regfootball

link provided! woo hoo here I am sure fly is already working up some cheap shots

my wet dream was always to get an ATC 350x but I never got one.

because its so hard to type canadiandriver.com my favorite LOL moment was them trying to explain the curvy character lines as being inspired by the korean landscape or some korean architecture. MEH! that's the same kind of baseless bull$h! that architects and architecture students pull out of their ass as an explanation for some sort of validation of design themes they had no idea on. they pulled something out from between their ass cheeks and try to intellectualize it into a valid reason. in all honesty, though, the exterior did not turn out as horrible as i thought it would based on spy photos. the interior while pleasant, is already dated. and the door panels and seats are wholly uninspired. still, if its cheap and roomy, it will sell. the car this will steal the most sales from is the corolla. so in that regard I root them on. i bet the interior smells like all the other korean cars do, some sort of mixture between urine and toxic chamicals. MMMMMMMMM, nice!

warm blood, yummy. they'll never know I swiped it. EEK! suns out, time to hide.

my Honda ATC 110 was well made, had great plastics, and handled well but in the final analysis it lacked torque like all hondas do i still wouldn't buy a nice CUV if it only makes 13.2 mpg and costs 10 grand too much, and i want 6 cylinders too

let's hope so. the exterior is way botched.

canadiandriver.com has a writeup on the SX4 now, they like it!

go to canadiandriver.com

it is completely re-engineered for the Max and Altima.

ARGH! i spotted a new CR-V today! I follwed one in to work. HOLY COW it's hideous! wow, no grace about that one at all. Wow, really bad. the worst part was the thick and fat upper body riding visually on really skinny inset tires. the rear hatch is ungainly. the sides of the vehicle look bloated and flabby. DEAR, like Phoebe Buffay said, "stop the madness!". One of the nastiest looking cars I've seen come out this year. Yet, folks line up at the honda dealer's door with their CR mags in hand and open checkbooks.

thanks for your voice of reason. my ex coworker with the element paid more and gets less mpg and has less room and his vehicle gets blown around in crosswinds. the endeavor is a better overall truck than the aztek, i know i had one as a loaner. it doesn't hold as much but real world pricing was close to the same.

i like my interior just fine. the cloth is better than most cloth seats out there. the gauges are nice. the gray and black plastics look good together and shine less than my coworker's pilots, even if they are not leathery grained. the interior design and material quality is fine. its quiet mostly to drive, they've laden this car with sound deadener. the 17" wheels give a decently firm ride, not boaty. it steers quick, although feels is certainly not BMW like. the turn radius is insanely small. You really are exaggerating. the rendezvoux may be boaty, but my aztek doesn't have a 'shaky' structure. unless you are on the rubicon maybe. as a whole it drives a lot like last gen GM sedans. I also don't think comparing anything to a lowlander is wise. at least use the pilot or something repsectable if you are going to make comparisons. everyone still projects their opinion on the looks to the rest of the car. yet everyone I've met who owns one like me, loves it, and not just becuase it hauls stuff. Everyone I know who's owned one says the same thing....comfortable, quiet, rides well, spacious. yeah, its no BMW, it was never meant to be.

at least it doesn't have the ugly honda double chin!

i looked at one today. its really cool! it has a rally attitude. also a hint of Mini funk to it. the interior looks great, and this has 10x the charisma of that worthless Honda Fit. great value too. I bet the SX4 is a rad car to beat on. it could use more hp, but look at all the accoldaes Honda is getting for its pathetic 103 hp fit. or whatever hp it puts out. I'd totally pick one up for a 3rd car to whip around town in for fun. its way cool. its offbeat in a positive way like the Aerio, but not weird like the Aerio either. front and rear seating looked generous. trunk was prob. small, but hey, so is a yaris hatch.

i looked at an RDX on the lot today and I must say, the exterior is alright. the interior is quite nice (excepting some of the dash plastic which looks a bit cheap). the seats look phenomenal. the seating is very intimate. the console looks cool. That would be a dang nice cabin to spend time in. still doesn't excuse 13 mpg, but I guess if you're into paying 38 grand for a 4 popper SUV that sucks fuel like its going out of style, and still you need to wind it up to get any sort of power, then you can afford to put in premium gas and get terrible mpg.

yeah, those azeras get all sorts of press, but its amazing what you really think of them once you see one in person. very yucky.

i'm not sure why people have issues with some SUV's being sporty. its what people want now. -accept that masses of buyers now prefer xovers and suv's. sedand and coupes are dying. -accept that some folks like a bit taller seating -accept that anything besides a dorky coupe or sedan could also benefit from good handling. as in OPEN YOUR MIND SOME. how else does acura get 40k for a bloated crv that only gets 13mpg out fo a four popper. go look at sales figures.. i bet the x3 outsold the 3 series wagon.

a base XL-7 2wd for like 23,500. with AWD it adds 1600. great deal. 7 passenger adds a grand. about 26,500 for the model with leather. the top model is another 2 grand, or 28,500. Maxxed out this thing would barely top 30g. I think this vehicle should sell well. the GM engine and features per dollar should make it a hit.

the gauges seemed small and cheap looking to me, in comparison to say, an accord or even the grand prix. the interior of the Aura is still too narrow like other Epsilons. of course, I need to drive one yet, your review sounds great.

its fine by me, you should have been able to decode that from my posts. i think many protestant based christian denominations are practicing that now. again, it's why I am saying, let's separate the term marraige and civil union. then civil union is applicable to anyone. marraige is then a term defined by your belief system. if you feel in your heart what you want is right and your belief system does not support that, then you either need to find a new belief system that does, or you need to examine why the belief system you are in does not. Then it comes down to, if you have faith that the belief system is correct and you're not en mesh.....then there is unhappiness. If you are at odds with something you need to find a resolution or you will be unhappy. I am not sure the courts and civil arena etc. and politics are the ultimate place of resolution for that. It may help with righting public acceptance over a long period of time. i am not sure it solves each individual's personal situation in terms of spiritual peace or acceptance or comfort level.

and the 3.6 vvt/6 sp outdoes both.

i dunno. in reality, our only purpose really is to serve and create the others we share the planet with. we don't exist unto ourselves. our purpose is not for ourselves, but for others and we are the result of a higher power. Our reason for our higher intellect vs other species is for our spiritual link to our faith/higher power and to give us moral decision making ability.

well, but that's also kind of why i say, let's not use the term marraige then for civil union, regardless if whether its HTROSXL or HMOSXL. Use the term civil union for legalities. Preserve the term marraige for religious interpretation.

the thing that is important to remember why in some religions the religious basis of marraige is limited to man + woman is because that's how we are wired to produce new offspring, and like I stated before, the purpose of marraige at least in the Catholic background I was raised in is not for two people to be unto themselves, but to unify with God for probably the main purpose of creating offspring. So you could understand in that context why they would not consider homosexual couples to be able to marry. I don't disagree that all sorts of couples are capable of parenting, and some who should be biologically wired to produce offspring can't, but i think this is the concept behind why lots of religions don't support 'marraige' for homosexuals...because the religious concept of marraige is not just two people...its the two people, the God, and the offspring production

which is why i said that about the 9-5....they tweaked it just enough to appeal to someone who wants something unique and kind of tasteful