waymondospiff

Interesting review - they kept the great ride & handling of the Mazda3 but gave it a bizzare "freshening" to make it look "new." New for new's sake isn't good. I love the old Mazda3 and think it is the best compact car, hands down. Now, however, I doubt I would buy one with that face. I find the foglamp surrounds especially jarring. Why does flat black plastic extend out from the bumper? Who thought that would be a good idea? I hope the next Focus includes the snappy ride & handling (that's been sadly and confusingly sapped from the current Focus) and a better exterior. Scott

So, CEO is out to be replaced by, oh, the COO. Wow. "Change" it is a comin'. What else would one expect out of an administration based on style instead of substance than a move that is all style and no substance? I believe Wagoner moved too slowly to restructure the company, as did the BoD. But I believe there are few people better suited to restructuring the company than Wagoner, a 30-year plus veteran with intimate knowledge of the car business and the inner-workings of GM. The Ford/Mulally situation made sense two years ago; it would be suicidal now - bringing in an outsider with zero experience in the company/industry at a time when it faces liquidation or dramatic overhaul. But, in the end, if Wagoner was standing between aid and insolvency, he's doing the right thing by falling on his sword. If it means the survival of GM then Wagoner's departure is worth it. Scott

I agree that the Mustang can out handle some of its competitors. However, it is still crude. When I'm driving around a corner and hit a bump my car continues on its path. In a Mustang the back end will step out. That is crude. The Mustang's SRA is effective, but it is crude. The Mustang is in need of new engines and it appears that it will be getting them soon. Scott

The 3.0L Duratec was serving duty in the RWD LS & S-Type at the time. I'm not sure of the configuration of those two vs. the Mustang, but it would appear to be adaptable. From my test drive of the Mustang a year ago I disliked the honky engine, the blah interior, and the SRA suspension. Next year it looks like Ford will have remedied two of those problems. If only there was a $2000 suspension package option that included a double wishbone rear suspension or the like. If an independent suspension is going to cost more then let the consumer decide. The decision now is crude Mustang or more sophisticated Chevy/Dodge/Nissan/Mazda/Hyundai. Scott

I can't be bothered to look up the fellow's name now, but recently a Ford higher up (not Farley) was on Autoline Detroit and was asked specifically about CVTs and that the appearance of dropping CVTs as taking a step backward. The engineering fellow replied that CVTs are efficient because they keep engines operating at peak efficiency (the transmission changes ratios instead of the engine changing RPM.) However, Ford is engineering their new engines to be more efficient across the entire operating band. Since the engines no longer have a peak efficiency point, it makes less sense to have a transmission that maintains a constant RPM at peak efficiency. As others have said, CVTs are (apparently) also more expensive than the Aisin or JV 6-speeds and without a gain in efficiency there is little justification for the CVT. Ford is making/has made the transition to 6-speeds and will be introducing another high-tech transmission (the dual-clutch, all automatic, no torque convertor) as cost-effective ways to increase efficiency. I agree with the original poster, I like CVTs, but if they offer no performance advantage then why bother? Scott edited so that sentences would make sense.

Courtesy of Ford via youtube. Hybrid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIAclinwG6Y...re=channel_page MPGs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTUoVzBEZaA...re=channel_page It talks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFSPMKpYk8...re=channel_page Decent ads, but not great. I'd say 7 out of 10 in my non-advertising marketing mind. They convey the message, they have a consistent theme, and unique messaging, but it's hard believe that they'll rise above the clutter of other marketing messages about cars. But it's a step, a direct step, at changing the opinion of consumers towards Ford. Any other opinions? Scott

For my own curiousity, here's the competition, as far as I can tell. Those bolded are the "close" competition, as far as I see it. But honestly, nothing really compares to the mix of features, size, interior quality, & power of the Taurus SHO. Domestic only Ford Taurus SHO - AWD - 365hp - $37,995 Ford Fusion Sport - AWD - 263hp - ~$28,000 Lincoln MKS - AWD - 273hp - $39,590 Lincoln MKZ - AWD - 263hp - $34,585 (2009) Pontiac G8 GT - RWD - 361hp - $32,440 Pontiac G8 GXP - RWD - 415hp - $38,295 Chrysler 300C - AWD - 360hp - $38,875 Chrysler 300C RT8 - RWD - 425hp - $44,560 Dodge Charger R/T - AWD - 368hp - $33,960 Dodge Charger SRT8 - RWD - 425hp - $40,370 Cadillac CTS - AWD - 304hp - $40,465 Cadillac STS - AWD - 302hp - $48,705 Cadillac STS - AWD - 320hp - $69,400 2010 Buick Lacrosse - AWD - 280hp - ~$32,000 Foreign-branded, "common" makes only Hyundai Genesis 4.6 - RWD - 368hp - $37,250 Toyota Avalon Limited - FWD - 268hp - $35,905 Nissan Maxima SV Sport - FWD - 290hp - $35,160 Volkswagen CC VR6 4Motion - AWD - 280hp - $39,800 Subaru Legacy 3.0R Limited - AWD - 245hp - $29,895 Foreign-branded, "luxury" makes only Acura TL SH-AWD - AWD - 305hp - $38,505 Audi A6 3.0 TFSI Quattro - AWD - 300hp - $50,100 Audi A6 4.2 FSI Quattro - AWD - 350hp - $60,950 Audi A4 3.2 FSI Quattro - AWD - 265hp - $40,400 BMW 335i xDrive - AWD - 300hp - $42,300 BMW 528i xDrive - AWD - 230hp - $48,100 BMW 535i xDrive - AWD - 300hp - $53,400 Infiniti G37x AWD - AWD - 328hp - $35,750 Infiniti M35x AWD - AWD - 303hp - $47,950 Infiniti M45x AWD - AWD - 325hp - $54,650 Lexus GS350 AWD - AWD - 303hp - $46,800 Mercedes Benz C300 4Matic - AWD - 228hp - $36,450 Mercedes Benz E350 4Matic - AWD - 268hp - $53,200 Saab 9-3 Aero - AWD - 280hp - $43,605 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD - AWD - 208hp - $34,600 Volvo S80 T6 AWD - AWD - 281hp - $42,050

A $38K Taurus? That's a lot of money. Of course, I can't think of another 365-hp, AWD, psuedo-luxury large sedan for less... I don't see any volume estimates in the fact sheet - any guesses? I'm thinking 10,000/year. Not much, but maybe just the type of halo Ford needs - expensive, high-tech, and worth it. Scott

I'm a bit surprised this hadn't already been posted: http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/ Jim answers questions regarding Ford's green push, the shrinking US market, and talks about product a lot. No real new ground seems to be broken, but it's interesting to hear his take & Ford's position on the changing marketplace.

I'm perfectly fine without concepts this year - this has been a good auto show for Ford, no doubt: 2010 EB Flex (announced for MKT & MKS.) 2010 Taurus 2010 MKT 2010 Fusion EPA announcement (not necessarily autoshow, but the timing sure was advantageous.) 2009 F-150 Truck of the Year Last chance for a concept: Monday 9:05-9:30 Lincoln/Mercury Scott

Did Ford pick up the Zoom-Zoom bug from their partner Mazda, perhaps? Seriously though - it's great that Ford is aiming to give their cars an identity. And "control" is a good place to go. The overtly sporty, like Mazda, will drive away many customers, but a fleet-wide "feel" of control is very marketable. And it sure is better than "sloppy" from Toyota and maybe better than Honda's "light" identity. Scott

What vehicles are being launched soon? 2010 Ford Fusion - just launched, doesn't make sense 2010 Ford Taurus - hasn't debuted, but timing could be off, plus existing photos show a relatively "safe" Ford-esque design...but it is a production launch, and that fits the bill...but then again the Taurus isn't a world car. 2010/11 Ford Fiesta - hasn't had US debut, but should be similar to EuroFiesta already available for sale 2010/11 Ford Explorer - hasn't debuted, but like Taurus, US-only product would be an odd way to show off new "world design." 2011/12 Ford Focus - hasn't debuted, not seen anywhere yet, no vehicle is more important to Ford worldwide than the Focus...good candidate, but it'd be surprising to see a production car this early. Anyone else with an idea? Scott

Looked good. By the time I made it to the Ford stand my friend was tiring and he was bored with all of the "affordable" cars I was looking at - so I looked at the Fusion quickly and moved on. It's pretty striking on the stand - but I'm more interested in the "middle-of-the-road" SEL 4cyl models. Hopefully they'll have more at Detroit in a month-and-a-half. The Transit Connect will be here before the next LA Auto show. "Coming Summer 2009" is what Ford claims on the website. And yes, the 2.0L/4speed auto is the drivetrain. Not exactly awe-inspiring, but a workable pairing that will help Ford determine if there is a market for the little guy here before introducing a more Americanized version. And don't forget they had TWO there. And I think they're great! Scott

Dead thread resurrected - yes! I went to the show on Saturday (the rental car: 2008 Ford Fusion SE V6 - still a nice car.) and here are my impressions: -What the hell is a Gumpert? And why do I want one so much? -Unlike Detroit, this show doesn't get going until noon. I've stood in the waiting lines at 10am in the Cobo lobby for many years now - I waltzed straight in with virtually no one else around within 20 minutes of opening yesterday. Very nice. -The 370Z is rather boring - it looks like the old one with new head & tail lamps. However, smaller & more power? That's always good. -The GT-R is a huge car. But still cool - and a performance bargain at $75K roughly. -The Kia Soul is kinda fun. Very compromised rear cargo area though (very high floor - solid rear axle, I'm guessing?) But the design is funky without trying too hard, the interior is appropriately cheap, I can see it doing well. -Chrysler is DOA. NOTHING there. Nothing. And you could tell by the visitors. Not good, not good at all. -Audi's interiors are looking more and more the same. They're very, very nice, but they're in danger of becoming a "been there, done that" proposition for their owners. But no subluxury/luxury brand had a better or more crowded display than Audi - well done there. -Hyundai had a cool concept: some kind of people-mover type thing. The Genesis is nice, but why spend that kind of money on a Hyundai? The refreshed Sonata is a nice change. The "protoype" Elantra 5-Door isn't bad. -The CTS Wagon is nice. The CTS-V is very nice. A CTS-V Wagon would be very, very nice. -The Escalade Hybrid starts at $72,000. Wow. -GM had very poorly laid out displays - the Chevy display was one long row with the Camaro and Corvette hidden in the back. The Saturn display had the Sky right up front - right across from the Pontiac Solstice. Bad idea. -The Saturn Astra - I know why it isn't selling - it's got a terrible interior. Grey-on-grey for control labeling - I can hear the Germans "Das ist da best way to show tings!" The interior is dour - and surprisingly cheap. Add that to the underwhelming fuel economy (24c/30h) from the lowly 1.8L 4cyl and it's easy to see why it isn't the sales hit as expected. -The Aveo surprisingly beat expectations. My expectations were low, but the Aveo wasn't bad. -The Malibu continues to underwhelm. -The G8 & G8 Truck are fun, but cheap. Maybe the cheapness is what makes it fun. -The Buick Riveria concept (the one from China, last year) was the only thing with a crowd at the Buick display. I think it shows that Buick could once again be relevant, people might even WANT it to be relevant - and the Lucernes & Lacrosses on display simply AREN'T relevant. -BMW is running out of ideas. -The Toyota display was SWAMPED! It was also the last area we went to - and there were some Lakers players there, but you couldn't move through half of the exhibit. The Venza has a very nice interior. Very nice as in, Edge vs. Venza is not a good comparion for Ford. -Scion is so over. Seriously - been there, done that, threw out the T-Shirt. -The Subaru Forester is eh. The interior is pretty nice on the $28K model, pretty blah on the $22K model. And the Imprezza is a snore. -Lamborghini's display was nicely executed. -The Ferrari California is dangerously close to jumping the shark. Unimpressive (for a Ferrari, it's all relative.) And now the "Ford and Ford-related" stuff: -Aston Martin. 10 years ago, who in America wanted an Aston? Very, very few. And yet Ford was able to transform Aston into a relevant supercar manufacturer. Good stuff. The lines around the Aston display were not short. -In SUV-hating, earth-hugging California, it was hard to walk through the Land Rover display due to the crowds. -I'm warming to the new Mazda6. I still think it's too big, but the interior is nice (even the bizzare black/gray "animated stick" plastic trim. -The new Mazda3 is weird. The sides & back end aren't bad (the front fender line transition to the upward-sloping bodyline is not nice though. However, it's all about the face. Nothing flows, nothing makes sense, nothing looks good. All they need to do is fix the openings - the grille & fog lamp openings, and they'd be there. The interior is kinda neat though - lights and flashes everywhere. -Surprisingly few people looking at the other Mazda products. -Volvo still makes the best car seats - hands down. -The XC60 is nice in a different sort-of-way. Small interior for its size though. -The Milan, which I haven't liked in any pictures, is better in person. -The MKZ looks nice. -The MKS is big. Very big. But in a good way big. And the interior isn't too bad - but the steering wheel controls (on ALL fords) need to be redone and the center stack buttons are way too numerous and poorly laid out. -The Escape interior is disappointing. Very, very cheap. -The Verve concept had a small crowd looking at it. Ford needs the Fiesta ASAP. -The Focus models on the floor were overlooked by most. -Surprisngly few F-Series, considering the new launch. -The Mustang is...well, my jury is still out on this one. It looks good, but it's still awfully familiar. The interior hasn't changed much, but what has changed is good. I sat in a V6 convertible (where's the convertible top operation button? for the life of me I couldn't find it!) and the textures and surfaces are much better. It's looks good. I'll be interested in the much-touted improved ride-and-handling - the solid rear axle makes me wary however. -Finally, Ford's best vehicle - the Flex. The Flexes on the floor had crowds around them, poking and prodding everything. The interior screams class (despite the best efforts of that cheesy silver-plated center console cover) from the door panels to the seats, to the fit-and-finish, to the feature content. I hope sales continue to climb - this needs to be an important vehicle for Ford. (When can we expect a Flex-style interior in the Edge? Please say soon!) So, there are my thoughts from the show. This is my second year going to LA and while Detroit (17 years in a row...) is the arguably more important show, the LA convention center is nicer, the weather is better (60s and smog vs. 20s and grey), the crowds more "important", the manufacturers more diverse (especially this year with so many pulling out of Detroit)...so much about LA makes it a better showcase for cars than Detroit. I hope Detroit can maintain its relevancy because Detroit needs it, but after going to a show like LA it really puts the "road ahead" for the Detroit autoshow in perspective. And with the number of problems the City of Detroit faces, it's going to be tough for them to maintain a world-class autoshow. Scott

Eh. It's a short little interview and essentially the guy wanted to make the car more aggressive. Okay. Neat. Bumping your own post 34 minutes after you posted? Tsk tsk. Scott

Give me the hatchback!

Nope, it was. "LOS ANGELES -- Despite recently spending $1 billion on a global mid-sized car platform, Ford Motor Co. has chosen to stretch a compact car platform for its European mid-sized luxury vehicles. "The reason: The mid-sized platform can't meet the performance requirements of Ford's European brands." "In 2002, Ford said CD3 would meet global packaging requirements and have the driving dynamics required of a global mid-sized platform." http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../FREE/505040703 Blah blah blah, engines, packaging, safety, off-road ability. Thank you to Volvo & Land Rover. Hardly spin. Stated either as "federalize quickly" or "quick to federalize" doesn't make a difference: the CD3 was designed for the American market. Nothing was federalized. Ford "embiggened" the CD3 for the Fusion, making it wider & longer, but that's design, not altering the fundamentals of the car to meet US safety or emission standards.

Hmm...that might be close. But the timing is off - CD3 predates both C1 & EUCD: CD3 (Mazda6) - 2002 Launch for MY2003 C1 (EuroFocus) - 2004 Launch for MY2005 CD3 (Fusion, et al) - 2005 Launch for MY2006 EUCD (S80/Galaxy/S-Max) - 2006 Launch for MY2007 Ostensibly the switch was due to parts commonality between C1 (2004 Launch for MY2005) & the "C1-Plus" EUCD chassis and for the fitment of the Inline-5. At the time (four years ago, or so) it was widely reported that Volvo didn't regard the CD3 as safe enough for it's strigent safety requirements. My point, if Volvo hadn't developed EUCD Ford would already be working off of one global midsize chassis. In addition, CD3 wasn't "quickly federalized" - it was developed from the get-go as a global midsize platform with Mazda taking the lead. I used that example to say that without Volvo, Ford maybe able to develop new platforms more cheaply since they wouldn't need to meet the strigent, and unique (who else determines suitability based on the ability to fit a transverse inline engine?), requirements. I think it's a good argument and the CD3/EUCD situation backs it up. Scott

Ford and Volvo share what? Ford took the D3 chassis (P2 or whatever Volvo's name for it was) from Volvo and have completely evolved beyond the original design, and Volvo only uses it for XC90 SUV now, dropping the original P2 S80 for the EUCD S80 of today. And Ford was going to use one midsize chassis worldwide - the CD3 - until Volvo decided that the Mazda design didn't fit their needs and they decided to design their own midsize derivative - now known as EUCD - that Ford is now going to adopt worldwide...years after they would have been integrated had the original CD3 plans gone ahead. And why can't Volvo & BMW share platforms? Nothing says Volvo has to be FWD and both the 3- & 5-Series are AWD capable if Volvo wanted to go a Subaru-like all-AWD route. And who are the two luxury manufacturers who exclusively use inline-sixes? Volvo & BMW! Diversifying into low volume, highly unique products. That's not a recipe for success. Designing one global platform that meets the needs of FofNA, FofE, and FofAu is difficult - now throw in Volvo and the demands are ratcheted up even higher - transverse inline engines being one example. The Volvo & BMW of today aren't direct competitors. There's no reason to believe they would be if BMW ran Volvo. In my post I specified Lexus as the Volvo target. That's a lucrative target and one that BMW is going to have problems approaching with their brand. Volvo, known for safety and comfort, is much closer to Lexus than the sporting BMW brand. And despite BMW's strong presence in the luxury/sub-luxury market, that same market supports Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, Saab, Jaguar, Land Rover, Cadillac, & Lincoln, plus a host of mainstream manufacturers (Hyundai, Ford, Buick, Toyota, etc.) $30-60K is a huge market and a well-managed Volvo with stronger products could be a much larger player in this market. Debatable if Volvo can be pushed into a serious luxury brand like Mercedes and Lexus, agreed. And you don't need to break it to me, I'm aware that BMW is very successful in the luxury arena. But their brand, as strong as it is, is marginalized by its inability to be anything BUT the "ultimate driving machine." And, as seen in Lexus sales in the States, there is a significant market looking for non-ultimate machines. No reason to believe that a geographically closer, smaller company would lose any more of the "essence" of the brand than the mega-corp Ford has done. And your note about the EUCD being so unique is exactly my point above - as Ford squeezes each penny as it tries to remake itself globally, why continue to engineer platforms to meet all three Ford "centers" AND meet the needs of Volvo. The design process of EUCD was undoubtedly more expensive as the vehicle had to meet Volvo's needs. Could Ford save money by not designing platforms around 4 sets of needs? Especially when the one that would be dropped is the most complex of all? I don't disagree with either of you that Volvo could stay with Ford long-term and be served well. But with Ford needing to generate cash to continue its turn-around plan I see Volvo as the next "ATM." And, if that's the case, then I see BMW as being a potentially decent parent to the little Swedish brand. I can try to sum it up in brand-speak: BMW = x sales BMW + (Volvo + $$$) = y sales If y sales > x sales + $$$, then it makes sense to buy Volvo. I'm not saying y is greater, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Scott

I found this story interesting. And what Volvo gives BMW is volume. BMW is intent on being a stand-alone vehicle manufacturer and they're trying to leverage away from the luxury market. The BMW brand is solid, but it isn't too mobile - it stays in the $30-120K range, straddling the performance/luxury image. The Mini brand allowed them to do a "proper" small car (FWD & affordable) to decrease their reliance on the sport/luxury market. What would Volvo give them? Another luxury brand, yes, but with a much different image, and the potential (Lexus) to sell to new luxury customers (Lexus) that currently wouldn't shop (Lexus) the BMW brand (Lexus). I could see this being a win-win. Ideally I would like to see Ford keep Volvo around. However, these are far from ideal times and Volvo could do well under the BMW umbrella. If Volvo remains under Ford parentage it is going to either continue to suffer from lack of investment or it is going to siphon funds away from the core Ford brands. Given the two options, it might be best for Volvo to leave Ford's ownership. Sad, but possibly necessary. Scott

Yeah, but your point is a bit off. There's very little competition in the "affordable AWD" non-SUV market. However, I still doubt too many people cross-shop turbocharged Subarus & Ford Fusions. Very different target consumers. I'd prefer to talk about them in context with their (few) competitors. And, of its competitive set, Turbocharged Wagons (I looked at wagons only), the Subaru is comparable: Audi A4 Avant Quattro (Wagon AWD), 2.0L I4 Turbo / 6-speed automatic - 21mpg city, 27mpg highway Volvo V50 AWD (Wagon AWD), 2.5L I5 Turbo / 5-speed automatic - 18mpg city, 26mpg highway Subaru Outback (Wagon AWD), 2.5L H4 Turbo / 5-speed automatic - 19mpg city, 24mpg highway BMW 535i Sport Wagon XDrive (Wagon AWD), 3.0L I6 TwinTurbo / 6-speed automatic - 16mpg city, 26mpg highway Saab 9-3 Aero SportCombi AWD (Wagon AWD), 2.8L V6 Turbo / 6-speed automatic - 15mpg city, 24mpg highway Just like the Fusion is comparable within it's competitive set, 6cyl AWD Non-luxury Sedans: Ford Fusion AWD, 3.0L V6 / 6-speed automatic - 17mpg city / 25mpg highway Volkswagen Passat CC 4Motion, 3.6L V6 / 6-speed automatic - 17mpg city / 25mpg highway Ford Taurus AWD, 3.5L V6 / 6-speed automatic - 17mpg city / 24mpg highway Subaru Legacy AWD, 3.0L H6 / 5-speed automatic - 17mpg city / 24mpg highway Chrysler Sebring AWD, 3.5L V6 / 6-speed automatic - 15mpg city / 24mpg highway (now departed) So, 20mpg combined for a hi-po turbo seems decent & the 20mpg combined for a typical AWD family sedan seem pretty reasonable. Scott

Not the whole picture... Yup. Here are the stats: Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 / 5-speed manual: 20mpg city / 27mpg highway Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 / 4-speed automatic: 20mpg city / 26mpg highway Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 Turbo / 5-speed manual: 18mpg city / 25mpg highway Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 Turbo / 6-speed manual: 17mpg city / 24mpg highway Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 Turbo / 5-speed automatic: 18mpg city / 24mpg highway Subaru Legacy 3.0L H6 / 5-speed automatic: 17mpg city / 24mpg highway Ford Fusion 3.0L V6 / 6-speed automatic : 17mpg city / 25mpg highway And of course there's output too: Legacy 2.5 H4 - 170hp Legacy 2.5 H4 Turbo - 243hp Legacy 3.0L H6 - 245hp Fusion 3.0L V6 - 221hp The Subie 2.5L H4 Turbo & 3.0L H6 engines require premium, but the base 2.5L H4 only requires regular. And the Hi-po motors do produce more power than the Ford Duratec - although I'm sure the actual driving experience is similar. So, I'd have to say that Ford & Subaru are pretty closely matched for fuel economy performance.

But remember, to all of the anti-CD3, anti-Mazda, anti-Ford, anti-Fusion/Milan/MKZ people on this site, the CD3 is a terrible Mazda-designed platform that is unsafe and FofA took the cheap route by bringing the Fusion/Milan/MKZ out on the existing CD3 instead of bringing it out on EUCD. Whatever - which chassis has top safety ratings, a complex mutli-point rear suspension, and is available for sale in the US? The CD3. Yeah, haters. Scott (Proud former Mazda6s driver.)

"And the award for best usage of a British industrial conglomerate as a verb goes to..." Dieter is an odd one. How could he call Chrysler "fixed" with its many problems? Was he just unable to recognize the problems Chrysler had, or was he covering to get the job in Germany? Wolfgang would have been the best leader for Chrysler - but I think he knew all too well not to touch the Cerberus-Chrysler. Beyond Lutz, has Chrysler ever been well served by a "Bob?" Eaton & Nardelli. This was talked about months ago. And it still doesn't make any sense. What possible benefit would Chrysler give GM? The only advantage for GM I could see would be a MASSIVE investment from Cerberus in the event of a "merger." But does Cerberus have $10Billion to invest in GM? Cause $500Million ain't gonna do a thing for GM if they have to absorb Chrysler. And Chrysler has nothing to offer to an established US automaker (GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda) - there's no new market access, no hit products, no special engineering expertise, no upcoming technologies, no "sure fire" brands (Jeep isn't going to be to worthwhile with $4/gal gasoline.) I'll be interested to see what happens, but for GM's sake - stay away! Scott

Is that on the American platform or the Euro/JDM platform? It looks big, like the American Mazda6, but that might just be the photos. Sharp. I'd prefer it with a 2.0-2.5L gasoline 4cyl and a tall 6-speed overdrive manual for 30-35mpg. I say bring it over (and then watch it not sell.) But I would bring over the Euro/JDM Mazda6 - I like the 95% Midsize Mazda6 a lot better than the 105% Midsize Mazda6. Scott