bobo

The Mazda5 is not recommended yet because it's a first-year model. On brands with stellar reliability records, CR normally gives a pass and recommends the vehicle. If the Mazda5 has average or better reliability for a year, they'll recommend it next year. As for the Vibe, the base engine is gutless. The high performance engine requires revving to about 5000 rpm before it starts to scoot, and that's not something that you normally do on a wagon. I thought the HHR would show better in this comparision, but it's true that the vehicle is not very roomy. I have only a few complaints about the vehicle--the tiny gauges and lack of a cargo cover, but I could deal with all the compromises because of the low cost.

That thing should be burned then buried.

The current issue of Consumer Reports tests tall wagons. Here's their overall ratings of tall wagons: 1. Mazda5 Touring 2. Ford Focus wagon ZXW SE (recommended) 3. Pontiac Vibe (FWD) (recommended) 4. Ford Focus Hatchback ZX5 (recommended) 5. Chevrolet Malibu Maxx LS (V6) (recommended) 6. Chrysler PT Cruiser Limited (turbo) (recommended) 7. Subaru Impreza Outback Sport (recommended) 8. Chevrolet HHR LT (2.4) 9. Scion xB (recommended) Excerpts: Mazda5: The Mazda5 is a microvan that possesses almost all the advantages of a traditional minivan yet is more agile, maneuverable, economical, and affordable. It has flexible, three-row seating for six people. Even with a navigation system, it costs less than $23,000. The powertrain is relatively refined and responsive but could be more powerful. The Mazda5 was recalled for a potential exhaust fire this fall. We cannot yet predict reliability for this new model. Pontiac Vibe: The Pontiac Vibe and its twin, the Toyota Matrix, are tall wagons based on the Toyota Corolla. The Vibe's compact dimensions, versatile interior, and good fuel economy make it a handy, nimble, economical runabout. However, a flawed driving position and a boomy engine detract. The Vibe is the only vehicle in this group available with all-wheel-drive. It has been very reliable. The 130-hp four-cylinder provides adequate acceleration but is noisy. The well-calibrated, four-speed automatic transmission downshifts energetically and makes the Vibe feel responsive. The wagon returned an impressive 27 mpg, the best of this group. The Vibe's interior is well-constructed, with attractively grained hard plastics. The headliner and visors feel a bit cheap, though. Most drivers found the steering wheel too far away. The steering wheel tilts but does not telescope. The small rear-window, large rear head restraints, and tapered side windows obscure rear visibility. Chrysler PT Cruiser: The PT Cruiser's interior versatility and ease of access make it a practical choice. With the midlevel turbocharged engine, our test vehicle achieved the best acceleration in this group. But the steering felt slow and handling was secure but not agile. Some controls have improved over previous versions, but outward visibility, a wide turning circle, and limited rear cargo space remain problems. Reliability has been good. Chevrolet HHR: The Chevrolet HHR shares many of the shortcomings of the PT Cruiser, because of its throwback styling. But it has more usable cargo room behind the rear seat. It provides easy access but is marred by a confined diver's space, awkward controls, and unimpressive fit and finish. The engine is unrefined, and the transmission is not responsive. We don't have reliability data for this new model. The ride is steady on the highway but a bit rough at low speeds. Road and wind noise are suppressed, but engine noise is pronounced. Handling is secure but not agile. The steering is too light and lacks feedback. In our avoidance maneuver, a tendency for the rear to slide out limited driver confidence. The turning circle is a wide 41 feet. The optional 172-hp 2.4-liter four-cylinder delivered good acceleration in our track tests and respectable 23-mpg overall fuel economy. The four-speed automatic transmission shifts smoothly, but unresponsive downshifts and tall gearing make the HHR feel lethargic in normal driving. The brakes had unimpressive stopping distances. Headlight distances are good overall, but the low beams have a sharp cutoff that reduces visibility over dips. Most interior materials are good, but wide panel gaps and visible mold lines detract from the fit and finish. Even with the driver's seat fully lowered, the head room is limited for average-height drivers. The large steering wheel tilts but does not telescope, so some drivers couldn't find a comfortable driving position. The front seats provide good support, but the head restraint was annoyingly close to some driver's heads. With the door closed, seat controls are difficult to access. The rear seats two adults comfortably, but three are cramped. The rear cushion is too flat. Access is easy in both front and rear. Controls are confusing and hard to see, especially the power window switches that are mounted on the center console in front of the shifter. The low-mounted rear-wiper switch is not on the stalk. Interior storage is limited. The light shining onto the center console is too bright and can't be dimmed. A flimsy compartment on top of the dashboard is difficult to open. there are only three cup holders. To its credit, the easy-to-use radio has an input for MP3-players. Like the Vibe and PT Cruiser, the HHR's cargo floor and rear seatbacks are covered in a hard plastic material. The front passenger seat folds for longer cargo. The HHR holds 29.5 cubic feet of cargo with the 60/40 seats folded.

Good to hear you finally located a car. I think you will be much happier with the V6 than the 4. When you load the car up with all your buddies and stuff, you'll appreciate the additional power.

Yes, like the GTP, the SS has regular, good, old hydraulic steering. The electric steering seems better calibrated on the lower G6 models than on the Malibu.

Take away fleet sales from GM, and then GMS employee/family and supplier sales, how many of GM sales are true retail sales? 30%?

I haven't driven the new Malibu SS's, but all G6 models drive a heck of a lot better than the non-SS Malibus. The G6 also looks a lot better than the Malibu. I do love the functionality of the MAXX, though.

I'm ok with fake wood in general. GM has done a decent job with it in many cars. I just don't think that the designers applied it very well in the LaCrosse. Other people may like the interior, and that's fine.

Dan Neil of the L.A. Times gave a very positive review to the new Lexus IS. His comments on the styling stood out to me: Dan Neil's Review My personal opinion is that the new IS is one of the best cars out there. Performance of the IS350 is hard to beat. Even the IS250 has adequate power. Though less powerful than the old IS300, the power that it has is easy to reach. and everything about the car is smooth. The interior appropriately befits a Lexus. The price is good for what you get. However, I still haven't warmed up to the styling.

I hate to add to the negativity of the thread, but this is an interior that belongs back in 1995, and I hope we never see the likes of it again.

I don't have a problem with flat dashes at all. I just really hate that fake wood and the eyesore center stack. The doors are plain, and the fake wood on them looks bad too. I do like the instrumentation, but overall, there's little that feels aspirational about the interior. In contrast, the Lucerne doesn't have a great center stack either, but everything else is integrated very well. I assume that the LaCrosse got stuck in that transition to the vastly improved interiors that GM promises to provide.

You know, last month I was thinking about buying a LaCrosse because of the deals, but I could not make myself like the car enough. The dealers having only stripped CX models or loaded CXS models did not help. But what finally killed the thought of getting a LaCrosse is knowing that a Lucerne will be only a few thousand dollars more for what is a significantly more substantial car. I'll say it again, the LaCrosse interior is uninspiring, and GM enthusiasts need to have higher expectations for the brand, and not just settle for what is being offered. The LaCrosse is by no means a bad car, but GM is capable of so much more.

It's so obvious to make it an Infiniti, though the Nissan dealers won't be happy.

Nice. It's good to see Lotus is still very much alive and well. I hated to see GM let them go, but it was probably for Lotus' own good.

Great-looking truck. Is that a GM Accessories bed cover? I'm curious as to the gas mileage that you get on this.

Engine and transmission in the TL are great, but the car feels soft, and the steering in particular ruins it. I thought the older CL drove better than it. To me, the TL is more of a family sedan than a sports sedan.

It depends on the vehicle. I find the crappy interior of the Silverado perfectly fine for the most part, because it's a truck. The interior of the IS300 is fine for a Toyota, but not a Lexus. However, I bought it because it's a sports sedan and not a luxury car, so I'm ok with. If I'm looking for a luxury sedan, I want a plusher interior, and that's partly why I bought the Aurora earlier. It had one of the nicest interiors ever for a GM vehicle. And that's also why I'm turned off by the LaCrosse's interior. It's better than past Regals, LeSabres, and even Park Avenues, but it's not what it should be. However, from all appearances, the Lucerne's interior is excellent. While I haven't experienced it firsthand, I have driven the new DTS, and I do like that interior.

G6 GTP?

I completely agree. Dark commercials with dark cars and unflattering visuals. In the millimeter commerical, the car looks old and ill-proportioned. Showing the car in Garnet or Crimson would have made a huge difference.

This car is about as generically anonymous as you can get in styling. The old Optima had some distinct styling.

The TL has a nice interior, but it's not a driver's car. The CTS could run circles around it. The G6 GTP is more a driver's car than the TL.

The LaCrosse interior may be better than the Regal/Century's, but it falls short of what it should be. It's entirely appropriate for a rental car, and there's nothing about it that feels upmarket in the design, quality of materials, or overall ambience in the cabin. The interior of the new Camry looks good, but it probably suffers some of the shortcomings that the new Avalon has, i.e. having an appearance of higher quality than it actually is.

Maybe it's time for these vehicles to go. I love the inline 6, and they have good rides for being truck-based vehicles, but they aren't known for good build quality, and most people would be better off with a Lambda.

Honda and Toyota typically go two generations with largely the same underpinnings. So there may be lots of commonality with the last generation. Toyota did more than enough with the car to ensure that it will remain the best-selling vehicle in the land. More than the looks, I want to know how the car drives. The last one had very sloppy handling.

Not a bad car. A co-worker, a 40ish woman, has one that looks exactly like it. The car is like a budget Lexus, a huge step up from the L-Series. And course, the only reason evil Toyota called the car a Camry Solara was to get Camry sales up. I would have thought that you would try to get something more bicycle friendly, like a small SUV. Now Satty no longer fits you. Maybe we should call you something like Toyboy (or Toyboi)?