buyacargetacheck

There are no "alternative fuels" and never will be that will allow us to continue living the way we have. Every alt fuel requires petroleum inputs to one degree or another. Factor in EROI (Energy Return on Investment) and you quickly realize that most of these fuels we hear about on "the tube" (ethanol, bio diesel, etc) either don't scale or are energy sinks (require more energy in making it than they produce). Oil is irreplaceable. We're either going to have to conserve and start living smarter or be honest with ourselves and realize that we're going to have to get earnest about killing more of the Earth's inhabitants to get our "fair share." Sorry to sound so glum. How's that for PC?

Surrender??? To whom? To what? You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

I don't know why I am listed as a "Super Sport" member. I don't own one.

You're not alone. This country is full of corn-pone fatties who think they're ENTITLED to the standard of living their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. These same people don't worry either because "technology will save us." 35 mpg? Easy. Why? Because that's the way it's always been. Bank on this - prepare yourself for a different way of living that will include forced sacrifice.

Hardly anyone really NEEDS a Tahoe or a Lambda except for towing. So it may just be that the days of trailer-towing boats, RVs and other lifestyle vehicles is coming to an end. No one but the very rich will be able to afford them anyway in the coming years of very high fuel prices and tight credit for the average joe. I'm sure that a Tahoe sized vehicle will still be offered, but the demand will be so limited that likely only one manufacturer will be offering it (kinda like when Ford ceded the full-sized wagon market to GM).

I have this sinking feeling that with our debt load, our expensive wars, our ever-increasing fuel costs, and our hollowed-out manufacturing base that has reduced our economy to haircutting, fried-chicken and finance based on Ponzi schemes that we'll all be driving (if we'll drive at all) what they're driving down in Brazil very soon. Forget the post WW2 American Dream. It's dead. So are national borders. The future is a new one-world feudalism consisting of the very rich and the rest of us. Enjoy your V8-powered G8 while you can (if you can still make your monthly payment). And have a nice day:)

I think there's a regional preference for sticks too that no one talks about. I lived in New England for 5 years and remember more sticks there than when I moved to Florida. In Florida, I couldn't get rid of my stick BMW 330CiC with the sport package if I gave it away. Excellent condition, average miles, loaded, and it was priced well within the range of other private listings.

Any idea when the last GP rolls off the line?

Car and Drivel has never been kind to the Corolla (except for maybe the old 16V GTS). But then again the Corolla isn't the impractical, hard-riding kind of sled they like. Remember, most of the editors at car mags don't actually buy family cars for their own use and therefore don't have the perspective of a buyer that looks for reliability, good resale, good insurance rates, etc. For its target market the Corolla was about perfect to begin with - no wonder "the new Corolla is no quantum leap." Duh!

Sorry, but your 500 does not carry 36 cubic feet of cargo with the rear seats up like in the RAV4. Admittedly that volume is vertical, but then the same can be said for most SUVs/crossovers. The fuel economy in the 4-cyl model surpasses anything else that compares in terms of cargo/passenger volume and price. You're right: this is a station wagon - basically the new Camry wagon. I'm not crazy about the spare on the back either especially with the fem fiberglass cover.

Proactively increasing fleet fuel economy before fuel prices skyrocket a la 1973 is smart. It may just help stave off inflation and, ironically, help save GM and Ford. Doesn't anyone here remember 1973 or 1979 when oil spiked? Don't believe it can't happen again. Believe it or not 400hp is not a right. In fact, neither is car ownership. It's a real eye-opener to hear these punks on-line with their modified 400hp SRT-4s mocking early 80s 145hp Camaros. Those who don't understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

That was my exact experience with the battery in my '99 Odyssey except I was stranded during the day. Lasted 4 years - no warning that the battery was going bad. The dealer-installed replacement went bad a year later - no cost to me. The battery in my new '01 BMW lasted less than a year. Always wondered if it had something to do with trying to jump the Odyssey. Now wondering when the Mopar battery in my '05 Jeep will go. I'd be happy with 5 years.

Quite a car for the time. Ventilated disc brakes, 4-wheel independent suspension, OHC, EFI, 4 speed auto if you wanted. The autos were even electronically controlled at least in the Supras. The interior design of those cars would hold up in a new car today. Ahead of its time.

The Mark IIIs were great cars. I had an '87 Turbo stick non-sport roof that I got rid of at 160+K miles. Very smooth and sneaky fast. Funny that it was roundly criticized for being heavy at 3500 pounds, in-line with a similar car today. The turbo never gave me any trouble but the valve cover gaskets were starting to leak and the cooling system needed work. As an aside, I was looking at tire prices on-line today. I remember buying replacements for the 225/50VR16 Goodyear Gatorback Eagles back in the late 80s and early 90s that came with that car. $200+ per tire was not unusual. Now you can get an excellent Kumho for a fraction of the price that's as good or better. There's definitely been no inflation in the price of tires over the last 20 years.

That's worldwide sales (all brands for each company). Essentially, they're neck and neck at this point with GM gaining some momentum.

GM is not in danger of losing its #1 NA sales status anytime soon. That's not the issue, yet. What's more important is Chevrolet's trend of losing market share while the Toyota brand (Toyota Motor Sales USA minus Scion minus Lexus) increases its sales and market share. People like a winner that's why Chevrolet was America's "default" choice for so many years. The average car buyer could care less about "GM" versus "Toyota Motor." They look at nameplates.

Brilliant!

This is the same trend I warned about in May. GM needs to get its act together on Chevrolet. Far better to deemphasize Saturn, Saab and Pontiac while piling some cash into shortening Malibu's, Impala's, Aveo's and Cobalt's lifecycles:

The reason is that a lot of people wanted their cars to look new and/or they bought into the hype of the CHMSL's safety after they became standard equipment in 1986. The aftermarket went crazy with these things. Seemed like everyone was retrofitting their cars.

If you weren't around in the late 70s-early 80s it's hard to imagine now how far ahead Toyota was back then. While GM was stumbling with X-car rust, brakes, and general $h!iness, Toyota was cranking out electronic fuel-injected, SOHC and DOHC Supras and Cressidas with untouchable reliability, smoothness and near-European handling. 5-speeds, 4-speed O/D automatics, and independent rear suspensions were common throughout the lineup too. The DOHC 16-valve Corollas were WAY ahead of their time for their size/price class. DOHC back then was, to put it mildly, exotic. The Alfa Romeo Spider had it but it was an ancient application even then. Meanwhile, GM competed with pushrod 4 cylinders and Ford with wheezy, unreliable vacuum-hosed challenged Escorts and Lynxs. Toyotas didn't hit the big sales numbers back then because they were priced a little higher because of Reagan's voluntary import quotas and no American assembly until NUMMI. GM and Ford have made HUGE strides compared to then. Still, all car advertising sucks now comparatively.

Anyone else remember these? The pace, the music, the consistency, the slogans all made for much better car commercials back in the 80s than now. "Oh What a Feeling" with the actor jumping in the air and naming the model made you remember the car. Now it's some lame voiceover reminding you they're "Moving Forward." Snooze. Same with Ford, Chevy, etc. BTW, Dan Gurney's effort for the Celica and Supra was terrific. There's only one I could find. http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Z4G8lQuXy4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qLhiDx4w_U&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqmZZfxtYM...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0PqBNkaAxw...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG4GunUCAJs

Mmm. Might the real reason be that it just isn't cost-effective to re-engineer the Commodore's dash to accommodate an option for a mere 25,000/yr sales? Does Lutz really think you're that stupid? I just have to laugh at his ill-deserved reputation for straight-talk.

Vapor? As in Vaporware?

It's a great idea and one I've floated for years. Chrysler's real market share is a lot lower because its supply far outstrips its demand. They've screwed up one too many times, and Cerberus isn't going to inject an infinite amount of capital to "make" the Chrysler brand a luxury car. To really get some traction at this point they should find a way to make this dealer consolidation happen quickly a la a Manhattan Project while phasing out either Dodge or Chrysler entirely (but keeping the money-making lines and the potentially money-making lines). Maybe even take this a step further and nix either Chrysler or Dodge. Dodge probably makes the most sense to keep because it has more high volume, high profit vehicles (Caravan and Ram). Meanwhile, I like the idea I recently saw where Chrysler would make a MINI Cooper type car (high profit, high style, high quality, fuel-efficient premium small car) and not compete in the low-end Yaris/Aveo and Corolla/Cobalt markets. There's no law that says a manufacturer has to play in every market - just ask BMW (who does this well) and Ford (who's just about been KO'ed with its Jaguar "international luxury brand" fetish). BTW, no matter what is decided the "Dodge Challenger" will stay around for a few years after which buyers will tire of it like all the other over-produced and hyped retro designs (PT Cruiser, New Beetle, SSR, Prowler, etc). By 2012, the folks who have the stomach to pay $5/gallon to fill up a '70s-inspired V-8 powered 2 door coupe will buy a Mustang.

These commercials won't help the Malibu convince Camry and Accord buyers to switch. The reason GM (wisely) doesn't use a Camry or an Accord in the commercial instead of the Cutlass is because the Japanese cars aren't in reality any more or less stylish than the new 'Bu. GM would look stupid putting one of those cars in because nobody would get the message. Instead GM needs to show the new car and talk about reliability and quality and features and value. That's what has made the Camry and Accord a success over the last 20 years. Another thing, I get the sinking feeling that GM is screwing up by using the Malibu name for its standard-bearer family offering. Impala has a much better heritage for that role, and the latest Impala sales figures are showing excellent progress. With higher fuel prices coming the Zeta Impala will ultimately be relegated to a lower profile in the lineup despite all the buzz. If this new Malibu fails like the Aura, GM would be better off renaming the upcoming Cobalt "Malibu," the EpII Malibu "Impala," and the upcoming Zeta "Caprice."