cmattson

The auto-show just finished up last weekend here in Mpls -- and here's a local Tundra advertisement from the Mpls Star & Tribune: $3k below MSRP AND 3.9% financing Isn't that interesting? I didn't think Toyota needed to incent their vehicles? (What? Sure, I'd love some kool-aid). Mmmmmm Toyota vehicles are the best ever. Their vehicles don't need incentives. Their vehicles never break down. This is not the droid you are looking for.

Ok, Sorry I'm late to the party on this one, but I just got to the auto-show yesterday. Here's my observations: 1) The Tundra isn't that nice looking -- inside or out. Toyota was working it -- they must've had 50% of their floorspace devoted to the Tundra. Their advertising was waaaay over the top "fully-boxed and C-Channel frame for strength". That's an actual quote. Compare to Ford's FULLY-BOXED frame -- and now take into account that GM, Ford, and Dodge's vehicles all have a 5-star front crash rating and while the Tundra garned only 4 and you can easily see this is nothing more than marketing b.s. 2) Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep was a mess. I sat in every vehicle at the show. DCJ's lineup was incredibly weak. The interior's of the Jeep's looked 15 years old. Very dated. The Chrysler/Dodge products were filled with cheap, hard surfaces. The new Sebring's styling is a complete 'miss'. Dark days ahead for D/C/J. 3) The Solstice/Sky roadsters are impracticle in every way (and I'd still buy one in a heartbeat). They take your breath away with just a glance. There's hardly another car at the show that can achieve this via exterior styling alone. 4) I was disappointed by the new pickup truck interiors. They were ok, but nothing where I went 'Whoa!'. Matter of fact, Ford's "King Ranch" edition interior was lights-out fantastic. Easily the nicest interior for a pickup truck. 5) The nicest vehicle at the show? The one where you had to stand in a line to sit in it? GM's new crossovers. I was particularly impressed by the Saturn. It's interior was rich & nicely styled. The exterior was jewel-like. It appears to be a vehicle without weakness & without compromise. I can see it being a runaway success, stealing both minivan and SUV sales. Kudo's to GM -- I wish all of their vehicles were this nice. 6) VW's newer interiors are getting cheapened. Still very nice, but it's not hard to find hard, unattractive plastics 7) Honda's new Civic is *very* nice -- inside and out. But for $20,xxx? That's a little pricey for a compact. I can get into a very nice midsize for that price. I could fill out a G6/Fusion/Milan for that price. Lastly, the Saturn Astra. Two were on display -- wish I could've sat in one. From what I could see, I was very impressed. I'm not much of a hatch-person, but I'd buy an Astra without much second-thought -- it's very attractively styled.

Will the Ultra V8 have HCCI? I was browsing today & came across the news from the Geneva auto show about GM's new 2.9l V6 diesel. It rang a bell for me, so I rummaged through some old bookmarks and came across this post. I originally dismissed the post as being nonsense or unbelievable, but now with the 2.9l being officially announced, it makes me wonder about the 4.5l V8 being mentioned -- is it the Ultra V8 rumored to replace the Northstar? HCCI huh? Sounds cool!

Just a wild guess: you've never tried driving a Camaro w/a shift kit in snow, have you? It's not a question if you're gonna get hung up somewhere, it's how far off the road you're gonna end up (or how high your front end is gonna be off the ground (up on a snowbank).

Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread -- but I must've missed this one when it was alive -- and I've got some questions for people to opine, speculate, and/or educate: 1) What to make of the Atlas 4.2l? I thought the Trailblazer was dying? If that's true, then this motor doesn't have a home. You could make the case of it replacing the 4.3l Vortec as the base engine in the Silverado -- but the Atlas challenges the 4.8l V8 for hp/torque.. so you'd have the more expensive 4.2l Atlas replacing two cheap-to-build pushrod engines. Would GM really do that? 2) The 3.5l/3.9l twins. These motors offered tremendous value, but the automotive public believes in the DOHC design - and GM realizes it. If GM follows suit on the 3.6l / 2.4l replacing these guys, then I believe they are creating a small gap in their engine offerings. While most sedans (and these engines are primarily sedan-motors) offer a 240-250hp V6, GM was unique in offering 'ok' performance (200-220hp) with good gas mileage. I know the engine family that the 3.6l is built upon was designed to offer engines anywhere in the range of 2.8l upto 4.0l. I'm curious to see if GM would have any plans to offer a smaller-displacement DOHC V6 to fit into that 200-220 hp range. Caddy uses the 2.8l in the CTS (210hp). Perhaps a DI-Ecotec could fill that slot as well? 3) The pushrod V8's: Toyota has upped the hp while matching in gas mileage. GM isn't way-behind, but it isn't in the lead anymore. GM's gotta have some plans for these to get freshened up. Anybody heard anything interesting? I'd imaging that they could implement the VVT system that the 3.5/3.9 engines enjoy. Matter of fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't. GM was toying w/3-valve heads for a while as well -- but that was years ago, and I imagine that if it offered significant benefits, we'd have already seen it by now.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-0...eter-usat_x.htm

I'm not sure how they only got 31.x mpg. I owned the slightly heavier Malibu with the same 2.2l. I could count on one hand how many times I dipped underneath the 32mpg range on that car -- and it was typically a full week of stop and go and/or beat the piss out of it type driving. I grew so accustomed to my 34-36mpg in my Malibu that my current 2.4l Pontiac G6's 30-31mpg seems weak in comparison. In all fairness, the G6 has *incomparably* better acceleration than the 2.2l Malibu. The G6 also hauls around 16in tires (compared to the Malibu's 15's) and the G6 is using the slightly heavier extended-wheelbase Epsilon.

Link to article:http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Stor...44}&siteId=mktw

Thanks everyone for the well-wishes.. and yes, I'd like this one to be a long-term test. As for the armrest of the G6, I found it awkward for about the first 2 days, then I adjusted. I found no problem with the seat or the pedals -- the adjustable pedals help quite a bit in that regard. The armrest of the Malibu is much better, IMO. The G6 suffers from Pontiac shoe-horning the emergency brake into the console. On the Malibu, the armrest is narrower and longer with the cup holders in a side-by-side arrangement. The only real complaint I've got right now is the door-locks being up high ontop of the door panel.. they poke your arm when you rest if up there.. but I've managed to get comfortable around that.. the key for me was moving the seat position back. I'm 6'0'' - which is pretty average - so I'd think that perhaps I wouldn't struggle as much as someone who was significantly shorter or taller.

Well, I purchased a used white '06 G6 w/2.4l (29k, $12,900) -- which is what I was most interested after my Malibu went to car heaven. Here's some observations/opinions on my '04 Malibu: 1. *Easily* the most boring car I've ever owned. I went from washing my vehicles 1 once (sometimes twice) a week to maybe once a month. The car was as uninspiring to look at as it was to drive. It was truly an appliance. 2. The Ecotec 2.2 gets stellar gas mileage. I routinely pulled 400-450 miles out of 13-13.5 gallons of gas. Factor in that roughly half of those miles are stop-and-go rush hour traffic and those numbers look even better. 3. The light-gray interior seemed like a great choice.. nice and bright and airy. The truth is that my kids destroyed the backseat. I couldn't keep the interior clean--ever. 4. The car was a great size. It was bigger than a compact and smaller than a midsize. It made driving in rush hour a breeze. 5. The airbags work great. And now some early observations on the G6: 1. The car seems to have a little sharper handling; even though the steering ratio's on the G6/Malibu are identical. 2. The 2.4l has a louder exhaust note than the 2.2l 3. The 2.4l has markably better performance than the 2.2l Significantly better get-up-and-go. It's by no means V6 performance, but it gives my new G6 a bit of fun that my Malibu never seemed to have. 4. Hard to tell after only a week of driving (and me getting my foot into the car more often than not), but I put 12 gallons of gas in for 304 miles of driving. As an interesting note, I changed the oil & filter this morning, along with the air filter. I also added air to each of the four tires (max rating is 35 psi, and I had everything from 27-33 psi on the 4 tires). We'll see what it comes out to over the next couple of months. 5. My G6 has a charcoal-gray interior -- and a much nicer cloth material has been used. I can tell already that this car will be easier to scrub. 6. I'm still stuggling with finding a spot to mount my XM SkyFi2 unit. The Malibu had a great spot that was almost tailor-made for mounting. Last note: apparently everything is negotiable. The car was fairly dirty on the dealer lot when I was negotiating the price. The dealer offered to wash it and I made the comment that the car will just get dirty again (local weather-people had been forecasting rain). The sales mgr offered to throw in a car wash. "Just one?" was my reply. His "How many you want?" was followed by "I really like my cars clean". I now have free car washes as long as I own the vehicle. I just need to drop by the dealership and tell them I want them to run it through their car wash. I'll include pix of my wrecked 'bu and my new G6 when I get a chance. I'm beat tonite -- I put a chain-link fence in at my sis-in-law's and also helped pour a cement patio over there today.

Thanks Northy. Funny you should mention that. I was browsing the G6's. The "SV1" (value leader) would be very similar to my old Malibu -- but with a sportier look and a little more juice under the hood.

Got into a car accident today. I was taking a left leaving a shopping mall & the car (an '02 Sienna minivan -> damn yota's) across from me ran his stop sign. My '04 Malibu took it in the passenger front-corner -- HARD. Both airbags deployed (what a treat that was -- do you like smoke?). Bumper was crushed, hood caved in, fendor damaged. For those that aren't familiar with the Malibu, the pass.-side airbag is hidden behind the dash -- and when it deploys, it punches a hole in your dash to explode outward. I calc $3k in parts on the inside of my car alone (2 airbags + dash + labor). Car was still drivable -- but it did get pounded -- and NO I didn't take pictures. Progressive had me drop the car off at their service center, where I picked up a rental car (covered by my ins. policy for all of $9 every six months). Anyways, I get home from work today & I check out my claim online & guess what? "Car is considered a total loss". Ouch. I'm still shocked. Nobody @ Progressive has any additional info tonight. I've gotta wait & talk to my claims adjuster tomorrow. This sux. The car was easily the most boring ride I've ever owned. It was also reliable as hell & I could barely get the gas mileage below 32 mpg--even when I beat the crap out of it. I routinely got 34-36mpg, with a 75%hwy/25%city mix -- and half of those hwy miles were of the stop-and-go rush hour variety. Apparently Progressive uses the NADA retail value as a base; which roughly means $10,800 -- and I'm certain they'll find a way to adjust it downward from there. I'm not certain what I'll do. I'm probably not in a position to buy new, so I'll hafta start trolling used cars. What a pisser.

So are you going to bet on Pittsburgh winning the SuperBowl 'cause they did last year too? Do you still wear a 'member's-only jacket'? My point is this: how relevant are historical conditions when analyzing GM's present-day situationt? Past conditions just don't equate to GM's present (or future-day) ability to make a profit on compact cars. The fact is that GM has worked to improve their plant efficiencies. They've down-sized their labor force and they've offshored more part-sourcing. They've improved their quality and durability (cutting warranty costs). Conditions today are vastly different from the Cavalier days. Final thought: just because Toyota built a quality car 10 years ago doesn't mean they will today.

Ouch! It's way too overstated. That grill looks like an afterthought. What's with those rear tailights? I think I know where the outa-work Aztec designers went. Dang, that this is disgusting. I'm gonna go poke my eyes out....

1. 30 cents/gallon? What part of the country do you live in? Here in Minn, it's dropped OVER $1/gallon ($1.04 to be precise). 2. Demand for gasoline typically decreases in the winter months due to decreased travel. Demand for things like heating oil typically rise. 3. I do agree that $3/gallon gasoline will scare some potential buyers away, I also believe that there is still a large demand for tow-capable vehicles, whether it be suv's or pickups. The winner will be the one that delivers the balance of being the most-capable and provides the best gas mileage. That currently describes GM's entrants -- upon which they are raising the bar even further. I think GM is in position to weather this by taking sales from less capable trucks (Tundra: less hp, less torque AND less gas mileage). 4. And GM *doesn't* sell innovation and/or economy? Witness the Saturn Vue greenline. Middle-of-the-road hybrid performance that won't break the bank to purchase. Nobody else has anything similar in the SUV segment. The Saturn Aura hybrid debut is just a few months away. The Aveo outsells all other small-compacts. GM is actually making money on it's compact Cobalt's. It's not as bleak as Flint makes it out to be. Flint is dismissive/selectively ignorant of his facts. GM isn't perfect, but it's better off than Flint lets on. Tundra 4.7l: 271hp, 313ft-lbs, 15/18 MPG http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Gla...undra&trimid=-1 Silverado 5.3L: 295hp, 335ft-lbs, 15/19 mpg http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Gla...01500&trimid=-1

I've been to Montreal and to Winnipeg (sorry to bring another city into this). I really like Winnipeg.. it was big w/o being huge.. I nice small-to-middle sized city. People were friendly, etc. Montreal is cool in it's own ways. It's a very old city -- lots of history -- which I find enjoyable. The city has a huge underground shopping complex that's linked together by a subway system. I was there in the winter (and stayed a block away from the new Forum -- but unfortunately for me, it was all-star break and there was no hockey over the 3 days I was there). I seem to remember that they had a fairly large casino as well..

[sarcasm] I can't believe Toyota would tweak their numbers to gain a phantom 'statistical advantage'. [/sarcasm] Gee, it's not like Toyota's ever been busted on their hp figures, or their ground clearance figures, or their interior volume measurements. Oh wait, they have. Nevermind.

Once again, this proves my "Jerry Springer" principle: There are enough people on the planet that if just 1% of 1% of 1% exhibit some freakish attribute and/or personal behaviour, then you'll easily have enough that are willing to go on TV and showcase it. While this individual is hardly showcasing his abnormalities, he certainly falls into that 1% of 1% of 1% category - and he did receive press about it - which means by this time next week, we'll have heard of about 15 cases just like this one.

Congrats man! That's fantastic. For those of you that don't have kids yet, I'll I can tell you is that it's the happiest thing you'll ever experience. I actually bawled out of sheer joy. The only times I've ever done that.. I just can't explain it.

I've got to call you several things: 1. Are you questioning Edmunds ability to read a db-meter? Rating a car's sound level isn't exactly rocket science. Edmunds have historically been harsh in their criticism of GM. And what would they stand to gain? Surely every study is prone to error - as are your human observations. If you are going to discount one, then you'd better open up your own analysis for the same treatment: something you are apparently unwilling to do. 2. You still clinging to the "at 75mph the Buick is noisier than the Lexus" b.s.? I think I've introduced a significant amount of doubt to that argument by showing the actual db levels of Buick & Lexus @ 70mph. I don't think you'll convince any sane, objective person that somewhere between 71 and 75 mph the Buick gains 4db in noise. 3. Since when was the the information from Edmunds.com secondhand and conjectionure? I provided the links didn't I? That information was coming right from Edmunds itself. It was neither secondhand or conjecture. 4. "ear's frequency response is just as unique as my fingerprint" ? What kind of garbage is this? You really do have the wrong person to argue with on this point. Both of my children have a mild degree of hearing loss (something hereditary on my wife's side of the family). I know all too well the inner workings of the human ear. The ear simply doesn't have a "frequency response" as you claim. Here's a great website to educate yourself on: http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/body/ear_noSW.html 5. "You can have your victory"? This isn't some childish game. I'm simply questioning your objectivity and your analysis with some easily available facts and frankly, your review doesn't pass as being objective. After reading your rebuttals, I think just about everybody here will question your integrity as well. 6. "Rally the troops"? This really shows your true colors, doesn't it? I think we can throw objectivity right out the window now. TTAC = "The Truth (As Seen Through Import-Humping Googles) About Cars" I'm done with you. I've made my points. I'll let everybody decide for themselves on this matter for hereafter.

Why do we have to discount the Impala SS because the Camry doesn't have a performance trim level? Seems to me that's a negative against the Camry/Accord. Chevy shouldn't have to apologize for that - and reviewers shouldn't selectively ignore the SS in their "review" for it either. Fact of the matter is that the base Impala gives you more hp - and if you want over-the-top performance, it gives you that too. Chevy has no need to discount any of this... but that's besides the point. I'm refuting the author's "marginal" and "acceptable" descriptions - primarily because they purposely choose to put the blinders on when looking at the entire Impala line.. and as I stated previously.. the author *did* choose to mix in the SS whenever he choose-to.. so why is it fair game for him and not me?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Impala SS is fair game: the Camry V6 delivers 90% of the horsepower that the SS delivers.

So let me get this straight: you get the lowest trim level available, and then bash the heck out of it because it doesn't give you all-world performance? Don't you think it's ridiculous to limit yourself to the base-level trim and then have as your primary criticism that it's just adequate? It's like purchasing a 4cyl and then complaining that it doesn't give you V8-like power. That's complete b.s. I'd be okay with the criticism if there were no upper-level feature-sets available.. but the author knocks GM engineers "for not doing their job" when the the author purposely chose to limit himself to the lowest-trim level available. I don't think I'm pushing things to far in comparing the top-performance-level Accord/Camry/Impala's together. The author *did* bring the SS into his own review -- taking note to bash GM on putting 303hp to the front wheels (something that must be okay in the Camry - where nearly 270hp is available). I must not have gotten the memo that defines how much hp is too much for FWD duty. When the author brings the SS trim level into the review (for the sole purpose of bashing it), then I think it's fair game to bring it in for comparisons purposes. As it is, I did provide numbers for the top-performance Accord/Camry/Impala - so my comparison would at least be apples-to-apples. As it is (based on data @ cars.com) the LS/LT trims don't vary from the SS in any area other than 0-60 times.. so dropping the 0-60 times off of there, the Impala STILL does very well against it's competition -- an impression you definately wouldn't get from reading Frank's skewed analysis.

I believe the Edmunds stats prove you wrong in 2 places. Cruising speed and WOT. Your claim was that the Buick was SIGNIFICANTLY louder at 75mph crusing. Edmunds proves that at 70mph the Lucerne is actually quieter. The human ear can detect differences in noise somewhere between 2-3db range.. so the Lucerne would magically have to go from being -1.9db quieter to +2db -- all within 5 mph (a delta of almost 4db). I think you've been busted; btw here's your original statement: Do you STILL stand by that when independant data shows that the Buick, at WOT is QUIETER than the ES350? As for resonance, wouldn't that be a personal preference? Oh yeah: that would be SUBJECTIVE..

Facts > Sajeev Remember this quote? *** THA'TS COMPLETE AND UTTER B.S. *** Here's some FACTUAL data to back that up: Buick: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...62/pageNumber=5 Db @ Idle: 42.7 Db @ Full Throttle: 72.7 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.6 Lexus: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...87/pageNumber=4 Db @ Idle: 41 Db @ Full Throttle: 74.6 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 67.5 As you can see by real, hard measurements by a real auto-review website (and not some half-cocked wannabe), the Lexus is quieter at idle, and louder at both wide open throttle and cruising at 70mph... pretty much the complete opposite of Sajeev's claims. Which one would you believe? Edmunds with real data or Sajeev's "observations"?