pow

The US companies that demand low, low prices from their suppliers are every bit as responsible as US consumers who merely want to pay less. These companies go to China, seek lowest bidding wars, dictate pay, quantity, turnaround time, and other impossible conditions, and all that naturally perpetuates the poor quality or downright dangerous goods we read about. Meanwhile prices of goods certainly haven't fallen to match the lowered costs of production - how strange. These circumstances are very much like what we see here in the Los Angeles garment industry. Blaming the small "factory" owner who struggles to make ends meet is foolish, when those higher up systematically demand sweatshop/slave conditions. Company housing, indentured servitude, and the conditions that go with it - unpaid wages, long hours, dangerous work environments, and cut corners - sadly aren't unique to China. The reason most Chinese goods are cheap is because they are cheap. Make them properly and soon the cost benefits of "made in China" disappear. Chinese factories can and do assemble the iPhone, probably the nicest cellphone in the world, and it's not exactly inexpensive. My Treo and MacBook are both made in China, and they are perfectly fine; the Volt's battery cells, regardless of who develops - LG (Korea) or A123 (US) - or packs - CPI (US) or Continental (Germany) - them, they will likely be made in China, because that's where the manufacturing base for batteries has moved to. Hopefully by demanding higher quality goods, companies will decide to move production back to the United States, where as thegriffon noted, we have an efficiency advantage... but I'm not holding my breath.

The California population is very diverse... the people who want lower emissions and energy independence probably aren't the same ones living in a 5000 square foot home.

Here's a preview of the 550 that's to be revealed in Beijing next month... It started life as a Rover 45 replacement, but then SAIC took over and completed development of it. After only a year of existence, the Roewe brand certainly seems to be growing fast and catching on; the posher streets of Shanghai are lined with black, window-tinted, chauffeur-driven 750s, which are becoming nearly as ubiquitous as SAIC's own LaCrosse and Passat sedans. SAIC might have failed in purchasing the Rover nameplate, but the brand still takes whatever Britishness it has to heart -- in the back of a Santana 3000 taxi, I saw a Roewe TV ad that was a near clone of Jaguar's own "Gorgeous" campaign, complete with uppity people playing snooker and an Asian man dressed in Beefeaterwear. The 750 is a nice vehicle. With its 75 Coupe Concept-inspired front end, it looks imposing going down a street, and the many revisions SAIC made have kept it surprisingly fresh. Nanjing's MG7, by contrast, hasn't improved on the 75 at all, and now it looks dated parked next to its more striking cousin. This new smaller 550, which targets the popular Sagitar (MkV Jetta) and Excelle, appears to be a promising personal car.

... especially when there are so many foreign joint-venture factories already in China. When you consider how the Chinese have a 70% domestic parts content requirement to avoid tariffs on domestic-made vehicles, it's no surprise to see Accord (BYD F6) and Corolla (F3) clones popping up everywhere. With the US auto market slowing down, and the Chinese market booming, they might as well concentrate at home... http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/03/27/saic-profit-up-242/

Here she is doing Saturn on Motor Trend's site... http://www.motortrend.com/saturn/index.html

The Journey now comes with a $1000 rebate, the first for an '09 car, and that lowers the starting price to $18,895. Imagine how far an extra $1000 would have gone for a better interior...

Agreed. The ASTRA is clearly a better car than the Cobalt, but I'd rather see this performance first from a Chevy than a Saturn. The Cobalt SS already has a following and the prerequisite dealer/customer base.

The adverts for it are hilarious...

At least they have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Bridgestones tend to last surprisingly long. We have a pair of Turanzas in the front and a pair of BFGs in the back (one of the rear Turanzas had a flat after 25K, so we replaced both with new BFGs, thinking they would wear sooner), and even though the Turanzas now have 45K and the BFGs just 20K, the BFGs are completely worn out while the Turanzas have a while to go. Both are treadwear rated 400.

For some reason VW-Audi Group cars somehow magically become unreliable (or perceived as such) once they reach North America. Elsewhere in the world, the TT should be fairly reliable, as it's essentially one of the world's best-selling family cars/workhorses - the MKIV Golf - dressed in an evening gown. If she can find a good VAG specialist, and a well-maintained example... actually, no. Stick with new.

I'm not interested in the Challenger or Mustang at all, but I do like the Camaro precisely because it's more than a traditional retro muscle car. The Camaro can also be a contemporary and sophisticated sports coupe that targets 3-series or G37. To a lot of the younger generation a "Camaro" means no more than "Genesis Coupe", and GM will have to convince people to choose Camaro over EVO, STI, M, Z, etc. Thankfully the Camaro has more than just power and nostalgia on its side; it is also universally good looking, presumably competent in the bends, and available with a choice of powertrains each appealing to different buyers. Me, I'm most excited for the turbo four, and I don't care for the V8s.

Versa can be had for under $12k, too, but she'll have to live without ABS, power windows, etc.

CarsDirect pricing... may vary with zipcode: Elantra GLS: $11,732 Spectra LX: $11,466 Cobalt LS: $13,347 Caliber SE: $13,521 Focus S: $14,133 Lancer DE: $14,470

It seems like a new car is a must under those circumstances. A set of new tires or even some minor repairs can easily push her past $12K, in addition to taking time away from her residency. I'd recommend a Hyundai Elantra. I know, I know, it's ugly and heavily fleeted, but because of that, you can grab one for not much money. It's not a bad car to begin with - spacious interior, long warranty, good fuel economy, lots of standard equipment - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the best new car under $12K CarsDirect pricing.

Meh, a 2.4 liter 700-hp V8 that revs to 90,000 rpm seems more fitting with Honda's DNA, if you know what I mean...

Heavy turbocharged-four SUVs like the CX-7 and RDX don't make much sense, because their aerodynamic drag at highway speeds (where turbo engines have an efficiency advantage) kill fuel economy. The engines in the CX-7 and RDX are also on the big side at 2.3 liters. FWIW, a 3500 lb VW EOS with a 2.0 TFSI gets 21/30 MPG, as does a 3750 lb Audi A4 cabriolet 2.0 TFSI. A 3600 lb A4 quattro gets 20/28. All of them get significantly better fuel economy than their 3.1 V6 FSI counterparts.

Ah, it's the fossil fuel/anthropogenic CO2 emissions that matter, because unlike the CO2 emitted by nature, they're not balanced by carbon sinks.

That's great news... a turbocharged 4-cylinder is definitely preferable to a low-output pushrod V6. It seems like the Camaro's powertrain options will be world class. I also like how they're going one above the Mustang. With its modern styling, independent rear suspension, advanced engines, and nice interior, the appeal of the Camaro will be broader than just the retro muscle car crowd. In V6 form, this could be a sophisticated 3-series coupe competitor, and a lightweight turbo I4 version could appeal to the Silvia/Trueno/RX7 import/drifter/GT4 generation.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions...loads/08_CR.pdf pg 27: "Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 33 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2006. Virtually all of the energy consumed in this end-use sector came from petroleum products. Over 60 percent of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use.* The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft." * pg. 108: "Within the transportation sector, light duty vehicles (including passenger cars and light-duty trucks) accounted for almost 62 percent of CO2 emissions, medium- and heavy-duty trucks 21 percent, commercial aircraft 7.6 percent, and other sources just over 9 percent." Hm... yes, although 33% percent of US man emissions come from transportation, only 20% percent (62% of 33%) come specifically from cars. The EPA doesn't list the emissions from other countries' cars, but the US's alone make up 5% (20% of 25%) of the world's overall emissions. I'd imagine that percentage to be higher once you add car emissions from Europe, China, India, etc.

Very nice. Looks like an excellent commuter car - maybe even preferable to the Civic because of the miniminivan utility, smaller footprint, and better fuel economy.

In the US, cars make up a third (~32%); the greatest offender is coal power.

Courtesy of motivemag... I think it looks great... very futuristic. The designers did a great job. Now if only they can find a way to fit a hybrid powertrain in there..

Looks great... it's a very clever use of existing sheetmetal, and it doesn't look as if they merely tacked on a hard roof shell.