siegen

Are Cobalt's that bad? :AH-HA_wink:

And if it wasn't crying.

Wow, Presidential Texas Edition. It doesn't get any more American than that!

I was going to post this, just saw it today. God that's an ugly color for a vehicle. They could have at least gone with silver.

I agree, the tail lights are very similar in their angle and size.

Aren't all minivans though? :AH-HA_wink:

So they spent extra to equip the Sienna with AWD, despite the rest of the competition being FWD. Then they say it didn't win because it was priced too high? Lol Not that I really care too much about minivans.

We're taking this thread for a roller coaster ride. First CVT's, then Escalades, Pilots, and now trucks! I'm having trouble keeping up. :AH-HA_wink: On an average, the Avalanche will probably get within 1.5mpg of the Ridgeline. Yet, it will probably get better mileage than the Ridgeline while towing or hauling a moderately heavy load. So the Avalanche tows better, hauls better, and will probably handle overloading better than the Ridgeline (if my Sierra is any indication). It pretty much does everything a truck is designed to do a bit better than the Ridgeline, and doesn't even take a big hit to MPG despite having a bigger engine and weighing more. So why do people buy 50k+ Ridgeline's per year when they could pick up a nice new Avalanche instead? Is it because it's a Honda? Is that the only reason?

Sigh, if only....

That depends on your definition of capable. Can the Avalanche haul 8 people? I'm not ragging on the Avalanche, it is a nice looking capable vehicle. But, it is used for a different purpose than the Pilot, or an Escalade SUV for that matter. And it does get worse mileage, although not by a lot. Avalanche 4wd - 15.6 Avalanche 2wd - 17.44 Pilot 4wd - 17.18 Pilot 2wd - 18.4 Ridgeline 4wd - 17.2 www.fueleconomy.gov Nice sarcasm. The point is, how do we know how Reg's buddies drive their vehicles? At least with fueleconomy.gov we have a fair number of sources which most likely contain people who baby their vehicles and people who don't, and from various parts of the U.S. Also, given Reg's extreme bias, how do we even know these numbers are real or accurate?

That's nice. My buddy has an '06 Avalanche and only gets around 11mpg, mostly city driving, while another buddy of mine has a Ridgeline and gets around 21mpg freeway, and used to average about 17-18mpg when he had a job in the same city (mostly city driving then). Obviously I just made that up . Unfortunately it's hard to get accurate real world numbers for vehicles since they vary so much. You can only go off of averages between lots of people across the country. 'Buddies' aren't very good sources of mileage information unfortunately. I'm not saying you're lying, but it gets annoying when you pass your argument off as fact based on one or two buddies who for all we know could absolutely hate Honda's, and be driving them into the ground while they baby their Chevys. Not on the racetrack.

Match? While the Ridge's mileage isn't great, it is still good for high teens to low 20's in real world driving. This is from fueleconomy.gov and carspace. I couldn't find much for '07 Escalade real world mileage, only one report on fueleconomy.gov here for 12mpg, and one post here for 11.5mpg. Magazine's observed mileage ranged from 11mpg to 13mpg for the Escalade, and 14.5mpg to 17mpg for the Ridgeline.

Maybe it was a poorly-geared transmission. Or the Milan just doesn't get better mileage than those other cars regardless of gearing.

It's not about how many of the vehicles are sold.

I never even clicked onto the thread in question until after this thread, but after reading through it (and not being offended at all) I feel O.C. got the short end of the stick. Razor was being extremely argumentative and it can be hard to let someone else have the last word, specially in an argument over a topic such as that one. I hope O.C. comes back after he's had some time to forget about it, it is just the Internet after all, can't let anything get to you personally. Here's an idea. There should be a feature that allows the mods to restrict select user's access to a thread, that way the thread could live on but without the argument catalyst. Not sure how well it would work, I wonder if any forums have implemented a feature like that.

Did you read their reviews of the Yaris, Fit, and Versa? The Fit had a very positive review, while the Yaris and Versa had less than positive ones, although not nearly as bad as the horrible Aveo (it is a Korean rebadge, what did you expect?). I find the majority of the reviews on that site contain 90% criticism, unless it's a German car or a Honda. They gave the new CR-V a good review as well, despite its 10 second or so 0-60, which was the only negative point they brought up. I have read a lot of the reviews and have yet to find a review for a domestic that didn't contain mostly criticism. Also, the bias seems to vary by Author, some don't like Toyota's while some do.

That line just struck me as funny.

I just read the comparo. Pretty lame. Despite the supposed $18,000 cap, they overbought the VW, Mazda, and Nissan. Now that's fair. So in an economy car test, they decided to break the price limit just to get the bigger engine and bigger wheels/tires? They didn't say exactly how much they spent, but the Mazda3 S Touring MSRP's (including destination) at $18,920, so that's at least a $1,000 over the limit. Yet they chose to compare it to a Civic LX which MSRP's (including destination) at $17,555. For the extra money, they could have picked up a Civic EX which adds better wheels/tires, better brakes, better sound system, moonroof, mp3, and a few other goodies. Yet despite the bigger engine, the Mazda3 only out-accelerated the 2nd place (performance-wise) Civic by 0.4s 0-60 and 0.3s 1/4. I wonder how well the Mazda would have done in non-S trim?

Looks good. I painted my calipers black to match my car as well, although I wish I would have just left them unpainted now that I look back at it. I had them red for a while too (*bling*bling*) but that didn't last.

I think the '08 Tundra doesn't look bad at all. The head lights are a little bit awkward, along with the top part of the grille, but overall I think it is a solid looking truck that looks the part.

I've been trying to tell you guys, first the Accent and now this. Hyundai is going Retro!

It just so happens there is a choice of interiors. (posted on page 1)

Still looks like a late 90's Korean car (see Daewoo Lanos).

The car looks better and better the more I see it. Only one thing. 5.5s 0-60? That isn't super impressive. Maybe they need to focus on some weight reduction, 3,000 lbs is Accord Coupe territory!

Either they were trying to annoy you specifically... or they merely wanted to offer a wheel that was better looking than these awful rims: 211446[/snapback] I'm not a fan of those rims too much, but I do like them better than the Cobalt's. The Cobalt's are just too flat, boring, and chrome, for my liking.