Drew Dowdell

Chevy is the best selling brand in Pittsburgh 7 years in a row.

why does VCM hurt it? Shouldn't it be all hands on deck when the throttle is mashed?

Linky Though the Malibu comes in 1st in best overall value it comes in second to the Accord in final pick, but look at all the praise for the Malibu and how they trash the Camry! On the interior: On exterior style: On drive train: They need to test again when the 6-speed/4-cylinder combo comes out. No mention of it in the article but a big to Chevy for not having that at release. Overall:

That must have been a quickie for them. I'd have had the whole car cleaned, compounded, and polished.

I wouldn't look towards the 5 or the Rondo for styling guidance. uhm... the HHR does sell 100k a year... even in it's 3rd year.... and there is no reason a small Tracker replacement couldn't be sold along side of the HHR and ALSO sell 100k a year. They are different vehicles markets.

That was me

both it's snowing here now, so the CTS is in storage, but I still have both.

File under "No where to go but up"

I've driven the new version.... it's a piece all right. yeah, but look at the start you've got.

We should play magic mirror and see how many other car's design cues we can pick out. Ready? Go!

I'm sure it's plausible, but they had to be really beating the snot out of it to get that. I'm just comparing it to the same engine in a similarly heavy car with a 5-speed auto that I drive like a felon in.

I'm just happy they didn't bash the Malibu for no reason. They really couldn't find anything major to complain about. Coming in second in this crowd isn't a bad thing. In the past, would the Malibu even have been invited?

So all this arguing from you about sales numbers is just because you don't like the one you're driving even though it's basically the same package as all the others in it's class and sells nearly double any Japanese competitor? If you don't like an HHR, I doubt you'd like an xB, Matrix, Element, or PT Cruiser either. Just pick something else man....

Question 1: How are the CRV and RAV4 direct competition for the HHR? CR-V starts $4,000 higher than the HHR. RAV4 starts $5,000 higher. I think the Element, PT Cruiser, Matrix, and xB are the HHR's true competition as they are all roughly the same size, the same price range, and .... well, the same kind of vehicle. Question 2: How is selling a steady 100k per year, in it's 3rd model year, in a market previously not occupied by GM, a bad thing? Toyota wishes they sold 100k xBs. They sold 56k xBs to Chevy's 96k HHRs. Toyota lumps Matrix in with Corolla so I can't get a number on them, but I highly doubt that one in four Corollas is a Matrix and that is what would be needed to exceed HHR sales. Honda wishes they sold as many Elements as Scion sold xBs. Element sells at less than half the rate the HHR does and it's already been through an MCE. PT Cruiser sales are substantially down despite heavy fleeting. Down below HHR in fact. So... wait. Doesn't that make HHR the best selling in it's market? In fact, even if you remove every single HHR fleet sale, it still outsells everything from the Japanese INCLUDING their fleet numbers and handily outsells PT Cruiser when you remove it's 50% fleet rate.

Ford.... well, Mercury specifically. If GM hadn't existed: 1. Horsepower race wouldn't have been nearly as large. 2. We would be 10-20 years behind in automatic transmission technology. 3. 10 years behind in FWD technology 4. 15 years behind in airbag technology 5. We'd say that "_______ is the Duesenburg/Lincoln/Imperial of ________'s" and it just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as Cadillac. 6. 50% of South Florida would have no idea what to drive. 7. There'd be no Ralph Nader... <maybe this one is kinda good> 8. The Model-T would have continued production till 1947 when Old Man Ford finally kicked the bucket. 9. BMW M5 owners would have to crank start their V10s. 10. Auburn/Duesenburg/Cord, Studabaker, Packard, Hudson, Nash, Edsel, Imperial, and Chrysler would still be around today.

This was a "How the new comers stack up to our previous choice." comparison.

I'll go out on a limb and say 100% of the HHRs weren't sold at retail. Who pays sticker anyway? 25% were daily rentals - probably big discounts there 70% were retail - some discounts, but again, who pays sticker? 5% were commercial - flower shops, pharmacy deliveries, etc. - More discount than retail, but not as much as rentals. Apparently companies that do deliveries love them. Less expensive than a minivan while still having a good loading capacity. All of the Eckards <when they were in business> around here had HHRs for their prescription deliveries.

JB Weld

DUNE cat!

Genesis!?!? Genesis allowed is not! It is auto forbidden!

It was 2007 COTY and they are not in the mood for Filet Min-Crow tonight.

Agreed, however this article was about E85 v. Petroleum diesel. Also not presented was the fact that engines designed to run on ethanol don't suffer as severe an efficiency penalty as flexfuel vehicles do. Ethanol can be run at very high compression because it's over 100 octane. The 3.5 litre FFV in the Impala runs a compression ratio of 9.8:1. The Corsa in Brazil runs on 100% alcohol and has a compression ratio of 12:1. Keep in mind that 12:1 is where the new BMW V10 runs and has a huge amount of technology behind it just to run on premium. The compression ratio in the Impala is where the efficiency is being lost.

Mercury Milan and as many old Oldsmobiles as I could lay my hands on.

They placed the Camry 1st, but look at what they said about it: They also said the Malibu<!!> is better with road and wind noise. but they can't make up their mind... first it's roomy... then it's Still, I'm happy at least that they managed to print their bias without incoherent bashing of the Malibu. They had for more negative to say about the Camry even though it took first. The brake pedal feel and rear seat comfort are really subjective. I doubt anyone will get MT like fuel efficiency out of the Malibu.

Interesting, no swipes at the Malibu, no mentions of Citations or Celebrities, over all sounds to be a pretty fair review. I don't get this one though: It's supposed to? I don't think that is something I'd want to happen. edit: MT got 16.3 mpg? Sounds like they were enjoying that HF3.6 a bit too much. I never get below 18 in my CTS even when driving it like I stole it and it weighs the same, has more power, and "only" a 5-speed.