Northstar

I drove some Suburbans at work, and they do drive much smaller than they are. They drive better than TBs, for example.

I didn't make that comment, but I'll comment on it. Everyone that bought an '06 were undoubtedly able to get a much better deal than they'll be able to get on an '07. And it's different than the GS. The GS was a new-for-2006 model year vehicle, and rather than giving it the 3.5 from the start (it was available in the IS, so I don't see why the GS couldn't have used it) then waited a year and then introduced it. The GS situation is more similar to the 03 CTS to 04 CTS, except that the 3.6 wasn't available at launch.

I believe that's why he said "if your power grid gets its energy from sources other than fossil fuels."

"Like always" refers to the service and buying experience... the dealers are just as friendly as they've always been. "Like never before" refers to the cars... Saturn has never before had cars as good-looking as the Aura, Sky, or Outlook. So, together, they make "Like Always, Like Never Before." The buyers get the same great experience, but the cars are totally different. I think it's perfectly fitting.

They got 0-60 in 6.9? Maybe they suck at shifting. I've seen the non-Sport CTS with the 3.6 get as low as 6.6 (maybe even lower?). Hell, some publications had the 03 CTS with the old 3.2 getting 0-60 in 6.9 while most were around 7.0 or 7.1. Also, I just thought of something: The C&D SRX was AWD vs. RWD for the Edmunds SRX. Maybe that had something to do with it.

That's funny, because a lot of people would be embarassed to say the owned a Pontiac other than the Solstice.

The torque curve looks very good; there is very little lag or drop off, and peak torque is amazing for a 2L, even if it is turbocharged. There was only about a 12% loss of HP from the crank to wheels and only about a 5% loss in torque. I think it's safe to say that SAE numbers don't tell the whole story. You can still underrate engines judging from this dyno test, you just can't overrate them.

Well if that's the case it needs to look better than it does. It looks like the painted plastic in the Camry to me.

The 3er interior looks pretty good with NAV, actually. Otherwise, it sucks. The G35's interior is pretty average. The "metal" looks like what it is: gray plastic.

Thread closed, ServuceAdvisor gone for the time being (we will discuss a permanent ban in the mod forum), and hopefully things settle down.

The concept is ok, but the execution sucks. I wish they would make it look modern like the regular Wrangler or the H3T. Other than the front end it looks like an old truck.

Hopefully Cadillac markets the hell out of the new interior and it brings sales up. I don't really think there's much wrong with it now that the interior appears to be up to par. I don't know what they're talking about when they say it feels bigger than it is. It feels only slightly bigger than the CTS and smaller than the STS from my experience. Also, the 0-60 time seems really slow. I don't know if it's because it's Edmunds (they generally have slower 0-60 times than the car mags) but I think C&D got like 7.2 for the V6 to 60 in the 2004 or 2005 model.

I'd say that pricing is pretty competitive. A loaded XR should be around $38k, which is reasonable, but is anyone going to pay that for a Saturn?

You said "I don't know if that is indicative of what we can expect in terms of torque and mileage for the 2007 Tundra." Surely you do not know so little about trucks to not know that no truck gets gas mileage as good as a similarly powered car. That's what is ridiculous. If you don't know much about trucks, then that's fine, but if that's the case then you also shouldn't be guesstimating the mileage of the Tundra based on the LS460. The only thing they have in common is a V8. The LS has more gears, a lot less weight, better aerodynamics, and no doubt the engine is tuned differently for a car vs. truck.

Yep, that sounds like an LS7. And there's no supercharger whine that I picked up, so I'm wondering if they decided on the LS7 instead of the supercharged 6.2.

The base price is pretty impressive, but once you start adding some options it doesn't look as good. If you get the sport AT with a sunroof, technology package, XM, and Navigation package, and wood trim, you're looking at close to $40k. Still not bad though.

I am surprised at the apparent lack of rear seat legroom: The driver's seat is reclined, but the passenger seat looks like it's in a normal position, and there's not much more room behind it.

They don't have a million law suits because Toyota could have said "we rated it by using this method" and their number would have been perfectly justifiable under than method, even if it's not the correct way of doing it. Speak for yourself...

I think it looks weird there because that's not really how it looks in the production vehicle. If you get black it's black all the way up the stack, and if you get tan then it's similar to this except that the darker color isn't as dark. It works in the "real" SRX because everything under the wood (in this case marble) is tan so it doesn't look so out of place.

The top engine in the Silverado is the 6.0L Vortec Max. The 5.3L probably goes into over have of all Silverado 1500s.

Try again, I think it should be fixed.

Just came across this while browsing for fun: XLR-V on eBay For $80k, I don't know why anyone would buy a normal XLR at MSRP.

Does anyone know of a site that has the dimensions of the cargo area listed in inches x inches x inches rather than cubic inches? Rather than just having a figure for cubic inches, I want something that tells me what the minimum width between the two sides of the cargo area are, as well as length and heighth.

What's the torque and where is it made? The Vortec MAX torque curve is extremely flat. It has over 300lb-ft from about 1400rpm all the way through the rev range. The 5.3 has over 300lb-ft from aboutu 1600rpm all the way to about 5500rpm.

I think the marble would look better in person.