The O.C.

It does. (EDIT: It's not just a factor of changing a few plastic pieces.....it costs alot of money also in tooling, etc as well......just for a model-year or two....)

The Enclave I had as a rental averaged 14mpg while I had it.....not exactly steller..... .....but then again, I don't expect much from ANY CUV that weighs 5,000lbs.....

The idea of GM having a car in 2008 with a pushrod V6 and a 4spd automatic is mind-blowing.......

"BETWEEN NOW and the next TWO YEARS...."

I'd say don't spend the money engineering the car for that......(EDIT: It can't be good for body integrity/structure either.....unless you bump up the curb weight with heavy structural additions......) It doesn't seem to be anything the market has picked up on as a necessity.....or else others would have followed Saturn's lead a long time ago. (MINI Clubman excepted...)

What? Didn't see that...... But a few of the manufacturers are coming out with a system that you can pre-set a speed as the driver that when you exceed it, the car gives you some sort of notification. It's supposed to operate like setting a cruise control.....but doesn't keep your speed down, only notifies you when you've exceeded your own pre-set speed......

Looks like an Entourage or Sedona to me.......those door-handles are dead ringers for the ones on the Hyundai and Kia...... I'd say they nabbed a Korean MCE.....

I would think so.....however, GM is having problems making the HF V6 very fuel efficient.......why is it that seemingly everyone else can build a competitive, modern, DOHC 24-valve V6 that gets decent fuel economy numbers.....but GM can't....? With 34,000 miles, I still only average between 17-19mpg in mixed driving in my CTS 3.6L....and that's WITH a manual tranny......long highway cruises at 80-90mph only get me around 22-23mpg..... Compare Malibu's EPA numbers versus Accord V6s or Camry V6's......seems to be quite a difference....... However on the other hand, a 300hp twin-turbo 535i has the same EPA numbers as a DI 3.6L CTS.......??? (Edit: On the other hand, I think it's close enough that the mileage isn't the biggest factor......I'd vote for the 3.6L/6-speed for the performance, smoothness and refinement, and if nothing else, be neck-to-neck with the competition as far as powertrain technology "bragging rights" compared to using the pushrod engines and 4-speed autos. GM, for right-or-for wrong, gets dumped on by the press, and discerning consumers, for it's continual use of "old-tech." It's an easy way to get past that....start using the better technology you have on the shelves right now.)

I voted that it doesn't bother me....IF you consider the straight definition of "Polygamy" which is having multiple wives. If that's what your "religion" or "beliefs" endorse, then who am I to argue? It doesn't affect me. Looking at it another way, there's a huge portion of our (heterosexual) population that will go far out of their way to insure that I, a gay man, will never be allowed to legally marry the man I want to spend the rest of my life with. Therefore, I can't and won't condem polygamists. HOWEVER, clearly having sex with minors, no matter what your beliefs on marriage, IS illegal and should be condemed at all costs....and those individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Unfortunately, with a new Cobalt somewhere on the horizen, even seemingly minor changes such as the ones you suggest above are horrendously expensive to do. Remember, even with styling changes such as that, you still have to re-certify the car for crash tests, and such.....

Then that doesn't bode well for 3.9L fuel-efficiency in the large Lucerne, does it....?

While I'm not a huge Acrua fanatic, cars like this, and the Audi A3/A4 (with the 2.0T) could become more-and-more popular. Efficient 4-cylinder-engined "premium" sedans, etc, with a decent amount of fun thrown in for good measure. Makes me wonder if BMW will consider bringing some of it's valvetronic L4 engines over here? Or if Benz will re-introduce the L4 SC engines in it's C-Class? What about a "base" CTS with the 2.0L Turbo cranking out 260hp?

GREAT sighting last night! My bud (OCCarNut) and I were in Laguna Beach having drinks and dinner last night......PCH was closed about 1/2 mile down the street from where we were due to a water main break.....and traffic was jammed on PCH while we were walking about the town. We saw a whole gaggle of current BMWs with manufacturer plates and spread in between them was: 1-Series Convertible - All camo'd up. With the convertible all in the press, un-camo'd....we were wondering why this one was all done up? Could it be an M1 variant, and BMW was trying to conceal some bodywork changes??? X6 - This had a minor bit of camo on it....but sounded like the I6 when taking off.....so probably wasn't anything more than a bone-stock X6. However, this car (SUV? SUV Coupe?) looked REALLY good in person.....the rakish roofline looks striking. This thing definitely comes off better in person when you see it driving down the street. NEW 7-Series (!!!) - This was the best sighting...! This car was really camo-d up.....but you could tell it was a 7 due to the size and you could see the body sides around the doors and door glass pretty clearly. It keeps the same greenhouse design, but curved-up a bit it looked like. You could tell it was a new 7....the door handles are completely different and located/positioned clearly differently than in the current car. It was tough to tell due to ALL the camo, but it looked like it isn't as hunkered-down to the ground as the CS concept that BMW showed recently. However, there was significant camo ON TOP of the hood and decklid....so it could have represented some "faked" bulking-up of the body...in other words, with the camo off, it might be far sleaker than it appeared on the street last night. I was able to get a peak inside the car because it was stuck in traffic and I just ran out and looked in from behind it through the rear window. It looked to have the same double-bump dash as the current car, but alot swoopier (?) like perhaps how the 6-series dash looks in comparison...? The bangle-butt seemed to be reduced in this version (or so it appeared through the camo. Sorry I didn't get any pics.....but it was nighttime out, and I tried with my camera phone, but they didn't come out too well (nighttime...plus all black cars with black camo, etc.)

Well.....it can't be the size of the engine. If the 4.6L can fit, I'd assume the smaller 3.6L V6 would fit. Perhaps it's the tranny that won't fit. However, if you can fit a 3.6L V6 and 6-speed combo in a Malibu, why not a Lucerne? Finally.....LaCrosse used the same 3.6L 4-speed combo....so if it WAS the tranny, why not use that combo in the Lucerne? I think it's ludicrous whatever the reason.......GM's being so boneheaded.....STILL......great to see your buddy down the street in a $25K Malibu with a more advanced, smoother, and more powerful V6/6-speed combo than your "premium" Buick. (Edit: And before any one tries to argue that the "traditional" Buick buyer preferred the pushrod V6s, let's just ALL remember the fact that this division and this corporation will NOT survive if they are going to solely rely on their "traditional" buyers.........)

....and why does the G6 Convertible with the 3.9L only get 16/22? That's pretty piss-poor in anyone's book.....Is it because it's such a porker? Or what?

uh....gee ya think it might have been because they only offered it in the top-line CXS model? <DUH> We all know how price-sensitive a car the LaCrosse is.....it's no wonder the volume was in the cheaper CX and CXL models. I'm aghast in seeing that GM is dropping the HF V6 in the LaCrosse, and not putting it in the Lucerne......and btw....where is the family of HF V6s...? What happened to the 2.8L? Why not a competitive 2.8L or 3.0L DI HF V6 to complement the DI 3.6L? Buick is simply asking for every single bit of bad press they get between now and the next two years before we see these cars' replacements......you KNOW everyone will harp on the fact that one of GM's "premium" divisions is relying solely on such "old-school" and "out-of-date" V6 engines for their two cars.

True......I forecast a barely evolutionary change....at best...... Corvette is like the 911.....which has remained true to it's styling and engineering heritage for decades. RWD, V8-powered, front-engined, 2-seater, long-hood, hatchback rear deck.....I don't see the Vette moving from this formula in the slightest. However, I would like to see some significant refinements take place in order to reduce the "crude" nature the current car has compared to it's competition......the still somewhat "junky" feel of the chassis/suspension/transmission.......and the interior styling/quality.

I'm lucky to see one......period.....

exACTly.......and they saved dollars in one of the worst areas IMHO...... Escalade is sweet.....and has a kickin' interior.....but the third-row is a joke in comparison to it's competition........

Not to HIM.....geez....don't worry.....LOL Plus he couldn't afford to rent it from me for what I could get for it.......

What about Peter DeLorenzo on the show? Seriously....? Everyone's favorite "AutoExtremist?"

NO POSTS YET? Isn't ANYONE on here a big Speed Racer fan like I am????????? I know you younger guys most likely don't relate to the show....but what about you older guys????

The ONLY reason this show WOULD have worked, is if it adhered closely to it's british cousin.....and been called "Top Gear" over here......and had someone like Jay Leno or Jerry Seinfeld to lend a strong bit of credibility to the show. Not that many people (outside of his demographic) know much about Adam Carolla, and Dan Neil certainly isn't a "household" name. They needed to model the show very closely on Clarkson's show.....because I think, from talking to people, Top Gear (the british version) is pretty highly regarded over here. Plus, there was a plan to also do a U.S. "Top Gear" magazine to go along with the show.....like they do in Britain.

I still remember it vaguely....even though I was so young. It seemed pretty built up even then from what I remember......but at the time, it seemed to be where the St. Louis suburbs ended. I'm sure the city has sprawled even further west past Chesterfield by now......