So I got to ride in a Civic yesterday

[A Horse With No Name]

sing it sister! [-Jerry Seinfeld]

I can attest to the HHR's crap resale value. Your story is not a stretch, the trade in value on the HHR is ridiculously low. I think crappy fuel mileage has to do with it.

On that note, why hasn't GM installed any freakin hybrid systems in its smallest, supposedly efficient cars? Why do they score amongst the worst for fuel mileage in the small car category, where it matters the MOST? Why are they so behind the times, seemingly forever? Why can't the right decisions be made to pull them into the competitive environment that is today's automotive landscape?

Fuel economy is a real concern about the HHR. My Scion xB may be uglier to some than a red-bottomed baboon but I'm getting 10 whole MPG (real world) better than people I know who are driving HHRs.

I like the HHR, but it does indeed need a fuel economy bump.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Enzl, your biases have reached a new LOW. I have driven the HHR extensively. The low-range stereo is not crap, the upgraded one is simply amazing. WTF are you comparing it to? The system in a X5? Good grief! They put F$#ing Pioneer speakers in it, for GAWD's sake! Perhaps it is your music taste?

I have driven the HHR, both new and "previously enjoyed." I wouldn't touch the LS because IMO the 2.2 doesn't cut it, but the 2.4 is quite peppy when pushed; in fact, me and the service foreman went for a "spirited" drive on Saturday in a LT.

My beefs with the HHR are to do with the high belt line (but then the 300 is also guilty of that one, too) and the poor visibility, which is also a result of the high beltline. I should point out, based on numerous customer remarks, that the visibility issue is also open to interpretation. At 6'2", I find the ceiling high, but the windshield low, plus both the A and B pillars are very thick. Roll-over protection or a design issue? The 2007 refresh has helped. I have been harping on the GM seats (Equinox/Cobalt/Malibu/HHR) for 3 years now. That nylon material must go. Whomever is responsible for that one should be fired, for sure. However, the graphite interior now finally available makes a helluva difference (especially in the Colorado) and I am hoping they get rid of it altogether.

Fit and finish on the HHR may be spotty, not sure about that one. I looked at a few that we have and they seem to be all bolted down tight. Perhaps you had a bad one, Dodgefan.

Personally, I am not a big fan of the HHR and they are not selling very well in Canada. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that currently a base LS HHR is the same prices as a much better equipped base Uplander - no kidding: $18,995.

I am not fond of having to sell VALUE all the time, but I can say that in its final year the J-car outsold the Civic by quite a margin up here. At $12,999 (about 7,000 less than a Corolla), we couldn't get enough of them. I remember we had 60 Cavaliers (two years ago) and thought the manager had flipped out. We sold them all real quick and wished we had 200 more. I doubt GM could have kept banging them out at that price, but we loved it. And our customers did, too. I keep in touch with mine, and most of are very happy with their J-car. MOre than most. IN case you think they are operating in a vacuum, a lot of people have more than one car in their driveway and are comparing their "crappy" Cavalier to their wife's Accord.

Anecdotal testimonials are always of questionable reliablity, but at least mine are based on thousands of personal sales, not a few friends.

Excellent point about J-body buyers. For whatever reason I have talked to loads of people who have bought them and loved them. My only gripe is that 99.7% are automatics in my area. Actually kind of thinking about buying a manual J-body or Cobalt as a commuter car for my wife.

Chris

[CARBIZ]

Let me just add some comments from an updated "road test" of a 2007 Impala LT 3.9L rental car......(and by the way, Enzl, you have hit it on the head.)

First.....the body was extraodinarily tight and the suspension showed a nice lack of float and wallow (I'm sure partly due to the upgraded suspension components that supposedly go with the 17-inch wheel/tire package.)

Secondly.....the interior fit-and-finish was actually superior to the last few Camrys that I've been in (however, the hard shiny plastic was decidedly inferior.)

Thirdly....at 1/4 throttle or even 1/2 throttle, the 3.9L engine was amazingly quiet and smooth.

NOW.....here is a monster list of the things that continue to keep GM from making up for lost ground: (and I know some of these have been hashed away many times on here)

* Why does this car still use a 4-speed automatic?

* Why does this pushrod engine turn from smooth and quiet to downright rowdy and thrashy if you push it past 3.500 rpms (like merging onto a freeway, etc)

* Why does this car have such poor packaging in the rear seat....? (hint.....W-car architecture)

* When sitting in the rear, why can't I slide my feet underneath the front seats?

* Why is the trunk SO huge that I can't reach stuff that's slidden towards the front of the car? (hint.....W-car architecture)

* Why couldn't GM trade a few cubes in the trunk for a roomier back seat that's moved rearward some (hint....W-car architecture)

* WHY IS THERE NO PRNDLE ON THE CENTER CONSOLE? (hint.....cost cutting)

* Why is it that even in upgraded LT trim or SS trim this car STILL looks like a rental queen?

* Why is there no auto-up on any windows, and only auto-down on the drivers window? (hint.....cost cutting)

* Why is the recliner on the driver side power.....but on the passenger side it's manual? (hint....cost cutting)

* Why is the steering wheel pulled SO FAR out towards the driver, with no telecoping function? (hint.....W-car architecture and cost-cutting)

Don't get me wrong. I'm being harsh for a reason here. The car was entirely pleasant to drive. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to offering any inspiration. This "new" Impala is the ultimate expression of "old" GM-think. Let's hope that the new Malibu drastically changes what the public thinks of a GM car.

Regarding the Civic mentioned in the original topic.....Honda doesn't ask it's consumers to accept the same sort of compromises that GM does....and that I've listed above. The styling may be "like-it" or "hate-it".....but I hope everyone understands why DodgeFan actually was impressed with the car.

Okay, first and easiest thing to rebut is the LT comes only with a 3.5 litre engine, so you must have been driving a prototype...or you could have been driving an LTZ with the 3.9 litre and 17" wheels.

I could simply say that the Impala is $7,000 less than a comparably equipped Avalon. I would agree with most of your complaints if they were applied to the Buick. Cost cutting has to come from somewhere and this is an Impala, NOT a Buick. Historically, the Impala was NEVER GM's cutting edge vehicle.

* No 6 speed automatic...wish it did have one, but I'll bet the plant(s) are being converted as fast as they can. Probably not so easy to drop a new tranny in an existing vehicle. Wait for the 2009. This is not a Buick.

*3,500 rpm//pushrod engine...hmm...aren't OHC engines supposed to LIKE revving higher and pushrod engines not so much? 6 spd would help. Buy an SS.

*Rear seat is limited. Could be the architecture. Could be that the front seats are thicker than the previous generation. You'd be surprised at how many people

don't give a damn about the back seat.

*Sliding my feet under the front seat is not a problem. Getting them back out again - well, that is a little trickier!

*Bitching about the trunk space/rear seat room is more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. People are pretty damned impressed with the sheer size of the trunk, and the LTZ has a standard pull down rear seat which makes ALL of the trunk easily accessible. (I am shocked that you missed whining about the absence of a trunk key hole! Shame on you!)

*PRNDL? When is the last time you looked at yours? It's on the dash at the base of the steering wheel, anyway. Better to keep your eyes where you are going.

This one is purely subjective. After a couple weeks I venture to say most people drive by "touch" with the gear shifter.

*The rental queen remark is a cheap shot. Most people like the understated look of the Impala. Chevrolet is conservative. It looks a helluva lot better than the Avalon, IMO. Soon people will be bitching they can't rent their favorite GM car because GM has cut back their rental fleet sales.

*We were told Auto Up is costly to do it right and the lawyers won't let it be done without the proper sensors, etc. Who has this feature anyway, on a $25k car? My Impala doesn't have air conditioned seats, either - I mean why stop with the lack of auto up?

*You must have had an LTZ with leather, because on the base LTZ the passenger doesn't even get a power seat at all! It only comes with the leather. Again, THIS IS NOT A BUICK.

* I hate the Japanese style steering wheel that GM is going to. The tilt on the Impala and the Uplander (two of the few vehicles the "old style" tilt are still left on is better, IMO. It is spring loaded to get out of the way to aid in ingress and egress.

Over all, I would have to say you HATED the Impala or your Bentley was in for service, whatever. Undoubtedly, GM made compromises with the Impala, but there is no limit to the wish list of items that could or could not be in a vehicle. I could make a similar list of the Camry, but nothing can be taken out of context and PRICE is a huge context. I hope GM gets to the point where it can charge more than a Camry, but we aren't there yet and until we are, I am glad to see GM spending much of its money where it counts.

The last generation Malibu lasted 7 years with just a recovering of the seats. The last generation Impala has been nearly completely overhauled in 6 years. As I have said before, GM clearly did not give a damn about their cars until the past two or three years because they were making too much money on trucks. That has clearly changed and is changing.

Let all of us so-called GM fans pray that it is going to be fast enough to counter the Japanese tide.

Edited May 26, 2007 by CARBIZ

[A Horse With No Name]

Don't get me wrong. I'm being harsh for a reason here. The car was entirely pleasant to drive. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to offering any inspiration. This "new" Impala is the ultimate expression of "old" GM-think. Let's hope that the new Malibu drastically changes what the public thinks of a GM car.

Regarding the Civic mentioned in the original topic.....Honda doesn't ask it's consumers to accept the same sort of compromises that GM does....and that I've listed above. The styling may be "like-it" or "hate-it".....but I hope everyone understands why DodgeFan actually was impressed with the car.

Which is why if the Impala or new Civic were my only two choices the Civic would win hands down.

Chris

[Intrepidation]

Excellent point about J-body buyers. For whatever reason I have talked to loads of people who have bought them and loved them. My only gripe is that 99.7% are automatics in my area. Actually kind of thinking about buying a manual J-body or Cobalt as a commuter car for my wife.

Chris

If you love your wife you will get her the Cobalt

[CARBIZ]

Which is why if the Impala or new Civic were my only two choices the Civic would win hands down.

Chris

Okay, if I had a choice between a beer or a milkshake, I'd take a beer right now, thanks.

And a Civic loaded up is about the same PAYMENT as a LT Impala, too (in this market - 0% financing and all). Chew on that one.

[Intrepidation]

Okay, if I had a choice between a beer or a milkshake, I'd take a beer right now, thanks.

And a Civic loaded up is about the same PAYMENT as a LT Impala, too (in this market - 0% financing and all). Chew on that one.

I hate beer, it tastes like ass, so I'd take the milkshake.

I'd also take the Civic because:

• Better packaging
• Better Handling
• Better interior
• NAV system can be had
• Faster (Si)
• 1 more gear than the Impala (2 if you count the Si manual)
• I can get it with a manual
• I can get it as a coupe...that isn't ugly
• For those who care, better resale value
• and of course...better fuel economy

Then again, I'd choose a lot of cars over the Impala. Edited May 26, 2007 by Dodgefan

[A Horse With No Name]

Carbiz-The Impala is still a very impressive car. One of the guys at work has one and I love that thing.

In a regular comparo with a "normal" customer, you probably could sell the Impala over the Civic with ease.

However...the SI does have its advantadges.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I hate beer, it tastes like ass, so I'd take the milkshake.

I'd also take the Civic because:

• Better packaging
• Better Handling
• Better interior
• NAV system can be had
• Faster (Si)
• 1 more gear than the Impala (2 if you count the Si manual)
• I can get it with a manual
• I can get it as a coupe...that isn't ugly
• For those who care, better resale value
• and of course...better fuel economy

Then again, I'd choose a lot of cars over the Impala.

..and let's not kid ourselves, people still buy cars based upon price, Carbiz is right.

Both the Civic and Impala are (in their own way) worlds ahead of your Dodge or my Scion.

That being said I really miss the Concorde I traded in on the Scion.

Chris

[frogger]

The Impala is the most boring styled car midsize car inside and out these days. About as sleep inducing as a Corolla.

[Intrepidation]

..and let's not kid ourselves, people still buy cars based upon price, Carbiz is right.

Both the Civic and Impala are (in their own way) worlds ahead of your Dodge or my Scion.

That being said I really miss the Concorde I traded in on the Scion.

Chris

Well the LH models are known to handle better, with sharper steering, better body control, and better packaging (especially in the backseat). So it's not really worlds ahead of them. It has some advantages over them I'm sure, but then...the LH models were replaced with the LX models while the W-body Impala still continues. If you mean specifically my car, well then yeah it's ahead of it in terms of mine has the base engine, cloth seats, no folding seat (I wish it had that). Also The impala does have nicer color combinations for the interior plus brightwork...but that's something every car has gained now..most last-gen car didn't have brightwork to dress up the interiors. Also, the interior has many more hard plastics than the LH cars did...even the LX cars have more soft stuff.

People would probably buy your Scion over either the Honda or the Impala if they were just basing it on price

Plus, even if they cost about the same, if the people don't need a big car (especially with a somewhat cramped backseat) they'd choose the more fuel efficient car with the extra gear and nicer interior. That's my thinking anyway...I'd choose a Cobalt over it because I can get an SS which would be far more fun to drive and look at. The Imapla's problem is besieds it's ad packaging is that it's not exciting. People buy Chargers because they are exciting, even the base models are eye catchers. If the Impala had more visual appeal I'd consider it.

It's all good though, because soon we'll have an RWD Impala..and that's something I'd want

Edited May 26, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Drew Dowdell]

On that note, why hasn't GM installed any freakin hybrid systems in its smallest, supposedly efficient cars?

hybrid systems do most good in the least efficient vehicles. Getting a 35mpg vehicle to go 40mpg isn't as impressive as getting a 17mpg vehicle to go 20mpg

[CARBIZ]

okay, this is just silly - do any of you GET the fact that the Impala and the Civic don't even exist in the same Universe??????

"Oh, yes, Mr. Customer, you want to see a Cobalt? Well, let me show you the Impala instead."

GOOD GRIEF!!!

Is the Civic state of the art? Yes, it is. Is the Impala? No, it is a major refresh of an older platform. Do you think GM can wave its magic wand and do a ground up new full-size car (which would have to have started in 2002 or so to be on market for 2005) while defending its turf with the T-900s? Well, maybe if they threw out the entire UAW contract at the same time.

I will only look upon the RWD Impala as (hopefully) a luxury, limited production replacement for my Oldsmobile customers that I have lost. The upcoming Malibu will be the volume leader, for sure as gas prices hit $5 a gallon for you guys. We are already at $5 a gallon here. Smart Cars, Yaris, Aveos are everywhere.

I would rather have scrappy cars (GM-DAT?) to battle the Yaris and Fit, then a RWD Impala.

[turbo200]

the civic feels and looks like the modern, expensive car it is. for better handling, better packaging, comfortable seats, incredible ergonomics of control, driving position, better looks.....a thorough car all around. All at 23k for a hybrid with Navi/XM. It's an impressive car in its price class.

In a car that can achieve 50 mpg [my own recorded mpg is 45 on a tank of car still breaking-in, less than 1000 miles on odo]. It feels like it's a more "bells and whistles" kind of car, better than the average LS impala you can get for the same price. At all prices for the Impala, I just feel there are better cars out there for the money, though I can see many reasons to choose the Impala. Although, subjectively we could find reasons for buying all cars, the Impala overall falls flat in the face of more modern competition. I'd choose a standard 4 cyl Accord over Impala any day for the better road feel and better package effeciency.

Edited May 28, 2007 by turbo200

[CARBIZ]

On that note, why hasn't GM installed any freakin hybrid systems in its smallest, supposedly efficient cars?

It's easier to address the mentality of an import humper to pay a $7,000 premium (Camry hybrid versus Camry 4 cylinder, for example) than a customer who is shopping for an Aveo or Cobalt to pay anywhere near that kind of premium. As has been beaten to death here already, the hybrid technology is not yet proven and at $4 a gallon it is not viable for MOST people's driving as a means to recoup their investment. As gasoline hits $5 a gallon and higher - perhaps, but even then I would wait to see about the long term maintenance requirements of a system so complex.

And don't brag too much, I can easily hit 40 mpg in a 4 cylinder Malibu, which is a bigger, heavier car than a Civic. Of course, combined city/highway brings that down to about 32-34 mpg - and that car is $2-3,000 cheaper than a comparably equipped Civic. (All figures in Canadian equivalents

I know there are differences between the Canadian and American markets, and I strongly suspect the Toronto market is fairly unique in North America (exremely high insurance, worst traffic in North America, car-hating city council, etc.), but most people are concerned about the "cost of ownership" and that is where a vehicle like the Cobalt or Impala (those who require or want a larger vehicle) can stand proud and sing their own praises.

I sold a Malibu on Saturday to a man and woman. Their main reason for shopping the Malibu: insurance. She is an insurance agent and knows how big the difference between the imports and domestic vehicles are.

We can all debate soft plastics, how many air bags a vehicle has (like how the Equinox gets the same crash rating as the new CR-V without the side air bags!), etc., but most customers biggest concern is COST OF OWNERSHIP. A wise salesperson (who sells domestics, that is ) is prudent to point that out.

[Paolino]

Wow... that Acadia is going awfully fast for Park.

[Oracle of Delphi]

the civic feels and looks like the modern, expensive car it is. for better handling, better packaging, comfortable seats, incredible ergonomics of control, driving position, better looks.....a thorough car all around. All at 23k for a hybrid with Navi/XM. It's an impressive car in its price class.

In a car that can achieve 50 mpg [my own recorded mpg is 45 on a tank of car still breaking-in, less than 1000 miles on odo]. It feels like it's a more "bells and whistles" kind of car, better than the average LS impala you can get for the same price. At all prices for the Impala, I just feel there are better cars out there for the money, though I can see many reasons to choose the Impala. Although, subjectively we could find reasons for buying all cars, the Impala overall falls flat in the face of more modern competition. I'd choose a standard 4 cyl Accord over Impala any day for the better road feel and better package effeciency.

Of course you would, you're from California after all!

[Snate]

the civic feels and looks like the modern, expensive car it is. for better handling, better packaging, comfortable seats, incredible ergonomics of control, driving position, better looks.....a thorough car all around. All at 23k for a hybrid with Navi/XM. It's an impressive car in its price class.

In a car that can achieve 50 mpg [my own recorded mpg is 45 on a tank of car still breaking-in, less than 1000 miles on odo]. It feels like it's a more "bells and whistles" kind of car, better than the average LS impala you can get for the same price. At all prices for the Impala, I just feel there are better cars out there for the money, though I can see many reasons to choose the Impala. Although, subjectively we could find reasons for buying all cars, the Impala overall falls flat in the face of more modern competition. I'd choose a standard 4 cyl Accord over Impala any day for the better road feel and better package effeciency.

Might want to check your prices...Civic Hybrid with NAV starts at 25k...XM is another 300 bucks.

The civic is a decent car....but its overpriced...it also doesn't help that it's closest competitor (Mazda3) is a better car pretty much all around. The low end models are also incredibly overpriced for what you get.

[regfootball]

hybrid systems do most good in the least efficient vehicles. Getting a 35mpg vehicle to go 40mpg isn't as impressive as getting a 17mpg vehicle to go 20mpg

i was reading my FIL's copy of PM which did a civic hybrid test vs. reg. civic recently. only 6 mpg better in both city and highway. not worth the extra 6 grand the dealer was trying to charge my buddy for his civic he just bought a couple weeks ago.

6 grand for 6 mpg? no thanks.

33.6/36.3-std

39.6/42.7-hybrid

Edited May 28, 2007 by regfootball

[Cadillacfan]

Honda experienced a marked improvement in interior quality in NA with the current gen Accord. Everything after it has had similar improvements. The Odyssey, Civic, CR-V, and Fit all have controls and materials that put the previous generations to shame. I don't think it is stretching to say that they are all class leaders in their segments. The Fit and Civic put a lot of mid-sized sedans to shame.

I'm not debating whether or not the newer Hondas have nicer interiors.. In fact, I've sat in a 2004 Honda Accord and was amazed at how nice that interior was compared to its rivals at that time. I was refering to the 2003 Honda CRV.

(Sorry it took me a little while to respond to this)

Edited May 28, 2007 by Cadillacfan

[A Horse With No Name]

i was reading my FIL's copy of PM which did a civic hybrid test vs. reg. civic recently. only 6 mpg better in both city and highway. not worth the extra 6 grand the dealer was trying to charge my buddy for his civic he just bought a couple weeks ago.

6 grand for 6 mpg? no thanks.

33.6/36.3-std

39.6/42.7-hybrid

Not to mention the extra mechanical systems to service. Even if it was only six bucks extra for the hybrid I'd still take the regular Civic.

Chris

[turbo200]

Might want to check your prices...Civic Hybrid with NAV starts at 25k...XM is another 300 bucks.

The civic is a decent car....but its overpriced...it also doesn't help that it's closest competitor (Mazda3) is a better car pretty much all around. The low end models are also incredibly overpriced for what you get.

you're right, my bad. i was going off what i paid for the car... just below invoice. the rest is opinion. mazda3 gets horrible gas mileage for what it is, other than that I can't think of a fault, other than lower resale values than the civic. the civic is futurstic, the 3 is aggressive. Both are nice looking cars and it's hard to find a faults in the lines. As far as the drive is concerned I think the civic has it over the 3, but that's personal opinion after extensive time with both.

[turbo200]

i was reading my FIL's copy of PM which did a civic hybrid test vs. reg. civic recently. only 6 mpg better in both city and highway. not worth the extra 6 grand the dealer was trying to charge my buddy for his civic he just bought a couple weeks ago.

6 grand for 6 mpg? no thanks.

33.6/36.3-std

39.6/42.7-hybrid

the highest recorded gas mileage my roommate has experienced in his 2006 civic ex is 32 for a tank. My first tank of gas I recorded 45. I don't really care or think about price premiums like so many here obviously spend so much time thinking about. If I worried about the Malibu that was down the street that I could have gotten for 10k less but have a much less desirable car that is looked upon so negatively...then I would have no life. Get what you like. The amount of trips to the gas station alone that I save is making me happy. I get over 460 miles to a tank without tapping into the reserve of the tank, so on ~10.5 gallons I get about a week and a half of driving. I'm saving tons of money over my last car, which was getting 22 mpg with the kind of driving I was doing. I'm happy when people step into my car and are impressed with the car and think it looks cool, but more importantly that it's comfortable for them and quiet and high in quality.

[turbo200]

southern cali city driving really has a lot to do with it. lots of traffics, lots of stops, need a car that has gadgets and is supremely comfortable, a car that looks like a nice environment to spend a lot of time in. the hybrid mode that shuts off the engine really helps a lot to conserve gas, but also the constant braking and coasting of the tiny engine that can acheive incredlbly high levels of efficiency.

[A Horse With No Name]

So you are very happy with the Hybrid then? I have not heard glowing reports of the Honda Hybrid.

Chris

[regfootball]

the highest recorded gas mileage my roommate has experienced in his 2006 civic ex is 32 for a tank. My first tank of gas I recorded 45. I don't really care or think about price premiums like so many here obviously spend so much time thinking about. If I worried about the Malibu that was down the street that I could have gotten for 10k less but have a much less desirable car that is looked upon so negatively...then I would have no life. Get what you like. The amount of trips to the gas station alone that I save is making me happy. I get over 460 miles to a tank without tapping into the reserve of the tank, so on ~10.5 gallons I get about a week and a half of driving. I'm saving tons of money over my last car, which was getting 22 mpg with the kind of driving I was doing. I'm happy when people step into my car and are impressed with the car and think it looks cool, but more importantly that it's comfortable for them and quiet and high in quality.

well, sure, you get that when you spend 24 grand on a near subcompact.

that jetta tdi would have saved you a few grand and have been nicer yet with more space and the same mpg. bigger fuel tank too. just sayin. cost analysis don't bear out hybrids but for you this is a luxury car then so you can justify the extra wads of cash that way.

Edited May 29, 2007 by regfootball

[turbo200]

So you are very happy with the Hybrid then? I have not heard glowing reports of the Honda Hybrid.

Chris

My last car was an Acura RSX type-s, and I usually am a no compromises type person, so I was willing to do whatever I could to keep the speed and niceness of that car. the stick shift was really hurting me in traffic, and I have problems with my knee. My clutch manipulation was not what it used to be and my fuel economy was suffering a lot because of it. I needed a car with an automatic, and I really liked the Civic on the surface, you know not having lived with it. the hybrid only made more sense since the premium I would incur over the standard civic would be made up in fuel savings, as long as the premium is being calculated by monthly-payment. [brief explanation: my driving amounts to 1500 mi per month, gas prices in my area are at $3.30 for regular unleaded, so the savings would have been about $80, roughly the same as a payment, I figured I'd rather pay Honda than Exxon Mobile and the real terrorists: oil companies. Besides I still make my money back on resale later on, with gas the same is not true.]

so to answer your question. the car is phenomonal and I don't know why anyone would have a problem with owning it. I can actually get up to speed pretty quickly and not get a penalty on gas mileage unlike other cars, since hybrids make up for economy in braking, coasting, and stops and gos. my regrets are that, well my favorite design is the BMW 3-series coupe, and this is not like it, the Civic has lines that are really well thought out and it looks right for what it is, the problem is what it is isn't the most appealing to me at its core; and that is pretty much it. I don't like that I don't have a car that is menacingly cool anymore, instead it's a car that's friendly cool.

Edited May 30, 2007 by turbo200

[Intrepidation]

My last car was an Acura RSX type-s, and I usually am a no compromises type person, so I was willing to do whatever I could to keep the speed and niceness of that car. the stick shift was really hurting me in traffic, and I have problems with my knee. My clutch manipulation was not what it used to be and my fuel economy was suffering a lot because of it. I needed a car with an automatic, and I really liked the Civic on the surface, you know not having lived with it. the hybrid only made more sense since the premium I would incur over the standard civic would be made up in fuel savings, as long as the premium is being calculated by monthly-payment. [brief explanation: my driving amounts to 1500 mi per month, gas prices in my area are at $3.30 for regular unleaded, so the savings would have been about $80, roughly the same as a payment, I figured I'd rather pay Honda than Exxon Mobile and the real terrorists: oil companies. Besides I still make my money back on resale later on, with gas the same is not true.]

so to answer your question. the car is phenomenal and I don't know why anyone would have a problem with owning it. I can actually get up to speed pretty quickly and not get a penalty on gas mileage unlike other cars, since hybrids make up for economy in braking, coasting, and stops and gos. my regrets are that, well my favorite design is the BMW 3-series coupe, and this is not like it, the Civic has lines that are really well thought out and it looks right for what it is, the problem is what it is isn't the most appealing to me at its core; and that is pretty much it. I don't like that I don't have a car that is menacingly cool anymore, instead it's a car that's friendly cool.

Too bad they don't make a Civic Hybrid coupe eh?

[A Horse With No Name]

To the right kind of female, being green is really hot.

To me hybrids are cool, I just wonder about the real world practical nature of them. My friends Bert and Cathy LOVE their Prius, however.

They went from spending $60-100 with their Olds Bravada per week to spending $13 with the Prius.

That was when Gas was $1.89 a gallon too!

Chris

[Intrepidation]

To the right kind of female, being green is really hot.

To me hybrids are cool, I just wonder about the real world practical nature of them. My friends Bert and Cathy LOVE their Prius, however.

They went from spending $60-100 with their Olds Bravada per week to spending $13 with the Prius.

That was when Gas was $1.89 a gallon too!

Chris

That;s when you can justify a Hybrid...or any other small fuel efficient car that costs thousands less.

[The O.C.]

Okay, first and easiest thing to rebut is the LT comes only with a 3.5 litre engine, so you must have been driving a prototype...or you could have been driving an LTZ with the 3.9 litre and 17" wheels.

I could simply say that the Impala is $7,000 less than a comparably equipped Avalon. I would agree with most of your complaints if they were applied to the Buick. Cost cutting has to come from somewhere and this is an Impala, NOT a Buick. Historically, the Impala was NEVER GM's cutting edge vehicle.

* No 6 speed automatic...wish it did have one, but I'll bet the plant(s) are being converted as fast as they can. Probably not so easy to drop a new tranny in an existing vehicle. Wait for the 2009. This is not a Buick.

*3,500 rpm//pushrod engine...hmm...aren't OHC engines supposed to LIKE revving higher and pushrod engines not so much? 6 spd would help. Buy an SS.

*Rear seat is limited. Could be the architecture. Could be that the front seats are thicker than the previous generation. You'd be surprised at how many people

don't give a damn about the back seat.

*Sliding my feet under the front seat is not a problem. Getting them back out again - well, that is a little trickier!

*Bitching about the trunk space/rear seat room is more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. People are pretty damned impressed with the sheer size of the trunk, and the LTZ has a standard pull down rear seat which makes ALL of the trunk easily accessible. (I am shocked that you missed whining about the absence of a trunk key hole! Shame on you!)

*PRNDL? When is the last time you looked at yours? It's on the dash at the base of the steering wheel, anyway. Better to keep your eyes where you are going.

This one is purely subjective. After a couple weeks I venture to say most people drive by "touch" with the gear shifter.

*The rental queen remark is a cheap shot. Most people like the understated look of the Impala. Chevrolet is conservative. It looks a helluva lot better than the Avalon, IMO. Soon people will be bitching they can't rent their favorite GM car because GM has cut back their rental fleet sales.

*We were told Auto Up is costly to do it right and the lawyers won't let it be done without the proper sensors, etc. Who has this feature anyway, on a $25k car? My Impala doesn't have air conditioned seats, either - I mean why stop with the lack of auto up?

*You must have had an LTZ with leather, because on the base LTZ the passenger doesn't even get a power seat at all! It only comes with the leather. Again, THIS IS NOT A BUICK.

* I hate the Japanese style steering wheel that GM is going to. The tilt on the Impala and the Uplander (two of the few vehicles the "old style" tilt are still left on is better, IMO. It is spring loaded to get out of the way to aid in ingress and egress.

Over all, I would have to say you HATED the Impala or your Bentley was in for service, whatever. Undoubtedly, GM made compromises with the Impala, but there is no limit to the wish list of items that could or could not be in a vehicle. I could make a similar list of the Camry, but nothing can be taken out of context and PRICE is a huge context. I hope GM gets to the point where it can charge more than a Camry, but we aren't there yet and until we are, I am glad to see GM spending much of its money where it counts.

The last generation Malibu lasted 7 years with just a recovering of the seats. The last generation Impala has been nearly completely overhauled in 6 years. As I have said before, GM clearly did not give a damn about their cars until the past two or three years because they were making too much money on trucks. That has clearly changed and is changing.

Let all of us so-called GM fans pray that it is going to be fast enough to counter the Japanese tide.

LOL.....your entire rant is a wonderful example of the excuses/justification/spin that GM has been dolling out for it's substandard products for the last 20 years.

Let me ask you, CARBIZ.....why should GM make me "wait for 2009" as you said.....when the other guys are offering the "good" stuff now?

And....by the way....it was an LT, had the 3900 engine, and had leather with a manual recliner on the passenger side. I can read badges on a car and an engine cover under the hood just as good as the next guy.

[Intrepidation]

Let me ask you, CARBIZ.....why should GM make me "wait for 2009" as you said.....when the other guys are offering the "good" stuff now?

Check and mate

[A Horse With No Name]

Depends on what you want. Going back to the Impala thing...GM has more dealers nationwide IIRC than anyone. I am planning on travelling a lot with my next car. Should the damned thing decide to break down in Sundance, Wyoming I'm much more likely to be able to get a Chevy fixed than something else.

There are reasons of all sorts for still buying the Impala.

Or the Civic.

Chris

[CARBIZ]

LOL.....your entire rant is a wonderful example of the excuses/justification/spin that GM has been dolling out for it's substandard products for the last 20 years.

Let me ask you, CARBIZ.....why should GM make me "wait for 2009" as you said.....when the other guys are offering the "good" stuff now?

And....by the way....it was an LT, had the 3900 engine, and had leather with a manual recliner on the passenger side. I can read badges on a car and an engine cover under the hood just as good as the next guy.

You must be able to read, because you did get the 3900 engine thing wrong TWICE. Leather and that engine are only available on the LTZ. Look it up yourself. However, you did ignore the rest of my points. And my rant was merely a rebuttal to someone else's rant. I stack the Impala up against the Camry all the time, and have no problems selling the Impala. It is a great VALUE and it has a good reliability story to tell, too.

I'd like to see you run the General. Where was the development money supposed to come from to make this $40,000 Impala that YOU want? GM had to "make do" with this Impala because all their funds were being poured into the GMT-900s and the UAW. So perhaps Toyota did spend a few bucks more on the Camry, but then perhaps THEY should have spent more on the Tundra and then perhaps it wouldn't be turning out to be such a dog, would it?

Getting back to the CIVIC (that is, after all, the original topic), remember that it came out nearly 2 model years AFTER the Cobalt, so it damned well SHOULD be better. What is MORE shameful (and ignored by many) is that the Mazda 3 is still a better car than the Civic - and it is the oldest of the lot!