VenSeattle

'Nature's Metropolis' by William Cronon No, it's not an environmental book. It's about the history of Chicago.

Finally saw 'The Da Vinci Code.' I enjoyed it. I want to see 'Over the Hedge' next.

I did acknowledge it... and said it's really no different (or more exceptional) than what GM had already announced as its own strategy. Considering one of the largest manufacturers in the world is doing the EXACT same thing in about the same time frame makes Hyundai the King of nothing. It's now just expected to remain competitive. The title insinuates that no other manufacturer is doing this, which isn't true.

Park Avenue, LeSabre, Bonneville, Grand Prix - standard or optional depending on model. Thank you... And even before that, Oldsmobile also offered ESP as the "Precision Control System" on Intrigue & Aurora. As Fly mentioned, my own 2003 Buick Park Avenue Ultra has it as standard equipment. The 2005 Buick LaCrosse also offered it on CXS trim.

To confirm how near an almost production-ready show car is near to production.

Where was Hyundai's announcement to make ABS, Traction Control, & Stability Control standard on all their vehicles prior to 2005 for GM to "respond to?" GM's announcement was in Jan'05. It appears that Hyundai's push is a response to GM's previously announced strategy. Hyundai didn't even offer a sedan with ESP available when GM made the announcement. GM did. ABS & TC were only optional on Sonata and even the XG350 I think in 2004/2005. True, Chevrolet didn't have a sedan with ESP either, but just like Hyundai, Chevrolet's SUVs/truck-like vehicles had it available prior to GM's announcement. However GM (as a whole) offered vehicles with ESP available or standard much earlier than Hyundai could have ever dreamed. Chevrolet is stuck introducing it as standard equipment based on its model life cycles. Current vehicles out that were designed prior to the commitment won't be reengineered with the technology. But, several GM brands will have beaten Hyundai: GMC, HUMMER, Cadillac... possibly SAAB, Buick, and Saturn will have matched Hyundai at 100% in 2008 or 2009. But a second question comes into play with the "100%" issue... by 2010, do you think Hyundai & KIA both will offer all three (ABS, TC, ESP)standard on every vehicle when GM is offering them standard on all vehicles?

4 1 5

The pic was discovered back on 6/14 when someone posted the link to GM's 2007 Product guide... The discussion of SRX's interior was just picked up in an ongoing topic about the 2007 SRX changes (the pic shows up half way through the topic): http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9220

Here's a website that has some info on Fire-Ams... http://tachrev.com/Web_Pages/Fire_Am_Super_Tuner.html

first I'd heard of them... but apparently they are for real... Here's a few pics I could find online:

The image in GM's 2007 product brochure is better:

GM Announcement Speech, 1/30/05

Paulino, go with the LaCrosse CXL. You won't be disappointed. You appreciate certain aspects of the LaCrosse that others view as drawbacks. You plan to keep the car for a while so immediate depreciation isn't a consequence. Maintenance costs are low, and you'll get the 4yr/50k warranty. True, some of the other vehicles offer certain options that the LaCrosse doesn't, bus most of those only come into the comparison when you're cross-shopping the mentioned vehicles when fully loaded. The LaCrosse CXL offers pretty much what you're looking for in your price range. Right now, there's a $2,000 total in bonus cash & customer rebate on 2006 LaCrosses in the PacNW. I'm sure you have similar.

Not a good break out of the start-up gate, but it's too early to tell if it's a bust. I'm sure GM will sell more than 1,560 of them. With full-month sales starting in May, GM only needs to sell 4,600 to reach the annual goal of 7,000.

You obviously missed my point. GM as a whole will be 100% in less than 4 years... including Chevrolet. That's far more ambitious considering how many Brands GM has. Chevrolet has already made its statement to be 100% by decade's end. Hyundai's move is just to keep up with the competition's previously announced plans. Nothing more. edited: You left out Chevrolet's SUVs & Trucks. True, Hyundai doesn't have anything comparable, but when comparing % of line-up, it's admissible.

I guess Teflon surface protectors now work on appliances too!

70% of their volume will have ESC as standard equipment... I just keep remembering that between the years 2005-2010, GM will be phasing in ABS, Traction-Control, & ESC as standard equipment on all vehicles (trucks & cars). Hyundai won't be a "safety leader" if that's all they've got. Chevrolet will be 100% in less than 4 years.

The changes to EPA testing go into effect in 2008, correct?

A local article about Washington State's farming issue with bio Fuels... Thought some of you would find the info interesting. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Biofuels No Sure Bet for Farmers By BILL VIRGIN P-I COLUMNIST We ask a lot of farmers: Provide us with a reliable, inexpensive and safe supply of food regardless of weather (here or elsewhere), politics and trade issues, input costs or markets. And did we mention cheap? Now we want farmers to do the same for energy. What the oilfields were to transportation in the 20th century, many expect the nation's farms to be in the 21st century, with ethanol, biodiesel and similar products displacing petroleum-derived fuels. Washington jumped on the biofuel-powered bandwagon in the most recent legislative session with a bill mandating that, by late 2008, 2 percent of the gasoline and diesel fuel that suppliers sell be ethanol and biodiesel. Developers are discussing biofuel and ethanol plants all over the state. That suggests a major opportunity for a major industry in Washington. Farmers "would love to get into this market," says Kathleen Painter of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University. "They love the idea of growing for the energy market." "We think the opportunities are immense," adds Don Stuart, Pacific Northwest states director for American Farmland Trust. "I do think this is something our farmers could do a darn good job at." But for Washington farmers to reap anything from that major opportunity, they need some answers to some major questions. Such as, for starters, how much they might be paid for growing crops such as canola that would produce the raw material for refining into biofuels. "Alternative crops can provide some benefits for dryland grain producers in the Pacific Northwest," says a report co-written by Painter on the economics of canola production in Eastern Washington. "Oilseed crops, such as rapeseed, canola and mustard, have been used in rotation with wheat and barley in the region since the late 1970s. Including oilseeds in a cereal grain rotation provides a greater choice of herbicide use in the battle against unwanted grasses, thus facilitating weed control. The addition of an oilseed crop also helps loosen hardpan within the soil, and it can break up disease cycles." But here's the problem: "Although these alternative crops potentially improve yields of the subsequent wheat or barley crop, the market price for oilseed crops during the past several years has caused some producers to produce these crops at a loss." At times the prices for those alternative crops have dropped so low that farmers decide they don't get enough of the other benefits to make it worth eating that loss. The bottom line, Painter says, is that "the feedstock needs to be worth more." Prices have been stronger in recent months, as biofuel developers announce projects and line up suppliers. But Painter says farmers want to be certain that prices won't retreat, and that the proposed projects will actually be built. A further complication in the prospect for prices is competition from other feedstock materials, such as canola oil from Canada, soybean oil from the Midwest and palm oil from Asia. If those supplies hold down the prices farmers here can fetch for what they grow, the effort to develop an energy market for Washington agriculture might never get started. On the other hand, having another market for crops might dampen the price volatility that constantly plagues farmers. Says Stuart, "It's hard to imagine you could increase the volatility" by developing the energy market. For a few, the "alternative" crop might wind up being more attractive than a primary crop such as wheat, particularly when wheat prices are in a slump and input costs including tractor fuel and fertilizer are climbing. One other reason farmers are interested in the energy market: World Trade Organization talks and the 2007 farm bill that Congress will be debating. The farm bill comes up every half decade or so, and each time Congress and the administration of the moment go through an exercise of deciding whether to wean ag off support and subsidy programs (Freedom to Farm, 1996) or reinstate and expand them (the farm bill of 2002). The 2007 bill is likely to be more of the former than the latter, given the pressure on the United States and other nations in world trade talks to cut subsidies and support. Developing an energy market "will be a huge aid to agriculture, particularly those crops likely to be hammered in the current round of trade talks," Stuart says. Farmers with high-value crops such as vegetables or tree fruit aren't likely to go after the energy market, says Valoria Loveland, director of the Washington Department of Agriculture. "I see this as an opportunity in agriculture for those who want to participate" to generate revenue or cut costs (as may be the case in converting animal waste to energy rather than disposing of it). In all the enthusiasm over biofuels as a way to cut oil prices and imports, too little attention has been paid to the financial incentives that will encourage farmers in Washington to participate. It's mostly been about what's in it for motorists. For the industry to achieve any significant size, people will have to start asking what's in it for the farmers. P-I reporter Bill Virgin can be reached at 206-448-8319 or [email protected]. His column appears Tuesdays and Thursdays Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/273964_virgin15.html

Empowah - I bet it has to do with the solid roof & shape of the Greenhouse. That's what I noticed first. 68 - I think this will be your fastback CUV. Fly - you missed one:

Then you'll like these pics... 1958 Riviera. You'll learn a lot by reading the captions. Exterior: http://www.kingoftheroad.net/buick/source/buick_158.html Interior: http://www.kingoftheroad.net/buick/source/buick_575.html

Clearer version of the same pic...

The interior plastic color appears to be the same "Black Amethyst Metallic" that's available on the Equinox. Perhaps the Equinox will offer interior plastic trim that matches the exterior? I wonder if the Torrent receives the same updates or will it keep the original interior to keep them different? (The PDF shows a 2006 Torrent Interior)

Yeah... I was one of them. I still agree with that idea if Buick's line-up is to remain similar... The Enclave will probably be too big or too expensive for the established market that the Rendezvous has created. I'd hate to see Buick just drop and abandon those buyers. The Rendezvous starts at $24k. Considering the possible base price of the Enclave, a Theta or TE-based Rendezvous... 4cyl & V6... would slot beneath Enclave perfectly. But GM might have changed its strategy and become ambitious with Buick's push to move upscale: The next LaCrosse (FWD/AWD) could start around $28-$30k considering it will be slotted above the $25k Saturn Aura XR That would push the Lucerne replacement up in price also. If it's on GM's Global RWD platform, the 2nd Gen Lucerne might be able to pull off the price premium. The Enclave will already have been priced close to other comparable luxury CUVs. That's a true upscale/luxury line-up, if not a very small one.

Just looked at the 2007 Car & Truck guide again... New for 2007 Lucerne CXS - Titanium Interior Trim