Hudson

No. They don't "hold themselves up to be above reproach." These are people who's job it is to write about cars. The articles are NOT necessarily objective since most creative writing (and that's what automotive articles typically are) is quite subjective, or else it's not enjoyable to read. Buff books do not write for people to make buying decisions, they write for car people to read. Car people will have their own opinions and will buy whatever they want no matter what Car and Driver or Road & Track says. Sure, automakers will use those quote to promote their products, but that's all in the market departments of the manufacturers and the publishers. The writers are simply writing something good to read. When people as for my opinion on a vehicle, I'll give them an objective overview and tell them of my biases. If I'm writing something, my first priority is to write something entertaining to read while keeping the facts straight. I'm sure I lace my writings with my opinions, but making it enjoyable to read is very important.

Agreed.

Not much of a pro-and-con there, is there? Would you say that the author wants to show an anti-GM slant? Would you say that the author was bias?

Or maybe Americans won't drive small cars because a) gas is relatively cheap and B) Americans aren't small people. Mexicans like smaller cars and Canadians don't seem to have a problem with them, but folks in the US tend to be a little larger (weight wise) and less frugal with their money. The Metro wasn't a bad car in its day and sold relatively well initially...just like the Aveo.

With the demise of the long-wheelbase Ascender, Isuzu's back down to two models. I don't see why more Trailblazer or Envoy buyers aren't buying Ascenders...due to lower prices and better warranties! I guess it's all about brand loyalty with GM buyers.

You're right...he wouldn't. Dealer Reps and salespeople tend to talk a good game but have little or no more information than anyone who reads Motor Trend or Car and Driver regularly.

How did you get a seat in the NEW XL7?

Chicagoland: You're right. The GMX380 (current Malibu) is expected to remain in production after GMX386 (next generation Malibu) has been introduced. The Inquirer is the newspaper of Philadelphia. The Enquirer is the tabloid you're refering to. This and your later posts seem to lead me to believe that you're quite a distance removed from real data. Here's what I've seen: GMX386...still on schedule. There's no G6 replacement on the schedule through the 2009 model year...nor should it be expected. GMX384...still on schedule. GMX002...still on the schedule There are replacements for the LaCrosse and Grand Prix on the schedule as well...but I have yet to see anyone post the actual program codes for them.

The current XL7 is not related to the Equinox in any way.

You're right...the B-Class (a larger derivative of the A-Class) is not offered in the US, yet. But it's expected.

There's a Ion replacement in the current plan.

The Gelandewagen is still in production and will continue in production through the end of the decade. The only model Mercedes-Benz doesn't sell in the US is the A-Class. All of the rest are offered in the US.

As much as I like old cars, the current generation is the best ever made. For example, when was the Corvette better? What modern car doesn't pollute less, get better gas mileage, and have more power than its direct decendents? Packaging and (arguably) styling has improved. Handling and braking have definitely improved. Today's cars are the best.

The EB112...it was a lovely car. I saw it at the Detroit show a few years ago.

There are a bunch of people on this thread who can complain about Acura because they've never driven one. It's funny. LEXUS doesn't sell in the numbers of Accord or Civic....neither does Cadillac. You're comparing two of the most popular mainstream cars to LUXURY brand lineups. Of course they're not going to sell in those numbers. The NSX was at (and past) Corvette performance levels when the NSX was introduced. When the C4 Corvette was around, the NSX was the better car. And anyone who thinks the NSX was "an overpriced toy for rich fools" obviously doesn't know as much as they think about cars. Having driven NSXs (and Corvettes), the NSX was a fantastic car when it was introduced. Even with its V6, the car was an incredible performer on the track. Today, the NSX is a novelty with its aluminum construction and extremely low production numbers. But in 1991, this was THE car. And it wasn't until the introduction of the C5 that the Corvette surpassed the NSX.

Avanti's probably not listed in many magazines because it's a) basically a kit car with a new body draped over a Mustang (or Firebird, as in the last generation Avanti) and B) having trouble staying afloat. The company has been for sale for over a year now. I would venture to guess that they do not build even 100 cars a year.

That's odd since GM has it on its schedule.

Wow! If this is the kind of slant you're going for, leave me out. I know Mr Lienert, personally. I really don't understand the above quote.

Or you could go without a cam altogether...which seems like an even better solution.

Olds Guy: Nice radio, by the way.

No grudge. No desire to see GM fail. I just don't like incorrect information being spread. If someone had posted equally skewed information ABOUT GM, I would have corrected it as well. GM has been part of the American economy since 1908...and Toyota's only been here since 1958....sure GM's contributed more. But that's not to say that Toyota's not contributing substatial amounts now. Why should GM be required to hire more people than necessary to build a car or truck? Why should GM be required (with UAW membership) to work at a disadvantage to transplants? Why can't GM hire and fire as needed...like most American businesses do? Why must GM provide pensions to every worker when most other industries use 401k plans or other forms of profitsharing? GM is running a decathalon with its legs bound and one arm tied behind its back. And it's not Toyota's fault.

Not exactly a flop. It's growing. The next-generation Freestyle will be a little larger than the current model and the current-generation will give way to a Mercury knock-off. It's not a "flop."

But an ancient chassis. The Bugatti Type 101 (pictured) was built after Ettore's death by his son and is based on the pre-war Type 57 chassis.

You mean like they did with it before?

There are three kinds of lies: damn lies, little white lies, and statistics. GM imports TWO models currently (not including Saabs) for the US market. Therefore their average domestic content is very high. Honda imports about 16% (with almost 100% non-NA content) of the cars and trucks they sell in the US. Toyota imports about 1/3 of its products. These imported vehicles are averaged into the above numbers. A Honda Accord built in the US will have a very high North American content...as will a Toyota Camry, Mazda6, Toyota Sienna, Nissan Altima, and many other North American-built vehicles. There are two sides to the workers-per-vehicle numbers as well. First, you're averaging imports (as stated above) with domestically produced vehicles. Second, the transplants aren't typically tied down by the UAW and can actually hire the number of people needed to produce a vehicle...instead of being required to hire MORE than are necessary. And where do these investment numbers come from? Toyota has opened (or are in the act of opening) four assembly plants, a few powertrain plants, and assorted parts plants...as well as opening engineering and R&D faciliites all over the country. Honda and Nissan (and Hyundai and others) have made similar (although not as extensive) investments. GM has opened TWO plants (neither operating at capacity) in this timeframe...and closed how many? GM is just a business. Until the public at large wants to BUY what they're selling, they're going to continue to REDUCE the investments made...lower the number of employees it has...and reduce the amount it pays toward retirees benefits. GM's not going to continue to SEEM so charitable in the future.