pow

I assume the battery pack won't fit inside an extended cab?

The current Escalade came out MY 2007 and for MY 2008 there's a Platinum version w/ a new front end.

Especially when non-Californians make a bigger deal out of it than actual residents, you know, all 38 million of them. And anyway, she's from New York.

Because they're practical, more efficient, and drive better than the SUV equivalent. And besides, a CTS wagon will solve the issues I have with the CTS sedan's rear seat: headroom and outward visibility.

Exactly. They bothered to give the Escalade a facelift after one year. The SRX exterior hasn't changed for years... a CTS-like front end would be great.

Freedom of choice is fine and dandy, but it's not profitable to make vehicles for the sake of offering "choice." When oil reaches $200/barrel, what's "cool" and "appealing" today - Tahoes, Escalades, HUMMERs, and whatnot - will look ridiculous.

Agreed. Buildings are responsible for 38% of CO2 emissions in the US, far more than the 20% by personal transportation. It's just that increasing building efficiency, let alone getting LEED certification, is so damn costly.

Definitely VZ.

Agreed. It looks quite tall and narrow, and the wheels are rather small.

Here in LA the goods movement industry is the largest contributor to pollution. Unregulated ships from China idle endlessly at docks burning unrefined bunker fuel. Semis, which have no emissions standards (apart from when they were manufactured, but most are 10+ years old) or smog checks, also idle forever, literally in people's backyards, as truckers wait for shipping containers to be mounted. These polluting semis then clog the 710 freeway running from the port (largest in the US) to the railyards, in spite of the newish Alameda (train) Corridor, posing a health and safety risk for both commuters and residents. Rushed and fatigued truckers, paid per container as opposed to per hour, rollover their semis on busy on-ramps. Schools, parks, and houses in low-income and working-class communities run alongside and underneath the 710, and kids are discouraged from outdoor activities for fear of lung disease, cancer, pneumonia, or birth defects. One in five Long Beach children have asthma. Organizers are pushing for port emissions regulations and more terminals that allow ships to plug-in to local electricity (as opposed to idling), like the current China Shipping terminal, but corporations say they are bound by international, not local, laws. A few are voluntarily using lower-sulfur fuel. There are existing laws against truck idling, but they're not heeded because truckers want A/C. New, expensive trucks have smaller generators for accessory power. As LA industries transitioned from mfg to shipping, workers have seen a downgrade in jobs and quality of life, in the form of lower wages and drive-by development. Now there's the issue of health. What should be done, and what the city is slowly moving towards... - replace the fleet of old trucks with new ones - retrofit existing trucks to incorporate catalytic converters and particulate filters - pressure trucking companies to purchase these trucks and hire drivers - provide financial incentives for independent truck owners to upgrade - build a greater number of plug-in terminals - create incentives for cleaner burning low-sulfur fuels used by ships - pressure big box retailers to utilize the Alameda corridor - discourage adding more lanes to the 710 - continue aiding the Alameda Corridor East Project - eventually retrofit for electric locomotives (initially the plan for the Alameda Corridor) - assist and develop local industries - encourage the purchase of domestic and locally-made goods

You do have a point. In the IIHS 31-mph 3100 lb side crash, the B-pillar in the Cobalt stopped short of the seat centerline by 2 cm ("marginal" structure), whereas with the Uplander, the B-pillar went past the seat centerline by 4 cm ("poor" structure).

Not sure how they'd price it... the Volvo C30 is surprisingly inexpensive. And 10X better looking than the Focus.

The Fresno comment was lame, but I liked the rest of the ad. Very effective and very humorous, especially the CH4 capturer thing.

Or at least use a different logo, because the font is too bubbly and cheesy.

I prefer the "elevated" look of the normal Escalade, since it doesn't react well to "sportiness", as we've seen in the silly SEMA car. But lowering ride height does improve fuel economy, handling, and ingress/egress, and it's better than having a tacky black plastic lowering kit. Can the badging be any worse, btw? With its pointy front beak, lowered ride height, and non-black paint, it's all starting to look a bit ridiculous.

The dealer nearby has a white 1LT 4-cylinder, which I test drove, and a black 3LT V-6. Overall, I liked the exterior design - even the 1LT, with its plastic chrome wheel covers and white paint - and I found the interior tolerable. Everything seems competitive with others in its class, though overall, it's not as comprehensive or impressive as the Lambdas, GMT900s, or CTS. Considering they couldn't start from a clean slate, it's a good effort. Most of my complaints revolve around the interior and the parts it shares with older Epsilons. Things like window or mirror switches, buttons for the trunk release or power pedals, seat bases or the backrest angle lever, all predate the newfound attention to detail and overall product excellence of GM, and it shows. The fit-and-finish was fine, assembly quality was excellent in fact, but the collective ambiance of cutlines, cheap switchgear, harsh upholstery, generic radio/HVAC interface, and acres of deeply-grained plastic and silver paint lent a feeling of cheapness, compared to the low sheens and soft finishes of an Accord or Camry, IMO. The VUE's interior is nicer. I also thought the front seats were a bit cardboardy, and the back seat wasn't too accommodating. There was lots of legroom, but the bottom cushion lacked thigh support, encouraging slouching. It's not as comfortable as the Accord or Camry's, IMO, and there's no center armrest or headrest (or grab handles, for that matter). Outward visibility and headroom could be better. The powertrain is okay. It's sluggish at low revs - perhaps because of its tall gearing and four-speeds - but it's reasonably muted. There are very few vibrations. Shifts from the transmission are firm but not harsh. Steering feel is unnatural, dead at times, but the average consumer probably doesn't care. I didn't like the shape of the wheel rim (I prefer something with rounder edges). Brake feel is good, once you've pushed past the initial "looseness" of the pedal assembly. In terms of driving dynamics, I prefer the Accord and Fusion. The ride was smooth, the structure felt solid, and the cabin was very quiet. So to drive, it's nothing special, and the interior has its faults. But most family sedan buyers can't be bothered to care about "driving sensations" and whatnot, and the immense power in the form of an optional V-6 is always enough to create a grin. Awesome styling, a low price, lots of equipment, a good warranty, and competitive specs make the Malibu a class leader, and I'd highly recommend one to anyone looking at an Accord or Camry.

Nice car, and it completes Saturn's new and improved line-up, but it's too expensive and won't sell in any great numbers. The cheapest automatic model with A/C is $18,280.

Nothing special. It's okay for 2001 standards, I guess.

The hype from GM back then was comparable to today's ((lots of emphasis on panel gaps, magnesium cowl braces, Epsilon architecture, remote start), but the difference is now it's actually well received by the press. The case with the GMT360s, however, was different. The press liked it (Envoy was MT TOTY), but new competition and excessive rebadging damaged it. Hopefully the Lambda experiences a different fate.

Car sharing is a great idea, and I'd definitely use it in a city with less urban sprawl. But even within suburban L.A., I can see it working in gated or condominium communities.

The ASTRA and Escape Hybrid would probably fit the bill.

If we really do have the technology right now, then that's great; that means we can improve fuel economy without "forcing" people to buy smaller cars.

No, I'm comparing '09s to '08s (not '07s).

Yes, but as we know from the carbon cycle, nature's release of CO2 is balanced by biological and physical processes (i.e. natural sinks), that remove nature's CO2 from our atmosphere. It is this unaccounted 4%, the 27,000,000 thousands of tons humans emit annually, that exceeds the balancing effect of sinks, resulting in the measured increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration (currently at 380 ppm). IMO the fact that one nation's automobiles are responsible for *five percent* of the world's net CO2 is staggering. We need action, whether it's higher fuel economy standards as Congress proposes, or higher gas taxes as this author proposes. Of course, we need cooperation from other emitting nations as well, but developed nations have the greatest potential for reducing GHGs.

Or this... I'd hope there would be some technological progress within 22 years.