Duncan

Anyone else seen the ad for the Mazda 3, in which the shamed Corolla owner closes his garage to hide his purchase from the beaming Mazda owner? Replace the Mazda in that ad with any number of other compacts, and it still makes sense. Which is sad for what used to be the absolute benchmark of small sedans, even if it was never an excitement machine. I'm still looking into the details, but I think 1999 (for the 2000 model year) is when Toyota began to lose their collective wisdom about the automotive world. Note that the original Tundra, the Echo, the original Prius, and the exceedingly boring second-gen Avalon were all introduced about that time - and that the Lexus SC and Supra were dropped about the same time. Compare this to 1982, when GM released nearly identical versions of the J-car to every single division - even Cadillac - without so much as grille and headlight differences. It took a long time, and several more crucial missteps, to make up for complacency and errors like that. One can only wonder if Toyota is undergoing a similar crisis of mediocrity at present. As for gas mileage - yes, it's important, but even with oil at a hundred bucks a barrel, I still don't think we're to the point where it will be the overriding factor for a majority of buyers. An excellent selling point (and you're beginning to see it in advertising more and more), but not yet a crucial one, I'm afraid.

Did I say that was a bad thing? I don't entirely hate Toyota, but their recent desire to take over the world via over-production is ultimately not a good strategy for them or the industry as a whole. Their slipping quality is indicative of the former; the mad competitive rush that will ultimately follow from the rest of the world should be indicative of the latter. The world doesn't need more and more cars, just better and better ones. Toyota used to be good at that, and has obviously not learned anything from GM's recent fall from grace in their addition of more brands, more production, more mediocrity, and progressively less refinement. Sure, Tundra is the "Truck of the Year". Maybe it's like when Time picks their "Person of the Year" - it's not always for the reason you'd expect.

To be honest, I have less of a problem with the Avenger than with the Sebring in a styling sense. So I agree with you there. Where both cars fall flat for me is in the overridding cheapness of detail - little things like the plain black plastic panel to finish the rear window lines, the poor panel gaps, the unpainted parts on the otherwise color-keyed outside mirrors, the rough edges on various interior pieces. It's almost like they figured "the styling will hold it together; we're not concerned with the little things." Obviously, the styling has not exactly gelled, which leaves the rest to suffer as a consequence. What's interesting is that now we should ask the same question of Chrysler that used to be asked of GM and (to a lesser extent) Ford: "Have you never been inside a Honda or Toyota?" Well, maybe Toyota's a bad example these days, given the latest Camry's slipping interior...

Let's compare this... ...with this... ...and this... ...and finally this. That would be the Intrepid, compared to the top-selling sedans of the same period. I'll let you make your own decisions there. I will simply say that of the three Intrepid competitors, the Taurus had previously been regarded as the holder of the "aero" styling crown. Compared to the Intrepid, it's like night and day in just seven short years. (As a side note, the original Lumina looks very dated today - the other designs seem to have worn slightly better over the years.) Chrysler's problem at present is not solely rooted in styling (though the Sebring could make a strong case); it's more about mismanaged resources. The 300 and Charger/Magnum were home runs in many respects, with Chrysler's usual bold lines and a new emphasis on Hemi power to sweeten the deal. When the time came to follow up those dingers with a couple of solid base hits for the future, they chose to bunt instead. (I'll stop the baseball analogy now. ) Have we learned nothing from the Japanese? Obviously, I don't want Chrysler to build boring cars again, but it would have been nice if they'd simply stuck with the solid J platform they already had and refined it into something better than the previous version. Instead, they sold that tooling off to the Russians and went with a co-engineered design shared by Mitsubishi, and clothed in styling that was obviously intended for a larger set of cars. In addition, the engineering money spent on a new platform could have been better utilized on the long-awaited new V6 engine project. Hopefully, Chrysler will last long enough for us to see better successors to these cars - as of right now, it doesn't look very good.

I don't know if that's a positive. You have to want to be in the car in order for nav to be useful...then again, they did put those handy little beer coolers in the glovebox, so at least everything can start to blur together after a while. Of course, I don't condone drinking and driving in any form, but you would have to be drinking to buy a Sebring or Avenger...

International already owns a good chunk of the medium-duty business with their DuraStar (4000-series) line. GM's efforts cover (mostly) the lower end of that market and are sold at a totally different collection of dealers, so it's a decent fit. Also, I'm sure International wouldn't mind getting an "in" with Isuzu through GM...

I love that truck - didn't even know about it until I saw it here. Nice to see pics of it in the extended-cab rather than the crew - seems like every Sierra I see is the crew; doesn't anyone buy two-door trucks anymore? Not to say I'm not still impressed by all the Sierras I've seen in this thread - very good-looking truck regardless of body style. Couple things to point out, though. First of all, don't forget that Dodge continues to offer the Power Wagon package on 2500 models. I know, it's not a half-ton, but that's the off-road package they've really been pushing. Comes standard with a frame-mounted winch, too, which is impressive from the factory. Second, that "All Terrain" badge with the mountains would look absolutely perfect if only if had the words "High Sierra" on it instead...just my thoughts.

I do agree with you on the last point. Sell Saab - you've already got Opel/Vauxhall and Chevrolet in Europe, so what's the point? As for Hummer, I think they'd do better as a straight-up competitor to Jeep, rather than an overpriced halo brand. On the other hand, GM has been far from complacent with Cadillac - out of GM's American brands, they've easily had the most engineering effort thrown at them over the last two decades. It's just taken this long for it to start paying off. Changing buyer perceptions takes a lot of time, but it's finally coming around. Same thing looks like it's starting to happen for Pontiac and Buick, too.

That's what I thought it sounded like. But even if that's the case, my Grandpa's '90 C1500 Scottsdale was hardly a vibration-monster. Loud, yes, but then again it was a truck. I've driven the same engine (5.7 Chevy) in Caprices and not noticed a thing. Even something as small as five years of continuing development can make a difference. Where the 2.8 in Grandma's '86 Celebrity was kind of noisy, the upgraded 3.1 in her '91 6000 was much smoother. And the same 3.1 in my sister's '01 Malibu was barely noticeable. I don't think he's entirely wrong - OHC engines can be more refined in many cases, but modern engineering (and a concerted effort to compete) has changed the game. Quality engineering is quality engineering, regardless of the valvetrain layout.

Bull. I love my Mazda, but the KL V6 under the hood is louder than many pushrod V6 engines I've driven, without providing much more in the way of power. Granted, it's only 2.5 liters, but if DOHC were the all-out solution to every performance problem, I should be outrunning supposedly inferior 3400 Aleros and Vulcan Tauruses (Tauri?). I don't, so what's wrong there? The 3.0-liter in my mom's '02 Camry solves most of the noise problem (possibly via insulation), but is still a little lacking in low-end torque - you have to kick down a lot on the highway, or in the hills. You refer to the DOHC V8 you own - I assume it's a Northstar. Fantastic engine, yes - lots of power, very quiet. But at the same time, think of the car it's installed in - either an Aurora or a Cadillac. Being luxury cars, if they weren't quiet by their very nature, no one would buy them. So I chalk a lot of that up to good body and chassis design more than engine layout. Biggest problem I have with OHC engines (single or double) is that you have to rev the wee out of them to get anything meaningful. To a certain extent, I enjoy that, but it's not always convenient. Sometimes you long to have instant power - and there's where pushrod engines come in. I also suspect you haven't driven a newer pushrod engine - the 5.3 I tried out in a Silverado rental a couple years back was nothing but quiet (until I punched it, of course ) and didn't have anything close to what I would call noticeable vibration. And honestly, ALL engines are going to sound harsh close to the redline. I might be wrong; feel free to provide your own experiences and we'll go from there. Ability to wind up the tach is not a judgment of performance. Looks neat on film, but what's that engine doing while you're flooring the pedal? Higher displacement is also not a detriment, unless it uses more fuel to do the same amount of work. The 3800 will do around 30mpg all day in most situations, so I don't see your point. And in cases where economy is an issue, there's always cylinder-shutoff technologies to handle that. Finally, ask Toyota how that 5.7 DOHC V8 is working out for them in the Tundra...SNAP!

Well, that's different. I thought they were actually comparing the 360hp G8 with the 500hp M5 - that struck me as odd. But when they put it that way, it sounds very good. Thanks for clarifying!

Thing is, it's a much more realistic challenge now. Much as I love them, the original Camaro and the C3 'Vette were a little..."unrefined", to put it nicely.

From Bad Boy Vettes: Very sweet. How the hell did those guys get so much clout, anyway? Also, are they getting paid for that? Oh, and here's my creative contribution for the day: Feel free to download it from my Flickr page and coat the board with it.

Finally, someone understands the point. We're Americans - we're supposed to be loud and showy, not elegant and finely-crafted. Someone also brought this ad up a while ago: Can anyone else see a new Camaro SS and the ZR1 filling the barn...?

It doesn't matter - all the British magazines will nitpick the ZR1's interior to death, then complain about the stereo's inadequacy above 197mph. Then they'll make some joke about the Americans not including enough cupholders, etc., and finally will go ahead and declare a bone-stock 911 Carrera 2 the winner of their "comparison test" because of its "purity". Meanwhile, Motor Trend will put the ZR1 on each of their next eight covers (in each color) and propose to marry it in Las Vegas, without doing much more than quoting the press release. Road and Track will use it to challenge an F/A-18 Hornet, and Car and Driver will declare a BMW M3 to be superior to it.

Watch. You'll see this at SEMA next year, no doubt. Probably jacked up on 35-inch rims, with a chrome package and neon-lit undercarriage.

Three Chinese brands...any guesses as to whether any of them will have anything worth paying attention to yet?

Sweet. I was just about to ask about that issue...

Then I'll just have to eat one less meal per day, won't I?

Nah...black, no stripes, gunmetal rims with polished lip, burgundy interior. And three pedals, please.

Why would they do that? I could see putting it up to the 550i or the E550, but the M5 is honestly way out of the G8 GT's ballpark. Now when Pontiac puts together a G8 GXP...

The ones who should be worried are the Challenger team at Dodge. The Challenger had better be awfully damn good when it arrives next year (and I don't mean styling - that's the easiest part of these cars), or Chrysler's gonna be in trouble. By the time the Camaro finally arrives, "regular" Challengers (non-SRT, that is) should also be available - it's gonna make it hard to choose if they're both good. Right now, I like the Challenger a little more for its purity of design, but the Camaro may end up being more well-rounded if GM's done their homework on the chassis.

The Wildcat might be a touch impractical, but it gets points for trying. Also, it's way out of Buick's market these days (I believe that concept is from 1986, when there were still hot Buicks to be had). As for the Cien, that needs to exist in production form, and very soon. Give it a twin-turbo V12 and start talking smack to Bugatti.

And honestly, that might have been my choice had it been in there. I would actually prefer that to their current state or any would-be "arrangement" with another company - we saw how well that worked out last time. If you blame anyone for Chrysler's current quagmire, two names should come immediately to mind: Bob Eaton and Jurgen Schrempp. Both men worked equally to get the companies together for no good reason besides "hell, why not?", made out like bandits financially, and then got out while the getting was good (at different times, of course). Everyone else just tried to get along until it became impossible. And if you think Daimler came out okay, think again. You'll note that they keep looking for partners to share in various development plans, and have recently restructured (again) to reorganize what is still an unwieldy mix of products and business areas. Besides that, the management is now in flux thanks to the return of ex-Chrysler people back to Germany. I see both Daimler and Chrysler going through serious changes in the next decade, not necessarily for the better. First thing to notice is that the new US fuel economy rules are going to hit both companies hard in this market, thanks to their over-dependence on SUVs and a serious lack of competitive (or in Daimler's case, inexpensive) small cars. Thanks to their already-strong ties in the truck market and in other segments, I see Daimler taking on a partnership role of some kind with Mitsubishi in the future. Chrysler could go any which way, honestly - into the arms of some convoluted Renault-Nissan tie-up, or folded into a Chinese automaker as just another set of brands to rebadge cheap crap with at a bargain price. I guarantee you one thing, though - Cerberus isn't gonna stick around long if the money starts to disappear. They've got other fish to fry, and Chrysler's just another investment.

You know, I had no problem with the new Impreza hatch as it was, regardless of the dodgy-looking grille treatment. I can live with that, because I like the packaging and the general Subaru "feel" (thumpy engine noises and all). But the "Outback Sport" always has to come along and ruin things. Seriously, what other self-respecting small car these days offers a two-tone paint job? Hell, not even in the 1970s - the "bad old days" of small cars - could you get something that looked this mismatched. And that was back when they offered stripe kits to fill up the whole bodyside! Cire hit it right - just sell the Impreza, and stop trying to make it butch. People who want that are already falling all over themselves to buy REAL two-tone posermobiles like the RAV4 or the Tucson. And anyway, don't you already have the Forester to fill that worthless niche?