The O.C.

Both sides of this argument are correct.....to some point......but our car culture, different as it may be from Europe and Asia, has developed for very significant reasons. People here have grown up with bigger cars....it's always been this way. Americans, even living in major urban areas, are so much more inclined to rely on personal transportation than anywhere else I've ever been or seen in England or Europe. Mass transit here simply isn't a solution for the vast majority of Americans that live in urban areas (with MAYBE the exception of NYC.) Cities like Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco all have wonderful (and popular) mass transit systems. But when you look at the population in total, the vast majority still rely on cars to get them around. Why? I'd harbor the argument that our cities and urban areas are laid out in a much different manner than most of the urban areas in Europe. Look at Chicago. People don't just live and work in the city. Nowadays, you have vast centers of industry OUTSIDE of the Chicago downtown area (suburbs like Naperville, and others near O'Hare, etc.). Same goes for people that maybe live in Atlanta.....but commute way up to Marietta or Alphretta for their jobs. Mass transit isn't as helpful in these kinds of matters. Also, the sheer scale of many urban areas in the U.S. is mind-boggling compared to the compact urban areas of Europe. This also contributes greatly to a need for cars. Or, look at Southern California. I've spent alot of time in London, for example.....and I'm shocked at how small the city and it's urban and suburban areas are compared to where I live in Los Angeles. You can leave central London by car, and within a 15 minute drive (on a light-traffic day, of course) you are out past the M25 ring-road and into the country. Urban Los Angeles, on the other hand, stretches for over 100 miles north-to-south....and an equal amount from the coast, inland. It's not unusual for me to drive 100-120 miles round-trip on a given day.....JUST to run errands.....or see clients.....or do whatever. For right-or-for-wrong, people in the U.S. are used to living this sort of way. (Many of us, that is, that live in major urban areas.) BTW....that 12K-18K mile average-per-year for the U.S. driving is grossly under-estimated......on average.....for anyone living in a major U.S. urban area and using their car daily.

The real problem with the Aztek wasn't the design direction of the concept......it was the fact that, for production, Pontiac had to mold the concept's design language to an (already outdated) minivan architecture. There's only so much you can do with an existing chassis/suspension/component set of that sort. That's been my huge problem with both the Aztek AND the Rendezvous......they both look like what they are......minivans trying to look and act like SUVs. The body language never set right with me on either car.

I'm ALL for different fuel-efficient engine options......the turbo Ecotec, the DI V6.....but to actually try to position the Camaro in the marketplace as anything less than it's traditional standing as a powerful muscle/pony car would be a disaster for GM. Look at the Mustang......young kids and nostalgic middle-agers lie in bed at night dreaming of a Mustang GT or GT500......but the vast majority of the public DO get the V6. They get the V6 because it's less-expensive, more fuel-efficient, and easier to insure. BUT it was the V8 that got them excited about a Mustang in the first place. GM needs to take the same stance with the Camaro. They'll kill it if they try to pussify it.

I'm opposite on here. I LOVE the CTS-v styling.....the grille, everything......but I'm less-than-won-over with the regular CTS.....liking my '07's more-edgier styling alot more.....

Just look at Volvo's product lineup today compared to SAABs......it really goes to show how badly GM's influence has impacted the brand. Volvo may not be the be-all, end-all......but look at the C30 (cute as a button), the C40/C50 and it's "floating console" dash and scandanavian interior design, which has now migrated to the S80 and the upcoming XC50, compare the XC70 to the (TrailBlazer) 9-7x......the new V70 wagon that's based off the S80......

Ugh.....can you picture how ugly that is going to look with the mast attached......?

I'm surprised you only got 10K on them......I guess you do drive the piss off of it. I'm not a wheel size queen either.....but there's no debating the 18's fill out the wheel wells WAY better......especially in the hind end where the rear quarter panels are pretty thick from top to bottom due to the styling..... Something we haven't discussed.......perhaps my car having 18s on it versus your 16s has a way more detrimental effect on fuel economy than we thought.....not to mention the Bridgestones are way gummier and stickier....(non M/S tires on my car.)

I agree. I'll be honest.....I'm no fan at all of the Rendezvous.....but if your wife is set on one, and liked her previous one, see if you can stretch and get the Ultra...if ONLY for the engine....

How's this...? 34K miles on the original 18-inch Bridgestone Potenzas on my CTS....and still going...!!!! (Of course, they need replacing.....but considering the rainy season is over here, and the beads aren't showing yet, I'm guessing I'll get a solid 40K out of them!!!!!!) I know you have the 17-inch Sport package, right? What brand tires came on your car? Mine are P225/50R-18 Bridgestone Potenzas......

Well if new and a warranty are important, couldn't she get a modestly-equipped Cobalt 2.2L/5-speed for close to the $12K after incentives, etc......?

Another thing to consider is....the Volt isn't an end-all-be-all for people..... Volt would never "pencil" for me over a comparable hybrid. Because I drive all over L.A. and San Diego seeing clients, there are many days that I'm putting a couple hundred miles on my car each day. In this instance, I believe, a two-mode, or Prius-like hybrid would be a better alternative for me. I think the number of people that truly travel truly short distances each day are few-and-far between......so GM has a great idea with the Volt.....but they need to be prepared for it to NOT be the "hail Mary" pass they seem to think it is.....

In order for them to deliver a production car in two years' time or less, the battery tech HAS to be nailed down ALREADY......or it's www.notgonnahappen.com

I think one point Enzl is trying to make is that.....GM is in a very precarious situation. For the car to make the impact it needs, Volt needed to be here TODAY. In another year (or less) we'll have a 3rd generation Prius.....and GM will still be another year away (if we are lucky) from introducing the Volt. What is the competition currently working on that we don't know about? Who's to say that when GM introduces the Volt, Toyota (or Honda, or whomever) introduces a superior version a few months later? Volt seems very promising.....but there's still WAY too many questions left unanswered.

And Chevy's RWD V6 coupe (Camaro) is going to give us a detuned 260hp version of the DI V6........

Well.....Cadillac didn't really take it seriously until the '02 CTS. Catera was a stop-gap....and the B-body Brougham could hardly use it's RWD to a performance advantage....before that, it was all FWD for quite some time....

There was one new Impreza.....but I don't recall it being a WRX.....

OK....(yes, I was bored today).....I decided to do another, unscientific "car count" at Orange County's John Wayne Airport. I did this a couple years' ago, and it's an interesting way to see who's driving what these days..... Plus, it's close to my house and compact so it's easy to get in and out of the airport car park. I figure the airport is a good way to cut down on the number of rental cars, that would otherwise taint the sample. I'm assuming that most, if not all, of the people that are parking their car AT the airport probably live in the area and are travelling out on business or pleasure.....(if you were to drive through, say a mall parking lot, you'd most likely encounter alot more rentals from people visiting, etc.) Total sample: 423 cars (cars and trucks combined) Asians - 183 units, 43.3% Domestics - 172 units, 40.7% Europeans - 68 units, 16.1% Toyota/Scion/Lexus - 87 units, 20.6% GM (incl. Saab) - 67 units, 15.8% FoMoCo - 62 units, 14.7% Honda/Acura - 46 units, 10.9% Other European (minus BMW, Benz) - 31 units, 7.3% BMW - 25 units, 5.9% Nissan/Infiniti - 25 units, 5.9% Other Japanese - 14 units, 3.3% Mercedes-Benz - 12 units, 2.8% Korean - 11 units, 2.6% Percent trucks/SUVs/Minivans: (I didn't separate out Lexus and Acura trucks....so not fair to compare to domestics....) Ford - 83.9% GM - 65.7% ChryCo - 60.5% Some interesting observations: * Current model GM products (other than GMT-900 SUVs and P/Us) included.....1 Enclave, 1 (new) CTS, 1 LaCrosse, 2 Lucernes, 3 G6s, and 2 Impalas. The rest were older. * No new Malibus, no old CTSs, no other Cadillacs besides 2 Escalades. * All the ChryCo cars (17 of them) were made up of 3-4 PT Cruisers, 1 old Sebring coupe, and the rest were LX cars. * Ford had the weakest car showing....only 10....made up of 1 Edge, 2 Freestyles, and 1 Sable/Montego. Rest were older. * Domestic trucks/pickups/minivans/SUVs accounted for 70.9% of the domestic products in the lot. * I was surprised Honda didn't have a stronger showing relative to Toyota. * Surprisingly.....only 1 X5/X3 in the BMW count....leaving them with a strong showing of 24 cars (one more than GM's total car count of 23 cars.)

But at the time, Ford did alot more upgrades to the basic chassis and suspension on those cars to keep them viable....not to mention things like more up-to-date interior and exterior styling changes.... I'm not an engineer....and don't have specifics....but peruse your old car rags and you'll see alot of feedback along those lines printed there. I even remember driving competitive Fords and Mercurys back-to-back with the Roadmaster when I worked there....and the Fords simply felt more "modern" when you drove them. (Again, excellent LT1 aside.)

Camaro will never be a car for GM to target highline import coupes. It never has, and never will be. Let's be realistic about it. Mustang will be, and should be, it's main #1 competitor. That's the way it's always been....and that's what I think you will see happen in the marketplace. History has shown Camaro to be the better car (at least for the last two generations) with the better chassis.....IRS or not. But Mustang has consistently spanked the Camaro in the marketplace. Time will tell if a new Camaro, with a superior chassis/suspension will reverse that trend. I just fear major problems if GM gets a "big head" about this car and tries to move it too far upmarket relative to Mustang.

Well, we can most likely assume we'll be looking at, worst-case scenario, the 360hp V8 from the G8.....and more likely the 400hp version of the Corvette motor (from the G8 GXP) don't you think....?

I know....and I wasn't "bitching" at you, just expressing my frustration. There's not a single person on this board that wouldn't LOVE a 300hp V6 Camaro.....and no one can argue the strength such car would have in the marketplace! But once again, we have more "dumbing down" of an important new GM product by the brainiacs in Detroit..... Yeah....260 is nice.....but not segment-leading.....especially when there is no (seemingly) rational reason for it. (edit: Yeah, if they said they were using the non-DI, 260hp version for cost reasons, etc., then I could understand that a bit more.....but they ARE going to the trouble of giving us the DI unit.....but with no more power than the non-DI unit.....) The 2.0L turbo could be an interesting base-model alternative though....

Don't tell me GM is still harboring that mentality? Didn't we already discuss this in another thread? That's a bull$h! excuse if I ever heard of one....and a STUPID decision for a corporation like GM to make.....(if indeed that's the reason.) You don't see BMW worring that the 135i makes as much power and torque as the 535i (for twice the money...) Or that Lexus worries that the Camry V6 has as much power as the ES350. Or that Audi is worried about the Passat having even MORE power in it's V6 than the more-expensive A4....! (280hp versus 265hp.)

First of all, he stated it would be rated 17/25. That's already what the (I'm assuming heavier) CTS with the full 300hp gets......so I don't get the "efficiency" excuse. Now if he claimed it would get something like 20/30, then that would be a difference I could see...... On the B-bodies......I'd have to argue LT1 engine option aside, Ford's fullsize sedans of that time were better cars. The B-bodies were barely changed underneath from the 1977 originals....

"crank our tractor?"

:gay: (ah-ha....another excuse to use my new favorite emoticon!) I remember GM being pretty anti-gay when I worked there.....I wonder if they've changed at all....? It was all like "shush...don't talk about it..."