The O.C.

Ignorance again.....rearing it's ugly head.....

I don't think it's a good idea to compare a 2007 model GM product to an old Hyundai Accent? <yikes>

Here we go again......sad that you guys have to blindly bash someone that makes a purchase decision and gives concise precise reasons for why he did so. He said he didn't like the looks of the Cobalt. That's his opinion and you can't bash him for having his opinion. In regards to the actual product, obviously he got a deal on the Toyota that you can't match. "Price whores" as you so beautifully called him don't become "price whores" because they chose a vehicle with..... 1) better resale value....EVEN CONSIDERING how many fleet and rental units Toyota does 2) a much higher-quality interior using much more upscale materials, better switchgear, and a glovebox lid that doesn't go "klaaaang" when you shut it 3) a vehicle with seemingly comparable features and amenities to the GM competition for a comparable price Why don't we stop bashing people like Jason and cars like the Corolla.....and get on GM's ass to start producing small cars that actually have a hint of "world-class" in them (like maybe the Astra) and that don't sell on price only. EVEN YOU, CARBIZ.....all your arguments strangely seem to be how price competitive the Cobalt is....how payments are less....the discounts that are available, etc. Seems to me that's the only way YOU seem to be ever able to sell Cobalt versus Civic, Corolla, Mazda3......

yeah....wooo hooo.....love that fit and finish where the center stack meets the console. How about the fact that the center stack is closer to the left side of the dash versus the right side? This interior is a joke....

I just had an ION 3 as a rental and drove about 375 miles between Tampa and Miami last week. We all know this already.....but it was appaling how bad the interior and exterior fit-and-finish and materials were. I was more embarrassed to be seen in this Saturn than any Kia or Hyundai rental I've had. On the plus side, you can see where they put the money......the actual ride-and-handling and powertrain were very nice.....solid chassis, nice lack of float, wallow, and buck.....and a seemless Ecotec powertrain and 4-speed automatic. In fact, this ION seemed way taughter and more solid than the Cobalts I've had as rentals....(those creaked and groaned over pavement imperfections, etc. The 2.2L could have used more power.....(or the 2.4L upgrade option) but it was quiet on the freeway, relatively smooth, and I averaged a solid 30mpg for the time I had it....and that was mostly highway driving, but at an elevated 80-85mph....with lost of foot-to-the-floor action just to get up to speed.

Ahhhh....but it hasn't been your "home town" brand for a few years now, has it..?

I think the Honda looks distinctive too..... As much as I actually like it the dual cowl/two tone setup....derivative is how I'd classify Malibu's use of corporate-bin center stack controls, steering wheel, door panels (all with Aura.)

Interesting that the Lancer turned out to be quite an attractive sedan.......and looks proportionally correct...!

I agree.....when the CTS first came out, I HATED it........really was not a fan of the Caddy. Now I own one..... Funny how things change and mature with time.

It's a big deal....and a lot bigger expense than you could ever imagine. I dealt directly with auto shows during my time at Buick (back before GM started doing everything together) and at Suzuki. Also, add on top of that the cost of having a display as expensive as it has to be for not only Detroit, but L.A., Chicago, Paris, Geneva, and all the other "large" shows. Getting out of Detroit WILL save them a toon of money....and they'll get all the world-wide press they need in Los Angeles (for U.S. shows.)

I agree with Reg. I LOVE the fit-and-finish and material usage in all Audis.....but for sheer asthetic appeal for me, BMW's recent "minimalist" interiors.....with a combination of top-quality plastics, leather, and switchgear......are my current German favorites. M45 seems too "Nissan" to me.....and M-Benzs are overdone (notice where they are putting chrome slashes, dashes, and rings EVERYWHERE inside their cars......)

Materials really aren't the problem....it's more the fit-and-finish which seems really slaphazard to me. For example, the sliding console door that hasn't worked on any single Aura i've been in....and seems ultra flimsy anyway. Also, the door panel armrests are "attached" to the door panel (as opposed to being molded as one piece with the door panel) and as a result, you put any flex on them (such as pushing down on the armrest with your hand or elbow), and they actually pull away from the door panel. Also, there's a rash of ragged cutlines all throughout the interior...on the lower dash, the console, etc. These are details that really lend a cheap feel to the Aura......and they are details that GM has shown they CAN get right in other products (GMT-900s, Lambdas, even Impala.)

Probably the only car I'd disagree on is the Aura. Nasty fit-and-finish and that "misaligned" HVAC/Radio grouping kill this car for me. GM trucks and the SRX definitely deserve the award.

Probably the fact that the Caliber does seem to have a highly efficient use of space....or so it seems to me.....lots of back seat room, cargo capacity, etc. Quality of materials are abysmal, as we've all said....but actual fit and finish of those abysmal materials has been really good in most of them I've been in....and the switchgear still works as good as any other brand out there.

LOL.....your entire rant is a wonderful example of the excuses/justification/spin that GM has been dolling out for it's substandard products for the last 20 years. Let me ask you, CARBIZ.....why should GM make me "wait for 2009" as you said.....when the other guys are offering the "good" stuff now? And....by the way....it was an LT, had the 3900 engine, and had leather with a manual recliner on the passenger side. I can read badges on a car and an engine cover under the hood just as good as the next guy.

Let me just add some comments from an updated "road test" of a 2007 Impala LT 3.9L rental car......(and by the way, Enzl, you have hit it on the head.) First.....the body was extraodinarily tight and the suspension showed a nice lack of float and wallow (I'm sure partly due to the upgraded suspension components that supposedly go with the 17-inch wheel/tire package.) Secondly.....the interior fit-and-finish was actually superior to the last few Camrys that I've been in (however, the hard shiny plastic was decidedly inferior.) Thirdly....at 1/4 throttle or even 1/2 throttle, the 3.9L engine was amazingly quiet and smooth. NOW.....here is a monster list of the things that continue to keep GM from making up for lost ground: (and I know some of these have been hashed away many times on here) * Why does this car still use a 4-speed automatic? * Why does this pushrod engine turn from smooth and quiet to downright rowdy and thrashy if you push it past 3.500 rpms (like merging onto a freeway, etc) * Why does this car have such poor packaging in the rear seat....? (hint.....W-car architecture) * When sitting in the rear, why can't I slide my feet underneath the front seats? * Why is the trunk SO huge that I can't reach stuff that's slidden towards the front of the car? (hint.....W-car architecture) * Why couldn't GM trade a few cubes in the trunk for a roomier back seat that's moved rearward some (hint....W-car architecture) * WHY IS THERE NO PRNDLE ON THE CENTER CONSOLE? (hint.....cost cutting) * Why is it that even in upgraded LT trim or SS trim this car STILL looks like a rental queen? * Why is there no auto-up on any windows, and only auto-down on the drivers window? (hint.....cost cutting) * Why is the recliner on the driver side power.....but on the passenger side it's manual? (hint....cost cutting) * Why is the steering wheel pulled SO FAR out towards the driver, with no telecoping function? (hint.....W-car architecture and cost-cutting) Don't get me wrong. I'm being harsh for a reason here. The car was entirely pleasant to drive. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to offering any inspiration. This "new" Impala is the ultimate expression of "old" GM-think. Let's hope that the new Malibu drastically changes what the public thinks of a GM car. Regarding the Civic mentioned in the original topic.....Honda doesn't ask it's consumers to accept the same sort of compromises that GM does....and that I've listed above. The styling may be "like-it" or "hate-it".....but I hope everyone understands why DodgeFan actually was impressed with the car.

The problem isn't comparing the new Malibu to a Camry in the showroom.....the challenge is getting those consumers to step into the Chevy dealership showroom in the first place. For far too many people, a GM midsize sedan simply isn't even ON the shopping list.

The new Malibu isn't any sort of exciting design either....... Attractive and modern, sure..... But no more exciting than this new Accord.....

Uh....X5 is quite utilitarian. I don't know why you'd say it's one of the "least"....?? Ours has a towing capacity of 6,200lbs (that's utilitarian) and while it's not as big in the cargo area as a Tahoe or something, we've never had a problem with not enough room to load up all of our seadoo and camping gear..... Plus, even with the sport package's 19-inch wheels, the X-Drive has always given us more than enough traction to drag the dual seadoo trailer out of the sandy muck at the lake (no paved launch ramp....launch right off the sand into and out of the water) with both boats on the trailer (about 3,500 lbs.) Most car-based SUVs can't tow over 3,500lbs.....so X5 is way ahead on this standpoint.

Hmmmm.....a hell of a lot of consumers are purchasing cars and SUVs with that "expensive, unecessary toy." Doesn't really matter what you (or I) think......but if the market is demanding it, GM better offer it....or get left in the dust. I think that's the message that is trying to be sent.

I'm "touchy feely" about them because a vehicle's interior is one of the main places where a company's level of engineering and design detail, cost-cutting (or lack thereof) and manufacturing processes are brought to light. Put a CR-V and an Equinox next to each other, and compare. Let's not even talk about hard/soft plastics. Let's look at the fit-and-finish of all the various pieces. Let's look at the feel of the knobs, switches, and sundry switchgear. It's easy to see that Honda simply sweated the details to a FAR greater degree than General Motors did (or they decided to cut fewer corners.)

Uh....what does that have to do with a discussion over the trucks' power and torque curves?

....except that the 5.7L Toyota engine is predicted to be by far the Tundra's volume engine choice (65% penetration I believe.) So the more likely match up is the 5.3L "volume" Chevy engine versus the 5.7L "volume" Toyota engine.

Where are your facts supporting an increase in Toyota's fleet sales, because I haven't seen that....?

They already have a couple RWD platforms (IS, GS Lexus) that could probably be quickly and easily decontented enough to fit a Toyota pricing structure......