Drew Dowdell

OMG, I was sooo totally gonna buy a Malibu, but the optional NAV in the Sebring was the cincher for me. Totally going for the Sebring now.

I think the issue is that we as a society are so used to not having to pay for what we use in terms of the environment. Our use of gasoline has been artificially cheap at the pump for years. I hear so much against ethanol as a fuel but none of it makes sense when you look at the big picture. Sure corn based ethanol is one of the worst in terms of production efficiency but it's still cheap compared to gasoline. Don't believe me? Consider these points: 1. The most common argument against ethanol is that it takes government subsidies to make it affordable. How much did Iraq war v. 1.0 and v. 2.0 cost us? What if we had used all of that money to develop a pure ethanol infrastructure not based on corn? Why is it wrong to subsidize our farmers yet perfectly fine to send money to Shieks in Saudi Arabia or dictators in Venezuela? How much did the wars cost us in lives? How much did the wars cost us in global esteem? Osama Bin Laden's original motivating factor for attacking the US was his observations of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia during the original Gulf War; Would 9-11 even have happened? These are all costs that don't get factored into the $3.05 per gallon that people are complaining about today. 2. The second most common argument against ethanol is that it is less efficient per gallon than gasoline. This is true when you're running ethanol through an engine originally designed for gasoline. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to consider that when you run the engine with a fuel that it was not originally designed for, you're not going to get optimum performance? If you were complaining because your turbo charged Saab wasn't getting great mileage and you were filling up with 87 instead of the manufacturer specified 91, people would call you an idiot. The compression ratio of the Impala Flex Fuel is a relatively lazy 9.8:1. Ethanol is over 100 octane. Brazillian Chevies run at a compression ratio of 12:1 on pure alcohol. The Impala Flex Fuel is literally wasting energy in order to maintain compatibility with the gasoline infrastructure. Dial up the compression on the 3.5 V6 and you'd likely not only get more power out of the engine but would probably also return mileage similar to a gas only version. Worked for the Saab BioPower. 3. The third argument against ethanol is that it stresses the food supply. This is true if you base your ethanol infrastructure on corn. The beauty of ethanol is that it can be made from a wide variety of sources. Brazil based their alcohol infrastructure on sugar. There is no global shortage of sugar. In fact sugar producers in the U.S. are doing everything in their power to keep cheaper Brazilian sugar out of our market. Among many other sources, Ethanol can be made from alge and kelp. We have a LOT of coastline in the US and kelp grows along all of it. That is all fuel out there waiting to go into your V8. 4. The fourth argument against ethanol is that it takes oil to produce ethanol. I'm not quite sure what kind of logical defect is at work with this one but it's a duesy. Sure it might take oil to get the ethanol infrastructure in place, but once up and operating, the infrastructure is self sustaining. Why can't the farm tractors, tanker trucks, in fact the entire network be powered by some sort of bio-fuel? Some might argue that it would take more energy input than you'd get with output. While this might be true with corn <the worst source>, it is not true with other ethanol sources, especially those derived from waste products. In short, if you want to keep your V8 and not drive an Aveo, support ethanol and don't by into the hype against it.... because all it is, is hype. Raise your hand if you don't want a big American car with a big American V8 with a 13:1 compression ratio that burns 100 octane fuel grown by Americans that costs around $2.35 a gallon and at the same time not have the U.S. participate in more mid-east wars? *crickets chirping*

I'm the same as Carbiz. After about 1/2 a day, I was finding my way around Köln with ease...... my excuse for the first 1/2 a day is jetlag.

I agree with Carbiz. + More Turbo diesels.

Sorry to hear that. I'm interested to hear their reaction.

uh, look into that a bit more. It may be more complicated than just a head unit swap.

Why? Do you think the Accord is suddenly going to become an Avis special just because it has crossed over into full size status?

it's the same thing!!

Consider this; The V6 G8 is going to base at 27k. There is not a lot of room between the 19k Malibu and G6 and a 27k G8. Cheapest Malibu V6 is 24.6k. Where would that leave the base Impala? 25.5k? I can already hear the gnashing of teeth when it comes with a HV3.5 standard.

I get exactly what my car was rated for....... under the old ratings.

VenSeattle FTW

It won't. However, a 3800lb. FWD car can be larger than a RWD version because less weight is devoted to the powertrain. Case in point. Lucerne V6 is 4 lbs lighter than the base CTS. V8 Lucerne is 100lbs heavier. Best example I can find of RWD being less efficient than FWD. Chrysler 300 2.7 litre - 190hp SOHC - 4 speed auto - 3712 - 18/26 Buick Lucerne 3.8 Litre - 197hp OHV - 4speed auto - 3869 - 19/28 maybe it's that extra camshaft slowin the 300 down :AH-HA_wink:

Microcars may become a necessity A Lucurne sized Impala, with proper packaging/styling/interior would probably sell reasonably well even as a FWDer The hybrid system was developed to go into the 6-speed front drivers also and wouldn't a Zeta impala be a "rebadge" of the G8 anyway?

I'm kinda ok with this....though I think they need to hurry up and make a decision so the W-body can finally be put out to pasture. Let Pontiac have the more performance oriented product and develop a FWD/AWD G-body replacement for Chevy, Saturn, and Buick.

Regardless of the way you use cruise, as YJ has already pointed out, there is in fact a cancel button on the corp. 3 spoke. The new 4-spoke on the G-bodies, GMT-900s, and W-bodies appear to have a cancel button as well.

I'm not arguing against the use of a NAV. I'm arguing that the lack of NAV as an option will not harm Malibu sales in any significant way.

"special" is right

The people who do make brochures sometimes do make mistakes, however I do not see anything on GMC's site nor Carsdirect.com that hints at an SLT1 or SLT2 package. Furthermore, it looks like the 6-disk changer does not come standard in any package available on the 2500HD edit: And call him out on the power seats. 10 ways aren't available on the 2500HD that I can see.... you can get 6 way or 8 way on some Duramax models. 12 way seats come on the Denali

See, I think being an AWD wagon is what really set the Forester apart from the crowd. Now it's just a RAV-4/CRV wannabe.

I recommend looking at CarsDirect.com to see the different configuration options. You didn't specify which truck you're getting <regular, extended, crew cab> <4x2,4x4>. But just a cursory look seems to me there is no SLT1 and SLT2 package. The 6-disk changer also appears to be $250.

Link to Forbes

I volunteer.

Good good.... and the exteriors?

It's not when the reviews are negative. It's when the reviews are negative unfairly <C&D, Malibu, Lows: No cruise control cancel; even though there is one> or that USA Today article where it sounds like the reviewer purposefully abused the car. I don't think anyone here has complained that the Malibu hasn't come in first due to media bias and even with 2nd or 3rd place finishes, most of the Malibu reviews have been fair. Those reviews are fine. Isn't this the same engine that is in the Solstice GXP, Sky Red-Line, and upcoming Cobalt SS that runs with Nissan GT-Rs around Nürgburgring?

Link to CarDomain Key points: a small-block Chevy V8 behind the front seats. power runs forward, with a Turbo Hydramatic transmission coupled to a BMW limited slip differential. Front wheel drive 13 inch wheels exhaust stacks that stick through the roof