Drew Dowdell

Cadillac will never win those buyers because their desire is based on perceived image rather than actual merit.

You really put the ASS in assumption. And of course your numbers are comparing apples to a cheeseburgers again..... The current M3 is 3400s. However, the current M3 is still based on the previous 3-series platform. The old 330ci weighed 3285lbs., but gained 300lbs when it moved to the new 335i platform.... So now the new M3 is looking at a 300lb. weight gain even before you consider that it's moving from an I6 to a V8. The 530i gains 400lbs when it gains the V8 to become a 550i. Now I'm sure that BMW will do some weight saving aluminum bits and pieces here and there, but they can't do 700lbs worth. My assumption is that the M3 will end up right around 4,000 lbs. Considering that the M3 will be anywhere from 80hp to 120hp short of the CTS-V's speculated horsepower, that 200lb weight difference doesn't seem all that big anymore. Now, that is my assumption.... but at least I put some thought and research into it instead of randomly spewing irrelevant or inconsistent numbers around the forum.

I really can't complain about this review... though I do think it's silly to get your panties in a twist over something like keyless ignition in a midsized family sedan without sporting ambitions.

It should almost be expected. Smaller engines with less torque have to work harder accelerating the car. City MPG will suffer. However, on the highway, a smaller displacement engine will generally get better mileage simply by being a smaller engine. And though a $h!ty way to measure performance, the 1.8 has more horsepower per litre than the 2.2 yet about the same ft/lbs of torque per litre.

Not different enough from it's predecessor.

For which one? Even Outlook?

Removing Chevy's fleet sales, but including Japanese fleet sales, the HHR still outsells any japanese model by a significant margin.

take each spark plug wire off, one at a time and replace it before moving to the next, while the engine is running. Note any changes in engine beat. Could be a coil pack.

What is the reliability like on a 3800 turbo?

It's a Cobalt wagon! More than likely there will be another Delta based wagon that gets sold in the next generation.... it's not a dead end!

From you, that is a ringing endorsement

Sounds like you got it taken care of. Sometimes being a bastard is the only thing you've got to hold onto.

My parents had an '86 just like the tire burning burgandy one above. It was an extremely versatile vehicle. The rear seats did a flip and fold that was easier and predated anything in the minivans. The seats would flip up and directly in back of the 2nd row out of the way. Theirs was a 4-cylinder non-turbo with a 5-speed and 4wd. It got somewhere in the mid-upper 30s for mileage on the highway. My dad took it off road semi-frequently. The 4wd would sometimes get stuck on <it was electronically activated> and my dad discovered that putting it in reverse and popping the clutch would take it out of 4wd. The trick started to lose it's effectiveness after a while and there were episodes where you'd see the car hopping backwards down the street while my dad tried his clutch popping trick multiple times. We were the sane ones on the street. It was a sight worthy of our animated gifs thread. One time my sister and I were being picked up from my grandparents by my dad. We drove by what would best be described as a terrain park for off road vehicles. There was this guy in a jeep there showing off and a number of people had gathered by the side of the road to watch. My dad, apparently missing the Jeep he had as his first car, put the Colt Vista into 4wd and started to follow the jeep around the trails. So here you have a Jeep trying to show off and a guy in a grocery getter wagon with two kids in the back following him around. I was probably 10 and my sister 8 so our head were just above the door line. The audience dissipated rather quickly after that. As ugly as the car is, it was a scrappy little vehicle that was perfect for a young family. It was crazy reliable too especially considering the abuse my dad put it through. It's only major issue was a timing belt that broke. My parents traded it in for a 1994 Bonneville at 106,000 miles when it needed it's first clutch in 1996. My mom cried the whole time.

You're a GM fan?

yeah, he's been trying to sell that for a while. I think 98 posted it. It's nice, but it's not $14,500.

My 85 had one that looked like that too. I wonder if it was a dealer installed option or something.

That's a GM press photo... you're just looking for an easy way to make $50.

19800 miles, Turbo V6 Linkity and in Pittsburgh too! Anyone know anything about these engines? I know it's the old style 3800 and the precurser to the GNX engine. What were they like in 1979?

Wasn't really the point. What he was saying is that the number of cut lines leads to misalignment and as others have described, squeaks and rattles. While that may be the case, the Accord and Malibu have about the same number of cut lines each. I do, however, agree with you that the Accord does a better job of hiding them. I think the light gray Malibu interior in the picture you posted should NEVER be produced. It is such a horrid shade and screams "rental" to me. Considering the daring other interior choices, I hope few to none of those light gray ones even get sold. The near black interior I posted does a substantially better job at hiding the lines than the light gray one.

I'm not ashamed that the Malibu will sometimes lose to the Accord or Camry. The fact that it's always ending up in the top 3, usually in 2nd place, is really good enough right now till the Camry fades further away. Remember, the Altima, Accord, and Nissan have all lost a review to one of the others in the past. None have them have been on top in every review. <Only the 3-series can claim that, even in comparisons test with HD pickup trucks> You can't knock the Accord on quality and drive, it's just the styling that leaves me cold. The Camry's quality has been slipping. It's mostly noticeable because of what the Camry used to be. The most noticeable aspect of all of these tests is the Malibu always seems to beat the Altima and the Altima used to be the darling for the people who didn't like CamCords. That the Malibu is playing in this league and not only not getting trashed, save for this article, but outright praised, says volumes as to how good this car is.

Neon also majorly sucked because it was one of the last holdouts with a 3-speed auto, power windows available only in the front, and an engine so rough and buzzy it made your grandmother's 87 Escort feel like a BMW I6.

Manuals were offered in all W-bodies except the Regal. Unfortunately for our DOHC hating friend here, all the cars that could come with manuals either had the Quad4, 3.4 DOHC, or the 3.1 and 2.8 liter pushrod V6s. The pushrod V6es, while decent engines were boat anchors in cars this heavy. They were much more suited to the lighter J-bodies and A-bodies. Where was never a 3800 powered W-body with a manual transmission.

I'd say he's searching. I see no more or less cutlines in any of the three vehicles. No automatic, none, is a mind reader. I can guar-een-tteee I can confuse any automatic on the planet and get the same results. Try not driving like a lunatic next time. Now that one is disturbing. I hope Chevy is looking into it. However, it was probably just the Malibu trying to buck the lunatic driver out of the seat. Yes. That's called the engine running. Well duh! When you drive it the way you've described.....