ShadowDog

No habla crazy.

I tend to think the majority of people considering the G5 don't give a crap that it's a rebadge. Some people would prefer it just because it's got an arrowhead on it instead of a bowtie; but, would everyone in the market consider the Cobalt even if there wasn't a G5? I don't think anyone really loses sleep over a decision like, "Hmm, Cobalt's wonky round rear lights or G5's conventional rear lights...Cobalt or G5...Cobalt or G5." It doesn't really matter. An additional name for those stuck to Pontiac is possibly an additional sale for GM, period.

The time in my life at which I was planning on buying a nice, white Z28 model has come and gone, and it just isn't coming back.

It's in the nature of the road, but it never gets any easier when it happens. Having served on the volunteer fire department for a time, I've dealt with enough - requiring the usual councelling afterward. My experiences were nothing compared to the First Response Unit, and the crew manning the jaws of life and paramedic hauler. I hope your memories aren't causing you any grief. I still have issues with a particular incident when a male occupant of an SUV was a decap. victim. It's rather disturbing when I never saw the face of the person; yet, my mind still forces me to wonder what he actually looked like. I don't get nightmares, but the images are just annoying as all hell.

When it comes to the global cultural issues, censorship is probably worse in America than anywhere else. The first amendment is meaningless when you consider that a board, such as this one, has global viewership. That said, it doesn't matter what anyone says, it seems to only matter in the eyes of someone viewing. Sometimes a disclaimer is all that is needed. If the public understands the risk for where they choose to view content, it's up to them. If non-censored material prevents people from even accessing the site, well, that's not the site's fault. I'm not sure self-adjusting censorship settings will enable a server to render a site clear and accessible again anyway, so I'm not sure if that would work. I guess it just comes down to where it's appropriate or not to view the content.

Eh, let's try something new. "Let it ride."

...or one could simply consider it an 'opinion' and disregard it.

That's the corporate world, smoke and mirrors.

I appreciate a good thunderstorm, especially the ones on a warm and humid night that seem to last forever before any rain will fall. I can only appreciate them when I'm driving if I pull over. I can't stand to drive around the mental-midgets who absolutely must concentrate on the sky more than their driving.

There's been some interest in dropping a turbo into the 2.0 Litre Holden 4-banger, as far as going with an option that's been tried and true for over a decade with this engine; however, I think I found a better option. 108,920 HP @ 102 RPM 5,608,312 LB/ft of torque @ 102 RPM While the 14-cylinder does drink 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour, I think I can be a little lighter on the throttle to help that. That's the inline 12-cylinder model. I might need to beef up the front suspension a tad to carry the weight. Info here: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ You think the guys at Jiffy Lube are going to hate me when I pull in with this thing (under?) the hood?

I recall that incident on the news. If it was the same incident (though sad that there are so many it's difficult to keep track) the one causing the accident was heard repeating over and over, "I'm so sorry." Save it, buddy. Your stupidity for a pointless thirll meant their daughter (or two kids, I can't remember) is now without parents. These accidents don't happen all the time, but it's not right that they should happen at all. In Canada, it really is a problem due to the lighter-side of the legal measures against the street racers. More often than not, it's high-performance cars driven by spoiled-wealthy young men that pose the greatest risk. When you're rich enough, fines and seizure of cars is considered getting off easy.

Yeah, I have a background on this one. Some senior-school teenagers were sitting on the hood of my best friend's Camaro. Now, my friend is normally reserved, exceptionally polite and kind-hearted, and would no more than simply demand it of the kids to kindly get off his car. In this case, it changed pretty quickly when the guys saw some girlfriends they knew, and one idiot got up and literally stood on his hood to shout something out to them. This obviously flipped my friend's switch, as he was already moving toward them, surprising them by chirping the door locks with his remote, then shooting for the one standing on his hood. He grabbed him by the belt-buckle, and yarded him off the car onto his side on the pavement. Now, my friend wasn't exactly small at the time, being 6'1" and 270 lbs....just ripped all over. Two guys jump off his car and poised themselves for a scuffle until they apparently got a good look at him. My friend didn't say a word, he didn't have to. He walked toward them with nothing more than a pissed off look, and they both had their arms out with unmistakable, "Whoa!" looks on their faces. They backed off and the one on the pavement swore a couple times while getting up. He didn't stick around long. There was a noticable impression where the sheet metal met the hood framework; however, it was soon repaired by a friend in the bodyshop. When we were in his car at the time, he put it quite plainly, "It isn't the damage that really bothers me, since it's just a car that can be fixed; it's the lack of respect that I can't tolerate." I told him that I was actually quite surprised he didn't run at the guy and body-spear him off his hood. His reply was rather funny, "I like these pants. I don't want to ruin them." The only thing that's ever happened to me was watching two middle-aged couples walk out of a dance club while my '95 Monte Carlo was idling at the curb (locked) while I waited at the exit for my friends. They appeared to admire the car when one of them cupped his hands to look inside (window tint) then tried the doorhandle. I watched with my unclasped remote in my hand and quickly hit the panic button. He jumped away and looked around. I didn't make my presence known and just kept watching in disbelief. His companion had some better sense and boldly told him, "Hey, let's go!"

I'll examine the positives first: I just typed it all out and weighed it against the negatives, then deleted the whole thing. I thought it all out and agreed that I have it pretty good. The negatives are nothing more than annoyances or setbacks that others might think would be absolutely nothing to complain about. That said, it could be better, but it could be FAR worse.

...teenagers...that's all I see in that photo. I guess I look toward maturity instead since physical attraction only goes so far.

Sometimes it just comes down to the packaging overall, and not just what's on the surface. Sure, it's a volume brand; but I think that actually speaks volumes because they are going to offer ESP in more of their cars than the luxury brands can make praise for their own. It's always the trend anyhow, that volume brands begin to place contraptions and gizmos in their cars today that luxury brands offered in their cars yesterday. So, okay, let's hear it: "I don't care because I don't need no ESP, ABS, Airbags, brakes, etc. I'm in complete control of my car at all times. I'm the perfect driver."

Glad to read all are o.k. The surprising detail is that she will be found at fault for all incidents of damage. In many places, each person involved striking another vehicle would end up with the deductible charge as a result of being too close to the vehicle in front of them. I mean, rush-hour is rush-hour, so it's difficult to know just when someone actually stops or how slow they're going; however, it still surprises me you all didn't get dinged for the forward impact damages. I guess that's just the lucky deal.

Soo, I gather it's safe to assume that by the time something along the lines of this all-RWD theory comes to pass, the majority of car owners will be enjoying their flying cars from Toyota?

I can see the cartoon spoof rolling in my head. Imagine a CARS rendered Jeep suddenly spitting teeth out of his grille. Seats catching fire...wow...I think there's way too much thought going toward 'what else' instead of 'what's good enough' when it comes to these extra conveniences we find in cars these days.

* in a rather monotone voice, "Like, wow...didn't see one that coming, at all."

It would look pretty good to me if it weren't for the gaudy graphics, children's stickers and chickenwire braces. At least the developer was smart enough to leave the interior alone.

Trying to set value for how much expected injury could occur in an accident if wearing a helmet has far too many variables. Even a person wearing a helmet can go into major rehabilitation. I'd figure it's just easier to mandate helmets. We have mandates for seat belts and helmets in Canada, you don't hear too many people bitching and moaning about civil rights. Things have been this way for decades with no escalating chaos of Big Brother antics by the government. Quite frankly, the simple seat belt and helmet laws are there so we can keep the stupid people alive. Maybe we should rethink this whole issue to reduce the increasing level of Darwin Award nominees.

You know what? Your self-deluding nature, combined with your efforts to convince us that we are children with no clue is really starting to piss me off. Fortunately, I have this uncanny ability to control that. Now, where's that nice little ignore function? I think I'll simply focus on what's important now, without your 'guidance'. No, I don't like the dark; rather, I'm smarter than to blindly follow a cracker-head of a Pied Piper.

Well, it can make sense from an engineering point of view where a lower centre of gravity would make for a better off-road vehicle; however, I'm not inclined to believe that anyone putting a car body on an off-road frame has that in mind. In my opinion, nobody should really have to care that much anyway. There's no rule that specifies a 4x4 must be a truck or SUV. The El Camino has a bed, so technically it's a truck. The fact that it was designed to roll close to the ground on street tires changes all that. Slap a lifted suspension and raised body on it with mudders, and we have all sorts of fashion police crying foul. Really, does it matter how bends on a piece of sheet metal make a custom vehicle?

Please, give him a little credit. There will be a response. BM is currently scouring his dosier for the documents labelled, "FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES", but formerly contents of the "CONSPIRACY THEORY" left-field files. I relish his topics on this forum. It's like changing the channel from CNN to Comedy Central.

Since when is a helmet an 'illusion of safety'? Is someone with some care to protecting their kids going to tell them to wear it today, but decide if they want to care about it when they reach the age of majority? Last I knew, the "Do as I say, not as I do" argument was considered crappy parenting. If it becomes a "constitutional right" to decide not to wear a helmet, how does one police the issue of how much insurance a person should be paying since they offer themselves no protection? The rights of those forced to pay into equal terms is being infringed upon then. A constitutional right to screw up your lives and/or bodies in whatever way you choose has a monetary value that ends up being covered by those with the brains for self-preservation habits. Why is it a choice that should matter? I don't care if its mandatory to wear a seat belt or helmet. I'm smart enough to recognize that anything can happen, and anything conveniently available to me for my safety might as well be used since they're proven to greatly assist in survivability of most accidents. I have a choice, and that's whether to get a ticket or not. Just how severe is an inconvenience that makes people choose not to wear a helmet or belt? "Oh noes, mah hair is all messed up!"