regfootball

Wow. well, it will end when they go bankrupt.

i know the oil change places charge 7-10 or more bucks for synth blend. full synth is even more. lots of factories now say 7500 for oil changes. i still do 3000-3500 miles. i clip coupons, or otherwise find cheap or free oil changes, and i just get them done more often. i suppose synth wouldn't hurt. but i like in the winter especially just getting the oil changed at 3000, it cleans it out from all the crap that really accumulates in the cold winter months. I like that option better than running better oil and running it longer. turbos i would consider upgrading the oil. i figure my frequent oil changes are partially what has kept me from basically almost never having to add any oil to my cars between changes. My thunderbird burnt a tiny bit of oil after 50k......i probably put 4 quarts in the car the entire 75k miles I drove it. My diamante required a little towards the end. i guess this is a way for GM to obtain some more durability for a very low price in lieu of more sophisticated manufacturing and materials on the engine itself.

i stopped in the harley davidson dealer the other day to poke around and look at some new bikes. there was a guy there parked next to me with a new X5 diesel. i was loading up my kid when he came out and got in his ride. he portrayed the image of being rather loaded and he was not terribly old. I asked what he was seeing for mileage, and he said a recent trip he saw about 34 mpg. He said he is thrilled with the car. Even if the mass market is not adopting hybrids quickly, that reason is just about entirely due to cost. And I do think even though the green set is seen being the only ones to be concerned about fuel economy, i don't think that is true. I do think the average individual appreciates fuel economy too, they just understand more that mpg comes with a cost of technology and equipment that they can't always afford to pay for. Like many things, technology, the price comes down over time, but the early adopters need to pay a disproportionate share for bragging rights to early use. I think fuel economy has sort of that bragging rights thing going on with the tech oriented / early adopters set right now, not as much for the green end of it as more so because they like the science and technology aspect of it. And i think a lot of people just flat out are becoming more and more wanting to buy less and less gas (even though less consumption is going to drive up prices and tax on the gas it will probably be a net zero in the end). So this cutting edge technology relates to performance on a different level. And luxury autos demands a certain level of 'technology' and 'performance'. MPG has now entered the picture where it is a vital component to technology and performance in some luxury segments. And then there is fashion. Fashion is a worldly thing and I think this is why German brands and imports in general appeal to the luxury set, its the notion that somewhere else in the world is something superior and more exotic and fashionable. And to share that fashion across the globe is what luxury is about. Cadillac's version of fashion gets laughed at across the globe because they make no effort to be in tune with what is fashion anywhere besides the US (or Michigan for that matter). In many parts, fashion is diesel. WHat this all means, in order for Cadillac to be credible as a luxury brand, outside the US (and even inside most of the US for that matter) is that gestures need to be made to demonstrate that the brand represents a cross section of attributes desired by lux car buyers across the globe. A certain level of high cost pandering is needed to make the car desired and credible, not a poseur. I would probably say that in Europe a diesel is requirement that should be met. I'll even go further to suggest that since Cadillac will need to implement diesels in Europe by necessity, that it can only help their cause to consider selling some diesels here. It would help create the more worldly image that Cadillac needs to maintain. Perhaps the ATS is the car that should usher in Cadillac diesels. One build of CTS diesel would not hurt, either, to test the water. Cadillac may need to lose money on diesels in the US but I think it would help their image overall as far as getting credibility in the world arena. Hybrids and diesels for mpg may be something Cadillac should be interested in to promote their position in the technology arena. And Cadillacs with their higher MSRP's can probably absorb more of the development money of the technology as the early adopters will get more of what they pay for with a Caddy vs. a chevy. If or once hybrids take off, then Cadillac has demonstrated its position as a leader. Lincoln has the MKZ hybrid now. Its pretty much a rebadge, but now hybrid as a technology instead of simply a pandering to the green set on a twisted moral ground is an easier and more market friendly sell. And then over time as the cost comes down it can trickle down to the lesser brands. Perhaps what is most prudent diesel wise is just the 4 and 6 popper diesels in the US ATS in addition to gas engines, and a 6 cyl in the CTS. Or, an ATS diesel with a 4 and a CTS diesel with a 6. THe hybrid is the XTS, possibly. In Europe then I would probably offer the 2 diesels in the ATS and just the 6 in the CTS. Then I would probably pick the 4 turbo gas and the v6 for the ATS in Europe as well, and just the gas 6 in addition to the diesel for the CTS in Europe. ATS would really be the fresh start car for Caddy in Europe so it would get a diverse powertrain set. I particularly like the 8 speed automatics, it makes sense to introduce them in cadillac models to amortize the cost. The XTS would probably get laughed at in Europe but you gotta sell a few, if for no other reason then to just introduce the model and hope its a bridge to a newer and better effort later on. TOo bad GM was handcuffed with the SRX and 9-4x. Having to build them on the same platform and in the same plant and same powertrains. But GM should be cautious about crossover investment for Cadillac now, I would watch crossover sales and probably be very careful about how the next SRX is designed. I would prefer to see it on rear bias sedan chassis next time...but there may not be enough sales volume to justify a switch to a different platform. That Saab marraige really fuqqed GM over with the SRX and 9-4x. Caddy may have been better off just doing the new SRX with a massively revised body but on the old platform. The mpg is the same anyways seemingly. The SRX would benefit greatly from diesels i think, more so than the sedans.

Buick dealer in my dads town had 2 regals on the showfloor. One black one tan interior. It's a toss up. The tan is nice like the black. The black means business. The tan has lots of contrast. Both are nice. I would prob lean to tan. Only because I don't always like dark.

The equinox interior is a little nicer. Not too much though. But equal spec equinox are a few thou more. For a budget interior, the sportage is well done. I love the dashboard design. The manual spec sportage blu mentioned, 19k, well equipped, 176hp, a great alternative to say, a low powered chevy cruze.

all diesels in europe is not a terrible idea. maybe just one gas powertrain combo on the ATS and CTS.....

I'd say there is not much space difference between the sportage and the equinox. They feel like size clones.

Checked out a new 011 Sportage today. No drive, just sat in one. Nice! Not lux nice, but it's stylish, and the interior is laid out nicely and is well finished. Lots of passenger room and comfortable. Trunk could be a little bigger and finished nicer, but that is probably the biggest presentation flaw the car has. Plastics are not lux, but nice and low gloss. The design is interesting and very ergonomic. I love the console and center stack. This vehicle is at or near the top of my list. It's efficient, cheap, and stylish. Roomy too. They had 4. The one I sat in was 19k with a manual trans. Shifter was located nicely. I drove a tucson same equipped already, I know it's got nice power and handles well. Nice job Kia. Problem is the sorento is not much more $$$$. What a dilemma.

Viper I hadn't seen this thread till today. I did not know you got hit by the curse. Very sorry to hear about this accident. It's even a more specialized curse, red cobalt owners apparently. To have to wait for this post accident $h! to unfold and all the uncertainty.....I in some way this works out ok in the end....some facet of it.

GM should not even focus on MPG figures. This car is unique and ground breaking and that should be the main focus. The original EV was leased and that was intended for the cars to be returned back to GM for more research. Its a good idea. But in order to make leases work, GM had to boost MSRP and rely on the tax credit. Since this is technology advanced beyond the Prius, it should command some more money. early adopters always pay. Production needs to be exclusive enough to hold the price 'up'. All the leasing does in this case is prevent a POSSIBLE miscue by the pricing folks if they had tried to sell it lower. And it guarantees a fall back that will lease in reasonable volume in case pure sale units tank. you gotta remember anyone who buys this first volt, its like the iphone, they want to discard the one they have and get a new version as soon as it gets out. Hence the lease, it sets the happy volt owners up to re-lease when the contract it done. it guarantees future next gen business, and it evens out high tide and low tide in terms of non lease sales.

Tested..... 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander ES. Gray / black cloth. Demo.....6-7k on the odo. 4 cylinder motor, front drive, CVT transmission. Lightly optioned. MSRP more than 21,500 but less than 22,000. Highs- Room and Space - cargo and passengers Seating comfort, first two rows. Seat adjustments, both rows, including recline and fore/aft in the second row. Engine does well at highway speeds, once underway and crusing. Excellent visibility overall and fairly airy cabin by today's standards. Decent gauge layout, convenient and simple radio and climate controls. Steering wheel feels real nice with nice feeling function buttons. Fold and tumble second row seats for max flexibility. Light steering that feels fairly good and minimal slop. Average to slightly above handling and resposnsiveness. 4 cylinder, once up and cruising runs quietly and without vibration. Engine turns only 2300 rpm at 70+ mph with CVT. CVT manual mode easy to use with nice feeling floor shifter. Paddles were not on this ES version. Holds 'gears' nicely and 'shifts' quick. Fantastic head, shoulder, hip, arm room. Nice wide door and center armrests. Leg room great in front, and good in second row. Good feeling switches and buttons all around. Decent plastics on the dashboard and IP for the price. Nice stylish backlighting on the IP, in red. Seats were sculpted nicely and nicely supportive (seat bottom a tiny bit soft). Cloth / vinyl mix looked fashionable. Twin glovebox is handy and cupholders seemed convenient. Impressive cargo flexibility and split tailgate is nice. Available -occasional- third row cleverly packaged and nice enough for like, 7 and 8 year olds. Still room for groceries behind the third row when deployed. Decently styling, once past the snout. Warranty. Price, too (with exceptions). CVT smooth at higher travel speeds. Kicks down better at higher speeds. Quiet inside when engine is calmed down. Feels decently solidly built. Lows- Power at lower travel speeds and CVT responsiveness need work. NVH suffers at lower travel speeds and when attempting to accelerate more than gingerly out of the gate. CVT is more rubber bandy than the better Nissan and Subaru executions (although it performs better at higher travel speeds). I would like better mpg ratings. Vehicle feels nose heavy and heavy overall and this is magnified with semi sluggish stoplight to stoplight performance below higher travel speeds. Can feel like a bigger vehicle than it is sometimes. When not interstate cruising, it can at times seem like there is too much cabin noise. Gauges although laid out nicely sit a little lower in the dash than you might like. Like, almost in your nutsac. Um, higher please. Interior is too dark overall and could stand to be lightened up a bit! Even though dash plastic is nice, the door plastics could see a little upgrade and some design detailing. It's ok to offer tan as a second interior color. For those that do not like to sit very high, make sure you adjust the seat, otherwise it feels pretty high up. Steering could be quicker, as of course could be the engine and transmission performance. Front snout looks a little ugly. 'Third row' requires a learning curve to deploy, but once you learn it, its fast. Some folks may be concerned if it holds up in heavy use (I would not be). Adults cannot realistically use said third row. Seat cloth is a bit burlappy. Carpeting is very thin and chintzy. Perhaps a carpet upgrade could help cabin noise? 2nd row seats cannot be REMOVED. Sucks if you get hit in the rear you might need to spend extra to fix that tailgate. Side mirrors could stand to be wider! Seriously! Verdict - Overall, I was surprised. I did not think this vehicle would impress me, and to a degree it only impressed me at an average level. But considering the lukewarm reviews the press gives it, I think it deserves a better shake than that. I've driven a RAV4, and to those who think its the holy grail, well its not really better or worse than the mits, except the potential deal breaker here is anyone who might not be comfortable with the powertrain and its behavior. For the price and size, and class it competes in, the Outlander is sufficiently covered in most areas. It excels in the people and cargo moving area. It looks nice enough, and aside from needing to upgrade the door panels and carpet, I think the interior is passable, too. Dynamically the ride and handling are fine, to me. Now i must drive a Terrain to compare. The Tucson is sportier for sure. But there is just enough car behavior and just enough trucklike feel in the Outlander that I think it will feel like a nice blend for many people. It's large and stable and secure feeling. When evaluated as an appliance, I can only point to the engine and CVT performance, pretty much entirely below, say, 40-45 mph, that really feels like it's something that will bug you. What was surprising to me is how sprite it felt in manual mode when I was shifting it gear by gear. There was less NVH and it was fun and quick to respond, and I believe much faster! The CVT just needs to be worked on. It's slow to respond at lower travel speeds, and has some of the residual 'rubberbandiness' that Nissan and Subaru have been slowly exorcising out of their CVT's. That, and the initial feeling of looseness from a stop makes me think someone who is sensitive to this may prefer a different vehicle. Perhaps this vehicle is more enjoyable with a v6. I actually think i would probably adjust my throttle input style over time and it would probably help with better and smoother launches. Perhaps the CVT even learns. Like I said, the manual mode worked pretty good with the nicely short and well placed shifter. Of course paddles which are included on the SE would be even better. To me, for what i like, the spaciousness and cargo flexibility scores major points with me and the simplicity of the dash is a big upside as well. THis along with the warranty is what makes it attractive to me. There is a lot of competition in this segment. The Mitsubishi is a nice alternative that is mid pack, and pleasantly so. The net impression to me was neither bad nor good, just competence, pleasantness, and a bit of unfinished work in the refinement of the powertrain left to do. There is not an overwhelming reason TO buy this vehicle. Likewise, there is no real glaring reason you should not include it on your shopping list when looking at others in this segment. B-

nice unit. i had picked one with 41k miles earlier this year, it looked good, but they wanted more cash actually.

base cruze with $h! engine and only 3 years of BTB is 17. an LT with anyting resembling actual motivation adds what, 2 grand? And USB and bluetooth are never standard on GM stuff, they like to lump it into expensive packages. A base equinox would be a nice buy at 23k if it had those required featured standard. Like on an 18 and change 2011 kia sportage. Kia also discounts pretty much away at launch because they are out for market share. Optima may see no discounts for like a month, but that's it. Too much competition and Kia is not willing to pretend to be holding out for that extra little bit of profit. i never noticed before, but do the sonata and optima have the exact same taillamps? Cruze LT non ECo with automatic is not going to best the Optimas EPA ratings by much......

i agree. i don't like them.

alrighty. i am having clipboard and mouse issues, so here goes.... try this http://adi-kia-1027492015.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/trs/dispatch.do ok, 19495.

looks like the turbo might be available too. 25k for a 274hp Optima turbo......... leather included......

Go to kia.com and there you will find a link that will take you to a configurator site for the new Optima (I believe all the new Sportage info is available too). In any case, this may forecast the options and packaging for the Optima when it launches soon. For me, a base Optima, 6MT, already has bluetooth, USB, and stab control, looks like a hair under 19k. 24/35 mpg and 200hp like the Sonata. 19 grand for that (20,500 with automatic) makes a Cruze look price challenged.....

Regal wagon's trunk opening is like Audi, it widens out on top of the bumper. Refocusing on Subaru for a moment. While overall the Subaru is not as high up the food chain as the new Regal, at least it can be had in some forms closer to 20k than 30k. I think that is pretty good that they were still able to manage that. that last photo, it really strikes me as a perfect job straddling the wagon and hatch line. looks great like a hatch, while being functional like a wagon. Dodge Magnum pulled that off incredibly. Subaru had to style the Legacy wagon more like a wagon / truck since it shares body with the Outback. edit, that regal wagon, don't take a tap on the rear hatchback / bumper........

one thing i have wondered. GM had BAS, where it shut off the engine while at stop. couldn't an engine just be made to turn off say 2 of 4, or 3 of 6 cylinders while a car is idling? Kind of like extending cylinder deactivation to when an engine is idling. then you would in theory cut fuel consumption at idle, and you wouldn't be turning the engine on and off, and having all the wear......

or sell the Legacy wagon..... the Mazda6 wagon is a little sleeker. But the BUICK is the wagon I want.....

that statement is completely accurate. that German Opel leather looks and feels nice and has a great smell. The seats are amazing.

if you are tuning this engine for fuel economy, you're not going to be as obsessed about its high rpm behavior. you'd be more concerned with its vibation levels at lower rpms, where you want the engine to be more often than not, to keep fuel consumption down.

mpg is a big deal here. yet a hybrid won't help. is this all straight shot interstate or is it two lane roads? a TDI might be cost effective here. sales dude at the subaru palace told me some drivers with the CVT on the new Legacy report 35, 38 mpg in long distance highway travels. I would assume 30 mpg is no prob. Fusion and Malibu I hear can each get 30 mpg in that same context. g6 or aura? perhaps a simple impala with the 3.5v6. saab 9-3's with stick and 4 get good mpg over the highway i hear. Honda Fit aside from being noisy is not bad for an econocar here. CRZ? Corolla, VIbe, Matrix? Chevette diesel? Actually this situation may be where the new Cruze will shine.

i hear noise or sound may be issue. mods, by the way move this topic if it belongs in a better place. i am reading something that suggests gear drive actually saves power over a chain drive.