was pretty much "the enemy" on this forum.

I just thought Edmunds had crap reviews. Maybe it's just me.

Regardless of that, I love the look of the new Max - much better than the weird shape of the last one.

That said, I'd want a car this big to have RWD, but there's a loyal cadre of Maxima fans out there who'll snap this up in a heartbeat. I wouldn't be ashamed to be seen in one, either.

Funny you say Skyline... that makes me think it's possible we could end up seeing this as Infiniti's 1-Series competitor Stateside.

I was hoping they might put a Silvia badge on the coupe, but I guess Infiniti wouldn't stand for that.

Let's rework the headline a touch, shall we?

Japanese Manufacturer Introduces Yet Another Wagon-Van-Crossover Thing - World Yawns, Stretches

When have they expressed their disdain for RWD? Their very first automobiles were RWD. The NSX and S2000 are both RWD.

I could be wrong, but I believe when the original RL came out in 1996, they said something to the effect that RWD was not that relevant to them, or that FWD was sufficient.

Then they crossed themselves up a bit with the current RL by adding AWD.

And now they're looking at rear-drive. Go figure.

My guess is that the extremely promising Hyundai Genesis might be scaring them a touch.

Rust isn't a problem in Colorado or Arizona... but I still don't see very many '80s GMs FWDers like the J-cars around. They seem to have all gone to the crusher by now...

Really? I still see tons of older A-bodies, usually of the Ciera/Century variety. And as I was paying fifty bucks (!) for a tank of gas the other day, a very clean mid-1980s Cavalier was pulling out. (I actually slightly envied the mileage he must be getting...)

all toyo ads are pompous. how can you single out only one? i turn the radio off when the tundra ads come on.

"Truck guys say that..."

*CLICK*

The CR-V is indeed the best selling, but it only became so after the redesign. And you can't say that it did not receive at least this much if not more blasting of the exterior design. And the CR-V also received considerable drivetrain blasting, something the Pilot hasn't received. I see no reason why this new Pilot won't increase sales over the previous gen.

Here are some more flattering photos of the Pilot. It has been receiving pretty positive reviews from the magazines.

Does Honda have a bias against normal-looking grilles? Between this, the Ridgeline, and the new Acura "wedge-tooth", I'm not sure anyone's actually in charge over at Honda R&D.

that's not saying much. My 1996 Roadmaster wagon is more functional than most of the new CUVs out there... and gets marginally better mileage too.

Saw a last-generation Olds Custom Cruiser about a month ago - absolutely stunning, perfect condition, in white-over-grey two-tone with alloy wheels. When it pulled up next to a Hyundai Santa Fe in roughly the same color combination, I realized how far we've fallen.

The Honda Pilot is, like so many other would-be SUVs, not much more than a lifted wagon with four-wheel drive. (And yes, that includes the Acadia/Outlook/Traverse. I don't count the Enclave, because it's clearly trying to go somewhere different.)

When the world finally realizes that the "lifted" part is basically irrelevant, perhaps we can approach sanity again.

Apparently, the "trying-too-hard-to-fit-in" era is coming to an end for the Japanese brands.

I always thought the Armada was a massive waste of resources (in both the building and the driving), which made me question Nissan's sanity when they promptly proceeded to introduce the even less sensible QX56.

With this news, Toyota will now attempt to claim that they hold some sort of dominance over Nissan in the SUV field. On the contrary, I would argue that Toyota has always had too many damned SUVs and should probably begin their own effort to cut back somewhat. (For instance, why do we need both the Sequoia AND the Land Cruiser, or the Highlander AND the Venza?)

The news about the Quest is a little more surprising, only because I thought Nissan planned to replace it with a more mainstream model next time around. Maybe they've decided, like GM, that trying to compete with the Honda Odyssey is a fool's errand. Or, alternatively, maybe they'll just rebadge a Dodge Caravan like Volkswagen is doing now.

Is it wrong that this name now makes me think of boobies?

I'm thinking that's not gonna hurt anyone's impression of the brand.