FAPTurbo

But we don't have children that get sick at 2am. Ergo, we don't need a car for that situation. i sure wish i could have sexted pictures of my p3nis to a girl i was chasing, or been able to take pictures of naked conquests and send them around to friends when i was younger. you know, the important, meaningful, and culturally valuable things you can do with a cell phone. that, and play games. Zomg I'm sure many people my age wish they had the opportunity to do all the culturally valuable things one can do with a car. Y'know, burnouts, guzzling limited resources, polluting the atmosphere, contributing to obesity and asthma in children, vehicular manslaughter... all that fun stuff! A few individuals compared to the millions of sheep driving Toyotas. Oddly, some of the most individualistic and creative people I know drive Toyota's. How is it that technology is making people more conformist? Technology allows people to break away from the mainstream. Technology is democratizing information. Cellphones have enabled people to topple entire regimes. And again, I'm not sure how the automobile made people 'less' conformist. So you drive the same car that a bajillion others do? How very individualistic of you!

Yeah 300,000 people driving a Camaro is totally non-conformist.

And smartphones/cell-phones have introduced a new sense of freedom, individuality and connectivity.

But that unfairly penalizes people who rely most on transit: students and low-income earners. Taxes should be levied on drivers. If you choose the luxury to use a car, you pay to subsidize the people who choose not to. If you live outside of the city in the suburbs, thus paying lower property values and taxes, but enjoying larger square-footage, it's an acceptable penalty to subsidize transit.

Because it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

With the financial situations you've been in, I think this article is right on the nose.

No it's not.

GM's reponse to Ford: 'u mad?'

Where's the EXCITEMENT!!!!!!!!! thread?

The 2010 Viper got away with a stereo unit from a Neon... I'm sure buyers of the 2013 model won't mind if it's frill free. But it'll probably end up being a very good interior given ChryCo's recent history.

Sorry, we can't help beating a dead horse. Because it's funny. And 'new car fanboys!?' That's funny! We're not 'new car fanboys.' We're 'good car fanboys!'

Firebird-GTO-Solstice-G8... (and marketed properly)... these will be remembered fondly 20 years later... No they won't. What will be remembered is more than a quarter century of lameness and contrived attempts in making lousy W-Bodies look appealing. And horrid design philosophies. And Aztek's. In contrast, this car will be remembered fondly. Because it's deliciously attractive and sporty. How many Pontiac's since 1973 can use both of those adjectives at the same time?

Precisely. Cheaper electrics will soon follow that will give similar comforts, and better efficiencies. The Volt is, and always was, a 'tech demo.' Some people refuse to acknowledge this, or just don't appear to know any better. But it's meant to be a halo vehicle for Chevrolet and it fills that gap.

How about the 'Wave' in Pontiac G3 Wave?

It's cool. But 5K cool. Not 31K cool.

I think she means 'congestion.' Which automation would reduce, though 'zero' is too bold a statement.

It doesn't help that it's a 'green' vehicle by a company that was 'bailed out' and thus, is antithetical to everything America in the eyes of a bunch of ignorant tools. The misinformation out there, I believe, is deliberate.

Transmissions are the megapixels of the auto industry. Diminishing returns have kicked in and general consumers won't notice any real gain in economy or performance with these units.

I'm amazed by the opposition to electric cars. The whole idea of innovation and advancement is to become more efficient. ICE's have efficiencies of about 20% - that's woeful in today's world. Because that car doesn't exist yet. But in ten years, it probably will.

I thought you had it in for Holden for ages?

You mean Andrew Mackenzie's article? The one that says Honda or Ford or whatever could build the 140? Yeah. The problem is that the Tru140 will actually sell. Chevrolet needs to court people my age and they would do it handily with the Tru140. Sure Honda could make it. But they haven't, and based on their design direction, likely won't. Chevrolet can take the opportunity to beat the import brands to the punch on this one. Maybe once it starts to sell, then GM can concentrate on the far more niche model, the 130. As it stands, Chevrolet can count on ol' folks to buy its vehicles. But they're losing the increasingly fickle and tech-oriented Millenial crowd. The 140 can win them back.

They did that ages ago. Much of Australia constitutes 4Cyl petrol and diesel vehicles because the price of fuel is quadruple yours. Considering I have an Australian passport, you should know that Australia's tastes are relatively similar to Canada's and Europe's. The Commodore and Falcon's that are sold are mostly six-cylinder models with steelies or basic alloys. And they feature incentives, too. The Commodore is Australia's Impala. Toyota is the top selling automaker. Last summer, it sold over 85,000 vehicles (part shortage, too) and Holden occupied second place, at ~62,000. That's a 23K difference. Mazda, Hyundai and Mitsubishi occupy the middle of the top-ten list. This whole idea that Australia is some kind of unique Oceanian oasis, a land of milk and honey where Rear Wheel Drive vehicles reign king, and V8's howl throughout the land, is about as comical as a Crocodile Dundee movie.

If enthusiasts have trouble remembering what an MKS or an MKZ is, how is an average consumer supposed to know?

Caveman enjoyed the visceral sound of banging rocks together too. If they did that, then they would have failed their course. Of course, since Columbia is a 'leftist nazi' institution of immense pedigree, the school was totally willing to turn such a horribly skewed result into propaganda so they can socially engineer us into 'leftist nazi' sympathizers!! You're a genius!!

I'll bet. I've read somewhere that it was the Mooninites that shot JFK!