siegen

I don't know and don't really care. I'm not looking to compare Honda's safety advances to other's. Volvo is only king of one thing and that is 50%+ sales declines. Oh snap!

ACE Body Structure World’s first indoor omni-directional crash test safety facility Collision Mitigation Braking System World's first pedestrian crash test dummy World's first motorcycle airbag system Hoods designed to reduce pedestrian head injuries in car-to-pedestrian collisions Acura first nameplate to achieve both NHTSA and IIHS top safety ratings for every vehicle in its line-up Traffic Education Centers Intelligent Night vision Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Motorcycle communication systems Those are the obvious ones I found on Honda's main site world.honda.com. I'm sure there are plenty of others if I did research into it.

You don't buy non-American cars because they aren't American. You're telling American auto manufacturers that it's ok to keep doing what they're doing since you'll keep buying. Do you think American auto manufacturers are doing a good job? Do you think that the companies are being run as well as they should? If so, they say no more and I will understand. I think that consumers should buy what they want to buy. They shouldn't be expected to, nor asked to, purchase a different product simply because it's American. That would be shifting the problem from the auto manufacturers (where it belongs) to the consumers. The pressure needs to stay on the auto manufacturers if we expect them to improve. If that means beating them down because of their past inefficiency and greed, then that is exactly what we need to do. American citizens have a wider selection of vehicles to choose from than any other country. Should we impose a limited selection on everyone and be like other countries? We don't need to do that in order for our economy to thrive. We may need to eliminate our trade deficit for our economy to thrive. For that to happen, at least in terms of vehicles, other countries need to purchase American cars, and other country's citizens need to want and desire American cars. For that to happen, our manufacturers need to build products that are class leading and desirable worldwide. It's getting there. Ford and GM are building more desirable and better vehicles. I'm hoping that GM can turn it around and become a stronger and more flexible company in the end. Our trade deficit is shrinking; exports have decreased but imports have decreased at a higher rate (graph). Unfortunately I think once the economy springs back, imports will as well. Our deficit with China is shrinking, and if GM can continue to build popular cars to sell there, I think that will help a lot in balancing that budget, and improving our economy at the same time. Our consumers buy a lot of Chinese product though, so it will be difficult. /derailed thread

I saw the videos on the news this morning. I hope this doesn't panic people into purchasing a larger car than they need. According to the data, less powerful cars are less likely to cause accidents in the first place. And if more people purchase smaller cars, the chances of being in a collision with a larger car decreases. The Fit appeared to fare the best out of the subcompacts. The Yaris got crushed a bit more and into the cabin more. Also of note is how the bottom support beam of the Yaris was crushed while the same beam on the Fit was still straight. The Camry didn't appear to fare as well as the Accord or Mercedes either. The problem with comparisons like these is that there is no control in the experiment. They need to use one single mid-size car to crash against all of the subcompacts. The Accord, Camry and Mercedes are all going to have different effects on a subcompact when they collide with it. I think they should have used a single model of mid-size car from a different manufacturer; perhaps a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion.

And the concept of the story is a bit deceiving. 3,479 units is not that many, especially for a low cost vehicle. They sell close to that many Aveos per month. GM just needs to make people aware of the G3 and offer incentives, and those will be gone in a couple months. I honestly had never heard of the G3 until I saw a post about it on here.

Better than a two year supply of SUVs.

GM needs to cut down on the number of models and brands substantially. Then focus heavily on each individual model to make sure it's a class leader. No more rebadges. GM needs to ditch any hints of old technology. Yes, they can still make pushrods and leaf springs work, but consumers like new technology and new thinking. These technologies hold GM in the past. If it ain't broke don't fix it doesn't fly. The Malibu is a great vehicle; good styling inside and out, good build quality, high tech engine; but there is too much crap everywhere else. The Aveo? The Cobalt? Not to mention 80% of GM's lineup that is forgettable.

You hate cars?

*looks at picture of trunk, reads regs comment, is confused.

Go for an S2000 ;-]

I'll see about that.

I use it on 4 sites currently. I like it. I have written my own counters in the past, but it's just so much easier to use Analytics, and it tracks a lot of different variables.

No reason why it wouldn't. At this point Acuras are still glorified Hondas, which is where Acura has always been and how it got its foothold in America. It also makes Acura very profitable for Honda. Had Acura pumped out the RWD platforms, V8s and other goodies, and then hit this recession, I would be a lot more concerned about its viability and profitability.

If it grew on me then I guess the designers did a better job than I had originally thought. The CR-V is an example of this. It's not a car I'd want to own, but I think the design is good. The new TL is a bad design, in my opinion. I thought it would grow on me but it didn't, and I have seen them in person and looked at them at the dealer. I like the current TSX and MDX designs, and the RDX is ok. The RL is a poor design, bland and boring, up there with the ES350 and some other unsightly cars.

The MDX will be less expensive by a few thousand at least, and will be more practical. The ZDX is supposed to be priced between the MDX and RL. The ZDX isn't about practicality though, it is about luxury and image. Performance should be higher than the MDX, and the interior will be much nicer. High end luxury content should be better as well. It also has Acura's first 6-speed automatic, although I imagine the 6-speed will spread through the Acura lineup very quickly. Go look at the production model when it comes out, I bet you'll like it a heck of a lot more than these concept pictures. Most Hondas/Acuras are that way; they look a lot better in person. The only exception I can think of is the 4th gen TL (current), which I still don't like all that much even though I've seen it in person a lot. People complained about the 2nd and 3rd generation TL's when they came out, which are now seen as two of Acura's best designs. People generally dislike any new model, it seems like. Maybe that's the way automotive design is heading. This ZDX rubbed me the wrong way too when I first saw it.

If it was an H or and A, it would get the same comments from me and everyone here, I betcha. Overdone.

The ZDX and X6 share a similar roofline but are different vehicles. The ZDX should have much higher appeal than the X6, since it will likely be less expensive and seats 5. It is also 5 inches shorter and is more of a 4-door coupe, while the X6 is still a tallish SUV.

It's overdone. I think the exterior has too much going on in the wrong places. The stance is very sexy, but the detailing needs a different touch. The interior is very intriguing, but completely not practical.

Lol, you can't be serious. Sure it looks nice at a glance, and it does look aggressive. But really look closely at it. The styling and detailing screams cheap. The more I look at it, the more cheapness I see in it. Although I admit the doctored up images really make it look nice.

In Washington, at least in the Seattle area, nobody really gives a crap when you're on I-5 or I-405. People drive the speed they want in all lanes, and there are plenty of people who will cruise along at 60mph in the left lane. You just end up having to get around them. And flashing the lights or honking won't do anything but piss them off. And from my experience, pissed off drivers will be stupid and do things just to spite you. And don't be surprised if you get a ticket going 70mph in a 60, even if it's with the flow of traffic. I stick to 65mph on I-5 and never really exceed it, although I used to. I see people cruise by at 75-80, and enough of the time I will see them down the road pulled over by a trooper.

Doesn't look like the hood lines up. Bulges towards the center. I would much rather have a fully loaded S5. ;]

Nah, he just chose the two wrong cars to pick between. His choices should be: A4 or... A4... or 2001 Integra Type R in Nighthawk Black Pearl. Or a 2000 Type R in Flamenco Black Pearl. Hmmm... Blue flake or gold and blue flake.... decisions decisions...

At first glance it might look better, but I guarantee if you set them side by side in the same color and looked at them, the Kia would look far cheaper and overall crappier. There is no question in my mind about that. I still do not like the Civic sedan in pictures, but every one I see on the road looks really nice, especially the 2009 MMC.

neither.