pow

I'd much rather have an Insignia with a Buick grille. Interior looks very 1990s show car.

Saw an SL-something-or-other with no badges and a Michigan MFG plate. It had the new nose, and some of the bodywork seemed off... I'm guessing SL63.

I still prefer the DBS.

Nice to see you can now get ABS without opting for the automatic. I'd much rather have the Cobalt, though - even if the Aveo is trimmed more nicely, the Cobalt at least has (relatively) modern "bones" and recent technology like, gasp, curtain airbags and available stability control. And it's made in the US, not Korea like the Aveo, which is surely the whole point of buying American.

My neighbor is selling his immaculate and loaded '06 GS300 for $30K... I'd much rather buy that over a base Genesis. I'm usually not a fan of Lexus, but I do like the GS. It's not boy racer like the IS, real estate agent like the RX, or geriatric like the LS. It's exceptionally comfortable and plush inside, yet it's a proper, well-engineered RWD luxury sedan, not some glorified Camry like the ES.

reg, what about a GTI? I'd take one over a Mazda Mazda3 Mazdaspeed or ASTRA or 9-3 or HHRSS or Vibe.

I'm hoping my next car will not run on gasoline. GM, Nissan, Toyota, Ford, Tesla, Fisker, don't care... they're all coming out in two to three years, and I'll go for the one I can afford.

Ride height is too high, especially from the back. For some reason cars without independent rear suspension look that way. The 18" wheels don't help with the 4x4 stance.

Passat is too expensive for its class. Its US replacment will be engineered and designed by VW-SAIC, and it will be cheaper and larger than the current version. China's taste for midsize sedans is similar to the US's - they sell the US Honda Accord there, for example, not the European Accord (TSX).

Very nice. Looks much more expensive than GM's current small car interiors.

Audi released US pricing and specs for the 2009 A4. The 211 hp, 258 lb-ft 2.0-liter TFSI will get 23 mpg city, 30 mpg highway and do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. The 265 hp, 243 lb-ft 3.2-liter FSI will get 17 mpg city, 26 mpg highway (same as the CTS) and do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds.

Here's an interesting video interview of some industry interior experts, including an plastics graining consultant contracted by Chrysler... http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/show/1207 The 2009 Ram is apparently the first to benefit from these soft-look, low-sheen finishes. Perceived interior quality is as much visual as it is tactile. Recent Chrysler interiors have too many angular shapes and not enough layers, giving it a one-piece "molded" plastic appearance. This MCE visually softens the interior.

Imagine if they could take the 9-3's excellent twin-turbo, 180 PS, 1.9L TTiD, rotate it 90 degrees, and squeeze it into the CTS... Cobalt fuel economy with Cadillac luxury and design.

Don't know what anal bleaching is like, but I imagine it would be similar to the morning after... eating spicy foods.

I haven't used a drive-thru for years - nowadays, it's getting painful to let the engine idle while going 0 mph. I've noticed with In-N-Out, sometimes it's quicker to park the car, order inside, and climb back into your car to eat, if you must. I never mastered the fast-food-while-driving thing, even with fries, but I suppose it's quite handy for passengers. Child seats must be a pain.

Agreed. It seems like GM NA is pretty much relinquishing responsibility for the development of small to medium-sized passenger cars in the US. The Cruze is primarily a GM-DAT and GME effort, and the upcoming Malibu (Epica, Magnus, et al.) will likely be the same. It makes sense considering the declining influence of the US auto market, though hopefully the American shift to smaller vehicles will give US product planners and designers more of a say. Personally I like the idea of global architectures and a big GM parts bin for local product teams to rummage around in to create unique regional vehicles. The Sequel's Hy-Wire "skateboard" chassis would be ideal for such applications. But I suppose the limited financial resources of GM and the timidness of current management will prevent us from seeing wild, wacky, and expressive American "Chevy" passenger cars in the near future.

I think what dwightlooi is suggesting is that while such an engine makes sense in the EU, that same solution might not work in the US, where fuel economy test procedures are different, where engine displacement taxes do not exist, and where company car drivers exist in far fewer numbers. Policies that have proven successful in the EU may not be as effective against the different conditions of the US car market. Take for example the residuals on the aforementioned Ford Focus. In the US, gas prices are significantly lower than in the UK, so the 2.5mpg (US gallon, NEDC combined cycle) difference between the 1.4 liter (35.7mpg) and 2.0 liter (33.2mpg) Focus would have a negligible effect on residuals. At the current $4/US gal, the difference in annual fuel bills would be $100, and even if that doubles to $8/gal, it would still only be $200.

Speaking of which, I saw a Ford "LOBO" with Oaxaca plates today... basically the Mexican F-150.

I was in my car and didn't notice the shaking until Larry Mantle stopped mid-sentence and started bawling about the quake. Then I did notice a slight rocking sensation but that was it. The callers, on the other hand, went ballistic and started sharing their OMG-I-FELT-IT-MY-PEPPER-MILL-TOPPLED-OVER stories. Anyone else find the overreaction amusing?

For VW, the powertrain warranty, which covers the turbo, remains at 5/60K. The B2B warranty drops to 3/36K, which is also the length of the new scheduled maintenance program.

+1

I know... my point is that the 138 bhp 1.4 TSI Golf has higher fuel consumption (NEDC urban, extra-urban, and combined) than the larger displacement, naturally-aspirated 1.8L 138 bhp Civic (EU). Given two engines of equal power (and two vehicles of similar weight), the smaller displacement turbo unit isn't necessarily the one with better fuel economy. The 138 bhp Golf 1.4 TSI may well get ~42mpg US extra-urban, ~34mpg US combined, and ~25mpg US urban, but in the US EPA consumer test cycles, that translates to ~25mpg US city and ~34mpg US highway, less than what the 1.8 liter Civic and Corolla (and 2.2 liter Cobalt XFE) get in the US.

Awesome Merc! I've always loved those '80s tanks.

Basically the next generation of this will be our "Malibu". The consolidation of Chevy US/Chevy Global/Daewoo cars will begin with the Cruze.

I got it... if you read the fine print, it says "class" = "compact two-doors", hence why the Corolla is excluded. That's why the Cobalt XFE *Coupe* has best-in-class fuel economy.