Blake Noble

Yep. Exactly.

I actually rather like this idea. I can spec out my Camaro exactly the way I want it and not have to worry about a "market adjusted" price tag or hidden dealer costs, except for maybe a delivery fee or something to get it to my driveway. Maybe they could offer a trip to Oshawa to me and I can watch the final assembly of my car take place, sort of like what BMW does to customers who opt to take Munich trip.

Me? I'm not thinking small at all. I've already got something to drive when maybe fuel gets a little tight: my Sonoma. So, there most likely will be a black Camaro setting next to it in the near future.

Well, at least it's not a Beetle. ... Sorry, been watching too much Top Gear. Anyway, have you tried to convince her to check out Saab?

Quite a sexy little coupe indeed.

I like it quite a lot.

I'm not saying change it all, you can design two totally different looking vehicles and still have them share the same roof panel, internal structure for the doors, etc. and not have the total cost be waayyyy up there. I'll say this: the Canyon and Colorado are actually downgrades from their predecessors. I test drove a manual, five-cylinder Canyon back when I was looking to replace my S-10, and the only thing I can say I really liked about it was the power and the clutch take up, but that's aside from the styling, which with the last-generation S-Series trucks, you'll find that they have had different hoods, front fascia assemblies, and headlamps throughout the whole second generation. And I know from every last bit of research I did on converting the front fascia on my old S-10 to a Sonoma one that the swap isn't exactly as easy as you may think. The last-generation full-sized trucks got better differentiated after their MCE, as did the SUVs, but that was only south of the border I believe. And the TrailBlazer and Envoy were pretty different from each other, yes. I'll have to agree with this.

Hmmm ... good catch. Guess it's like the Yukon's character line. Like I said earlier, you'd think that with the money automakers use to make insignificant changes like this would be used towards making each vehicle quite different from one another.

The doors, greenhouse, and hatch are also the same on the Durango/Aspen and that's also the main area where they look the same, as well, just like the 900s. The rear quarter panels are the only thing that's actually been significantly changed on the Aspen, compared with the 900s, which have no changes in this area. The changes done to differentiate the Durango/Aspen are just as trivial as the ones on the 900s, when you look at the big picture. They don't add up to much.

No one really seems to notice that there's a Colorado/Canyon-esque character line running a few inches down from the top of the headlight and stopping a few inches away from the door, though (the Escalade also has it, as well, but it stops at the fender vent). You ask someone to name all of the differences, and they over look it. Thought I typed this. Oh, well. Error fixed.

The Tahoe and Yukon have the following parts totally different from one another: Front fascia assembly. Headlights. Hood. Front quarter panels (I can't believe you guys don't notice this). Rub strips. Taillights. The Durango and Aspen have the following parts totally different from one another: Front fascia assembly. Headlights. Hood. Front quarter panels. Rub strips. Rear-quarter panels. Taillights. Rear bumper fascia assembly. So, yes, more was changed on the Durango/Aspen than on the 900s. However, you would think that with all of the money that Chrysler Corp. spent in trying to differentiate the Durango (MCE) from the Aspen, and vice versa, they would have made the changes more significant and apparent. The styling is so similar overall, you'd never really notice the differences until you looked really, really close. The 900s actually have lesser changes made to them, and yet you can't really say they look like blatant re-badges and also can't say they look totally different from each other.

I need, at the very least, preferably nothing more: Mid-sized Coupe or Sedan (preferably Coupe) Attractive, clean design devoid of unnecessary bolt-on exterior parts and a good stance V6 engine standard (Power is a need, not a want) Manual transmission Rear-wheel drive Great handling and a "sporty" suspension Decent MPG (Doesn't have to be some Wunder-Car with 100 MPG city) CD player Alloy wheels at least 17" or larger, equipped with a set of considerately low profile tires (I'm weird, I know, it's just one of those things) Air Conditioning Bucket seats That's all I require in a new car. This is what I don't want or try to avoid as much as possible: Sub-compact sedans and hatchbacks, compact sedans Four-cylinder engines Automatic transmissions Front-wheel drive Cassette players (We had an '04 Impala with one of those, a really retarded thing to have when you don't own a working cassette tape anymore) Wheel covers (Again, that '04 Impala had them and started to yellow after a year; gimme some metal, please) Bench seats (Don't care for them; the ones in the Sonoma are going to go soon for buckets with a console as soon as I have the money) Every other option available on a new car that I didn't mention? I can take 'em or leave 'em.

Well, if I were Hyundai, I'd be embarrassed of myself, too. They built this POS ... ... And now they want to be taken seriously as a luxury car maker? Haha, yeah right.

Creating totally individual models for each division of GM might be cost-effective if they still had fifty percent of the market or more. And even when they did have a good percentage of the market like they did back in the glory days of the Fifties and Sixties, most GM cars did share a common, corporate platform and few common parts between each model.

Neither am I. My Camaro will be pretty much as optionless as it can get (cost is a major reason why). But I am a design nerd, and the Challenger's interior design lacks imagination, and it just irriates me. The concept car had a few cues that made me think of a '70s Challenger, but this new interior really doesn't, it just looks like another boring, lackluster Chrysler Corp. interior. A twelve year-old with a ruler and a few different sized coins could have designed it. The Camaro's interior has that design edge, and that's what a lot of people don't seem to really realize. They let their preconceptions about interior materials make them ignorant. The Mustang has that edge as well, but the Camaro does more so, in my opinion. The specific use of different design cues (guages, dash shape, etc.) from the early '60s Camaros lets you know exactly what it is. What other than the faux pistol-grip shifter in the manual-equipped Challengers actually speaks the Challenger design language? Nothing, actually.

This is quite bad, actually. The interior of the Frontier isn't anything to write home about, and I think Suzuki has made that fact worse. What the hell happened to the A/C vents on the center stack? The truck obviously has A/C in the top-end model pictured, so where did they go? That is one the most retarded details I've seen in a vehicle before. The grille is quite horrible, too. The Army Green Equator that Mr. Blu references in his post fixes that problem, but Suzuki isn't going to offer it as an option, so why did they even bother showing it? To piss us off? Hope Suzuki doesn't build a NG Equator like this. Sure, it gets their foot in through the door, but it's deserving of a level of pity akin to that of the Isuzu i-Series.

Whoops! Wrong pic. Thanks, Dodgefan.

LAWL????//???!?111//???11???!!!//? Oh, yeah. This Omni interior and the Camaro interior are about as same as it can get, man oh man. It's so clear where the Camaro crew got their design inspiration from, let me tell ya. Yeah, it's an Omni (or is it the Challenger's?) interior, all right. Do yourself a favor, save up a couple of bucks and go buy yourself an educated opinion so you won't look like a moron the next time you open your mouth.

God, that grille is inexcusably offensive. And are those the same headlights that are on the MDX? What the hell?

And GM doesn't intend to lose sales, either. Don't think they're going to fluff the price up more than it has to be. I'll reiterate: DON'T KID YOURSELF. An excessively bloated price tag can turn away customers. GM knows that. You apparently do not. Ignorance. No where in my post did I say that the Camaro and Mustang will be priced exactly the same. But I know the difference won't be thousands and thousands of dollars like you think it will be. Get over yourself.

Quite nice, really. I like it.

This makes me think of a quote that goes, "You say, 'If I had just a little bit more, I would be very satisfied.' However, you are mistaken. If you aren't content with what you have, you would not be satisfied if it had been doubled," or something to that effect. You can only ask for so much of what you want before you get greedy. I agree that a modern hardtop coupe would a nice option on a more mainstream, affordable coupe or even a sedan and that it would catch my attention. However, I am not going to get bitter because I cannot buy a hardtop coupe and that one is not going to be built. In fact, I could ultimately care less if a hardtop option isn't offered on a new car. If I want a hardtop, I'll make a trip not more than ten miles down the road and buy a '67 Camaro and restore it (which I actually might buy that '67, if my budget manages to get a little more flexible in the next few months); it wouldn't be new, however, and I would like to have a new car before I head off to college and before CAFE starts it's witch-hunt throughout the auto industry and burns cars like the Camaro at the stake. The upcoming Camaro is everything I wanted it to be, it meets all of my standards one-hundred percent: it's powerful (even in V6 form), it's affordable, it's very well designed, and it has all of the basic credentials right (manual transmission, rear-wheel drive). I am not compromising here or sucking it up. And I wasn't being greedy when I set those standards down when the Camaro entering production was made official and I decided I would try to own it in some form when it came out, I was rather being quite reasonable. And I'm quite happy knowing all of my standards were met. Just because everyone else isn't crying, "Make it a hardtop, goddammit!" like a two-ton opera singer during a soprano doesn't mean that they are compromising and sucking it up, Sixty-8.

If I were ever in the market for a minivan, God forbid, I would sacrifice the flexible seating for better handling and to avoid the standard run-of-the-mill Chrysler interior styling.

Yeah, I know it's not exactly the G8, but, since we haven't seen a G8 in action, this is as close as we're going to get for the moment. I'll also say this: after seeing the VXR8 in action, I would like to try to have a G8 in my driveway in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_HPSOGcnD4