ShadowDog

I'm no flag waiver. I look at the loss of life without counting for whom scored the hit. The Japanese certainly weren't cowardly in that attack. A surprise attack in the fashion they performed goes far beyond simple war time tactics. It takes the bravest men in the world to aim for the deck of a ship with the nose of your plane; however, it's pointless to identify this as what is bravery to one is stupidity to another. War is such a useless measure for the strength of a society. In my mind, it's the biggest weakness.

Hmm, after seeing the picture of the Malibu, remembering my dealer tour, I think 'bland' goes to GM. That Malibu is bare-bones next to the Camry design.

It looks better than it's current form. I'm actually appreciating the looks of this car over the Malibu.

My thought as well.

Nice car though. Just thought I'd make a jab anyway. :P

Just the question I was expecting to read, as I was ready to ask it myself. So, just where are all those so-called analysts and armchair experts declaring the HHR as a flop now? Are they still pretending in the fairytale land where everything they write and say is not unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls or stone tablets carved by the hand of God? Oh wait, I know...they're sucking TOE JAM! It's times like this that I'm actually not satisfied; rather, I'm annoyed by what else they would spew their negative rhetoric about that would only seem to be written or said to fuel the mob mentality of the auto "journalist" society. The next time I read one of their articles might seem too soon, and then they can suck on my big toe after I kick them in the teeth.

If you mean premiere (even I just spelled it wrong), then yeah, that's just what I was thinking. I've usually seen the Camry in boring ol' silver. Seems fitting. Strange how the foggy sneak-images we'd seen much earlier made the car seem more attractive. I'm not interested in how this one looks...made especially worse by that 'who's idea was that?!' color.

No, it just appeared too good to be true. Details always seem to dull the glow of excitement into cold, hard reality. In the past, I came within 5 minutes short of buying a car I was searching months for (wanted particular options and body color). It was eight hours away and they required a deposit on my credit card to hold it until I got there. I had to call them back because my wallet was in my car. When I called back, the salesman told me that it was on a test drive during the time I last spoke to him, and the person bought it right then while I was getting my wallet...so there I was, credit card in hand and five minutes short of having the car I was waiting for.

Imagine if you will... You have a dog's-level view of the side of a street. A chrome wheel rolls by as a car stops before you. Above the rocker panel, you see the door crack open and a cane hit the pavement with a loud *clack*. A foot comes into view and pivots. You now see the tips of two fine-leather shoes before you and hear a grunt and groan of someone as they exit the car. The feet step out of view and the door closes. The cane clacks once more as the person steps into the frame. The camera pans up to reveal... Sean Connery ?! With his sophistication and signature accent, he proclaims: "It's a phucking Camry! Who ELSE would you be expecting?"

Sounds like she regards a car like a toaster. Sometimes the car is all the matters, not what you get out of it in dollars and cents. Let me put it this way that no classroom can simplify. Any car purchase is a bad investment. You can be 'smart' and buy something that's considered a 'belly-button' automobile for everyone that is camouflage among the sheeple; or, you can 'live-a-little' and buy something that's considered satisfying to look at, drive, and own. In the end, it's only money.

The time between now and the show is too long to have to keep reading the same recycled thoughts and opinions. Until there's a visual something-or-other to look and read about, it's just another Camaro thread.

Funny, once they reported what CEO Takeo Fukui thinks is the problem, incentives, the word just keeps popping up in every one of the last 8 paragraphs but the final one. "BaaAAAaaa, BaaAAAaaa!" Says AutoWeek.

You get what you pay for. It's good enough.

Understood. I suppose I should have mentioned that in order to clarify my point of view without looking like I am not compassionate to those with the inability to rescue themselves from their negative state without the use of drugs. I agree with communication. That can be the greatest assistance in most cases. There are times when all you are trying to do is seek answers; however, sometimes all you need is someone just to ask you the right questions, and you manage to help yourself.

Grocery-getter: It doesn't matter these days, does it? This is why I'll consider a car like the Camaro a sports-car. This is because its suitability for use is for less-than typical means. This gets twisted when you suddenly toss a V6 under the hood. The style is there; however, the substance has diminished. I'll just say the definition has changed over the years of design, and dictated by categories involving, for example, their safety equipment.

Considering the hubub of 'when will we see a Camaro again' over the course of the last few years since it was axed, even a tease by GM via the unveiling of a 'concept' vehicle may be enough. It's certainly no secret how GM has created buzz through conceptual material, only to yank the carpet out from under the whole endeavour citing a lack of profitable interest. That's how I see it. Let them go ahead with talk of confirming the unveiling of a 'concept'. In my eyes, that would simply be for publicity in GM to suggest they won't vanish without shouting aloud what could have been. Unless someone stands next to said concept and specifically suggests that plans will be developed and the car will see production, a concept from GM certainly wouldn't mean anything more to me than a rendered drawing. Enthusiasts already out on a limb with declarations of intent to purchase a new model will jump from the tree of logic to suggest they would still buy one without any bells and whistles. Good for them. You certainly won't have a profitable car without what consumers already declare standard equipment. Publicity on the car itself would be severely damaging, what with journalists raising an eyebrow to question the fact that a car could have little-to-no creature comforts in order to provide low-buck high-performance. I can read their minds already, '...then, this thing had better perform much higher than my expectactions.' I also mean to imply that it had better perform exceptionally in something other than straight-line 0-60 runs; otherwise, it would all be just for a name and an image we all would hope could die. Kinda goes against everything logical from a financial point of view, unless GM just needs an expensive marketing campaign that would appear to be based purely on the image of a car. Just my opinion... V6 = bulk of sales, and females will play a significant roll Your price would be a fair estimate. I'll go along with it. V8 = mainstay image in the key demographic GM HOPES would buy the bulk of these cars; however, with that, they make less money. I say this because few people will actually buy the V8 performance models without splurging on luxury items like, power everything, leather appointment, and various creature comforts. (Heh, luxury items...gees, most of these are considered standard equipment in the Aveo!) It will end up competing with the Mustang regardless. Consumers will end up making that the reality, regardless. I doubt many people will look at the base Mustang without wondering about the Camaro as being another option. The G6 is a nice point; however, it'll be just another consideration. I believe Camaro and Mustang have always been, and will continue to be, the typical consumer comparison. Remember, just my opinion...

Avoid the drugs. They are no solution. You grew up just fine didn't you? It would seem more likely that there are circumstances in your life that just place you where you feel emotionally. I girl I know takes drugs for everything wrong in her life. The doctor is practically her best friend, perscribing everything to accomodate her inability to take responsibilty for her crappy life. She thinks that it's normal to say that it's the drugs not working properly instead of realizing that her stupid emotional problems are her own creation. By no means am I suggesting that you are in the same position; however, there can be adjustments to your life that can be made without resorting to a chemical that will merely allow you to accept things the way they are without healthy change.

FWD Burnout: The equivalent of watching your dog drag his ass on the carpet. RWD Burnout: The equivalent of lighting ten dollar bills on fire and tossing them to the wind.

As you'll read, I am very disturbed by this trend in older generations. I have almost lost all compassion for the older generations for not spending the time to evaluate their options instead of keeping with their selfish ignorance and endangering others on the road. Keep in mind, I am in no way using this opinion as blanket-coverage for all seniors; however, I also believe that mandatory testing be performed at a certain age. For the very least, to continue updating and refreshing the simple rules of the road. Many of the seniors in this province never had to test for their license; rather, it was simply handed to them by the government. 'You own a vehicle? Here's a piece of paper saying you can drive it.' Mandatory testing with the possibility of losing your license is certainly not an infringement of rights, and not age discrimination. It is simply a measure for testing competency. I see it as no different than testing for employees to be able to operate sensitive equipment where their inability could endanger other lives. You wouldn't hire a person without adequate ability to do their job without compromising the safety of others, so why would you offer a driver's license to someone with the inability to do the same? It all comes down to politics. Creating laws without losing the respect of this ever-increasing demographic is virtually impossible. This example isn't one of few. Seniors in my city seem to have a difficult time remembering that a four-way stop was introduced at a certain intersection over 40 years ago. Some still drive right through it like it was never there. These drivers simply weren't paying attention. A personal experience was when driving behind a couple as they idled at 35 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on a service road that paralleled Highway #1, looking for a particular turn. I understand if a little confused, people will slow down so as not to miss a turnoff; however, this driver literally stopped his car in the middle of a two-way intersection (we were on a thru-street with no stop sign) before I could make my right turn. He wanted to get onto the highway on the left; however, didn't realize that the road on his left was the exit for highway traffic onto the service road. Nobody knew his intensions, and stopped. A lady on the right (6th Ave) couldn't go around him to turn left. The guy exiting Hwy #1 onto the service road couldn't cross to carry on to 6th Ave.. I was boxed in behind him with the curb on the right, so I couldn't turn right onto 6th Ave. He brought traffic to a grinding halt for around twenty seconds while, apparently, thinking that he could turn left around the guy in the truck, into a no-entry lane, and turn right onto a 110 km/h road with no acceleration lane. People on the highway were rapidly seeking the left-hand lane while he slowly motored in the high-speed lane. I couldn't believe my eyes. Had the guy just drove another 100 feet on the service road, he would have been able to drive left onto an acceleration lane, merging onto Hwy #1. Yet, another access was further down the street. Common sense is right out the window with some of these old geezers. If you can't do something where you are, chances are you can somewhere else. Why they think what they're doing won't make a difference to anyone is disturbing. It's like I always say, they think they're driving in a farmer's field...no lines, and open territory to go wherever you want without restriction.

The only people referring to stock cars as having-or-not-having anything to do with NASCAR are the ones against NASCAR. In truth, fans have long-since abandoned the notion that NASCAR doesn't run stock cars. Manufacturers are sponsors. What better way to be a sponsor than to have a make-model designation a standard feature on race day? Make the cars all stock and they would be useless on the track. In the end, manufacturers aren't about to absorb the cost of supplying race engines and bodies to teams. They're finding other ways to perform research and development on their engines that's substantially cheaper and efficient than racing them around.

I doubt simply dropping brands will effectively place GM in a position of immediate cost reduction to begin balancing their revenue/cost issues. There's legacy costs, contract payouts, unionized workers on the payroll getting paid well after plant closures, and major restructuring...and these are just the tangible issues. Public perception will take a nose-dive; PR and marketing will need to don magicians' capes to maintain GM any sort of credibility in the marketplace. Any way the scale tips, it's a logistical nightmare.

Yeah that would be the one Jon Moss concept that was basically made by putting the Monte Carlo body on an F-body chassis.

How funny, it went from having absolutely no visual obstruction in the concept, to having ginormous c-pillars in production. They looked good from the outside, but I just couldn't stand how they blocked my view on the inside. I, too, am amazed with just how much of the car stayed true to the concept. The general shape and details from virtually all angles, as well as the rocker panels. The door trim and layout looks identical but for the two-tone colors that made production. Aside from not having a 60-40 rear split fold seat, I'd have loved the rear buckets.

A section of the exhaust pipe between an end connection and the muffler rotted out in my wifes' ol' 91 Civic. It bent and would rattle annoyingly. Until I could weld a section of pipe in, I used a coat hanger to support the pipe up and prevent an exhaust leak. I replaced the broken pipe and my wife was complaining of another rattling noise in the exhaust soon afterward. I kept looking for another leak but everything was solid. After a week of her complaining and me being unable to find anything loose, I finally realized what the problem was; I'd left the coat hanger on the body and it was resting against the top of the exhaust pipe. :rolleyes: The bolts holding the rubber endcaps on the steel bumper of my ol' Escort were rusted and loose. A little (whole lot) of epoxy worked wonders. Hmm, strangely enough, I fixed most everything else properly, or with replacement parts. Oops, forgot about fixing the cracked-and-hanging valance of another Escort with tie-wire normally used for suspended ceiling. Actually, tie-wire is the best thing to carry in the emergency kit. A lower-bolt on the hood release mechanism in my 95 Monte Carlo rusted through and it bent upward, lifting the hood about two inches. A little tie-wire to hold it down did the trick until I could replace the bolt.

I would need a week in each to find everything I liked and disliked. If it were based on exterior styling, I narrowly pick Cobalt. If interior styling, I whole-heartedly pick Cobalt. There's little point explaining my reasons, because they're my own, so whom else should care? My final pick would be based on things like: 1) what the car felt like around me when driving 2) how well the car handled throughout the range of movements 3) what practical value I would get out of having one as a daily driver For now, I see two cars. Neither really does anything for me over the other when it comes to the balance of pros and cons from what I can see in pictures and on paper.