cmattson

Well Frank, here's your stats: 0-60: Impala=6.4s Camry=6.5s Accord=7.6s Slalom: Camry=60.5mph Impala=62.6mph Accord=64.6mph Noise @ Idle Impala=44.5db Accord=46.5db Camry=46.5db Noise @ full throttle Impala=73.7db Camry=73.9db Accord=74.7db Noise @ 70mph Impala=68.0db Accord=70.0db Camry=70.0db Braking (as rated by Edmunds) Camry=Excellent Impala=Good Accord=Poor Impala was a 1st place finisher in 4 categories & a 2nd place finisher in the remaining 2 categories (it never finished last; unlike the Camry & Accord). I'm willing to bet those GM engineers did their job. It's too bad that wannabe-reviewers like yourself can't be objective enough to realize it. Unlike yourself, I'll be happy to back myself up with FACTUAL STATISTICS instead of using subjective, misleading OPINIONS: Camry & Accord: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...0/pageNumber=12 Impala: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...52/pageNumber=5 Seeing how poorly you faired on this exercise, for the sake of your readership, I can only wish you the best of luck on your next "review".

Perhaps GM was marketing to people that want nothing more than tried-and-true transportation? If you don't think there isn't a market for vanilla, appliance-like transportation then you haven't looked at Camry sales lately. GM doesn't need to make this car be the best handling, best, braking, or best accelerating - that's simply not it's role. As it is, using just the LS model to garner your conclusions is wholeheartedly faulty premise. I dare guess that the SS model offers superior handling and/or acceleration than you'd ever find in a stock Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. What loses me is this: Frank (if you don't mind using your first name) seems largely more interested in making entertainment than backing up his observations with reasonable comparisons. Take a look at the over-the-top powerglide comment. While I'd agree that GM has a better transmission available (the family of new 6speeds) and I'd most certainly agree that GM has been very slow in getting the thing to market, you've completely lost all credibility bringing up a transmission that was introduced back in 1950. WTF does that belong in an "attempted review" about a 2006 automobile. I don't recall having every read an article that brings up Honda's 900cc motorcycle engines (used in the earliest edition Civics) when talking about Honda's latest creations. That just screams to me that you are working too hard to sensationalize. As it is, the powerglide was used into early 1970.. but the Turbohydramatic was featured in the 1965 model year -- so it's not quite the picture you are attempting to paint.

The rear end of the new Camry is hideously tall. Pay attention next time you see one & it'll be the first thought everytime you see one thereafter. As for the interior - it's nice, but Toyota deserves to get knocked around for the fake-metal-trim. It looks and feels plasticy - and the overuse of 'door-access-panels' really irks me. I can't remember the last time I went "gee, if only my car had a garage-door like flap so I could cover up the radio, and the cigarette lighter, and the cup holder.." More useless crap, imo...

While a tad humorous, I find the reply offensive and in poor taste (much like the rest of his work -> go figure). While Mr. Farago has no problem tearing into GM (and others), it seems he himself can't take the criticsm of others. Side note to Farago: you don't want opnions? Don't publish an e-mail address. By publishing an e-mail address, you are ASKING for comments. He brought this upon himself. What a shallow, thin-skinned s-pile.

Ask yourself this: Why is this administration so bent on helping the big energy firms, but won't lift a finger to help Detroit out? We gave the oil industry big tax breaks + let them craft out energy policies. I guess Detroit should've gave more.. American auto manufacturers aren't looking for a handout. They are looking for real solutions to American problems: healthcare, prescription drug costs, and pension reform. Because they are the largest of American employers, they are affected more severly by these issues than virtually any other business in this country. It's easy to shout out "it's the products", but doesn't Ford sell almost 1m pickups every year -- and GM the same? I think the top-selling Toyota/Honda vehicles come in at around 400k in sales every year -- and GM/Ford's pickup sales generate far more profit that Toyota/Honda does with their cars.. so it shows you that either (1) Ford/GM are seriously bloated by size/inefficiency and/or (2) Toyota/Honda operations in Japan give them an competitive advantage. Before deciding to what degree option #1 or #2 is responsible, take a look at virtually any "legacy" service-heavy industry. How have your airlines been doing lately? Education costs? Police? Virtually all of those areas have soaring costs. GM spends more on heathcare (on a per-vehicle basis) than it does steel. You don't have to be pro-GM to realize that there's something seriously wrong with that. Pay no attention to Detroit folks. We've got serious issues to deal with: gay marriage, flag burning, and repealling the estate tax for the 0.25% that qualify for it. Yup -- that's real leadership for ya.. really tackling the tough issues facing our nation. PERSONALLY, I'M EMBARASSED.

Forgive me, but how can you expect anyone to believe that your review isn't biased -- TTAC is the website that's hosted 60+ articles on "the death of GM", isn't it? I know you personally didn't write those articles, but having your work alongside that body of work isn't exactly helping your credibility as being neutral.

On the Walmart note: if Walmart were a country, they'd be China's 5th largest trading partner.

LOL: You can fit 2 planks of wood + an ATV in a Ridgeline bed? Seriously, I saw one at the autoshow with an ATV loaded in it and it took the whole bed. At the time I marveled at how they got the ATV in the back with it being such a snug fit. As it is, the ATV I saw had to sit on the folded-down gate. There's not a chance you can fit one in a Ridgeline with the gate closed. On a serious note, I'm sure you could strap it in somewhere if you needed to. You could put the wood on the bottom and load the ATV on top of it, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of bringing the wood along to use as a ramp, wouldn't it?

I drive an Ecotec-powered Malibu daily and I agree with you that (1) it's not as course as the press touts, and (2) it's mileage is generally better than advertised. That being said, improvements can (and should be made). I've definately driven smoother engines. There is no reason why the Aveo should still be straddled with a relatively inefficient (for it's size) engine. As for your wish, turbo-charging is probably the closest to your design. When the engine isn't working hard, the prop in your exhaust isn't spinning as fast. The turbo charger isn't providing as much boost and your engine is as-close-as-possible to being normally aspirated. Goose it up and that increased engine exhaust will spin that turbo that much faster, the unit will provide that much more boost, and your engine will output that much more power (and correspondingly, that much more exhaust pressure -> rinse, wash, repeat). The use of a turbo isn't bad at all. I suspect that more manufacturers will be open to it as it's technology that's been around forever and gas prices increasingly put pressure on manufacturers to deliver a blend of power and fuel economy.

I have to agree with you Evok. Gm has tarnished it's own reputation - and a single car isn't going to overcome that. You need decades of reliability & good marketing to sway public opinion. As a GM fan, it *is* great to see GM incrementally improving their position: efficiency, reliability, initial quality, plant capacity and styling. While the Malibu looks markably better than the current version, I'd by no means say it's a 'wow - that's gonna pull some people into the dealerships' -- which seldom cars do. GM can do it with a combination of things. Give your cars some style & make the powertrain super competitive - either with power or gas mileage. This was Nissan's formula - and now Mazda's. Of course, all this is almost meaningless unless you can market yourself properly (which something GM has been horrid with). I honestly wonder if GM's marketing staff have the mental capacity to dress and feed themselves..

Ok, we know that GM's had a substantial investment into their transmissions - with the 6speed fwd and 6speed rwd just hitting the markets. The Allison transmission simply cannot be beat. For engines: 6-speed pushrods: I know that the 3.5l (as used in the Impala) and the 3.9l have been getting active displacement & variable valve timing. 6-speed DOHC: The 3.6l variant of this engine is rumored to be getting direct injection - and should push around 300hp. I haven't heard anything about the 2.8l, 3.2l. This engine was designed so that you could have different bore sizes through the use of cyl. sleeves. It can displace anywhere from 2.8l to 4.0l. I'd imagine that the 3.6l's DI system could be ported to any of the other engine sizes in this family. Now, here's where I get to my point: What is GM doing with small engines? I know it's hard to get worked up over 4cyl's. They aren't terribly exciting, but let's face it: with $3.00+ gasoline, having a peppy, smooth, reliable, gas-sipping 4cyl should be tops on GM's powertrain to-do list. The Ecotec 2.0/2.2/2.4 variants routinely get panned by the auto press as being 'course'. The power output is just average amoung similarly sized competitors engines - as is it's fuel economy. DI will help it's fuel economy and it's power output, but something needs to be done in terms of refinement. How about a smaller engine (1.5l-2.0l range). The Aveo should push 40mpg+ - that's inexcusable -- especially since you have GM Europe to leverage. I'd harp on small diesels as well, but with new emission laws taking place, it's substantially harder for a manufacturer to make a profit on the clean-small diesel/compact-car combo-platter -- so I won't question GM waiting for the dust to settle on this one.

I would say it has an advantage, I wouldn't say it blows it away by any means; especially when you consider all of the other advantages I listed - from room to hp/torque, resale, etc. Not to be petty, but here's some std stuff you missed on the Chev LT1: 1) Assist-steps 2) Foglamps 3) Daytime running lamps 4) Automatic exterior lights (auto headlight on/off) 5) Heated rear-view mirrors 6) Steel reinforced safety cage 7) Trailer Hitch Equipment (harness, connector, 2in receiver) Rear-seat heat ducts 9) Auto-dimming rearview mirror 10) OnStar w/1-year free OnStar service 11) Rear-seat audio controls Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/features/

If you look at a pre-2007, virtually nothing on the interior of the Av is made of soft materials. But in the new 2007's, the door 'upholstery', arm rests, center console, and parts of the upper dash are soft(er) materials. Unfortunately there are parts of the interior that still are hard plastic. I don't think a full soft-material finish a-la VW would work well (long-term durability-wise) for a truck -- just my opinion. For comparison, in terms of 'hard material use', I'd say the Ridgeline is on par with the outgoing GMT-8xx trucks. In terms of interior styling, I'd say the Ridgeline is on par with a 1980 Turismo. I'm not trying to be funny here - that is the closest thing I can associate it with that I've seen. It's really, really poor. I'd put the Nissan Titan/Armada's quirky interior ahead of it, which speaks alot. Sources: http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/show...7160_3_full.jpg http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=Hond...038509&mime=JPG

Hey Fly, you don't mind if I chime in with some stats to back you up, do you? Appearance items (interior/exterior styling) are generally subjective - so it is hard to compare. The gap between the Ridgeline and the Avalanche is so large between the Ridgeline's interior and the Avalanche that, in this case, you can make a definitive case for the Avalanche. The Ridgeline's interior isn't cohesive and is built around hard plastics. It's embarassingly bad. Go sit in one & you'll instantly see what I mean. As for measurables: Acceleration (0-60): Avalanche 5.3l = 8.5s Avalanche 6.0l = ???? Ridgeline 3.5l = 8.0s Winner = Undecided Note: I'm reluctant to give this to Honda as the '06 Avalanche 2500 pulls 7.5s in the 0-60. I can't find '07 info to declare a winner here. Horsepower: Avalanche 5.3l = 325hp Avalanche 6.0l = 366hp Ridgeline 3.5l = 247hp Winner = Chevrolet (in a rout I might add) Torque: Avalanche 5.3l = 340ft-lbs Avalanche 6.0l = 380ft-lbs Ridgeline 3.5l = 245ft-lbs Winner = Chevrolet (in another rout) Fuel Economy Avalanche 5.3l = 15/21 Avalanche 6.0l = ?? Ridgeline 3.5l = 16/21 Winner = Honda, barely - and give the award to Chev if you plan to tow Payload Avalanche: 1350 lbs Ridgeline: 1100 lbs Winner = Chevrolet Towing Capacity Avalanche: 7000/8000 lbs Ridgeline: 5000 lbs Winner = Chevrolet Utility Avalanche, enclosed rear bed + midgate Honda, under-bed trunk Winner = push, each provide unique utility Reliability Undetermined. This is Honda's first attempt at building a truck in the US. As witnessed by the multiple million-mile entries on GM full-size trucks @ chevy200k.com, I'd be heavily inclined to lean towards Chevy, but I'll leave this undecided. Resale (2006my) Avalanche: Trade in value of 22,717 - 25,589. Sold new at 25,466 - 28,687 (89.21%-89.20%) Ridgeline: Trade in value of 19,414 - 24,227. Sold new at 22,365 - 27,809 (86.80%-87.11%) Winner = Chevrolet You certainly don't want me to go into things like ground clearance, interior volume, bed volume - I think we all know who'll handily win those comparisons too.. Sources: 0-60: http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...16001/1006/FREE http://www.autos.com/autos/sport%20utility...alanche_2500/ls http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/05/26/106997.html HP & Torque: http://media.gm.com/us/chevrolet/en/produc...nche/index.html http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Gla...eline&trimid=-1 Mileage, Payload, Towing Capacity: http://media.gm.com/us/chevrolet/en/produc...nche/index.html http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Gla...eline&trimid=-1 Resale values: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/...salevalues.html http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/honda/ridg...salevalues.html

Rental car companies SCREW you. I've had plenty of scenarios like this: Flew into Orange County & landed at around 11pm. Had a reservation @ Avis for a mid-size sedan (being GM-stocked, I'm expecting a Grand Am or Chevy Classic). Get to the rental counter & hear "I'm sorry sir, all we have left are minivans and compacts". At this point I politely tell the lady that I have a RESERVATION. She then says that "she understands, but.." (I cut her off at this point -> cause I'm in NO mood for this crap): "No maam, I don't think you do. If you folks understood what a RESERVERATION is, then YOU'D RESERVE, YOU KNOW, SET ASIDE, MY MID-SIZED CAR". She offered to knock some $$$ off the price (like all of $12, b!tch) -- like I could give a crap about that -> I was out there are on business purposes -> why should I be conserved about saving my work all of $12 on a weeks worth of rental car use? I mean if $12 is gonna sink my work, then it's probably gonna go under anyhow. And WTF is $12 over a $300 rental car bill? 3%? For screwing up? That's the best you can do? Screw that. You basically are left with choosing either the minivan or the compact (I chose the compact & got a Cavalier) 'cause you aint gonna find a decent rental car in LA at 11pm. They know it -- that's why they rented out your "reserved" mid-size hours earlier. Bastards.

I can add some perspective to this: My old tow vehicle was a 1996 Blazer with the 4.3l engine (I pull a 32xx lb travel trailer + cargo + passengers, so roughly 4500-5000 lbs -- right near the Blazer's maximum tow rating for that year). When towing, I'd routinely get 7-8 mpg. The truck behaved much as this author describes the Honda: accelerating was slow, loud and cumbersome. Once upto speed, everything was good. Getting there was a chore. Towing the same trailer with the '03 Suburban couldn't be easier. Hardly know the damn thing is back there. Gas mileage? Almost always between 9.5-10.5 mpg. I'm guessing that the Suburban, even with the larger mass and the larger engine, just doesn't have to work as hard pulling that weight -- so a Chevy 5.3l barely breaking a sweat offers better gas mileage than a 4.3l or Honda 3.5l working it's *ss off.

Oldsmoboi is correct on this one -- once you get in the habit of not having to turn your headlights on and off, you don't think anything of leaving a car with the headlights on (both my Suburban and my Malibu leave the headlights on for 30 seconds after the car has been shut off/vacated). As for the exterior styling, it's a personal preference. The interior design isn't bad at all - it's the execution that was horrible. The band of plastic the seperated the upper and lower dash regions had a 'painted chrome' finish. The gap between the upper part of that chrome-plastic band and the lower part of the upper-dash had a sizeable gap that was large enough so that you could see the jagged cut areas of the plastic-chrome piece. Combined, it made for a very cheap looking interior. One of my previous vehicles was an '01 Stratus - and that chrome-piece was a faux wood plastic piece. Granted the faux-wood wasn't high-quality, but it did look better than the faux-chrome. And my '01 Stratus was of much better build quality -- no where near the gaps in the dash pieces that this unit displayed. My '01 Stratus didn't gear-hunt like this unit, but the transmission wasn't exactly smooth - it was fairly jerky in it's execution.

I'm not at all surprised. Go visit a Prius-owner's forum like priuschat.com. Take a look at their technical pages. It's literally filled with dozens of issues. The technology in this car is far from mainstream. One could speculate that perhaps this is the reason why Toyota was so hesitant to ramp up production on the Prius. Take a look at some of these message headings: "Whole car vibrates like crazy when I roll down windows?, Anyone else had this problem?" "MFD Failure!, Yet another case" "Prius goes off the deep end... " "MFD replaced TWICE!" "Vanity lights not working" "Car dies because only a quarter tank of gas?" "Brakes failure" "EV mode disabled when too hot" "Window Rattles & sticky windows" That only from the first page of issues. There are a total of 63 pages of stuff like this. Not exactly world-class quality, IMO.

No, no, no. It's much easier than that: 1) Leave car running, in neutral 2) Put something heavy on accel. pedal, or wedge a stick between accel. pedal & front of seat cushion. 3) Roll window down. 4) Exit vehicle, shutting door behind you. 5) Reach into open window and slip vehicle into neutral. ...err, or so I've heard..

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybri...omktNews&rpc=44

Let me ask everybody something: If Chevrolet took the HHR: 1) Re-worked the retro-front-end styling into something modern (think GM's new CUV's) 2) Replaced the existing rear-doors with sliding-minivan-type-doors 3) Kept the price/power/mpg in the same neighborhood as the HHR (and perhaps offering the 260hp DI 2.0 turbo as an option) Would that be an attractive combination?

I'm curious to see the headlight details; but the rest of the car looks very, very nice. Isn't the '08 Malibu supposed to be based on the stretched Epsilon (lik the G6 / Malibu Maxx)? I really like how they've move the grill out towards the edge of the bumper. It looks modern - and as far as I can tell, it doesn't look plain-jane -- something that cannot be said for today's Malibu.

I actually like it in idea, but not in this particular application. Take a look at gas prices. Now downsize a minivan and boost the gas mileage. It's a great idea. A shortened minivan would sacrifice some interior space, no question - but I think in today's gasoline-price-climate, I would think that there would be a market for something like this (if done right).

Just got back from a Florida Vacation & had to write down some observations on my rental. This 2006 had 14,5xx miles on it before I assumed it for 9 days. The exterior of the car looks really dated. The "cab-forward" thing just doesn't work well on a convertable - the proportions of the vehicle don't look right.. but styling is a personal taste for most everyone, so I'll leave exterior impressions alone. The interior: Positives: Comfortable room for the kids in the back. Seats were comfortable & supportive. Everything seemed fairly well layed out. The top folds up & down very easily -- and quickly. Negatives: Little or no attention seems to have been paid to build quality. Our Sebring had a really fake-looking chrome-colored band of plastic between the lower dash and the upper dash. Not only were visible gaps noticible between the two, but it was obvious that the chrome-colored piece had a rough-cut edge to it. It was very tacky. No auto-headlight feature. I guess my $15k Chev. Malibu must really be blessed - I can't believe how any manufacturer can leave this out of their standard equip. list nowadays. I left my headlights on twice 'cause of this - both times were on short-errand -type trips, so no harm done. There was an annoying air-leak/wind-whistling somewhere in the glasswork/convertable top on the drivers side area. Never could isolate the problem. Drove me nuts. Powertrain: Postivies: the 2.7l is fine for everyday driving. Nothing drastically sporty, but it gets the job done. A "previously I owned a 4 cyl" type of person would be thrilled with it. It seems smooth and quiet. Didn't drink a whole lot of gas either. A very nice engine for it's position. Negatives: The transmission is the worst I've ever driven. It simply could not figure out what I wanted to do. It would upshift/downshift willy-nilly. It was just schizo. Very tempermental. I was actually thinking that the car had been abused or there was some sort of build-defect-issue at play here. It's very, very bad. Misc: The "air bag" light came on repeatedly during routine driving (along with it's annoying chime). Turn a corner. Step on the brakes. Step on the gas. Have the car shift gears. Sneeze. Breathe. Blink. Didn't freaking matter. Chime, chime, freaking chime. The light came on and off so much, I thought I was playing a pinball machine. Worse was the rental car companies response: "If you want to exchange it for another, just bring it in". Yeah idiot: let me pay $3.50 in tolls each way to bring your diseased p-o-s back to you and take time away from my family @ the theme parks that I'm spending $100-a-minute to take my family to. Whatever.

I've never heard about iodine for the treatment and/or prevention. I have heard about cherry juice (which I've never tried). I do take something called Allopurinol which is supposed to prevent gout attacks. That was working well until about 2 years ago when my doctor decided to decrease the dosage from 300mg to 100mg 'cause Allopurinol is supposedly hard on your liver. Since the decrease, I've had two gout attacks. Gout is a form of arthritis -- except the pain is rather acute. I can't walk or put weight on that food. God forbid I actually touch it or try and put a sock on that foot. It's just a big pain in the ass.