It's actually a Rambler they're showing off though, and not one of the "real" Nashes. Whether or not it really provided any true advantage or not, we may never know, but the advertising sure makes it look good!
FWIW, the 1957 Chrysler products had inner fender linings that strongly resembled those "Heavy structural members that extend forward to offer greater impact protection"., whereas GM products had mostly empty space in that spot, except for a wheel well lining.
But, while it looked stronger, I don't know if it really helped much or not. I once saw a picture of a 1959 DeSoto Firesweep hardtop coupe that had been hit head-on by a drunk driver in a late 70's Camaro or Trans Am. Both drivers did survive, although they were seriously hurt. I think the DeSoto did have aftermarket seatbelts installed. Anyway, the whole front clip did hold up a lot better than, say, that '59 Chevy that NHTSA crash-tested a 2009 Malibu into a few years back. However, the car still buckled pretty seriously in the front seat area, and everything from the cowl forward, while remaining relatively intact, still pushed back into the passenger cabin.
So, beefing up the front of the car, without doing anything to the passenger cabin, is pretty pointless I guess. Maybe it helps in lesser impacts, though.
Yeah, that pretty much applied from 1960 to 1966, IIRC. The Imperials still used the same frame as the 1957-59 models, and much of the body was the same. Still, Chrysler incorporated a lot of the Unibody strengthening tricks into the Imperial's body, to make it stiffer and stronger than previous models.
I think I saw a 1957 Nash brochure that bragged about it being "twice as strong as other cars" I suspect the "real" advantage, from the manufacturer's standpoint, was less nuts and bolts, more spot welding, more efficient production and less production costs.
You are probably right. Although I understood that unit body resulted in a tighter, quieter vehicle. But I think the tradeoff was that they were more susceptible to rust back then. Sad side note: When I was a kid there was a family around the block that had a 57 Nash. They were wiped out in a highway crash in that car. Of course car crash results can often be a case of the physics of a specific crash.
Build quality or not, I always liked the forward look Imperials from the mid to late 50's. Although I thought the mid 60's ones were kind of classy looking for their time.
I always thought the '55-56 Imperial was a class act, especially considering it was done on the cheap. '57-59 is nice too, although I don't like the single headlight version of the '57 (has sort of an owl-eyed look) and by '59 the front-end was getting a bit heavy-handed. But, compared to a '59 Caddy or Lincoln, it was par for the course, and still fairly tasteful, in my opinion.
Kia took an interesting approach where even the base car comes fairly loaded. I think Nav is standard.
Transaction prices on the similar Hyundai Azera are well below MSRP. I saw a left over 2012 for $27.5k freight included. They 2013s are just under $30k.
The Kia twin looks a bit better and has even more equipment, I think.
buddy is correct. they did away with the dipstick in favor of an electronic monitoring system. I have never owned one, so not sure if you can get a level display on the info screen, or just have to wait for the "low oil" message to come up.
silly idea IMO. Keep the dipstick for the old timers, especially if the electronic system won't give you the exact level whenever you want to know.
Too bad the Cadenza appears to be so dull, like a 5:4 scale Optima, in the way the new RLX is maybe a similar scale Accord. I'd maybe actually rather have the Hyundai, at least it is different. Cadenza is kind of a weird name, too. I wonder if rabid Korean nationalists will buy it the way they have the Genesis in my area.
Neither my 07 Z4 or my 2010 328i have oil dipsticks. Oil level is checked electronically by the driver at any time he selects and, depending if the car is equipped with iDrive or not, the level will be displayed on the iDrive screen or the dash panel display. I do know the 328d (diesels) have dipsticks, though.
I'm not for or against the idea, personally. I never had an issue with manually checking the oil, but for the couch potato in me, I guess it's nice to be able to see the level while cruising at 70 mph down the interstate.
It's not an option I would pay more to get on a car, though.
I've heard this is where all cars are headed, as it (in theory) will close the engine crankcase and reduce emissions, as if emissions from the oil dipstick tube are major contributors to pollution. Seems like the o-ring seal on my pickup's dipstick works pretty well in that regard.
Then again, I never had a problem with the floor mounted light dimmer switch before manufacturers move the function to the stalk on the steering column, either.
"The Malibu takes longer to sell than its competitors. Malibus averaged 107 days on the dealership lot in March, Edmunds said. The next-slowest turning midsize sedan is the Volkswagen Passat at 57 days. VW just dropped a shift at the Chattanooga, Tenn., plant that builds the Passat."
Obviously you didn't live in an area with snow and salt, the door switches were famouse for becoming corroded and non functioning up here ( and of course couldn't be replaced easily as they were rusted in place). I for one don't miss them at all ( and never really had to drive a car with the either just remember from observation).
Now at what I'm thinking is your age range, if you can still easily get in and out of that Z4 roadster, I gotta give you a high five - I'm impressed buddy!
Nothing begets failure more than reporting on it. The car outperformed other similarly-priced sedans per CR, but all the bashing makes people want to stay away even more--human nature.
I wouldn't buy it as a family car for the rear-seat legroom, for sure. But I heard a dealer around here on the radio advertising 2013 Malibus "starting at $16,995" and it's an incredible, American-built buy at that, one must admit. Now, I don't know that that's brand-new versus a demo, or whatever, though. But as a second car, if I were looking now...I'd be sorely tempted at that price.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The 2013 Malibu made a bad first impression on me, but did redeem itself somewhat, second time around, at the DC auto show. Now, with me as the driver, it essentially turns into a three passenger car. And if the front seat passenger was the same height as me and had to put their seat all the way back, it would essentially become a 2-seater.
But, I tried sitting in the back seat, with a more average-height friend sitting up front, and found that I actually could fit, and the seat seemed pretty comfortable. It they would just give this car back the 3.4" or whatever of wheelbase that it lost between 2012 and 2013, devote it all the back seat, and I think it would solve most of the car's problems. Oh, and dump that mild hybrid. Initially I was going to say put a bit more effort into the other engines to make them more class-leading, rather than simply adequate. But then I looked up a couple of 0-60 times online ( http://www.zeroto60times.com/Chevrolet-Chevy-0-60-mph-Times.html ). Looks like the turbo Malibu is good for 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. And I'm presuming the 7.8 seconds listed for the Malibu LT is just the 197 hp 2.5 4-cyl? If so, that's pretty impressive. I was under the impression 0-60 was more like 9 seconds?
I've finally seen a few new Malibu's up here and can't really say I understand where the complaints about the styling are coming from, to me even the back end fits in, and overall it is a pretty good looking car that should age more gracefully than some of the flashier designs. As for the interior I haven't seen one yet, so still can't judge that, so does it need some of the space back from the last model, probably, but it also needs to get a bit more fuel economy out of its power plants ( or maybe GM just needs to learn how to fudge the tests as well as some others seem to do).
I have to agree about the Malibu being over criticized. I like the outside style. I like the interiors. The rear legroom may be a minor problem for some, but I suspect many buyers rarely carry anyone in the rear seats for whom the tighter space would be a factor.
The Malibu is on my list for replacing my older car. I keep stopping by various dealers and looking at the many models offered.
I HATED the old Malibu - as usual, and as with the Traverse, Chevy runs out of money before they get to the rear end, and slap an ugly rear, worse than the Saturn was, on the back. The new one is quite a bit better.
And, GM has yet to make a functional Hybrid. My favorite was the Hybrid Silverado, Yukon, Escalade, which got no additional MPG to speak of, but very little extra power as well, and were hanger queens in the service department. They are doing better with plug ins.
GM is always the last with new technology, and has been since about 1883. When Ford and Chrysler had converted all of their fleet to Fuel Injection, GM was dancing with poorly performing Fuel Feedback Carbs, and kept a Carb on the Flagship Caddy Fleetwood into the 90's.
but I suspect many buyers rarely carry anyone in the rear seats for whom the tighter space would be a factor.
If your not using the rear seats, why get a mid-size car in the first place? Why not get a compact or subcompact; as long as their is plenty of track room to move the front seat back (making the rear unusable) there's no reason to get a bigger car if you are not going to use it.
Why not just get a Cruze?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
GM is always the last with new technology, and has been since about 1883. When Ford and Chrysler had converted all of their fleet to Fuel Injection, GM was dancing with poorly performing Fuel Feedback Carbs, and kept a Carb on the Flagship Caddy Fleetwood into the 90's.
I wouldn't say that, although GM certainly has resisted change in many ways. It's refusal for so long to install NAV systems and attempt to substitute OnStar for navigation functions qualifies as one example.
But, I wouldn't say the Volt is anything less than new technology, and the Corvette has been considered as modern as they get from at least the 1990's...
When Ford and Chrysler had converted all of their fleet to Fuel Injection, GM was dancing with poorly performing Fuel Feedback Carbs, and kept a Carb on the Flagship Caddy Fleetwood into the 90's.
Actually, Chrysler didn't beat GM by that much in the fuel injection department. AFAIK, the only engine left in GM's lineup that used a carburetor was the Olds 307, and 1990 was its last year. Meanwhile, Chrysler was still putting carburetors on its M-body Gran Fury/Diplomat/5th Avenue, through 1989. Civilian models used a 2-bbl, but I forget who made it. Police cars used a Quadrajet, a'la GM!
Disagree on OnStar--it rescued my wife in a rough part of NJ. A real live person trumps a mechanized voice in a Nav system anyday to me--as does the rescue function and the ability to trace a vehicle if stolen, for example.
GM invented this and I think it's great.
That said, my Cobalt doesn't have it and I still use a map--quite successfully, I might add.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Agree on the Corvette. It shouldn't be a Chevy though, IMO.
I ask this is all seriousness...do you think they should throw away 60 years of it being a Chevrolet? I am firmly convinced sales would decrease if they did that, not increase.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
If the rear seats were the same, room-wise, and if the Malibu could be bought for, say, within $1K of a comparable Cruze, I'd prefer the Malibu. Longer wheelbase is a good thing IMHO.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Plus, the Malibu, IMO at least, had more comfortable seats than the Cruze. They seemed thicker, better padded, wider, more supportive, etc. And the front seat seemed like it went further back in the Malibu than the Cruze.
In fact, those thicker seats might be one reason the Malibu suffers a bit in legroom. Those thicker seats do take up room.
I remember reading that, when Chrysler re-did their midsized cars and turned the Sebring into the 200, back seat legroom went down a bit because of thicker, more supportive seats that took up more room. However, they must have done something else with the seats...raised the front seat up, revised the seatback, or something, because I found I could fit in the back of the 200 better than I could the Sebring.
Agree on the Corvette. It shouldn't be a Chevy though, IMO.
I ask this is all seriousness...do you think they should throw away 60 years of it being a Chevrolet? I am firmly convinced sales would decrease if they did that, not increase.
I can see both sides on that but I would agree with UL the the development history is the reason it has remained an icon as it started as a Chevy and remained a Chevy. I would buy one despite the divisional brand. :shades:
When I posted "I wouldn't say that, although GM certainly has resisted change in many ways. It's refusal for so long to install NAV systems and attempt to substitute OnStar for navigation functions qualifies as one example.", I wasn't making a value judgment on OnStar.
All I was saying is that GM wasn't listening to the market, because a large part of the market that wanted NAV capability couldn't get it in many GM products (that they might have bought otherwise) for a long time. That translated into lost sales.
In fact, I like the option of having access to an attendant. My BMWs have BMWAssist, a version of OnStar functionality, although after the 4 free (ie., included) years I no longer subscribe.
I do have the option, if I chose to do so, though.
I like that article, I would wager it is bought and paid for propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I like the S - but the Tesla vs luxobarge comparison a hilariously apples and oranges idea.
GM wasn't listening to the market for decades but now they are finally getting the customer preferences into their products. I admit that freely.
As for BMW, their products are becoming less of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" each year. Like it or not.
Acura, Audi, Mercedes and Lexus have all had their issues in the last few years. But Caddy remains a follower in the lux arena, afaic. It was Caddy's to loose once upon a time in the West. Now it's catch-up time for GM.
Caddy's been on the right path for a while. The CTS was a good start, then some cool -V models, now the ATS. Toss in the big XTS for the traditional buyer, make the next CTS bigger, and voila.
Now they need more crossovers. A small one, and make the next SRX bigger.
I like that article, I would wager it is bought and paid for propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I like the S - but the Tesla vs luxobarge comparison a hilariously apples and oranges idea.
Would you buy a car based on CNET? I thought not. They probably love a Camry SE, too. Seriously, it's a 5:4 scale Optima. What wasn't dull about it? Certainly not the design or likely the driving experience.
the ability to trace a vehicle if stolen, for example.
Lo-jack invented that long before OnStar. Of course, the ability to disable the engine is new, but you might not want that if you are ever falsely accused of something.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Invented it? Let's try, Introduced it. Lexus has a couple of cubicles in a corner of the floor for their "Lexus Link", but it's the same exact system. Honda also uses the service, and now there's a mirror you can buy and put in any vehicle to subscribe. And Subscribe is the main difference - it's a bit pricey, especially if you want phone minutes, whereas, Navigation, once purchased, other than updates when you want them, is free to use.
I don't subscribe to Lexus Link in my car - the Navigation is sufficient for my needs.
The other weakness with On Star is the installation - there is a cable that goes right across the roof, front to back, in the same basic location on most equipped cars linking various functions together. A good car thief knows this and a good snip of the cable stops the "star" from killing the engine, tracking the vehicle, or communicating.
I'm not against it at all. I think it's pricey, but so is Satellite, so is Sync services Ford has, etc., but it has value, particularly if meets your particular needs.
"Dozens of companies from China are putting down roots in Detroit, part of the country’s steady push into the American auto industry.
The American industry’s overall resurgence has drawn a growing Chinese population to Detroit, with Chinese-owned suppliers bringing executives from their country and American automakers adding new talent. About 50,000 Chinese, many of them engineers and other professionals who work at General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, live in the metropolitan area."
Make it easier to steal IP, which is the whole point. Some fun comments on that article, much more informative and throught provoking than the article itself. Pandora's Box...
"China's greatest strength is endurance and continuity, maintained through top-down organization. That doesn't require brilliant breakthrough creativity; it only requires effective adaptation and implementation of other people's creative breakthroughs. They can do that, sooner or later, if they set their minds to it. Then when the other people pass their peak and decline, China is on a par with them, or better. That's their strategy. "
"The United States should only be operating Free Trade with countries that have an established Minimum Wage and a wage of no less than a certain percentage of our own to make the prices of products between countries equal so that a more healthy business competition can thrive. (I would have no problem with competing with the Chinese business community if the costs of labor, production and management were equal and fair. For now, the prices of auto supplies made in China, cheapen the worth of America’s own, and allow China a financial advantage in competing and expanding. )"
"Again and again, our nation is betrayed by the corporate managerial class. Corporate managers and their financiers have left detroit a wasteland while they have grown rich and moved elsewhere. Harvard Business School and Wharton taught them how and an ignorant citizenry have let it happen. Imagine, the shame of letting red China fiance a rescue of our industrial heartland. "
Some disturbing comparisons between China and Japan from a few mentally defective commenters, too.
In an era where the world has a billion more people with cell phones than have access to toilets, the access to a "live person" is only a phone all away. And, you can take your cellphone with you everywhere. OnStar stays with the car.
So, it could be viewed as a limitation, since the ability to reach that "live person" is being duplicated, and I might add, paid for twice.
I'm not against it at all. I think it's pricey, but so is Satellite, so is Sync services Ford has, etc., but it has value, particularly if meets your particular needs.
I agree. Lots of people see value in things I don't, so if it has value to someone, they should purchase it.
Now at what I'm thinking is your age range, if you can still easily get in and out of that Z4 roadster, I gotta give you a high five - I'm impressed buddy!
Mine is a coupe, but I don't think it matters.
The only people that can enter and exit a Z4 easily are those clowns that can all pack into one of those clown cars you see at the circus.
Comments
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/09/autos/tesla-model-s-consumer-reports/
It's actually a Rambler they're showing off though, and not one of the "real" Nashes. Whether or not it really provided any true advantage or not, we may never know, but the advertising sure makes it look good!
FWIW, the 1957 Chrysler products had inner fender linings that strongly resembled those "Heavy structural members that extend forward to offer greater impact protection"., whereas GM products had mostly empty space in that spot, except for a wheel well lining.
But, while it looked stronger, I don't know if it really helped much or not. I once saw a picture of a 1959 DeSoto Firesweep hardtop coupe that had been hit head-on by a drunk driver in a late 70's Camaro or Trans Am. Both drivers did survive, although they were seriously hurt. I think the DeSoto did have aftermarket seatbelts installed. Anyway, the whole front clip did hold up a lot better than, say, that '59 Chevy that NHTSA crash-tested a 2009 Malibu into a few years back. However, the car still buckled pretty seriously in the front seat area, and everything from the cowl forward, while remaining relatively intact, still pushed back into the passenger cabin.
So, beefing up the front of the car, without doing anything to the passenger cabin, is pretty pointless I guess. Maybe it helps in lesser impacts, though.
I suspect the "real" advantage, from the manufacturer's standpoint, was less nuts and bolts, more spot welding, more efficient production and less production costs.
You are probably right. Although I understood that unit body resulted in a tighter, quieter vehicle. But I think the tradeoff was that they were more susceptible to rust back then. Sad side note: When I was a kid there was a family around the block that had a 57 Nash. They were wiped out in a highway crash in that car. Of course car crash results can often be a case of the physics of a specific crash.
Kia took an interesting approach where even the base car comes fairly loaded. I think Nav is standard.
Transaction prices on the similar Hyundai Azera are well below MSRP. I saw a left over 2012 for $27.5k freight included. They 2013s are just under $30k.
The Kia twin looks a bit better and has even more equipment, I think.
As bad a name as "Camaro".
I can just see my Ford friend, calling it a "Credenza", like he calls a Camry a "Camera".
Which bring me to...who came up with the name "Camry"? Not like it just flows off the tongue or anything. LOL
I find this extremely hard-to-believe and fully expect you to correct my friend on this piece of information.
I detest that there's no trans dipstick in our '11 Malibu, but no oil dipstick is extremely hard to believe.
silly idea IMO. Keep the dipstick for the old timers, especially if the electronic system won't give you the exact level whenever you want to know.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I'm not for or against the idea, personally. I never had an issue with manually checking the oil, but for the couch potato in me, I guess it's nice to be able to see the level while cruising at 70 mph down the interstate.
It's not an option I would pay more to get on a car, though.
I've heard this is where all cars are headed, as it (in theory) will close the engine crankcase and reduce emissions, as if emissions from the oil dipstick tube are major contributors to pollution. Seems like the o-ring seal on my pickup's dipstick works pretty well in that regard.
Then again, I never had a problem with the floor mounted light dimmer switch before manufacturers move the function to the stalk on the steering column, either.
(We're showing our age....)
Chevrolet doing well, but Malibu struggles (Detroit Free Press)
I wouldn't buy it as a family car for the rear-seat legroom, for sure. But I heard a dealer around here on the radio advertising 2013 Malibus "starting at $16,995" and it's an incredible, American-built buy at that, one must admit. Now, I don't know that that's brand-new versus a demo, or whatever, though. But as a second car, if I were looking now...I'd be sorely tempted at that price.
But, I tried sitting in the back seat, with a more average-height friend sitting up front, and found that I actually could fit, and the seat seemed pretty comfortable. It they would just give this car back the 3.4" or whatever of wheelbase that it lost between 2012 and 2013, devote it all the back seat, and I think it would solve most of the car's problems. Oh, and dump that mild hybrid. Initially I was going to say put a bit more effort into the other engines to make them more class-leading, rather than simply adequate. But then I looked up a couple of 0-60 times online ( http://www.zeroto60times.com/Chevrolet-Chevy-0-60-mph-Times.html ). Looks like the turbo Malibu is good for 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. And I'm presuming the 7.8 seconds listed for the Malibu LT is just the 197 hp 2.5 4-cyl? If so, that's pretty impressive. I was under the impression 0-60 was more like 9 seconds?
LOL
I have to agree about the Malibu being over criticized. I like the outside style. I like the interiors. The rear legroom may be a minor problem for some, but I suspect many buyers rarely carry anyone in the rear seats for whom the tighter space would be a factor.
The Malibu is on my list for replacing my older car. I keep stopping by various dealers and looking at the many models offered.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And, GM has yet to make a functional Hybrid. My favorite was the Hybrid Silverado, Yukon, Escalade, which got no additional MPG to speak of, but very little extra power as well, and were hanger queens in the service department. They are doing better with plug ins.
GM is always the last with new technology, and has been since about 1883. When Ford and Chrysler had converted all of their fleet to Fuel Injection, GM was dancing with poorly performing Fuel Feedback Carbs, and kept a Carb on the Flagship Caddy Fleetwood into the 90's.
If your not using the rear seats, why get a mid-size car in the first place? Why not get a compact or subcompact; as long as their is plenty of track room to move the front seat back (making the rear unusable) there's no reason to get a bigger car if you are not going to use it.
Why not just get a Cruze?
I wouldn't say that, although GM certainly has resisted change in many ways. It's refusal for so long to install NAV systems and attempt to substitute OnStar for navigation functions qualifies as one example.
But, I wouldn't say the Volt is anything less than new technology, and the Corvette has been considered as modern as they get from at least the 1990's...
As usual, one size doesn't fit all....
Actually, Chrysler didn't beat GM by that much in the fuel injection department. AFAIK, the only engine left in GM's lineup that used a carburetor was the Olds 307, and 1990 was its last year. Meanwhile, Chrysler was still putting carburetors on its M-body Gran Fury/Diplomat/5th Avenue, through 1989. Civilian models used a 2-bbl, but I forget who made it. Police cars used a Quadrajet, a'la GM!
Thought I acknowledged that..... Agree on the Corvette. It shouldn't be a Chevy though, IMO.
GM invented this and I think it's great.
That said, my Cobalt doesn't have it and I still use a map--quite successfully, I might add.
I ask this is all seriousness...do you think they should throw away 60 years of it being a Chevrolet? I am firmly convinced sales would decrease if they did that, not increase.
If the rear seats were the same, room-wise, and if the Malibu could be bought for, say, within $1K of a comparable Cruze, I'd prefer the Malibu. Longer wheelbase is a good thing IMHO.
In fact, those thicker seats might be one reason the Malibu suffers a bit in legroom. Those thicker seats do take up room.
I remember reading that, when Chrysler re-did their midsized cars and turned the Sebring into the 200, back seat legroom went down a bit because of thicker, more supportive seats that took up more room. However, they must have done something else with the seats...raised the front seat up, revised the seatback, or something, because I found I could fit in the back of the 200 better than I could the Sebring.
I ask this is all seriousness...do you think they should throw away 60 years of it being a Chevrolet? I am firmly convinced sales would decrease if they did that, not increase.
I can see both sides on that but I would agree with UL the the development history is the reason it has remained an icon as it started as a Chevy and remained a Chevy. I would buy one despite the divisional brand. :shades:
Interesting they do not even include the "World Standard" of GM
Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi
XTS 1st Qtr. sales = 7,130. Blows away the Model S!!! :P
All I was saying is that GM wasn't listening to the market, because a large part of the market that wanted NAV capability couldn't get it in many GM products (that they might have bought otherwise) for a long time. That translated into lost sales.
In fact, I like the option of having access to an attendant. My BMWs have BMWAssist, a version of OnStar functionality, although after the 4 free (ie., included) years I no longer subscribe.
I do have the option, if I chose to do so, though.
As for BMW, their products are becoming less of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" each year. Like it or not.
Acura, Audi, Mercedes and Lexus have all had their issues in the last few years. But Caddy remains a follower in the lux arena, afaic. It was Caddy's to loose once upon a time in the West. Now it's catch-up time for GM.
What goes up seems to always come down....
Now they need more crossovers. A small one, and make the next SRX bigger.
Oh, I agree completely.
Lo-jack invented that long before OnStar. Of course, the ability to disable the engine is new, but you might not want that if you are ever falsely accused of something.
Invented it? Let's try, Introduced it. Lexus has a couple of cubicles in a corner of the floor for their "Lexus Link", but it's the same exact system. Honda also uses the service, and now there's a mirror you can buy and put in any vehicle to subscribe. And Subscribe is the main difference - it's a bit pricey, especially if you want phone minutes, whereas, Navigation, once purchased, other than updates when you want them, is free to use.
I don't subscribe to Lexus Link in my car - the Navigation is sufficient for my needs.
I'm not against it at all. I think it's pricey, but so is Satellite, so is Sync services Ford has, etc., but it has value, particularly if meets your particular needs.
The American industry’s overall resurgence has drawn a growing Chinese population to Detroit, with Chinese-owned suppliers bringing executives from their country and American automakers adding new talent. About 50,000 Chinese, many of them engineers and other professionals who work at General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, live in the metropolitan area."
Chinese Creating New Auto Niche Within Detroit (NY Times)
50,000 is a pretty amazing number to me.
"China's greatest strength is endurance and continuity, maintained through top-down organization. That doesn't require brilliant breakthrough creativity; it only requires effective adaptation and implementation of other people's creative breakthroughs. They can do that, sooner or later, if they set their minds to it. Then when the other people pass their peak and decline, China is on a par with them, or better. That's their strategy. "
"The United States should only be operating Free Trade with countries that have an established Minimum Wage and a wage of no less than a certain percentage of our own to make the prices of products between countries equal so that a more healthy business competition can thrive. (I would have no problem with competing with the Chinese business community if the costs of labor, production and management were equal and fair. For now, the prices of auto supplies made in China, cheapen the worth of America’s own, and allow China a financial advantage in competing and expanding. )"
"Again and again, our nation is betrayed by the corporate managerial class. Corporate managers and their financiers have left detroit a wasteland while they have grown rich and moved elsewhere. Harvard Business School and Wharton taught them how and an ignorant citizenry have let it happen. Imagine, the shame of letting red China fiance a rescue of our industrial heartland. "
Some disturbing comparisons between China and Japan from a few mentally defective commenters, too.
So, it could be viewed as a limitation, since the ability to reach that "live person" is being duplicated, and I might add, paid for twice.
I'm not against it at all. I think it's pricey, but so is Satellite, so is Sync services Ford has, etc., but it has value, particularly if meets your particular needs.
I agree. Lots of people see value in things I don't, so if it has value to someone, they should purchase it.
Very good point.
Mine is a coupe, but I don't think it matters.
The only people that can enter and exit a Z4 easily are those clowns that can all pack into one of those clown cars you see at the circus.
As for me, I "drop in" and "roll out".