regfootball

i am a big ford guy, always liked the focus. i used to want an SVT focus. I test drove them a couple times. Between their slightly temperamental nature and the fact that the car didn't have a lot of grunt to me, I think i would pass on SVT focus. you'd probably have more fun waiting to get say, a 2012 Focus ST lol trans am would be nice.

if the car has gps positioning and can sense where you are and where you might be going, perhaps the computer could be programmed to chaarge and operate depending on what location you are at and the potential for hilly terrain. the complainers of the world (above) regarding the volt, this car has the right approach. there is not anything really wrong with the prius approach either. i think the volt has more flexibility and i believe a greater potential for the future. all that GM has achieved with the Volt is pretty fantastic. my biggest beef with the volt is the cheap interior and the center stack being rather complicated. i think it will satisfy just about any owner that will buy it.

rear taillights are a nice improvement.

Sienna has the available reclining seat. But it's a toyota, and the box is even uglier (your results may vary). I like the Odyssey's sedan like dash. the siennas dash is old school.....sprawling mess spread out horizontally.

oh that indeed was a huge transition.

popped into the honda dealer yesterday as friday night i saw a new odyssey in the wild. It sure looks like a new age techno barge out and about. Actually, it trailed behind a ford edge in a line of cars, in motion it sort of looked like a stretched and pulled and lowered edge with a kim kardashian bigg butt....... it definitely looks better than the current crop of minivans including Honda's own. It's sort of clumsy look keep the rest of it in check from looking 'too sporty'. I will say this, even with its clumsiness and questionable detailing, its probably the most appealing minivan out there, looks wise. And the minivan segment is taking off again, so has Honda hit it at the right time? so, considering that i have real interest in this vehicle someday I was JONESING to check it out. no test drive, just looked it over. I was primarily interested in the interior function, seating, space, and features. its pretty easy to be brief here. inside of this thing is more or less minivan nirvana from a function standpoint. Everything that has been touted about in articles really is just reinforced when poking and prodding the interior. What is a surprise delight is how much closer to a sedan feel the cockpit is than previous vans. The roof is not high above your head (the sunroof cover is so sleek and cleverly integrated as are all the ceiling functions) and the view out the front is perfect. Setting the chair low in front renders to me the ideal driving height for a van. Its not SUV high, and of course it is not sedan low. Every metric by how you judge seating space is well satisfied. Leg room is big. the third row in particular is so roomy in leg room its almost criminal. the second row seats are so easy to adjust fore and aft and yet still allow ridiculous easy access to the third row, it makes the Lambdas seem like a complicated joke. this is even before you move the second row center seat fore and aft, or fold down that seat as an armrest....or spread the second row into wide mode. What else is ridiculously silly easy is how the third row seats fold into the floor. Easier than any other van, and easier than even the super easy seats in my Taurus X. Its so bone headed easy and slick you will wonder why everyone else hasn't done it this way already. The big ass behind the rear wheels with the deep well trunk (which is HUGE) is why this can be done. Anyone who bitches about anything related to flexibility with seating on this vehicle should be shot. Vehicle appears to be vast and long looking from the driver's seat backward. But because the roof is lower than before and the glass is smaller, it has more of a crossover / SUV style view out the rear view mirror. It does not appear to be the vast open wasteland view you get out of some current vans. The whole interior feels smaller and more intimate than a current Chrysler van while being as or more useful and spacious at the same time. This might be because the step in height of the second row is so much lower than the stupid sto and go setup. Sto and go is a nice idea but is not packaged well. I will take the Honda solution every day. The front perches are comfy and while all the seats probably lack lateral support, this is still a van and the seats are probably more supportive than most vans. The new center console between the front seats is great. 4 cupholder and a lidded compartment that WILL likely swallow a purse (women dig this). If you don't put your purse in there, you have plenty of room to put it on the floor between the CHILL BOX and the console. Interior plastics (in gray) i thought were mid grade. some cheapness, somewhat haphazard design, i wouldn't call assembly and mfg quality the best, but certainly not below other recent terrible hondas. I don't think the interior issues are a flaw, it meets the standard of care. what i do like and even LOVE is the dash and center stack design (with exceptions). The dash in general is laid out well and the shape of the dash is interesting and the dash top is a nice texture. no problem with the gauges. the steering wheel looks a little 90's but whatever. the new huge color display screen at the top is handy and welcome. on nav units it will be the nav screen. color big screen is standard even without nav. sure beats a three line LED display! the grouping of controls is sound. climate is up higher, but is in a small cluster that is only as big as it needs to be. and its fairly logical. Hondas button clusters are usually androgynous, and that is the case here, but at least for the climate control its not too complex. there are climate controls in the ceiling above the 2nd and 3rd row which are well integrated for the THREE zone climate control. the media center controls were messy. i liked where they put them, but Honda needs to add more tactility and logical layout, groups, and shapes. there is a handy drawer that pops out of the dash for your devices. brilliant! out of sight, out of mind, and accessible while driving. The chill box is at the bottom and folds down to hold i think 4 bottles. Brilliant! pop, juice boxes stay cold, and if they spill, stay away from dash electronics. AWESOME. I had a bitch with the shifter. In photos it looks like soomeone FINALLY figured out the best place for a minivan shifter. Almost sedan placement, although here i felt like i had to reach too far forward and too high to get to it. Still, its way better than the chrysler and its a not a column shifter. this is the best it gets for shifter placement in a minivan. leather quality is about the same as the previous odyssey. Grade B, and it has the loose look just a bit that you see on recliners at the furniture store. My guess is as long as it wipes up, doesn't wear, and doesn't rip easy, that is what most folks are concerned with. I think it looks a tish cheap but at least I will say it looks consistent with the level of the plastic. I didn't try to locate every whiz bang gizmo, and play with a lot of stuff. It just seemed to me the timing is right to jumpstart the minivans again and Honda has made the user space more current here, getting rid of more nerdiness and just really shining big time in flexibility and functionality. That fact that someone did that in a half decent looking package is a big score. I think honda needs about 30 more ponies under the hood of this thing but at least the MPG is bang up now. This is a vehicle I would have no problem buying either sight unseen or without a test drive, for reasons of functionality alone. suspect in question was an EXL with leather and roof, MSRP 35. I am almost inclined to believe its worth its sticker price. Good job Honda. Way to go. Someone finally made the minivan relevant and dare I say, cool, again.

I would say of the people I know who have had VW's in the last 10 years, are pretty equally split. they either had major problems with the car and swear off them forever. Or, they are fine paying 70 bucks for an oil change and getting fussy glitches repaired, and they continue to think they are the shizzle. Nice interior was sort of a last savior of VW so that is why it's disappointing they would start to drop the ball in that now too. side note. After seeing new Mazda6's with automatics on the Mazda lot this weekend for a tish over 17 grand (some at 18 and change, they were all 4k off with discs and rbts) and seeing how even that larger car can have pretty ok plastic in it and still sell for a decent price, I am wondering why anyone would bother with the still smaller VW with the now not so nice plastic. VW used to not only lease a lot, but sell for good prices based on the quality/value proposition. I think the dumbing down of the interior may end up hurting its value. VW will be forced to drop the price of a car which is smaller, same mpg essentially, no real power advantage, smaller in comparison to lots of midsizers. Had VW kept the interior pristine they could elevate themselves above being drug down into that morass.

The 500 to taurus transition was not that radical. new grille (which was a step backwards) and some bling on the tailights. inside, it was merely spicing up gauges and adding lots of contrasting colors and textures. mechanically it got a new engine which was the most significant upgrade. I actually prefer the look of the 500. but the mechanicals of the taurus. no, the transformation to chrysler 200 is much more involved, and my gosh if they can take an ugly ass, bad driving, horrible car like the sebring and turn it into what appears to be VERY promising with the new pentastar and nice interior, then chrysler is truly the master of turning lemons into premium lemonade. Lets hope they can do that. offering the pentastar in a segment that seems to be giving up on v6's could be a huge differentiator for them. I bet that sucker will move out.

photo holds promise.

+++++++++ i have that book. to be honest she really is more of a phenom than she should be. she sort of has the granola followers sort of thing going on. she is not saying anything that is revolutionary, she just happened to say it in the midst of a 'my house is bigger than your penis (breasts)' era. She's a bit of a creation more than anything. Not to take away from her, but I know many architects who have the same common sense and creativity and skill she has. She is well marketed. you, of course, are aware how many architects (including yours truly) have been out of work and still are during this cute little break I like to call hell. my wife's nephew's wife (say that three times fast) works at the local Ikea. She said someone told her that SS applied to work at the store there selling kitchen cabinets. I am unsure how true that was. But it would not surprise me if someone of even her caliber was scraping for work these days. I like the functionality of Ikea cabinets (i love cabinets without the face frame) and they are extremely versatile. But I don't like the quality of the finish, especially the doors. Plus, I don't know if they make them in China or where they do. If I put Ikea cabinets in my next house I probably would consider having custom made doors made for them so I wouldn't have to look at their cheesy quality. That, and I am not a fan of stark contemporary cabinets. I don't like ancient fogey cabinets either. But i like better finished look and more detail than the stuff Ikea sells. Its funny though. I worked on a condo project in orange county the last place i was at. The units were EXPENSIVE so of course they had to have 'Italian cabinetry'. Aside from being a logistical and fit nightmare, the Italian cabinetry which was uber contemporary looked really frickin cheap IMO. I remember sitting out there in the nice (snicker) 2 million dollar units (which are worth what now, 750k? lol) looking at these cheap ass cabinets thinking to myself, "why didn't they just get the cabinets from Ikea, they would have looked nicer"........ ++++++++++++ on the Cruze vs. Jetta. Based upon what i have SEEN so far.....I like the Cruze interior more simply because it is more interesting design wise. I hate the lack of rear leg space in the Cruze. Exterior wise, I think the Cruze is upbeat, but the Jetta is tidy (if plain). Ultimately if I know myself, at this time I would say why buy a Cruze just get a Malibu its the same money right now, problem solved on the rear legroom. Similarly, I like the Jetta but not enough to say, "I'd rather have a Jetta for the same price than another midsizer". Then there is the part about waiting for the Focus (which is the best course of action). And......the ELANTRA. I am curious if there is a new Impreza any time soon. The pricing on these new compacts drives me to the midsize class. If you held a gun to my head tomorrow, I would go out and probably get a Subaru Legacy as a first choice (Optima/Sonata/Mazda6/Malibu/Altima/Kizashi become choices after that). Until any of the compacts step forward and offer the 'right' combination of fun, interior, space, design, and price that has a noticeable cost difference from a midsizer, then I have to get a midsize. the deals are too good right now. If none of the compacts offer an exemplary driving experience, then why not just go up to a midsizer? If the Cruze had a lower price and some actual heat under the hood it would help matters. I just don't think I am VW material no matter how good they turn it out. The starkness of it just doesn't ring with me as endearing. But I still think the new Jetta has the goods to do pretty well in the market.

i'd rather see them spend the money on better interior plastic than obsessing about something stupid like a hood cutout on a small cheap car. you don't see the emblem against the hood when you are inside the car driving. any knock on exterior build quality of this car is hogwash. its tight on the outside and the doors close with a solid thunk you do not get in this class. its only one more reason why the interior plastic especially the doors is such a GLARING fault. i parked next to a current corolla today at the store and was appalled by the look of its interior. the jetta is one or two classes above, even with the Ikea grade interior plastic.

My own hunch is that the 2.0 was brought back for the launch of the new model for one, MAYBE two years tops. They will probably only build like 500 of them, but hey you can advertise the low price then, that way. All around the 5 is better than the 2.0. I think VW's best strategy is to go 2.0 MODERN 4 cylinder, 150-160hp, good fe. 2.0 turbo, and the TDI. I think VW purposely puts in the old four and the 5 to steer you into the higher priced turbo and TDI to make more money. Although I have to give VW credit, it sounds from reviews like they have improved NVH, smoothness, and FE on the 2.5 5 popper. VW orginally put the 5 in as a way to make the Jetta seem more premium than other cars in the segment. At least for now, you can still get over 170hp in the VW compact...... I am curious about this car because the current gen Golf didn't do much for me when I test drove it. But I think with an automatic and the extra room in back and the tidy styling, the new Jetta could be an option at some point when compared to things like the current gen Hyundai Elantra, Corolla, Civic...etc. or, a 2011 Hyundai Sonata.....

good lookin car. james healy at USA today gave it really complimentary review.

looks nice, a bit generic, not swoopy or anything but will probably be fine as far as selling the vehicle. Can they do this to the Journey? puhlease

gosh, adding the 'paint sealant' and 'fabric protection' would put it over 20k though! lol so its actually cheaper to add that stuff accessory than prepackaged at the factory? at least its available. that's only the 2 door though...?

I'd get a turbo beetle before a Mini

I hate the mini because it's an impractical expensive girl handbag and my slum cobalt will take it in a drag race anyways...well considering it's mostly chicks driving it. And I can take all the money I save and buy more alcohol. Another reason to hate it, it's a BMW, but not a 'real' one An SS cobalt would wipe a minis ass off the pavement.

that's why it depends on the price you get it at. apparently if handling is what you are after, then this is better than probably both of those. i suppose if you need that public affirmation to make up for a lack somewhere else.....

ha, not everyone who buys a mini buys the cheap one. lots of folks option and accessorize them up to 30k and beyond (which is ridiculous). Mini is a toy car. It's a fashion statement. Its fun too if you like that sort of whimsical beauty, but i hope you enjoy your resale before the brand managers bring out more clubmans and countrymans and destroy the brand entirely by spawning off all sorts of cute little worthless variants. at least it will be good to know BMW the company that has placed ads showing rabbits propelling themselves off their back feet only because it pure, will soon be building 3 cylinder front drive cars to try to sell to the starstruck masses. I would hope by that time that rabbit in that ad has undergone a quick Darwin flash so his driving legs are in front. Face it most Mini buyers really don't assign any difference between the Mini they drive and their sweet little pink Coach handbag they got at the mall. I'd rather have a stinkin cruze than a Mini. Scratch that. a 2012 Aveo, rather than a Mini.

yup!

the mini is a fashion accessory. something about the size of the 3, sure. but i wouldn't saddle it with any rwd need. in THEORY a car like the cruze should be big enough, but i can tell you the interior is nice, its not PREMIUM, and it still lacks some space. i doubt it has all the road noise kept out that you'd want to call it premium. and then if you make those parts of the car premium, then you gotta pump up the motor and the suspension, the brakes....... pretty soon you have a nice heavy expensive small car that costs too much, weighs too much, and doesn't have enough room. there's a deal breaker in there somewhere of all those good things that just makes it tough to do on a small car that can be sold for volume and profit.

Oh but toyota?

I parked next to a 2001 ish Jetta at TARGET yesterday. Those cars had NO room. Earlier in the day I had sat in a new 011 Jetta that had SPACE. VW upsized the Jetta about 2 classes in the US in less than a decade. That pretty much says it all right there in terms of how companies like VW see our market and what people desire. VW would never currently expect to get the volume increase they are looking for with the size Jetta it had back in 01/02 ish.....they even though the 08 was too small....

i think adding lots of sound deadener, quieter and larger tires, stiffer chassis, amenities, all those things that would refine small cars, also add the weight and cost that make a tough sell. there is a point of diminishing return on small vehicles in terms of the price you can charge, and the fuel economy that is expected out of them. mini sells well, but its like the prius, its the king of a niche, and its just fashionistas who are trying a cheap entry into the BMW brand. You'd probably be better off studying the sales charts of the A1's and Volvo C30's of the world to see exactly how much the public likes 'premium small cars'. You've got more buyers who want a bigger crossover or SUV for the same price in comparison to those feature laden small vehicles.

how does acura stay afloat? Honda still really only moves its core models. accord, crv, odysey, civic, pilot. not sure why the people get pilots. good thing honda does not have to depend on the new vehicles or the niche vehicles to help them stay afloat.