LosAngeles

Yeah, it's probably why I became a GM guy so easily....but if this was completely true, I'd be a Chevy fan....because while I like Camaros too, I found Pontiac everything so much cooler. The Firebird was always on TV and in movies, and virtually everything with a red arrowhead on it simply looked slick and sleek.

Astra can replace Sunfire no problem, but in a new truly high-performance Pontiac world, the Vibe would have to just die, since it's simply doesn't fit (as much as I like the car myself)

I'm not talking about the packaging advantage. I'm asking why the volume manufacturers swear by it so hard. Is it because it is cheaper or easier to make? If that is true, it would seem pretty crazy, since front-drive technology dates back to the 20s and was considered so high-tech, yet the volume cars were all rear-drive clear to 1979. Then in the 80s, they were making the switch right and left. Cars became front-drive quicker than they lost carburetors in favor of fuel injection. So I'm just wondering why. Was it simething the volume boys wanted to do all along or was it a necessary evil of some sort?

Passed by some shop that had a 73 Chevelle and Camaro both striped and rally wheeled up. And a 69 Impala 4-dr. across the street. I love 69-70 B-bodies.

This is said as if people really had a choice at the price point of any of those when they were in the market for a new car.

The current one isn't, but I'm sure that's who's mostly buying.

If it's good enough to be in a touring car racing series, it's good enough to be in Pontiac's lineup. Of course my preference is the Astra hatch.

If so, why? It got so heavily embraced in the 80s, and all but the luxury marques seem uber-reluctant to turn back... Does it cost that much less or something? Is it so much less complex?

This would be an even better RIVIERA....

But that began as the Vauxhall Astra/Opel Kadett, with European engines and everything (it was simply all assembled in Korea), so that doesn't count in my mind....it was basically the third-gen T-car. I personally think Pontiac should get the Astra hatches again (leave the convertible for Chevy as a Cobalt vert)....but if that doesn't happen, I don't mind using the Lacetti/Forenza, but with Ecotecs instead.

Today, a 60s Chevy van Yesterday, two cars (which by themselves don't matter) that were next to each other with the California 84 Olympics license plates....

So, it's different. Big deal, as long as it's ready enough to build a production architecture out of. So it's not Kappa anymore, just name it something else and begin building the compacts it can generate.

No it shouldn't have...that thing is simply too small. It also shouldn't have been where the GTP nameplate was moved to.

I love the Ralliart version.....it's about time they made an Evo to complement it....but selling it only in Japan is a dumb idea, similar to not importing the Legnum. Wagons up, SUVs down.

Isn't Mercedes building the exact same vehicle? LOL@ empowah's response

Subcompact, tall, narrow notchbacks are just nasty lookin'.....

The Cobalt would do me well in any trim, as long as it's a stick. Leave the Civic to the 604373407406702357967 Honda customizers who will do everything from remove the springs to adding lights from a Ford Fusion to be different.

The rare time I call a car ugly (because it's too tall)....on top of that, it's simply inappropriate for the Mercedes badge. It should be a Smart.

But will it bring back the massive look of the 90s S?

Youngstas try too hard to keep up with the latest labels....I like just looking crispy and feeling comfortable.

I can't stand frickin' cleaning wheels...the cracks and crevices and the being down on the ground is one thing, but it's just murder when the brake dust is basically permanent acting....feels like a total waste of time when it's that stubborn. That reach to get to the bottom inside of the windshield is brutal too.... I love vacuuming out and wiping down interiors though....

Chicks are really huge on appliance cars (edit: and the base models of sporty cars).

While I agree, there's a thing some of the Japanese (we know how much folks hate the Japanese around here) used to do called 8-4-2: 8 years between chassis changes 4 years between totally redesigned bodies 2 years before mid-cycle facelifts. While this wasn't tightly adhered to, I don't see where decent chassis like Epsilon and Delta couldn't follow that template. Especially with W-body dating back to 1987 (and still being used) and the J-body having run for 23 years (with only 2-1/2 redesigns). Would be interesting to go back to the days of bodies changing every year...but the Americans woudl have to control 60% of the market before that could happen...that may be why things have slowed to the grind they have the past 20 years.

Guess I better not dare make a sports sedan topic.

What it's based on was a hatch, so it's still a hatch to me.