hyperv6

Hey why not. They already have this in the other cars and it would cost little to offer it here. Do it like Buick and offer it as an option and don't force it on buyers. GM has to do cars like this as to gain MPG for the CAFE it will not be all done buy just one type of drivetrain. The Electric cars Hybrids and other powertrain options will all have to add up to help. None are stong enough to satisfy everyone but together they will all add up. If gas prices stay high it will increase interest and GM will have a ready alturnitive to offer vs getting caught with their pants down again.

i haven't been in or drove Brooklyn Decker and Jennifer Lawrence but at least i think its alright to speculate about preferences based on photos............ truth is even a lot of us who frequent these car sites, rarely see more than photos and spec sheets and even when you do see one often its just one passing on the road. product appeal has to be generated that way before anyone even has a chance to get inside......... and anyways most GM fans are generally accepting of GM's driving manners etc so it's really not 100% premature to ask for a preliminary fave...........there are enough photos now to provide decent enough fodder for comparsion I think the odds are good that everyone here will see a Malibu or two. Hell they might even see one parked! As for the Photo's they really suck and to me give a bad impression unless I use the spy photo's to put them in better perspective. Though the interior looks great and I would love to see it at night with the lighing on. I think most here missed how much special lighting the LTZ has in it. Too much anymore some of the GM photo's just do not do the cars justice. I see folks here condem GM on the car till they see it in person and then they sing a different tune.

This is a little premature. Ask me again once I have been in and drive the 50% of this question I have not yet sampled. To judge a car I have not see in person let alone sat in is not a good Idea.

I too can not say it has been 25 years and many cars that I had to replace a light of any kind in any of my past cars. As for light weight a tail light and a couple bulbs are no more heavier. Now on the head light I could see a little more there. As for speed coming on? Like it is going to effect the speed of the guy tailgating you into getting his foot to move any faster. The fact is LED is cheaper now to the point they can use it for styling more than anything. Also it is cheaper to do the odd tail lights. Now if you damage it or do have a LED failure it is still not as cheap to replace the assmebly. The truth is on some cars it is sone well but on the Audi and some others it looks like a JC Whitney add on. It reminds me of those damned lights under a car that few people ever mounted correctly. You know the ones they bolted in the grill and you could see them when they were intended to be under the car out of sight. Cars started to look the like the strip in South Beach at night. They are not a deal breaker and I will get used to them but on some cars they just rub me the wrong way. An example of well done LED is on the rear of a Cadillac. THe high brake lights have been LED for a while and few people ever notice. IF they are spaced together better they look so much better.

I am not a fan of the LED in the tail lights but today many precieve this as higher quality. I expect the Camaro will get them next like the spy photo we saw.

glad you mentioned the Kia. those doors do sound a bit hollow and hints as corners cut on the rest of the vehicle. regal, every detail suggests solid build. For the most you get what you pay for. With many of the Korean cars they look like a Million but It is all makeup and lip stick on many of them. They are going for the kill with the price point and feel if they make them look good they can cut the corners to save on price. Well that works for so long till cars start coming appart in areas the warranty did not cover. I have a few co workers who bought Korean thinking they bought smart till they got some miles on the car and found them needed work their old GM and Ford cars never needed. If GM can keep the price close they should do well with BU. People in this class only want good value and reliability. That is what sold so many Accords and Camrys over the years. GM has added some good looks to a car that is a good value and it should bring them in. My only worry is MPG. I know it will be a little better but will it be enough? The weight will be down a little but this care will not be a feather weight.

Well from here and other sites I have read the response has been love hate. That is about the best any car can do. Even the Vette has about a intitial 50/50 love hate first response. GM has done what they needed here. They have carried over what was good on the last car put it on a better platform and made changes that should appeal to most in this class. This is not a car for all here on this site and if it did appeal to all here it would have missed the target market it was aimed at. It will be interesting to hear more on the 2.5 engine. This is the first of the new Eco engines and I assume the 2.5 is only replacing the 2.4. The Turbo engines may have more to offer. The Styling is doing it's job. The car will not be mistaken for a Honda or Toyota as it says Chevy in the details. The tail lights will grow fast on people in person as then you see the real car the rear will smack of the Camaro much more than the photo's show. Note too the C pillar was retained from the last car and was the stongest thing styling element on the last car. The side cut is similar to the new Colorado and I expect it will find it's way onto the other new Chevys. It kind of started on the Camaro. Interiro is a little busy but not too busy. I think in person more will like what they see. It is much better for a little busy vs a large expanse of plastic infront of the passenger that looks really cheap like in the Camaro. There will be some things missing on theis car that some here will lament like the lack of a V6 and trunk space. But then again if it had all these items would there be a need for the Impala. All of these I am sure will be addressed in the new Impala and make it so people can choose what they want. If anything the build quality will be at the lead of the class if it is like the Regal. The new Kia Optima I was in left me cold when I slammed the rear door. The door left a cheap metalic ting that could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Soul. A well built car needs to sound as well as it looks or is made. I think based on what I have seen and what I know about this platform I will be good with the Malibu once I see it in person. Will I want a few things different? Yes as there is seldom a car anyone here would not make a change or two. Over all I think this car will do well in class I just hope it is enough to keep the car current and get the needed updates to remain current with the others. I know the last gen got pinched in the money crunch and I expect GM will not let that happen again. I expect them to keep this car fresh.

My guess is that it'll get the LF3 engine. 3.0 bi-turbo V6. If there is no new tranny, then it'll be stuck with 300 lb-ft and perhaps between 300 and 360 bhp. If there is a stronger variant of the 6T transmission look for about 360hp/360lb-ft even. Not bad... BMW 535 class in in power. Although the DI V6es need a bit of work in the NVH department. BTW Dwight, just have to say I love reading your posts... you have some awesome ideas and I find you very knowledgeable. I appreciate that you try to think outside the box and come up with products we want. Unfortunately, I've heard about the NVH issues of the DI V6's. It's a shame... GM knows how to build a damn good engine, if they could just fine tune a couple of things they'd shut the critics up. DI engines as a whole make noise but most of it stays outside. My HHR sounds great inside but out side it sounds like a smurf war under the hood. The non DI V6 is very smooth and what noise it makes is plesent.

Another interesting fact... Despite being a rather old 2005 design and lacking of a 4-cylinder option, the Impala outsells the 2008+ Malibu last year. By 2014 the Impala will be 9-year old -- very long in the tooth compared to the typical 4~6 year model cycle of most cars. Many people complain about Walmart too but they still shop there because it is cheap. The sad part is while the Impala is selling well it is not because it is a class leader. It sales are on high discounts and low profit margins. GM is lucky that most of the tooling was paid off long ago or the low profits would not even be that. Most Hyundais sell not because they are the best cars but because they are cheap. This is something Chevy needs to remember when planning new product. In a stale economy like this price counts for a lot in selling cars. I also expect the 3.6 Six Speed to be carried over to the new Impala later on. The investment here is not something that will be lost on the old car and not used in the new car.

Actually, where the engine is makes a notable difference. Take ruler and tape two same sized lead weights near each end. Rotate it about the middle. Now move the weights equidistant close to center and rotate it. You'll notice that while the total weights are identical and balance about the center point are also identical, the setup where the weights are closer to the center of the ruler rotated with a lot less effort. That's polar moments. Even when two objects weigh exactly the same and center of gravity is exactly the same, the one whose dense material is concentrated near the center is more easily rotated than the one whose dense material is spread out near its rim. Low polar moments is a unique advantage of the MR layout. That is true to a point but in the case of the Fiero wight placment was not the real issue. The facted the stock 84-87 suspension could not deal with it. If you compare the reviews of the 88 Fiero to the non turbo MR2 the suspension put them on equal terms. Your polar movement thing is more for cars like the 911 where they hang most the weight out back. These cars have Drop Throttle oversteer because of the polar movmeent not the must the poor suspension. This has been an argument for years on the two different schools of thought. Mid engine makes sense but on the other hand there are some really great front mid engine layout beating some really good rear mid engine cars. As one race designer said the advantage with the mid set up any more is the ability to keep the driver lower in the car. The rest mostly comes down to how you set the car up to deal with the balance. Tuning is what makes it all work. The real avantage is the MR2 got the suspension tuned correct right out of the box where Pontiac failed to tame the car. A well tuned car should be able to be drive fast easily. The Fiero can be driven fast but not very easily. Many other Fiero owners get mad at me because I will not say the Fiero is a great handling car. Their problem is they never drove a great handling car before. I may be a Fiero owner but I don't have rose colored glasses on. If GM had just gone with the 3 link rear suspension in 1984 there would have been little to complain about suspension wise. The Iron Duke in the car is another long GM story.

Handling, weight, drivetrain offerings, would all be addressed in a new design, and aren't inherent issues with the mid-engine RWD layout. Considering how good GM's recent turbo 4's have been, and how much work they've put into suspension of recent SS vehicles, I would think they would at least get the handling and drivetrain pretty darn good. Weight could be an issue, simply because of all the safety equipment that is now standard on vehicles, and making up for that weight by using large amounts of special materials could easily drive the price beyond what would work for this kind of vehicle. My V6 Fiero comes in at 2600 pounds and if it were built today it would be a little heavier. Engine weight would come down but sub stucture would be more for crash testing and the added equipment would also add weight. I agree to remove weight would cost alot of money as the material to do it would not come cheap. Note if GM were to do one today I would love the LNF 2.0 Turbo in the car. The only real issue would be heat as I have friends with Turbo V6 Fiero's and the heat takes a toll on the engine and electronics. Little air in the engine compartment is a problem vs a front engine car. The only way to do a cheap sports car today is to keep it simple. The only real advantage to mid engine anymore is aerodynamics. You can place the driver lower in the car. If the weight is 50/50 it works just as well. The car has no idea where the engine is just the weight. If anything the engine in back often has created drop trottle oversteer. I have had this happen to me in the Fiero. You have to be quick enough to understand you need to get back on the gas to pull it in like a 911. People who don't know this spin out.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design? Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car. The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car. Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do. The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered. Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting. Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better. But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast. It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's. One thing I did like about the Fiero was the engine compartment lid. Its simple, one piece design covering both the trunk and the engine bay is a better idea than the MR2's. Firstly, the spring loaded lid pops up conveniently and offers lots of working space (for a mid-engined car). And, then of course, it forces you to look at the engine every time you access the trunk which is actually decently sized. The Suspension though is horrendous... feels like the camber and toes are all wrong (an unadjustable), feels lose, imprecise and unstable. The steering too felt lose -- almost like the ball joints have 1/4 an inch of play even though I replaced the bushings (albiet with stock ones). The Brakes are also really, really bad. Again, imprecise, unprogressive and underpowered. The car, while small, felt big as a result. You are always looking for more room on the road while driving that thing -- run off room, braking room, room to recover from an unintended slide. I didn't do much to the car. Somehow, I felt like it was a lost cause and did only the necessary maintenance. I did try to tame it with sticker tires in the back. What was wrong with the Fiero suspension was the rear for one had no rear sway bar till 1988. The A body FWD unit was mostly used but they left the bar off. Too many at GM remembered the oversteer issues from the Corvair and no one was brave enough to take the change. The rear contol arms were also mounted with rubber bushings that deflected this in turn would change the toe in with the tie rods tied off. So in effect every time the control arm hit a bump it deflected and changed the toe in the rear. This gave the car a major bump steer issue on anything but smooth roads. Note all of this was changed on the 88 with the new suspension. It had no deflection and handled great. GM designed the suspension and Porsche Engineering was called in to help tune the front scrub radius. If you never drove a 1988 Fiero you would have no idea how much better it is. As for looking at the engine in the Fiero that was not a bad thing as it was one of the best dressed GM engine in history....at least the V6 was. The real issue was heat in the trunk. I can tell you that you don't want to carry anything that heat would damage in the trunk. On long trips in the summer it get pretty warm in there. I do have the rare factory fitted soft luggage GM offered for the Fiero for mine. It helped make it so you could take a trip but few people knew of it and less ever purchased it. Note my 85 V6 with the Herb Adams changes handles much like the 1988. The large bar did a lot to make the car neutral and the solid bushing while a race item removes the bump steer. Note my steering is still a little heavy as I never addressed it. Note that the Fiero stock had so much understeer it was crazy. It really takes the 1.25 inch bar to fix it. The neat thing is Adams used the stock holes in the A body contol arms to mount the bar. The Crawford Museum in Cleveland had a preproduction Fiero that I got to play around with. In the trunk it has several sway bars that GM had used and the tires with only a few hundred miles has a lot of side wear. GM was looking into doing the bar and should have. This car was proof they wanted it but someone pulled the plug.

The trunk will have a little clam shell effect to it. As for the latest picture it is a little misleading as it is not a great photo. The greenhouse and other proportions are a little out of wack. Used some of the spy photo's to put this in better into persepective. This is a car that right now may not sit well with some and they will change their mind once they see it in person. Designs like this show much better in person as they need the 3D effect. Note the CTS coupe is ok in photo's but is a real WOW! in person. As for the tail lights they will come off very well. If 6 could be done I would save it for the Impala but only if they look right. Todays cars are so narrow that 6 if not done right would look silly. The cars in the past were so wide they looked good on a full size but I still would not want them on a Vette or 72 Chevelle. Too often less is more.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design? Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car. The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car. Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do. The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered. Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting. Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better. But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast. It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's.

Those numbers are wrold wide. THe US market averages right around 18,000 units over the time. The Miata is the rare acception in the 2 seat class. It has a little for everyone and with it being sold world wide it helps justify the buisness end. There is a market for this kind of car and Mazda has the formula to own it. To take it away from Mazda would be diffcult and near impossible with midengine.

Nice concept but never an Impala in reality. I am all for a car like this but it would have to be a Buick or the RWD Zeta based Chevy.

I am not even going to bother reading this as you just don't get it. I guess you are right and the things I read in the WSJ and other buisness/tech publications are all wrong. Yes I understand very well what they are saying I just don't agree with where you are coming from. 5 years ago most people said the Volt would never be built and then it would not do what it is doing today. The fact is when enough time and investment is made in anything often [note I did not say always] things can be accomplished. That Cancer thing is a tough one but some of it has been taken care of and they are still working on the rest. The key with any research as long a work goes on improvments can always be made. Good thing Kennedy did not give up when they told him the Moon was impossible. History has a good track record of accomplishments that were once termed impossible. Never underestimate what needs can be conquered with hard work, investment and a little luck. The real key is investment. This is only my opinion please accept it. You don't have to agree to it anymore than I have to agree with your opinion but it is what it is.

How many units would they sell per year and how much profit would the see per unit. Then how many years could this be sold with no major updates and still sell in profitable numbers. Who is the target market for this car? 2 seat cars have a limited market add mid engine to it and it becomes even more limited. This make it all the harder to keep in production at a low price. Most sports cars are limited volume and they make it up with higher prices. Through out history there have been few low price sports car and even less that last more than 5-7 years. Even the very good ones have a limited life. This was pointed out to me by a GM marketing manager that loves sports cars Alfa owner and even had a wife involved in the Corvette program. Don't get me wrong as what you have down is a modern day Fiero for the most part and I like it all but the 3 cylinder. A 4 cylinder Turbo would be much better for marketing and public preception. You and I know a 3 can be done well but the unwashed public think differently. Too much Geo flashback here. The long and short of this is I feel it is better to term this as a car I would love to see GM build someday but not one that they really should build right now. Note that this perspective from being a mid engine sports car owner for going on 26 years now. I have see a lot of them come and go over the years and the 2 seater line is one of the most difficult to do at a low cost and make it last. I am going pass on voting here as I like the idea but don't feel GM should do this kind of car right now. There is too many other things they need and should do before they play with a car like this. Once they get their ducks in a row then lets revisit this. Note too the more parts this car could share the better the odds you could make a buisness case for it. It is nice to dream about cars like this but to be realistic you have to make a real world buisness case for them. Even the Solstice was a difficult one to get pass even with the heavy Lutz support. Note a front engine car with 50/50 balance would handle just as well and could provide a better trunk that would appeal to more females. They hate to pack for a trip in Hefty Bags. They would account for a large sales target group and should be considered. This has been key to the Miata sales for many years and has kept the car alive. Also the lack of power steering would kill you in this demo. Yes I know it would not be that heavy but in a parking lot a female will diagree with you. There are a lot more thing to consider than engine numbers and options.

<cynical> One thing also to keep in mind are the big oil companies...I would think they will be doing everything they can to keep down EV adoption and sabotage EV development. </cynical> I think too many get fooled with the old tales of the high mileage carberator tales. They are like Big Foot everyone has heard of them but never has seen one. Besides would auto makers still be going bankrupt spending billions on cars with only marginal improvments. The car company that makes a car with ultra high MPG would stand to make more money than any oil company could pay. Most Oil companies are invested in many forms of power including Coal and even Hydro power. They no longer are just dedicated to oil. Note even when GM showed the Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars Shell was one of the largest supporters and was willing to help provide more fueling stations if some of the issues could be worked out. Oil companies are in little danger of lossing out here. There are so many places for the oil to go and they know that Gasoline will still be the prime mover for years to come. Hell you still have got to have something in the Volts tank don't you?

You are the one comparing EV cars to flat screens. You can't even compare CARS to flat screens... otherwise, cars would only cost 10% of what they did 10 years ago. THAT AIN'T HAPPENING. You need to start reading through battery R&D... we've been R&Ding batteries for over two hundred years. Batteries are used in all sizes and shapes from watches to locomotives... the biggest earth movers on the planet use huge batteries. We didn't suddenly start researching battery tech in 1999... we've been doing it for over a century. Making a lighter weight, more powerful battery that doesn't suffer degradation has gotten so much money thrown at it, well before we decided to get back into EV cars. Remember, its easy to look at the articles from the last 5-10 years and see huge dollar signs... but when GE puts $30 million into battery tech in 1968, that $30 million goes farther than $1 billion in today's money. As for the research going on? A huge percentage of the research is tunnel visioned on Lithium. Regardless of the technology, we are going to be restrained by chemistry and physics. There are no freebies. At some point the energy density will reach the point where the battery is a huge bomb. You think the government is going to allow that? You ever short out a Lithium ion battery? Its not pretty... I'd hate to see that happen in a EV. Dream on. Lithium batteries date to the 1970s. We are well along the curve with Lithium ion research, and we already know Lithium will have limitations. GM didn't stimulate this growth... Laptops and cellphones did. Motors have been getting lighter since Tesla invented the AC motor... we are waaaayyy down the curve on that technology, too. The current EV electric motors are about 150~200lbs... so we reduce that by 1/3~1/2... now they are 100 lbs. At the rate Americans are getting fatter, that savings will be out the window with a few trips to McDonalds. As for other components? GM put aluminum regular production parts on cars 30 years ago... that experiment lasted about 2 years. Audi has been doing aluminum components in bulk for decades, but GM can't even trim the 2011 Malibu below the weight of a 1968 Malibu... you really think GM is going to go all out reducing component weight? I'll believe it when I see it. The bottom line, in 5 years we'll probably see a 5% increase in efficiency... 9% in 10 years. Not really exploding. The question I have is this... will people still want EVs in 10 years... if EVs turn out to be twice as reliable as my Lithium Ion power tools (dead in 3 years), laptop batteries (majorly limited in 2 years, dead in 4) and cellphone (inconsistent life at 2 years). I'm sure people will still have their Volts... but the engine will probably run nearly all the time. Leafs will be crushed or getting conventional drivetrains. Again, keep in mind, I'm optimistic on EVs... you guys are unrealistically optimistic. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In 5 yrs, we're not going to be living the Star Trek lifestyle. I never said it would be a Star Trek Life Style. I just said things would improve and get cheaper. Get a grip. The EV is here to stay but it will not replace the gasoline car soon if ever. It will offer a choice as will other type power systems. Hell if they could find a way to fuel the Hydrogen Cells easier, faster and in more places it is viable today. GM has the system just few places to fuel them up and in a short time. Lap tops and cell phone did help but their batteries are far short of what cars need. The batteries cars need demand so much more than you cell phone it is crazy. You had better read up on how the industry is working and where the new investments are being made. When money is put into any dedicated technology giant gains are made. Litte was put into dedicated EV car other than some token programs that often were aborted. The EV is only at the start of a long road and advancements will come and things will get better as cost drop. We all will not be in EV cars and some of us here will never own one in our life time. But that is not to say there will not be a growing market for them. The Day GM drops the ICE engine is when the EV car become the norm. I do not see that in the near term. As for car weights they all have to come down as with the CAFE they can not affor too many 1.4 powered 4000 pound cars. Many are working on lighter materials and cheap light materials for the future. I see them getting many advances here and even some creative use of present materials. Sorry your if you glass is half empty but the truth is the markets glass is half full and thing will not remain static. It would be so ignorent to thing thing remain the same for the next 10 years. Let me make this clear since you don't seem to get it. In 10 years EV's will get more miles and be cheaper and I will be the first to say they will still not be the notm mode of transportation for a while now. Nor will EV's be Aveo cheap in 10 years. My whole point is that now there is a EV market people and companies will invest in things for it as they can now sell them. In the past few would spend much for a car that would never be sold to the public. Mass production and larger markets help drive the cost of products down and drive up investment improving them. It is simple econmics.

It was not so much the Volt but the Dollar Store extention cord he used. I can see issues with the way people wire their grages being an issues in some cases in the future. I hope it was not the Volt fault here as GM does not need this to happen.

The styling for the most was right and only a few things really needed addressed say like the tail lights. The important thing is the underpinnings are all new to this car and updated. It will be quieter, ride better and handel better. This is on top of a already good car. I expect the added width to give it a better presents in person. It will give the car a better proportional look with lenght vs with. But as for the overall styling it was not in need of a major fix. This class thrives on good looks but not overdone cars. Many of these owers like consevitive styling hence the Camrys high sales.

That's impressive because I've read reviews stating the new 2.4L DI in the Sonata is a bit coarse. I haven't experienced one myself. This too is the one major complaint I have seen on the Sonata. They feel the engine while powerful is very unrefined. I did laugh the other day a co worker drve a new Turbo Regal. He told me since GM is building them in Germany they must be buying engines from BMW. He never drove a 4 cylinder with that much power and as quiet in a GM car. I broke the news to him it was a Ecotech similar to what was in my HHR he was shocked. I told him it was a good engine and the quiet tuning really makes the Buick special. I hope the new Bu get much of the same quiet tuning that the Buick receives.

Yes at this point we have heard little on the new Eco improvments. GM has done often brought out cars with an older or lesser power plant and then followed it up in a year or so with the new stuff. Even the 84 Vette got the old engine before we got the TPI.

Using your analog, if gasoline was like flat screens, I was paying $1.07 for regular 87 octane in 1998, so we'd be paying 10.7 cents a gallon for 140 octane gasoline today. Unfortunately, comparing flat screens to batteries is apples to oranges. Flat screens are not stuck being made from a small group of expensive metals. Batteries are. Lithium is $300/lb before you do anything to it. How much is used in the Volt? Where will this price go if large scale Lithium battery production starts and there is not enough Lithium extraction to go around? Lithium is not exactly common and always requires expensive processing to purify it. Remember, the biggest Lithium fields are in a middle eastern country currently at war with the US. I'm not saying that there aren't potential savings here... but it ain't going to follow the flat screen price free fall. Sorry but EV cars are not the same as gasoline. Who is to say Lithium batteries will be powering cars in the future. Work is already started on alturnitive batteries and with more people investing in their development odds are they will find better and cheaper alturnitives. Gas is oil based and a globally traded commodity. A lot of investment has already been done to try to replace gasoline but not near as much has been done for Batteries yet. We are just on the start of the curve were we will see improvments and savings. GM has stimulated growth as has some of the other EV MFG and this will improve spending into better batteries. Add to this cheaper,smaller, lighter electrivc motors and other components that will improve the cars. The bottom line in 5 and 10 years technology will explode for these cars as they have only really started to make a dent in what they will do. The key is to keep a market viable so those who are investing into it can make a return on the money they are spending. In other word why invest in better batteries if there is little or no EV market. Few people will invest the needed money based on the few Tesla's that are being sold. A lot of the investment in this field has to be done by private industry. In the past many of the programs at NASA and other goverment funded programs paid to develope new technologies that gave our industy the lead in many areas. Now that the goverment has gutted NASA it is left to private industry to do it alone. Too few people fail to understand Apollo was not about going to the moon. Apollo was more about how to get to the moon and developing the technology to get there. This is what drove the electronics growth and computer lead our country once had. NASA is still working on power and battery issues here at the Glen Center in Cleveland but it is not funded like it used to be. It is a shame with all the spending last year they did not cut some of the waste and put it into programs for better batteries and advanced technologies. All we got here in Ohio were some token Union construction jobs that will vanish next year. But that is another story.