2QuickZ's

Having been in the Camaro, I can tell you it's not really nitpicking. I thought GM had learned their lesson with interiors (does GM ever really learn a lesson?) but the instrument panel is econo car all the way. I'm not saying it is horrible because it isn't. It's just not as nice as I would have hoped. In the passenger seat (I didn't get to drive), you have this huge swath of black plastic staring you in the face with nothing more than a cloth wrapped trim panel to break it up. It certainly wouldn't stop me from buying one, though. It sounds like they spent the majority of their money on the chassis and powertrains which is where it should be spent on a car like this.

Looks like they are going to stick the 3.0L in everything! Between these two Caddies, the LaCrosse, the Equinox... I wonder if it will replace the 3.5 or 3.9 in the Impala too?

Finally some powertrain changes that will make the car more competitive. I wonder if the 3.0 & 3.6 will have similar horsepower numbers to what was released for the Equinox or if they will be detuned for fuel economy?

How about a cheap black LS w/ orange stripes. Only options are carpeted floor mats and compact spare = $23,675.

I got a ride in a new Camaro last week. It was a V6 car. The interior is definitely economy class, though not horribly so. It's probably better than the Mustang and Challenger but I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am not a huge fan of the styling. I was very impressed with the V6 performance though. It has made me rethink picking up a V6 G8 on the cheap (I need a sedan). While no race car, it certainly will perform more than adequately for most buyers. I only wish I had gotten to drive it.

High weight? BMW 535i = 3660 lbs Genesis V6 = 3750 lbs CTS V6 = 3900 lbs Genesis V8 = 4000 lbs S550 V8 = 4450 lbs It may be higher than the V6 Genesis but it's still lower than the V8. Are you comparing a RWD Genesis to an AWD CTS?

Accord best in class? Not in interiors. Of the mid sizers I've been in, the Honda is the only one with a hard instrument panel. Everybody else has soft instrument panels. Of course, I guess Honda can get away with that and still be "best in class".

Ouch. Another ugly month. HHR sales down almost 80%. Another fleet victim. You can pretty much look at that sales chart and see who the fleet queens are, not that we didn't know already. HHR, Aveo, Cobalt, G6 (down 82%). One of the few bright spots, if you can call it that, was the Enclave. It was only down 20%! Brutal, brutal, brutal.

I just saw this on CarandDriver.com. It's spec'd as a 270 hp turbo 4 cyl with AWD. Sounds interesting! Original story HERE

I've been considering getting rid of the Aura so I'm not stuck with two Saturns. We'll probably keep the Vue for many years, though. We really like it. Don't get me wrong, the Aura is a nice vehicle too, but if one of them goes, it will be the Aura. The problem is, I'd like to do it now before the announcement is officially made but damn near everything I want isn't coming out until 2010 model year. 2010 Fusion Sport, 2010 Taurus, 2010 LaCrosse, 2010 CTS sport wagon. The only car I'd really like right now is a Cobalt SS sedan. I'd consider an HHR SS but prices for those things have gotten out of hand. It's approaching $27k sticker equipped the way I want it and that's without an auto trans or sunroof! $29k fully loaded!!! Apparently GM hasn't learned its lesson about raising MSRP's to offset increased incentives.

You pick the Crapolla to prove your point? The car that has single handedly made me lose faith in the American car buying public? I just don't get how that car sells 300k+ every year. Boring exterior styling? Check. Boring powertrain? Check Boring driving dynamics? Check. This car is horrid to drive. Boring with a capital "B". I've had many a Crapolla as a rental car and I'd rather drive just about any other compact car, including Kia's and Hyundai's. That car is just abysmal.

I have two Saturn's in the garage so all I can think about when I hear them discussing killing Saturn is the huge hit I'll take in their value. Still, GM is not in a place where they can let anything other than financial success determine the fate of a brand. If they feel it may be a detriment to their short term survival, well, it needs to die. They need to do whatever they need to do to survive until things get better. If this is one of those things, I'll support it.

Rail service will never be popular while gas prices are low. That is part of the reason why I keep saying gas tax. I realize it's unpopular and I understand why but to me it seems like the most certain way to permanently change America's bad transportation habits. As for California, this is going to be a sincere question since I really have no idea what has been done on the local levels to curb pollution. My question is, have the larger cities or even the state spent a lot of time and money performing transportation studies that would allow lights to be better timed, road ways to be better planned for efficiency, etc. to help cut down on all the congestion on there? I've never been in or around L.A. during morning or evening "rush" hours but from what I hear, there are really more of morning and evening "stop" or "park" hours.

One last thing. Why can't the CAFE numbers be based in reality? It is really annoying that a CAFE number of 35 mpg will translate to an actual average fuel economy under 30 mpg. Why not just be truthful, use the straight calculation and call it a 28 mpg standard? It is a serious pet peeve of mine that the consumer combined rating is one thing while the CAFE number for the same car is completely different.

My wife just got back from a business trip to France a few days ago. She told me the diesel mini-van they rented used 1/4 tank of gas to drive through Paris traffic to a town 150 km to the south, around town for two weeks and back to Paris through morning rush hour traffic to get to the airport on the opposite side of town. 1/4 tank of diesel was 35 euros. Ouch. I certainly don't want fuel prices to get to that level.

I agree with you on the tax profits likely being pissed away. I also agree with you that a gas tax sucks for most people and isn't a one size fits all solution. I just happen to think it is a much better solution than CAFE, no matter what you set it at. CARBs decrease in CO2 emmisions allowed is essentially just raising the CAFE standard. If there is one thing the existing CAFE standard has proven, it is that it DOES NOT drive consumer choice or change their buying habits. All a lower CARB standard will do is create artificial supply without the corresponding demand. Car makers will essentially have to give any technology used to meet the standard away because consumers are not willing to spend money on it without gas prices being high. A gas tax isn't a great solution but I think it is the best option we have right now. Edit: I forgot to mention that someone (I don't remember who) was proposing a graduate gas tax that would diminish as gas prices naturally rose. Basically, you would use the tax to keep gas at $4/ gallon (or whatever level was set) until the market actually pushed it to that level or higher.

This thread should tell you everything you need to know about America these days. There is no "middle" any more. When it comes to politics, everybody is seemingly either ultra conservative or ultra liberal. Guess what? Either way you are an EXTREMIST. I hold many ideals from BOTH parties but it looks like that puts me in a severe minority these days. While I will readily admit that I voted for Obama, I also don't like the potential implications of this decision. I still believe the right way to accomplish the goal is to INCREASE THE FUEL TAX. California and any other states are already well within their rights to do this immediately. It is a proven way to change consumer preference. See the European model. Hell, see how quickly consumer attitudes changed in this country when gas was $4/ gallon and how quickly it changed back when it dropped back below $2/gallon. The argument that a gas tax would unduly hurt the poor is a valid argument. In the short term it would but as our MASS TRANSIT systems were adequately developed then that affect would go away in the long term. So to summarize, an increased GAS TAX would: - Change consumer buying habits thereby creating demand for fuel efficient vehicles leading to increased supply - Take the used car scenario out of the equation since a new, more fuel efficient car would be a more attractive option - Encourage development of mass transit systems that would potentially take more cars off the road. - Increased tax revenue could be used to support alternative fuel source development, alternative powertrain development, development of efficient mass transit systems, schools, etc. Of course, most Americans would be too ignorant to realize what is going on so it would be political suicide and there are no politicians in this country with BALLS big enough to try it.

I'm not bitching about the results, I'm bitching about the method. Besides, how much fun will your CTS be to drive when it does 0-60 in 11 seconds with it's 1.6L 4 cyl? Cal and any other state already has the right to tax gas however they feel appropriate if I am not mistaken.

I don't understand this at all. CAFE has never worked the way it was intended. There is a working model in Europe that shows us the way to improve fuel efficiency of our fleet. It's called a heavy gas tax. They have one and look what they drive! We've been on CAFE for over 30 years and look at what we are still driving. Aside from the increased engineering costs to let each state set its own standards, this type of thing also artificially creates supply without creating demand. Is it really that difficult to fathom that if Toyota could sell 1 million Prius a year, they would make 1 million a year? Of that if the market demanded fuel efficient autos as it did when gas was $4/gallon, all automakers would be moving to cover that arena as they are now? It would be nice if all the automakers would band together and simply say "No. If you set a standard we can't meet cost effectively, we will all simply leave your market. You can all drive used cars or motorcycles for all we care!" Wishful thinking because I know that would never happen. BTW - Why is it the auto industry seems to always be the primary targets for these types of things? Where are the demands to make other transportation methods more fuel efficient? How about aircraft? Trains? Lawn mowers and weedwackers? Boats? Yes, I know some regulation has been added but those do not get nearly the attention automobiles do.

I'm not hammering Toyota. I just find it odd that even the Honda hybrids haven't gotten the love the Toyota's have. I guess Honda's big mistake was not making the original Insight a 4 seater. I'm not mad at the other car companies (foreign included) for missing the bandwagon on hybrids either. To this day they only make up around 2.5% of the market which doesn't make for a good business case based on sales alone. I bet even Toyota didn't realize all the positive implications the Prius would have for them. I truly believe they go luckier than even they could have imagined. GM makes the EV1 and it gives them some mild positive press that was far outweighed by the negative press when they pulled them from market and crushed them. I guess some car companies just can't win no matter what they do. Oh, and no question that the Big 3 have dug this hole for themselves. Still, their products have been steadily improving for years and now many, though **not all** of their products are on parity with the best the others have to offer. The irony is even the Euro's have a better quality reputation and in most instances, its not even remotely justified. It just goes to show you that perception is just as important as reality, if not more important. It took far too long for the Big 3 to realize that perceived quality is just as important as actual quality.

Let's assume this is true for a minute. Where is the venom for Toyota for the same thing? Toyota produces the Prius and that makes it okay that they sell the Tundra and Sequoia, which incidentally get WORSE gas mileage than comparably equipped GM models. GM produces the Volt and its just a gimmick so they can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans? If that is really the way the American car buying public feels, then you are right, GM will be out of business in no time because apparently nothing can take the shine off of Toyota's green image despite the fact it is largely predicated on one model that makes up a little over 1% of the total NA car market.

Nobody is immune to this horrid economy. It's just too bad the Big 3 were already so weak before this hit. Hopefully it is just the medicine they need to get their $h! together and turn things around quickly.

I couldn't agree with you more. I fell in love with the 159 while in Italy a couple of years ago. They make badass looking police cars, too! EDIT: Linked wrong pic. Fixed.

I see you have bought into VW's prediction. I highly doubt they will achieve that goal without a significant market share grab in the U.S. and that just isn't going to happen with the premium pricing model they are using now. As for the gas mileage figures, the reason you don't see that here is three fold: 1) Americans aren't willing to pay premium prices for a small car unless its something trendy like the Mini 2) Americans aren't willing to put up with 10+ second 0-60 times. 3) Americans will not be into A & B segment cars (and to some degree C segment) with gas under $3/gallon, maybe even under $4/gallon. That is why CAFE sucks. It doesn't create demand for that type of car but simply artificially inflates supply. If the government wants to push fuel efficient cars, do it with a gas tax, not a CAFE mandate. Of course, a gas tax would be extremely unpopular so it's easier to just do it through CAFE. Its so much easier to make the car companies the scapegoats as opposed to the American car buying public.

And the VUE will be dead!