siegen

Because they are tuned for torque and as a result are able to get good fuel economy while providing a fun drive. Having a torque curve that drops off early in the rev range does not equate to better FE. Variable camshafts and other mechanisms can adjust how an engine breathes, allowing it to achieve high efficiency in both low and high rpms. In a Camry a low-rpm powerband is acceptable, since it isn't designed to be in the high rpm range and it is cheaper to forgo those breathing technologies, but for a BMW it is unacceptable!

What I want to know is why BMW's naturally-aspirated 3.0 only generates 230 hp (and for that matter, why mine only generates 215~ or whatever). In 2003, the Honda Accord had a 240 hp 3.0 V6. In 1989, the NSX had a 270 hp 3.0 V6. Surely, the epitome of sports cars could develop more output than that.

Telescoping steering uses a very simple mechanism. Usually it's just a couple rails and a sliding shaft. There are a million other things that would go wrong first, and chances are the worst thing that would happen is that the tracks would get gunked up and it would stop sliding.

From what I remember after reading the articles a few days back, an incorrect steering wheel was originally installed on the vehicle and then caught later down the line. It was replaced with the correct one, but the correct one wasn't properly attached. To fix the issue, GM is making it so the machine that holds/installs the steering wheels won't accept an incorrect steering wheel, and they are recalling all the Cruzes from that production run to make sure. The thing that confuses me is, why do they need to recall all the Cruzes from that production run? Was an incorrect steering wheel installed onto all of them, and then later switched with the correct one? I think that may be the case.

There is a small recall due to an incident of a steering wheel coming off. http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/04/10/chevy-recalls-cruze-after-a-steering-wheel-falls-off/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=nws&q=cruze+steering+wheel&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Video:

Body and stance look good. The head lights and grill ruin the look of the front for me. Too insignificant-looking and the head lights look droopy. Feels like they should be more substantial than they are.

The new Jetta looks like they took the old Jetta, added a pinch of Audi, and then stripped 100% of the character and flare out of the design. It is very conservative and has the VWG design language, but it's just so boring. You're right that the Sonata is a one-shot thing. Hyundai/Kia are still looking for their "thing" and trying all sorts of new stuff. It does mean that the designs probably won't age well and desirability will fade off quickly. And just for funsies: 1984, 1992, and 2006 were the only real shakeups in the design language. Otherwise it has been very evolutionary, and it has grown in size steadily every generation.

Who cares about the Sonata, somebody buy me this car now.

A markup of double (50% profit margin) is pretty normal on parts for regular shops that don't buy direct. Dealer markup is usually 20%-25%. So an item that a big parts distributor buys for $19.10 from the manufacturer would be sold to the smaller dealers/shops for $25.47 or so, and those dealers/shops would then sell to customers for around $50. Distributors make their profit by selling large quantities at low margin to dealers (who often buy bulk), while shops/dealers make their profit from less quantity, higher margin to customers. There are also some shops that are big enough or lucky enough to buy direct from manufacturer, and can make big 60-70% profit margins. If the shop is marking a part they bought from a distributor for $31 up to $80, then I think that is a bit much. $60 is a more reasonable price for something like that. Shops often get greedy. There is so much profit to be made on parts, because parts aren't nearly as expensive as most average people think they are.

Aftermarket suspension and wheels would be a must for it. I didn't like the wheel choices too much. The dealer had some ridiculous black rims with silver lip, 19", on the showroom cars. Didn't fit the car at all. The fog lights and lower grille area in general are goofy. I'm not a big fan of that element. I feel similarly. And the resell value isn't going to be as good. The dealer is only a mile away though which makes warranty work or repairs super easy. It's one of the closest dealers to where I live.

I swung by the Kia dealer to take a peak at that new Optima they got. In a word, I was impressed. I'm still wary of the reliability and mechanical bits, but the styling is striking and the interior design and materials are on par with the competition. I didn't test drive it because I'm going to wait til late April to compare it to the new '12 Civic Si sedan and others, but I sat in it and examined the interior material choices. It's definitely on my test drive list now. Must be that new Audi lead designer they nabbed. My main gripe is that the 6MT is ONLY available on the base model with no options or packages (par for the course with these midsize sedans). But on the bright side, it's only $19k MSRP. Power to weight ratio is slightly better than the TSX. I could probably live with a base model 6MT while I switch jobs and start making my millions. What do you guys think of the new Optima?

The new Optima is quite a striking vehicle. Worth a test drive.

Nothing guarantees anything.

It is normal for dealers to do this. Most dealers make their profit from the service department. If you have never experienced this before, then the other dealership you go to has good ownership. I'm not saying all dealers try to screw everyone, but most do this sort of thing all the time. And remember that the dealer is privately owned and is not a part of Honda. The dealer purchases cars from Honda to sell. Dealers can sell from multiple brands if they want (Honda/Toyota, etc). I would be very wary of a $19.95 tire rotation and oil change. I probably would not take any car to a service like that. Chances are they employ high school kids at minimum wage, and you're trusting them to re-torque your wheels back on properly, not over-tighten the oil pan drain screw or oil filter, not ding your paint with the tools, etc. Not to mention the quality of oil and filter they use is probably as low as it gets. What is the year and mileage of the Civic? Whenever I buy a used car, the first thing I do is replace all the normal wear items. Oil, oil filter, ATF/MTF, air filter, cabin filter, spark plugs, cap & rotor, fuel filter, flush coolant, bleed clutch and brake fluids, etc. All these things can be done yourself (especially on a Civic, ultra easy depending on year) for around $100 in one afternoon/evening.

There are literally hundreds of new technologies with exciting laboratory demonstrations that all promise to revolutionize our vehicles. The question is, which ones will actually take hold in the market? It takes more than a hop, skip and a jump to go from a laboratory experiment to a mass-produced, durable, easy to manufacture, and cost-effective technology. If it ends up costing too much, it won't make it off the ground. The 10-year estimate is probably realistic. Nova has some very interesting shows on new technologies specifically relevant to EVs. There is a guy working on a process for cooking chicken feathers to create nano-scale fibers that, when used in a hydrogen tank, allow hydrogen to be stored at far lower pressures and more densely-packed for smaller hydrogen tanks (or longer range). There is some very interesting solar technologies being worked on too. It all looks really great in the lab and it makes you ask why a lot of it hasn't taken off in the market already. But if the market doesn't run with it, there's probably a good reason (cost, complexity, etc).

I don't post 5 times/24 hours very often, if at all. My lifetime average is 1.51/day. :[ I've noticed posting has declined. I haven't posted as much over the last year or so. I've been mostly dispassionate about cars during this time. All I can think about now is trading-in my car for something that I will have more confidence in. This spring likely. Can't wait to test drive '12 Civic Si. Maybe if I get it I will post more Honda propaganda and livin' things up a bit. ;]

With the transverse engine, it makes me wonder if the AWD will be as good as the A4's (40/60 split) or will be a more VW/mainstream AWD. They did an excellent job translating the styling language to the platform. You almost don't even notice the transverse proportions. I drove a current A3 as a loaner and wasn't a fan of the seating comfort, and the interior wasn't as nice as the A4. It just overall feels more like a VW than an Audi.

This thread inspired me.

Explain!

The coupe looks really awkward in these photos. If you look at non-PR photos from the concept, it looks much more proportionate. It will probably look a lot better in real life, but that's nothing new.

Hyundai's latest cars look goofy as hell. I wouldn't be caught drunk in an Elantra. The Sonata isn't as bad, and looks somewhat substantial from the rear and side. That front though, YUCK. Kindergarten styling combined with a track record of building the cheapest cars around. I think I'll pass on the S. Koreans for now, they have growing up to do still. Oh, the Forte looks alright. That's about it.

I'm not bummed. Barring poor interior material feel and fit&finish, I am very excited for this car and I will probably be buying an Si Sedan come Spring.

I think the sedan looks a hundred times better than the current sedan. Part of the reason Honda has received such outcry from these photos is that the shadows are very poorly photoshopped, and it appears that the ride-height is unusually high (compare it to the spyshots and the current Civic, something wrong here). Honda has a history of releasing poor PR photos. Hondas always look better in person or in real-world average person shots. Here is a chop I did that has good shadowing and proper ride height: Aside from that, the only thing I don't like about this new Civic is the plastic triangle piece that sits in front of the side mirrors. Otherwise, I think it is a big improvement, externally, over the current Civic. It looks far more curvy and much better integrated. It is an evolution of the current Civic, so it doesn't look hugely different. Given how successful the current Civic is, I don't think they wanted to risk much. Instead, they made lots of subtle to moderate changes.

They didn't change any sheet metal, which explains why the hood cut lines are so messy. I think they should have made that piece that sits between the grill and hood a part of the hood. The pieces above the head lights too. That would have required retooling for the hood and fenders. Would have probably been worth it (they should have fixed it from the get-go).

The head lights don't appear to be smaller, but the tinted glass gives them a nice look. I think the hood cut lines are messy, like this new grill is a quick-fix and they didn't want to revise the hood. Still, it looks much better.