Duncan

I absolutely lust over the GranTurismo. Sure, it's slower than a Ferrari, but I think it would be infinitely more interesting to own in that people won't know what it is until they ask you.

Based on an American design, of course, but your point is well-taken.

Totally irrelevant to the topic, but I just have to say that I love the Studebaker tow truck in your sig. Someone working at a factory not far from my apartment complex has an absolutely beautiful Studebaker pickup, bright red, probably late-1950s or so. From what I can tell, it's driven daily - no idea whether it's using the original engine or not. Forget Oldsmobile - bring back Studebaker!

Can't do much else but agree with that. From Chevy Aveo to Bugatti Veyron, I pretty much pay attention to everything. Hell, cars like the Daihatsu Charade interest me...

I actually have no problem at all with the C6, either, but the C5 is a little bit more cohesive. I'd consider it - if they sold it here, that is.

I'm gonna have to disagree with the "quality" part of that sentence. German-built VWs seem to be OK, but most of our Mexican-built ones (including the Jetta) tend to self-destruct prematurely. Powertrains (especially the diesels) are usually fine. It's the rest of the car that falls behind...

Apparently, no one at Porsche has a long enough memory to recall the VW-Porsche 914 and the hatred it bred among Porschephiles. (I find it strange that I am the one to put this together, since the 914 predates me. But I digress...) Yep, Porsche's gradually putting their brand on the short road to irrelevance - first the Cayenne, then the Panamera, and now this "Golfrrera"? At least Lotus has managed to pull themselves back together - the world still needs at least one company building nothing but real, attainable, uncompromised sports cars.

I have to agree. I love what BMW is able to do with their engineering department, but the styling (at least since 2003 or so) has simply lost me. Put it this way: If I was told to find the best-performing luxury sedan on the market, regardless of price or anything else, a BMW 5 would be at or near the top of my short list. I'd just have to avoid looking at it too much. I know, styling is subjective, and not everyone likes the same things. But the 5's shape just doesn't say much that I like, or would pay $50k for.

It's smaller than a 3, so it makes people think they're saving money somehow. Go figure.

And the C230 Coupe did not exemplify the kind of quality anyone expects from Mercedes-Benz. It was also, to be blunt, not very attractive. The 1-Series is at least a nice-looking piece, but (as mentioned) it's expensive as hell. My biggest problem with it is that it's incredibly heavy for its size.

You didn't miss much without sound - it's just Chris Bangle failing to be coherent. Again. That said, I do love the concept of this thing. The pop-up headrests and invisible taillights are the coolest features, in my opinion.

If Mitsubishi was smart (something they stopped being a long time ago), we'd already have that car. They call it a Colt, and it's supposed to be one of the better small cars out there. There's even a semi-hot turbo version...

Not to defend him (as I've jumped into this discussion late, so haven't seen everything), but I should clarify something here. Consumer Guide has been around for quite some time - I have an old used car guide of theirs from the late 1970s, which covers cars as far back as 1968 or so. (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe at that time they noted that cars "about the size of the Dodge Dart" would be the norm in the future. Seems like they called that one pretty well.) Go to a Barnes and Noble and, on the magazine rack, you'll see their monthly book with full reviews and up-to-date price lists for every mainstream car on the market. About 300 pages for ten bucks, and no advertising, either, so they can afford to be honest. Quoting from the current print edition (the web is the same) about the 2008 Dodge Avenger: "Avenger disappoints with crude drivetrain behavior, unsophisticated road feel, and budget-grade cabin appointments. These demerits are offset by aggressive pricing and an impressive complement of key safety features. Any number of class competitors deserve a higher spot on your shopping list, however." On the Honda Accord, which they rate as a "Best Buy": "This perennial benchmark for midsize value and performance is redesigned for 2008, gaining power and passenger space. Though Accord is not leaps and bounds ahead of competitors, its rewarding balance of price, performance, and passenger accommodations make it a Best Buy for shoppers in this class." Finally, the Chevy Malibu, also a "Best Buy" (the first time for this model with CG, I believe): "Chevy takes Malibu from the realm of rental fleet darling to a must-see in this highly competitive segment. This midsize sedan is a Best Buy for its refined powertrains, smart interior design, and value pricing. We especially like the smooth, quiet 4-cylinder engine. Considering a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry? Be sure to add Malibu to your shopping list." The current state of their web site, as an offshoot of How Stuff Works, is a recent development which kinda pissed me off when I first saw it - it added a lot more advertising, but the quality of the reviews doesn't seem to have suffered. Consumer Guide itself remains a separate entity (under Publications International) - it's just the web site that's a co-brand thing. I've followed CG's reviews for the last decade or so (I used to look at their books mainly for the price lists, then started going more in-depth), and they've consistently given a pretty fair shake to both domestics and imports. Criticism, when justified, is also handed out evenly. This is more honest, I think, than Consumer Reports, which seems to enjoy being overly preachy and nitpicking. CG also makes a point of reviewing different models in a particular line, giving different grades as appropriate - rather than the usual car-magazine method of "one shot, do or die" comparison tests that instantly relegate losing cars (no matter the spec) to a forgotten corner of hell. For instance, the Malibu carries the following ratings on CG's scale: 70 points for the LS, 71 points for the LT four-cylinder, 72 points for the LTZ V6, and 70 points for the Hybrid. Likewise, the Accord gets 68 points for an LX-P sedan with automatic, 73 points for the EX four-cylinder automatic sedan, 74 points for the EX-L V6 automatic sedan, and 66 points for the EX V6 automatic coupe. The Avenger, meanwhile, rates a dismal 48 points for the SXT four-cylinder, 49 points for the R/T FWD, and 52 points for the R/T AWD. CG's class average for midsize cars is 63 points, so it's clear the Avenger is lacking in many respects. Their long-term test comments tend to be realistic as well. Again, regarding the Accord: "...I'm not blown away by any one of its attributes...it's just an OK deal." Or the Pontiac G6 GT convertible: "G6 convertible is better than Chrysler Sebring and Toyota Solara. I just expected it to be a lot better." And finally, an honest assessment of the Audi A3: "This compact hatchback is a pleasure...I would be hard-pressed, however, to shell out $30,000 despite all the accompanying bells and whistles...". Now, as regards the two used car reviews you posted. I don't see what's inaccurate about the following comments from CG... 1990-1994 Chevrolet Lumina: "Though quiet and capable cruisers, Luminas don't quite match Taurus in overall style, features, or performance. On the other hand, a reasonable secondhand price can overcome at least a few of those objections." 1990-1993 Honda Accord: "Pluses tend to outnumber this Honda's minuses. The Accord generally makes up for perceived deficiencies with high levels of overall quality, refinement, and performance when compared with the competition. Blessed with outstanding ride quality, high reliability, and sensible controls nestled in an airy, low-cowl cabin that's become a Honda trademark, the Accord continues to impress." And, just for parity, here's the 1990-1995 Ford Taurus: "We rank the early '90s Taurus/Sable among the most impressive domestic cars: solid, roomy, great to look at, and a joy to drive." Again, I'm not going one way or the other regarding your argument. But I believe Consumer Guide has proven itself a reliable source - more so, honestly, than other "reputable" sources like Edmunds. For example, the "Full Test" they just ran on the Hyundai Genesis was of a Korean-market model, at Hyundai's own proving ground, during a press event. Hardly what I'd consider a neutral environment, or a complete evaluation. And I long ago learned to take Car and Driver's comparisons with a grain of salt - especially recently, when they threw the BMW M3 into a test with the 911 Turbo and the Nissan GT-R. Inexplicably, the M3 won - because it's somehow "more sensible" than the other two. Sorry, but I don't look for practicality arguments in reviews of 400-horsepower vehicles. Rant over - continue, please.

So if racing improves the breed, then where are all of the sporty Toyotas?

I don't have a subscription, so I only got the outline, but Automotive News has an article about just how hard it's going to be (read: already is) for Ford and Chrysler to move the new 2009 F-150 and Ram. The bulk of the market has, shall we say, basically disappeared overnight for these two former cash cows. Sure, they'll get fleet sales from businesses that legitimately need big trucks, but what they'll miss is the easy profit from loaded Laramie SLT or King Ranch versions sold to Jim and Jane Consumer. I don't think GM will be in ruins - they've still got too much resiliency for that. However, I'd be surprised if the newly combined "PBG" dealer group didn't lose at least one of those brands by 2015. I hate to say it, but I think GM's traditional model is beginning to break apart under the strain of a vastly changed American market. (Hell, it was becoming unsustainable by the late 1970s already, so is it a shock to find it less workable now?)

I have not been around for a while (job search, long story, don't ask). However, I will refer everyone to my sig line...

Huh. Neither the Civic or the Accord I once owned, or my dad's Element, ever gave me anything close to a BMW feeling. Maybe I'm driving the wrong Hondas - the Pilot must be where it's at.

The Chevy LUV, the powertrain for the Chevette, Chevy/Geo Spectrum, Geo Storm, the Duramax diesel, thousands of medium-duty cab-over trucks (which will remain available), and reportedly a large chunk of engineering for the Colorado/Canyon twins. Yeah, they did their part.

If there were money I could get back for that, I'd ask for it. Maybe Comcast can refund me for that two minutes of streaming time I just spent...

As I mull it over some more, GM may be concerned that a G8 wagon would overlap too much with the GMC Acadia. Is that a reasonable assumption, or am I stretching too far? I personally think there's a place (and a markedly different buyer) for both.

I wouldn't pass one of these up, either... '73 Cutlass Supreme. There was a 4-4-2 option, but I'd stick with the standard car and make subtle mods myself.

Also, the Mazda 5 has done reasonably well. That must have figured in their calculations - I'm sure a lot of people here would like a van with the same economy as the 5, but more space. As for the E-series, I'd take that as a stopgap measure. Nothing really changed but styling and the addition of the smaller Power Stroke diesel (which was expected). And Ford (and GM?) has to have noticed the positive reaction to the Dodge Sprinter among delivery companies and fleets.

Explain, please, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not impressed with the Pilot, either - never really have been. But then, I don't like a great number of crossovers - my feeling is that if I'm buying a midsize SUV, it should at least be able to take a reasonable off-road journey without getting hung up or bogging itself down. Think old S10 Blazer, Jeep Cherokee, Nissan Pathfinder, etc. And yes, I am impressed with Ford's new 3.5 V6 - the Duratec 3.0, while a fine engine in its own right, was getting a bit outclassed. (I love the Mazda 2.5 in my 626 for the way it revs, but it was never a class leader in any way. Just very well-designed and quite durable so far.) Putting it in the Taurus is a good first step; putting it in the Fusion (at least as an option) would be a better one.

I'm still not a fan. The thing's just...bulky. I know they were going after the Murano's "stylish" side of the crossover market, but did it have to be so wide? At least Ford finally has a big V6 engine that's worth a damn, so that's something.

Just to be contrary, I'm now buying two - and will have one converted to a driver's side fuel door. Also, when's the B-Pillar Addicts Anonymous group starting up? I got some deep B-Pillar love going on...