I can't wait to see how these results are going to be attacked by the usual crowd here. My guess is people are going to say this is a conspiracy carried out by GM employees and GM fans on the internet. That would be pretty funny because I always thought anyone who liked a domestic car was too unsophisticated to be internet savvy. I figured they'd be busy watching NASCAR and WWE Smackdown or something.
 
I hope this sheds some light on how off base some of Edmunds MW picks were this year. I know I didnt agree with quite a few but I wasnt alone apparently. The Mazda6 was probably the most unbelievable pick but there were others. The Mini Cooper, MDX and Cayman should have been left off as well. The GL450 has its merits but honestly its bland design is more than enough to make it pale next to the ostentatious Escalade which actually looks like something that costs a lot of money. Sure the GL has a better 3d row, but I doubt that is the main consideration of people spending $60k on a luxury SUV. The GL450 looks like something that should've come out 4 years ago, the Q7 and Escalade have it whipped in terms of styling inside and out. And then there's the matter of its 68hp deficit to the Escalade.

1487, You've never driven the GL have ya? Or the Escalade for that matter. And what the GL lacks in "ostentation" (ie: tacky look-at-me-ness) it makes up for in quality (both in ride and materials) and a little the the Escalade will never understand, class.
 
Oh, and not to rain on your parade further, but the GL, with its 68hp deficit, still covers the 0-60 and the 1320 faster than the 'slade. Stops 18 feet shorter, too. But those are just facts, who cares about those.
 
Karl, you also said that GM has been validated by car buyers; a click on an internet survey is a far different proposition than a signature on a sales form.
 
Kudos to GM none the less, their product and PR team has been working very hard for this.

Audi A3, Mazda3.....they are 5 door hatchbacks not wagons....thought all this was resolved the other day !

"My guess is people are going to say this is a conspiracy carried out by GM employees and GM fans on the internet."
 
Man, you're paranoid!

What's an Acadia? Seriously, never heard of it. You'd think the most significant car would be something that's known outside of GM.

"What was unexpected — some would say astonishing — is the deposing of the venerable Toyota Sienna for the No. 2 spot by the Buick Terraza/Chevrolet Uplander/Saturn Relay triplets. The GM vans took 19 percent of the vote to the Sienna's 12 percent, despite the fact that Toyota's minivan has a new 266-hp V6 this year."
 
I am not saying that there is a conspiracy. But that is weird. They aren't even going to make these vans anymore after this year. And anyone that has stepped into these vans will know that they are HORRIBLE, when compared to the competition.
 
The people got this right in selecting the Odyssey, but it is definately weird that such a poor offering as the GM vans could obtain such a high number.

In The Car Lot
Taken from the Lyrics of "In The Ghetto" by Elvis Presley
and rewritten to reflect the current state of GM and it's Dealerships.
 
In The Car Lot by Matt Matherne
 
As the snow flies,
On a cold and grey Chicago mornin'
Another new batch of cars arrives at the car lot
And he cries
'Cause if there's one thing that he don't need
It's another bunch of GM cars to sell on his car lot
 
People, don't you understand
The dealer needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry old man some day
Take a look at your new car,
Are we too blind to see,
Or do you simply turn your head and look the other way?
 
Well the world turns
And this hungry dealer with the runny nose
Stays at his desk as the cold wind blows at the car lot
And his hunger burns
So he starts to roam the car lot at night
And he learns how to cheat
And he learns how to steal in the car lot
 
Then one night in desperation
The old man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a Toyota, tries to run,
But he don't get far
And his salesmen cries
 
As a crowd gathers round an angry old man
Face down on the cement with a gun in his hand in the car lot
And as this once young man dies,
On a cold and grey Chicago mornin'
Another load of GM cars at the car lot
And his salesmen cries
In the car lot
In the car lot

I'm surprised by the Cobalt too, but I'm not surprised by most of the good results for GM. They're on a roll. Unlike Ford and Chrysler, they seem to be undergoing an attitude change and trying harder.

Karl, you don't think there's anything fishy about the results? The Acadia?

Not really. I've driven the Acadia and it's one of the better cars in that category, and that platform is excellent (it provides HUGE interior space while still driving like a car). If anything, the worst part of the Lambda platform is it makes GM's own GMT900 platform (which is also quite good), appear redundant. Most people who buy Suburbans and Tahoes don't ever go off road, so they should just buy the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave instead. Better ride quality, more interior space, better mileage. The six-speed auto needs some tweaking (it doesn't downshift readily enough), but otherwise it's hard to fault.
 
Plenty of people were talking about Acadia as their choice for Most Significant when I told people to vote a few weeks ago, and it won by a large enough margin that it's hard not to believe the validity. Truthfully, 2007 wasn't a real banner year for Most Significant choices. We liked the Tundra because it's significant for Toyota and the full-sized truck market, but I think most consumers didn't care about that element. The Fit is cool but ultimately it's just a Japanese car brought to America. A good one no doubt, but not a game-changer.
 
Personally, my vote for Most Significant Car of 2007 remains with the FJ Cruiser. It's all-new (not a rebadge of a foreign model), it's hugely capable off road, it looks good and plays proper homage to an excellent past model, and it's a good value. Unfortunately it came out early in 2006, so by now most people don't even think of it as an "all-new" vehicle for 2007. The Acadia was perfectly timed for this vote. It came out after our Editors' Most Wanted voting last fall, so we couldn't consider it, but with just enough time before the Consumers' Most Wanted voting to be at the top of the "new-and-cool" arc right now. And since we can't control vehicle release dates, whatcha gonna do?
 
Of course, I can't stop people if they want to call it the "GMC Sanjaya" (fully willing to report I had to look up the spelling of that name).

The biggest thing I find suspicious is the CTS vs. 3-series. Because last year's results were the reverse of this year, that would indicate either the CTS got significantly better from 2006 (it didn't) or the 3-series got significantly worse (it also didn't) or the voters changed (most likely). Did a bunch of 3-series fans vote in 2006 but not 2007? Did a bunch of GM fans vote in 2007 but not 2006? Did perceptions on the 3 and CTS change? Was there GM ballot stuffing going on?
 
However, if EMW legally picked the Mazda6 for 2007 I'll grant that CMW can legally pick the CTS. It just goes to show that the process isn't perfect. Kudos to GM nonetheless.

Still seems odd to me. We've got software at work that QA uses for repetitive motions. They've set it up to vote for different things like reality shows. I wouldn't be surprised if an industrious person set a program to pick the same vehicles over and over all nigh or many nights. I've seen it done for other online voting.

boxer,
 
Where are you getting your numbers from? The Slade does 0-60 in 6.3 secs give or take a few tenths. I have never seen any test where the GL is faster. The GL is a better minivan (better 3rd row) but the Escalade is the better luxury SUV. If your primary mission is to transport 7 or 8 frequently and have a fold flat rear seat it would make more sense to get a minivan or 3 row crossover. Large SUVs are rarely the best choice for moving 7 people. "class" is en the eyes of the beholder, you say class and I say bland oversized wagon. The GL is a nice truck but I dont think "class" is something we can really rate. I suspect what you mean is the GL meets your approval because its not embraced by "urban" types who seem to be drawn to the Escalade. I dont buy vehicles based on the types of people who buy them, just on their merits. If you need drivers of a particular vehicle to meet a certain "standard" before you will consider it that's on you.
 
brett,
 
"And anyone that has stepped into these vans will know that they are HORRIBLE, when compared to the competition.
  
The people got this right in selecting the Odyssey, but it is definately weird that such a poor offering as the GM vans could obtain such a high number."
 
actually the GM vans are not horrible. They are seriously compromised by their platform and thus are somewhat narrower than the competition and lack fold flat 3rd row seats. If you look at their interiors they are actually pretty nice and they have decent handling and braking. They also offer AWD and 240hp engines. Best in class they are not, but horrible is an exaggeration.
 
bluedotcom,
 
Are you serious? Have you read ANYTHING about the Acadia? Your question to Karl makes me think you have not. The Acadia has been widely praised as the best affordable 3 row crossover on the market. It's seen by many as the best combination of huge cargo space, fuel economy and styling on the market. Dont tell me you think the sold-in-Europe for 4 years Fit is more deserving. It would help if people occasionally checked out automotive reviews outside of Edmunds once in a while (not that Edmunds didnt like the Acadia because they did). The Acadia was even well liked by C&D which is kind of like the KKK endorsing Barack Obama for president.
 
"Man, you're paranoid!"
 
Man, I was right! Look at all the comments about something being "fishy". Just like I suspected. No one thinks the non GM winners are fishy of course.

bluedotcom,
 
Thats got to be it, I'm glad you exposed the conspiracy. Thats probably how the Aura and Silverado got those awards at the NAIAS as well. Got to be someone using a computer to hack the results. The ONLY result that is somewhat surprising is the Cobalt, but even that isnt far fetched because of the price range. The other thing is GM has the most competent domestic vehicles in every segment so people who tend to "buy American" would be likely to vote for GM products while import people may have had 3 or 4 other good choices. The imports split the import lover vote and allowed several GM models to rise to the top.

"What's an Acadia? Seriously, never heard of it. You'd think the most significant car would be something that's known outside of GM."
 
Are you for real or being sarcastic? Is any press not centered on imports allowed in CA or is it censored China-style? You must not read much about cars if you've never heard of the Acadia. Even if you didnt read about it, you should've seen print or TV ads by now. No wonder you are so anti-GM. I bet you know all about the Cimarron and Corsica though. Oh, and the Aztek. when all else fails bring up the Aztek. Times are changing and GM has been making newer vehicles since you last tuned in to their lineup. The fact that you havent heard of GM entries probably explains why you think all the winners are unworthy. If you check out some of the vehicles that won maybe you wont be so quick to assume the results were fixed.

"The Acadia was even well liked by C&D which is kind of like the KKK endorsing Barack Obama for president."
 
Although C&D liked the Acadia it came in third place to the Mazda and the Acura. Nice try.
 
"The ONLY result that is somewhat surprising is the Cobalt"
 
The Mini-Van second place finish is stunning. Even GM has given up on these Turds. I have riden in them several times, as a taxi none the less. Their interiors maybe nice if your standards only rise the level of a Lumina. And please spare me the "PROVE IT" comments.
 
These vans consistently are panned in ALL automotive press, and the Market has spoken loud and clear. GM in typical fashion instead of learning and correcting are abandoning the market all together.

1487, I got the numbers from here, edmunds.com.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=115128/pageId=94774
 
7.5 seconds.
 
To be fair I also used edmunds' times for the GL: 6.7. Which can be found:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=115609/pageId=97790
 
So the GL has better quality materials and workmanship; it's quieter at idle, WOT, and at 70mph, and has a transmission that never hunts Yet the Escalade is the better luxury suv? Sorry, you may like it better and you're more than entitled to your opinion, but your logic is flawed.

If you read carefully though, the gl had in its favor temperature, elevation and wind speed, which would definitly give it an advantage. Not saying it would be enough though, but it does makes a difference.

The Escalade's body-on-frame construction and solid rear axle setup don't do it any favors against the GL's independent suspenders and unibody construction in the dynamics department. The market standards are shifting - IRS is becoming more common and expected on mid and full-size SUVs, especially in the luxury segment.
  
I'm not sure what you have against the Mazda6, MDX, Cayman, or Mini Cooper, 1487. The Mazda6 is a great driving, handling and looking car - it embodies more traits valued by enthusasts than any other midsizer, although the Altima is a close contender. The 6 has been a top finisher for many publications and been dubbed the "poor man's BMW". The Cayman has been touted as one of the best Porsches ever, much less one of the best sports cars on the market... even compared to the latest 911. I could go on, but what's the point... you're entitled to your opinion, but those cars all won based on the more than solid class-leading merits that they offer.
 
urridiculous - usually they do acceleration runs in both directions and have a calculation to rule out temp, elevation, etc. C&D published their adjustment awhile back and I believe Edmunds uses one too.

1487 = The imports split the import lover vote and allowed several GM models to rise to the top.
 
I'd buy that.
 
Brett: Is any press not centered on imports allowed in CA or is it censored China-style?
 
It may be. I wouldn't read it anyway.
 
You must not read much about cars if you've never heard of the Acadia.
 
I read about cars but tend to bypass anything related to Mopar/Ford/GM.
 
Even if you didnt read about it, you should've seen print or TV ads by now.
 
Don't see print ads and don't watch TV ads - we tivo everything expressly to avoid watching ads.
 
Times are changing and GM has been making newer vehicles since you last tuned in to their lineup.
 
I travel often and end up with their cars constantly as rentals. They're not changing; GM/Ford/Mopar still make bad cars.
 
If you check out some of the vehicles that won maybe you wont be so quick to assume the results were fixed.
 
I've driven many of the other cars. I didn't say the results were fixed. As I know people who fix results with QA software, I don't see how it's out of the realm of possibility. If someone is going to take the time to setup voting for some dumb reality show (someone even used a system to send thousands upon thousands of text messages for one of those shows) then I feel it's safe to acknowledge a fanatical person could in fact rig up something that would vote. I didn't say it happened; just found it shocking...sort of like a Rear Window remake called Disturbia getting into the top slot at the box office for weeks.

Maybe the fix is in for GM. Lord knows they had enough to fix.
 
Seriously, the only big surpise to me was the CTS. I expected either the BMW 3, or the Infiniti G35; just because of reputaton. The only one I've driven is the CTS, didn't hate it, didn't love it.

Blueguydotcom.
 
You crack me up.

I think its fixed ,just go to autoblog.com and you will see many people thinks the same,the be american buy american and hate toyota has hit an all time low with every body,and edmunds are no different,and i asume they get presure from different sources,people who have the money to shove in there face,not that this will change any thing sales wise.

Easy explanation on the CTS win. People were voting based on the 2008 model that's already made an appearance at auto shows (and indeed looks to be a stellar vehicle). It's sort of the reverse of the FJ Cruiser situation I described above. Where the FJ got passed over because it's so "old" by now (even though it IS an all-new 2007 model), the 2008 CTS has gotten all sorts of great press since its auto show debut in Detroit, and people voting were likely thinking of it when they voted (same situation explains the Malibu's impressive showing this year -- the 2008 model has been seen and looks good but the 2007 model is nothing special). We see this every year. In the 2006 voting for Most Significant (which was set up as a write-in last year, so you didn't have a pre-determined list to choose from) we got a BUNCH of "Saturn Sky" write-ins from people. Problem? The Sky is a 2007 model, so it wasn't eligible for that year's Most Significant vote. We fixed that by producing a list of eligible vehicles to choose from this year for Most Significant, but when a model carries over with the same name, and an all-new version has been seen (even if it hasn't been driven yet and isn't technically eligible) it gets votes simply from the high-profile press coverage it garners. Once again -- whatcha gonna do?

Karl,
 
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, except that I didn't expect so many to be voting on cars that don't even exist yet (except as prototypes).
 
1487,
 
"The ONLY result that is somewhat surprising is the Cobalt"
 
Actually, that was the least surprising for me. The Civic, Mazda3 and even Fit were bumped up a class higher leaving the Cobalt slumming with the Yaris, Versa and Rio. It was pretty much a big fish in a small pond.

Brett,
 
C&D has not compared the Acadia to anything. You are talking about MT.
 
Nice try though. Wrong magazine.

Boxer,
 
Check out any other source for Escalade numbers because those edmunds numbers are the slowest by far. C&D and other publications have times under 6.5secs. In fact, I believe the Escalade and GL were compared in a C&D comparo last year. I don't know where you are getting better ride from, but I'm pretty sure the Escalade with standard 18s has a smooth ride. The 22s may be a different story. If I'm not mistaken the GL is available with 19s and 20s and I doubt its ride it all that creamy.

bdcguy,
 
If you admit that you read nothing and no nothing about anything not made by BMW or Honda then why would you be on here questioning results? It makes no sense. You are obviously uninformed about vehicles that aren't foreign and yet you are criticizing the survey. Since you don' know about half the vehicles that won, how can you be in a position to validate the MW list? You have no clue how good or bad the vehicles in question really are.
 
"I read about cars but tend to bypass anything related to Mopar/Ford/GM"
 
Then you dont really read that much about cars. You are skipping a great deal of the products on the market. Lets just say you read about the brands you already like to reinforce your predisposed notions about those brands. Your perspective is kind of like a rascist who acknowledges he doesnt really know anyone outside his race. You hate these other brands but really don't know enough about what's being offered to form an accurate opinion. Bet you know about the Vega, New Yorker and Cimarron though.
 
"I travel often and end up with their cars constantly as rentals. They're not changing; GM/Ford/Mopar still make bad cars. "
 
Silly statement that is totally false and exposes your ignorance. I notice all you people use rentals and the basis for your "informed" views. You ever rented an STS, CTS-V, 300 SRT-8 (or C), Fusion V6, Aura, Vette, XLR, GTO (when it was made) or Escalade? Of course not. It cracks me up that people like you honestly think they are some sort of authority on american cars because you've rented a few Taurus' and Cobalt base models from the airport. If I rented a VW Bug and then came on here and said "German cars suck and I know because I rented a Beetle" you would think I was insane since that car has nothing to do with vastly superior German cars like the 335 or 550. At least you revel in your ignorance and dont try and disguise it, I do give credit for that.
 
BTW, regarding the Fix, how did the import cars win some categories? I would assume that the "fixers" would've put GM (or at least a domestic) at the top of every category they were eligible for. But I'm sure you're right, it has nothing to do with the product. After all, your rental experience proves that.

"I dont buy vehicles based on the types of people who buy them, just on their merits."
Just for the record, what vehicles have you bought in the last 5 years? New or Used.
 
"You ever rented an STS, CTS-V, 300 SRT-8 (or C), Fusion V6, Aura, Vette, XLR, GTO (when it was made) or Escalade?"
 Again, just for the record, which of these cars, or variations (such as 300 Touring in lieu of 300SRT-8) have you driven?

"If I rented a VW Bug and then came on here and said "German cars suck and I know because I rented a Beetle" you would think I was insane"
 
You won't have to do that.

This whole "I know for a fact GM sucks b/c I rented one once" thing brings up an interesting point. How do you know that floaty non-centering suspension is a design fault and not from the previous renter nailing the curb at 40mph? How do you know that weak buzzy engine came from the factory like that and wasn't the result of a D->L downshift on the I-80 at 2am? Combined with the fact that the rental fleet is typically stocked with skinny tires, bottom to mid tier trim levels and low-rent motors, I really don't see how one would give you a good representation of the model or brand much less make. Plus, as 1487 says, they don't usually hand over the keys to CTS-V's, SRT's, 'slades, etc. Heck, I even once rented a version of a Japanese car I had owned at the time and the rental was a night and day difference than mine.
 
GM reducing their rental fleet presence is a good thing, if nothing but to cut down on this type of banter. Now I wonder if the "Toyota is really going downhill" thing would really gain traction if Avis started handing out abused Camrys and Corollas in CE trim.

1487 - stop making things up. Seriously, you're creating statements.
 
bdcguy,
If you admit that you read nothing and no nothing about anything not made by BMW or Honda then why would you be on here questioning results?
 
Never wrote that.
 
yet you are criticizing the survey... You have no clue how good or bad the vehicles in question really are.
 
I wonder what good it would be to read reviews of cars? How does that give you ANY real knowledge of a vehicle? It's the opinion of someone else and utterly worthless. When you go to buy a car do you really read a review and make a decision based on the opinion of a random reviewer? That's inane.
 
Asian and Euro makes get a read as I will consider them for entertainment. I freely admit I'm a bigot when it comes to American cars. I suffer with their vehicles too often to look at America cars seriously for entertainment (what a car review is) or as a realistic buying option.
 
Saying that reading a review about a car gives you a basis for making an informed opinion is akin to claiming a restaurant is good based purely on someone else's review. I sample GM/Ford/Mopar cars all the time - eat at the restaurant constantly, if you will - and based on my experiences, I'm comfortable saying I would not want to eat at that the restaurant by choice/shop at American makes...

" I wonder what good it would be to read reviews of cars? How does that give you ANY real knowledge of a vehicle? It's the opinion of someone else and utterly worthless. When you go to buy a car do you really read a review and make a decision based on the opinion of a random reviewer? That's inane. "
 
Its true that reviews are opinions but most people are not capable of test driving every car they are interested in so they read auto publications to learn about the multitude of options available. I dont see this as being any more "inane" than going to avis to rent a base model Cobalt and then coming here to tell people that you know for a fact that domestic cars are trash.
 
"Asian and Euro makes get a read as I will consider them for entertainment. I freely admit I'm a bigot when it comes to American cars. I suffer with their vehicles too often to look at America cars seriously for entertainment (what a car review is) or as a realistic buying option. "
 
Enough said. Now you understand why your commentary cant be taken seriously. You are talking about "suffering" with domestic cars (I guess this is based on your rentals) but you didnt comment on any of the decent cars I mentioned earlier that are most definitely NOT available at Avis or Enterprise. To talk in generalizations about American cars being dull is ridiculous when vehicles like the SRT-8s, V series, Vette, Mustang GT/GT500 are on the market. If you are comparing Europe's finest to a base model Cobalt you rented than I can understand your opinion. Problem is rental cars arent supposed to be exciting and never will be.
 
Your positon is like going to NYC and eating something from a street vendor that you dont like and then coming to the conclusion that there is no fine cuisine available in that city. If you admit that you are biased and have little knowledge of, or interest in the vehicles being discussed I dont see why you bother to comment at all.

blueguydotcom: That's pretty low to suggest that the voting was rigged. You should give the Edmund's online crew enough credit to detect and address any odd numbers or sources. If I were on the staff for this site, I'd be insulted.
 
Second, to suggest that an American manufacturer cannot win short of some dastardly villain out there padding the numbers really shows how biased you are. To branch off of the racial metaphor used earlier, that would be like me saying that an African American couldn't win an Olympic event unless he was using steroids. The reason for that statement, of course, would be because I just plain don't like people of another race (which isn't true for me in reality).
 
Saying things like that speaks lowly of your character or at least of a budding concern that there's a US manufacturer that may actually challenge your favored import brands. Of course, something like that is silly, because it doesn't concern you. You are not your brand. Just drive what you like and leave the mud-slinging to the politicians. If someone does well on their own merits, whether it's a sprinter or a car manufacturer, give them credit where it's due.
 
1487: I both respect and appreciate your willingness to be ganged up upon and stand up for the under-represented population that believes the American makers deserve props when they do well. Again, I would like to emphasize that I own a Mitsubishi but would not hesitate to consider owning an American car. In fact, one of the best cars I owned was an '87 Buick. I'm looking forward to owning an '85 Chevy Caprice Classic and a '93 Dodge Dynasty.
 
At this point, the Japanese makers are become very "blah" in my opinion (though to be fair, my bias says that Mitsubishi is the least blah), and all the reliability in the world will not ever fill that gap. In these days of 60,000-100,000 mile warranties and improving reliability across the board (except Land Rover and MB, perhaps), the difference in reliability between a domestic and an import is closing quick. As it stands, GM is making some great moves and great cars, especially with the revitalization of the Saturn brand...I'm eagerly anticipating the Saturn Astra.

"I'm looking forward to owning an '85 Chevy Caprice Classic and a '93 Dodge Dynasty. "
 
Maybe I am just confused, but are you "looking forward" to owning a Dynasty. I don't think those words have ever been uttered.
 
What redeeming qualities does a Dynasty possess? Even at that time of their creation they were described as lackluster cars.
 
Additionally, what you guys need to understand is that American manufacturers have for years isolated and pissed off a good percentage of the public either due to their poor customer service or lackluster quality. While admittedly they are better, these incremental steps will not sway a significant portion of the market that have written them off.
 
In the 1970's a Mercedes was an ugly, heavy automobile with no muscle. BMW's were terribly unreliable and overpriced. But over the years that have built a loyal following in the US because they cater to a market that was abandoned by the Big 3. That's right, it was abandoned. Buicks and Cadillacs were cars of choice in the 1970's and early 1980's. The Seville first generation was a quality automobile and history shows that it help temporarily to stem the tide of the advancing Germans. But the V8-6-4, the Olds Diesel and other blundering cost the the market.
 
You guys are correct that GM has mended some of its ways, but the mission is far from complete. Let's be honest there is nothing beyond the CTS that would challege BMW, Audi or MB. The STS is good, but not that good. American car companies don't even have a car to compete with the S, 7-Series or A8. I mean even VW had a car, and Lexus diffenately has a competitor.

"Additionally, what you guys need to understand is that American manufacturers have for years isolated and pissed off a good percentage of the public either due to their poor customer service or lackluster quality. While admittedly they are better, these incremental steps will not sway a significant portion of the market that have written them off. "
 
Shocking as it may seem, I dont think anyone doesnt know that some people were burned by domestic products. You speak of "incremental" gains in quality, but domestic vehicles are more reliable than European vehicles and some Asian brands. Remember, high quality is really limited to Toyota and Honda in terms of imports. They are the only ones who seem to turn out high quality vehicles on a regular basis, the same cannot be said for Mazda, Nissan, Suburu, etc. People like to substitute "import" for "Toyota and Honda" when it's convenient. Remember, the word import covers a lot of territory and not all import brands are created equal.
 
"Let's be honest there is nothing beyond the CTS that would challege BMW, Audi or MB. The STS is good, but not that good. "
 
CTS, STS/STST-V, XLR/XLR V and SRX. The SRX has consistently done well in comparisons and C&D named it best luxury SUV for three straight years. How in the world do you figure that nothing outside of the CTS competes with the germans? The STS-V was placed ahead of the CLS55 in a C&D comparo last year and its performance is right on par with the S6 and M5. If you look at the test results in the recent C&D super sedan comparo you will see none of the cars were significantly better than the STS-V and yet two of the three costed thousands more.

A STS-V is a low volume low market impact vehicle that does not have broad market appeal. While it is a good car, most in the market would still buy a M5,or E55 or Audi. The reason why is the heart of the domestic's challenge. History. People pay for the brand, the name and the committment to excellence. Cadillac has only been making cars that would qualify as "excellent" for a few years. It will take the market sometime to fully recognize their efforts. A point I have repeatedly made is that GM has a history of leaving or abandoning a market that they don't have instant success. This is now not an option for them.
 
 While I admit that the SRX is a good vehicle (I over looked it) it again does not seem to generate much excitment for the brand. The over the top design maybe the fatal flaw. The XLR is a good first attempt, but its fiberglass body holds it back. But as long as Cadillac continues to fine tune and market this car, it too will have a good future. But does today's roadster buyer consider the SL or the XLR, the better automobile? And in this market value is not a real consideration.
 
Quality does not merely refer to "reliability." A car may have excellent reliability compared to the field, but if it is not built well it does not have the same substantial quality. Specifically, I am talking about gap clearences, design elements more complicated than slab sided fenders, and high quality interiors. Admittedly the Japanese designs are not exciting, but other aspects of their cars are without a doubt of better quality. (I know that you don't agree with me on this) The Honda four cylinder is the highest quality in the world. It is the most advanced dynamically, and best on its subjective qualities. No other manufacturer can get more power with a smaller displacement (naturally aspirated of course). This "quality" has nothing to do with how reliable it is. While the Ecotec is powerful and of a sound design I have never read where it is compared to either a Honda, Mazda or Toyota engine for its relative refinement.
 
I will be the first to admit that European cars are not as reliable as most American and Japanese brands, however, their owners appreciate the build quality. Additionally, these manufacturers give their customers loaner cars when there is a problem, making any maintenance a relatively small inconvenience. (Yes I know Cadillac does this too). Cadillac has come a long way and the new CTS will be on my short list next year. With that said, driving enthusiasts still gravitate to the European brands when cost is no issue.
 
Lexus offers the same build quality but marketedly better reliability and they have a tremendous following considering they have only been around 17 years. Cadillac will have to demonstrate their competence over the long haul. You still don't seem to want to respond to my point in this regard.
 
I agree with you on select models, but the quality has to be more substantial. For example MB is still considered great by many, even though they have had significant reliability concerns for years now. The brand transends that because of their history. My hope is that the same can be said for Cadillac in 5 to 10 years, but right now it is too early.

brett,
 
YOu are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You say the STS_v is a low volume vehicle as if the M5 and E63 are not. What is your point? Regardless of sales the STS-V is a competent competitor to the super GErman sedans. Do you have to disagree with every statement I make?
 
"While it is a good car, most in the market would still buy a M5,or E55 or Audi. "
 
How do you know this? Do you know the sales numbers for these vehicles? I surely dont. I believe STS-V production is about 2k cars a year so its not going to tear up the sales charts.
 
I know what "quality" means but gap tolerances are very close amongst brands today. If you dont believe me check out the panels on any recent model regardless of brand. The days of the imports having a substantial advantage in tolerances are over. Domestic cars today seem to have better build quality than imports of 5-10 years ago based on my observations.
 
I fully understand that GM has a long way to go to improve its image, that is not in question. You seem to be taking a milder tone than you were earlier. If you are saying they have come a long way but have to stay committed to good product execution to raise consideration than I agree 100%. GM's image issues are MUCH larger than their product issues at this point. Their image issues are part of what leads people like you to say their engines arent as good as Honda/Toyota engines and their build quality isnt on par, etc. I would bet if we could examine the ecotec based on its construction and operation it would stack up with comparable fours quite nicely. Unfortunately, we cant examine the ecotec without knowing its from GM and that automatically changes perceptions of its refinement and quality.

The Honda engine is better. The Ecotec is not as refined. You can examine all the ways it is made and tested all you want. But consider the fact that the S2000 for years ran on a 2.0 liter engine generating 240 hp. And while it was characterized as loud, many considered it to be a "sweet" sound, (to use a less sophisticated term). Additionally, the vibration out of Honda engine is less than the Ecotec or even a Toyota four.
 
Today the S2000 is on a 2.2 liter engine to reduce the sound and further reduce vibration. Still no other manufacturer can come close to this level of performance and REFINEMENT from such a small displacement. Your Ecotec has to either be turbo charged or supercharged and it still does not generate the power of the S2000.
 
Qualitative differences are significant they are not merely perception.

"You say the STS_v is a low volume vehicle as if the M5 and E63 are not. What is your point?"
 
My point is that most people (even in the luxury car market) would come into contact or evaluate the STS-V for its relative values. With that said, those individuals that would more likely than not would still choose an M5 or E63.
 
So even though the MB and BMW are also low volume cars they are still better than the STS-V. I unfortunately have not had the chance to personally compare these cars, but I have yet to find any reviewer or friend that has done the comparison, that would not choose the German sedan over the STS-V.

1487, you incorrectly assume when one rents often one gets the compacts and midsizes. Use rental car companies often enough (4-5 times a month for years) and you get bumped to many vehicles: impala, cts, yukon, expedition, 300c, cherokee, etc. Trust me, this isn't based on just driving the taurus, malibu, grand prix, g6, sebring, charger, HHR, and fusion. I've not driven a cobalt/escort/compact as a rental; it's someone else's money, so why would I get the cheapest car?
 
Actually, the fusion is pretty good but that's to be expected as it's built on the Mazda6's chassis. More power and it'd be more fun.

"Additionally, the vibration out of Honda engine is less than the Ecotec or even a Toyota four. "
 
According to who? There is no way to prove a statement like that so I dont know why you continue to say such things.
 
"So even though the MB and BMW are also low volume cars they are still better than the STS-V. I unfortunately have not had the chance to personally compare these cars, but I have yet to find any reviewer or friend that has done the comparison, that would not choose the German sedan over the STS-V."
 
The M5, E63 and STS-V have never been compared. The M5 beat the STS-V in a C&D comparo last year. I would venture to say the M5 is a better track car than the STS-V but for everyday driving I doubt there is much of a difference. The STS-Vs performance and price are definitely in the same league as the German cars. I assume if your friends are like you they would not even consider the Caddy but I would and I have seen several on the road (a congressman around the corner has one) so I am not alone. I have not seen a current generation S6 on the road yet.
 
bdc,
 
"Trust me, this isn't based on just driving the taurus, malibu, grand prix, g6, sebring, charger, HHR, and fusion. I've not driven a cobalt/escort/compact as a rental; it's someone else's money, so why would I get the cheapest car? "
 
Even if its not an economy car, its still a cheap base model car in most cases. Sure an Impala costs more than a base cobalt, but in most cases you are not getting an LTZ and definitely not an SS. The last gen sebring and stratus were trash and thus I would expect your rental experience to be quite disappointing. You can get a general feel for a model by driving the cheapest variant, but a base model charger or 300 is most definitely not a Charger R/T or SRT or 300C/SRT-8. I believe you said something about domestic rentals being boring and that is a true statement, you need to move up to the higher trims if you want some excitement. The base model of almost any car is boring. Sure this may not apply to Mini or BMW, but it does apply to Toyota, NIssan, Honda, Hyundai, etc.

"I would venture to say the M5 is a better track car than the STS-V but for everyday driving I doubt there is much of a difference."
 
It's funny that you say that because I explicitly remember you arguing the exact opposite of that all last week when we all compared the Civic Si to the Cobalt SS.

1487
 
Why do I have to PROVE that he Honda has less vibration. I have driven the Cobalt, the G5 and the Ion. I also have driven an Accord (4) a Civic, an Element, and an S2000. So I don't get your point.
 
Do require a quote for every point? Please.
 
"You can get a general feel for a model by driving the cheapest variant, but a base model charger or 300 is most definitely not a Charger R/T or SRT or 300C/SRT-8."
 
Most of the cars sold to the general public as well as the rental fleets are base models. That is why Honda, Toyota and Mazda place as much importance on their base models as their high end versions. An Accord 4 cylinder is a fun car to drive. It is light, tossable and well put together. That is part of the point of this forum.
 
Yes GM and other domestics can build quality cars, when they want to. But their downfall is that their volume cars are boring, underpowered, cheap interiors, rattle traps.
 
Notice my earlier quotes as to the Aura XE. You come back as say, WELL LOOK AT THE XR. But the point is that the XE will probably outsell the XR and will create the lions' share of people's opinion about the car. What good is it, if the car that sells the most is considered junk?
 
The Accord LX is a quality car that is put together well and performs well for its class. Boring? Well compared to a sport compact or a V6 version yes, but not boring when someone needs a midsize sedan or coupe around $21,000. What does GM have to offer? Still to this day the prospects aren't good.

Everyone,
 
You all see how 1487 ignores the blatant contradiction to his logic that I pointed out above?
 
I'd be surprised if he even responds to my last comment. But I hope he proves my last sentence wrong :-)

I'll keep this short.
 
brett8210, I totally agree with what you said about the Aura XE.
 
I made a comment about the same thing in Bob's Straightline blog entry about GM's (apparent) success in Edmunds' 2007 Consumers' Most Wanted survey.
http://66.160.188.111/Straightline/2717

flic,
 
Stop trying to pick arguments with silly statements. I never said the Si wasnt good enough to own, I DID say that the SS was better on the track according to C&D. For commuting back and forth to work, or even spirited driving, the Si is more than adequate. That doesn't mean its a better performer than the SS. Show me where I said the Si wouldnt be an acceptable everyday car.
 
"Why do I have to PROVE that he Honda has less vibration. I have driven the Cobalt, the G5 and the Ion. I also have driven an Accord (4) a Civic, an Element, and an S2000. So I don't get your point. "
 
Point is, stop using your opinion as fact. Its a pretty simply point. Since you have aleady established your preference for anything made in Japan why in the world would I take your word as objective? Its common sense. I have not driven the new civic, but I have driven the IOn and Mazda 3 (known to be very refined) and I can tell you the difference was negligible. There is no vibration or harshness in the 2.2L ecotec.
 
"Most of the cars sold to the general public as well as the rental fleets are base models. "
 
Where did you read that? That is totally false. I once read that over 30% of 300s were the 300C. same applies for other cars as well. Most IMPORT cars sold are typically the lower model in my experience.
 
"Yes GM and other domestics can build quality cars, when they want to. But their downfall is that their volume cars are boring, underpowered, cheap interiors, rattle traps. "
 
Yeah, they lack the excitement of the base model camry, Sonata, accord and Optima. You are a joke. Cheap interiors? Compared to what? The recent camry has taken numerous knocks for its less than stellar interior build quality and materials. The Sonata's interior looks about 10 years too late. The current Altima is OK but the old car was full of hard plastics and large panel gaps. The Accord is decent, but is also full of hard plastics. I would actually say the Optima has one of the better import interiors out there. when you start veering away from actual facts and start calling American cars "rattletraps" it really does show how out of touch you are. BTW, does that label apply to the mazda6 based Fusion? Or the OPel platform based Aura/G6/9-3/Malibu that are amongt the most rigid in the segment? Just wondering.
 
"Notice my earlier quotes as to the Aura XE. You come back as say, WELL LOOK AT THE XR."
 
Notice that I never said that and I have no idea what you are referring to. I have no problem with the XE. The XE has the same interior as the XR and virtually the same styling. How exactly is the XE a low budget POS and the XR a decent midsize car? The XE is slower and lacks a 6 speed auto, but other than that it's not "cheap" at all.
 
How in the world is a base model Accord exciting but an Aura XE or G6 V6 would be considered boring? You are making no sense at all. The accord 4 is basic transportation with good mileage. It is hardly groundbreaking or exciting. BTW, you can get an Aura or G6 for around $21k as well.

I have to go with 1487 on the Aura XE. I was surprised to see that the "new uplevel" car sitting in the parking lot the other morning was an Aura, and especially an Aura XE. When I first saw it I didn't even recognize it as a Saturn. Instead I thought maybe it was a new Acura. As I got closer I realized how silly that would sound to say to anyone else, but was still shocked that the car had such a nice design and that the fit and finish of everything I could see was every bit as good as the luxury sedans I've seen from that other company. I of course knew what the drivetrain would be once I saw the name and trim level on the trunk, but that took nothing away from the rest of the vehicle and the impression it gave off just sitting there.

C&D said
 
"As we said, almost right, until the sponges in GM’s Cheapness Department got to the project. Although styled well, the interior is executed with hard plastic, glaring panel gaps, ragged mold lines, and the scrape-scraping of a gear selector that slides through its range like a screwdriver through sand. Have GM’s cheapness freaks ever sat in an Accord?"
 
Further as to the Interior they said
 
"Some shoppers might head for a Toyota store after spending time in the Aura’s interior. It’s a shame Saturn didn’t copy the Vectra’s interior as closely as its exterior. The controls and the gauges are well laid out, and the multiadjustable seat yields a comfortable driving position. The problem isn’t so much with the design, although the Opel interior still strikes us as the better of the two. Rather, it’s the build quality: Several parts weren’t aligned, the trunk-release button came loose from the door, plastics ranged from good (dash top) to bad (shiny door-panel grab handles with fake stitching), and mold part lines were in evidence. The word flimsy comes to mind."
 
I have DRIVEN the Aura. The plastic on the door panels and the arm rest for the left arm is pitiful. The molded stitching is a NICE TOUCH that if you wear short sleave shirt you have a series of little plastic knives cutting into it. I know I have DRIVEN it.
 
What did C&D say about the 4 cylinder Accord:
 
"First off, it drives as if made out of titanium and carbon fiber, with a center of gravity just below the catalytic converter. The delicate steering wheel, dimple-patterned for grip, is light and precise, the body motions clipped, the turn-in sharp, the chassis rigid. Even the doors feel featherweight as they swing on super-lubricated hinges. A fingertip touch is enough to latch them."
 
In the comparison test the Aura came in Four Place and the five year old Accord won the test. This of coarse requires that ONE DRIVE the cars, and not just read reviews and write nonsense.
 
So I have the automotive press (C&D is the only article I have read where they have compared an AURA to the Accord) and the thousands of people that have chosen the Accord over the Aura. I give GM all the credit in the world for the XR and the exterior design. But the devil's in the details.
 
Further,
"Most of the cars sold to the general public as well as the rental fleets are base models. "
  
Where did you read that? That is totally false. I once read that over 30% of 300s were the 300C. same applies for other cars as well. Most IMPORT cars sold are typically the lower model in my experience."
 
I am going to assume that you did not review this before you posted it. 30% is not a majority or any amount that can be attributed to the word MOST. Therefore, my point that most of the cars sold are base models is still valid. You take 30% and I'll take 70%, who has the MOST.
 
No matter the model domestic or import, generally base models outsell the higher trims. That is basic. Why are you arguing with me on this. My point is that Honda, Toyota and other imports "Typically", meaning their are exceptions, are better and the trim on the Domestic sedans around $21,000.
 
Your comment about the Fusion is typical of what I am discussing. On the V6 model it is fine, but when you have the lower trims it is something else. Notice Ford takes away the clock in the dash and adds the very impressive FUSION cover plate. Still not in the Accord's league.

brett,
 
I am fully aware of what C&D said. Try quoting some other sources about the Aura and compare notes. It has been beaten to death here than C&D doesnt like the Aura and feels it (and every other midsize car) pales in comparison to the Accord. No need to quote the entire articles any further, I got the point. Why dont you dig up some quotes from Motorweek, MT, R&T, nctd.com and other sources since you are convinced that it is fact that the Aura's interior is crap.
 
"In the comparison test the Aura came in Four Place and the five year old Accord won the test. This of coarse requires that ONE DRIVE the cars, and not just read reviews and write nonsense. "
 
a) I have driven the Aura. You know what they say about those who assume. I have DRIVEN the Aura, in case you missed it the first time. BTW, did I mention I have DRIVEN the Aura? Got it yet?
 
b) I do not need to drive the Accord to know that its driving experience will be no more exciting than the Aura. The only thing the Accord 4 cylinder can do better is get more miles per gallon.
 
c) Since you are well versed in that C&D comparo I'm sure you will notice C&D liked the Aura's styling and handling and the car outperformed the Accord in virtually every category.
 
"I am going to assume that you did not review this before you posted it. 30% is not a majority or any amount that can be attributed to the word MOST. Therefore, my point that most of the cars sold are base models is still valid. You take 30% and I'll take 70%, who has the MOST."
 
In your rush to post angry responses you totally abandon common sense. The 300 has four trim levels. My point was if the 300C alone represents about 1/3 of total sales one would assume that the base model is NOT the majority of 300 sales. There are also Touring and Limited models. The BASE car is a stripped down vehicle with wheel covers for $24k. I rarely see the base model.
 
"Your comment about the Fusion is typical of what I am discussing. On the V6 model it is fine, but when you have the lower trims it is something else. Notice Ford takes away the clock in the dash and adds the very impressive FUSION cover plate. "
 
Thats Ford. You failed to answer how the base Aura is cheap compared to the XR model. GM doesnt make drastic interior changes to its vehicles based on model. Colors may change and sometimes climate controls will change, but typically the base car looks very similar to the uplevel car. This applies to Malibu, Aura, G6, Impala, etc.
 
remember this statement:
 
""Notice my earlier quotes as to the Aura XE. You come back as say, WELL LOOK AT THE XR." "
 
still waiting for you to show me where I said this and for your explanation as to why the XE interior is worse than XR.

Assuming that you take out the 300 SRT-8 there are only three trim levels. The C, the Touring, and the base model. [The old Limited trim was not dyanamically any different from the Touring] The word MOST does not require 50%. The Base Model would probably still outsell all the other models. Therefore if it was 45% of the sales it would still be the MOST.
 
The point is still made and you have not refuted it only said that you don't see many of them. So what, are you going to tell me that a well defined market trend should be thrown out because of your evaluation of the cars that drive by your observation?
 
Additionally, it was you that brought up the 300, not me. If you find real sales figures to differentiate the 300 from the typical observation, I will give you a cookie, but my point remains the same as a rule.
 
"I do not need to drive the Accord to know that its driving experience will be no more exciting than the Aura. The only thing the Accord 4 cylinder can do better is get more miles per gallon."
 
I find it hilarious that you haven't even driven the car that you want to compare other cars to. And when given quotes of a comparison you disregard them because of a table regarding the Aura going faster?
 
The beauty of the Accord 4 is not found in speed or the data. But in the handling and feel of the car. That is why it won, and that is why it continues to sell in large numbers.
 
My comment regarding domestic base models was not limited to the interiors, but the vehicle in general. The XE is just more of the same from GM. As well as the G6. A pushrod V6 with a four speed transmission. They have been selling this engine (and its derivatives) for generations. But if you want a V6 get the Accord LX V6 and dust off the 3.5 L with your 4 Speed Transmission all for about the same price as C&D's Aura XE.
 
In the other question you posted about your response. It was merely anticipating your response. It can be a fairly effective rhetorical tool. It obviously worked.

"Assuming that you take out the 300 SRT-8 there are only three trim levels. The C, the Touring, and the base model. [The old Limited trim was not dyanamically any different from the Touring] The word MOST does not require 50%. The Base Model would probably still outsell all the other models. Therefore if it was 45% of the sales it would still be the MOST. "
 
Before you type anything else just look at the 300s on the road. I rarely see the base model. Mostly Touring and C models. The base model is for the airport as far as I can tell. You are wrong on this count and there is no way around it, but please continue to try and justify your point.
 
"The beauty of the Accord 4 is not found in speed or the data. But in the handling and feel of the car. That is why it won, and that is why it continues to sell in large numbers. "
 
Those are always the excuses I hear when an import car underperforms in a test. Its funny that the same logic doesnt apply if the import actually acheives better numbers in a test. If I were to tell you the Malibu is sportier than the Accord even though the numbers dont back that up I doubt you would believe me.
 
You keep quoting ONE article that compared the Accord to the Aura. Automobile magazine said they found the Aura to be better looking and more engaging to drive than the Accord so stop pretending C&D's opinion in consensus. It's not. Now why don't you try and explain away Automobile's compliment.
 
" They have been selling this engine (and its derivatives) for generations."
 
No they haven't. The 3.5L came out when the Malibu was new in 2004. It is only loosely related to the old 3.4L V6. While it is true you can get an Accord V6 for the same price as the XE, the equipment levels will not be equal. The Accord will be faster but the XE would have more equipment for your money. The XE is the BASE engine not the ONLY engine offered. To say the XE is inadequate because it has less power than the Accord V6 is stupid because the Aura offers an engine comparable to the Honda V6 if you want to pay for it. The 3.5L is more powerful than the Accord 4 for the same money and that is the point.
 
"In the other question you posted about your response. It was merely anticipating your response. It can be a fairly effective rhetorical tool. It obviously worked."
 
Have no clue what you are talking about.

Automobile Mag has NO comparison test between the Accord and the Aura. Nice try.
 
Further, you still did not upset the analysis I did regarding base models. You just (as typical) said that YOU KNOW that sales numbers are different for the 300. PROVE IT!!!
 
Again, upon proving the numbers, you will get your cookie, but the rule is still the same.
 
It is worthless trying to argue with you regarding subjective qualities of automobiles. You are either incapable of appreciating the finer points of a car, or you are blind to anything outside of a spreadsheet.
 
The Accord V6 even with less equipment than the XE will have better resale value, better build quality, and better performance.
 
Specifically, the Accord has over the Saturn a OHC engine, 5-speed (instead of 4-speed), Stability Control (not available in XE), Air-Filtration AC (not available in XE).
 
 I will grand you that until the new Accord comes out in September the Aura looks better on the outside. Oh the better equipment boils down to a trip computer, auto head lights, leather seats, and a six disc stereo for $725. [Assuming that you load up the Aura with every available option. Several of Aura's optional equipement is standard on the Accord]
 
On the whole the Accord is a better deal. Oh that is before Saturn has to start giving them away with incentives.

brett,
 
Part of your problem is you continue to assume I am stupid and make up stuff. I NEVER make up facts. Automobile commented on the Aura in their new car issue last October and said they found it to be more engaging to drive than the Accord or Camry and more stylish to boot. Trust me. Look it up if you want to. I never said they had a comparison between the two cars. R&D was also very impressed with the car in their First Drive last fall.
 
"Further, you still did not upset the analysis I did regarding base models. You just (as typical) said that YOU KNOW that sales numbers are different for the 300. PROVE IT!!"
 
You have no analysis just a guess. Automakers do not break down sale by trim lines but I am telling you that I see 300s all the time and few are the base model. What do you see? You havent said that your observations support the notion that most 300s are base models.
 
"You are either incapable of appreciating the finer points of a car, or you are blind to anything outside of a spreadsheet. "
 
What I am not blind to is the fact that the Accord isnt the benchmark in this segment anymore. Most objective people know this already but you are amongst the die hard Honda fans that refuse to acknowledge a 4 year old car has been surpassed by the competiton. What "finer points" does the Accord have that the Aura is missing? Finer points like the one piece fold down rear seat? The lack of an MP3 jack? Lack of a high end stereo option? Lack of 6 speed auto? Lack of 18" wheels or remote start? Lack of rear seat audio controls? The lack of sophisticated styling? Please explain. You are saying that anyone who believes the Aura is better than the Accord is stupid and yet I just told you that Automobile said they like the Aura better. Same goes for Motor Week who named Aura best family sedan. AW compared the Aura to Camry (which is already superior to Accord) and preferred the Aura. All you have to hang your hat on is one C&D comparo.
 
"The Accord V6 even with less equipment than the XE will have better resale value, better build quality, and better performance. "
 
Of course it has better peformance than the base model Aura. It should, it has 20 more hp and costs more. It doesn't outperform the XR model which is its true competition so I dont see your point. BTW, aside from acceleration the XE actually peforms better than the Accord according to C&D's test numbers. The V6 accord has the same suspension and brakes as the 4 cylinder model so it would perform equally aside from acceleration.
 
"I will grand you that until the new Accord comes out in September the Aura looks better on the outside."
 
here we go with the "wait until September" stuff that GM bashers never want to hear from people like me, BTW, I have seen spy shots of the Accord sedan on leftlanenews and I hate to tell you that it looks like the Aura will be more stylish than the 2008 Accord as well. It's not just my opinion, people on the site were very underwhelmed.
 
"On the whole the Accord is a better deal. Oh that is before Saturn has to start giving them away with incentives."
 
The incentives are part of the Aura's price like it or not. Dont make excuses. And lets not act like Honda dealers arent offering sweet discounts on the Accord as we speak. I dont see how the Accord is the better deal when the Aura looks better, has more room (C&D verified this in your beloved comparo), has a larger trunk, has more features, costs less and handles better. You failed to mention the XE also comes with a split folding rear seat, tire pressure monitoring, Onstar, better warranty and MP3 jack. BTW, other than stability and air filtration I want to know what the Accord SE has standard that the Aura lacks?

"What "finer points" does the Accord have that the Aura is missing?"
 
Navigation System, Better MPG, Better Handling Characteristics, a Center Armrest for the Back Seat. (WHERE IS THAT IN THE AURA, even in the XR it is missing). (By the way you can get the fold-down seat in the coupe, just an aside)
 
The MP3 jack is optional in the Accord (I agree it needs to be standard), but hardly a reason to choose a car.
 
18" wheels are also available as an accessory, at your friendly Honda retailer. Remote Start is really more gimick, who buys a car because of the remote start? Are you serious? Oh by the way your XE doesn't have a 6 speed either!
 
With Honda you don't need a better warranty.
 
And in 2008 the list will get longer and your excuses will be even more pathetic.
 
Motor Week and Automobile's comments are generalized notions that are not the result of direct comparison in a test. Therefore, those comments I take with a grain of salt. Also those comments are regarding the XR not the XE which I have been clear on. What I find funny is that these other magazines haven't felt the need to do a comparison with the Aura in it. Why? It just so happens that outside of some one page articles concerning their "first" drives of a car, no magazine has gone out of their way to demonstrate the Aura's competence. You should know as well as I that that "First" drives are hardly the determinative analysis on a new car.
 
Here is what even Karl thinks of the Aura's interior:
"As for interior material quality, it's kind of all over the map. Big items, like the uppder dash pad and the upper door panels, present a nicely-textured surface wtih a soft-touch feel. But if you dig just a little bit (put your hand in the door pockets, run your hand over the console, open the storage lid on the back of the center console, etc.) you'll see and/or feel plastic flashing. Same goes for the door lock knobs, which are downright gritty (I know this because the Aura locks all of its doors as soon as you pull it out of park, and it won't unlock until you put it back in park unless you pull on the locks themselves, not even the power unlock button will release them -- which I hate!). The cloth on the seats was passable, as was the cloth/foam material on the headliner, but Honda and Toyota still have GM beat in overall material quality."
 
Must be a killer to you everytime you hear those words. Give up. You have NO backup and are scrambling to support your opinion that is now and will this fall be shown their shallowness.
 
"I hate to tell you that it looks like the Aura will be more stylish than the 2008 Accord as well. It's not just my opinion, people on the site were very underwhelmed."
 
People don't know what the 2008 Accord will look like other than the 2 door coupe that was displayed earlier this year. And in my opinion looks dramatically better than the Aura. Just an opinion.

"The incentives are part of the Aura's price like it or not. Dont make excuses. And lets not act like Honda dealers arent offering sweet discounts on the Accord as we speak."
 
Are you really comparing the fact that Honda Dealers are making "deals" on Accords without incentives on a FIVE YEAR OLD CAR to the Aura. GM is giving out almost two thousand dollars on a car that is not even a year old. Is that the kind of analysis that you want to give out. Do you think you have proven a point?
 
I have an idea, GM needs to give out thousands of dollars on incentives on all there "great" cars (as you have defined them). That way everyone will run to buy them because the are such a better deal. Oh wait, that's right, they've tried that. How'd that work out for them?

Cool little Aura vs. Accord battle you guys are having here. Pretty interesting how each side chooses the vehicle trim that makes their point. What I get from it is that a V6 equipped base Accord is better than a V6 (or 4) base Aura XE in most ways. The top trim Aura is better than the top trim Accord. No matter what trim you compare a lot depends on what your priorities are (in other words, it's no longer a clearcut choice, like both sides here would have us believe).
 
"here we go with the "wait until September" stuff that GM bashers never want to hear from people like me, BTW, I have seen spy shots of the Accord sedan on leftlanenews and I hate to tell you that it looks like the Aura will be more stylish than the 2008 Accord as well. It's not just my opinion, people on the site were very underwhelmed."
 
Absolutely true. Point to the Aura team, on BOTH counts. Heck, the spyshots of the upcoming Accord sedan posted HERE have also pretty much soundly panned the odd mishmash of shapes that *are* visble. So at the very least the new Accord sedan is unlikely to gain ground on styling (appears to actually lose some- comparisons to older Saturn L300's being used for part of the styling don't bode well). Regardless of what other new stuff comes to the table with it.
 
Anyway, fight on. Always interesting having proponents of both sides presenting all the available packages and trims for our reading enjoyment.

"GM is giving out almost two thousand dollars on a car that is not even a year old. Is that the kind of analysis that you want to give out. Do you think you have proven a point?"
 
Dont be an idiot. OK, never mind. The levels of incentive do NOT prove if a car is good or bad. I dont know why you cant understand such a simple fact. Toyota has $3k on some Tundra models but I bet your salary you dont go around saying "the Tundra is a POS because Toyota has incentives on a two month old truck". You continue to prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are completely biased and disconnected from reality. The Aura is a highly acclaimed car with or without incentives. Based on the reviews it has gotten most people would be hard pressed to explain why its been a slow seller. My guess is too many buyers are self proclaimed "experts" who think that there are no decent cars on the market not made by Honda or Toyota and are too ignorant and closed minded to even check out a car like the Aura.
 
Oh by the way if sales and incentives prove the worth of a car, what do you have to say about the Acura RL? The RL is a complete flop but the media praised the car and I wouldnt be stupid enough so say the car is crap.
 
You are so confused that you contradict yourself constantly. First you say the 4 year old accord is clearly superior to the Aura and virtually anything else in the segment. when I mentioned that Honda is offering great deals to move Accords you say this is to be expected and excused because the car is 4 years old. My question is this: If the accord is still the benchmark and is vastly superior the the Aura and others why cant the Accord sell near MSRP?
 
jerry,
 
The accord is better if you want a four cylinder with good mileage. On all other counts the Aura is better as far as I can tell, especially when you consider what you would pay for an Aura with a $1750 rebate.

"I NEVER make up facts."
Please don't write that any more. I laugh too hard.
"NE is more energy efficient." claim from another blog. You made it up. I asked for backup several times. No response.
You made it up.
 
Ok it's not a fact so you didn't make up facts, you just made up support for you POV.

"Navigation System, Better MPG, Better Handling Characteristics, a Center Armrest for the Back Seat. (WHERE IS THAT IN THE AURA, even in the XR it is missing). (By the way you can get the fold-down seat in the coupe, just an aside)
  
The MP3 jack is optional in the Accord (I agree it needs to be standard), but hardly a reason to choose a car.
  
18" wheels are also available as an accessory, at your friendly Honda retailer. Remote Start is really more gimick, who buys a car because of the remote start? Are you serious? Oh by the way your XE doesn't have a 6 speed either!
  
With Honda you don't need a better warranty.
 
Your desperation is hilarious. Navigation is available BUT you have to pay for it. The Accord tops out at $30k and the Aura tops out at less than $28k. Its not like navigation is free. Of course remote start and anything else the Aura has is a gimmick, classic import fanboy excuse. You fail to realize I am not new to this and your excuses are tired.
 
You are correct about the armrest. Mileage? The Aura XE/XR and Accord V6 get within 1mpg of each other. Spare me. Your warranty excuse is laughable. You are full of excuses. You cannot deny the Aura is a better deal so you discount EVERY advantage it offers vs the Accord like a true Honda fanatic. Keep it up. I know full well I can get other wheel from my Honda dealer but AT WHAT COST? This is common sense, why would I pay $1500 for 18" wheels that come standard on a $25k Aura? You have got to do better than that. I can get navigation for my Aura for $400 if I want to but that doesnt excuse GM for not offering it as an option.
 
"What I find funny is that these other magazines haven't felt the need to do a comparison with the Aura in it. Why? It just so happens that outside of some one page articles concerning their "first" drives of a car, no magazine has gone out of their way to demonstrate the Aura's competence. "
 
More stupidity. The magazines I mentioned havent done ANY midsize comparos recently. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to compare the Aura, they just havent done any significant midsize car comparisons at all. What excuse do you have for Autoweek picking the Aura over the Camry? What excuse do you have for MW saying the Aura was their best family sedan? In case you didnt know, that means they prefer it over EVERY comparable car INCLUDING THE ACCORD. I thought this was obvious.
 
"Must be a killer to you everytime you hear those words. Give up. You have NO backup and are scrambling to support your opinion that is now and will this fall be shown their shallowness. "
 
READ something other than Edmunds or C&D. I keep telling you that and you wont do it. BTW, Edmunds actual road test opinion of the Aura was more positive than Karl's impression. Your entire argument comes down to "C&D and Karl dont like the Aura and thus its a POS even though numerous other references totally contradict that opinion". Got it.
 
"People don't know what the 2008 Accord will look like other than the 2 door coupe that was displayed earlier this year. And in my opinion looks dramatically better than the Aura. Just an opinion.
 
Wrong AGAIN. Leftlanenews.com and other sites have CLEAR spy pics of the Accord sedan. check it out for yourself dude, you are so obviously not a car fan that its hard to discuss these things with you. As much as you are in love with the stupid Accord I cant believe you havent seen the latest spy shots of the sedan. The car is basically uncovered in these pics and its lame. You are about the only one biased and/or blind enough to call the new Accord attractive. The coupe is passable, but the Sedan is downright dull.

"Please don't write that any more. I laugh too hard.
"NE is more energy efficient." claim from another blog. You made it up. I asked for backup several times. No response.
You made it up. "'
 
You have to have basic intelligence to understand that point and thus it seems like it was over your head. I gave you clear reasoning to support what I said and you ignored it. My assertion is based on applying common sense but that is something you apparently lack. Anyone who cant understand that a city with less cars, more walking and more mass transit doesnt use less gas/oil than a city where there is no mass tranist use and one car per adult is either stupid or pretending to be so. I never said I had a study handy to back up this common sense notion. I can tell you what goes up must come down but I dont have a link to an article to prove that either so you probably dont believe in gravity.

"I never said I had a study handy to back up this common sense notion."
That's a long way of saying, "I made it up".

"If the accord is still the benchmark and is vastly superior the the Aura and others why cant the Accord sell near MSRP?"
 
Because, five year old cars begin to slow down in sales, when the market is aware that a new model is coming. That is why Honda for a generation now typically offers a "special edition" in the last few months of a model run. Did you know that? This phenomenon is typical. I don't know why I need to explain it.
 
You are really hot about the incentive argument, but the fact remains that GM is stuck with having to have them on even there "best" cars. You attempted to argue that the incentive should be factored into the value equation. I am arguing that is a false value to the arguement when evalutating overall market value (because they are transitory, etc).
 
I never said that the incentives prove that the Aura is not a good car, I have said that the incentives demonstrate the market preference for the Accord. Look at my arguments, I never said the presence of incentives as to a qualitative evaluation of the Aura itself.
 
It helps if you READ the arguments before blowing your top.
 
I have seen the spy shots, and I am reserving judgment until it is unveiled. Honda is famous for having different versions or mules that are used until the last minute that are "caught". Still the Coupe looks better than the Aura. (Does my saying that piss you off?)
 
Again, if you can't argue the logic of the post, you refer to stupid ranting and ravings about what this person said or that. I read all the major cites and magazines, and still you want to only point the ones that support your view.
 
My point is still clear that most of the analysis of love for the Aura does not come with real comparisons, but rather articles filled with platitudes about how impressed they are. Autoweek is ok, but have you ever read a critical article of a new model yet? I haven't very often. Their criticism basically boils down to whineing there aren't more hybrids. They don't do comparisons very often, so my point still stands. So you have said I can' t quote C&D (because their biased) and I can't quote Karl (because I guess he is biased) but you can quote a bunch of one page articles that only gloss over the vehicle in a summary report. Ok, which would you find more compelling?
 
You do this all the time, I provided quotes from Automobile Magazine that was critical of the Lucerne's interior a few weeks back after you falsely accused me of having no foundation for that, and you shut up. Automobile has done no real analysis of the Aura besides autoshow coverage and random updates on their website. They are pretty silent other than praising the Aura concept.
 
What about Road and Track? This is what they said in May 2007 about the interior.
"The look, material quality and fit and finish inside the cabin have not only made major strides over previous Saturn models but the styling is arguably snazzier-looking than Honda’s latest Accord."
 
That's it. It looks "snazzier". Well I don't know how anyone competes with this type of analysis. And by the way you sited them as saying the interior was great. It is this type of detailed analysis and support I have come to expect from your proclamations.
 
Oh and in case I forgot their analysis in October was just more platitudes. They failed to mention the molded stitching on the arm rest, or the hard and hollow plastic on the door panels. Why? Because their article was a "FIRST DRIVE" they were probably in the car for all about 20 min.
 
Keep them coming, I have read them all, I just am a little more discerning of the depth of review that someone considers. Both C&D, Karl, and others have commented on alot of the cheap plastic.

I don't post much.. but i couldn't help it this time. I mean honestly. Its like watching two kids fight about who's dad could beat up who

LOL
 
My grandma and your grandma sitting by the fire....

""I never said I had a study handy to back up this common sense notion."
That's a long way of saying, "I made it up"."
 
Just so you know, I dont really believe you're as simple minded as you pretend to be on here. Nice act though.

Brett,
 
I got the summary of your argument, any reviews that support your view that the Aura is crap is "detailed" and quotable, but any reviews that are positive are to be thrown out because you dont respect the sources. BTW, since when do we have to disregard any comments that arent from a comparo? I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Do you not think the reviewers who like the Aura are not fully aware of what the Accord has to offer? I would think that they know all about the Accord and their praise for the Aura has nothing to do with the Accord at all. Your dismissal of the Aura's positive press is pure import fanboy twisted logic. You are so in love with the Accord that you cant even bring yourself to realize the Aura and Accord are nice cars. I just dont get why you feel the Aura has to be crap just because YOU dont like it. Also, I would like to hear your excuse for the Aura's NOCTY win at the Detroit auto show. YOu just finished saying that the Aura only gets praise when its not being compared to superior imports but the Aura beat out the 2007 Camry for the award. Nothing you say holds up under close examination, you are full of contradictions.
 
Criticism of the Lucerne? You gave me a quote that said the Lucerne's interior wasnt quite as plush as the Avalon. That is NOT the safe as R&T saying the interior is cheap. What part of that dont you understand. I "shut up" because your point was off base. What else could I say?

The Lucerne's interior is cheap and hollow. That's all I can say about that.
 
I have never said that the Aura was crap. I merely said that the Accord (and other autos) have better interiors. Additionally fundamental driving characteristics when considering the XE.
 
You always take someone's point and stretch it further than it was made to try to defeat it. It is called the "straw man" approach. It is quite transparent and foolish. But keep it up, it seems to allow you to justify your rhetoric.
 
The point about comparisons is that they allow the editor to judge directly the competition at the same time. Therefore, generally held notions are either renewed or challenged with faced with trying to compare products face to face. I never said disregard those comments not in a comparison, I said I don't consider them as highly.
 
I personally like the transmission and engine in the XR. I enjoyed driving it. However, there were other considerations that I found lacking. My pointing that out in comparisons with imports does not mean that I have said that the XR is crap.
 
In fact, my comments in this tread and others will support the fact that I look forward to the new Malibu, CTS, and like the XR (with the hope that the interior is upgraded over the next two years). However, the Accord has proven itself capable and better for YEARS. Its interiors are better made, with better quality materials for generations when GM was wondering in the wilderness. With that said, GM is getting better, but they are not there yet. What about that, is difficult to you to digest? Why do you think that my point in this regard is hating on GM.
 
My point on the lesser models not receiving their due consideration from GM is without rebuttal. When they start considering excellence in the standard versions of a model to the same degree they focus on the higher end versions then maybe they will gain some ground.
 
If you don't like my argument on the Aura XE, take another of your favorites the Lucerne. The V6 in the Lucerne is pathetic, I think you would agree with that. Therefore, if you don't like one example the rationale does not fail when considering the rule. The lesser LaCross, the lesser Impala, the lesser Grand Prix or G6, the lesser Cobalt, the list goes on and on.

"The Lucerne's interior is cheap and hollow. That's all I can say about that. "
 
You can keep saying it but it wont be true. Your opinion is contradictory to what almost every reviewer has said about the car. It's GM so of course it's crap to you, I dont really consider your evaluations of GM products to be fair or accurate.
 
"You always take someone's point and stretch it further than it was made to try to defeat it. It is called the "straw man" approach. It is quite transparent and foolish. But keep it up, it seems to allow you to justify your rhetoric. "
 
I dont have to stretch your arguments too far at all, they are pretty outlandish on their own. Trust me. People like you crack me up, you spend a lot of time trying to prove a car is crap but then you say "I never actually said the car was crap". Then what did you say?
 
"However, the Accord has proven itself capable and better for YEARS."
 
Yes the Accord has proven itself to be better than SOME GM cars from the past for years. Problem is, that has nothing to do with Aura. I dont evaluate cars based on their legacy or history. The Accord shares nothing with it's predecessor from 30 years ago other than a name. The size, performance, cylinder count, price, weight, etc. are far different than Accords of old so dont hit me with this "the Accord has a great history and that makes it better than any new nameplate" garbage.
 
If you want to buy a car strictly because it used to be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition 10 years back thats your choice. It makes no sense to say "The current Accord may not be better than the Aura, but historically the Accord has been better than domestic sedans". If the current car isnt better I dont want it. IN my opinion (and others) its not better, end of story.
 
"With that said, GM is getting better, but they are not there yet. What about that, is difficult to you to digest?"
 
They arent where yet? What are you talking about? Who said GM was anywhere? Just because you have disdain for GM as a whole doesnt mean they dont have INDIVIDUAL models that are competitive. YOu never stop with the excuses. Let me guess, next you'll hit me with "while the Aura and Malibu look good, GM still has to work on duds like the Cobalt and Aveo". GM's entire line has no bearing on the competence of the Aura. If I was in the market for the Aura I would be only concerned with THAT car, not about GM "being there yet" or the CObalt, G6, Impala or any other car I'm sure you'll bring up to justify your assertion that since GM's entire lineup isnt perfect their cars arent worthy of consideration.
 
"When they start considering excellence in the standard versions of a model to the same degree they focus on the higher end versions then maybe they will gain some ground. "
 
You are so far out of touch with reality its scary at times. What is GM doing with its base models that Honda/Toyota/Nissan are not doing with theirs? Stop making these statements without explaining where you are coming from. Base models IN GENERAL have smaller wheels, manual seats, wheelcovers, cloth seats, weak stereos, less brightwork, weaker engine, etc. This is NORMAL, it is not a GM-only phenomenon last time I checked. The Aura, G6, Impala, etc. all have virtually the same interiors regardless of what trime level you select. I have no idea where you are getting your information about GM skimping on cheapo base models in ways that other manufacturers do not.
 
"The V6 in the Lucerne is pathetic, I think you would agree with that. Therefore, if you don't like one example the rationale does not fail when considering the rule. The lesser LaCross, the lesser Impala, the lesser Grand Prix or G6, the lesser Cobalt, the list goes on and on."
 
Again please explain. The G6 has a base engine with more hp than camry or Accord. The Cobalt has 148hp standard which is more than corolla, civic, elantra, etc. The Lacrosse has 200hp standard. The Lucerne is underpowered in base form but that

The Lucerne is underpowered in base form but that has nothing to do with other cars made by GM. The other vehicles are not underpowered relative to their competition.

You keep confusing my comment on lesser models with whether they are underpowered or not.
 
I am speaking of overall refinement and advanced features. For instance DOHC and 5 speeds vs. Pushrods and 4 Speeds. Therefore, even though the GM versions may have a hp rating that is desirable, they're engines are not refined in the lesser categories.
 
GM does not make a small car that competes in either sales or refinement with the likes of the Mazda 3, Civic, Corolla or Subaru. They just don't right now. Will their cars go fast, yes. Are their cars reliable, yes. But they are not engineered or designed to the same level. Sorry.
 
I don't understand why you are so hot about me speaking in terms of GM products as a whole. I think it is fine that you want to merely shop for one vehicle at at time. But I think it is foolish for you not to consider that AUTO companies are judged in the Market and by the Public at large for their REPUTATION. This includes all their vehicles.
 
My opinion is not alone on the Lucerne. Specifically, Karls states
"I've been in a Lucerne. It's interior wasn't sub-par purely because of interior plastic. There were build quality issues like misaligned panels and a headliner that looked ready to fall down at any moment. Plastic quality is only one element of interior quality. I was about to comment that while the Lucerne's interior LOOKS good, if you look harder (and start scratching or tapping) it falls apart (not literally...well mostly not literally)."
 
Then he points out to you a Car & Driver article that panned the interior as looking ok, as long as you don't expect too much or look too hard.
 
OH I forgot C&D and Karl are the root of all biased import loving slime. Never mind the one page reviews of people that write ONE LINE about a car's interior should trump a detailed analysis. Is that what you are saying?
 
However, I should only expect you to further stretch everything I say, or anyone else into a different point so you can try to lambast that.
 
Subtlety is lost on you. (And NO I am not going to look it up for you)

THE G6, COBALT, HHR and MALIBU HAVE DOHC ENGINES STANDARD! I am starting to think you really have no clue about GM's lineup. As for four speeds, Hyundai , Chrysler and Toyota use four speeds in some of their base models.
 
"GM does not make a small car that competes in either sales or refinement with the likes of the Mazda 3, Civic, Corolla or Subaru."
 
C&D disagrees. GM doesnt make a car that competes with Corolla and Civic in MILEAGE, which is not the same as refinement. There is a difference.
 
"Are their cars reliable, yes. But they are not engineered or designed to the same level. Sorry. "
 
Total lie with no basis. There is rampant cost cutting on most mainstream cars sold today. If you cant find it on an Elantra, corolla or Civic than you arent looking.
 
"My opinion is not alone on the Lucerne. Specifically, Karls states "
 
consider the source, Karl says the SAME THING about every GM interior except for the new GM trucks and Lamdda SUVs. It's not a secret that he is no GM fan although he has begrudgingly acknowledged they are getting better. Karl doesnt even like the corvette which should tell you all you need to know about where he stands on GM products. I have been in several Lucernes (as have you I assume) and I did not find pieces falling off in ANY of them. How about you? Your two reference points for everything are Karl and C&D and you dismiss comments from any other sources. WOnder why that is?
 
"However, I should only expect you to further stretch everything I say, or anyone else into a different point so you can try to lambast that. "
 
To imply that I dont respond directly to your diatribes is to suggest that your arguments are too well composed and complex to respond to which is hardly the case. I respond DIRECTLY to whatever you post, even though most of it doesnt deserve a response. You play loose with the facts to make your points and then come up with lame excuses when you are exposed. The premise that we cant acknowledge the competence of any GM products because their entire lineup isnt perfect is beyond ridiculous. If an automaker is improving their newest models will reflect their new direction while their oldest models will be lacking. That is the case at GM, there is a big gap between their new stuff and their stuff from 4+ years ago.

1487's world
 
Ahh oomm, Ahh oomm. GM is perfect, GM is advancing, GM is better than the Japanese. When GM is losing Market share it is a plot by the press or worse, the communists. GM's interiors are perfect. C&D, Karl and hundreds of journalists are wrong in finding the Civic better than the Cobalt.
 
The Avalon better than the Lucerne. The ES 350 better than the Lucerne. The Cobalt is better than the Corolla, Civic, WRX, and Mazda 3.
 
When a car has greater HP and can go faster than another car it means that it is unqualifiedly better.
 
Wow, Philly must be miles away from sanity.
 
I am waiting for the C&D article that said the Cobalt or other GM car was as refined as a whole to the Civic, Mazda 3, Subaru, or even the Corolla.
 
You called me a liar that they aren't engineered to the same level, the small cars that is. PROVE IT. I am sick of expressing informed opinion and being told I am a liar. You may not like the import cars and are jealous of their refinement, but you can't argue that GM small cars are as good or better. That is just plain unfounded.
 
So I quote, C&D, Automobile Magazine, Karl, and even R&T and you come with nothing but excuses about how they are biased. YAWN. I guess the hundreds of thousands of individuals that have abandoned GM over the years are biased as well? Tired of the excuses. Bury your head in the sand, and kept chaning.
 
Ahh oomm, Ahh oomm

"As for four speeds, Hyundai , Chrysler and Toyota use four speeds in some of their base models."
 
Wow, GM is on par with Hyundai, and Chrysler. And when Toyota desides to slum it, GM is as good as they are. Party!

"Ahh oomm, Ahh oomm. GM is perfect, GM is advancing, GM is better than the Japanese. When GM is losing Market share it is a plot by the press or worse, the communists. GM's interiors are perfect. C&D, Karl and hundreds of journalists are wrong in finding the Civic better than the Cobalt. "
 
Typical ingnorant response that avoids dealing with what I said. I never once said GM is better overall than ANY Japanese automaker. I have said repeatedly GM competes in most segments and has products than can stand up to peers from import manufacturers. For the record the cobalt and new civic have rarely been compared. The civic has far better mileage than the cobalt but thats where the clear advantages end. its handling, performance, feature count, space, refinement etc is very close to the Chevy like it or not. C&D (your prized source) has consistently said the Cobalt is a refined small car. Dont shoot the messenger.
 
"The Cobalt is better than the Corolla, Civic, WRX, and Mazda 3. "
 
What are you talking about? Who said that?
 
"You called me a liar that they aren't engineered to the same level, the small cars that is. PROVE IT. I am sick of expressing informed opinion and being told I am a liar. You may not like the import cars and are jealous of their refinement, but you can't argue that GM small cars are as good or better. That is just plain unfounded. "
 
You arent making any informed opinions whatsover, you are using tired old import fanboy arguments that would never hold up in court. Define "engineered to the same level" if you can. Stop speaking in generalities that are poorly defined. Unless you have info that suggest the Cobalt has lower gap tolerances, higher noise levels, more engine vibration, less features, etc, than the competiton dont bore me with these pointless blanket statements about how its engineered to a lower standard. Again, C&D said the EXACT opposite when they tested the car and you claim they are gospel.
 
"So I quote, C&D, Automobile Magazine, Karl, and even R&T and you come with nothing but excuses about how they are biased. YAWN. I guess the hundreds of thousands of individuals that have abandoned GM over the years are biased as well? Tired of the excuses. "
 
When did I dismiss all these sources you are now claiming? I dont even know what quotes you are referring to at this point. When I gae you quotes from R&T and Automobile you told me they were irrelevant because they didnt come from comparison tests. Now you are telling me you trust those sources as long as they are saying negative things about GM products. Excuses indeed, you are going in circles trying to justify your biased arguments. The last time I checked most auto mags/sites have the Lucerne positive reviews so I dont see what you are trying to prove. Again, I asked you if you personally found parts of the Lucerne falling off when you drove the car. Still waiting for an answer. Although they have improved of late, there was a time when Edmunds would claim parts were falling off almost every GM car they test drove.
 
The 3 largest auto companies still use 4 speeds, its that simple. Dont criticize GM for it when the #1 and #3 companies still use 4 speeds as well. I dont know where Hyundai ranks right now, but I'm sure they are in the top 6 or 7 and they use 4 speeds as well. You ridicule Hyundai when they are one of the fastest growing companies in the industry and obviosuly know a thing or two about what customers want.
 
BTW, the Impala is on pace for 300k sales this year with a 4 speed auto.

"So I quote, C&D, Automobile Magazine, Karl, and even R&T and you come with nothing but excuses about how they are biased. YAWN. I guess the hundreds of thousands of individuals that have abandoned GM over the years are biased as well? Tired of the excuses. "
  
When did I dismiss all these sources you are now claiming?
 
ANSWER: "Karl says the SAME THING about every GM interior" Your words.
 
About C&D you said
  
"Enough with the excuses for C&D. They are and always will be biased towards certain brands. Its really simple and a quick look at the facts will prove that."
  
I quoted Automobile regarding the Lucerne's interior which was not as rich as the Avalon's. And they said it merely looked good, but the materials were lacking.
 
Regarding R&T and Automobile on the topic of interior quality and etc. I made a very good point on both the Lucerne and the Aura that they did not compare them, but instead said they were "good". In fact, R&T's quote was "snazzy" That was it. There was no analysis from them. They were busy getting ready for the performance tests. Which is good for them, but I like a little more analysis regarding the interior.
 
While I didn't find any pieces missing or falling off the Lucerne I did find the dash and console hollow and cheap. How's that for improvement. I guess you can take that to the bank.
 
Oh by the way the Cobalt has lower gap tolerances, higher noise levels, more engine vibration, than the Civic, or Mazda 3 or Corolla. Just the facts. Sorry I wasn't more explicit with you earlier.
 
The Article you quote from C&D is three years old and not applicable to any car listed above, but the Corolla. Again, it wasn't a comparison so we don't know what the face to face would be. But in my experience that is still the case.

"When did I dismiss all these sources you are now claiming? "
 
When I told you that AW, R&T and Automobile had good stuff to say about the Aura you said it wasnt relevant because their praise was in a stand alone test and thus invalid because superior cars like the Accord weren't on hand for direct comparison. Remember that? You said you only consider critique's valid if other cars are being evaluated and the Aura only seemed good because nothing else was around.
 
"Oh by the way the Cobalt has lower gap tolerances, higher noise levels, more engine vibration, than the Civic, or Mazda 3 or Corolla. Just the facts. Sorry I wasn't more explicit with you earlier. "
 
No proof of any of that. Saying it repeatedly wont make it any less unfounded, but you can keep trying. Show me some numbers. You import lovers are always talking about "better build quality" but you and I both know there isnt any way to prove that. The Cobalt's I've seen have very tight tolerances on the outside and most GM cars have 4mm or 5mm gaps on panels. I would bet your salary that Honda vehicles follow the same standard. Stop the lies and hyperbole.
 
"The Article you quote from C&D is three years old and not applicable to any car listed above, but the Corolla. Again, it wasn't a comparison so we don't know what the face to face would be. But in my experience that is still the case."
 
You continue to confirm your cluelessness with every post. The Cobalt's refinement is NOT relative to any other vehicle. What part about that dont you get? YOu have trouble understanding basic common sense ideas. The Cobalt was refined in 2004 and it is in 2007. The competition may have caught up or slightly exceeded the Cobalt with their redesigns, but that doesnt mean the Cobalt is any louder or vibration prone than it was 2.5 years ago when it came out. C&D (whom you now discredit after quoting numerous times before0 did a full road test of the Cobalt and said in many ways it was a premium compact like the Jetta. I would love to hear you explain how that could've been true then, but is untrue now because its 2007.
 
" quoted Automobile regarding the Lucerne's interior which was not as rich as the Avalon's. And they said it merely looked good, but the materials were lacking. "
 
I thought you just said a First Drive isnt enough to allow for a detailed analysis of an interior. If that is the case, why are you so satisfied by Automobile's comments about the LUcerne? Again, not as good as the Avalon does not mean CHEAP. There is a difference. Even if the Lucerne was lacking in that department, it still looks much better, has larger trunk, more space and handles better.

"The competition may have caught up or slightly exceeded the Cobalt with their redesigns, but that doesnt mean the Cobalt is any louder or vibration prone than it was 2.5 years ago when it came out."
 
I don't know why this is a tuff concept for you to grasp, but refinement is a continuing process. A 1995 Corolla is not as refined regarding exterior tolerances, interior materials and tolerances, and engine characteristics and power as the current one. Why are you arguing with me on this?
 
Therefore, we can easily say that the current Cobalt is not as refined as the current Civic, Mazda 3 or even the Corolla. The Corolla's interior easily has the tightest tolerances and material quality of any of these cars.
 
"You import lovers are always talking about "better build quality" but you and I both know there isnt any way to prove that."
 
Well I kind of agree with you there, so your constant harping on me to find an article regarding build quality is a little foolish. However, you can demonstrate build quality over time. For instance, the initial tolerance of a Cobalt may be close to that of a Civic on the day of production, but compare them 2 years down the road. There was a JD Power study that came out last year indiciating that most cars are fairly equal in reliability and build quality within the initial year, but the further you get out from that year the more you see the true differences.
 
The perfect example of this is the Jeep Cherokee. My wife has leased three of them over her life. They start out ok, but over time the rattles, and body sags are more apparent. Therefore, by the end of our 3 year leases, we have concluded without fail to give it back up, rather than pay the residual. On the other hand, my brother leased a 4Runner. That car looks almost brand new 3 years later and he is much harder on his cars than my wife. The fact is build quality is an amorphus concept that is difficult to "prove", but most that have owned a domestic product over the last three years will tell you a similar story.
 
My sister bought a 2003 Grand Am. Just this year she is finished with her payments and she is still under her extended warranty, she can't stand it. She had terrific luck with it the first year and a half, but the last three have been terrible. She has replaced a multitude of pieces from the fuel pump twice, to the electrical system that went out, twice. etc, etc.
 
I hope you are right that GM is better, I have seen it in many cars and the New Aura is testiment to that. My point is that they are not better than the imports yet. And only time will tell on that.
 
"C&D (whom you now discredit after quoting numerous times before0 did a full road test of the Cobalt and said in many ways it was a premium compact like the Jetta."
 
If they said that, then I strenuously disagree. Look at a 2004 Cobalt and a 2004 Jetta now. Which would you rather have now? The Cobalt is a rental car, while the Jetta (esp. the older one) is considered by many to be a poor man's 3 series.