Drew Dowdell

Malibu is moving to Fairfax with the next gen.

just pointing out, the avalanche still has freakishly good resale. I'm still disappointed I can't find one with the features I want with the price I want at any mileage.

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

OMG I agreed with SMK on something.

The problem, as I see it, with this article is the assumption that all vehicles built on the Alpha have to compete with the 3-series. That isn't true. The Camaro would and should have a very different driving personality than the ATS. If Buick were to get an Alpha for.. oh I dunno.. a Riviera, that would have a much softer performance threshold than the first two I mentioned and yes would probably be 3700 lbs. And if Alpha can be scaled up to be CTS sized... then yes, I expect it to weigh to 4,000 lbs in fully loaded AWD format. Only one of the vehicles known to be on this platform has to compete with the 3-series and that is the ATS. It'll be in showrooms in about 12-14 months to make its case.... lets try to not bash it too much before we even see it.

depends on needs. For long distance cruising, any Cruze LT or higher. It's easily the quietest and most comfortable while being the best on gas <in the manual version and soon the automatic> If you need Malibu size for Cruze LS price... then the Jetta

it's on E now... going to fill up tomorrow before heading back to PIttsburgh and I'll be able to report.

I think I am softening my criticism of the 2.5. I just spent the evening zipping around Toronto and in these conditions it's got plenty of snot. It's when you try a passing maneuver on the highway where it runs out of breath (pretty much my entire drive up here was 99% highway) It's also big for a compact. It's gotta be old Passat sized.

Probably not. From a capacity perspective, the capacity being allocated to Malibu and Volt is coming from the discontinuation of the DTS and Lucerne. I believe the Malibu will also be built at Fairfax with the Lacrosse. Anyone know what's going into Kansas City after the current Malibu leaves there?

Fixed. Chi was the stillborn FWD sedan platform based off Lambda. DT7 and NG-Lucerne. I think Sigma is dead after this round. It will be Alpha and next gen Zeta. Alpha being as modular as Zeta could explain a large weight range between the extreme ends of the platform applications. If they build an Alpha CTS-V that weighs 4,100lbs.... so what? That's what it weighs today.

Different Epsilon. Either way, none of those cars are meant to compete with the 3-series. Driving dynamics are everything. None of the bigger Alpha cars will be meant to compete with the 3-series either.

again, there is no way a 4-cylinder vehicle the size of the 3-series will weigh more than the 5-series unless they are building it from lead and lining the doors with gold. Could the Alpha weigh up to that number? Sure... since they are planning on putting the CTS on it eventually too. GMI is making a lot of hay over this... but some addition, subtraction, and basic deduction will lead you to a different conclusion than theirs. The Epsilon platform can weigh as little as 3100lbs (Saab 9-3) or over 4200 lbs (Lacrosse AWD, Saab 9-5) and probably even more for the XTS. ZOMG! Sky is falling!

The 2.0 is only 8 valves and still SOHC, as before. It hasn't changed. Also, I'm not sure what or who gave you the idea that the 2.0 returns decent fuel economy compared to the 2.5. As far as the EPA ratings are concerned, have a look below. The automatic 2.5 actually gets better gas mileage than the anemic automatic 2.0... with 55 more horsepower, no less. --Manual Jetta 2.5: 23 city/33 highway Jetta 2.0: 24 ctiy/34 highway --Automatic Jetta 2.5: 24 city/31 highway Jetta 2.0: 23 city/29 highway For what's it worth, in my experience, the 2.5 is more deserving of its place than the 2.0. The latter will make for a good iron-block boat anchor some day. It's far past its prime. There's not really much to fight about. The Jetta's interior is solidly assembled with bargain-basement plastics and designed around parts-bin controls, neither of which go away until you enter the GLI. doh! I totally knew it was an 8-valve but I typed 16v. I've seen claims of much better than EPA with the 2.0. It may be one of those engines that doesn't do well in the EPA test but does better in real world. *shrug* You're right about it being a boat anchor though.... 115hp with 125 lb-ft at 4,000 rpm is simply insufficient for a car this large. I'd really like to get my hands on a diesel Jetta.

I'm glad I have backup on that one. I was expecting a fight there. I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessment so far. The interior design isn't as refined, but it is put together well for what it is. I just want to make that distinction.

Well I know that Zimbabwe is right out.

ah, I was just looking for another way out.

what? again?

Did any of the A-bodies have rear disk? I bet you could find all the parts needed to swap to that.

The Jetta is really approaching small-mid-size class if not by EPA standards at least by everyone else's. It feels about equally roomy as a Fusion. I'm not in a position to look it up right now, anyone know the official EPA classification? I'm surprised they are still using the 2.5 AND the 16 valve 2.slow in the really base version, but at least that engine returns decent economy numbers.

I don't think it has front drums brakes.

Why couldn't you take a rental car to Canada? The flights from Pittsburgh to Toronto are super expensive if you go direct and only a little less expensive if you connect in Newark or Philly. If you take a connecting flight, total travel time downtown to downtown is greater than just driving it. When I priced flights for this trip I was coming up with rates of $650 round trip and travel times of 8 hours. I rented the Jetta for 6 days for $240 plus tax and drove it in 6 hours (took my time). The cup holders are good and sturdy, and can handle a big gulp. They have 4 spring loaded arms that come out and hold your cup in place. NVH is ok. The engine is smooth enough but gets loud if you rev it to pass. There is a lot of tire noise. Outward visibility is excellent, I'd rate it much higher than any of GM's current offerings. My main comparison is the Cruze 2LT since I had one two weeks ago as a rental. Cruze is much quieter and the interior is more warm and welcoming. Jetta has more power, feels more solid, and is much roomier. The Jetta platform feels like it is a mid-size car in the compact class; but in this trim, it is held back by its engine, spartan interior, and some cheap materials in noticeable places. The 2.5 is the biggest issue with the car. Changing that one thing would likely change my opinion of the car. If I'm going to drive something spartan like this, it should at least get better gas mileage, right? I'm going to go over the car in more detail later this week, but the fit seems excellent and the platform feels very solid... not tinny. However, they used cheap plastic materials in a lot of places they shouldn't have.

Iiiiinteresting new headlight design. I like the departure from the "I had one too many eye lifts" look that we've been suffering through from nearly every brand since about 2003

What part is rusted? check out RockAuto.com There is no way the parts aren't available. There are still lots of A-bodies out there.

Here's another thing about the Jetta.... it uses cables to operate the HVAC airflow control..... what other car still does that? I'm going to ask my friends in Germany their opinions about the Jetta's image. I remember them saying something about "old men in hats"

It is solid. Very solid car in that regard. Much more so than the Elantra or Kia or even above a Ford Fusion. The engine turns me off by doing nothing well except make noise. I get that a 5-cylinder is supposed to be a compromise between a V6 and a 4-cylinder, but the 312 HP Camaro gets 30 mpg now. So why is this 170hp unit only rated at 31? It doesn't seem to have much torque low in the power band because the transmission is always wanting to kick down. I did the speed limit the whole trip. I get that concrete roads are loud, but some cars handle them better than others.