regfootball

I am still rather amazed how all the different companies seem to botch different aspects of building a minivan. The bulk thing is a real tough issue. You want to be able to advertise class leading cargo and passenger holds, and you need 5 star safety, but there is no way to make the vehicle 'smaller' while doing that. What Chrysler did though was make the shape very upright and boxy, and so style wise they kind of pay the price in some folk's eyes. I like the Quest from a handling standpoint, but they have never been tops in reliability and their goofy styling is offputting. Plus, no split stow 3rd row and the dash is still a bit goofy. And they could use a power boost. The Kia is intriguing from a value standpoint and the powertrain is good and the dash layout is very usable. But the 2nd row does not stow and the interior sometimes still feels Korean. And, can you really trust a Kia? The Honda is noisy and rides hard but has decent steering. The interior is puffy and grandma looking and the exterior is blocky. Plus no stowable second row. And, its pricey. The toyota interior is snooze inducing while still very functional and decently laid out, but the van has a good powertrain. But the exterior is aero old and dreadful and you can't trust anything where the power doors fall off the van and you know toyotas can't withstand dings in the parking lot. The Freestar was good looking on the outside but everything else about the van was badly done. They did have nice second row seats. Plus, so many folks want AWD now and the only AWD minivan is the Toyota and those go through the run flats like crazy. Another beef is no minivan has decent armrests for the driver and front passenger. Not nearly as comfy as the armrest (and full console) on say, an Acadia. Chrysler should have dumped the 3.3 or made it a credit option as someone suggested. The 4.0 should be made optional across the board for low cost. Aside from this and the cheap interiors, the positives of the new Chryco vans will go unnoticed, unfortunately I think. Someone needs to step up in this segment with a vehicle that hits all things. It would be nice if it was a US manufacturer. Sleek styling inside and out, stowing seats, top notch powertrain with manual shift mode, driver oriented interior, as well as sportier handling and ride, solid structure without pork, quiet refined interior, 5 star safety, AWD option, and great cargo room.

i've test driven a maxx and found it to be a fun car. it has some utility to it and has a spacious rear seat. if you live with the unique looks of it, its a good find. A Maxx SS would really be fun.

GM needs to pick a handful of focused models in their lineup that have MT. and limit it to that. Or get off their ass and get a DSG type tranny out pronto. I would say 2-3 pontiacs should get a stick and a saturn or two and a couple chevy's. GM has a lot of MT cars but surprise, they never seem to have something simple like a 6 cyl, MT G6 or Saturn Aura. Or a 4 cylinder MT Malibu....i.e. a larger MT car that mere mortals can afford. Or even one reasonably priced AWD sedan or crossover with MT. CTSv's and corvettes and all that are great but someone like me with a family can't afford or use that stuff.

he's a bit of a tight ass and he now has heard about those issues so i would not be surprised if he just offers like 4500 for it and sees if he scores it.

all i know is an avenger passed me today. that car is so horrible to look at i just about yacked all over myself.

myself, i don't think i would get the car. it's too old, but if the price was right, that would be ok. If he gets it for 5500 and it becomes a money pit, as long as its not all at once........ i don't think the deville is nice enough to justify investment in. i think the 92 seville he has is as classic a design as any caddy ever and i think he ought to just get a new pickup instead. -edit- i just spent some time looking at the forums and some other research and i guess in my opinion its not worth chancing. too big a pile of money if you get stuck with the problems.

agreed. although 3 rows are hot, there is still a huge 2 row market that would be well served by such a vehicle.

HHR is a cobalt wagon. compare cobalt wagon sales vs. focus wagon sales, and now you know why the separate style body. If there were no HHR SS there would be no Cobalt SS. Chevy would not spend the money to create the performance version. Doing the HHR allows them to spread $$$ out to do it. If chevy cancelled HHR sales, they would not gain all those back to the cobalt, nor would it make chevy invest more money in better plastics etc. GM would move that money elsewhere. An HHR SS is a car I would seriously consider for an inexpensive performance car. I would love that powertrain in a simple G6, but the HHR is one of the few performance crossovers you can get. It would be a vehicle I could get into reasonably. It's probably a little smaller than I'd like, but for me, it makes more sense than a small Mazda3 or GTI, which have not as much passenger or cargo room. I mean, its got over 100hp more than the Vibe. It will probably get the same mileage.

no mp3 jack either.

you know, funny deal, they should have almost bumped the equinox name up to the lambdas and used traverse for the equinox sized entry

My dad has a line on a black 98 Deville Concours with 47k miles on it. Estate type sale. Seller is listing at 8500 but the person in charge of the sale will go lower. My dad wants to try to get it for 5500. I told him he'll prob need to go up as high as 6500. What do you all think is fair for a 10 year old Concours w/ northstar, floor shift, moonroof? Myself I do not like the interior color or i might have interest. If my dad buys it I might make him a serious offer on his 92 Seville with 80k on it. What is the history on that vintage of Northstar and tranny?

good point on the CPO's, that would be a valid option too. Just make sure to get one with tons of warranty left.

he's probably got it there. i suppose to be fair we need to mention sebring. new turbo cobalt SS 2 door? heck, just get another eclipse. the eclipse is a cool car, marred by a useless back seat. But for a one person coupe, its a fun ride. An Accord coupe some would say, but maybe its too big. Is the TT CVT or A4 cvt too pricey? Beetle is too.....ahem, fruity I suppose.

i would need to ask if that stairway is code compliant.

you know, there is so many entries in this class now but what is disturbing is the sheer amount of creepy asian models in this class. the CRV, RAV, hyundais and kias, new forester. I would say as half baked as the new escape's interior is, it's at least done with a macho character to it (mariner and tribute would apply here as well). The Vue, IMHO, has the interior style market cornered in this segment. I think if people become aware of the Vue and sit in it, I think they would be sold on the spot. But I also think the Escape products are nice enough. The CX-7 is a good entry and of the Asian upright cute utes, the Outlander to me is the one that makes the most sense from a tolerable and fucntional interior standpoint. And dang, the XL-7 and nox sport/torrent GXP are nice entries too. My point is, there is so many good non Honda and Toyota entries in this class....Honda and Toyota absolutely do not deserve to sell the quantities they do in this segment. Especially the creepy overpriced underpowered CRV. Why anyone would actually spend money on the RAV4 or CRV is beyond me. The cheapness and flimsiness of them and the utter lack of style and taste and function makes me scratch my head as to why people pull the trigger on those things. The Vue is far nicer! If Joel is diehard Ford, he'd skip the Escape and just go Edge. In certain trims the Edge is not costly and is a far more substantial vehicle than the escape. Although I know mpg will not match the Escape, it may get close. The Endeavor is another good 'can only afford small cute ute but really want a larger crossover' choice for those who do not want to get taken on the pricey entries, highlander, pilot, lambdas. Lastly, even tho its BOF, the explorer is still a good buy, as is the trailblazer....although again mpg suffers.

VW Eos or Volvo hardtop 2 door convertible? 9-3 convertible? Astra XR? GTI? A3? Mini?

amazing little twist to the Jamie Lynn Spears saga...... http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012974,00.html think ma Lynne Spears was a bkkke queen in a previous life?

today, i was at the auto body place getting the estimate to fix my car, they had automotive news magazine and in it was a story on the 09 corolla. it was LMAO because they were interviewing the head engineer dude or whatever from Japan I guess on the 09 Corolla. first question was 'why did you have to delay the program' and the answer was because the engineers were needed for the turd and camry. etc. then, the questions were like, why only a 4 speed auto? why only rear drums? why only beam axle? all the answers were about cost mostly, or 'it works fine like it is'. I was LMAO because they were asking the same questions like they were asking GM all the time....when the press was ripping on GM exclusively.

simply put. if the car is RWD and they want any kind of consistent RETAIL sales in the snow belt, then the car needs AWD optional. like it or not, this is what the dealers, buyers, and people in the industry will tell you, and GM cannot afford to put a product out there that is 'regional' only. You cannot give some chevy dealers a car they can sell at the expense of starving other dealers elsewhere who have no ability to sell the same car. FWD would not hurt the appeal of a chevy large car because enthusiasts can get their RWD fix from the G8 or caddies. In case you hadn't heard, the STS and CTS gained AWD because of absolute market demand. The G8 is off many people's shopping lists because of lack of AWD. Fortunately Chrysler gives the choice with the LX cars. The market wants traction, and has come to expect it, and the throwbacks who insist you don't need it are not at all in touch with the average buyer out there who expects convenience and safety. So while I think the Impy would best benefit a step up to RWD its only under the premise of AWD being available, like on the Charger and 300. If GM cheaped out like they always do, then it would likely be best to cover chevy's backside and simply make it a larger fwd platform. this is where i throw in the disclaimer on fleet vs. retail because if you were simply to import the "Caprice" from AU and sell most of them to cops and cabs, you would likely meet your sales goal for import through fleet business and the few retail sales you would get are simply gravy.

diesel here was almost .60 higher last week. at that point there is no use for diesel over gas because the cost of the fuel outweighs the mpg benefit.

the malibu needs to be 3 inches wider and have a less intrusive greenhouse.

oh yeah, edmunds is totally humping the car. i thought they had 'stained' my monitor i was so disgusted to read it. i get the impression that the software controls that are in place to help launch times are repsonsible. The AWD at some point offsets its own weight penalty with better traction. But apparently they engineered the car well enough and hit a sweet spot with weight and power and traction so as to fully take advantage of the electronic nannies that help the car. I think the GT-R and Porsche are basically the two cars that will force GM to make an AWD version of the vette in the next go round. If you haven't noticed, many comments about the vette being tail happy and lacking traction and making it hard to drive have been in recent vette reviews.

Olds LSS wasn't so bad........

sure, if its a FEDERAL STANDARD. IE ALL 50 STATES, NOT DRIVEN BY ONE STATE'S AGENDA. 50 STATE CONSENSUS

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=124048