The O.C.

There's no question that an automatic-equipped Cobalt will outrun an automatic-equipped Corolla...... .....but the original point that I was debating was the blanket statement that "a Cobalt outhandles a Corolla..." Similarly-equipped, price-wise, that appears not to be the case necessarily.....

Most other manufacturers DO offer their own version of "OnStar." In fact, I think Honda/Acura USES OnStar......but maybe brands it with another name. The BMWs I've had all have had "BMW Assist" which also includes Bluetooth wireless technology....that I don't think OnStar offers......(but I'm not sure.) I think that GM has just made a far greater attempt to market the brand "OnStar" than competing manufacturers have their own systems.

That doesn't look like any factory color that I remember......I'd be leery that it was wrecked and repainted.......

I quote: "If your vehicle has the 3.6L V6 engine (VIN Code 7), use regular unleaded gasoline with a posted octane rating of 87 or higher. For best performance or trailer towing, you may choose to use middle grade 89 octane unleaded gasoline." Okay....so not definitive, but when something tells me "for best performance" to me that means that 89 is pretty much required. Yes, you can run it on 87 (which is good for GM's advertising, etc.) and the knock sensor will compensate.....but they still DID add those words "for best performance" so 89 is definitely what I use. To use the Mazda6 as an example (3.0L, DOHC, 24-valve V6).....THAT car really did only require 87 octane and never said anything in the owner's manual about using 89 or higher "for best performance....." Therefore, 87 is all I ever put in it.

It requires 89 octane actually if you read the manual (which I did.) That's what I put in it. Yes, technically 87 will not hurt it because of the knock sensor, but it does "require" 89-octane.

Low-to-mid 20's is what I averaged with my Mazda6 manual too...... On the trip BACK from Phoenix, at a 90-mph, cruise-controlled run......I got an almost-identical 21.7mpg compared to the trip out there. While in Phoenix driving around, I got 17.6mpg. I took closer inspection of the tach....and at 90, the car is turning a hair (and I mean a hair) over 3,000rpms. Overall, I'm averaging 17-18mpg in the CTS in day-to-day commuting.....but remember most of my commute is 75-80mph cruise control as I go against traffic......I expect better mileage.....but overall it's not a "deal-killer" for me. It just pisses me off because I passed on the v-Series simply because I wanted a similar car (CTS "Sport") without the fuel economy of the V8. I bet a v-Series would be getting pretty similar mileage (if not BETTER) than what I'm getting with the 3.6L HF V6.

LOL.... No it's really more about gearing......my V6 CTS will DESTROY my C6 in a top-gear acceleration run from 70-90...... The C6 is gutless in sixth gear.... But it delivers the goods.....

Fuel Economy Update on my CTS...... Los Angeles to Phoenix...... 375 miles (on one tank) 100 miles of rush-hour dicing getting out of L.A.........275 miles of freeway cruise at 85-90mph..... MPG = 21.6 I've finally decided that it's the gear ratios of the 6-speed manual that is causing me to experience less-than-expected mileage. Even at 75-80mph, the tach is still showing almost 3,000 rpms in sixth gear. The upside of that is that from 70mph and up, engine response in 6th gear is great with nary a downshift needed to pick up significant additional speed. In fact, the Caddy seems almost "BMW-like" in it's acceleration in 6th from 80mph to over 100....... I'm guessing that at a straight 70mph cruise, I'd be lucky to hit the highway EPA number of 26mpg. Overall, I guess considering the engine response at cruise and the high speeds I like to travel, anything over 20mpg is okay.......but it's still less than I expected. My Mazda6 V6 5-speed would average about 25mpg on straight freeway cruises at 85-90mph. The Corvette does 27mpg at the same speeds.....but then again, it's pulling less than 2,000rpms even at 85mph.

......sounding like comments coming from someone that has NO experience driving any BMW....... I can't argue on the styling, as that's subjective.......but "horrifying reliability" has no basis in fact......and "low torque per horsepower ratios" sounds like you are basing your opinions strictly on numbers.... There's absolutely nothing "low-torque" about BMW's wonderful inline-6......and my own experience with the 4.4L V8 proves the same...... As far as the M3 versus GTO comparison......all the tests I've seen show BOTH cars in the high-4sec range for 0-60.....so how is the GTO faster? And I think any rational person could argue some of the price difference going to engineering and quality.......a GTO has sad hopes of keeping up with an M3 on a racetrack or road course.....

I'm impressed with the Chryslers in general.....but not impressed with their attempted bragging rights compared to the C6...... No SRT-8 LX car can outrun a standard C6.....and certainly not at highway speeds......

Well, you can't get worse traffic than you do in southern California.......and I still love my two stick-shift cars. That being said, I don't do it every day in a commute.... I would expect that more mainstream consumers (I'm a stick-shift enthusiast) would rather have the auto if they do a bumper-to-bumper commute every day.

I just had a brand-new Fusion SE L4 as a rental (7 miles on it when I got it) and what a fabulous little cheap midsize sedan. I loved it. Great interior fit-and-finish and material quality, attractive exterior, smooth and responsive powertrain, and impressive content for a "base" model rental (steering-wheel radio controls, foglights, power driver's seat, full intrumentation, 6-disc CD changer, alloy wheels.

I have.....both....on a few occasions. I don't like the conservative image of the Corolla, or it's rental-queen image, but I've never found it to be anything less than competent...... Any Cobalt I've driven has never felt nearly as solid.....it's much better looking, with a much more attractive powertrain, but seriously lags Corolla in interior design and quality and isn't necessarily better (or worse) in ride-and-handling.

I agree.....TOTALLY. The only thing I can guess is that this car is a "bottom-breather" (like the Corvette) and the big Chevy grilles up top are fake......or don't contribute to the cooling of the engine....only there as a styling tact...

More importantly than any "gap" in horsepower, is that, power-wise, the 2.4L and 3.6L are EACH thoroughly competitive now in this market segment. There is absolutely NO NEED for a "stopgap" pushrod V6 in between the two.....

Ahhhh......yes but remember...... DCX "re-invented" the midsize segment (okay...midsize-to-large) by redefining the term "style" and "design" with the current LX cars (really begun with the 300-series.) There's no reason to believe that GM can't do the same in the (even more) conservative Camry/Accord portion of the segment.....

Why just be "fair?" Why not give consumers a base car with a fully-competitive and up-to-date powertrain combo of 2.4L L4 WITH a 6-speed automatic? Once again......we are asked to accept the current L4 powertrain offerings as "good enough."

This car is what The O.C., much-maligned critic of all things GM, has been waiting for! I think this car is beautiful, refined, and elegant.....yet sporty in the same vein. I'm not crazy about the taillight treatment, but that's about the only piece of the exterior design that I can criticise. I also think the interior is a high-water mark for a GM product. I wish the car had bespoke radio/HVAC controls (like most of the other car makers, minus Ford, are moving to) but at least the new corporate center stack controls are of decently-high quality. I love the simple, yet effective powertrain offerings. GM's best 4cyl.....and their best 6cyl in this "mainstream" Chevy sedan. I grumble a bit about the base cars having the 4-speed auto with the 4cyl.....seems one step back for every ten steps forward..... The only thing that remains to be seen is the ride-and-handling. I'm confident this car will have a smooth ride and the strucure will be just as taut as every other Epsilon variant.....but WILL Malibu handle crisply? As we've seen with AURA and G6, this platform is HEAVY.....(3,600 lbs +) and that takes a toll on GM's ability to marry a crisp handling feel (a la Accord, Altima) with a smooth ride (a la Camry.) Nice job Rick and Bob....!

Hmmmm maybe.....but I wouldn't be surprised to see Toyota dealers discounting the "old" Corolla.....

To this day, I keep harping on the dealer and GM about the navigation issue. It's not that I really care all that much if I have it or not......it just seems like an absolutely ridiculous thing that you CAN'T get it with the Sport package.....and I want SOMEONE to be able to tell me....WHY...?

I understand the point you are trying to make..... ......but if this is the rationale that GM is using when developing (cost-cutting?) a new product, do you really think that's a recipe for success in today's (challenging) marketplace? Your statement smacks of "traditional GM thinking...." In fact, on an email exchange I had with Lutz a year or so ago, and I complained about the interior quality on the Cobalt, his words were, and I quote...... "....you have to admit, though, we've made a significant step up from the old Cavalier....."

The 3.5L "shortstar" was a lackluster engine, multi-cams or not....... The interiors, while the best at GM at the time, still didn't hit GM a home-run compared to contemporary imports of the time (if that's what you are comparing them to.)

First of all, your statement that a Cobalt will "outhandle" a Corolla appears to be total conjecture on your part......a general statement that has no facts to back it up. Let's look at figures for a recent MT economy-car comparison that pitted, amongst others, a Cobalt LS sedan with the (then optional) "Sport" package including P205/55R-16 Pirelli P6 tires.....versus a Corolla XRS equipped with (smaller) P195/55R-16 Michelin Pilot Primacy tires..... Braking 60-0: Cobalt 140 ft Corolla 123 ft 600-ft Slalom: Cobalt 61.7 mph Corolla 66.8 mph Skidpad: Cobalt 0.79g Corolla 0.85g Seems to me....at least by the numbers....this indicates that the Corolla spanks a Cobalt in the handling department. AND, by the way, the as-tested prices were within $200 of each other....the cars were similarly-equipped and priced similarly (both in the mid-$19K range.)

Toyota Prius (We all know the gas savings from hybrids don't "pencil.") Acura RL (A poor replacement for "Legend" and needs a V8, more interior room, and more distinction from TL to succeed.) M-Benz S550 (A wonderful car to drive but lacks the real "presence" that used to spell out "Engineered Like No Other Car In The World." Doesn't move the game on far enough from A8, 7-Series to justify the added cost. Plus, it's butt-ugly.....!) Nissan 350Z (A bit unrefined, with an exterior style to me that is all caricature and doesn't go together all that well. Wish it had more of that "cheap 'n cheery" feel of the original 240Z.) Hummer H2/H3 (C'mon guys....one's an old-style Tahoe in fancy dress, the other's a Colorado pickup....nothing particularly "authentic" about them. Boy do the soccer moms love the "bling" though.) DCX Minivans (Their superiority in the market ended a long time ago with the advent of Odyssey, Sienna, and the newest Korean offerings.) Porsche Cayenne (Sure it saved Porsche.....but it's nothing more than an ugly Toureg with a big turbo engine.) Mitsubishi EVO (Yeah, yeah, yeah.....it's time for this baby to be updated. Give me the same power, track handling, and driving experience in a modern architecture with a modern wrapper.....hopefully the new one will not be as tacky.) Land Rover LR3 (OK....HEAVIER than the more expensive Range Rover is a ridiculous statistic. Plus everything about the design of this SUV spells out "cheap" to me, in contrast to it's RR brother. What's the good of vastly superior off-roadability if your SUV is so much more compromised in other areas?) OK....I'm sure there's a 10th one out there....but I hafta get back to work......

"SAD to say?" Eff YOU...! (J/K) Seriously though.....your post hit the nail on the head. My whole mantra with GM has been......when they can execute an Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu, and Impala with the same high level of competence that they have the Corvette, CTS, or even the GMT-900s (even considering their third-row discrepancies, etc.) then they will have turned the corner. Cobalt is close......IF it only had the Astra/Vectra level of interior quality......that would be a MAJOR step. Impala will never get there as long as it's still derived from a decade's-old architecture. New Malibu? I have REALLY high hopes....and like what i see so far. Just ditch the pushrod V6s and the 4-speeds. Look at the new Lambas....! WONDERFUL.......and they'll show the competition some major aches and pains.....