The O.C.

Actually people tell me I look more like I'm 30....instead of 36....(wishful thinking??) I LIKE young guys with gray/white hair.....there's somethin' kinda sexy about it..! :AH-HA_wink:

Nope!

I'm right there with you. (36) I even found three GRAY hairs in my chest hair already! <gasp> I have a moderately hairy chest and tummy.....not overly....but there's like three RANDOM gray ones poking out at various places.... Oh well........

I'm 5'9'', but I tend to like to drive with the seatback reclined quite a bit....and the bottom of the seat moved up vertically a bit. It's funny....I fit just perfectly in a Corvette. However, I'll be damned if I can get the least bit comfortable in an SLK. If I move the seat back far enough for my legs, then the seatback is far too upright for me (it hits the bulkhead and motors more upright.) If I scoot the seat forward so the seat is reclined comfortably, my legs are jammed against the steering column. I had the same problem in a NEW Miata....but strangely enough, I could get decently comfortable in the previous generation Miata I owned for a year.

Well in your examples....I've driven an F430 and you know what? It does feel like it's worth the money over the Corvette. C&D were probably on the money there. They are not dissing the Corvette....just saying that there's a tangible difference in what $70K buys you versus what $192K buys you. I haven't driven the new Turbo so I can't comment on that. Any Audi DOES have a much more tightly-executed interior with vastly superior plastics than the CTS. There is no contest. Fit-and-finish are pretty close between the two...it's the material quality that is simply much better in the Audi. The XLR-v deserved to place 5th as far as I can tell. Acceleration isn't the only issue to consider. The Caddy is overpriced for what you get....has an almost useless trunk with the top down....and has an interior that, while nice...is not $100K-nice. I don't remember the CX-7's as-tested mpg....but it's EPA ratings are comparable to other V6 crossovers. AND, it's a "4-cyl" that happens to shoot from 0-60 in the mid-7sec range...and that's with the heavy AWD version. I'm just sorry that you are mistaking the buff mags calling out GM on their product deficiences as "bias." That's a sad viewpoint......and an unrealistic viewpoint....

All I'm saying.....is I didn't know if that was something TO BE necessarily bragging about.....given the current state of GM's business and all the media and press their hardships have gotten lately.....

So....they are bragging about the number of plants they have here? At a time when they are over-capacity....and having to incentivize their products because they can't reduce production enough and have to keep the plants running?

Wrong-o....my experience (working AT dealerships) is that younger people ARE the harder to please. This generation has way higher expectations in all aspects of life and that transfers down to the vehicles they own and drive.

Evok's got a point..... It's the SAME thing as, for example, Lexus doing so well in J.D. Powers Initial Quality.....(Lexus owners being SO proud of their new Asian luxury brand....they would NEVER report any problems with it even if they had some...) Younger buyers also tend to be way more critical than older buyers. Suzuki, Kia, and Hyundai used to get DOGGED in the surveys....because they were bad cars? Not likely....but a vast majority of people that bought new Suzukis, Kias, and Hyundais did so because it was the only thing the dealer could get them into because of bad credit, etc. SO...you WANTED a Camry...but ended up with a Suzuki Forenza. So you're pissed. So you rip it in a survey. The quality surveys are only as accurate as the truthfulness and the demographics of the people responding to them. That's something neither J.D. Powers, nor the manufacturers, nor the dealers can control.

Well most of them I've read in the mags have been decently positive....what can I say....

It's been decently highly regarded. The British mags like it.....but agree it's not as good as the class-leaders.

Saab 9-3 shares WAY more with Vectra than G6. In THIS instance, AURA is a gussied-up G6 as opposed to a gussied-up 9-3. I'm afraid that AURA also is saddled with G6's high curb weight also....with curb weights being around 3,500-3,600lbs.

Yes....of the time I spent sitting in Vectras in Frankfurt....and all the scanning I do of Vectra tests in the British mags....the AURA only resembles the Vectra in the headlight clusters. The interiors are totally 100% different-looking.

As many of us have debated on here for a long time..... REGARDLESS of our affection for GM products....it can be argued the buff mags aren't so much biased as they are calling out the less-than-well-executed GM products of recent history. Corvettes, CTSs, and GM full-size SUVs and pickups have consistently done well in MT and CD comparison tests. And they deserved to. That's the difference.

I LOVED my Skyhawk! In fact, I always thought it was the nicest J-car out there....with a much more import-like dash and I/P arrangement than what you got in the Chevy, Pontiac, or Cadillac. Mine was an '89 with the 2.0L and 5-speed manual, white with grey interior, "shelby" aluminum wheels with the "T" sport package....and the flip up lights. I ran it for 80K-plus miles with nary a problem. Even the 2.0L didn't run that bad when hitched to the manual tranny. I believe in '89, it pushed out more power....like it was up to 110hp or something like that.

A Buick along the lines of the Bolero would be a hot small buick even today. Instead....back then....when Buick could have brought the Bolero to market....we got the beak-nosed Skylark.

As much as I agree that would be HOT....there is absolutely no market for a full-size coupe/convertible in that price range. Everything is centered either below that (G6 Coupe, Mustang, Solara) or well above (XK, 6-series, CL) And a full-size Riviera-type vehicle wouldn't eschew enough cache as a Buick for someone considering an XK or 6-series to step down. Additionally, for the same reason, you'd be tough to draw a $45K BMW 3-series coupe driver into a $40-$45K "Riviera." Leave it to Cadillac. It doesn't pencil for Buick.

Oh I liked the Aurora.....especially the first-gen that really took a step out in regards to styling. The FWD platform maybe hurt it later in its lifetime as RWD was coming back in vogue with the Japanese (Infiniti, etc.) and the Europeans (not to mention Lincoln with the new LS.) But I think the Aurora suffered more due to it's affiliation with GM. I think too many people dismissed it because it was a GM product. GM still faces that challenge way too often with way too many of their products....even the really good products.

If you want a "mecca" for car enthusiasts.....you wanna live in SoCal....not Detroit. There's more exotics, old restored domestic iron, hot rods, and overall unique cars than you can shake a stick at. The ONLY place I've ever been that even comes close in the auto exotica category is maybe Miami Beach....

H3s with the 225hp motor have been timed by various mags from 0-60 in either the low 10-sec range or the mid-11-sec range...with either 4-speed auto or 5-speed manual. I'd estimate the 240hp mill to help.....but it won't put the H3 anywhere near the Xterra or FJ Cruiser....which both zip to 60mph in the low-to-mid 7-sec range with either tranny.

My gut reaction is that GM probably wanted the Aurora to target those imports but I bet there was a tiny fraction of import buyers that actually even considered the Aurora. I bet if you pull up cross-shop data (maybe Evok can find that somewhere) I bet you'll see Aurora cross-shopped mostly with other GM products and maybe some other domestics. Just like I bet there is next-to-no cross-shopping of even the Lucerne or LaCrosse with the Lexus ES, Acura TL, or I bet even Avalon. With Toyota, I find three distinct pricing levels with each of their cars (Camry, Avalon, ES.) Also, neither vehicle shares any exterior panels or interior fittings with each other. Here's the pricing levels for the "volume" versions of each....(based upon a recent "survey" at Power Toyota in Irvine and Newport Lexus... Camry LE 4-Cyl - $21,080 (I'd say 90-95% of the Camrys they had in stock were this configuration.) Avalon XLS Leather - $32,445 (I'd say maybe 50% were this config...with a remaining 20% Touring....20% Limited.....and 10% XL.) Lexus ES350 - $37K start....up to almost $50K. (I didn't take as detailed of a look at what packages were volume....but with a base price around $37K, I think that differentiates it, pricing-wise, nicely from Avalon....and it has an even more premium interior treatment.) That's a realistic look at Toyota's product differentiation.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Very simple. I was using the sales numbers providing in the original post. Nothing more....nothing less.....

I'll give you that one...... Although I don't find the Avalon unattractive....I think Lucerne is a better looker.

And once again.....you've totally side-stepped my POINT. My POINT was that Hyundai and Kia have greatly improved the quality, fit-and-finish, and execution of their products over what they used to offer....and that maybe...JUST maybe...people actually buy their products now because they <gasp> LIKE them....not JUST because they have a long warranty.