black02

Not too. 3-4 years old. It has flash version 5, which is the newest version made for it, apparently. Firefox 2.0.0.14.

<sigh> That's too bad.

The site looks nothing like that when I bring it up. All I get is a bunch of text and broken links. It must use lots of flash.

Only because that's the question the autoblog author wanted you to raise. If you look at the Jan '09 sales of the G8, the Jan '08 sales of the GP, and then the Jan '08 and Jan '09 sales of the other GM cars, that will put things into perspective for you. Relatively speaking, the G8 is doing well.

Holden could not supply enough for that. We do know that volume sellers will be marketed as Chevrolets. 10 years ago, if you wanted a volume-priced GM sedan, you could go to any of Pontiac, Buick, Olds, or Chevy and buy the one that had the best styling, best deal, or best dealer. In a few years, you'll have to go to Chevrolet. Buick will have more luxury and a higher price. Cadillac will be ... well, who knows ... either a Buick clone or sporty luxury, depending on whether it goes EPII or Alpha. I don't think I buy that a large part of the country has to park a RWD car for 4 months, but I buy that there are those who think that's the case. The thing is, the country is large enough, so that the people who aren't worried about RWD in snow (either because they don't have snow or they aren't afraid of RWD in snow) make up a large enough population that it's worth marketing to.

I live about 60 miles from Benicia, which was the port of entry.

No. The G8 didn't start trickling into dealers until the end of March. So it really only had 9 months. It also had no incentives for most of 2008. Finally, the meltdown didn't happen until October. Prior to that gas was $4/gallon or more, which greatly affected cars like the G8 with V8s. Just take a look at the January sales report by model. Whatever the expectations were, GM is quite happy with the G8. At a point in time when they're closing down entire divisions, the fact that they're keeping the G8 indicates to me that it's a success.

1 plate is nice. My Camaro only has one, but the local cops don't seem to mind. I figure it gives them something to write me a ticket for when they're looking for an excuse, which was the case the one time I got a ticket (when a cop with truly awful powers of observation threatened to give me an "obstructing traffic" ticket for yielding to one of his fellow cops with the red and blue light on -- cop claimed not to have seen it). No points and $125 if you don't fix it (who wants to take a drill to his Camaro?). Lots of cars in CA with just 1 plate. If/when I get a G8, though, I'll get the front plate, just to avoid the hassle.

I drove an Impala SS at one of GM's Ride&Drive events and then I rode in one about a year later (Avis rental car, believe it or not). The car sure sounded the part. But the excessive wheel spin on even moderate throttle input totally ruined it for me. Add in the fact that it was coming from the front, which was just all wrong, aesthetically speaking.

Yeah. Or maybe from Flagstaff. If a snowbird, then they get to decide which state to register it in, I guess. If AZ is cheaper than wherever they're from....

None. Two possibilities: 1. Wanted GM sedan with V8 and no RWD available (STS too $$$). 2. Actually prefers FWD (there's always an exception to the rule)

The GP pretty much went straight to rental fleets even when new in '03. The GXP model had a problem in that the V8 overpowered the front wheels in spite of being limited to the 5.3 and relatively low peak torque. It might have done okay in the snow belt, but you just don't see any in California. Pontiac needs a car that people will lust after, and the G8 fills that need. The GP was a car that people settled for. I mean, even if you bought the GP GXP, it would be only because you thought you needed FWD winter traction or because GM didn't offer a RWD. If not for snow, who really wants a FWD 5.3 more than a RWD 6.0?

Let's just call it the "Kill Michigan" boondoggle. Obama's got to see that the statute as written is a horrible idea. I don't think it's as bad as John McElroy says, as I believe the 43 number for cars is based on the raw EPA data, under which the Civic Hybrid would pass, and the Fusion Hybrid should also. While you're at it, take a listen to the Jan 30 "Talk of the Nation" on plugin hybrids where the host is as clueless as ever. Well, only listen to it if you have a strong stomach.

Cleveland actually has a decent transit system, but mostly only within the city limits and a few close-in suburbs.

Yes. California has done a huge amount to curb pollution (talking air quality here, not climate change). You can't just rip up the existing developments and put down new ones, but L.A. has done a lot with what they've got. There's also a decent bus and rail system in the denser parts of L.A. Along Wilshire Blvd, you can see articulated buses every couple of minutes during peak hours, and there are three bus lines -- one with stops every block, one with stops every half mile or so, and one with stops every few miles. They're often packed. The buses bought since 2001 are all either CNG or gasoline-hybrid (and L.A. Metro is actually CNG since 1995). There's also a computerized traffic light system. The city streets often move better than the freeways.

All nice ideas about cleaning up the air efficiently. Note that giving power to California to set CO2 standards has nothing to do with cleaner air. It's about climate change, or rather, less climate change.

Okay. Let's say it's not part of the combustion cycle. A gallon of diesel fuel produces more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. CO is produced in very tiny amounts by either engine -- CO has been a regulated pollutant since the 1960s, whereas CO2 has yet to be regulated in the U.S. So, per gallon, the diesel produces more CO2 and more total CO2 and CO than the gas engine. And that's why it's not a great answer for CO2 emission standards. If the cost of diesel emission reduction comes down, then it may yet be a viable option for U.S. passenger cars, but not at today's costs. The EU has relatively new CO2 emission standards that will apply as a fleet average to each automaker, and we'll have them here if California gets its way.

Yes there is. If you tell me much how much gasoline was burned, I can tell you exactly how much CO2 was emitted (within 1%, as there are differences between gasolines). Batteries have nothing to do with this. As an aside, CO2 is not burned. It's a combustion byproduct. None of the carbon comes from the air, as the carbon in the air is in the form of carbon dioxide, which is inert. All of the carbon emitted comes from the fuel, which is why a CO2 standard is a fuel economy standard. The vast majority of gases emitted from the ICE are in the forms of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. There are small amounts of NOx and HC and CO, but after the catcon, these gases are in microscopic amounts. You really might want to read up on the topic. There's plenty of info on the web.

That statement does not make any sense. The pieces do, as a series of disjoint points. I mean, yes a gallon of fuel burned by the Volt will get more miles than a gallon burned in a Tahoe, for instance. Yet emissions of CO2 per gallon are the same. What that has to do with longer-lasting batteries, I can't imagine. I sure don't see how this responds to Evok's point.

Politics. People who don't know any better (that's most people) would think you were trying to reduce fuel economy by 25%, so it would be an unpopular change.

Right. So then the EPA under Bush said that the new CAFE standards were good enough, and California had not demonstrated a need for tougher CO2 standards. Obama is now asking for a review of this, and we're all assuming that the EPA will change its mind. Another possibility would be for the EPA to adopt California's CO2 standards. That would have the interesting effect of effectively trumping the NHTSA's CAFE standards, as a fleet that meets the California CO2 standards should easily beat CAFE. By the way, Canada also wanted to adopt the California standards, and they don't need EPA permission.

In what way do they affect air quality?

Yes. Except note that diesels emit more CO2 per gallon than gas-engine cars do. So while diesels are a great help in meeting fuel economy standards, they do very little for CO2 standards. The diesel Jetta has the same CO2 emissions as a Malibu (mild) Hybrid, in spite of getting 4-5 more MPG. If anything, this new California CO2 emission standard will put the focus on hybrids and take it back off of diesels, as hybrids will have a much, much easier time meeting the standard than a non-hybrid diesel.

No. California has never before regulated CO2. I'm okay with informed disagreement, but this is a simple fact which should not be debated. Do your own research.

CO2 emissions don't, and that's the context here since over 99% of the carbon that comes out of your car (over 99.99% from newer cars) is in the form of carbon dioxide. So no, the discussion is not over smog and air quality. I don't know what you're discussing, but that is what the title of this thread is about, since California has been setting its own standards for HC, CO, NOx, and particulates for 45 years. CO2 is the new one, and the effect they're worried about is climate change, not smog.