The O.C.

.....not with a base pushrod V6 and 4-speed automatic.....OR a curb weight ranging from 3500-3600+lbs....

I..... was..... just....... kidding.......

I paid almost $65 for a Chevrolet......

Ditto.......

The 4th gear on those 4-speeds was very tall....helping aid highway fuel economy. The problem is....that left huge chasms (relatively speaking) inbetween gears 1 and 4. Passing acceleration can also be improved with a 5 or 6-speed auto because you have a wider choice of ratios to dip into for increased power depending on the driving/passing conditions. Many times driving say a 4-speed auto, I find that you punch it to pull out to pass, and only get a downshift to 3rd gear because 2nd is geared to short to keep acceleration peppy from a stop....and therefore the tranny won't grab it.

Skip shift is a piece of crap...... If I actually allow the skip shift to take me into 4th gear when it wanted to, even my very torquey Corvette can't comfortably accelerate. It bogs down and VERY slowly picks up speed. That can be even bad in heavy traffic. Dragging it from 1st to 4th at that low of engine speeds just drops the car into a hole. I always bypass it unless I happen to not be paying attention. You can bypass it by either, shifting from 1st to 2nd at below about 2,000rpms, or accelerate in 1st to just past 2,300rpms, or wait to pull the shift lever back out of 1st until the skip shift indicator light goes out (a second or two.)

6 gears = basically better performance and better fuel economy due to the fact that the gear ratios can be closer together, keeping the engine in the meat of the powerband upon acceleration....and having more gears allows you the opportunity to make 6th gear taller for quieter and more efficient crusing....and make 1st and 2nd gear shorter for more lively off-the-line acceleration.

I don't think you are necessarily that far off base......if at all.....

Amen.

Unfortunately offering the "Super" version of the LaCrosse is like polishing a turd. Okay...I don't think the LaCrosse is a total "turd" but I think you get my point. The architecture and platform is so old, these cars will never be truly competitive cars overall..... I'm driving a Mercury Montego rental car now....and bland as it may be, there's absolutely no arguing that the car is a packaging MARVEL compared to any $22-$32 car in GM's fleet. AND the whole car feels way more up-to-date.

Dude....you are so FULL of it..... whatEVER...... OKAY let me modify my comments......"based upon sitting in literally a dozen different Camrys at the dealership, pouring over the detailed specifications of the vehicle, it's suspension, it's engine, it's transmission, and pouring over every inch of the AURA specs and pictures we've all been privy to....AND my experience driving the AURA's platform mates G6, Malibu, and my experience driving the previous generation Camry...which even that car compares well against GM's entries.............the AURA is a joke compared to the Camry, each way you look at it." Opinion? SURE...it's my OPINION. But I bet my opinion is far closer to the truth that many on here are willing to admit....

.....gee....and let's see where Toyota's products are at by THEN...... Same ole, same ole.....

The AURA's a joke compared to the new Camry......in any way you compare it. Sorry....but the truth hurts, GM.....

I don't know.....I'd say that even GM isn't at the level of organization, efficiency, and customer service that CostCo is at..... I'd say they have a ways to GO before then can begin to equal the quality of the business model found at CostCo....

I feel the same way.....there's almost NOTHING to bring me into a GM showroom...... If GM can't keep people like us, that once had a strong sense of loyalty to GM, how can they EVER attract those young people that have grown up knowing nothing BUT imports, imports, imports...? It's sad.....really sad......

That's actually HOT....! Next-generation Skylark anyone? Nah...it's what the Skylark should have been a decade ago.....

I'm thinking that's a typo and 4-speed automatic cars get the 3.5L with 227hp (same engine as AURA) and the 6-speed manual cars get the 3.9L with 240hp (like they do now.)

I agree about too many engine choices.....but at least its a step in the right direction. And I didn't notice that the 6M is not available with the HF V6.....tsk, tsk, tsk.....GM never learns, do they? Did they modify the center stack?

"....OH what a FEELING......." "....Toyooooooooota....!"

Well, I'm not a big fan of its style.....I think it looks dated. However, two things...... 1) The interior does look to be of extremely high quality in terms of materials and fit-and-finish. When I sat in them at Frankfurt last September, the interiors WERE typically impressive. 2) IF it does ride-and-handle nearly as well as C&D reported (and it did show some damn impressive numbers) then it should be a cracker to drive.....very un-econobox-like... Also, an 8.7sec 0-60 for an economy car is not exactly snail-like.... AND it's got the "Honda" name. Nuff said....for many folks out there.....

That's absolutely true.....and Camino, sorry bud, but you really are way off base here.... Look at Evok's posts about this topic.....and he has an insider viewpoint not only on GM, but on national interests such as the economy as well....he's THAT well connected. He knows his stuff.

I disagree. I think that's a cop-out.... (not cop-out by you....but a cop-out by GM.) I worked for GM for many years in product development for Buick in Flint. They can do it if they want to.....it's all relative. Corporate beauracracy and bean-counters are the ones that kept US from doing what we really wanted to with Buick.... By your example above, a C6 shouldn't come in ANYWHERE near $45K. It's simply THE value standout in its segment.....and also one of GM's best-executed products as well. It's "cheap" AND "first class" AND dealers AND GM are making money on it. Same thing for the GMT-900's. In this month's Motor Trend, a $66K Escalade just about TRUMPED a $90K Range Rover Supercharged. Ford is in a similar cost-situation with GM.....but look at how much of a better car the far-older Focus is compared to Cobalt in terms of fit-and-finish, ride-and-handling, steering feel, and overall solidity. It may be old, but the Focus was a VERY well-executed product by Ford from day one....and that's what has helped it stay competitive this late in the game.

Speaking of V6 Camaros....... When they were new, I had a '93 Camaro with that 3.4L V6 and a 5-speed manual tranny. Now THERE was a dog..... At the time I couldn't afford/justify the insurance of the V8.....being under 25 and all....so I ordered a V6 Camaro but loaded up with t-tops, Bose stereo, Z28 wheel package, etc. I even liked the first advant-garde dash design in that generation Camaro over the mid-cycle restyle they did. YES...mine had those "yellow" gauges. Also, mine had the worlds-worst-sounding Bose stereo ever...! Remember the Bose in the '93 Camaro? It had 3 (!) speakers!!!!! Two in the dash, and one more back in the luggage compartment area...(I think they improved it with the mid-cycle dash change and stuff......) BUT it was a looker of a car, and was very tight, and handled great. But MAN it had no power.....(I think contemporary tests of a base V6, 5-speed Camaro of the time was 0-60 in 9.2secs...from a C&D comparison of that with the base Mustang.)

It's simple really...... If GM can execute a Cobalt, or G6, or AURA, or LaCrosse, or Lucerne as expertly as they have executed the C6 and GMT-900s......GM's problems will have gone a long way towards being over. It's all in the execution folks....

Oh..... Well, my story is not to bash the 3800V6 Camaro....I actually REALLY think it was great (at the time) when GM made that engine change. CERTAINLY beat anything Ford was offering in the Mustang at the time....and the car was surprisingly close to the V8 Mustang automatic in performance.... I was only making the point that it's not just "low end torque" or "high-revving power" that makes an engine better....or quicker.....or snappier.... You just have to look at the total engine package and what they bring to the table. The few "high-revving" DOHC/multi-valve engines that I don't think are extremely flexible are the Honda 2.2L S2000 engine and the Toyota "hi-po" 1.8L VVT engines.... I think with those you lose way too much flexibility for them to be competitive in day-to-day driving. Most other multi-cam/multi-valve engines are quite flexible in everyday driving and compare well to the pushrod/torquer engines.