pow

I'd rather see performance "baked" into all of GM vehicles - not just the specialty, low volume cars. They could sink into Toyota mode, or look at Honda (and Ford Europe) - regardless of power, all their vehicles are quite sporty and handle well.

How about PSA as a buyer? A Satroën C6 would be wonderful. Saturn dealers would remain in business, and since Saturn is a relatively low volume brand, there won't be much of a change in the factories.

Buick-Pontiac-GMC can be rebadges of other brands, with a few original models thrown in. Buick = Opel Pontiac = Holden GMC = Chevy trucks I suppose Pontiac can also sell smaller Opels.

There are existing full-size sedans that get 28 mpg and full-size SUVs that get 25 mpg. Chrysler's viability depends on whether it can create a business model for their EVs.

Sounds good... performance division engineers moving in to engineer normal cars. If that means John Heinricy is going to Nurburgring the next Malibu, how bad could that be?

The base CX (3.0 DI) weighs in at 3948 lbs. I would imagine a four-cylinder LaX to be ~200 lbs lighter. The 2010 Equinox (2.4 DI) weighs 3770 lbs, and that gets 21/30 mpg.

I never liked its truckish front end. Will we see a CTS-V coupe? A CTS V-Sport (CTS-V styling, minus the performance) would be nice, too.

Lookin' good. I think BBS CH wheels would look lovely on that...

The interior shrunk to about Accord size... the trunk still remains huge at 20 cu ft.

Looks good in white (third pic down)... those wheels look Brabus-inspired. 0.24Cd is very impressive; shame about the blocky interior that's inflicted recent Mercs and Chryslers.

None of the suggestions I mentioned above will "ruin" food - naturally-raised beef is not only better for you, it tastes better, too. Burning away CH4 might add some cost, but meat is still very inexpensive.

There was a NYT feature that suggested "Saturn" - the original Saturn concept - was already dead. If you look at their lineup today, it's looking much more like Opel.

They really lost it with the ION - then diverted their attention to rebadged minivans, 16-mpg SUVs, and large redundant sedans. C&D called the ION "the most disappointing all-new American car in a decade."

Changing a cow's diet (e.g., alfalfa grass) will reduce its CH4 emissions. I know Aussie scientists are looking into kangaroos, which have a bacteria that allows them to digest the same grasses that cows eat, minus the flatulence. And you could always burn CH4 for energy - Top Gear once did a "poo powered" vehicle test. Burning CH4 gives you CO2 and H2O, which isa good thing, because CH4 has 20 times greater global warming potential (GWP) than CO2. CAFE, btw, is more about our national energy policy (i.e., how much oil we import) than our national environmental policy. Addressing cow CH4 emissions won't change that.

I don't care if it starts falling apart after 26 miles - the Fiat 500 is just so damn cool, and the Abarth version gives it performance as well. I want one with plates that say "LUIGI".

I liked London, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. Florence is cool, too, but if I were to live in Italy, I'd probably pick somewhere in the countryside.

Car and Driver did a ~$40K luxury sedan comparison back in 2000. The rankings were... Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0 7) Volvo S80 T6 6) Jaguar S-type 3.0 5) Lincoln LS V8 4) Saab 9-5 Aero 3) Lexus GS300 2) BMW 528i 1) Audi A6 2.7T Being C&D, their primary focus was fun-to-drive. The Aurora got points for its styling and V8 power, but they said the handling and interior weren't competitive enough. The 3.5 Aurora should do better against less expensive competition - the ES300, S70, TL, etc.

FWIW, that E34 5-series came out in 1988; the E39 model that arrived in 1996 was much more advanced. At 8.9 seconds 0-60, even a lowly 528i would have beaten the V8 530i.

You forgot all the wagons, the clean diesels, and the xDrive models...

I'm liking it... this bodes well for the regular 5-series. The front half is much better than the melted down 7.

We had a ripe Kobocha (Japanese pumpkin) lying around in the house, so I roasted and pureed it to make pumpkin ravioli. Used Mario Batali's recipe (parm, balsamic, nutmeg + sage butter) and found it way too sweet for my liking. So the following night, I added some sauteed pork loin and mirepoix ("processed" that in the food pro) to the leftover filling, tried it again, and this time it was a nice mix of sweet and savory. Pork makes everything better...

It will probably appeal to buyers of the previous TL who are turned off by the price and ugliness of the new one. The new TSX and the old TL are comparable in interior room.

The new ugly Chryslers (so excluding 300, PT Cruiser) tend to have very good structures; they're only let down by the lack of torso airbags. In fact the Caliber has the best side structure (-14.5 cm, B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver's seat; tied with Corolla) of any small vehicles tested by the IIHS. It gets a "marginal" overall because of poor torso protection.

Since practically all new vehicles get "good" frontal ratings, they outsource the testing to the vehicle's manufacturers, hence no pictures. Occasionally they will do a frontal "verification" test.

3 large pickups don't live up to brawny image in side tests; none rates better than marginal for occupant protection ARLINGTON, VA — The Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Dodge Ram 1500, and Nissan Titan are billed as workhorses, but the side crash protection these 2009 model large pickups provide is wimpy, at best. The trio earns either poor or marginal ratings in side tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Even with side airbags, occupant protection in these crew-cab pickups is no better than marginal. "The size, weight, and height of these large pickups should help them ace the side tests just like the other large pickups we've tested. Not these three," says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. "They perform worse than many cars we've evaluated." The Dodge Ram with standard side airbags earns a marginal rating. The Nissan Titan and Chevrolet Silverado earn poor ratings when tested without their optional side airbags. The Titan's side rating improves to marginal in models tested with side airbags, while the Silverado's optional side airbags don't improve the rating over models without them. The Silverado's ratings also apply to its twin, the GMC Sierra 1500, both of which were redesigned in 2007, so the ratings apply to 2007-09 models. The Ram is a new design for the 2009 model year. The Titan was introduced in the 2004 model year, so results apply to 2004-09 models. The Institute's side tests assess occupant protection in vehicles struck in the side by SUVs or pickups. Results can be compared across vehicle type and weight categories, while frontal crash test ratings can't. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the side test depends on the weight and speed of the moving barrier, which are the same in every test. In contrast, the kinetic energy involved in the frontal crash test against an immovable barrier depends on the test vehicle's speed and weight. The Ram, Titan, and Silverado should have an advantage in side crash tests over smaller vehicles, not just because of their size and weight but also because the dummies' higher seating positions put their heads and shoulders above the striking barrier. Occupants of cars, for instance, are more vulnerable because their bodies are in line with the fronts of vehicles, especially tall ones, which might hit them in the side. "These large pickups don't have to work as hard as smaller vehicles do to protect their occupants. Even with their characteristic advantages, the Ram, Titan, and Silverado still miss the mark when it comes to occupant protection in side crashes," Zuby says. Continued: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr021109.html