pow

By the way, with all the gloom and doom over CAFE... the regulations really aren't as tough as they seem. From another thread...

Six-cylinder engines still make sense in many applications... I mean, looking at our driveway, we have a 4400-lb minivan (Odyssey) with a 3.5L V6. Turbocharged four-cylinders tend to guzzle in heavy cars, so that won't work, and a V8 would be too powerful and even thirstier. There isn't a single non-hybrid V8, car or truck, that gets more than 16 mpg EPA city. And the 5-series... the choice of a six-cylinder also makes sense. BMW's twin-turbo 3.0L performs as well as their 4.8L V8, yet it gets several more MPGs.

You only live once... go do some smoky burnouts with that hairy-chested V6 torque monster. You get a far nicer interior (no cheesy piping and shiny leather to deal with), the LTZ chrome pieces probably cost $12.95, and if the 5-7 mpg drop is too much, you could always slow down.

In some parts of Europe nearly all non-exotic luxury cars are purchased as company cars, given to managers of some sort as a kind of perk. It's the only way most Europeans can afford to drive a nice expensive car. The reason why these business users choose, say, a 320d over a Mondeo - well it may be driving dynamics, low fuel consumption, reputation for safety, styling and design, or it may very well be simple badge snobbery.

Despite being a "production" design, these are still one-off, pre-production design prototypes, and the actual car in 2011 will be different. The wheels definitely won't be 18s, as they are now.

Congrats. Get your BT phone and iPod hooked up and enjoy the ride through those steering wheel controls.

I know the DTS isn't particularly modern in both engineering and design, but I do like it... I think it's cool in an old-school, windows-down, Ray Ban Wayfarers-on sort-of-way. At $45-60K, there are more advanced cars out there - the MKS, for instance - but it's a bargain when used. You can get a current-generation DTS for well under $20K, the price of a new Cobalt or Focus.

Yes, they promise at least 100 for government/business/fleet use in 2009, and at least one production EV model in 2010.

The GM 5L40E in our 5-series has been treating us well... I believe it was made in Strasbourg. And, besides, isn't that Vichy France?

Initial quality control is a bit off, though... Driver side halogens, passenger side HIDs.

I like it... it has character.

Now add to that, Cobalt...

Very nice. This makes the Evora, T&C, and Wrangler even more interesting than their gasoline counterparts (400 lb-ft in a minivan?!). Electrification of the automobile doesn't mean we'll all be driving horrid ecoboxes..

I'm going to say Honda Fit and Dodge Ram.. Has anyone even driven the '09 VUE 2-mode?

Interesting how it went from HUMMER (all caps) to smart (all lowercase)..

It looks quite big actually. This could replace the Lucerne in segmentation... Current LaCrosse -> New Regal (rebadged Insignia) -- $24-34K? Current Lucerne -> New LaCrosse -- $30K-40K?

Speaking of plug-ins, and influencing buying trends by incentives, they're actually quite similar here. Yes, McCain has his $300 million prize to whoever develops the perfect battery, and Obama has his 1 million by 2015 plan - but both favor tax credits for plug-in hybrids and electric cars. McCain "will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives." Obama's is similar (up to $7,000), plus $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for US auto companies.

In terms of energy and transportation (what the car enthusiast in me is most interested in), both candidates have similar goals and rhetoric, but in terms of actual policy proposals, Obama at least details how we're going to achieve these goals of reduced oil consumption, increase alternative fuel usage, minimize energy speculation, etc. Both McCain and Obama support flex-fuel vehicles and alternative fuels - according to his website, McCain "believes they should play a greater role in our transportation sector" and "McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs," which is nice, really, but his beliefs and calls alone won't guarantee that the cars we drive will indeed take such fuels. Obama, according to his website, will work with Congress and auto companies to specify a deadline (end of his first term) for mandatory FFV capability. McCain "believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers' choices", but at the same time he wants to "eliminate [ethanol] mandates, subsidies, tariffs, and price supports." Obama, on the other hand, "will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030", by investing federal resources, "including tax incentives and government contracts, into developing the most promising technologies and building the infrastructure to support them." Another interesting bit of policy: Obama "will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard ... [which] requires fuel suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years," or in other words, incentivize private investment in advanced biofuels (the only way to reduce carbon in fuel). Obama's energy policy was also unique in that it proposed legislation to regulate and close loopholes on oil futures trading, though recently McCain has jumped on that bandwagon as well. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_e...eech_080308.pdf http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/P...618454bb82d.htm

2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LS XFE - Short Take Road Test Xtra Fuel Economy may not be thrilling, but at least it’s not torture. September 2008 At first glance, the Chevrolet Cobalt appears to be suffering from neglect. Its generic, character-free interior and exterior design was already a step behind the competition when the car launched in 2005, and little has changed in the intervening years. Now that the Cobalt is riding out its final years before its replacement, the Cruze, arrives in 2010 as a 2011 model, that’s sort of a moot point; we wouldn’t expect Chevy to invest heavily in its lame-duck compact, after all. But rising fuel prices and America’s growing interest in fuel-efficient cars spurred the giant to stir the Cobalt pot a little bit, as the automaker combined some fuel-saving tricks and technology to create the Cobalt XFE. Chevy introduced the XFE (XFE stands for Xtra Fuel Economy) package for the 2008 Cobalt. For an extra $600, the ’08 XFE package came equipped with a 148-hp, 2.2-liter four-cylinder mated to a manual transmission, low-rolling resistance tires, a taller final-drive ratio (3.74:1), and a fuel-sipping engine calibration. Fuel economy jumped up from 24 mpg city and 33 highway to 25 mpg in the city cycle and an impressive 36 mpg on the highway. For ’09, the Cobalt’s 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine gains variable valve timing and output rises to 155 horsepower. The XFE remains a manual-only proposition, but the tweaks are now standard on Cobalt LS and 1LT trim levels. An even taller (3.63:1) final-drive ratio is another change on the 2009 model that helps it bump highway fuel economy up to 37 mpg. In our hands, the ’09 Cobalt XFE returned 29 mpg combined in mostly city driving. In our 2005 test of an automatic-transmission equipped 2.2-liter Cobalt LS, we managed 27 mpg. Peaceful, Easy Sippin’ The fuel-economy gains of the XFE aren’t huge by any means, but the nice thing is that the XFE package requires no sacrifice from the driver to return superior mpg’s. The taller axle ratio isn’t noticeable in the lower gears; in fact, the Cobalt XFE sprinted from 0–60 mph in a very respectable 7.5 seconds, which makes it one of the quicker cars in its class. In our “Little Feet” comparison test of eight compacts, the Cobalt’s time would have placed it behind only the Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and in a tie for second with the Volkswagen Rabbit S, ahead of the Scion xD, Ford Focus, Suzuki SX4, Saturn Astra, and Toyota Corolla. At highway speeds, the taller gearing for fifth keeps the engine revs low and the engine hushed. Downshifts to fourth are necessary for quick passes, as fifth-gear acceleration from 50–70 mph takes a long 13.3 seconds. The XFE’s low-rolling-resistance Continental tires squeal with less provocation than we remember experiencing in the regular Cobalt, but the 0.77 g of skidpad number matches the grip from our 2005 test vehicle. The 200-foot stopping distance from 70 mph is almost inexcusably long for the class and adds 12 feet to the number posted by the ’05 Cobalt. Our XFE lacked optional power windows, locks, and mirrors, but instead of making the Cobalt feel like a hair shirt, the do-it-yourself Cobalt exuded an honesty that is missing in many cars. The Cobalt drives like a simple and inoffensive transportation appliance, and many staffers commented on how nostalgic such a stripped car felt, how it reminded them of their first cars. (We doubt they’d sing the same tune after spending more than a single night in the XFE, however.) Gets the Job Done, but Exciting It’s Not Some might call the Cobalt XFE dull—and it is—but it is also competent. Although the Cobalt doesn’t exactly encourage the driver to flog it, the Chevy has no glaring dynamic flaws, the shifter moves crisply, it goes where it’s pointed, the ride is supple without being soft, and the engine goes about its business without drawing any negative attention. This car’s not quite as refined as the king of compact competence, the Toyota Corolla, but the Cobalt does start $400 cheaper, at $15,670. The only options fitted to our test car were a $180 Protection package (floor mats and body moldings), a $75 spare tire, and anti-lock brakes, which cost $400 and we consider a crucial add-on. The total was a thrifty $16,325. If you’re willing to forgive the cheap-looking interior and the plain exterior styling, and are looking for an inoffensive car that’s easy on the wallet, the Cobalt XFE may just be the ticket. But always keep in mind that there are more exciting, more refined, and certainly better cars in the Cobalt’s segment. VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan PRICE AS TESTED: $16,325 (base price: $15,670) ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block head, port fuel injection Displacement: 134 cu in, 2198cc Power (SAE net): 155 bhp @ 6100 rpm Torque (SAE net): 150 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase: 103.3 in Length: 180.5 in Width: 67.9 in Height: 57.1 in Curb weight: 2817 lb C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec Zero to 100 mph: 21.6 sec Zero to 110 mph: 28.3 sec Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph Top speed (governor limited): 114 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 g FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 25/37 mpg C/D-observed: 29 mpg --- While we're on the subject of second-tier compact cars, Ford has the '09 Focus up on its website now. Rear headrests are now offered, and ESC is bundled with ABS, a good deal.

Yeah, I've been forever delaying the switchover... now it's mandatory, and to my virgin eyes it's all confusing and cluttered looking, especially with the more dynamic wall. I'm sure I'll eventually get used to it.

+1 That's the best Astra 5-door color, IMO.

New Facebook

Is the US getting this? It looks like it could slot beneath the new LaCrosse. It'll be a good car that can help revitalize the Buick brand.

This time it looks pretty good... http://jalopnik.com/5052288/2010-buick-lac...-of-lincoln-mks

Uh, no?