The Lienerts Go Elemental

[Variance]

The Lienerts Go Elemental

Ma and Pa Lienert have finally gotten off of their lazy behinds and have finally decide to grace us with a new vehicle review. This week's subject is the 2006 Honda Element 4WD EX-P (the painted panel package -- try saying that 3 times fast). Check out what the car reviewing tag team has to say about the latest version of Honda's resident box-on-wheels.

Read "Honda's no-frills people hauler adjusts its look, adds more features" @ The Detroit News

[regfootball]

i think lienert will go high in the draft this weekend

[Mr.Krinkle]

f*ck them...hands down the worst reviews. without a doubt.

now thats garbage.

[cmattson]

Great quote: Element: A great pansy hauler.

The rest of the "review" was rubbish. Since when is 21/24 "fairly good gas mileage"?

The 21/24 figure is the AWD model - so to make a comparision, we'll use the FWD version's numbers (which are only marginally better @ 22/26):

Here's some other compact "crossovers" for comparison:

Toyota Matrix: 28/36

Scion Xb: 30/34

Chrysler PT Cruiser: 22/29

Chev HHR: 23/30

Geez - that's not fairly good - that's a runaway WORST IN SEGMENT. How about the rear-seatbelt design? I see that Paul and Anita missed the fact that the Element's design has the vehicle lacking a B-pillar. Because of that design aspent, the rear doors can ONLY be opened after the front doors are opened. That's a HUGE inconvienience.

So, in summary, you've got a plasticy ("urethane-coated"), worst-in-segment gas mileage, poor performing ("bit anemic"), poorly-designed (rear doors), sloppily assembled ("test vehicle was not as nicely put together as you'd expect from Honda") vehicle that lacks safety features found in competitors vehicles.

For all of that, both Paul and Anita rate this car a 4.

A FOUR.

WTF?!?!?

And you wonder why people B@!TCH about their reviews?

[Sixty8panther]

These two should be hosting tupperware parties &

discussing the vitues of solar panels, not reviewing

cars or giving society their opinion on the

automotive world.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Hudson]

Great quote: Element: A great pansy hauler.

The rest of the "review" was rubbish.  Since when is 21/24 "fairly good gas mileage"? 

The 21/24 figure is the AWD model - so to make a comparision, we'll use the FWD version's numbers (which are only marginally better @ 22/26):

Here's some other compact "crossovers" for comparison:

Toyota Matrix: 28/36

Scion Xb: 30/34

Chrysler PT Cruiser: 22/29

Chev HHR: 23/30

Geez - that's not fairly good - that's a runaway WORST IN SEGMENT.  How about the rear-seatbelt design?  I see that Paul and Anita missed the fact that the Element's design has the vehicle lacking a B-pillar.  Because of that design aspent, the rear doors can ONLY be opened after the front doors are opened.  That's a HUGE inconvienience.

So, in summary, you've got a plasticy ("urethane-coated"), worst-in-segment gas mileage, poor performing ("bit anemic"), poorly-designed (rear doors), sloppily assembled ("test vehicle was not as nicely put together as you'd expect from Honda") vehicle that lacks safety features found in competitors vehicles.

For all of that, both Paul and Anita rate this car a 4.

A FOUR.

WTF?!?!?

And you wonder why people B@!TCH about their reviews?

Sigh....

Just because it's a "small crossover" it's on a level playing field with everything else in this "miscellaneous" category? The Honda Element which is basically a two-door SUV-like vehicle gets slammed by you because it has "poorly-designed" rear doors that allow far more access than, say, a two-door Chevrolet Tracker did? And the AWD Element, as you've pointed out, gets basically the same gas mileage as the SMALLER and TWO-WHEEL DRIVE HHR? The Element has nearly 20% more interior space available and you're bashing it because the AWD model gets 2 mpg (city) worse than the HHR in an EPA test?

C'mon.

[Snate]

For all of that, both Paul and Anita rate this car a 4.

A FOUR.

WTF?!?!?

but it's a Honda....

[pow]

Great quote: Element: A great pansy hauler.

The rest of the "review" was rubbish.  Since when is 21/24 "fairly good gas mileage"? 

The 21/24 figure is the AWD model - so to make a comparision, we'll use the FWD version's numbers (which are only marginally better @ 22/26):

Here's some other compact "crossovers" for comparison:

Toyota Matrix: 28/36

Scion Xb: 30/34

Chrysler PT Cruiser: 22/29

Chev HHR: 23/30

Geez - that's not fairly good - that's a runaway WORST IN SEGMENT.  How about the rear-seatbelt design?  I see that Paul and Anita missed the fact that the Element's design has the vehicle lacking a B-pillar.  Because of that design aspent, the rear doors can ONLY be opened after the front doors are opened.  That's a HUGE inconvienience.

So, in summary, you've got a plasticy ("urethane-coated"), worst-in-segment gas mileage, poor performing ("bit anemic"), poorly-designed (rear doors), sloppily assembled ("test vehicle was not as nicely put together as you'd expect from Honda") vehicle that lacks safety features found in competitors vehicles.

For all of that, both Paul and Anita rate this car a 4.

A FOUR.

WTF?!?!?

And you wonder why people B@!TCH about their reviews?

The Element has a lot, lot more usable interior and cargo space than the Matrix, xB, PT, and HHR.

[cmattson]

Sigh....

Just because it's a "small crossover" it's on a level playing field with everything else in this "miscellaneous" category? The Honda Element which is basically a two-door SUV-like vehicle gets slammed by you because it has "poorly-designed" rear doors that allow far more access than, say, a two-door Chevrolet Tracker did? And the AWD Element, as you've pointed out, gets basically the same gas mileage as the SMALLER and TWO-WHEEL DRIVE HHR? The Element has nearly 20% more interior space available and you're bashing it because the AWD model gets 2 mpg (city) worse than the HHR in an EPA test?

If you re-read my post, I mentioned that I was comparing 2wd models instead of AWD because not-all small utes have AWD.. so all numbers there are for FWD (the Element gets a paltry 22/26 btw). The Element is *not* a two-door. It has four doors - it's just that Honda forego practical use of the doors (i.e. passenger entry/exit) in favor of something new and cool (no B-piller -> look how easy it is to load a TV into my Element).

The poorly designed rear doors allow for easy side loading, but crappy passenger in-out access. What occurs more with small four door vehicles - side loading of cargo, or passenger use? I'm sure some delivery companies may love the feature, but for everyday people use, it's just plain bad.

If you really want a full comparison of the HHR and the Element, you'd find that:

(all stats from Intellichoice, links at end of this post):

The HHR has a payload of 3,500 lbs as compared to the Elements 1,500 lbs

The HHR costs almost $2k less than the Element

The HHR offers more HP and torque and weighs 200lbs less

The Element has a HIGHER cost of ownership than the HHR

The Element loses MORE in depreciation than the HHR

Also, let's not forget that the HHR has standard features/options available that the Element simply doesn't offer: Power seats, Power Sunroof, Auto headlights, Daytime runninglights, Child Safety, Door Locks, Traction Control, 17in Tires, Seating for 5 (Element seats 4)

The Element does have 70 cu ft. of cargo space, the HHR has 63 cu ft - a 10% difference (and not the 20% you claimed). I'll put up with all of the above-mentioned benefits for that.

Links, as promised:

HHR:

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehic...rolet/model/HHR

Element:

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehic...a/model/Element

HHR/Element Comparison:

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/compa...&model=0&trim=0

Edited April 27, 2006 by cmattson

[Hudson]

If you re-read my post, I mentioned that I was comparing 2wd models instead of AWD because not-all small utes have AWD.. so all numbers there are for FWD (the Element gets a paltry 22/26 btw).  The Element is *not* a two-door.  It has four doors - it's just that Honda forego practical use of the doors (i.e. passenger entry/exit) in favor of something new and cool (no B-piller -> look how easy it is to load a TV into my Element).

Make excuses if you want. The Element is a two-door just like an extended cab pickup is essentially a two-door; it should be viewed that way. If you want a four-door Honda crossover, it's called CRV. Making the Element a two-door with access panels does two things...it makes a two-door SUV (-like vehicle) practical and it takes the Element out of competition with the CRV.

The Element isn't designed to haul people around. It's for people with an "active lifestyle" where they haul stuff...bikes or snowboards or whatever. If you're hauling people on a regular basis, get the CRV.

And you NEED to compare 2wd to 2wd because the HHR and the PT Cruiser and xB aren't offered with AWD. MY POINT, if you cared to notice, was that there's more to comparing crossovers than just simple statistics. The Element has more interior space...it's offered with AWD...and it's not aimed at the buyer of an HHR or PT Cruiser.

My numbers were slightly off on cargo, but your numbers are WILDLY off on other things. A 3,100 lb vehicle with a 3,500 lb payload capacity? Try 900lbs (source: GM). STANDARD horsepower on the HHR is 143hp compared to the Element's 156hp (source: GM and Edmunds). Cost of ownership and depreciation, especially on a vehicle that's been on the market only ONE YEAR is an estimate; let's talk about that one again in two years.

[Intrepidation]

Doesn't matter, I hardly see them on the road anyway.

[Satty]

The gas mileage is actually what drove me away from the Element. That and the fact that I couldn't find one equipped how I wanted.

[regfootball]

f*ck them...hands down the worst reviews.  without a doubt.

now thats garbage.

agree. how do those dolts earn a living off writing so much crap?

[regfootball]

according to my research last fall, you'll be lucky to get 20mpg consistently with an Element.

So much for 'economy'. Its underpowered, so why the crappy gas mileage?

Great quote: Element: A great pansy hauler.

The rest of the "review" was rubbish.  Since when is 21/24 "fairly good gas mileage"? 

The 21/24 figure is the AWD model - so to make a comparision, we'll use the FWD version's numbers (which are only marginally better @ 22/26):

Here's some other compact "crossovers" for comparison:

Toyota Matrix: 28/36

Scion Xb: 30/34

Chrysler PT Cruiser: 22/29

Chev HHR: 23/30

Geez - that's not fairly good - that's a runaway WORST IN SEGMENT.  How about the rear-seatbelt design?  I see that Paul and Anita missed the fact that the Element's design has the vehicle lacking a B-pillar.  Because of that design aspent, the rear doors can ONLY be opened after the front doors are opened.  That's a HUGE inconvienience.

So, in summary, you've got a plasticy ("urethane-coated"), worst-in-segment gas mileage, poor performing ("bit anemic"), poorly-designed (rear doors), sloppily assembled ("test vehicle was not as nicely put together as you'd expect from Honda") vehicle that lacks safety features found in competitors vehicles.

For all of that, both Paul and Anita rate this car a 4.

A FOUR.

WTF?!?!?

And you wonder why people B@!TCH about their reviews?

[regfootball]

The Element has a lot, lot more usable interior and cargo space than the Matrix, xB, PT, and HHR.

My aztek has yet even more space than the element, sounds like it has a tighter turning circle, and it gets 20/21 everyday like the element does.

40,000+ miles and no defects. seats 5. hauls plywood. nicer interior.

cheaper.

maybe GM was on to something?

my point: the Element is successful in many ways but i don't think its 100% hit the mark in being the 'ideal' cargo hauler like this article would suggest and like some use as a basis for defending it.

The FJ base is a huge advantage over the Element.

I would go so far to say that a SWB Chysler Van would suit most people much better and for less money than an Element.

[ToniCipriani]

Anyone notice their name is spelt wrong on the last line?

[regfootball]

don't forget: asshole Honda dealers too

The gas mileage is actually what drove me away from the Element.  That and the fact that I couldn't find one equipped how I wanted.

[sciguy_0504]

My aztek has yet even more space than the element, sounds like it has a tighter turning circle, and it gets 20/21 everyday like the element does.

40,000+ miles and no defects.  seats 5.  hauls plywood.  nicer interior.

cheaper.

maybe GM was on to something?

my point: the Element is successful in many ways but i don't think its 100% hit the mark in being the 'ideal' cargo hauler like this article would suggest and like some use as a basis for defending it.

The FJ base is a huge advantage over the Element.

I would go so far to say that a SWB Chysler Van would suit most people much better and for less money than an Element.

The FJ and Element cannot be compared.

BTW, me and my dad went to look at the FJ last night and both major Toyota dealerships around us had waiting lists and none available to test drive. It's pretty cool (3 windshield wipers are hot) but can get expensive very quickly with a few options.

[cmattson]

I'm not making excuses. I'm trying to compare people/cargo hauling vehicles. Granted that they are styled a bit differently, but they are still fairly comparable vehicles. The Element does have AWD - which is a significant selling point unto itself, but past that, there just isn't that much different about their function/niche.

As for the door/"access panel" point, we can each have our own opinion on that. My personal belief is that "if it has a hinge, and it lets people pass through it" then it's a door. Interesting to note that Honda's own website calls the Element a "5-door" and not a "3-door + 2-access points". Just food for thought.

Lastly, on the 3,500 "payload capacity" number:

- It was actually listed as the "towing capacity" number - I read the wrong description.

- It's available by clicking on the intellichoice comparison link I previously provided, and then click on specifications.

- It's an obvious error (as you pointed out). I seriously question the HHR's 4cyl can tow 3,500lbs.

I guess if Honda wants to continue making niche vehicles that target a very select audience "active-lifestyle youth's that don't care about power and/or gas mileage and/or styling (witness the large sections of unpainted plastic of previous years), have $21k+ to over-spend on a vehicle", then they'll continue to reap the limited sales that go along with it. More power to them.

[Bimmer325]

Did you guys actually read the review?

They simply stated that it's a "no-nonsense utilitarian hauler." Neither of them raved about it. In fact, both made several remarks about it's geeky styling and humdrum performance. I'm no fan of the Lienert's either, but this certainly isn't an instance in which they were unfair or biased.

[enzl]

Did you guys actually read the review? 

They simply stated that it's a "no-nonsense utilitarian hauler."  Neither of them raved about it.  In fact, both made several remarks about it's geeky styling and humdrum performance.  I'm no fan of the Lienert's either, but this certainly isn't an instance in which they were unfair or biased.

Don't waste your time. Hater-ade being served...

Newsflash-this is a niche vehicle, designed as such...and selling at a slow but steady clip...if this had a GMC or Hummer badge on it, you be raving about its 'unique styling', 'great price point' or 'target audience'...BTW-it's average performance is about on par with the $30k+ Hummer H3---it's not just the Leinart's that are logically challenged....

[Snate]

Newsflash-this is a niche vehicle, designed as such...and selling at a slow but steady clip...if this had a GMC or Hummer badge on it, you be raving about its 'unique styling', 'great price point' or 'target audience'...BTW-it's average performance is about on par with the $30k+ Hummer H3---it's not just the Leinart's that are logically challenged....

Not really. Everyone on this site ripped on the Aztec yet it was better/more useful in most way.

[DetroitNut90]

Is it just me, or do the headlights look like they're sagging a little?

It looks better with out the heaps of black plastic, but it still looks like a box.

I'd rather have an HHR

[Sixty8panther]

Forget all that... it has the styling of a Chinese made walk in Freezer.

I think the Element fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on

the way down. Christ there's not ONE thing I like about it style wise.

The ONLY positive thing I can say for it is the suicide doors, other

than that it's a complete waste of plastic.

I think the Aztek, Scion xB & FJ-Cruiser are all ugly in their own way,

but the Element, it's opperating on a WHOLE new level. If ugliness

was a sport that freekin Car would knock out and trample some ugly

Chinese car to win the Mr. Ugly Universe Title.

[enzl]

Not really.  Everyone on this site ripped on the Aztec yet it was better/more useful in most way.

Dude, the Aztek, no matter what its practical qualities, had the visual appeal of an aborted fetus. It's redeeming qualities were not able to overcome that stigma. (GM was offering special deals with 3 months of intro....not good.)

Not only did the Aztek suck, it completely poisoned the well for other 'niche' products that GM was considering at the time...

Here's some advice: If you want to make a point, don't use the Aztek as an example.

You missed my point---the H3 should have better performance than a Honda 2/3's the price. Therefore, via the logic used in this string of posts, it must suck pretty bad too.

Edited April 27, 2006 by enzl

[Snate]

It's actually a useful vehicle (like the aztek) with the easy to clean interior and roominess. The problem is that its ugly inside and out and get piss poor real world MPG for the little 4 cyl it has.

[Intrepidation]

Dude, the Aztek, no matter what its practical qualities, had the visual appeal of an aborted fetus. It's redeeming qualities were not able to overcome that stigma. (GM was offering special deals with 3 months of intro....not good.)

Not only did the Aztek suck, it completely poisoned the well for other 'niche' products that GM was considering at the time...

Here's some advice: If you want to make a point, don't use the Aztek as an example.

You missed my point---the H3 should have better performance than a Honda 2/3's the price. Therefore, via the logic used in this string of posts, it must suck pretty bad too.

The Aztek is indeed one of the ugliest things to come out of the GM stable (that and the Malibu), however I find this brick no better. In fact, it looked slightly better before they painted it. Anyway, I don't really care about this thing, I hardly see them anyway.

By the way, while I agree the H3 needs more HP, it doesn't need it as much for it's intended purpose (going offroad) so comparing the H3 isn't the best choice. The H3 is an offroader, the Element is not (by this I mean real offroading, not just a dirt path).

It's sorta like saying, "well the Caliber SRT-4 only costs 25k and has 300 horsepower, so compared to it THEY BOTH SUCK" But...the Caliber isn't intended for the same purpose the Element or H3 is.

[Snate]

Dude, the Aztek, no matter what its practical qualities, had the visual appeal of an aborted fetus

So does the Element...whats your point?

[enzl]

So does the Element...whats your point?

...and I gues I forgot to add it was a case study in failed marketing, design and production..but most significantly, it destroyed any momentum niche models had at GM....It took someone named Lutz to pull the Solstice out of the wreck that the Aztek created...

[The O.C.]

I'm not making excuses.  I'm trying to compare people/cargo hauling vehicles.  Granted that they are styled a bit differently, but they are still fairly comparable vehicles. 

Give me a friggin' break....

Element and HHR are not even remotely comparable.....sorry.....

[The O.C.]

Don't waste your time. Hater-ade being served...

Newsflash-this is a niche vehicle, designed as such...and selling at a slow but steady clip...if this had a GMC or Hummer badge on it, you be raving about its 'unique styling', 'great price point' or 'target audience'...BTW-it's average performance is about on par with the $30k+ Hummer H3---it's not just the Leinart's that are logically challenged....

Enzl.....WRONGO....!

It is a bit quicker than "on par" with the H3 and it's 5-cylinder engine. Let's compare C&D acceleration numbers again, shall we?

Hummer H3 w/manual tranny......0-60 in 10.3secs. 1/4mile 17.6@79mph.

Element FWD w/auto.....0-60 in 9.5secs. 1/4mile 17.3@81mph.

I predict an Element manual, with heavier AWD, will mimic the auto/fwd's performance.....still leaving it well ahead of the Hummer.

[The O.C.]

Not really.  Everyone on this site ripped on the Aztec yet it was better/more useful in most way.

Aztek was horrendously ugly......but even worse than the admittedly-subjective styling, the execution was atrocious.

THAT'S why people ripped the Aztek.

It was an SUV wannabe built off a minivan architecture.....but even if you call it ugly OR attractive, it STILL didn't look like it was designed to be the way it was....everything about the Aztek design is disjointed.

Plus, there were the powertrain issues....the fact that the VersaTrak system is not really that good of an AWD system (something I've verified in test drives myself) and the crappy interior quality as well......

(Sorry you got me started....)

[bowtie_dude]

I just can't stand their reviews. I see their photo and I can't get past the fact that they're probably chatting over their review in a damned Starbucks like a couple of uptown yuppies.

And if there was a GMC or Chevy badge on it, it would be deemed ugly and out of touch with consumers by the Lienerts I'd imagine, and a 21/24 fuel economy rating wouldn't be "fairly good," but likely "terrible," "horrible," or "uncompetitive."

[Mr.Krinkle]

i really just feel bad for the editor who has to slop this sh*t together.

something about their writing where i just want to give both of them a little bitch slap. theie word means nothing basically when the arbitrariness of their reporting is as flaky as it is ...i know i couldve said a bowl of cereal.

the point is they hated a lot of things about this utilitarian hauler, including the looks and powertrain yet managed to achieve 4 stars...each.

hell, with that criteria it starts, goes and stops...only holds 4 people so that gets a 4. every other car should get at least that.

ive read really lame reviews before and most were from these two hacks. i think the detnews just keeps them around because they get a lot of hate mail for them.

i dont think that they are necessarily biased per se...just stupid.

[Mr.Krinkle]

i dont think anyone looking for an H3 would even consider this pile.

no one is racing these things and they both make 2 very different statements.

i dont care for the H3 or this thing but for very different reasons.

performance from these things...c'mon thats not where the argument centers.

"Enzl.....WRONGO....!

It is a bit quicker than "on par" with the H3 and it's 5-cylinder engine. Let's compare C&D acceleration numbers again, shall we?"

[enzl]

i dont think anyone looking for an H3 would even consider this pile.

no one is racing these things and they both make 2 very different statements.

i dont care for the H3 or this thing but for very different reasons.

performance from these things...c'mon thats not where the argument centers.

"Enzl.....WRONGO....!

It is a bit quicker than "on par" with the H3 and it's 5-cylinder engine. Let's compare C&D acceleration numbers again, shall we?"

Let me clarify my point:

Perhaps what I should have said was 'if this was badged an H4 or a Pontiac Aztek, then...."

My point was that the Element, a niche vehicle, has been selling steadily....you want a small crossover---that's what the CRV is for. It's PERFORMANCE is comprable (or better than) the H3, which sits in a different, supposedly superior, category, sold at a premium, as compared to this vehicle....

....meaning, if GM came out with a unique, polarizing, reasonable priced vehicle at this price point, all the apologists would be coming out of the woodwork to compliment GM on its success....It seems the Honda badge suddenly renders this vehicle inferior to a host of products mentioned that were not really direct competiors either....(Just as the H3 is not really a direct competitor, just another half-baked product that GM is famous for.)

[CARBIZ]

As usual, people's import/domestic car biases are showing. The Element is a POS, plain and simple. All HOnda has done is copy the Aztec. The Aztec may have been ugly but at least it was ORIGINAL, something that Honda is not.

I agree the Aztec was ugly, but the damned thing rode pretty good and we can't keep them on our lot used. It was decent on gas, an okay performer and wierd looking, which some people actually liked. I think if it hadn't had that gawdawful Pontiac cladding all over it from the beginning (something that nearly killed the Avalanche, too, I might add!), it might not have been the commercial embarassment that it was. It was, perhaps, a half-baked attempt at an early cross-over, but at least Pontiac tried. It was out there in a market that was just starting. The Element comes out 5 years later and the critics proclaim it wonderful? Are they HIGH?

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT IF THE ELEMENT HAD AN ARROWHEAD ON THE HOOD, WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THE HIGH PRAISE THAT WE ARE.

[enzl]

As usual, people's import/domestic car biases are showing.  The Element is a POS, plain and simple.  All HOnda has done is copy the Aztec.  The Aztec may have been ugly but at least it was ORIGINAL, something that Honda is not.

  I agree the Aztec was ugly, but the damned thing rode pretty good and we can't keep them on our lot used.  It was decent on gas, an okay performer and wierd looking, which some people actually liked.  I think if it hadn't had that gawdawful Pontiac cladding all over it from the beginning (something that nearly killed the Avalanche, too, I might add!), it might not have been the commercial embarassment that it was.  It was, perhaps, a half-baked attempt at an early cross-over, but at least Pontiac tried.  It was out there in a market that was just starting.  The Element comes out 5 years later and the critics proclaim it wonderful?  Are they HIGH?

  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT IF THE ELEMENT HAD AN ARROWHEAD ON THE HOOD, WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THE HIGH PRAISE THAT WE ARE.

I'm not getting the comparison between the Aztek and Element, other than the ugly part....

Element is not a POS. Average, perhaps. Subpar for a Honda, Yes. Ugly, yes. But it's obviously a moderate success, whereas the Aztek was an unmitigated disaster.

I give GM points for trying, but we're constantly doing that here....unfortunately, giving out gold stars for 'effort' isn't going to help them sell vehicles to import intenders...how about a mild rebody of the 'Nox to create a Torrent? (or -God forbid- the 3.6 HFV6?---nah, just give it to Suzuki....) Or a better idea than the G5 or an inflexible Kappa architecture? The list is endless, along the lines of 'if it can go wrong...' GM screwed up the Aztek royally, just as it is wrecking Pontiac a few years later...MEDIA BIAS--that's it. Let's blame someone else, because putting the blame squarely on GM's shoulders would violate the credo here!

The Leinerts may be idiots...but they look smart compared to GM product planners in charge of Pontiac....

...and, btw, it isn't bias, it's just a viewpoint that's contrary to the one you hold....

Edited April 28, 2006 by enzl

[siegen]

As usual, people's import/domestic car biases are showing.

Look who's talking.