regfootball

this is exactly what is needed. more go juice and i don't think it will lose much if any mpg.

The Gov is not up for election. The Bamster was not mentioned and this plant is about all the Youngstown area has outside the fast growing oil and gas industry. It may not mean much anywhere else but it means the world to where things have been depression like since the steel industry left. With 230 million being invested I would say it will be more than a new nose and tail lights. I suspect the sheet metal will see changes too. The underpinnings will remain the same and as good as they are that is fine. The Cruze is right on time for upgrades. I expect the dash will see a Mylink screen. it's fluff there was no chance of it leaving, it makes the politicians of any ilk look good for 'saving jobs' I gave a limited nod to the hatch but forget the wagon. keep in mind the Nox is moving to the Delta II so that may take most of the expected wagon sales and would impact the hatch to a limited point. Equinox should move to delta

i have to admit i agree, although i still think the new Impreza is rather stark inside. and freaky outside

is it as slow as everyone says does it get better than CUV avg. mpg? is the dash too plain?

sounds like PR fluff. all they are doing is an MCE and not moving production to another plant. it's an election year, they have to make it sound political.

V dub is trying to make a one size fits all platform that accomodates its biggest sellers in the US and Europe as well as other markets.

new passat reminded me of my old 500 more than anything....

http://www.autoblog....s-u-s-go-ahead/ Ford Fiesta ST to get go ahead?

well, the Passats I drove did nothing much for me. Didn't like the diesel.....and the five cylinder is crap. My only reference to this new Malibu (not having driven it yet) is the Regal. If the drive is similar to the Regal, I would have to say i much prefer the GM stuff. If anyone who is a driving fanatic were to tell me they prefer the drive of a new Passat to the old one or to the CC, they would be crazy IMO. I think the benchmark car for dynamics in the segment will be the Mazda6 when it comes out. The new Passat is likely way more desirable than a Camry, but that's not saying much. I am not sure why all the dumping on the Malibu. The only way it would have been substantively different is with a whole new platform (ala ATS) which has no history holding it back. Impala will milk the Epsilon platform so maybe the next gen Malibu will be the chance to bring out an all new platform (which GM should build many many vehicles off of). My biggest complaint on the new Malibu is the rear seat leg room and footspace. IMO that is how the car may fail in the market. Everything else is fine, as long as the incentives and lease programs are competitive.

bigger.........hmmmmmmm VW really intends to build about 2/3 of its cars worldwide off this don't they

not sure why

GTS AWD curb weight is like 3450 or 3500 pounds. truedelta reports of mpg for AWD CVT is usually mid twenties. FWD only high twenties. MT FWD seems to average out at 30 or above, which is slightly odd since the rpm at 70mpg on the MT is several hundred more than the auto CVT once it settles in. but you don't rev the MT as much to get it going. Most of my homeys report high twenties in mixed driving with the AWD CVT. Once you learn that you don't need to constantly floor it to get motivation, is when the magic light comes on. If your city driving is more than say 2/3 of the driving, yeah, you will get 25 probably. I do admit the Kizashi does not possess stump pulling torque. However, the 4 is smooth in running top to bottom on the rev scale. Even if low end torque is not overly plentiful...the wily nature of the engine and its smoothness at least make the higher rpms livable.

Veloster has been panned for not having the goods in terms of ride and handling and refinement.

does it come in BLU? so, can we get an RS sedan? methinks about 180hp would be nice for this car. Really like the sonic BTW, the sedan more than the hatch. Love all of chevy's cars right now....except i think the spark needs more go juice.

seeing how flimsy the metal is on the passat, and others in the segment, and seeing how cars like the sonata lack some refinement and solidity....i don't really mind a lot if the malibu LS weighs a couple hundred more pounds. the 300 or more pounds is a bit problematic. but is this a car that will last ten years and not crumple up like a lightweight?

no. because i welcome the design change. they could still have the curvy new design them and much of the same lines, they would not need the full 08 wheelbase. just an extra couple inches. the arc of the side window lines and the roof should arch higher and further back before it starts to come back down. they would raise the roof above the rear seat then. The trunk lid could be a few inches shorter if the roof taper starts higher and goes back further. the front windshield base could come forward to balance it out. in essence, to cab forward the car some and stretch the greenhouse would have been all that was needed. the hard epsilon points restricted them. Again, to be clear, the design THEME and it's primary features are fine. The proportioning would have worked better if they did not need to adhere to the limitations of epsilon. The 08-12 had the same problems of low roof also....ingress and egress and small windows were a complaint of many buyers with the 08-12. GM would have been crucified to keep the 08-12 body with all the new redos from everyone else coming out. It was the right plan to come out with the new body style to compete. The execution of it had some flaws. All the early Eco's are basically pre-production test bed cars. What if you set the cruise at 75 and drive 20 miles no stop, what does the computer show for mpg?

Here is the thing folks don't know much about the 08-12. At many dealers, they could not move too many Malibu's retail for a couple of reasons, sort of related. One, the Impala had more space and was easier to get in (many many folks bitched about the low roof and tough ingress and egress) and out of which was much easier to understand because 2, the Impalas in many cases were cheaper. So the overlap issue is understandable. They COULD have kept the 08-12 body, but the whole powertrains would need to be new and the interior would need a complete gut and redo. This review is timely for me for a couple reasons. One, I roamed a chev lot Sunday and a new Eco was left open....I spent a lot of time in it. Second, I may have a daily drive change which would require long distance (primarily interstate) travel. Eco leases have been advertised cheap now with the new non Eco's coming out. Here is what i think Chevy's logic was, build the Ecos as basically production test bed cars, i.e. sell preproduction cars....but get the car out so there was it's time in the limelight. Getting it out now, would fall into the intros of all the other new midsizers. The other factor people should not discard.....to introduce it now, would mean only a few months of gap between the new Impala and new Malibu. Of course any decision can be judged in retrospect. Maybe it did not work out to GM's favor here. But it probably would have made most sense to have the Eco ready with the 2.5, and to launch the car when the 2.5 was ready also. I do think the 'pre-production Eco's' are why your quality issues seems to be there. The car I checked out (and I have seen them a few times already at the auto show etc.) seemed put together pretty well. The exterior was top notch, and after long long gazing, I do believe the 13 stands up as well as the 12. In fact, i like the sportiness of it more. I do not even mind the overhangs..... there is a lot of drama on every line on this car. You have to study it from many angles. Parked next to the 12, you see how much larger the hood and such is on the 13, and you also see how the pillars and windshield are essentially the same. The interior is unique in the new midsize class in that it is very invasive and intimate. The front has deep knee bolsters and the seats hug. The front seats are a great place to be. All the controls are well thought. Impressive how the lower dash is squishy on the passenger side but solid on the driver side...but they look the same. The rear is the let down. The leg room is barely adequate. For my 9 year old its ok. But why its a problem is what he said.....footspace. GM needs to re-engineer the seat base to return footspace. Does the Regal have the same problem? Not as much. Here is the culprit. The malibu's rakish roof takes a nosedive. It pushes the rear seat bottom down, and the tight ingress really constricts the feel in back. The car is stunning, but I do really feel they could have pulled off the same design theme with a little more changes (some of which would be tough being an epsilon car). I would cab forward the windshield a bit. i would add at least 2 inches wheelbase. I would then continue the raising part of the roof a little further back on the car and taper it back a little later with a shorter trunk....to preserve head space and get the rear seat a little higher. If the roof the car was even 2 inches higher over the rear headrests and the car had a 2 inch stretch for leg room, with a deeper footspace, i think we'd be good. The Malibu and Impala are very distinct as they needed to be. The wheelbase issue is a big part of it. The Malibu lacks windows (see gunslit rear window). The impala does not. The malibu will be primarily four cylinder. The impala should be mostly 6. The Malibu will lease cheap....i foresee lots of lease deals on the malibu to move in the showroom. the interior quality issues will get taken care of. The tech is now in the mix. the engines will be top drawer. The car will be a great cruiser. I think price is good. I think the backseat trouble will hinder sales....styling, once the car is in the wild, should be an asset. I have already seen a couple in the wild and let me tell you, you notice it. Too bad crystal red is not on the lower level cars. It needs it.

Even a base ATS is probably as quick as a 3900 equipped GM car.

the MKz photo.....if someone had not said, who makes this car, it would be very tough for most folks to identify it as a Ford / Lincoln product. It's androgynous.

or.....wait for a verano turbo...........

now if they would simply stuff a turbo with about 270hp under the hood and an 8 speed auto with AWD........ / MT option

The AWD button is merely an electronic 'yes' or 'no' with regards to allowing the rear clutch pack to engage. There is very little mpg drop using AWD, not really noticeable. The predictive all wheel drive system is similar to the Porsche Panamera in that it can use the all wheel drive for performance driving. For example, if cornering hard and accelerating, some power will be sent aft and you will even get additional power steering assist. The coordination of the AWD and power steering and its ability to predict the intended motion of the vehicle and respond ahead of time is what sets the all wheel drive apart from the FWD. I get people tell me high twenties in everyday driving and I have also pulled 37 mpg on 40 mile freeway loops with some stopping at lights and such. The car can pull low thirties on the computer at a cruise set at 75 mph. The EPA ratings are a bit conservative. Any CVT car with constant redlining instead of even throttle foot will drop mpg fast. Compared to what I hear Cruze automatics and Elantras get for real world mpg, its pretty amazing for a car with more hp and all wheel drive to be right in the mix. The AWD is really nice to have in wet conditions and snow. The stock Dunlop 18" ers have stiff sidewalls and are average at best in snow conditions. They are better suited to dry warm weather. Average drivers can't tell any difference in AWD vs. FWD. If you drive a FWD only car you notice the car is lighter and more nose heavy, but the suspension feels pretty much the same. So hard driving and getting some rear wheel assist helps to not plow the vehicle. I am surprised at how many folks think the GTS is too stiff.....even the SE's.....I'd be interested in seeing if you think the car is too stiff. I've had some folks buy the base with 16th and gummy soft tires only because the softer ride. The CVT is a function of how willing people are to adapt to a CVT.. its one of the better ones, maybe not the very best. But if you hate CVT's anyways then it's not your car. I test drove a Focus Titanium the other day, in comparison the K steering is not as spot on hardcore as the Focus..... but it is very good. The Cruze's steering is lighter and very good for many consumer's everyday driving.....but it's not quite as quick and responsive as the K. Kizashi has a few pounds over the Cruze and Focus but I think the Dart and K have close to the same curb weights.

The problem is that while the notion of "larger displacement = higher fuel consumption" is quite widely accepted, it is a huge fallacy. Like many other things in public knowledge, if the public has their own cemented idea of what something is (i.e. toyota makes the best cars) why spend all your resources trying to fight public opinion when you could roll with it. I've tried to sell many a cheaper v6 car (aka malibu 3.5 vs. a 4 cylinder generic car) and even if the malibu is cheaper, has the same EPA rating, and gives more features and benefits for a cheaper price, people will say "but its a 6 cylinder, not a 4" and walk on and pay more for a 4 cylinder. I'd rather just see GM go with the most sellable technology with each of its products.

this would be the package i would get.

Kizashi and Cruze have nearly near identical dimensions, worth considering interior space and trunk comparo between the two. Elantra also has near identical dimensions. I would imagine the Dart is near identical also. The interior space inside is excellent in comparison to the Cruze.