Drew Dowdell

They should be able to pull back the boots on the CV joint and check for damage.

Baldwin Sharks Alco PA-1 EMD E8

This doesn't sound like Honda.... at least the "not responding" part.

-Consumerist While it's OK for messages from top-secret government agencies to self destruct, that's not the case for car brakes. But more than 200 owners of 2008 and 2009 Accords have complained that keeping their brakes in working condition has proven to be a mission impossible. Paul's 2009 Accord is suffering from bakes breakage: I recently (March 7) bought a new 2009 Honda Accord, and after 2 days it has brake issues. I have taken it in to Honda 5 times to still have no resolution. They "deglazed" the rotors first, a few hours after I got it back, same thing. Now they claim Honda knows about the issue and is investigating the issue. I've got a brand new $30K car with malfunctioning brakes, and Honda knows about it and won't fix the problem. I need help. Paul should start here and keep pressing. Honda has been known to respond to pressure after putting off dealing with important issues for as long as possible.

If you use Oldsmobile Auroras you can....

You haven't actually been to a Toyota dealer have you?

Does the wobble in the steering wheel match the beat of the sound being made? This was the case in the CRV and it turned out to be the CV joint. I believe the pulling to the left is just an alignment issue.

I'm getting closer and closer to quitting my I.T. position. Once I leave there, I'll never work for someone else again.

Probably the Accord and G-series coups because I think they are attractive but I'll never buy foreign.

Healthy debate is great! I'd love if we had healthy debate here...... instead of: 1. Post insepid, uninformed, incomplete, poorly written article by an old crank. 2. +1 3. +1 4. +1 5. Z28 or myself coming in and ripping the article to shreds.

I love how these articles collect you guys like flys to $h!... and $h! is exactly what this article is. Firstly, Jerry here is speculating about the fuel economy rules. He took the headline from somewhere, ignored any details in the article, and wrote his own column on the subject. Jerry then forgets that CAFE is a fleet average. The Cruze is slated to be able to hit 40mpg without any geewiz technology.... but that's the new EPA number. The mileage number used to calculate for CAFE is from the old EPA rating system and could very well put the Cruze into the mid to high 40s. Jerry goes on to tell us about the E85 credit that allows a 20mpg car to count as a 120mpg car. Sounds great no? Well since Jerry read only the headline of his USAToday, he never discovered that the E85 credit is set to be phased out over the next few years. He writes off the idea of using diesel or lightweight materials because he did the "off the top of his noggin calculation" that those would cost $10,000 over the cost of a car and suggests the average American needs to go on a diet. That last part is about the only intelligible thing he writes. Folks, if ricers can get carbon fiber hoods and fenders for their '92 Civic for a few hundred dollars then I'm CERTAIN Detroit can get a slightly better deal when buying in bulk. Jerry jumps to the (in his feeble mind) most logical conclusion that the only way to meet these mileage numbers is with electric cars that cost $10,000 more than a gas equivalent. He fails to even research the new engine technologies that the domestics have been developing. Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition or HCCI is a new technology being developed my GM that adds 15% fuel efficiency while also reducing emissions. Adding 15% increase in economy to the Cruze brings it to 46mpg. That's Pruis territory without a battery in sight. There are so many of these terrible articles out there. Please don't repost them here unless you intend to debunk them. I don't have time to debunk them all, so I end up just deleting them.

Here's the only problem I see with your plan. It ends up punishing the most innocent people in this "game" The rich might have to sell off a yacht and one of the houses in the Hamptons, but they'll still be ok. It's the working poor who will suffer most because they'll be the first ones to lose their jobs and then default on more loans and ruin what credit they did have which will just make the problem even worse. That will then work it's way up the food chain into the middle class and then slam into the neuvo riche. It will cause the financial institutions to collapse taking the auto manufacturers and even more retail with it. Right there you have depression era 25% or greater unemployement. What my plan does is repair the issue without rewarding the people who brought this on us at the same time preventing it from happening again. The TARP gave Bank of America a gazillion dollars.... did your mortgage balance go down at all? your credit card balance? Again, I'm not for the government giving out money <loaning it, sure> because it causes inflation, but my plan increases cash money while reducing "fake" money, I.E. credit. The goal would be for the total money supply to net out slightly deflationary. Edit: If what you propose was in place back in July, I think we would have crashed farther and faster than 1929 or 1933.

The methods being used to "rectify" this are just attempting to return us to the status quo we had prior to the credit bust. That is like fighting with quicksand. The fastest way out of this mess would have been to take ALL of that TARP money, and distribute it equally amongst all citizens above 18 years of age with the requirement that it be used to pay off debt first. The money would be applied in the order of highest interest rate to lowest interest rate and would be credited to the persons account directly by the federal government. No money would pass through the person's hands directly. Simultaneously, in order to qualify for this money, the receiver would have to agree to have his/her non-mortgage, non-school loan, non car loan, cumulative credit limit capped at 30% of yearly gross income. New mortgages would be capped at 5 times annual gross income. New and used car loans would be capped at the equivalent of one year gross income. Living completely debt free? Congratulations, you get money in your bank account with the above restrictions. Please consider buying a new domestic car. The results of this would be: 1. It would completely recapitalize the banks. 2. It would stabilize and normalize the housing market because people would be better able to pay their home loans. 3. It would stimulate consumer spending, but it wouldn't allow people to spend beyond their means and get us back into this mess. 4. It would give those who are on unemployment a little more time to find new work. Now, I'm not saying that the government should be handing out money..... but if you're going to do it... at least do it the right way.

Isn't this Alpha?

The CTS had a brake panic mode that I was unaware of. If you press the brakes down with enough force and speed, the car determines you are trying to avoid an accident and it will push the pedal in full force for you just to the edge of the ABS kicking in. It brings you to a stop FAST. It scared me the first time I "used" it.... but damn if I didn't praise GM for it saving me a few times.

A base Camry had a 4-speed as recently as 2004. Accord as recently as 2002. Accord still doesn't have a 6-speed. Camry got it's 6-speed in 2007 (though probably not a good example since many of them promptly dropped 2nd and 6th gear)... same year as the Aura, G6. Saab when from 5-speed auto to 6-speed auto in 2006... same year as the Passat and one year after the A4. The Avalon was proudly sporting a 4-speed back in 2004. In 2003, the only automatic you could buy in a Corolla or Civic was a 4-speed while that same year the only automatic you could buy in an ION was a 5-speed. Corolla still had only a 4-speed as it's only automatic in 2008. If you're feeling nostalgic, you can still buy a Corolla 4-speed auto in 2009, but the 5-speed auto has been made available but only on the XRS model. Now I've driven a number of Honda 5-speed automatics. I've seen the recall notices for the Odyssey and TL. The question in my mind isn't "Why is GM behind?", the question is "Why is GM's 4-speed so much better than Honda's 5-speed?" GM knew they were working on a new 6-speed to replace the 4-speeds. GM mostly skipped the jump to 5-speeds because their 4-speed was good and most of their engines have great low end torque, limiting the need for more gears.

I'm not willing to put a date on a turn around yet because we still haven't shaken out all of the bad stuff. Consumer debt is still way to high. We are witnessing the end of the "living beyond one's means" economic model and mentality. We're about 50% of the way through the personal mortgage shakeout. Only about 10% of the way through the credit card shakeout and maybe 25% of the way through the commercial credit/mortgage shakeout. People who think that we will go back to the "way things were" need a slap in the face. People who think it would be good if we did get back there need an anvil dropped on their head.

Oh he's still here.... he just has duct tape over his keyboard.

Honestly I think even the stupidest political operative knows that GM needs interesting cars in order for it to thrive. I think what you'll see most is a lot of cutting of overlap. Why does GM have so many 6-cylinder engine platforms? Why are there 3 Lambdas? Why are there 7 Epsilons..... Stuff we've complained about for years. At 29mpg, the Camaro is one of the most fuel efficient sports cars out there... why would they cut that? I think the idea that we'll all end up in Aveos is completely unfounded. The politicos know that forcing GM into that model is just asking for VW, Toyota, and Honda to move in for the final kill. Think of it this way.... if GM fails, it's now the governments fault. The government doesn't like to take the blame for anything.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating any substantial takeover of GM by the government.... I just want the government there to right the ship. The economy is still in the crapper and it's going to continue to get worse. The "green shoots" the MSM keeps talking about are nothing but wishful thinking. The automotive market continues to decline albeit at a slower pace than before. An 8 million car market isn't impossible. Once GM has been stabilized, the government should let go and let GM sink or swim.

It is in the government's best interest to see GM thrive. They don't want the unemployment, the want the tax base, they want the GDP.

Volume does not equal profit. With the exception of the G8 and Solstice, Pontiac was the "Chevy" outlet for the BPG dealers. I'll agree that's not where they should have been, but that's where they were.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You aren't entitled to your own facts. GM could not have filed Chapter 11 in November without government financing. Period. End. Of. Story. There was no one else who could have financed them through the bankruptcy period. A bankruptcy filing in November without the government would have been Chapter 7.

If the government had done nothing, C&G would be a GM Historical site and nothing more. The Government was the ONLY entity that was able to save GM unless Toyota came in and plunked down the $2 billion cash for all of the common stock..... would you have been happier with that? But above all of that, understand this: THERE CAN BE NO CHAPTER 11 WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING INVOLVED IN A MAJOR WAY. IF GM went into bankruptcy without the government help, it would be Chapter 7 and everything would have been sold off into nothingness. Guess who'd be buying.... the Chinese.. the Indians.....maybe the Russians.... they're the only ones left with money. The government did this same thing with Chrysler and Chrysler emerged to be a substantially stronger company in just a few short years. The advantage GM has here over Chrysler is that unlike Chrysler 35 years ago, GM has a large portfolio of excellent platforms and products. Go to Ford if you want.... but do it for the right reason. Don't go to Ford because you want to punish GM for trying to save themselves.... you're only exacerbating the problem. Go to Ford because you feel the product is superior. If you buy a Ford even though you think GM has a better product... well then maybe Cheers and Gears isn't the place for you.

Then I misunderstood you. I took you to mean that you wouldn't buy a GM car because of the loan or the government or something like that. That is the primary symptom of &#036;h&#33;ty ass logic flu. I completely understand and support purchase decisions based on product.