ShadowDog

Corvette and hood scoop? No thanks.

"Hot damn! I've been uglified!"

The Chevy Optra model line, (Suzuki Forenza/Reno) utilized cable-driven throttle control in '04 with a transmission powertrain system that ran in three modes with various sub-modes called "Fuzzy Logic". This was primarily for economy, normal, and sport characteristics to alter the RPM and shift range based on the input by the driver at the time. It does it fairly well, although there are times when I'm puttering along at 50 km/h on the street and suddenly need to give it some gas for a spot to change lanes. Usually when it's cold, the car seems like it's thinking for a split second, "You want to merge, well then let's give you 3rd gea...NAW! Let's giver' 2nd!" Then it's BANG-SURGE! Only but a couple of times, you would hope the car would give you 2nd, but it chooses to give you about two seconds of 3rd before it punches down. From '05 they stayed with Fuzzy Logic, but went with electronic throttle control, though I don't have a flippin' clue why. A four-banger is a four-banger, where the throttle response really doesn't make any useful difference. What annoys me are the automo-useless people thinking that this "learning" the Fuzzy Logic does is permanent, so when they have a performance problem, they think that erasing the computer will fix it. Fuzzy Logic remains 'on-the-fly' during the conditions of driving at that particular moment. It's not that it 'learns' anything, but actually adapts to demands of driver input. If a Korean company with a German-designed ZF transmission can figure it out for a sub-$15,000 car, why the hell can't Toyota? GaduH?!

...or...

7.954545454545454 (breath) 54545454545454545454 (breath) 545454545454545454... f@#k it...8%

Holy crap... I mean, I actually like it! Now that's something a business could get its name on and be recognized for.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...fe1bfeb&k=83316 Dave Hall, CanWest News Service; Windsor Star Published: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 WINDSOR, Ont. - Japanese automakers bumped a pair of North America's largest domestic producers out of the top three in Canadian sales last month for the first time. According to a report Tuesday from DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc., September sales from Toyota Canada Inc. and Honda Canada Inc. put them second and third respectively behind General Motors of Canada. DaimlerChrysler Canada and Ford Motor Co. of Canada, meanwhile, posted modest gains to round out the top five.

It still entertains me. I'm not one to hold on to the past enough to affect my appreciation for the present and future.

Wow, you're on a tangent. One cannot accurately calculate the number of lives possibly saved by DRLs. Common sense would tell me that if a car is clearly visible, there is simply much less room for error. The comment about 'how to drive' has nothing to do with how well a person can see another vehicle ahead of them. There are so many variables for which DRLs simply enable less guess-work and chance. In my experience, daytime fog in the valley makes visibility quite poor. Do you think anyone would steer into an on-coming lane for any reason if they saw the headlights of a vehicle with a driver who didn't have to worry about turning their own headlights on when the car does it for them? Why the hate on for lights? What's the big deal if a car has DRLs or automatic lights? If anything, too many people are horny for lights at night, blinding on-coming traffic with their fog-lights when there is no reason for them to be on in the first place. If the argument there is to have more light for better safety at night, wouldn't that be the same as having lights on in the first place during the day so others can clearly see without mistaking an approaching vehicle? I'm annoyed by the whining some get their panties in a twist on about how 'rights are imposed against me'. It's a fricken' headlight! Get over it! My example... might as well stop reading since you said "no anecdotal crap", but I chose to pass a semi-truck on a straight stretch and pulled out after checking for traffic. It was near-dusk with an apron of trees dividing the highway from the sky. By the time I was beside the trailers' rear wheels, I see a dark vehicle approaching. I slam on the brakes, startling my wife awake in the passenger seat, await for the trailer to pass, and duck back in behind him. Sure, the moron was driving past dusk with no lights, which is illegal. The driver was an idiot, and could have made the situation a non-issue just by turning on his own damn lights in the first place. Gee, it sure would be handy to innocent drivers, like myself, to have headlights come on automatically so fewer people would find themselves in the situation I was in, or even worse, a head-on collision... those certainly aren't anything new. Well, what do you know! They DO make those! Drivers with brains rejoice, because now drivers without brains have one less thing to feel stupid about. If other cars have their lights on so they can be seen, just what the hell is the problem?

I'm surprised I haven't read it already, so here it goes: So many people, especially the younger-rice-rocketeers, prefer the look of a car with no headlights on. They'll either prefer just the park lights, or a combination of park lights and fog lights...all for the sake of vanity. Of course, when it's dark outside, then they need all those front lights lit up like a Christmas tree, you know, because it just makes the car look cool. On auto-groups I frequent, there's often the dedicated thread pinned to the top with the title, "How to disable the DRL!" - Why? Why not? After all, saving lives takes a back seat to looking 'cool'.

I was thinking the same thing. My question would be just how many people even have any clue as to the heritage style of the domestic product? As I can see it, domestic style today is a melting pot of heritage cues spanning decades into the history that's been buried with my grandfather. This is supposed to attract the 20/30-something buyer from an import after having absolutely no clue as to even what cars of the past you all suggest GM should consider naming it? Screw it...call it a G8, for all it matters. I say this because I wonder about the ratio of enthusiasts to new-to-GM car buyers who could tell the difference anyway.

So, GM would have better spent its money buying Holden just to dissect it, selling it off in pieces to the highest bidder, as opposed to utilizing and refining Holden's and GM's technology and style on various shores? Why buy Holden then anyway? Why did GM buy all of its current divisions those many years ago? The economy of the global scale prevents GM from using 'home-grown' manufacturing and assembly. The cost of living in North America demands higher pay and larger union demands. Here's a product, here's where it's built, here it comes to our shores for everyone to buy. At least Holden can benefit from being just another division...just like Pontiac, or Chevrolet, or Buick, or Oldsmobile; however, I suppose those don't count 'just because' they're on American soil. That stance is old-school thinking. If you're concerned about what GM chooses to do with the American public as potential employees, you'd best change your argument to suggest that purchasing auto companies to broaden GM's horizon for technology and other ideas is the main problem. ...or would it make more sense to get the plans for the car, spend millions to adjust factories and labor, build the car with overpaid and benefit-fund-leeching employment, and sell the product for no profit. That is the American way, after all.

It has been suggested to me a few times that the system be tested periodically (monthly / bi-monthly) in a safe setting, like a parking lot. Regular maintenance includes visual inspections of the system for noticable problems that have yet to be found by the system's own diagnostic readings. The way I see it, one can take a look at the brakes one minute, and then end up in an accident because of a failing part that looked alright to begin with...in that case, $h! happens. There's no easy way to know how many people have faired better with ABS than without, but I'm willing to bet that more have benefited.

I see the armchair warrior is stacking his soapboxes again. I thought I set him on ignore status, but I must have fouled up. In this case, he brings up a valid point: - There are programs within GM that are forced upon the dealers that make little sense. I'm not going to get into the cost issue, but will focus on what ultimately translates into a cost issue based on the perception of the customer. Who has a view on the customer satisfaction survey they would like to share? Mine is that it serves to do little to benefit anyone but the dealer if they are all handled the way I've experienced. The consumer gets their car back and soon receives a phone call to inform them of a survey that will be arriving in the mail. They are informed that this survey affects the future of the dealership by GM in a negative fashion if anything less than 100% satisfaction is reported by the consumer. By how I read it, the consumer is 'coached' to respond positively, regardless of the service they have received, whether poor or otherwise. How does this benefit a dealership, and ultimately GM, when a consumer is smart enough to recognize that the survey doesn't mean anything much when the dealership is only trying to 'cheat' the system for their benefit? Buickman speaks on a subject that means absolutely nothing to the general consumer. Things like this survey do affect the perception of the company by the customers; the people who really count in the end. The subject may seem important from an operational level; however, the bread and butter only see what happens where they bought their car. Dealers speak negatively of these programs and weisel their way through them to serve a purpose for them for the best possible outcome. I can recognize this as a problem with the dealer, not with GM.

Hopefully GM will respond to this by participating in raising the bar for standard ESC safety systems. As I see it, and have experienced in a variety of conditions, this equipment and system programming does work since the grand majority of drivers have very little experience with emergency driving conditions. For most people, common sense dictates that they slam on the brakes and steer away from danger to avoid disaster. This is all they can do for themselves. The additional active safety equipment with ESC does much better by making the vehicle work for the driver instead of against them. While there certainly are additional maintenance costs to factor in to the upkeep of a vehicle, the benefit is in the education of the owners to ensure they are properly maintaining their vehicle's systems on a regular basis. That benefit extends to everyone on the road. The problem in the end is with the quality of the components to which the consumer has an additional burden of cost in owning a vehicle. The issue of cost vs. safety always comes up with each new safety system being added to a vehicle, so this one is no different. In the end, the system works. Those suggesting that they are tired of safety systems taking control away from their hands need to understand that it's not taking anything away from them, but adding more for them to utilize. It's working so the vehicle will accept the input it's given, as opposed to heading in a direction the driver may not have intended to go, but ultimately is responsible for.

Subjective. Besides, this thread is about the Avenger, and the opinions for and against it's styling, as we know it.

When looking at the third image that displays just the front-driver quarter region, I get the impression that I'm looking at a hot Dakota Sport 2WD pickup. I also agree that, while the front overhang isn't as terrible as a W-Body, it's still pushing it. Overall, it definitely removes the 'cute' from the small-to-midsize car. I have to agree that the rear-quarter fender work is a little much. It looks like it's been forced into the tiny space made-available. Overall, I'd say it's not too shabby.

Oh, I agree completely. Still, it's different for many people. Some work extra because they have a complex that tells them the workplace would fall apart without them. Sometimes, it would...but that's the fault of poor management when reliance is on one, or themselves, to get the job done. Then there's the people with self-superiority, believing that their jobs are so important that they really need to devote all their efforts into ensuring utmost efficiency. Some just want the extra cash for a project or hobby. In a way, like a job in highschool. The regular job is like classes, earning what you want to pay the bills and tuck some money away for the future; and after class is time for some extra money to goof off with, or spend on hobbies. For many, this is temporary just to get the funds; for instance, my buddy working a couple months at another job to fund another bank account to get enough money together for a trip with his girlfriend and an engagement ring to give her. Others just do it to reduce debt quicker.

Is anyone taking into consideration that cost is not the determining factor for most buyers? I would tend to think that many buyers have more thought to doing their part as environmentally-conscious people.

Good grief... Getting laid is so not the impression the Celebrity gives me at all. I mean, damn...that's pushing it.

That's a pretty heavy pace, for sure. Still, the rewards can be worth it. After working 60 hour weeks for the past 6 months during the course of our renovations, I don't even remember what a 40 hour work week is like. Managing this operation will be far easier once this $h!-bucket is fixed up; and to think that before this all started, I was entertaining the thought of picking up a weekend job to save up some extra vacation trip funds. It would certainly cut into the one day my wife and I get to spend together. So if I did that, my wife would kill me.

I still have a PII 266MHz running Win98 on the network in my living room. It's my browsing system and link to my music library on my main system. That little bastard was my first computer ever in 1995, and works quite well to this day. Sure, I've had to reformat the hard drive a few times; however, only because I was looking to perform big changes that only starting fresh could reasonably accomplish with less time and effort. My point? Any typical user would have trashed that system long ago with the problems they would have been facing. In the end, with a decent system, the hardware is rarely the problem...it's always the software and user. The biggest problem is how the software is developed to only allow a user the most basic functions, leaving really handy functions buried in the options menus or quick-key commands that a seasoned user would really bother investigating and utilizing. Computers have never been user friendly, and users are too impatient to even bother figuring out how to use the HELP section.

I went to a family-friend back in B.C. who is a stylist. She did excellent cuts. When I moved here to Sask., I started going to a salon that received some good feedback; however, I never could get the same person by way of their busy schedule, so I just decided to grab my razor and just giver'. For my first time, it worked out quite well. My mom used to cut my hair as a kid, so I knew what the routine was. Summer was coming, so it went down to the shorties of 1" all around with tappered sides. It's probably the next phase until I shave it completely bald after enough of it receeds from my noggin'. Now it's just self-done electric razor maintenance.

We're one step away from Hybrid vehicles coming with a disclaimer: "Batteries not included"

Technically, 126 HP... I forgot, all cars need to be 200+ and spinning smoke from the rear at every moment of movement.