pow

I've driven the new Civic. Despite the underwhelming looks and specs, it is nice in person and a very refined drive. Roomy, plush interior. Not that engaging on the road, though; it's increasingly Corolla-like in its practicality and manners. The Focus is nice but really only desirable in Titanium trim with the five-spoke 18s that make it less egg-like. But that model isn't available with a manual, and I hear the twin-clutch automatic is kinda clunky. Really, if I were shopping in this segment, I'd either pony up the cash and get something desirable that maintains its value (GTI, Golf TDI, or MINI), or I'd go for whatever deals are out there. The Focus, Cruze, Civic, and 3 are all comparable in most respects, and they inevitably will all have special incentives and lease deals going on. The Focus is a better car than the Cruze, but nowhere near worth the current $100/mo lease differential.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics, d'oh.

A planetary eCVT is way simpler than any traditional torque-converter automatic transmission. Two questions then: Why is Nissan the only one selling cars with a CVT? And why would anyone want a CVT of any kind in the first place? Planetary CVTs (power split devices) are a completely different animal than the chain-driven CVTs in normal cars. The Prius is actually an elegantly simple vehicle.

Smart vs. Crown Vic is not a real good comparison, as the Crown Vic's crash protection is about 20 years obsolete...but... You're not taking into account the most basic bits of physics. That Smart car will result in less damage to the Smart, but much more damage to the occupants, as the act of "bouncing off" will generate an obscene amount of G forces. Due to its light weight, the G forces applied to the other occupants is relatively low. The Crown Vic will not live to drive again, but the force applied to "digging in" is that much less force that is applied to the occupants of either car. And assuming the car hitting the Crown Vic is of similar size, both sets of occupants will experience roughly the same G forces. The infamous video of the Smart being run into the crash barrier at 70 is amazing, but as well as the car held up, even the professionals in the video mention the chances of survivability of passengers would be very low. Engineering and high strength steel have not trumped F=ma. This may be true of a head-on collision, but in a side crash, the integrity of the passenger compartment is far more important than the mass of the vehicle. I'd rather be violently thrown around the cabin than to be crumpled upon impact. Granted the Crown Vic is an ancient vehicle, and you can have heavy vehicles with stiff structures, but the point is that weight doesn't play a role in government and IIHS crash tests. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=657&id=2

The SRX isn't quite the RX350. At least not in terms of sales, at least not yet. But it is making a lot of inroads. The biggest problem with the SRX isn't that its FWD. Its that it is about 300~400 lbs heavier than it ought to be. This lead to acceleration that is sufficiently lethargic that even the soccer moms felt it. Ditching the 3.0 for the 3.6 helped. This car really needs the LF3 (3.0 Bi-turbo) more than any other right now. It's also quite a guzzler compared to most its competitors. An RX450h-killing SRX Plug-In using an amped up version of the VUE Plug-In's powertrain would be great. A fifth of RX sales are for the 450h model.

Don't really see the correlation between increased weight and safety regulations. Cars are crashed into walls or deformable barriers to simulate two vehicles of similar weight colliding into one another, not an X5 into an Aveo. In fact, mass without a corresponding increase in stiffness would compromise crash test performance. The same goes for side impacts. A stiff lightweight car just bounces away from the perp who hits you, whereas in a heavy car, the T-boner has a chance to "dig" into the side of your vehicle before hurtling it off to the side of the road. If a Traverse is about to hit me from the side at 25 mph, I'd rather be in a 2,000 lb smart fortwo rather than a 4,000 lb Crown Vic, honest. Also, rollover scores are determined by strength to weight ratios, not the actual strength of the roof alone. Weight in rear crash tests by the IIHS don't matter because they're tests of the seats themselves, not the car.

A planetary eCVT is way simpler than any traditional torque-converter automatic transmission.

Hybrid sales are limited more by supply than demand. All the major automakers have incentives on their conventional models but not their hybrids. Expect to pay MSRP for an Escape Hybrid but get $4,000 off the regular Escape. Around here, there's a $2,000 rebate for gasoline Fusions but nothing for Fusion Hybrids. Same goes for the Camry, the Civic, and the Sonata. Consumers love buying hybrids... but manufacturers would rather sell you a normal car, even if requires discounting. And at the end of the day, there still aren't many hybrids to choose from -- neither GM nor Chrysler, for instance, sell a single hybrid car (a Tahoe is a truck, ok?)

As someone who just graduated from college and is seeking employment, I find this thread fascinating... thanks all!

I would add a Cadillac e-series line... with vehicles like a CTS-eV coupe! E-REV transmission Two Volt motors for each axle (AWD) 300 hp, 546 lb-ft combined 24 kWH battery 2.0T SIDI 180 hp @ 3200 rpm range extender 4,300 lb curb weight 84 MPGe for 50 miles, electricity 35 MPG for 350 miles, gasoline AT-PZEV emissions 0-60: 5.2 seconds $59,000, before tax credit

Test drove one the other day... really liked it, but they only had one in stock, and it was a fully-loaded six-speed model with a $1,500 mark up. They can hardly keep them on the lots. The Juke may look like a crossover, but really it's a hot hatch. Vehicles like the GTI and MazdaSpeed3 are pretty much sale proof in the US, so perhaps Nissan thought giving it a crossover persona would help. With a turbo-4, racy interior, and six-speed manual it's a completely different car than the boring Rogue.

I drove the Odyssey last month. Amazing how much your driving style and driving conditions can affect fuel economy. For one fill-up, I drove ~250 miles using just ~9 gallons for an average of 27 MPG. And this was a mix of freeways, city streets, and hilly suburbs, occasionally carrying a full load of furniture. I kept it under 2,000 RPM as much as possible, anticipated traffic lights and surrounding traffic, and used the momentum of the van (4500 lbs...) to keep it rolling. Then I stopped paying attention to my driving style and averaged 16 MPG over similar conditions. With heavy vehicles, how you use that extra mass is crucial...

Thanks for the update! Congrats on going EV 95% of the time. Do you get ICE-anxiety?

Looks like a mule using the Giulietta's body for the sake of convenience... those wheels and tires look tiny in relation to that body. A rebadged 159 as a Sebring and a Giulietta as a Neon would have been sweeeeeeeet...

Except there is clearly still an issue with the EPA test for a vehicle like the Volt. Highway travel for me in extended range mode yielded over 60mpg and I wasn't being gentle on it. No offense, but I doubt it. Perhaps you were looking at average MPG including the miles driven with electricity? If you're not "gentle on it" you should get less than the optimistic EPA 40 mpg: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/05/2011-chevy-volt-la-to-sf-and-back-part-2.html Don't get me wrong - I like the Volt. But for it to make sense on a cost-per-mile or efficiency basis, its "range" is just as limited as the Leaf's. Perhaps Ford's Energi plug-in hybrid models will represent more of a "sweet spot" in terms of EV range and post-EV fuel consumption.

I'll take a page out of the CSpec book and post a link to an Economist article because I think it's cool and you should all read it. It's about our infrastructure and stuff: http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944 --- Anyhow, with half the world's population now living in cities and world population expected to double by 2050, the private car simply isn't going to be the primary means of transport for most people. That's why smart, forward-thinking auto manufacturers like BMW and Ford are creating long-term, strategic visions to become purveyors of "mobility solutions" - e.g., leveraging advances in connectivity - beyond just stamping out cars. A smart phone app can effectively abolish "range anxiety," and car sharing technology allows consumers to pay for the hours of automobile they use, not the time it sits in their driveway. Last week I got what I needed (2-hours) from an 2011 Audi A3 2.0T S-tronic with Open Sky and Bluetooth for $18+tax, not $32,000. Ford Urban Mobility Networks: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=28422 BMW i: http://www.facebook.com/BMWi BMW Activate the Future: http://www.bmwactivatethefuture.com/

If you need more than the Leaf's range, the Volt doesn't make sense either. For each mile driven in 37-mpg extended-range mode, the Volt loses its advantage over a conventional 50-mpg hybrid like the Prius, until you reach a point where it's actually cheaper to drive the no-plug car. Ironically, the Prius overtakes the Volt in cost-per-mile after 73 miles, exactly the EPA range of the Leaf. To travel 73 miles... Volt 35 miles EV = 13.4 kWh (amt. of energy drawn from wall to recharge with 120v) * 12 cents (national electricity price) = $1.61 38 miles ICE = 1.03 gal (@ 37 mpg combined) * $4.29 (premium unleaded) = $4.42 TOTAL = $6.03 Prius 73 miles ICE = 1.46 gal (@ 50 mpg combined) * $4.09 (regular unleaded) = $5.97 TOTAL = $5.97 So, sure, you have no range anxiety, but you end up paying the same for fuel as a conventional car.

No idea about its implications on business or jobs... but all I know is I'm really appreciating the whiff of Italianness in the new or revamped Chryslers. The brushed aluminum exterior trim on the "limited edition" models (usually I cringe at that sort of thing...) is positively Alfa Romeo, as is the Foligno leather option on the 300C Executive. Their new designs remain menacing, butch, and American, but now there's a degree of refinement, restraint, and class as well.

Love the details! The hatch passes off as very European... easily competitive with a 207, C3, etc.

I do like the front... the grille is a nice update from the overly thick bars and chrome outline of the Enclave's, Verano's, etc.

Really not a fan of this new version. Overhangs look ginormous, not just in length but in overall visual mass, too. Don't like the upward sloping line alongside the car. The Camaro-esque details look unfinished and contrived. Interior looks inspired by the Corvette's -- not exactly my cup of tea. The current car is very well proportioned, if a bit narrow.

Diesels can be amazing. The 50-state Touareg TDI gets the same fuel economy as a 2-liter Buick Regal yet it's quicker, weighs 1200 lbs more, and can tow 7700 lbs. The Touareg is in many ways the Grand Cherokee's closest competitor -- both are unibody SUVs designed for off-roading that are fairly posh but don't have a luxury badge.

It's a global Chevrolet thing. GM Daewoo and NA Chevy are converging into one brand. This car may be called a Malibu, but it's really a successor to the Epica. I don't know if I can really cosign this. Obviously the two product lines are converging to eliminate unnecessary overlap, but given the platform heritage, the design heritage, I think this is more Chevrolet than Daewoo. IMO, the design language is GM Korea ("Chevrolet") but with aggressive "Chevy" fascias front and rear. I doubt the NA version will get Chevrolet decklid badging. Global Cruze: NA Cruze:

It's a global Chevrolet thing. GM Daewoo and NA Chevy are converging into one brand. This car may be called a Malibu, but it's really a successor to the Epica.

threads like these