The O.C.

Hmmmm......all THEIR "effort" isn't hurting Toyota, Honda, or Kia...!

C&D got a Malibu LT V6 sedan and (ironically the same time) a G6 GT at 7.9secs from 0-60 with the 3.5L engine.....so according to the "numbers" the Camry Hybrid would stay a bit ahead of either of these cars in a stoplight drag race....

I just averaged (only) 21.5mpg in a Grand Prix 3800 V6 over 300 miles. For comparison, the trip computer showed 22.1mpg. That was with very little lead-foot-driving....but not feathering the throttle either. It was mostly two-lane highway driving in and around 50mph-70mph. Next to no stoplight or city driving. There was about 20 miles that was climbing from about sea level to 4,000 feet which would drag it down, but the vast majority of my driving was "normal." Thing is....I'm not complaining. I would expect just about any V6-powered midsize sedan to average low 20's in mixed, normal driving. Sure....on a straight, 65-70mph, cruise-controlled freeway cruise the Grand Prix would probably have moved up around 26-28mpg....but more realistic driving is closer to 20mpg. A Camry Hybrid averaging 32mpg in realistic driving, with the performance capabilities of the Camry Hybrid, is a pretty good deal and worth some praise.

Whether you think it IS big or not, at least as a result the car doesn't lose it's near-50/50 weight distribution.

Depends. We use an X5 to tow our 3,000-3,500 lbs of seadoos and trailer, etc. and while that's not a ton of weight, you really can't tell they are back there. The X5 is extremely stout in structure. (Plus the 4.4L V8 makes power a non-issue.) Unibodys CAN be fine for towing.....as long as you stay within the acceptable range of use. Of course, believe it or not, our X5 is rated to tow 6,000 lbs....and with the way it copes with 3,500lbs, it would probably do just fine maxed out at 6,000.

Depends on what kind of PWC you have. Ours each weight 1K lbs a piece.....so each plus the trailer is about 3K[3.5K lbs when you factor in gas, etc.

I think two things.... 1) The GMT-900s are VASTLY improved and class-leading. The GMT-360s aren't even close. Demand for the larger SUVs is because of how competent they are. 2) Gas mileage sucks for a midsize BOF SUV like the GMT-360s (even with the inline-6) almost as bad as any fullsize V8 SUV.....so I don't see people gravitating to a midsize BOF SUV just because of fuel economy versus a fullsize. 15-16mpg in a TrailBlazer is not that much better than 13-14mpg in a fullsize.

True it looks the same, but Ford was spent WAY more money updating the Explorer than GM has with the GMT-360. Whether it pays off for them eventually or not is another question. We haven't seen ANY significant changes on ANY version of the GMT-360 other than a VERY minor facelift. No significant chassis improvements, no major powertrain improvements, and obviously no interior upgrades.

Sure as hell beats the pants off of any GMT-360. Go drive one.....it's a damn nice steer. It may look the same as the old Explorer, but it drives much better. Quiet, refined, and a solid, good-handling chassis. The interior fit-and-finish far surpasses the TrailBlazer/Envoy, and gas mileage is no better or worse than what you would get on any similar competitor. I haven't driven the V8 yet, but performance looks good in the mags. The 4.6L is a good, smooth, quiet and powerful engine. I have driven plenty 4.0L and I'm contiually impressed with this OHC engine in its truck applications....especially considering it's unimpressive horsepower number. It also mates well to the 5-speed (or is it 6-speed now?) automatic tranny. Don't bastardize something unless you've had experience with it.

C'mon.....you know I've done nothing but praise GM's pushrod V8 engines....! And you are right....not everyone wants aggressive....I was just giving MY opinion on what I feel about the two trucks. And....."pinch" you? Ahhhh.....Oldsmoboi....you don't wanna open THAT can of worms....! Hehehehe <sinister grin> :AH-HA_wink:

Aluminum or wood trim.....depending on the model. I in fact like both.

Here's a HINT.... Look at the name......"Joshiepoo"

I disagree. I think the Tundra is WAY more aggressive in its design and styling.....and I'm one of the few on here that REALLY like the way the new big Toyota looks. This Silverado looks a bit plain to me, too conservative, and not as nicely executed as the GMT-900 SUVs. I'm torn.....it looks nice....attractive....just too conservative and pussy-fied. However, the good points are surely to be the interior quality and the driving experience....which if the GMT-900 SUVs are anything to go by, will be first-class.

Another huge as to why Toyota can put an interior in the Solara that looks like THAT.....and we get that infamous G6 center stack...?

Buickman.....you seem to forget that there are those of us on here that spent a considerable amount of time living in the Flint (and Detroit) areas.....and there are those of us on here that KNOW the automobile market in Flint like the back of our hands.... You are not impressing those of us that know the reality of the marketplace up there.. Jeezus....I WORKED for Buick Motor Division for seven years in Flint...!

OK then..... Come to Los Angeles and sell Buicks!

Anything you wanna ever know about city planning in Dallas........ Thanks for the update!

You know....I THOUGHT you had spent some time down here....or was from here.....but your email sounded like someone that hadn't been here before.....so I was confused....

Selling Buicks? In Michigan? In Flint, nonetheless? Hell, selling ANY GM brand in Michigan? YES.

.....and probably only cannibilizing each other.

So....he's the top Buick salesman in the country, right? He MUST be an incredible sales consultant! Let's see how long he'd last working the line at Longo Toyota out here in L.A (largest Toyota store, and even largest dealership in the country)......or Fletcher-Jones M-Benz in Newport Beach (largest volume M-Benz store in the country.)

The vast majority of your plan is barely doable.....in MICHIGAN....and not a realistic plan to address GM's challenges in most of the country......something I've addressed, point-by-point, many times on C&G.....to which I've NEVER gotten a constructive point-by-point rebuttal of my opinions from you.... Even if GM did implement your Plan, it would certainly not entail a "Return to Greatness."

Yeah....L.A. isn't that bad....it's just that the few areas you were in are very "ethnic." L.A. has it's "Manhattan" and that would be roughly the area from mid-wilshire over to West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and the westside. It's not as high-rise-centered as Manhattan is, but from a culture, nightlife, dining, and living standpoint, it's the area most comparable to New York's swankiest borough. Everyone expects downtown L.A. to be SoCal's version of New York's "Manhattan" with all the highrises and skyscrapers. But it's not. You have to move a bit west to get more of the true L.A. "Manhattan-like" cultural scene. Downtown IS mostly a 9-5 financial, banking, and business powerhouse. Other than Staples Center, the rest of downtown rolls up the streets in the evenings. Other than that, you could say the areas you were in were most comparable to L.A.'s version of the Bronx....or some areas of Queens or Brooklyn. VERY ethnic, lower-income, but beginning to prosper in some areas (the increase in the building of lofts that you noticed.) To get a true sense of what constitues "Los Angeles,"....because of the sheer size of the city, you have to spend more time driving around and spending time in different areas than you do more centric cities such as New York, Toronto, Chicago, or San Francisco. Remember, Los Angeles spans 469 square miles, and that's JUST the city limits of L.A....that does NOT include the suburbs such as O.C., the South Bay, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, the San Gabriel Valley, etc. New York? Including all five boroughs, 309 square miles. Chicago? Only 227 square miles.....less than half the size of L.A. city. Toronto? Only 243 square miles. San Francisco? A tiny, but compact 45 square miles. Some people say that L.A.s massive sprawl is one of it's significant downsides. I see it as a true advantage in one way.....in that it offers a truly dizzying number of different neighborhoods, cultures, ethnicities, and sights to experience.

Who are they? And what have I been missing?

I guess now that I think about it.....it seems really pointless to offer a SKY and a Solstice. And it seems pointless to offer an AURA and a G6. To me, minor styling differences aside, the cars are too similar and hit too close to the same points in their respective markets. Both an OUTLOOK and a (GMC) Acadia seem pretty pointless as well.