The O.C.

Nice writeup. However, I doubt that car is accurately capable of 0-60 in under 7secs...... C&D timed a (lighter) Malibu SS from 0-60 in 6.9secs with the same powertrain.

Uh......we have an '06 X5 right now.....and it's a small V8, 4.4 litres.....and it's an absolute powerhouse right off the line. But you know what else? It rips to redline very quickly as well. Wow a great idea! Strong off-the-line torque and great power all the way to redline.....! I once raced a new Silverado SS up an entrance ramp onto the freeway from a dead stop at the light. Even right off the line (where the "big" Silverado's V8 "should" have had an advantage) we were neck-and-neck until I backed off at 90mph.

I'll take ANY traditional automatic (even a <gasp> GM 4-speed) over ANY CVT I've ever driven.....and yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Murano's either.....

Since you are bitching about Mazdas, I had a 2003 Mazda6 V6/5-speed as a company car for 51K miles....and it was one of the best cars I've ever had. And I drove it like I stole it all the time. And....gee....even my Mazda6 had a nicer-finished interior than even a Lucerne....but I digress....my point is not to bag on the Lucerne's interior in this post... Just that Mazda builds a fine automobile and it's certainly getting respect in the marketplace even if the sales volumes aren't to Honda and Toyota levels. Mazda6.....Mazda3....Mazdaspeed6 and Mazdaspeed3....CX-7 (beautiful!)....CX-9 (big AND beautiful).....Mazda5 (innovative)

RAV-4 is about 80% penetration with the L4.....probably not that bad of a decision by Honda to stick with theirs.....although personally, I'd like to see the option of a V6..... But...most buyers would probably pick the 4-cyl anyway even if they did offer a V6.

<groan> Have any of you dissenters spent any amount of time in a car with a modern 6- or 7-speed automatic? I don't know how many speeds in a tranny are optimal....but as many of us have TRIED to point out before.....a 6- or 7-speed tranny gives more ratios to better fit the driving conditions facing the powertrain. An easy example is the potential chasm that occurs in many 4-speed trannys when shifting from 2nd to 3rd gear......1st and 2nd are relatively short for off-the-line acceleration....leaving 3rd and 4th gear higher for better economy....leaving a drop-off in power and response in between. There's more ratios.....and therefore more of an opportunity for the transmission to be in an optimal gear for performance AND fuel economy. I've lived with 6-speeds in BMWs (X5) and a 7-speed in the S500 we used to have. They are quite intelligent, efficient, and pleasurable to drive. Most of the 6- and 7-speeds don't have to go through each gear upon acceleration and deceleration....they are designed to skip gears to arrive upon the appropriate ratio for the driving conditions.....helping reduce the amount of hunting between gears that might otherwise occur. Simply put, to GM has been behind the curve for quite awhile on this front. They are making headway.....but let's not try to SLAM a noticeable improvement in design and technology in transmissions just because GM can't seem to get their act together quickly enough....

I don't know if I'd call it "harsher" although this one would tend to "clunk" if you were driving at very slow speeds and quickly got on and off the throttle (as in stop-and-go rush hour traffic.) It's just mainly wierd. The CVT has a "rubber-banding" effect as you accelerate....especially if you vary the pedal pressure on the gas pedal to compensate for traffic conditions. When you floor it from a stop, the engine revs immediately up to 6,000rpms and the CVT keeps it at that engine speed until you let off the gas or slightly reduce pedal pressure. So, under full acceleration, you hear the constant groan of the engine up near redline. There is no "shifting" thorugh the gears like a conventional transmission does. A CVT is supposed to be more efficient with gas and with performance.....but to me, it SAPS performance....and I only averaged 21.7mpg in the Caliber over two tanks of gas. Therefore, I can't see it being that "efficient."

I've spent about a week in a Caliber SXT rental......and this review can tag along with Cremazie's...... Let's get to the bad stuff first......I HATE the CVT (as I've hated most of them) in this car. It really seems to rob the car of power....it's awkward-feeling....and none too smooth. You really miss the kind off "step-off" from idle that you get in a torque-converter automatic. The car just kind of ooooozes away from a stop. That being said, while the car feels heavy, the engine seems to have decent power for a 4-banger in the midrange. I was surprised at how smooth the 2.0L is.....at idle and on acceleration there is very little buzz or vibration even noticeable. It does groan at redline, but the engine noise is probably exaggerated by the CVT that shoots for the redline every time you accelerate. As already mentioned, the interior is a text-book case of cheap plastics.....seemingly from rubbermaid. However, also like rubbermaid, it all feels like it would last forever. Everything is pretty solidly attached (there's none of the "flexing" of the center console wobbling it back and forth like you can in a Grand Prix for example.) Most of the switchgear feels really nice....with the exception of a cheesy-feeling turn-signal stalk. The shifter is marvelous and feels like they grabbed it straight from Mercedes....it glides down smoothly and accurately and doesn't get "caught up" in the zig-zag gate between gears. I was most impressed with the solidity of the chassis and the overall ride quality. This thing could be the nicest-riding car for the money out there. I'm sure this is a main contributor to the Caliber's sales success. The solid and soft-riding chassis is something that makes a quick impression immediately on a test-drive. Again....that being said....this is no handler. There is no joy to tossing this thing around a curve. It rolls, it leans, it understeers severly and early.....but at least it's not floaty over dips and undulations. Body control is good.....actual handling is uninvolving at best. Maybe the R/T with the firmer suspension and better tires is better.... The Caliber also seems to have a decent amount of room inside....and it's very easy to be quite comfortable sitting "behind" yourself in the rear seat. The base 4-speaker stereo CD player actually sounds VERY good in this car. I was surprised how good the sound quality is even on just FM stations. CDs sound fantastic. A negative? I've run through two tanks of gas.....and I've averaged 21-22mpg with the Caliber. Where's that supposed CVT efficiency? Admittedly I've been driving the car foot-to-the-floor most of the time. My mix has been about half-and-half, city-and-highway. I probably realistically expected mid-20's with this car. My car is priced at about $17,500 with A/C, CD player, PW, PL, PM. The car feels like it's more of a $20K car in terms of size, roominess, and chassis solidity. I can easily understand why it's doing good in the sales charts. I would maybe consider one....but ONLY with the 5-speed manual tranny....then you are stuck with the 1.8L engine. Probably, a VERY nice Caliber would be the R/T with the 2.4L, FWD, and 5-speed manual. Currently, the only R/Ts for sales are 2.4L, AWD, and CVT. It's not the best car out there.....the interior materials do disappoint (HHR does hard plastics MUCH better at this price point)...and the CVT ruins the driving performance of the car.....but Dodge has done a good job with the packaging, fit-and-finish (if not materials) and solid chassis. If nothing else, it bodes well for what the new Lancer will be like....and the Sebring and Avenger (longer and wider versions of this architecture) with V6s and traditional automatics ought to be quite pleasant vehicles.

The O.C. (CA) auto show starts Wednesday evening. Do any of the southern California guys wanna try to get together next weekend on Saturday to go together? What would be cool is to arrange an early morning meet in Newport Beach at the Crystal Cove car show on PCH.....maybe grab breakfast.....then all make our way to Anaheim for the auto show. I'm probably for sure going to be there Thursday late-afternoon/evening with OCCarNut.....but maybe a weekend C&G gettogether would be cool....! Let me know by PM or post on here and I'll try to set something up. You guys up further north in L.A......TRUST ME.....getting up early to come down to Newport Beach by 7am is WELL WORTH THE EFFORT. If you haven't been, Crystal Cove is AWESOME.....lots of great cars....old AND newer.

True..... The top half of the dash and the door panels are soft...and have a very nice grain. (It's not seen in any other DCX interior.....not the crappy stuff in other DCX's....) The optional tortoise-shell trim does a way better impression of something "real" than the woodgrain in the Lucerne. The standard silver trim on the center stack looks and feels more like actual metal that the silver plastic found in some GM cars (Corvette for one....) There's other very minor things about the LX interiors that make a better impression on me....the solidity of the shifter through the gates (C&D's opinion of the Lucerne's is right on spot....like dragging the shifter through a box of rocks.) Lucerne's really isn't bad....it IS an attractive interior....and switchgear operation is world-class. It's just that there seems to be way more indications of where Buick cut costs with this car than where DCX did with the LX interiors.

One thing my Caddy dealer told me about the STS-v (here in California) is that it's SALE-proof..... They can't sell STS-v's to save their lives. The CTS-v...? No problem....it's a pretty good seller....even with the manual transmission. The dealer feels that the STS-v is way too expensive......$70K-$80K buys alot of VERY nice luxury/sport cars.....

I've had a Caliber loaner car for about three days now......and it's much better than I expected. Check C&G Drives for my review.....

CLK is based on the C-Class. CLS is based on the E-Class.

yeah....OKAY.....

Actually neither would get my vote compared to their contemporary competition. MAYBE a CXS Lucerne.....because there's not alot of big, old-fashioned (re...comfy, large, full-size sedan) type cars out there.... But when I think what I would have to choose from in the marketplace for the same $38K as a loaded CXS, that's when Buick suffers in comparison.

Don't confuse the Renault of today with that crappy Alliance they peddled 20-some-odd years ago. I was very impressed in the materials, design, and execution of Renault's latest models at Frankfurt. I think the new Clio is fabulous....and would be a great competitor/alternative to a Fit or Yaris. Even the Megane, wierd styling and all, is pretty neat-looking in person. Interior fit-and-finish and materials were entirely class-competitive, and class-leading in some ways. Their advantgarde styling would potentially win a few fans over here.....

???? Looks perfectly aligned to me.....

Are you kidding me? Says who? The only Buick that can truly be considered a "fine piece of machinery" (if you are comparing Buicks to their contemporary competition) is the upcoming Enclave. LaCrosse? Nah Lucerne? Comes closest but misses the mark on too many fronts Rendezvous, Rainer, Terraza? All perfect examples of the "old" GM

....or maybe, ...."an around the world and back snap"

More giddyup than a "323?" Because our car can't hold a candle to a new 325i....much less a 330i in terms of performance.....unfortunately. I love the 3.6L in my car....but I think the high curb weight (3,750) hurts performance. The only thing I WISH for is more "giddy-up" in my CTS. With about 1,100 miles on it now, it's loosened up nicely...but just doesn't feel all that quick when I put the whip to it. C&D.....accel times of all manual-transmission cars (like my CTS.....) CTS Sport - 255hp - 6.9secs 325i - 215hp - 0-60, 6.1secs 330i - 255hp - Can't find the 0-60 online....but it's in the high-fives if I remember. And lest you think I'm bitching, Oldsmoboi, rest assured I LOVE my CTS and think it's a great riding, handling, and driving car....with a sublime shifter and clutch. Low speeds show the 3.6L to behave as nicely as any imported 6-cylinder....it's just not a "zinger" to the redline.

I think it's hard to compare GM doing this versus Lexus doing this. The previous, 245hp engine was totally competitive in every way in terms of a total package....power, torque, nvh, smoothness, driveability....etc..... Lexus simply upgraded what was already an excellent motor overall. Comparing that to GM putting an outdated, pushrod V6 in their "import-fighter" G6 at launch and THEN upgrading to the 3.6L (but alas only in the GTP) is ridiculous......and almost as ridiculous as comparing this to GM putting the wheezy I-5 into the H3 when everyone on here knows that truck should have had a V8....or at least a strong (Atlas?) 6-cylinder. I don't see this as Lexus f * cking up at all......I see it as them upgrading a competitive powertrain to bring it along with the competition. GM is the one that f * cked up by using a pushrod V6 in G6.....not offering an L4 in AURA.....installing a wheezy I-5 in a heavier-than-needs-to-be H3.....

Your dislike is somewhat misguided. The A380 is PERFECT for the asian market......where priorities demand a very-high-capacity aircraft in the 500+ seat range. As a result, and due to the different markets, don't expect to see many A380s here unless they are parked in Los Angeles inbetween pan-pacific flights..... The asian and middle-east markets will take up the VAST majority of A380 orders. Not a single north american airline has signed up for one......

Actually the CLK is built off the C-Class architecture.