avant1963

I'd rather GM fixed the Kappa first before basing anything else off of it.

Is that an upside down Pontiac symbol on the bottom of the steering wheel hub?

While I do not agree with "banning" bulbs... Now that fluorescent bulbs are getting to be not as expensive, people will naturally gravitate to them. I replaced most of the regular bulbs in my house with fluorescent when I moved in over 5 years ago, and in that time I have not had to replace one of them. For the amount of money they save in energy usage and replacement costs it's a no brainer. I'd would just not want the government to make up my mind for me. Try them, they are well worth it.

Believe me, if it was a timing belt, it would have been easy. That car had problems from day one, and probably the worst GM car my family ever owned. And I believe that engine has has a very high rate of failure and more problems than average. That said, the CS convertibles have always been a fav of mine, especially with the six "headlights". That was the look that I loved on my 92 Grand Prix SE. Loved those mini sealed beams.

That 3.4 is the worst GM motor since the 4/6/8. My dad's Monte Carlo Z34 self destructed by 65,000 miles. If it had the 3.1, I'd think about it.

CSpec, You truly live in the world of talking points, don't you. You know all these numbers all completely flawed, right? These numbers to not take in the number of people who no longer get unemployment because they have been out of a real job so long, they ran out of benefits. Many of these are well-paid professionals that are trying to find a job that pays a fraction of what they were making AND benefits (it's easier to find a temp job that pays no benefits. And if you have never had to pay them outright for yourself, please don't talk. I've had, and you can't pay that and the mortgage too.) Also it does not calculate the amount of UNDER-Employed people, which is the BIGGEST problem in the workforce today. Sure you may have found a job after getting laid off from your well paying tech job, or construction job, but you are now working a Lowes for a fraction of what you were making. Then you have to work a second job to make the bills. Well, according to GWB, who was quoted saying how wonderful it was that a woman with kids had the opportunity to have 3 jobs. FU Mr. Bush. That's not opportunity, that's sad necessity. Then you have the nerve to taunt this talking point bull$h! when this coming week I have to deal with this at my company: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/repo...o&dist=yhoo I have to sit and endure 15-20,000 layoffs this week and the job market looks great. FU is all I have to say. Do you think ANY of those jobs are going to be in any market than the US? You don't live in the real world. And the analysts weren't happy with it because they were hoping for 30,000 layoffs. Yeah, great... that will make the stock price jump, 30,000 people out of a good paying job. Then you have this case at Circuit City where they up and layoff the highest paid workers so they can bring younger people in at a much cheaper price: http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/04/07/100bus_suit001.cfm Not what I consider a great job market. Before you start tell people in the real world, who have to work 2-3 jobs to keep their heads above water, who worry every time the stock price goes down they might lose their jobs, not some Bill-o mommy-and-daddy protected talking point regurgitator, think, because this is insensitive, close minded drivel.

Fixed thanks. That's what I get when I do something on a whim to relieve the pressure of the day.

Don't you think I look cute in this hat?

I'm curious, does Chrysler make ANY changes to the rear suspension when the hard-top is ordered? From this review the answer seems no. This is the first four-seat car (I can't see the little MX-5 top causing too much problem in the trunk of that car, but I'm sure it throws off any driving dynamics it once had) to have the option of hard-vs-soft tops and I seems that throwing that much weight from the center of the car (when up) to the rear of the car must require some suspension re-tuning if you were to have anything other than a rental-car ride. And I doubt any rental companies are going to add $2000 for the hard top. This is the car's achilles heel. And $40,000 is a little hard to take for a loaded Sebring.

I'm sure that NO GM car will have this awful roof. If they dare allow the AURA to roll off the assembly line with that roof, they can kiss the Saturn customer good-will goodbye. That roof was a good idea but executed horribly. 19 months left with it, and can't wait to get rid of it. The best move that GM could have done for this car. Believe it or not, at least half of the G6 GTs in NJ had the Panor roof when we were looking for one. It was not hard to find one here. Every time one comes into the gas station my dad works at and he always asks if they are having a problem - no one is every happy with it - from the terrible noises to leaks, this roof was a BIG MISTAKE.

Anti-free trade. PRO FAIR-TRADE.

Each time these Edmunds' guys go to take a $h!, they must write a 10 page complaint: "I can't believe I don't have a self-wiping asshole. And what's wrong with my dick, it doesn't automatically tap that last drip off and I leave the men's room with an embarrassing stain on my Chinos. God just can't make a good product. And to think I've wasted my whole life in this junker." Holy hell.

And I apologize to you 6t5frlane for going off on my rant without understanding the point you were making. There has been so much garbage thrown at Gore and trying to cut emissions, that I thought this was another one of those, but you and I agree on this.

I am searching for that quote. If that is what he said, by isolating only US manufacturers, than I have to completely disagree with him. I've been reading stuff from his hearing yesterday, but I have not found the anti-US manufacturer quote. I do agree that the US Manufacturers could have done MUCH better in the past 20 years in making more fuel-efficient engines for those that want them, while still making powerful engines for those of us that love them. And agree that they would be doing much better if they had more smaller cars with better milleage.

The opening post is where my "hatred" comment was directed, sorry for the misunderstanding. We posted around the same time, and I did not read your post until after I posted. You make my point. If we weren't so in bed with Big Oil, maybe technology would have advanced were it wouldn't take $100,000 and all of your roof to power parts of your house with solar. Just imagine what 30 years of focused work on solar, wind and wave technology would have given us. If the US did not drop the projects in the 1980's, where would we be? It's ashamed that we had to be backed against the wall for this all to happen. While I understand that gas prices have to rise for Americans to do something, this increase in price impacts those that that least afford it. The middle-to-lower-class Americans should have already had a choice to cut dependency on oil, but it's these people that will be hurt the most. That's the catch-22. There is no easy answer to this anymore, but just like the war, many Americans don't want to give up anything to get things done (this was the first war were we demanded tax-CUTS. Usually there is tax-increases to pay for it and drafts that put everyone in the game.)

And I am the biggest GM supporter here, $h! I started this site 6 years ago, but can you honestly say that if GM focused on a small engine that had killer gas millage (to offset the big honking V-8 that I love so much) we would be sitting here today with Toyota owning the millage wars, PR or not? IS it a good thing that the Aveo gets worse "posted" millage than the Corolla?

You need to sit and really look at without the hatred many people have for Al Gore for some reason. Al did say: "Don't single out cars and trucks," Gore said in a lengthy statement before a pair of House subcommittees. He described emissions from motor vehicles as "only a slice of the problem" and not the biggest slice. I can't believe that any reasonably thinking person cannot understand that PEOPLE are contributing to Global Heating. How could all the millions of cars, trucks and buses, coal plants and emissions not be helping? There are natural cycles of heating and cooling of the earth, but we are helping it out, big time. What's wrong with making new industries in wind, solar and wave power? Why are people so against this? If you could place a small solar panel on your roof attached to your hot water heater so it will no longer cost you any money to heat your water ever again... you would be opposed to this? Well, if we would stop letting the Oil Companies set our policies, research would have been made for this and it would be cheap enough that Joe Shmoe could afford it. And you are against this? Drop the hatred and politics and think.

My Dell Inspiron laptop is also a case of me NEVER buying from Dell again. While overall, the laptop has been OK (It gets very light use) in about a year and a half, the DVD-RW drive died (I never even burned a DVD with it) and it was not under warranty and would have cost me over $300 for a new one (I wound up just buying a CD-RW to replace it for cheaper). My desktop Gateway has been pretty solid (bought it in 2001) and only had the fan on the power supply go and that was early on and was replaced via warranty. So out of the two big mail-order monsters, Gateway will get my business when I need a replacement.

After offering $1500 to dealers to sweeten the deal of base Tundras to customers who may use them for business reasons, they have added a $2000 incentive for dealers "to better motivate them to purchase the new Tundra for use as a parts delivery truck." The Toyota dealers probably want a Sierra. A little easier on the eyes if you have to stare at it every day, and from what I hear, the GM trucks are safer too. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070316/toyota_offering.html?.v=1

And by the way, my favorite O'Reily moment is when he took a letter from Jack Meyhoffer, and thought it was real. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/09/open-thread-419/

Captain, you obviously never watched O'Reilly. There is NOTHING civil about his approach, his thinking or his tactics. If you dare to point out he is wrong... WTF am I thinking... in his head, he is never wrong, hence the need for a Duramax to haul him around. This is a guy you don't want vocal about buying a domestic. He's the kind of asshole that would get a recall notice for the wrong tire PSI sticker on the door jam and blow it up so big on his program, that he would would do more damage than good. I don't need a person like that on my side, he's an infectious disease.

He was looking at heavy duty pickup trucks because only diesel-powered trucks are powerful enough to lug around his big fat, pudding-filled, ego-inflated head.

If you don't think this administration is already doing this (a well as searching your snail mail w/o a warrant) you are living in a dream world. And if you give the stupid line "If you have nothing to hide, then what is the problem?" then you have no reason to be living in the USA. Our right to privacy is a key provision in the creation in this country, and in six years, more has been done to tear this ideal apart than at anytime in our history. I strongly agree with Benjamin Franklin when he wrote: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/...says_feds_.html

When Motor Trend did testing on a Malibu with On-Star, while in the slalom portion, the G-forces exceeded "normal" levels. All of a sudden, out of the speakers came a voice asking if they were "OK." On-Star had registered that there might have been a crash. I understand where to some people this would be a great security blanket, but to me, it's just too intrusive. I don't like knowing that someone can track me no matter where I am at, tell my speed, and if I took a turn quickly. When my 1 year of free On-Star is over, I will not be renewing. It is not a service that is for my life right now (I don't travel much, I don't have kids, etc).

OK, here's one. "Overcast days never turned me on, but something 'bout the clouds and her mixed"