marc-o

There's times when rooting for the underdog is good/popular, and there's times when it's not. I don't think they can pull it off... I can't think of any car company that's made it's business on pity. Quite the opposite. Quirky is something totally different. Wow these guys are out of ideas.

Very true. The thing is, as expensive as gas now is, the extra cost is still a small part of the total cost of owning an automobile. It is however the only cost you see on a frequent, regular basis and on top of that it fluctuates! People really need to do a rational analysis of their fuel costs instead of mouthing off about fill up being an extra 10 bucks.

I'm Canadian and I think Magna buying Chrysler would be their downfall. It also wouldn't increase the likelihood of me buying mopar products. Absolutely nothing they make even remotely interests me. I think Frank Stronach (President of Magna who owns two thirds of the voting shares, in other words controls the company completely) is doing this for only 2 reasons: arrogance, and to have a chance at keeping his current business going (Chrysler is Magna's largest customer, by far).

The big difference here is that it's easy to avoid buying a Tundra, but almost impossible to avoid eating contaminated beef. I agree with Richard 100% (whoa) - it is really sick how it's essentially encouraged to send diseased animals into the human food supply to increase profitability. Canadian (here) regulations are stricter than the US and even they are too lax; I'm not worried about eating beef in general, but if you're going to do something like ensuring the absence of specific dangerous diseases from food, do it right. So what does this have to do with a Tundra? very little...

This is not an especially good move...Sony's car audio equipment is mediocre at best. It's not especially reliable and their disc drives are absolute garbage. Sony is not part of the desirable brands of car audio... it never was. It's more of a poseur thing really.

Indeed... :reading:

The Mazda 2 is a very nice looking car. It ressembles the Fit in a lot of ways (which is the best small car sold in the USA), but where the Fit goes for practicality, the Mazda2 goes for sporty. That's great because I know/hear from lots of people who would like a Fit, but can't get over the mini-minivan look and weak power. I doubt the Mazda2 would be much faster (if only to keep the fuel economy good), but it looks a hell of a lot better. If it comes together as well as the 3, it could be a segment leader. Of course that doesnt mean it'll be a sales success, just the new bar for the segment - promising though.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Range has always been able to start debates (and keep them alive) using his own kind of unique, inbred logic. Spare yourselves the time guys, seriously. A pro-Ford troll is still a troll.

I think that's the 9-2X... Isn't the 9-5X the Equinox rebadge?

Exactly!!! It's a typical GM mistake they've made time and time again. No doubt the car will be a hit when it comes out, but a lot of people aren't going to be waiting 3 yrs for the thing - keeping hype going for that long is tough for everyone but the most diehard fans. Sure the car is generally well-perceived but that won't guarantee sales when the car is old news by the time it comes out (not to mention the fact this gives plenty of time for any possible competition to upstage GM).

I could be wrong, but doesn't the government specify that only it's own (EPA) rating can be used in advertising fuel economy? Assuming that's the case, it's not surprising Toyota takes advantage of it (hell almost everyone else does too, especially GM). Because the way a Prius runs they beat the EPA mileage testing system, but that's one that has been considered grossly innacurate for decades, it's just never been this much of a problem before. Of course no one bitched about it so much until now :rolleyes:

Of course the moral of the episode was that people SHOULD in fact buy cars like hybrids, just not do it to attain some sense of superiority, but because it's a good thing to do for the environment (I'm not getting into that debate, it's been done to the death).

I agree... 10 years from now they will just look silly and dated. The fact they seem so tacked on (which they are) only worsens the problem.

Except that temperature was lowered because less sunlight reached the ground (and plants) due to particulate (soot, ash, etc) clouds that eventually settle putting an end to the effect. If temperature is raised due to excess CO2, the only way to change that is by reducing the CO2, of which the only way we know that won't use more energy (and produce more CO2) is through plants metabolizing it. Besides, what happens if you compound human emissions with another enormous volcanic eruption? No one knows, things might cancel eachother out, or they might be far worse.