Duncan

Absolutely correct. The concept of branded divisions hasn't been current at GM since the mid 1980s, and was not even that relevant as far back as the mid-1960s where marketing is concerned. I don't think Pontiac (or Hummer) has anything to worry about. Saab may be a different story...

You assume that the average person does that much research. They've seen ads for the Malibu, and maybe a newspaper article or something like that. Maybe they've heard from a friend who's into cars that the Malibu is one to watch for. Nice thing is that, even if there's a shortage now, GM seems willing to maintain it for a little bit to keep up enthusiasm and demand for the car (refer to the Enclave). It did seem to work okay for Honda and Toyota during the 1980s and early 1990s. That said, it certainly wouldn't hurt if more people considered the Aura - it's at least as good on a technical level, though not quite as roomy inside.

No comment, except to say that I now need to know nothing more about you to know where you're coming from on this, or any other topic.

I would argue that the HHR already is this type of vehicle, but in an American frame of mind. Not quite as utilitarian (except in panel form), but I suspect the next generation will offer more in that respect for buyers who need it. The Mazda 5 is the only thing on our market to more closely hit the target these two French haulers occupy, but it's being pitched (and rightly so) as a sporty minivan rather than a utility vehicle.

Keep in mind that the "old" Chrysler had this idea long ago, but didn't act on it: The Jeep Dakar concept, introduced for 1997 and promptly shoved aside in favor of the Liberty by the shortsighted DaimlerChrysler team. Not sure why this would have been so hard to produce...

Note that the problem, overall, is that both the Avenger and Sebring need to be markedly better to survive. It's kind of sad, considering that DC had the engineering might of two trans-continental powerhouses (and an assist from Asia) and STILL came up with this: Half-baked styling, raspy fours, old sixes, and appalling attention to detail. How could they have gotten the LX cars so overwhelmingly right and then fumbled so badly on the second go-round? All that said, the bigger point is this: If the combined wonder-twin powers of DaimlerChrysler gave us these abominations, what makes anyone think that the now-decimated "new" Chrysler Corporation is going to be able to put together the kind of comeback engineering effort these cars need? I'm not exactly hopeful, to say the least. Which is why I say cut your losses, nuzzle up to Mitsubishi again, and rebadge the next Galant. At least until the situation improves or you merge with Ford, whichever comes first.

Ask yourself this: Why do the European makers even offer big V8 and V12 engines? For us, almost exclusively. (And for the occasional Middle Eastern trillionaire, but I don't count that.) Remember that the vast majority of S-class and 7-series models throughout the rest of the world come with a six-cylinder. With that in mind, I don't think Cadillac will suffer on the world stage if they offer a V6 (like the 3.6 DI) that's as powerful as a good V8: From the AutoWeek article: Sure, I'd rather hear a V8 under the hood, but if all the power and torque are there along with the refinement - what's the real loss? At least Cadillac's going about this the right way now, with vehicles fully engineered as Cadillacs - and not just Cimarron sequels.

This, of course, is why the Suzuki Grand Vitara exists. Still a crappy interior (though better-designed, at least to me), but you get a real truck frame, a reasonably powerful V6 as standard, and the option of a manual transmission. Not much penalty in fuel economy, either - about 1 mpg or so. That said, my choice in a so-called "CUV" is a mid-1990s Jeep Cherokee Briarwood. Standard 4.0-liter six, reasonable luxury features inside, Command-Trac 4WD, and the ability to go further off-road than the very roughest edges of the torturous gravel driveway. Plus the bonus of fake wood on the doors, like a Wagoneer.

Ah, history repeating itself would be fantastic. Kaiser-Jeep bought the tooling for the Buick 225 V6 in the mid-1960s, as GM didn't feel it was worth spending development money on. Jeeps carried this engine for several years until AMC bought the company. About that same time, GM was starting to build more small cars and needed a smaller engine to go in them. AMC sold the tooling back to GM, who promptly revised it into the 231 (3800) V6 we know and love today. So now, GM could sell the Atlas 4.2 to Chrysler, who could put it in Jeeps and trucks. Then, when Chrysler gets sold off to the Chinese (just a theory...hopefully), they could sell the Atlas back to GM!

When the wrap-up on the review includes the phrase "not very offensive", I tend to think Chrysler may have more problems than I originally was aware of. And about the weight - anyone remember when vans this size could get away with a 3.0-liter V6? Not quickly, mind you, but...

With the new CAFE regs, the LX/LY platform is going to be too heavy to cut down to midsize dimensions. So I suspect we'll be looking at an evolution of the JS platform instead. This is fine, so long as they spend the money on the details rather than just being "new". As of December, Chrysler was in the process of building their new Trenton Engine Plant for the all-new set of Phoenix V6 engines - these are reported to have high-end features like variable valve timing and direct injection, and should be on stream by the '10 model year (all this according to Allpar, which tends to be very reliable). A new 3.3 DOHC unit based on this architecture should replace the current 2.7 DOHC (thank God) and 3.5 SOHC either before or during the next model changeover. All that being said, Reg's suggestion wasn't totally outlandish either - the current Galant is not that bad a car, and certainly one I'd choose over a Sebring. Put a waterfall grille and some chrome interior trim on it, and you might have something resembling a credible competitor.

Honestly, here's the epitome of Toyota design. They should have just stopped after this...

I was not aware that Toyota had actually been designing cars, so much as putting random parts together to see what sticks.

I think you're all giving this thing way too much credit. Right off the bat, I see three things wrong with it: 1) The apparent size of the engine bay tells me "transverse V6", which doesn't imply a very heavy hauling ability to me. Ever seen a Ridgeline carrying anything heavier than the moron who bought it? 2) Those half-doors behind the main ones are a liability compared to the majority of crew-cab pickups on the market. 3) I love the sound of snapping camshafts in the morning...

I don't understand this view in light of your later comments, but I'll address this at that point. It was gonna happen sooner or later - I much prefer that we set the terms for our country's energy usage on our own time, rather than having to do it under the barrel of a gun when OPEC (or something similar) forces us to. Lutz has it exactly right: having a crappy policy is at least better than running blind. True, the auto industry is an easy scapegoat, and (unless I'm mistaken) I don't see a lot of other efforts to cut energy usage in other industries within the bill. So you have a point there. This, on the other hand, I have to call you on. For instance, I'm glad we're able to have this conversation on the Internet - which was initially created and funded by the government. Or that fine ribbon of Interstate highway you drive to Grandma's house? I can assure you that little elves did not magically spring up one day and begin laying down slabs of concrete in neat patterns. And hey, how about the collection of schools and universities you most likely have attended? I imagine they weren't built and funded strictly by force of will. I could go on, but the list is very long. Sure, there are many things the government ought to just leave alone, but the things they've helped to provide us with are far more extensive and far-reaching in their impact. Here's where I see a conflict of ideals. Your concern for humanity is laudable, and I agree that hunger and poverty ought to be high on our government's priority list. However, earlier you said it was "tough" if other countries weren't as well-developed as we are. Please explain how you can both care and not care for the poorer people of the world at the same time. Here's an easy solution. Fix health care, and Social Security will fix itself. It's more detailed than that, certainly, but suffice it to say that Social Security is not going to be this country's biggest problem in the future. I can agree with you here, though we probably differ in the solution to this issue. If the government's going to require that domestic manufacturers meet such elevated MPG requirements, the least they could do is help subsidize the development costs for them to meet those numbers. As for the imports? Much as I hate to say it (being a Mazda fan), they can pay to play or they can get out of the market if it's too tough. Yeah, I'd be sad to see vehicles get slower, but that would honestly be a short-term problem. Even then, a quick ECU reflash or change of axle ratio on most cars would probably bring back any performance loss. Americans survived the crappy 1970s with slow cars and are now better than ever - a few years of slightly duller mainstream sedans will not kill us. (It might kill Chrysler, but that's another story.) Wow. My grandpa was obviously more enlightened than yours. No offense, but I'm just saying. Aren't you already doing quite a bit of that here?

1) Do you have a source for the locomotive story? Because as far as I know, the fortunes of companies building locomotives were decimated and whittled down more by the onset of the Depression and Americans' growing preference for the automobile than by any government mandate. Railroads began to steadily (and then rapidly) decline from the 1920s and onward due mainly to these factors. There was no serious intervention from Washington until 1971, when Richard Nixon - certainly not what you'd call a "big-government" guy - signed the bills that created Amtrak and Conrail. 2) I think you're misguided as to the reasons why private enterprise was so closely intertwined with the government during the war. Contrary to what you appear to be asserting, America's industrial companies freely offered their services following Pearl Harbor (and in some cases, before). Yes, Roosevelt took the next step and asked for total mobilization, but only with the agreement of the parties involved - it was never a forced issue, with the exception that public opinion at the time would most likely have been roundly opposed to any manufacturer that chose not to help out the war effort. You'll also note that as soon as the war was over, private industry was quickly allowed to retool for civilian production - and in most cases, this was accelerated thanks to payments from the government for services rendered during the war. 3) Again, do you have a source for the assertion that Congress wants to control the markets? Frankly, it sounds a bit "tinfoil-hat" to me and not really grounded in reality. And where is anyone complaining about a lack of competition in the auto industry? Most would argue that we may enjoy too much competition at present.

Keep in mind, though, that there's also a whole segment of the population that has grown up building customized (read: lowrider-style) Buick Regals or LeSabres and still sees the brand as aspirational. I do love old Regals and Cutlasses, so I can easily see where that interest could cross over as I'm also a big fan of the Enclave. Many people also have an image of the Gran Sport associated with Buick, which is perfect. In its classic role within the GM hierarchy, Buick always served either as a plusher Pontiac or a less-flashy Cadillac. With Oldsmobile (sadly) no longer around to fill the sports/luxury role, the time is ripe for Buick to take up that mantle. Where's the goddamned Park Avenue, already...? All the handling skills of the G8 with more room and softer leather - that's a combination I'd easily consider.

Not even close, sorry. There are, as you say, two emissions standards. One for... California Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Rhode Island Vermont ...and one for... THE OTHER FORTY-ONE STATES. Of the "special" states, California and New York may have large populations, but they hardly constitute a majority. I'm not opposed to having strict emissions standards in the least, but they need to be uniform (I hardly want to see a no-regs free-for-all). It's stupid to require two different versions of every car strictly on the grounds of moral superiority. Back when California's air was unlivable (during the late 1960s and 1970s), I could have understood the need for such requirements. Now that the air - and the automotive industry - has gotten much cleaner, California's Air Resources Board is looking for reasons to justify itself. Hell, the front page of CARB's own website admits they've done their job effectively: Way to go, CARB! Now let's move forward, rather than hamstringing an entire industry.

You do know that's coming to the Detroit show, right? They're very serious about cracking the luxury market, bad translations notwithstanding. Hyundai very badly wants to be Korea's Lexus, it appears. Not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing for them, but we shall see. And I think you're off base calling Korean cars "unproven". Maybe for the early models in the 1980s and early 1990s, but quality rankings for Hyundai and (to a lesser extent) Kia have been very high recently.

My money's on the flat-six migrating over from the Legacy - they're beginning to make that the "volume" engine for American Subarus, it seems.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like BMW is cheating by using turbos? Not that they shouldn't use the technology, but if Honda is able to get over 260 horses out of a single-cam V6, shouldn't BMW - supposedly a prime engineering company - be able to do close to 300 with a twin-cam six without resorting to force? Also, I prefer the Infiniti's looks - it actually is a "sports coupe", while the 3 (as always) looks like a cut-down sedan. That the G also manages to roll with 330 natural horses and a minimal MPG penalty works in its favor too. To sum up - your dad is cool as hell. Good job raising him.

CVTs seem to make more sense with smaller engines - Nissan, Ford and Audi have made a very good effort, but "different" is not often a feeling people want to experience in the transmission of a car costing $30-40k. Haven't yet looked in any detail at a Rogue, but I suppose I'll have to make an effort soon. I will say that it beats the pants off of the CR-V for styling, and is a damn sight better than the silly-looking RAV4.

No, that would be worse from the safety standpoint - I can understand the reasoning behind brake-by-wire, but I'd rather not have my life depend on emergency-brake-by-wire. Just a reasonably-sized handbrake, as God and the WRC intended.

Of all the small cars in the world to copy (and blatantly so), they chose...that one? Why not something at least distinctive, like the last-gen Focus? Maybe they figured that even Toyota wouldn't notice...

I know it's a GM board, but people are actually bending over backwards to defend the Aztek? Seriously? And you're gonna do it on the basis of comfort and cabin plastics? To the first point - comfort. No, it's not as comfortable as an Aztek, mainly in the rear seat, because of the design of said seats. That's offset by their better flexibility (remember - fully removable, no tracks or hinges on the floor) and an overall larger usable cargo area when all is said and done. Most of that cargo area, of course, comes from the boxy exterior shape - a good example of form following function. As for the Aztek, I believe we all know function it was intended to serve, but in this case it was seriously impaired by the form that was forced upon it. As to the second point - cabin plastics. I made it pretty clear that the Element was designed as a utilitarian vehicle; hence the plastics and surfacing are more sturdy and less touchy-feely by design. Even then, the usual Honda details are still there - nice rubberized surfaces in the shelves and storage bins to keep stuff from rattling around, solid construction (no squeaks or rattles), durable and long-wearing fabrics, no rough spots or unfinished pieces. Compare this to the Aztek's (and general old-GM-style) acres of brittle paneling and sharp plastic edges, coupled with the best in American-crafted mousehide and vinyl substitute. Oh, wait, wait! You did get a free air compressor, so it's not all bad. Finally, regarding gas mileage: chalk it up, once again, to the shape. It's a rolling box; what do you expect? The Chevy HHR isn't exactly setting any economy records either, compared to some rivals. With that in mind, what's the Aztek's excuse? It's certainly sleeker - if I'm being very, VERY kind - in the front end, but that doesn't make up for its prodigious and needless weight. Enough about the Element; I like it, and will gladly defend it if need be, but I believe I've made my point. Back to the Scion xD, which is exceedingly worthy of ridicule...