The O.C.

You are crack smoking again. EXACTLY my point was to compare like-sized displacements. 3.5 is only 0.1L away from 3.6L. 3.9L is 0.3L bigger....but you want to compare 3.9 to 3.6? 3.6L STILL comes out ahead in power and torque. Anyways....the WHOLE POINT was to compare a pushrod V6 to a DOHC V6 available in the same car (AURA/Malibu.) Secondly, WHY are you trying to compare a 3.6L V6 with a 6.0L V8.....? What's the point you are trying to make there? I think you are just flustered again trying to figure out how you can "spin" your way around my (very well made) argument.

......"if vehicle is driven regularly in very low temperature, -20F, V6 only" Doesn't seem like a normal maintenance requirement to me.....at least not to the vast, vast majority of owners......

First of all, I don't know that they still require that. Do you? Second of all, if true, that's a Honda "thing." I don't hear about the 3.6L HF V6 needing that sort of maintenance.....

On the LS and the Corvette.......a V8 point-of-view if you will....... I don't think ANYONE would complain about any sort of lack of low-end torque if you magically replaced the Vette's 6.2L LS V8 with, say, the Mercedes-Benz 6.2L naturally-aspirated AMG motor....! Out of the same displacement, AMG gets 518hp (to the Vette's 436hp) and 465lb/ft at 5,200rpms versus the Vette's 428lb/ft at 4,600rpms......the AMG torque peaks a bit higher, but with more lb/ft....so I bet they would be pretty comparable both at around the Vette's 4,600rpm torque peak......with much greater horsepower at that.

The adjustable suspension just masks the flaws of a poorly-designed and engineered suspension. Put it in "comfort" and you get the soft ride that's still too floppy and floaty. Put it in "sport" to firm it up, and the car crashes and bangs over potholes and bumps. I say just properly engineer the chassis from day one (which GM is getting MUCH better at doing.)

Well, not to get into another pushrod/OHC debate.....but in most ways, it IS a function of valvetrain layout. A DOHC engine with multi-valves are inherently smoother and faster revving throughout the entire rev range than a pushrod....especially at higher engine speeds. They are also quieter and tend to offer greater refinement (although GM has shown that sound-deadening techniques can quell a pushrod engine's roar at idle or low engine speeds....but can't do much about the roar as you get into the power.) Even the vaunted LS V8 engines, as good as they are, don't have the ultimate refinement of a DOHC V8 engine. JMHO.....based upon countless test drives and ownership experience with many different configuration of engines....V6s and V8s. The "low-end-grunt advantage" of a pushrod is really nearing the end of it's time with the advent of variable-valve timing, 5- and 6-speed autos (better gearing) and other technologies being applied to DOHC engines....for example, compare the performance of the AURA with the 3.5L pushrod engine (C&D, 2-07), and the Malibu (C&D, 1-08) with it's similar-sized 3.6L DOHC engine. The AURA offers 224hp, and more importantly, 220lb/ft at 4,000rpm. The Malibu, with it's supposedly "torque-deficient" multi-valve, DOHC engine, produces greater torque, 251lb/ft at an even lower 3,200rpms. Just looking at the numbers, the pushrod V6 doesn't have any advantage in low-end torque. What about the actual numbers? The AURA goes 0-60 in 7.7secs.....Malibu in 6.5secs. Again, more importantly....what about right off the line? AURA gets from 0-30 in 2.9secs....Malibu cuts 1/2 a second off that at 2.4secs. The DOHC engine in the Malibu scored 21mpg in the test compared to C&D's mileage of 20mpg in the comparison AURA was in. Even factoring in the fact that the driving conditions more assuredly differed between the AURA comparison and the Malibu stand-alone road test, it seems real-world mileage is even comparable for the more-powerful Malibu....even considering it's worse EPA ratings. Pushrod V8s may be great for full-size trucks.....and the LS seems to still be a fine fit for the Corvette, but I really see no other application that can even be close to being justified. It's clearly not just a factor of GM doing what the sheeple demand.......

No....but they know their Camry or Accord V6 purrs, hums, and has great NVH....... Durable it might be, but an Impala with the 3.5L or 3.9L simply doesn't match up to the Toyota and Honda V6s......these kind of differences definitely show up in a test-drive.

You know.....I believe there has got to be a way to engineer a "floaty" ride without giving up control..... Look at the Lexus LS460......or a M-Benz S-Class......both of those have soft, creamy rides.....but not at the expense of control. I'd love to see GM offer something comparable.....

'Biz.....the Aveo5 is the SAME BASIC OLD AVEO 5-door with a new front-end on it. If you don't believe me, compare them side to side. You'll see it shares every single bit of sheetmetal except for the front clip. (It is NOT as extensive of a styling upgrade as the 4-door was.) AND since the exterior is 90% the same, I'm assuming the architecture, chassis, and suspension are original Aveo fare.

No....but I bet they might not have bought a car with ugly proportions or a thrashy low-rev engine..... (Don't you know not to egg me on 'Biz? )

*kicks daves87rs in the nuts* (lol....j/k) I see times a-changin' fast.......had an 87-year-old man hanging out in the Caddy showroom this morning. His DTS was in for service. So I stopped him and said "hi" just to chat up some conversation. He was a super nice guy....and very sprightly for 87. I asked him how he liked his '07 DTS. What he told me shocked me........ He said he liked it, but traded in an '05 STS on the DTS because the DTS had just a bit more room and a bit bigger trunk....which is what he and his wife needed. I asked him which car he liked better..... And he said.....the DTS was nice, but he really missed driving the STS. He said he liked the firmer ride on the STS because it really helped the car handle much nicer.....even around town. He doesn't like how the DTS sometimes floats over the road. The STS gave him the Caddy luxury he always enjoyed, but was way more responsive and fun to drive....and made him feel younger whenever he was in it. Then he laughed and said....."now I'm just driving an old person's car...." (Man even the OLD people are getting tired of the geriatric stuff....!)

Well, for starters.....the 1 million people last year that bought either a Camry, Accord, or Altima......???

My '89 Skyhawk had that pushrod L4 (but I think it was an EFI 2.0L).....I think it was rated at 110hp......and it WAS hoary.....but with the 5-speed manual I had, it was relatively gutsy off the line. Plenty of low-end torque. Of course, it ran out of steam by about 50mph....LOL.... Car & Driver road tested the last-generation Cavalier coupe with a 5-speed and the pushrod engine.....and while they panned the NVH, it was relatively quick.....not that far off of what Cobalt has achieved....(I think they got 0-60 in like 8.8secs....) I'm sure the Cavalier was most likely lighter than the Cobalt as well......

Yeah.....J-cars toward the end of their lifespans with the 2.4L DOHC engine were quite peppy.....most with manuals I think were figured in the mid- to-high 7's in the 0-60 run..... I've always had a perverse affection for the J-Cars.....weird...considering how overwhelmingly mediocre they were....even from day one.....maybe it's because my first new car was a Buick Skyhawk.....

OK....I'll admit I have no idea how the Yaris drives. I'm simply going off "showroom-type" appeal of the interior versus, okay, the Aveo. I admitted I wasn't a fan of the center-mounted instruments.....but I think the hard plastics have a dull sheen that comes across decent for the price. And I don't think the controls are that bad at all. It just seems to be put together in some areas that looks better than the Aveo, which to me, still looks resolutely Korean and resolutely "Daewoo." The Aveo interior is improved over the old one, but ironically (considering how critical I am of Cobalt) I think there are some areas where Cobalt is vastly superior to Aveo! And I do find the 3-door Yaris cheeky.....cute even.....and the 4-door is not that offensive to me. Guess we just agree to disagree. I wouldn't buy either one.....(Aveo or Yaris) so....whatever....

I'm sorry....."mechanically unimpressive"......are you crazy? What are you smokin'? How do you EVEN remotely justify that statement?

Lord you seem to CONVENIENTLY forget that I'm taking a look at these things from a MARKET standpoint. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. (Even if I don't.) I'd love to have a 6-speed manual combined with the Malibu 3.6L engine.....but as much as I might like that, I realize that it makes little sense for the overall market. If it happens to be that GM makes decisions contrary to what the market is dictating......and I don't like anyways......well that doesn't mean they don't still run contrary to what the market is dictating. It's been WAY too long that GM did something that dictated to the market. Wouldn't that be nice instead of going "against the flow?"

But see this is where "looking at the big picture" comes into play here. Take a look at the market as a whole. BTW....what's the actual penetration on the Impala (and Lucerne) column shifts? I hardly EVER see one, unless it's a base, base car.....all the others HAVE the floor console. The market has CLEARLY moved away from it.....even Toyota decided against engineering a column shift for it's current generation Avalon (they offered one on the last one.) So...if the market is so clearly moving away from something like this, why did GM commit engineering and development money (not to mention the increased build combos that also come as a result) to something that clearly people in the vast majority aren't clammoring for anymore? You'll say that it's "not a big deal" to do it, so why not? Well, these are one of these "little" decisions that GM keeps making that makes those severe critics like me out here wonder "why" when the answer is so obvious as to why it shouldn't be done.

Yeah but see the way I look at it is......being "pro-GM" doesn't mean you have to blindly, or somewhat blindly, accept an unrealistic view of today's market, and GM's place in it. Many of us (severe) critics on here are just that.....severe critics.....BECAUSE we want the company to succeed and we tend to have strong opinions about what hasn't been done properly, and what's not being done properly.... But the "pro-GM" in us WILL allow us to have pride for GM's accomplishments.....CTSs, Corvettes, Lambdas, Malibus.....

Okay....but with the GM products, we are talking about five different cars that are very similarly priced and hold a similar position in the marketplace. (Even a LaCrosse CX or CXL is priced pretty closely to some of the other models.) I don't think anyone would compare a TL or RL to an Accord.....and even Avalon has a bit more distance from Camry comparatively equipped than what the GM units have....and of course Ridgeline is a totally different market segment than Accord.

I don't think Turbo meant to "slam" Canada, just to make the point that the (small) size of the market is hardly an accurate barometer of GM's success (or failure.) As far as GM's combined makes selling close to, or outselling, the singular Camry or Accord.....I don't know if that's true or not.......but let's consider it IS true. If that's case, GM has exhausted a vast amount of money to develop, market, and advertise five different models among four different brands......just to (supposedly) equal the effort of one Toyota or one Honda. To me....that doesn't seem like the most sound business case....... Honda's Accord has been a market success with just one architecure underpinning one car. Toyota has done it with two (Camry and ES.)

1/2 full....or 1/2 empty, I think Flint is SPOT-ON with his article about Saturn. He hit's the major point.....GM squandered the company and never embraced the cultural changes that Saturn first embodied.... I said it before....while GM has ended up fully integrating Saturn into the GM portfolio, and it's ensuing old-school corporate culture......the irony of this is that the Saturn culture and different way of doing business is what GM, in whole, needed (and still needs) to do. They never needed Saturn, the product.......but they've always needed the huge culture shift that was instilled in Saturn from day one.

I have to admit that my last time in a production G8 seemed much more favorable from an interior fit-and-finish standpoint. It's not perfect, but it is decently-screwed together and, to me, seems pretty fitting for a car in its price-range. My only real gripes, and they are not that big, is that much of the switchgear feels somewhat chintzy....but not nearly as bad as we were used to with some GM products of just a few years ago. I like the seats, I like the choices of cloth and leather options for the interior, and if the switchgear isn't fully up to Accord, or even GM "black-tie" standards, the rest of the interior feels pretty solid....as in the door panels, armrests, center console....other "hard points" in the interior that your arms/hands come into contact with. (Example: contrast that with the Grand Prix, which has a center console so poorly attached, you can "wiggle" it back-and-forth with your right hand, or the Malibu/AURA door panel armrests that pull away from the door panel if you put a modicum of pressure on the armrest.) (It IS ironic that the G8 has the same type of "dot matrix" soft-touch plastic on the top of the instrument cluster and instrument panel.....seemingly the same "dot matrix" plastic that was used, and universally panned, on the previous-generation CTS.....)

Does anyone else wonder, like me, why the Saturn and Chevy Lambdas offer both a single and a dual exhaust system and the GMC and Buick only offer the dual setup? Wouldn't it be smarter to just use the same exhaust system on all Lambdas? Especially since the single-exhaust loses 5hp.....? It CAN'T save THAT much money to go with the single system on the Saturn and Chevy......so why even offer it?

Yeah diesel prices do stink.....(no pun intended)......but you have to remember that, when compared to a Hybrid, or a low-ish powered 4cylinder car, a diesel can actually be fun to drive and give you excellent gas mileage. That TDI Jetta with 230+ lbs/ft of torque will be nicely responsive. The Alfa I drove in Europe was a 1.9L diesel....and if I remember correctly, it had around 150hp and a similar level of torque as the Jetta....and not only was it responsive, but it was damn fun to run through the gears....it truly actually made me smile..... That 335d will be awesome......