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.

Actually this is the whole quote, hardly a reliable source: "I read a book several years ago about natural pollution events such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms and fires storms like those experienced this past summer in the United States and the potential impacts of these events on Earth's climate. I also read the famous study done in the early 1980s co-authored by the late Dr. Carl Sagan regarding nuclear winter and its effects on global climate. It was noted in the natural events book that one of the major volcanic eruptions, Mt. Vesuvius or Mt. Krakatoa produced more carbon dioxide than humankind has produced since our existence on the planet" This is a letter to the editor, not an article yet alone scientific fact. A quick check on Wikipedia yields these results: "Gas emissions from volcanoes are a natural contributor to acid rain.Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic eruptions may inject aerosols into the Earth's atmosphere. Large injections may cause visual effects such as unusually colorful sunsets and affect global climate mainly by cooling it. Volcanic eruptions also provide the benefit of adding nutrients to soil through the weathering process of volcanic rocks. These fertile soils assist the growth of plants and various crops. Volcanic eruptions can also create new islands, as the magma dries on the water." Wikipedia - Volcanic Eruption Comparatively, "Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and its Territories were 6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005" http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html *These are government stats Regardless, volcanoes are still spewing lava, so every human emissions are in addition to natural emissions which will occur regardless (and have to be absorbed somehow as well).

I think people are putting too much emphasis on just quality; yes it's important, but it's not the only reason people buy cars. The problem now is even the most unreliable cars sold nowadays are just as (if not more) reliable than the best cars 10 years ago. Differences in quality amount to increments of 0.01 problems per car (or, more commonly referred to as 1 per 100 cars). Most people expect a certain basic level of quality, failing to reach that (which Detroit did in the 70's and 80's) is sure to turn off buyers. BUT people buy cars and are loyal for other reasons too: styling, driving dynamics, image. Some people buy BMWs or Mercs despite moderate quality and high mark ups because of image, something that can take decades to create. Others buy Nissans or Hummers because they have edgey, contemporary/modern styling that stands out - as long as those cars provide acceptable transportation and stand out visually, they will strongly appeal to certain buyers. Others still buy VW or Hondas because of a perceived sporty edge (GTI or Si?), another somewhat intangible quality appreciated by some who seek a more fun ride (though not necessarily raw speed). Toyota does well by appealing to the most, but it isn't the only way to be successful. Let Toyota have the boring appliance market, there are other kinds of cars people will buy, as long as quality is good (even though it's not the *best*).

Aside from the fact that many (some would say up to two thirds) of forest fires are the result of humans (either through arson, carelessness or accidents), the inescapable fact is that by burning oil that's been in the ground for millions of years, WE ARE USING UP STORED ENERGY. Anyone with any kind of basic understand of science will appreciate that energy does not disapear, it only changes form. There is only one energy input to our planet and it is the sun - all energy on the planet can be attributed to it one way or another. It's well-known petroleum is the result of ancient vegetation decomposed under specific circumstances. Energy that once made it to earth as sunlight was captured in a plant, that then decomposed (but not completely) remained deep underground until we brought it out. That energy is used when we burn fossil fuels, and when molecules break down they release that energy. It took thousands, even millions of years to accumulate all this energy, and we are releasing it within decades - how can that logically not cause global warming? Of course it's not just that the energy is being released, it's that some of the by-products of its release (via way of combustion) are gasses like C02, which holds heat because it absorbs infrared radiation (which would otherwise allow heat to radiate to space) and keeps it here. Sure the earth is big but we are going through millions of barrels of oil a day, releasing thousands of tons through burning fossil fuels every day. Yes, a lot of CO2 is produced naturally, that can also be reabsorbed and converted to oxygen by vegetation - but you can't release extra millions of tons of CO2 while cutting down trees and expect to keep the balance going. I don't understand the planet's weather nor have I ever heard of anyone who says they do - one thing I know is that NO ONE can say FOR SURE we are NOT responsible for global warming, and NO ONE can say for sure what the consequences could be. I do know for a fact we are releasing huge amounts of energy and it can be accumulated as heat, so clearly we COULD be a significant factor. That means we could be responsible and ought to try and do something about it, otherwise we are gambling our children's future.

I wouldn't be so concerned about fleet sales. Fleets are volume, and they can be profitable (maybe not as much as retail, but maybe so if done right). Sure there is such a thing as too much fleet sales but it's not *all* bad; it's demand and it's still a good way to smooth out retail demand changes. The big 3 have relied too much on fleet sales in the past, it doesn't mean they should be brought to zero but reigned in properly (which will take time but is happening). That said, what does it matter who the #1 brand is if you're ahead by 15k units on almost 2,500,000 units of volume? It's symbolic but that's about it.

If the Miata looked like the current Solstice (or Sky) from the exterior, but everything else about these cars was exactly the same (interior, engine, performance, practicality), the Miata would probably have an even bigger lead. The Solstice/Sky are the new hot girl in school. When looks are all you've got, eventually people lose interest (except for a few creeps). The Redline versions could change that, but there doesn't seem to be as much buzz as I would have expected, I assume because from what I've seen they seem to have good power but to be somewhat of a disapointment overall...a Mazdaspeed Miata would fix that category up good.

"Toyota said there have been no reported crashes or injuries connected to the problem in the United States." I agree it seems like a bad problem, but 0 problems out of 170,000 vehicles is still pretty position to be issuing a recall. Any part on any vehicle could hypothetically fail and cause a problem - even if it's not a defective design, there's no way to guarantee every part no matter how fundamental will perform in 100% of cases...that's why there are lemons. Bottomline as I see it: 0:170,000 is better odds than the odds of having an oil change fire in a CR-V ^_^ uh-oh I'm turning into range...

The exterior looks SO G6... the interior looks alright but typical of recent GM - and I'll believe it when I see it, GM has a history of showing different interiors at shows than end up in their cars.

Right but that doesn't stop the same thing from happening with whatever new car is chosen. There isn't much anyone can do about that, other than not losing sight of the fact the slight possibility of unanticipated problems shouldn't overcome an overall satisfactory ownership experience.

And of course, so is mine... One thing that rarely if ever gets discussed in recalls is the fault suppliers have in the matter. It's well known that some faulty pieces are due to suppliers' errors, faulty specs or just plain carelessness. I'm not trying to use this as an excuse, it's clearly a problem that will affect any manufacturer as they all buy many parts from seperate suppliers (in many cases, the same ones). That's the problem about being quick in assigning blame for a recall... if the part that is faulty was made by a supplier who screwed up, how do I know that supplier isn't putting screwy things in 10 other different brands of cars? You don't, because that info isn't publicly available, and depends on a problem (and its source) being disclosed - good luck. Of course the Firestone tire problem exemplifies this completely - it just happens to be on a Ford vehicle; but if this had happened on a Toyota vehicle, I have no doubt many people would jump the gun and accuse them, despite the prevailing belief (here for sure) that it's actually a tire problem. Here's another example: Magna makes a part for the Honda Pilot, and it is recalled...woops...but wait, they also make similar parts in Toyotas, Mercedes, VW's, BMW's, Chevrolets and Fords... what now? Whose fault is that? It depends...on a lot of things...