pow

ocn, speaking of bodywork, our Passat got back from the body shop a while back, after being in a frontal collision, and the quality of work performed was terrible. I was annoyed at first, but ended up not doing anything about it; I was too busy to undergo the process of getting it redone. They did fix some of the "minor" issues (missing/loose ext/int trim, door handle fell off, sidemarker fell off, missing hoses, missing belly pan, poorly fit engine compartment molding, etc), but the body panels are still poorly fitted. Based on your experience, is it unreasonable to have them make it look new again? Why are gaps and unevenness there? Is it because there's still some damage underneath, which won't allow the panels to fit properly?

IDK... to me, all old cars (50's-60's... "classic," I suppose) look pretty much the same: great, in a flashy, outrageous sort of way, certainly better than the square 70's and 80's. So I certainly can understand the POV that modern cars are too conservative. But remember, those "classics" wouldn't have stood out in its day more than an Accord in 2005.

Tahoe just in time for the holidays... mmm. Thanks for the info!

Agreed... the next Rendezvous? Most people don't need the ground clearance of SUVs anyway, and most of those car-based "SUVs" can't even go off road.

How much is that Focus? It's even better to drive than that Civic... probably cheaper, too.

My favorite bit was "Pontiac executive." Uh huh... you mean brand manager?

Nope, you're wrong....

See, I really like the concept of it. I love a 2+2 Grand Tourer, so why can't I love a 2+2+2 Grand Sports Tourer? In fact, I thought the concept model was brilliant, with its coupe-like roofline, pillarless doors, and big wheels. Why'd they make it so homely?

The Merc CL, Aston DB9, Aston AMV8 Vantage, new Jag XK, and Bentley Continental GT are hardtop 2-doors as well.

They liked its power, manumatic feature, transmission smoothness, surprising nimbleness, smooth and quiet highway ride, exterior design, cargo space, and DVD entertainment.

Without reading your post, lemme guess... you went to a Cadillac-sponsored driving event and the BMW lagged so it sucks. Yeah, I was right.

Actually, it's 18/28.

Wow, it sounds amazing... at times, almost like a Ferrari F430, but without the clarity. As far as the US-spec sedan, I like it as-is, which is modern and relatively classy. The Mugen version looks like, well, a souped up, Prius-shaped car trying to be sporty... it just doesn't work. The coupe reacts better to mods. On one hand, I'll concede the new Si is a great car at a great price. I'd enjoy driving one, but owning one? I don't know... when you buy a Honda, you end up, with a Honda. :P Whereas if you buy a MINI Cooper S or Golf GTI, you don't. But yeah, it's definitely on my shopping list.

Overall, they liked it a lot. The problems they encountered were... Stalling (reconnecting battery per incident was a temporary fix; bad engine control module was to blame) UltraView sunroof cracked (15,842 miles) Key and remote faulty (20,411 miles) Wobbly gearshift Interior rattles Squeaks from steering column Their complaints of the car itself were limited to the wide rocker panels, which hindered ingress/egress, visibility, trip computer, and interior quality. The cost to service/maintain it over 40K miles was $701, and they averaged 17 MPG, with a fuel cost of $5671. "All in all, our long-term SRX V-8's performance will help, not hurt, its chances of secruing a third-straight 5Best Trucks trophy. And even as GM's employee-discount deal was scheduled to be called off September 6, screaming deals on an SRX are likely not out of the question, especially since the cars are flying off dealer lots like penguins. A sensible Caddy at a sensible price -- what more could you want?" 2005 Cadillac SRX V-8 Price as tested: $60,645 0-60: 7.1/6.8 (new/40,000 miles) 0-100: 18.3/17.5 5-60: 7.5/7.2 1/4 mile: 15.4@92/15.2@93 70-0: 188 ft/183 ft 300 ft skidpad: 0.78g/0.79g Top speed: 141 mph/144 mph Scheduled service/repair stops: 3 Unscheduled service/repair stops: 4

From Car and Driver: 'Although it's true that what comes out the tailpipe of a fuel-cell vehicle is plain ol' water, getting the hydrogen into the tank is hardly a pollution-free task. Many advocates of fuel cells often suggest electrolysis—producing hydrogen from water using electricity—as one process that could reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. But in all the fuss over hydrogen, what's being overlooked is the fact that it takes about 20 percent more energy to drive a mile on hydrogen produced by electrolysis than on gasoline. And although a fuel cell itself produces no greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen), the process of producing hydrogen via electrolysis releases roughly 24 percent more of these gases than producing and burning gasoline in a vehicle. Some suggest generating this huge amount of electricity in a pollution-free fashion—using solar cells, for example—but it's far too costly for now. However, most hydrogen today is produced from natural gas via a process that is about 60-percent energy efficient (compared with 80 percent for gasoline refining). But since fuel cells powering electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline-powered engines, their overall efficiency is about 10 percent better—and they also produce about 45 percent fewer greenhouse gases. However, if all cars were powered by cells fueled by hydrogen from natural gas, overall natural-gas consumption would increase by 66 percent. And most of that natural gas is sitting underground in the Middle East." So based on current technology, it's "save the environment, but import from the Middle East" or "reduce foreign dependence, but 'kill' the environment."

Ours was built in Germany (Passat).

That Ford looks very, very sexy, inside and out. The Dodge on the other hand, looks hideous.

I'm with you on the exterior. It gives me a bad 2002 Thunderbird vibe.

Wonder why they didn't test the 2006 550i. It's the same price, has the same fuel economy, but 360 horsepower instead of 325.

I *LOVE* that interior. It's retro AND modern.

Speaking of target audience, I think the STS-V's would be somewhere between the E55 (rich businessman) and the RS6 (rock star).

Here's one with 42K miles and, other than the ignition coil recall, no major problems.

Sausages, bananas, and hot dogs were a favorite of mine as a kid.....

"Value" is subjective. For instance, I think $30K for a basic 3-series is a small price to pay for a car that shares its engineering with more expensive cars. Sure, you could get a bigger, more powerful, loaded-to-the-gills Camry with leather, electric seats, and plastiwood, but I think stability control, build quality, structural integrity, curtain airbags, and customer care are worth more. At the end of the day, I'd take a well-built car that I'd be genuinely happy to spend time in, over something that'll leave me reassuring myself that the extra "goodies" were brilliant. Where do I think GM fits in? I think most GM products are priced competitively, but they're not the smashing deals a few have made them seen, equipment-wise. I don't know where CARBIZ got the $7K CDN difference, but a similarly spec'ed Accord EX V6 ($27,850) is cheaper than an Impala LTZ w/ moonroof ($28,430). What about me? I'm willing to sacrifice the ~40 horsepower and get myself a smaller engined, equally well-equipped, but "nicer" 2.0T Passat.

I guess the question is whether or not the STS-V is good enough for an emotional purchase. The fact that it's a fast, expensive Cadillac should be enough, even though I disagree.