SAmadei

I would argue that only the Impala got six and therefore only the Impala should get six in the future. Caprice got 6 as well. So did the Biscayne and BelAir in '59 and '72. Celebrity and Lumina... the precursors to the Malibu also had 6 at times. Of course, Chevy screwed it all up by putting 4 lights on the 1997-2003 Impalas. Chevrolet Celebrity 1st gen Lumina 2005-2011 Mustang. It can be done, assuming the individual elements were not huge. I think it would look VERY distinctive to put 6 lights across the back... 2 on the body, 4 on the trunk.

Really like the '67 and '68 B-bods. Do you remember roughly how much they wanted for them? I also think its interesting how the '68 Poncho B-bod has ICH-848 and the Lincoln Continental has IHN-345 license plates... so wierd to see two Ixx series plates in teh same series of photos... I would guesstimate the plates where issued in 1963 or 1964. As for the reverse canted window in the Continental convertible... I imagine its easier to engineer that than a normal forward canted window, as the window would just collapse between the folds, hinged on the rear bow, as opposed to falling into the convertible pit. Edit: So where was this?

Unless you are going to specifically point out a 40 year trend of research projects with a statistically significantly increase in research coinciding with the 2006-current development of the Volt, you are talking generalities. If you are so ignorant to think that I am comparing my cellular battery to the Volt's battery pack, then you are completely lost in this conversation and need a primer in battery tech. Perhaps you should go back to counting cupholders and measuring dashboard gaps. But know this... all batteries are based on cells... My cellular phone battery has one or two (I forget its voltage)... Will that run my laptop? No... But lets wrap up 6 or 9 slightly larger cells and it will. The technology underlying it is roughly the same... either the anode or cathode has some exotic Lithium based compound or doping, and we develop newer and newer ways to sandwich the anode and cathode closer together... nanotechnology, anyone?... to the point where they are build like semiconductors. Now will that run a car by itself? No... but lets scale it up again... 2000 cells, 4000 cells. At some point the mundane Lithium Ion battery is running a car. Scale it up more, its running your house. This is how Jesse James' electric drag car worked... a trunk full of 384 18V Lithium Ion batteries... probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 cells. This is how the Teslas work... a few thousand Lithium Ion batteries barely bigger than an AA cell. You can run your car on 5000 AAA batteries if you don't mind changing them every day. Problem is, that everytime you add cells, your rate of failure goes up. Even if cells don't fail completely, equalized cells waste energy and drag the whole pack down. How do I know? Simple, I run the one house on batteries, a small solar array and a Onan 6.5KW generator. Its old tech, so I have to equalize the batteries every so often. Its not Lith Ion, as I'm not a millionaire, but the concept is the same... when Lith Ion comes down in price to the same point in storage as the Lead Acids, I'll be all over it. As for the underlying technology, the same research and development in Lithium Ion batteries floods into all areas of battery applications. Cellphone batteries are required to be just as cutting edge as EV batteries, as the devices are requiring more and more power every year. Its costs a lot of power to run those big CPUs in BB's, iPhones and Androids. It costs a lot of power to use WiFi all day. If you think your cell phone battery from a RAZR a few years ago can power the new Android Thunderbolt for 4 days, you've lost it. Again, I KNOW battery power will get better... I've never said anything to the contrary. Money has been put into battery technology for decades... but the gains are not really giant. A battery is a battery is a battery... being put in an EV does not make it special. Research money goes to making batteries store more, store faster, degrade less, weigh less and increase reliability because this affects ALL battery uses. I love how every EV project is a token, aborted project until the Volt comes along. There are a lot of researchers who would punch you in the face for belittling their hard work. I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is nonexistent. Did you read that I'm predicting 5% gains in 5 years? 9% in the next decade. This is my take on roughly the rate battery tech has increased for the last 30 years. Whats your prediction? 50% in 5 years? 100%? 200%? At some point, in order to achieve these rates, we'd be making advances in material engineering that we'd have to be living the Star Trek lifestyle. I already lived through ultra-optimistic predictions of battery advances... 25 years go when I was writing research papers about it. Predicting that EVs will get more miles is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. But then again, people have been predicting greater gas efficiency, yet that peaked in 1987. I think predicting more miles comes under my 5% in 5 years prediction, assuming we don't add a half ton of entertainment hardware to our EVs in the meantime. Sure, they will invest in things like EV-specific floormats, spoilers and custom sound-tones so people hear them coming. Simple economics tells me that when a lot of these current research grants don't show immediate results, the venture capitalists will pull the rest of the money before its spent. We have a VERY short attention span anymore. Others will turn out to be completely fraudulent science. The rest of the big battery development companies will continue to develop slightly better batteries to keep ahead of the competition... as they already have the resources and understand the chemistry and physics of the problem at hand. The reason I am rebutting you is because people with exaggerated expectations are going to be what hurts the EVs. People predicting a utopia of cheap transportation... sure, no Aveo cheap, but $1.07 1999 gas prices cheap. EVs are not going to get established in 2011... they will be established over the next 15, 20 years... and people need to understand its going to be a long road of slower advances.

I don't like the honeycomb grille simply because that is a Pontiac cue, not a Chevy one. I left that tidbit out of my critique because of my obvious Pontiac bias. Speaking of the taillights... I don't get the feel of four elements, but two lights that each have two squarish LED rings in them. Sure, that adds up to 4, but its the keyword element that ties it into a Chevy historic cue. I would have preferred the taillights if they had made them look like separate units with some sheetmetal between them and if they didn't protrude from the body like a bubble-eyed goldfish. By going with the two lights with two squarish LED rings, the lights look like Audi ripoffs. But Audi did it better. Considering that the Malibu is on the upper half of the Chevy spectrum, I feel 6 elements would be more appropriate, anyway. And distinctive.

I find it interesting that in the Internet age, we generally get the opportunity to see the first car of a particular type that goes to the junkyard. Same thing happened with the new Camaro... days later, the first totaled Camaro was all over the nets.

You're proving Satty's point. The front end looks barely looks like a MCE... and the rear of the car looks like it trying to be something different from the front... just like the current 'Bu. Do I like the new 'Bu better? Well, yeah... but only because I REALLY hated the taillight treatment on the old one... but the new taillight treatment I feel is gimmicky. "Looks like the Camaro"... maybe to the blind. The only Camaro with lights like that was the convertible mule that had LED taillights and everybody panned it as awful. Glue 'em on the 'Bu and everyone swoons. I don't like the beltline on the bumper thatskirts the bottom of the headlights and dives below the lower grill. The fog lights and surrounds look like they are from the GM parts bin. I don't like the way the hood appears to bump up higher than the old hood... like the hood is trying to compete with the RAM pickup. I'm not really feeling the coke-bottle styling here... sure there is some rear haunches, the the lower belt between the two wheels is straight as the old Malibu. Sorry, I think in a short time this it going to be dated. This would have been a good 2010... not a 2012.

I hope Dodge makes the stability control easily defeatable, as a nod to the old school Viper enthusiasts.

You know, I actually worry about this to a certain degree. Having unrealistic expectations for EV development plays right into their hands.

Agreed. No house 40 years old is going to have the infrastructure to recharge a Volt quickly without upgrades, unless it was owned by Nikola Tesla himself. I'm a little iffy running my MIG on the '76 vintage junk in my house. Actually, 40 year old electrical is probably the low point... as a lot of houses have aluminum wiring. I'm sure the Volt recharger could overwhelm weak CU-Al contact points easily.

You are the one comparing EV cars to flat screens. You can't even compare CARS to flat screens... otherwise, cars would only cost 10% of what they did 10 years ago. THAT AIN'T HAPPENING. You need to start reading through battery R&D... we've been R&Ding batteries for over two hundred years. Batteries are used in all sizes and shapes from watches to locomotives... the biggest earth movers on the planet use huge batteries. We didn't suddenly start researching battery tech in 1999... we've been doing it for over a century. Making a lighter weight, more powerful battery that doesn't suffer degradation has gotten so much money thrown at it, well before we decided to get back into EV cars. Remember, its easy to look at the articles from the last 5-10 years and see huge dollar signs... but when GE puts $30 million into battery tech in 1968, that $30 million goes farther than $1 billion in today's money. As for the research going on? A huge percentage of the research is tunnel visioned on Lithium. Regardless of the technology, we are going to be restrained by chemistry and physics. There are no freebies. At some point the energy density will reach the point where the battery is a huge bomb. You think the government is going to allow that? You ever short out a Lithium ion battery? Its not pretty... I'd hate to see that happen in a EV. Dream on. Lithium batteries date to the 1970s. We are well along the curve with Lithium ion research, and we already know Lithium will have limitations. GM didn't stimulate this growth... Laptops and cellphones did. Motors have been getting lighter since Tesla invented the AC motor... we are waaaayyy down the curve on that technology, too. The current EV electric motors are about 150~200lbs... so we reduce that by 1/3~1/2... now they are 100 lbs. At the rate Americans are getting fatter, that savings will be out the window with a few trips to McDonalds. As for other components? GM put aluminum regular production parts on cars 30 years ago... that experiment lasted about 2 years. Audi has been doing aluminum components in bulk for decades, but GM can't even trim the 2011 Malibu below the weight of a 1968 Malibu... you really think GM is going to go all out reducing component weight? I'll believe it when I see it. The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding. The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains. Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle.

Alternatives to the lightest metal on the periodic chart? Not many of them. Synthetic Lithium... sure... we'll put the nuclear fusion reactor in your back yard. I suppose Sodium or Potassium ion batteries could be made, as all the Alkali metals have similar properties. However, these would be heavier and tend to be more reactive... and so are closer to being a munition.

I wonder how far you can move the rear seats back with a plasma torch before you run into important stuff you can't relocate.

Using your analog, if gasoline was like flat screens, I was paying $1.07 for regular 87 octane in 1998, so we'd be paying 10.7 cents a gallon for 140 octane gasoline today. Unfortunately, comparing flat screens to batteries is apples to oranges. Flat screens are not stuck being made from a small group of expensive metals. Batteries are. Lithium is $300/lb before you do anything to it. How much is used in the Volt? Where will this price go if large scale Lithium battery production starts and there is not enough Lithium extraction to go around? Lithium is not exactly common and always requires expensive processing to purify it. Remember, the biggest Lithium fields are in a middle eastern country currently at war with the US. I'm not saying that there aren't potential savings here... but it ain't going to follow the flat screen price free fall.

2011 AMG CL65... in Dark Blue with Black leather/Blash Ash interior.

Actually, trees love warm weather, carbon dioxide and water... so they wish everyone had a Suburban.

Meh. The nose is looking very evolutionary, adding cues taken from other cars... by the time it gets here, the rest of the industry will be showing off the next fads. I like the muscular hints of the body, but I want to see them from other angles before passing judgement. Knowing the taillights hint of Camaro, I fear the final result is another mixed up design where the front and back look like they are from different cars. I think the design needs more cohesiveness.

I always liked the styling of these. Finally a vehicle that doesn't matter what wheels do the driving. Well, that and trains.

Well, I don't like autolocking doors, either. I've done delivery where I never shift out of drive as the passenger hops in and out... it means "fixing" the locks or pressing the button constantly. Also, in my Bonne, it does NOT unlock until the car is turned off. Makes it a real PITA for me to open the gate into the yard... I nearly break the door latch before I remember to unlock the door manually. The GP unlocks in park, but I then to be faster on the draw to the door latch than the car can unlock. Big deal is that I'm already unfolded and half out of the car, I have to refold myself to reach the locks/trunk release. Worse, if I am outside the car, without the fob, and I want to lock the doors or open the trunk, I have to crawl into the car to reach that part of the dash. I'm still annoyed that I can't start the GP while outside the car... I can't reach around the steering wheel because the key is lower on the dash... the locks/trunk would be even farther in.

Neither do I. Dashboard already has enough crap on it.

Funny... I stopped thinking at Marlboro, NJ... didn't think about the phone number since _I_ have a NY phone number... and so does my sister, living in Cali. But 718 is for nearly all landlines. Don't worry... I also have an old school '609' number and will always be '609' to the core... :-P I have little experience with NY registration/inspection stickers, until 2000 when I bought two NY cars in quick succession... but its still kinda alien to me... the inspection stickers are RED this year in NYC... every time I see the GF's car, I think it failed inspection. It hasn't.

Glad it was uselessly delayed in NA 3 years to get all the bugs out of it.

Proper speling, grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation in the ad text would be nice too, but I might be asking for too much. You probably are. At least with a photo says a thousand words, they are spelled right, proper grammar, etc... assuming you put the whole subject in the photos. Dude couldn't have stepped back two more steps and included the whole car in the first two shots? Then a shot of 25% of the interior thats not in shadow... and is the final shot a "before" cleaning shot? Its potentially a very nice car, but you can't really see the important parts from the shadows and accidental cropping of the photos. If this area was too tight for a full photo, take it somewhere else... they indicate it runs and drives... I'm sure that means it got a VERY dry start and a joy ride. Tidbit... the inspection sticker is interesting... doesn't strike me as a '84 NJ inspection... Pennsy, perhaps?

I really wish people used common sense when taking photos.

I know that I must get some comments from my rides, but at my size, people keep them to themselves. I'm sure watching me drive around with the top of my head out of the sunroof on the GP or unfold from the Sunfire is something of a spectacle. Mom doesn't approve of a couple cars... usually my older ones. For example, the '95 Caprice... because I got it dirt cheap and the paint is burning off of it. But the commentary rarely goes beyond "junk". My favorite comment I've gotten lately... while coming out of the dollar store holding 5 gallons of beverages with each hand, a guy walking the other way yelled. "Damn, this M-F'er is THIRSTY!"

That probably wouldn't meet the 'decent fuel economy' requirement, as good a car as it is. From fueleconomy.gov: 2006 GTO V8 6-speed... 15 city, 23 hwy... 18 combined. 2007 Nissan 350Z V6 6-speed... 18 city, 25 hwy... 20 combined. Driving style is going to make or break this more than the 2 mpg difference. Plus I've seen a lot of GTOs going cheaper than the 350Z... $4000 buys a lot of gas... 1000 gallons, 20,000 miles... He would have to put 200,000 on the car before the 10% difference in mpg mattered.