Drew Dowdell

probably the only time I'll agree with you.

Wasn't this already discussed and the reason for the horsepower drop in the G6 'vert is that they increased the low end torque signifigantly?

Wow! I love the front end. Very futuristic, modern, and original. It's got the HF3.6, a 5-speed auto, that interior, and the Suzuki warrenty.... Chevy who??

How about a Ford Explorer hearse.

Hey edmunds! I have been consistantly getting 14 mpg in my Avalanche in city driving and I'm not exactly light on the pedal. What the hell are you guys doing, driving it like you stole it?

What if the government mandated that all V8s, V6s, and I6s sold after a certain date become E85 capable. This would jump start E85 filling station building. It would help start to ween the worst offending gas consumers off petrolium. GM would look great because they're most of the way there. Eventually, the 4 cylinders would follow suit simply because of demand.

But then there are the fairly major things that the Japanese *should* recall, but don't. 1. Toyota's engine sludging 2. Honda's Odessy and TL transmissions breaking.

Real estate appraiser is out doors nearly all the time. 70% of their job is driving to the property and inspecting it, then writing it up once they get back to the office. The real smart ones have a laptop with them and write them up on the spot. I guess I come in at 23. Property Manager, except that I also own all the properties that I manage so that changes the income level

Datsun is Nissan you tard.

How's that for a front overhang? damn that thing is ugly in the front. Cover over that nose and the rest of the car is ok.

Is that the new one or the old one Var?

what he said

They look the same, like no other.

Except that the cost of refined gasoline rises faster then the cost of crude.

Profit is dollar amount Profit margin is the percentage above cost that is counted towards profit

So will your mechanic. Trust me... -Passat owner.

Let's see. Exxon had record profits for any company, ever. GM now has full size SUVs rated at 27mpg highway, that can run on E85 <at lesser economy> , and hybrids on the way. GM has 300hp front drivers that are rated 27mpg hiway. Cobalts routinely get higher then EPA fuel mileage Chrysler is introducing new diesels. ... but Exxon has record profits even when consumption grows at the normal rate.

I thought this title was held by the Corolla, which only replaced the original Beatle a few years ago as #1.

Glad he's my senator. I can't wait to vote out the junior senator from Pennsylvania.

You go from an S-class or X5 to a Cobalt rental? If you're driving either of those high end makes, why aren't you renting something a bit higher class? I can imagine why your vision might be skewed if you get out of your X5 and into a Cobalt. I get out of my CTS and sit in a Cobalt/Civic/Corolla/Sentra and just think to myself "People actually drive these every day?" [/Karen] I'm sure you could say the same about my CTS, but my point still stands. Perception is everything and looking at the compact market through the windshield of an S-Class does distort the vision.

All the Volkwagen VR series engines and W series engines have offset bores. They run fine.

Pontiac - serve indian cuisine.... see if anyone gets it. In western PA <I dunno if they're anywhere else>, we have a chain called Quaker Steak and Lube. They're entirely Quaker State oil themed... and if you've ever wanted to eat under a corvette, you can. They are famous for their buckets of wings

Hopefully this means "Developed by GM, 50% of the bill paid for by Ford" Seriously, automatic transmissions are not Ford's strong suit. Knock GM for lots of things, but the quality of their transmissions* is definately leader of the pack. *When paired with an appropriate engine.... sadly with GM, that doesn't always happen.

It is entirely possible to tune the engine to the test while ignoring the real world mileage.

Because I've been through it. I've had the "I better find a girlfriend even though I don't want one" thoughts. I know so many gay people who've had completely different situations to realize that since there are such huge differences in upbringing, it can't be a "nurture" thing. Since everyone is raised differently yet there is still a fairly consistant percentage of homosexuals. You've fallen down the slippery slope You falsely assume that: a. gays do not reproduce. b. an entire generation of people would have to be born gay simultantiously for a check/balance to occur. c. Only the best and strongest survive. To address those: a. gays do reproduce, usually having heterosexual children. I think it should be fairly obvious to you that gay people usually are born to heterosexual parents. My partner and I have every intention of having children some day. b. the number of gay people has been fairly consistant. the number of openly gay people has increased though. c. Jerry Springer show. Not the first time I've heard these arguments and I'm sure it won't be the last. That doesn't make them less wrong. You need to study genetics. Which is odd because I think you've mentioned that you are a scientist <forgive me not remembering the field>. My parents both have brown hair and brown eyes. I have blond hair and blue eyes. Both of my grandmothers had blond hair and blue eyes. It's called recessive gene. As far as re-population is concerned. Heterosexuals are certainly capable of over supply. unlikely.... as you're still wrong. There are members of this society, regardless of sexuality, that never reproduce, yet contribute greatly to the common good. There is much more to society and life then spraying your DNA across the land. There are those in this society whos job it is to pump out kids. There are those who's job it is to pump out ideas. There are those who grow the food. There are those that own the land <me>. There are those who care for the ones who pump out the kids, and grow the food, and think of ideas, and own the land. Think of a bee colony. If producing offspring were required of every single member of the colony, bees would only be seen in chunks of amber. In a bee colony, only one member ever reproduces yet the species lives on. All the other members that never reproduce still contribute to society. Indeed, the be colony couldn't go on without the non-reproducing members. Obviously, this is an extreme example and we humans have a more hybrid system. We like to think of ourselves as "higher beings" over the rest of the animal kingdom. We share traits with many other species. New York City, the worlds largest bee colony. Again, agree to disagree is a way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want to accept it. You're not going to insult me and you're not going to come up with any argument that I haven't already encountered. To summarize: A. Gays reproduce. B. Gays are the product of heterosexual sex. C. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that homosexuality is gentic. D. Homosexuality being genetic does not mean the human race will end. E. People can contribute to the good of society without reproducing. F. Regarless of the cause of homosexuality, there is no reason to deny the legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples. G. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not cause more people to be gay. H. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not harm anyone. I. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will reduce the potential for "high risk behavior" J. As we've already learned, seperate but equal isn't equal. K. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not increase health insurance: a. As if insurance companies needed an excuse to raise rates. b. It would have happened already since most large companies offer partner benefits. L. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not lead to beastiality. M. Agreeing to disagree is not a solution.