Drew Dowdell

That could probably be negotiated down into the price range, but is most likely too large and the miles are too high.

Well it is unlikely he'd do a wagon (I tried to get him to look at a dirt cheap new 9-3 Combi a while ago and he just won't do it), so the Legacy would have to be the sedan... not that there's anything wrong with that. I already have enough stomach problems as it is without a Juke sitting in our driveway. The Countryman is too much money. ^^^^^^

Sales: 2004: 36,897 2005: 52,487 2006: 40,095 2007: 30,256 2008: 6,912 2009: 113 It looks like a 300 estate with a Dodge grill, since it WAS sold as a 300C Estate in Europe with a 300C nose. I can't find production numbers, or when that production ended... I had heard it continued longer than Magnum production did... but I can't find nothing about it. I forgot that the Magnum beat the Charger to market by like a year. I would have preferred Dodge to use the Magnum name for the sedan... and Charger on a 2 door version of the Charger we got (note, not the Challenger). I still feel the Magnum was a sports wagon, and therefore a lousy station wagon. I could never cope with the low rear section. Not bad sales rate. Venza is only managing about 32k this year, Flex will do about 27k and both of those offer more utility. It was bad for Dodge because they thought they would be able to sell the Magnum as a direct replacement to the Intrepid and that just wasn't going to happen.

You got married?

Yes Please!

We're searching for a car due to reliability problems in our Honda and you're recommending an X-Type and a 9-3? Our CR-V has a metal antenna now... I don't think he'd care. I certainly don't. Well that is why I originally thought MKZ, because it has all the desired features, it is ranked near the top in JD Power quality and reliability, and the MKZ is one of the most fuel efficient AWD V6's out there. The MKZ meets all of the previously stated criteria and is available in any color for near $20,000. With all the people here that like the Regal GS at near $40k, and are clamoring for the Insignia OPC with the turbo V6, I thought the Saab would get more love. It has the Haldex AWD, the 2.8 turbo V6 from the SRX and Opel, better looks than the Buick, better interior than the Buick, half the price of the Buick. That Saab has what all the Regal and SRX lovers like at half the price. But at the same time, I wouldn't buy a Saab because it will break down all the time. There are Audi A4's for $20k. Personally not my sort of car, but my mom has an 07 with over 100k miles on it, no major repairs, in fact I don't think anything has broken on it. And the 2.0 will average 25 mpg even with our hills and traffic. I think the MKZ is an excellent suggestion. He already likes the Fusion, so upselling to the Lincoln wouldn't be hard. Completely disagree about the Saab interior, I like the Regal's much better, and so does he.

4-cylinder is still only available with a 4-speed auto... which is what he have now... I'd like to move up in the world at least a little bit. The V6 with AWD and heated seats tickles the upper end of the budget coming in at $25,6 before any incentives... so it makes the list. I like the looks of it, but it still has to pass the Albert test.

We're searching for a car due to reliability problems in our Honda and you're recommending an X-Type and a 9-3? Our CR-V has a metal antenna now... I don't think he'd care. I certainly don't.

He is a soccer dad without the kids. It doesn't have to be fancy or even be a stunning handler... pretty much anything would be an improvement in handling or power over the existing CR-V. We're looking more at low 20's... which is why visions of 2008 SRXes keep dancing in my head. They aren't so much a deal breaker as a deal sealer....

I couldn't swallow those ergonomics....and for the price, there are better choices.

I thought that was the tahoe suburban.

Liberty? Nitro? I'm thinking Edge is too big and too thirsty There could be an AWD Fusion. CPO 2008 SRX? (dreaming) He used to enjoy driving my CTS, so I'm sure the SRX would be fine size wise. edit: Rogue?Tiguan?

I'll post out our CR-V issues in another thread, but suffice it to say that we have very good reason to start looking elsewhere soon for a CR-V replacement. His requirements: 1. AWD/4WD - non-negotiable 2. Best fuel economy possible 3. Heated seats (can be cloth) 4. cannot be too large, the Equinox is about the biggest he would got 5. low price 6. body style doesn't matter My requirements: 1. Prefer an American brand but not stuck on that for the right car. Right now, I'm thinking we look at the new Compass and the Kazashi.

Well.... you'll have good traction if you ever flip it....

The Lucerne isn't bad for a mid-size. Maybe not if you're constantly hauling around linebackers, but the Jetta is far larger than what we need a vast majority of the time and perfect the rest of the time. Edit: Not sure how I doubled that one up.... For me, it's a matter of ride comfort that comes with the size. The Jetta had a good amount of room, but for ride comfort the Lucerne has it beat easily. It is simply easier to get a smooth ride with something that has a long wheel base everything else being equal. My issue with the Lucerne is with it's manuverability at low speeds. It gets called a boat because of it's Titanic like turning radius. Parking a Lucerne is difficult compared to other large cars... This is coming from a guy who's current daily driver is an '81 Toronado, prior was a '96 Roadmaster, and prior to that was an '04 Avalanche. All three of those are easier to park than a Lucerne simply because the turning radius was more appropriate for their size.

Fill it with sand.

Not at it's sales rate.... I assume they mean the NG of them...GMT-1000 or whatever... Well where are they built today. Expanding a plant isn't always great news if it means closing another.

Other than the Silverado/Sierra/Avalanche? Do they really need another full size truck?

The Lucerne isn't bad for a mid-size.

brb, need paper towel

diesel is easier(less costly) to refine than gasoline, but due to economies of scale, gasoline ends up cheaper.

I doubt GM would be putting an '83 Cavalier diesel on the market for 2013, we're talking about brand new vehicles here. I'm sure GM doesnt' give a crap if you can find diesel when you're driving a 10 year old Duramax.... but if they are looking for a way to market a diesel passenger car in the US (Cruze Deco? Buick Verano DS? Cadillac CTS-D?) having that "We can always find you a local diesel pump" technology built in would remove any fuel type anxiety. Why doesn't Exxon sell it? Exxon has actually gotten out of the business of owning fueling stations directly. The result is that large franchises bought whole chains of Exxons all over the country. My local Exxon stations do sell diesel. Why don't your Exxon stations? You'd have to ask the franchisee.

Here in central Jersey, the logjam of human congestion and the halfway point between NYC and Philly, diesel is indeed a problem to find. Entire chains of gas companies do not sell it (Exxon, the largest, doesn't here), and many of the little stations don't either. When I get below a quarter tank away from home, I'm looking for a diesel station. Luckily for me, there are 2 within a mile of my house. One time I set out to get on a major highway, 20 minutes from my house. Just before I got on, I realized I was near the 'low fuel' level and there really aren't any fueling stations on 287. I went thru the local city and ended up coming all the way back within 1 mile of my house to find diesel, passing up about 6 stations in between. Down at my folks, I again ended up passing 4 stations in order to find diesel- a good 15 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction. The last station I had to ask the jockey- his brother had a diesel so he knew where one was. In my local observations, diesel is available at about 20% of stations... this may not be accurate across the nation tho. I drive all over the center of the state and it needs to get a LOT better here before diesel cars become commonplace. Premium is not a valid comparison IMO- most vehicles don't require premium. Diesel has been higher than 87 since before I got my DuraMax in June '06. May have been the other way 'round about a year-2 yrs before that. I wasn't saying that Diesel to premium is direct comparison (let's not forget that the ubiquitous Camry V6 "recommends" 92 octane for peak performance) but merely to point out that it is not such a huge price premium over 87 that it negates any savings on the cost per mile basis. As to locating diesel - you point out the exact reason that I suggest that the NAV systems be programed by default to show nearby stations that sell diesel. Even if you don't have a full on NAV, Onstar turn-by-turn has the data as well. Just because you didn't find it on the routes you took doesn't mean there wasn't another station a couple streets over that had it.

Three things... (1) The problem with 2.0 liter engines that make 295 lb-ft at ~2500 rpm is that it doesn't make 295 rpm except when it is on boost -- on full boost. The typical condition at freeway cruise is off boost simply because of the low output require and low accelerative loads. If you rev a turbocharged engine in neutral in the parking lot, it NEVER gets on boost and is always in vaccuum for the same reason. In otherwords, the small turbocharged engine has to be geared such that it still has enough torque off boost to maintain cruising speed. Hence, a 3.6 liter V6 with 275 lb-ft may be geared to make 1800 rpm @ 60 mph, whereas a 2.0T with 275 lb-ft may not. (2) The answer as to whether an entire industry can be wrong is YES. It can. Especially when it comes to popular quasi-axioms like this. (3) I do not expect the Carbon Footprint reduction nonsense to persist over the long run. The non-science of "global warming" is quickly unraveling. The statistics and science behind it are completely bankrupt. The fact is that there is no abnormality with the climate we experience today or in the past 100-years. It is statistically in the middle of historical fluctuations. There is also no evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the air, especially androgynous CO2, has had ANY tangible effect on global temperatures. We know this because global temperatures have been observed to fall in the 50s, 60s and 70s despite a higher than pre-industrial and constantly increasing CO2 levels. We also know that the medieval era was warmer than today and numerous periods in the earth's history is warmer than today. If you look at ice cores samples going back a million years, you'll notice that the planet did not get warmer following CO2 spikes. In fact, CO2 spikes occur 500~1000 years AFTER temperature has already risen. And, to put a nail into the coffin, the planet has been cooling not warming since 2007 and various IPCC "scientists" have been caught falsifying data to hide patterns they don't like. The only reason this whole charade is still continuing is that it is difficult for politicians and people who support the cause -- unknowing of the actual validity of its science or the lack thereof -- to back track and say they were wrong. To say that they have been pursuing economically ruinous, utterly useless and unnecessary policy. It's potentially a career ending thing to say! But, truth has a certain ring to it and you can't keep it from getting out forever. 1) The 2.0 Ecotec and the Ford Ecoboosts have incredibly flat torque curves that hit peak torque very low in the RPM band, so yes, they can run 60mph @1800 rpm, even if they are bypassing boost at higher RPMs. 2) Not just an entire industry, but an entire continent. Europe's overly controlling tax on displacement is highly short sighted and restricts the very innovation that could potentially meet their stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. 3) There is nothing "unraveling" about global climate change at all. To imply that all universities, scientists, and governments globally are in a vast global conspiracy to ruin the economy by controlling carbon emissions requires a leap of faith that, quite frankly, surprises me about you who have been so scientifically minded in 99% of your other posts. Furthermore, to make the assumptions that humans can't nudge the environment one way or another with our actions also defies doubt. No one has claimed that humans are the sole cause of climate change, nor has anyone claimed that there are not already climate change patterns that the earth follows. The concerns about climate change are about the changes in the extremes, not about what the weather is doing outside right now. 100 year flood patterns are now becoming 50 year flood patterns. The peak tornado season is shifting earlier in the year and breaking records for frequency while doing so. The medieval warming period that you cite is very Euro centric, and while it was a warm period in Europe, there is little evidence that the same thing happened in the Southern Hemisphere at all or the North American region more than minimally, suggesting that it was a regional temperature variation. To sum up the things we do know beyond any shadow of a doubt. A) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that does trap heat - this is not in dispute. B) We are pumping 10s of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere daily. C) We continue to cut down the earth's natural CO2 scrubbers, the forests, at a very high rate.

$650 if the tires are good. It's worth more than that in scrap metal and parts.