The O.C.

Me taking a nap with my other schnauzer, Zoe......

< woooooffffff > Nice hairy chest and goatee......!!!!!! I wanna see MORE dammit of the sexy italian.....LOL

Hey.....Nick's a helluva lot closer to Orange County than he is Long Island..... < sucks to be you, sucks to be you, sucks to be you >

It's one of those tight, form-fitting sweaters (that in actuality, I prolly shouldn't be wearing....LOL)

Ahhhh but there's always been a flaw in that logic..... When you step on the gas, weight tranfer puts more weight back on the REAR wheels.....effectively REDUCING a FWD car's traction and enhancing a RWD car's traction. Does it make up totally for the difference in weight distribution, no.....but I'd venture to say that for an informed driver, RWD is not going to provide as big a detrement in the snow as for someone that doesn't know how to drive one. FWD cars are especially sloppy trying to go around corners and curves in low-traction conditions due to the inevitable understeer that develops in such low-traction conditions whereas in a RWD car, yes the tail gets happy, but you have WAY more control on where you are going. Traction is less, control is more with RWD.....so which one do you want?

Car & Driver - Fit Sport in a comparison test. 0-60 in 8.7secs with the 5-speed manual 0-60 in 10.4secs with the 5-speed automatic (recent C&D short-take) Sounds like pretty decent power to me for an economy car....!

But see? That's my point. Of course GM has a "strong presence" but in most parts of the country, it's not a "good" presence. People out here (generalization) "hate" General Motors. BUT.....they like their Cadillacs, or their Chevy/GMC SUVs, or their Silverado pickup trucks, or their Corvettes.....

Here's some more pics.......(but I don't think you can enlarge them....) Equus He's certainly a handsome, sexy guy......

You know.....ur right...... Now THAT would be a 3-some......Jake, Daniel (as long as he IS 18.....ugh) and me...... Maybe the three of us would let Ocnblu watch......

I actually think the amount of hair he has is surprisingly sexy..... So....BV....you are a trimmer, eh??

It's a play? Oh, okay..... Yeah, there were some other pics with horses in them (nothing sexual.....ewwwww) I'm not sure how old he is.....I'd peg him somewhere 17, 18, 19....late teens.

OK....now THIS is a shocker! I never imagined I'd EVER consider "Harry Potter" as "hot"......but man oh man look at him now! This photo is real....it's actually a promo shot for a new movie he's going to be starring in....... Cheers to that...!

TODAY, however.......how many Saturn owners would show up if GM sponsored another "Saturn Homecoming" at Spring Hill like they did oh so many years ago? The cars may not have had much "soul" but the people that USED to buy them thought that they did......

I've always wondered what recent attendance figures were out there for auto show......anyone know? I know the big ones are Detroit, LA, Chicago, and New York......

When trotting around NAIAS, I can say assuredly that Chrysler is putting out the absolutely most god-awful interiors in the industry. With the exception of the current LX cars, which I find quite nice inside, everything else in the Dodge, Jeep, or Chrysler lineups is pure garbage. AND you can bet the LX cars will follow suit with this cost-cutting when the next-generation cars make it here.... I've never seen a worse combination of interior plastics, colors, or fabrics than what is showing up in Chrysler's latest designs. The actual STYLING is okay.....and ergonomics and switchgear seem to be just fine, if not better than most of what GM and Ford gives us. It's the finish that truly disappoints.

1984 Honda Civic Wagon (Maybe they called it "Fit" in Japan)

Uh.....what exactly do you find "wierd" about the 300's ergonomics? Lucerne most certainly doesn't have a "better" interior.....plastics are nicer in the 300, there's less hard plastic, and the optional "tortoise shell" trim is beautiful and a MAJOR step up from Lucerne's "wood" (is it real wood? I don't think so.) An easy step-up from the 300's 2.7L DOHC V6 brings you to the 3.5L DOHC motor.....which has it ALL over the Lucerne's 3800..... ??? AND, I don't see how you can compare the Fit to the Aveo with ANY sort of straight face.....even the new Aveo pales in comparison.....

I don't know...... Look at the picture in the top of this thread...... Where does "Pontiac" get any sort of recognition for it's outstanding, and "soon-to-be-hip" Solstice GXP? NOWHERE (that I see.) All you see is that big-ass "GM" sign in the background.

Frankly, I don't think GM can be "hip" nor do I think "GM" should attempt to be hip. I see WAY too much "GM" in the marketplace these days.......just like the stupid badges they are putting on all the GM vehicles. More focus needs to be given to the divisions. Pontiac could be "hip"........Cadillac in some respects is very "hip" these days. You don't really see the parent manufacturers advertise and market their divisions like GM does.....I think the added presence of GM only bogs down the messages that the divisions are trying to get across. This all goes back 8 years ago when GM reorganized and took all the differentiation (behind the scenes) away from the individual divisions. You don't see BMWNA adverstising on behalf of MINI......you see "MINI" 100% responsible for sending the messages they want to send and for building the image into the brand that they want to portray. Same thing for Daimler/Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz. Toyota/Lexus. The parent company (GM) needs to stay out of it.

Hey I was stating my impressions........that's all..... Softer ride aside, I DO like the ride-and-handling on the CTS. I'm not complaining......just stating that it's obvious it's not nearly as tied-down as the Bimmers......and the 5-series is firmer as well......

28% fleet for Deville. That's pathetic for any model within a "luxury" brand...... CTS is the car that should be applauded here......on the basis of the strength of it's retail sales over both STS and DTS.....

That's a sad statement to make......guess that doesn't say much for the rest of Caddy's lineup, does it...? Wonder what rental/fleet percentages are for the DTS? Anyone?

Not really..... GM doesn't have a diesel engine engineered to fit into the GMT-900, SRX, or H3......(the Duramax won't work either.) They would have to engineer an all new powertrain to fit those products......and it's unlikely they will do it just for Europe. Once you start seeing US diesels that meet the appropriate emissions and sulphur issues, then you'll be able to see those transferred over to products exported to Europe.

OK back to the '08 CTS..... My honest and candid comments after seeing it at NAIAS...... I'm even more underwhelmed seeing it in person than I was in pictures. I've had long discussions with Evok and OCCarNut (who both like the car) as to my reasons why I'm not as crazy about it. As I've posted before, I don't think Cadillac went nearly far enough with the new CTS from the A-pillar back. Here's my comments as to why I feel the way I do in a more detailed list.... * The car looks disjointed.....like someone built a "bland STS" then decided "....oh &#036;h&#33;, we got bashed because the STS is too bland....let's throw some Art & Science on the car....." * Stand at the side of the car and notice how the body between the A and C pillar is much smoother, curvier, without the body cuts and lines the current car has. Then look at the greenhouse and how sharp, definitive, and edgy the glass cutlines are. Totally mismatches to me. * Also, Cadillac has felt the need to reintroduce tall, skinny, vertical "tailfin" taillights that are offset from the decklid by about 1/4-1/2 of an inch. (Just like the last-gen Eldorado.) All this does to me is make the decklid look misaligned with the taillights.....look at the headlights closely....they did the same thing up front....making the headlights look like they are misaligned with the front grille panel. * Why does my '07 CTS have those really neat, flush-mounted headlight washers that pop out when in use......and the new '08 CTS has tacky-looking stuck on washers that are not concealed? Cost-cutting? * The smooth bodysides are in sharp contrast to the jutting and pointed front and rear bumpers and the front styling in general. * The front fender vents have already been mentioned......I don't so much mind the vents.....but what about the wierd cutline that runs from the A-pillar to the actual vent? It doesn't make sense to me. It all looks "forced" to me and not really an integrated design. THAT BEING SAID......I think taken in isolation (without a previous-gen CTS having existed) the car is an attractive car and should still do well in the marketplace. Assuredly there will be more people that disagree with me than agree with me...... The interior looks to be fabulous. I don't have one single comment I could make against the interior. I think GM nailed it on the head with the inside of the CTS.

C'mon Oldsmoboi..... C&D gets what GM supplies to them. SOME butthead at GM figured they would spec out a CTS Sport press car with a severe lack of luxury options.....it's not C&D's fault the car was underspec'd.....