ShadowDog

Yo

I have evaluated this kind of behavior in people for a few years since college. It seems to me that it has only been in the past 10 years this natural obcession with being offended by something completely harmless has grown beyond the scope of the hoity-toity well-to-do. I'm of the opinion that some people feel the need to have a negative opinion of harmless things around them, claiming it offends them, just so they can look superior as having higher standards. It's quite rediculous, for certain.

Your numbers look more accurate at their maximum. I actually bothered to dig them up this time...there is a 167 lbs difference between the 2007 models at 1554 and 1387; however, payload capacity wasn't in question at all through this article, as towing capacity was. When it comes down to it, looking at this with complete objectivity, I would still pick the Avalanche over the Ridgeline, even with the small 167 lb. disadvantage. The engine pulling on that weight is what makes the big difference in the end. A V6 would dog it up the hill, having that high-spooling DOHC in a lower and slower gear to keep it going. The V8 could chug along with the low-RPM torque and still could end up managing a healthier MPG figure in the end...if you don't romp on it to get to the top of the hill above the speed limit.

Payload Capacity Ridgeling - 1,100 lbs Avalanche - 1,322 lbs Towing Capacity Ridgeline - 5,000 lbs Avalanche - 8,100 lbs Nope. The Avalanche would have made it almost effortlessly, sooner, and had more gas to spare. How tragic a purchase is the Avalanche!

That interior looks so much like the mid-90's generation Mustang (the visual shape). The color shading kinda throws my eyes off though at the contours. I've always liked that interior.

Any number of reasons will do I guess: - smoke damage from internal fire - rotting timber - broken foundation - depleted conditions make it non-salable - it's haunted Could be anything.

Weeeell, that may not be necessarily so in all cases. My 3.4 DOHC in the Monte Carlo averaged 24 - 26 MPG overall (120K kms total). I'm thinking the 3.1 was about the same for the LS. Nevertheless...uh...in this case for BV...er...sucks to be you? I don't know what's worth replying to in this case.

I shall try to be super-uber-ultra-specific next time. I say "requirement" for some serious offroaders because of their liking to some of the practical elements: - push starts in case the starter or battery go dead - downhill control if a lower ratio helps to reduce brake usage - ease of maintenance and generally just cheaper all around Though for a V8, it's not much of an issue when thinking on rock crawling. Some like the auto for its smoothness in those situations; however, for a 4-banger, an auto just doesn't cut it (this is where I should have been specific). Heck, highway manuals have a place for those who want to bother rowing gears where the power and control is in their hands. Still, with more gears finding their way in the automatic transmissions, like the 6-speed in the Denali, I wonder why folks would want to bother with a clutch? In this case, does GM think the manual shifting driver is a dying breed so as not to offer one...even for the V6? I suppose they have their own reasons.

Many serious off-roaders have a liking of manual transmissions for the control of the power...and the broad range in the ratio of gears.

I find those old buildings rather depressing. The theatre-made-garage is downright painful to see. While I don't go on with personifying the buildings, I do think about how they might have looked in their better days. It's like driving through an old mining town that has museums made up of old ironworks and ore-factories. This is one of my favorites: http://virtualguidebooks.com/Alberta/Alber...lieries_FS.html To see what were some fantastic houses for blocks just falling in on themselves, while families living in semi-unkept slums are strewn throughout just makes me think of a third-world country. I can appreciate the new quarter-million dollar 1200+ sq/ft. homes with nice lawns and landscaping, one after the other (only if they're not development lots that MUST all look the same); but I absolutely LOVE those old heritage homes that lomb above you at the walkway: I would love to make a modern interpretation of this house with some practical interior dimensions and call it my home.

I guess nobody really uses these trucks in the heavy bush and make-your-own-road driving anymore to require a manual tranny. Personally, manual transmissions on highway trucks...especially towing trucks, is pointless.

I wonder if you can wash it out with a garden hose?

The height of the upper grille opening isn't to my preferrence as a third! inlet. I suppose I'll have to wait until the mask comes off; however, I'm hoping it doesn't disappoint like the fugly Camry does. Love-it-or-hate-it styling is something GM only tinkers with. I've rarely seen them take the risk. ...and this, ... makes me cringe. The tires absolutely suck, though only being marginally better than the Goodyear RS/A's that GM can't seem to figure out how to stop using.Oops, I forgot. Don'tcha see much cues here for the front? ...you all know this image, and who to credit for it:

Eh, either gender from all walks of life in any sort of mobile device. ...but I have to say, an old fart ROYALLY pissed me off by driving painfully slow over the rail-crossing bridge in the middle of the damn road instead of the sidewalk. ...so I vote for, "Medi-chair".

Agreed. The interesting thing to note would be that, the majority of the time, I'm typically the victim of an overly-aggressive driver behind the wheel of a domestic vehicle than an import. This is simply because the ratio of domestic vehicles on the road is larger than that of imports. This is also because the guys driving trucks must think they're still in the middle of their farm-field, driving wherever on the pavement and never using a turn signal. For someone to say they don't accomodate someone driving an import is quite pathetic. They might feel mighty proud to snub an import; however, all the other people on the road simply observe an arsehole being a dick on the road to others.

Alright, so it's unlikely the car can reach 147 MPH...but man, what's he really needing to be cruising over 100 MPH in a grocery-getter anyway? Photo radar, Big Brother, money-grabbing-cash-cow...blah, blah, blah; I mean, there's rights, and then there's just stupidity.

Yes, but I do the smarter thing and just grab a damned fork.

Heated steering wheel?

I think it was meant to indicate that he figured it was best to keep it under wraps while they were still popular.

I saw this just a minute ago and came here to find, sure as $h!, this post. I figured to myself... ..."Wait a second, this is big news?" There's always been the underlining jokes about the less-than masculine qualities displayed; however, not that this makes any difference, it's quite sad that it was kept under wraps just to keep the band's popularity from falling victim to the homophobic stereotypes. This made me wonder further that their popularity might have increased had Lance come out sooner.

Response from people if this had been GM: "Typical." Response from people now that all of this is happening to Toyota: "Typical." Level playing field? Not by a long shot. Ignorance is a difficult thing to change, and the Toyota-humpers would sooner deny-deny-deny until the car falls apart around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KdF_Ship_Wilhelm_Gustloff While Titanic is recognized as the worst 'peacetime' maritime disaster, this one sure made me pause. That's like sinking half this city's population of 16,000 people in a boat.

28 or... Old enough to know better, but still to dumb to care.

Understood. My comments are, for the most part, personal opinions. I have little interest in the classics, being a forward thinker who possibly should focus more on some heritage cues. Still, the latest cues in the profile just don't really cut it with the mix of the reasonably attractive rear end treatment...again, my personal opinion, of course. I should have looked more carefully at my original post regarding the 2000+ model year being an Impala coupe...I should have placed my MY figure closer to the '06 design. That would have been something I should have added on. The Monte Carlo could take time-off with GM improving its image with a name-change. The Chevelle would be a nice switch; unfortunately, I see GM simply flipping on a new skin to the existing frame with an redone interior...not the best idea. I suppose a wait on cashflow for a newly engineered midsize-coupe/sedan would be more interesting. 170296[/snapback] My fuel efficiency comment was more in regards to the image the Monte Carlo portrayed. It was a blanket-covered comment regarding all of GM's 305 equipped vehicles, such as the Monte Carlo...heck, even the Camaro. Odd that, on a Monte Carlo website, I read that the 305 engine in this era was even being called a H.O. variant...with a whopping 185 HP. 'Fuel-efficiency' wasn't exactly answered by having simply a reduced-output V8 as a band-aid. What ever the answer, I suppose GM first has to acknowledge that a question even exists.

I'm reading a lot of opinions and agree, for the most part, on the positive ones. Regarding the more critical negative opinions, it's highly unlikely that we'll see any significant impact against their sales as a result. Make no mistake, these trucks will sell well. They won't be everything for everybody; for instance, unless there are aspects of other trucks that keep them a step lower, I don't expect this truck to win '4x4' or 'Offroad' - "...of the Year" awards with a lack of a manual transmission, etc. They will still sell. Payload and towing capacity, fuel-mileage technology, diverse styling between the divisions, convenience advancements in bed and interior design, and just the fact that these models are all new in engineering... ...they will still sell.