cp-the-nerd

Does not really matter how many times you "laid out your reasoning" because it is a horrible analogy. Driving after a few drinks and/or not using a belt should NOT preclude one to losing their rights in the same vein as robbing a house. That is a terrible analogy, easily the worst I have ever heard in my life, and I have to apologize if your feelings are hurt. Why? Because most people drink at some point and then get behind the wheel, and many may or do forget their belt. Not arguing that is somehow OK or right, but to remove culpability from the responsible manufacturer for a failed defect that has also killed or injured many hundreds of people as well, simply won't get you far. And to attribute that to armed robbery......welll, nuff said. But hey, I do wish GM luck in getting closure on this matter, as I have repeatedly said already. I'm not sure how you can make such a distinction between someone breaking into your home and someone driving drunk. In 2013, just over 10,000 people were killed as a result of drunk driving, however the CDC claims that only about 100 burglaries annually result in murder. So how you can scoff at drunk driving versus breaking and entering is beyond rationalization. If a person driving drunk kills another motorist and survives, they get jailtime. It's felony manslaughter. If the same person careens off the road and kills themself, their family gets awarded millions of dollars because the airbags didn't deploy? Furthermore, being that the case against GM is almost exclusively about airbag deactivation in a crash. Studies have shown, and the NHTSA will tell you, an airbag without use of a seatbelt is only slightly more effective at preventing injury than nothing at all. That fact alone should have thrown out every non-seat belted claim. So when I read actual case files about the families of drunks, people falling asleep at the wheel (there were at least two), and people without seatbelts circling like vultures to get their payout, I found it repulsive. It's a f@#king faulty ignition cylinder. It doesn't CAUSE accidents. 169 people weren't killed by an ignition switch. 169 people died in horrific accidents that indicated the airbags didn't deploy. That's not to say EVERY claim was BS, I'm talking about specific cases publicized in the media, but it's important to remember that a Cobalt without airbags is still safer than millions of cars on the road today because it has a modern safety structure.

6-speed auto? Wtf. Malibu gets a 2.0T/8A powertrain, Lacrosse and XT5 get V6/8A, this is a dumb choice.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark...... 8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates. Not making the point about class performance, just about what is "adequate" for merging and driving comfortably. IMO, they should have stuck to their guns with the 2.5L in the Malibu and put the 1.5T in the new Cruze Premier trim as an upgrade. But for argument sake, 8.5 sec 0-60 and 16.5 1/4 mile would have been as fast or faster than almost all base-engine midsize or compact cars in 2010. Average was 8.7-9.5 sec.

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

Think of a typical midsize sedan getting 26-28 mpg city and then achieving 45+ mpg highway in HCCI mode. Truly industry-changing technology for America's highway commuters.

So is GM. I believe they were expecting to have it in some vehicle application prior to 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if their newest engine families were designed so they can be retrofitted with the technology.

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system. My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity. I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house. If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk. Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights? Of course not. Thus that is a bad analogy. Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them. People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago. That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water. But GM shed the blood, let's not forget. Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric. First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim). Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it. The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags. Regarding the beer count, Meh.....I drink tall beers that are usually about 7-8% Alcohol content. Granted, sure, small 12% cans of lite beer at 4% content, take about 4 qty. I don't drink those at the bar. So that is my baseline. I could do the math a bit more for my 185lb frame, and it would easily be around 2-3 tall beers (around 18oz), but my point was not how many, but the fact everyone does it and that those who do, are not criminals who are burglarizing a home.....to contradict your burglary analogy. And sorry, no, that is a freaking pathetic example. Same goes for a belt that someone forgot to put on. It happens. And yes we know that belts must be worn to be effective. Duh. How you can compare daily decisions by thousands, with that of someone who takes a gun to rob you.....is, well.....pathetic. And sorry my good sir, I will give my opinion all I like on the matter. All you can do is agree, disagree or contest. Thus far, contesting seems to not be your forte. I presented a well thought out argument with facts and references to the actual trial, and an analogy that makes perfect sense with the reasoning that I laid out TWICE (and at least one other member agrees with it). You call it "pathetic" without presenting any support or reasoning. You come back with nonsense about how you drink 20 oz 8% beers so 2 beers is the correct number. Are you kidding me? Any logical person thinks of two beers at a bar as a 12 oz glass and your run-of-the-mill 4.0-5.5% content. If you're drinking 20 oz servings of high-octane beer, you better believe driving safe is STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY even if you only have 2 or 3. I take no issue with you presenting your opinion, no matter how biased or ill informed, I WILL take issue with you or anyone else presenting an opinion as "truth" or fact in a condescending manner. Your greatest argument seems to be telling me how "pathetic" mine is.

According to testing, the 1.5T hits 60 in well under 9 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in mid 16s. I think we're all being jaded if we start calling that borderline insufficient acceleration. From the 60s-80s that required a V8 or hi-po V6. Most of us have owned cars significantly slower. Maybe it's not brisk or fun, but you're never in danger unless you do something unreasonable to begin with. As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow, though I will say that 1.5T can easily be tuned aftermarket for an extra 10-20% power. The previous gen 1.4T (port injected) from the Cruze and Sonic can make 160 hp/180 tq like it's nothing, the 2.0T can make 300 hp/330 tq, so I'm sure this engine is capable of 190 hp/210 tq safely. That's a decent benefit of a turbocharged engine and a company that doesn't take counter measures on the ECU like Hyundai/Kia.

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system. My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity. I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house. If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk. Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights? Of course not. Thus that is a bad analogy. Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them. People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago. That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water. But GM shed the blood, let's not forget. Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric. First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim). Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it. The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

I'd like to see your take on the new Premier 2.0T trim. I think you'll find the bigger turbo engine and 8-speed are just what the doctor ordered. That model even impressed Motor Trend a bit with its powertrain and handling, it embarrassed their brand new long-term Maxima SR around their figure eight track.

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system. My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity. I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

I remember when the mags were testing the last one the biggest holdup was the tires. Michelin had issues keeping a tire together past 280mph. I guess they've figures that out. Also, didn't the last super sport hit like 268 or something like that? I guess I lost track. Honestly don't find any interest in the Bugatti. The car doesn't have practical performance. The CTS-V, and Z06, and the Hellcats are all in the realm of insanity in their own right, but top speed of 250, 260, 290 mph? It's hard to even find a CONTROLLED setting to enjoy that.

How is 290 mph even possible? Wind resistance is an exponential increase and the previous Bugatti "only" advertised 245 mph. Another 45 mph doesn't sound like much, but the gap from 245 to 290 mph is the engineering equivalent of getting an astronaut into orbit versus getting one to the moon. Love the thread title, by the way. Lmao!

Thank you for that clarifying post, Drew. The Cobalt's sales volume and publicity dwarfed the other related models involved in the primary ignition case, so I tend to gloss over them. @wings - I hope his post answered your question.

The Cobalt ignition switch was really the only ignition that was significantly substandard, because it was not only designed on the cheap to start with, but the 3rd party manufacturer built the design to an even lower standard, but the price was right and GM accepted it without scrutiny. GM recalling a few million w-bodies and gen 5 Camaros over zero deaths and just a dozen or so shutoff complaints was more about saving face with the public. The modified key with the hole in the middle is a very practical fix, it's logically sound to remove twisting leverage from the load of the keychain, since people can't be held responsible for keeping two pounds of keychains hanging on their fob. Ask any mechanic the sort of keychains they get from customers, especially ones with ignition problems. These ongoing trials are now a sh*t show for money grubbing lawyers.

Last year I started a new tradition for new years. I brought a bag of nerf guns and told everyone to let it rip after the ball dropped, it was the best new years party we've had in over a decade. This year is going to be savage! If this sounds even a LITTLE bit fun, you need to try it. Screw confetti and noise makers. You're never too old for nerf.

The 300's interior design doesn't do anything for me either. Love that contrasted Challenger interior pictured above, though.

I totally agree here, I thought I was the only one! The racetrack lighting looks awesome in pictures, but in real life it's WAY too bright from the LED lighting. Subtlety has never been Chrysler's strong suit, and the LX cars are a decade-long testament to that. Dropping the intensity in half would be a good start, I hate getting behind a Charger at a red light because the ass glows bright enough for sunglasses.

f@#kin a, man. f@#kin a. Seriously though, I don't know why it's so damn hard to get Americans to buy American cars now. It's been around a decade since they've been selling cars of similar quality to the Japanese automakers, but in our infinite wisdom and anti-bias, we will spend insane amounts of money propping up foreign car companies. You wont find that ANYWHERE else in the world, except maybe China but I don't know that for sure. A Toyota built in the US with domestic parts content STILL benefits Japan at least as much as it does our country.

Imagine the potential for something like this though, even besides just appearance. What if the furthest protruding face of the wheel was the insert, so curb rash could be swapped out with a few cheap (relatively) replacements? Just spitballing here. I personally wouldn't want 19s on the ATS. It's all form and no function. There are three 18 inch options that I find quite attractive.

How cool is this? Caddy's new 19 inch rollers for the ATS have interchangeable inserts. Maybe another automaker did it first, but it's new to me. Great way to give your car a fresh look every once in a while. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/12/cadillac-introduces-new-inserts-for-new-ats-accessory-wheels/

Has no one seen this post? Seriously, we're going to have a buick tourcross as honda's accord crosstour has just totally failed and left a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

Sounds like AWD nomenclature. It's very popular among luxury brands. Cadillac has "CTS4/ATS4/XTS4", Audi "Quattro", Mercedes Benz "4Matic", etc.

I am bored with this car and enthusiasts are bored with this car. The 5 year birthing process is going to kill this model, it's been in video games for years and you can't even buy it yet. Rabid Honda fans will snatch up the early production runs, but by year two or three volume will plummet to numbers like the Viper and Cadillac ELR. Even at a conceptual level, I'm not feeling this thing. An NSX with hybrid AWD, a turbo engine, and no manual transmission. It's not really an NSX at all. If they sold a featherweight version of this car with RWD and the slickest manual transmission on the planet for under 6 figures, they could change my mind.

I'm waiting for a legit comparison of the Camaro SS and GT350 (non-R). The GT is just not at the same level, too much carryover from 2011. You can't just add an IRS and expect a fresh face to put you on top in the long run. Frankly by selling a $50k GT350 that runs even with a $37k Camaro, Ford has established a painfully low performance ceiling on the Mustang GT for near-future development. Motor Authority posted a video comparing the two (SS and GT350)... but stopped short of actually having them duke it out in performance tests or lap times. It was essentially a beauty reel of the two cars with some jackass spouting brochure materials. They didn't even pick one over the other.