I always wash my own two cars by hand. One car is an 01 Legacy GT wagon, and the other is a 93 Mazda 323. And to me these two cars are just as valuable and enjoyable as a 200 thousand dollar car. It is not the dollar value but the sheer enjoyment of keeping something in the best possible condition. Washing my cars is actually my way of unwinding.
Totally agree with the "unwind" element. I didn't used to think of car washing as anything but a "necessary evil" until I started washing the 2001 Mini Cooper I used to have. I really liked the looks of that car, so washing it was a great way to really "soak up" the car's design.
Then I washed my 1975 Triumph Trident last May and, once again, I found myself being truly impressed and captivated by the tiny details that went into the bike's design. You could really tell it was created by old world British motorcycle artisans.
The Mini cost me $24,000 (it was loaded with every option, including nav) and the Triumph cost me $4,000. Neither was an expensive "exotic" vehicle, but I truly enjoyed washing them as much as I enjoyed washing the GT last Sunday.
I don't think it's about the car's monetary value, as many have said. I think it's about the vehicle's personal value and the fun you (potentially) can get out of washing it yourself. Plus the unwinding element -- if washing a vehicle has that effect on you, in addition to the "get to really know/appreciate your car" aspect.
I started washing the 2001 Mini Cooper. ... Then I washed my 1975 Triumph Trident
No wonder you like it! Those must take like 10 minutes each! My Caprice takes me forever. I find myself slowly losing interest as the paint deteriorates, too. Like the front bumper cover with missing paint from years of flying debris.
Late to the party here, but ever since I saw paint scratches appear in my cars when using commercial car washes (the rotary brush or "drag rag" versions), I switched to washing cars myself, usually at do-at-yourselfers where the drill is:
spray car wet and hose off big dirt, foam soap brush car, spray rinse, no-mineral water rinse, squeegee windows, either air dry on freeway or towel dry in lot.
As long as there are no boom box dudes or overcrowded traffic conditions, the process does help unwind those long days of computer fx work!
... I find myself slowly losing interest as the paint deteriorates, too. ...
Sadly, that's the same sentiment I have with my '02 300M Special. As a couple others have said, it's like unwinding, almost therapeutic. But now that she has so many swirl marks in the paint (she's black), the thrill is gone. And I never realized how large a car the 300M is until I got my '05 Mustang GT! :sick:
Now I dread the chore of washing it. I've had the GT for almost 10 months now and haven't washed it (or needed to) yet. I just spray it down with the pressure washer, followed by the leaf blower and it's done. As of late, I've been agonizing over the thought of stripping the 300M down and rebuilding the Zaino in preparation for the winter. :sick: It just takes sooooo long to do. It takes me longer to wash the wheels than it does to wash the rest of the car. :surprise: I don't want to own another car which wheels have more than five or six spokes.
But anyway, hand washing your car really makes you appreciate the design of the car. You notice little nuances about the car that are lost on reviewers sometimes. If you're meticulous, you'll discover little things that aren't even seen, mainly with the undercarriage design or ground effects (if so equipped). One thing I noticed with the rear fascia on my 300M Special is that the ground effects are tapered to the undercarriage. It was designed to reduce drag by having a near seamless connection to the mufflers and gas tank, and there aren't any rough edges to it. Another thing I noticed is that the ground effects on the front and rear fascia are actually molded as a single unit; they aren't bolted onto it.
No wonder you like it! Those must take like 10 minutes each!
The Mini was relatively easy/quick to wash for the obvious reason (size) but also because I owned it since new and never let it get too dirty in the first place.
The Triumph took me almost two hours, but that included polishing it as well. It arrived pretty clean from the transporter (bought from a classic bike dealer in Dallas...off eBay), but the first night I rode it home it rained on me. That, plus the fact that it's old and British (oil is frequently oozing from various parts of the engine) made the bike look pretty disgusting in only a few days.
I never got around to washing it until I bought the Hurricane, which arrived in pristine condition (2,300 original miles) and the previous owner had hand polished every square in of it. I parked it next to the Trident and suddenly felt horrible. That weekend I sprayed off the Trident (carefully avoiding the Lucas electrics) and then rubbed it down with a cloth and then used two more cloths to apply polish. It looked like a different bike when I was done.
But don't be fooled. With all their nooks and crannies it takes awhile to properly wash a motorcycle. Since then I've kept it pretty clean (the engine was starting to gunk up again, but I degreased it a few weeks ago with an engine cleaner, so it looks good again).
I would say that washing the Trident rivaled the joy I got from washing the GT -- both are well above any other vehicles I've ever washed in terms of satisfaction. Again, the workmanship on the Trident really comes through when you wash it. Of course the lines on the GT pretty much make up for any lack of "character" it has versus the Triumph (at least to me). Plus, as you know if you saw the GT Factory Tour story, the Ford is pretty much hand assembled, too (like the Triumph was 30 years ago).
spray car wet and hose off big dirt, foam soap brush car, spray rinse, no-mineral water rinse,
Similar to how I do it, but I've learned from scratches from the brush at the car wash a slightly better way. Between 1 and 2 above, I take the high pressure wand and spray soap all over the car. Then using the rinse setting I spray out the brush. Then I go to your #2. Also, between #3 and #4, I use the spray on wax (they call it clearcoat), because I often don't have enough time or its too hot (Phoenix, AZ) to hand wax it. I usually try to hand wax it once or twice a year though. Finally, after the #4 above, I go through the dryer at my car wash. If I have enough time, I'll then take microfiber towels to any leftover water spots. Finally, there is usually some sort of spotting left on the windows, so I'll have to take a glass cleaner to them to get them completely clean.
That last comment I made (Of course the lines on the GT pretty much make up for any lack of "character" it has versus the Triumph (at least to me). Plus, as you know if you saw the GT Factory Tour story, the Ford is pretty much hand assembled, too (like the Triumph was 30 years ago).) reminds me of a recent email banter I had with a co-worker.
I had told him about my Sonett's clutch going out without any warning (the next day I confirmed that the seal in the clutch slave cylinder had given up -- not surprising for a 32-year-old car). So I tell my friend about how I drove the Sonett home, parked it in my garage without incident, and then I go out to start it, I push in the clutch, turn the key, and the car starts lurching forward (almost hitting my Triumph Hurricane). The car had been in my garage for maybe two weeks but hadn't been started at all.
So my friend says, "Yeah, but didn't your GT arrive during those two weeks? Maybe the Sonett is pulling a 'Herbie' because you got a flashy new sports car. Like when Herbie's owner bought the new Ferrari to replace the cute little Beetle."
Of course, my response was, "Crap! I left both home alone in the garage today. What if I go home and find the Sonett has smashed the GT all to pieces?!!" But then my next, serious response was, "Yeah, but I still love the Sonett. It really has soul. Sort of like Herbie versus the Ferrari." And my friend says, "But do older, simpler, and 'cuter' cars really have more soul then expensive, flashy cars? Or do we just want them to have more soul, and thus assign that trait to them?"
So, this painfully long story :sick: is told to bring up a rather simple question:
What gives a car soul?
I'll start by telling you my requirements for "soul": 1. The car's designer had to have a soul. If I know who the designer is/was, and I feel like the guy had/has a soul, I can more easily believe his creation has a soul (this goes for women designers, too, I'm just using "him/his" for simplicity's sake). Additionally, if the car is largely the vision of a single man, versus a team of designers, that seems to be a requirement for "soul" (I don't think any Accord or Camry was the "vision" of a single designer; more likely a group of guys trying to satisfy multiple goals for sales purposes). 2. Assembled by men, not machines. This is where modern cars have a major disadvantage. The economies of today's world pretty much require robotic arms to build cars. The amount of hand-assembled transportation devices in 2005 is precariously low, but I know the reasons why -- and I can't argue with them. 3. Talks to the driver. This could be the single most important element. How can something have a soul if it doesn't communicate with you? This is at the heart of my earlier comments about why I'll never own a Corvette (unless it undergoes a major redesign/rethink). The Sonett (with no power steering or brakes, and a 2000lb curb weight) definitely talks to me. Same with my Triumphs and the Ducati motorcycles I used to own. Modern Japanese sport bikes? Very fast, very capable. They don't talk to me. The new Mini Cooper I recently sold (even with electric steering assist) spoke to me. The Chevy Malibu my wife now drives? Puh-lease!!
Maybe I'm crazy for saying this, but I think subtle flaws are a big part of giving a car soul. Maybe it's something weird in the interior, or uneven power delivery, or torque steer, or the futility of putting 250hp to the front wheels in a small car. And some of it is irrational - as perfect as BMWs are said to be, I just don't feel excited in one (though I can't say I've pushed one hard). Maybe they're just "not my type." I feel like they're pure machines... I can't assign them human or animal characteristics. And to make it worse, I get the feeling that they'd drive better without me =p.
Low limits make it easier for a car to be communicative, but some are still fun at lower, safe speeds.
1991 Toyota Tercel, 1950lbs, manual (but not difficult) steering and a rolly yet relatively stiff suspension... no guts but tons of feel and fun. Always felt like it was going to fly off the road. And well engineered in the little things (except the engine), unlike my Sentra.
Everything more modern feels like a boring vault with little windows now. (By the way, why was the outgoing Civic Si said to have little character? I didn't feel it was all that much fun, but I feel that way about everything modern and over 2500lbs)
What happened Karl?? The Solstice lost to the Miata?? You seemed to favor the Solstice in remarks you made here. What gives? Didn't you have any (or enough) input in the comparison?
Really I am not surprised, after all the Solstice is a GM product;)
The Fords do have IRS but most other body on frame SUVs do have one and that is obviously not a deal killer for most buyers. An IRs gives you the ability to have fold down seats and gives you a more comfortable rear seat but anyone who is buying an SUV strictly for a comfortable 3rd row should get a minivan. I read in MT that the IRS was cancelled to rush the GM SUVs to market but I think that is a lie. There is no way they could make a decion like that within the last four or five months. If an IRS had been under development, it would've been too late to change course.
I dont see a lot of money being put into competitive large SUVs from Toyota/Dodge/Nissan in the next few years so the GM SUVs should be safe with their live axles in the rear. I think their goal is to increase share in a decreasing part of the market and there is a good chance they will be able to do that.
you may be right about the live axle vs. irs with the tahoe. it just won't get them a lot of converts. i can tell you my kids would shoot it down in the time it took them to get into the 3rd row. i think your third row comment just makes it obvious you have never tried the 3rd row in a ford suv. it is not a given that a minivan has more room in the 3rd row. the other thing is that the handling is much better with the irs. think mid corner heaves or potholes. overall, i think the new tahoe is a big step forward, but it could have been better.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
What's your opinion about Fisker Coachbuilding? Do you like their design styles, do they seem overpriced, and do you think that there is a future for other would be coachbuilders?
Mine talks to me all the time. It says "Take me into the dealer, I need repair." Its just little stuff though.
On my car (2004 Malibu Maxx) I can tell when I'm reaching the limits of the steering and braking. To prove my point, I am able to, with consistency, apply exactly enough braking force to bring the car to impending lockup. I can round a turn and know whether or not I'm at the limit for the car. Is this what you mean by talking to you?
Mine talks to me all the time. It says "Take me into the dealer, I need repair." Its just little stuff though.
Too funny.
Actually, a car doesn't only "talk" to its driver when it's being driven aggressively. For instance, when I'm going down the freeway at a steady speed in a Ferrari or Porsche I'm not really trying to make the car perform, but I'm still getting lots of information about the texture of the road, how much space is between the expansion joints, etc. A good car will actually make even the most mundane drives fun simply because its communicating so effectively with you.
I'm sure that I could drive my wife's Malibu aggressively and be able to bring it to the edge of tire adhesion, but I wouldn't be having any fun doing it (plus she'd probably yell at me ).
>but they all had some off-brand bargain tire that offered very little grip and made tons of noise near the limits.
That's great. So if someone puts on wider tires that are stickier, they end up with a much more capable car for someone who wants to drive it "hotter" than just to the grocery and back like I do most of the time. Sounds like the base tires on LeSabres-rolled easily for mileage, soft, quiet, but rolled under easily in turns.
I think part of what gives a car soul is a certain single-mindedness of purpose targeted towards driving pleasure. A team or an individual can be responsible, but as Karl points out, a soulful car is usually the output of a single (and single-minded) person.
I've driven wonderful cars with no soul, and soulful cars that were less than wonderful but more memorable and satisfying to drive.
I had the pleasure of renting a Malibu over the weekend. It is a better car than the old one (now called the Classic), but I still have a soft spot for it. Anyway, I couldn't help but think of Karl motoring around in one and falling into a stupor -- "when can I get back into the GT?". The tires on the Malibu were pretty wimpy, but the car was easy to drive, rode pretty well, was efficient, roomy, and comfortable (but the seats are a little stiff at first). I thought the whole dashboard information system was not intuitive. And the A/C vents didn't direct the air high enough. And lots of grey: grey plastic, grey trim, grey seats. All in all, a very functional car. No soul, though.
I've driven a few (went to Chevy's Malibu Intro event at Fed Ex Field and got to drive them on 3 autocross courses), and the limitation with that car is the tires. I forget the brand, but they all had some off-brand bargain tire that offered very little grip and made tons of noise near the limits.
Was this put on by GM? The car should have had Bridgestone Insignia SE200 tires on it. FWIW - I have put Goodyear Assurance ComforTreds on it and it handles much better and rides smoother.
I think I get it now about the feel when cruising. If I go over some cracks in the pavement or over an expansion joint, the ride becomes kind of jittery or jarring, but I have no idea how large they are. Then again, I'm the kind who would prefer not to feel the joint at all. :shades:
And the A/C vents didn't direct the air high enough. And lots of grey: grey plastic, grey trim, grey seats. All in all, a very functional car.
Yes, I agree with the vents! Chevy really needed to nix the upper vents in the console (totally useless, people in the back can't feel them at ALL!) and make the center stack ones larger and aim them higher. I kind of like the size of the ones on the Accord, but those are too big. When I test drove an Accord, I remember having to set the blower on high to really feel the air coming out and it was noisy. A vent somewhere between the Malibu and the Accord would do well IMHO.
As for the grey, you should take a look at the ones with the Cashmere interior. I'm not sure what it was called on the 04, but they've improved it on the '06. The seats are the same color, but the dash is a nice dark grey. Really sharp! Plus they've added little enhancements here and there (like chrome rings on the radio tuning knobs). You can find pictures on chevy.com.
I've had 3 Accords from this generation and can't recall any of them being noisy with the AC blower set on high. I also don't recall ever having to turn the blower on high to cool the cabin off.
I've had 3 Accords from this generation and can't recall any of them being noisy with the AC blower set on high. I also don't recall ever having to turn the blower on high to cool the cabin off.
I think it was an '03 or '04 Accord Sedan. I got there at about 2-3 in the afternoon. I live in Arizona and if I recall, it was charcoal or black exterior, so it was pretty hot inside. Maybe I just test drove a bad one...(did I say that out loud about a Honda!?!?).
Any plans to test the 2006 Corvette with six speed automatic & paddle shift? Thanks, - Ray Curious why these are now in owners' hands and I have seen no review or impressions published anywhere . .
"There are five '06 Vette consumer reviews here at Edmunds as of today: Consumer Ratings & Reviews Steve, Host "
Steve -
True - however: 1 - All of these posters specify that they are M6 (I am interested in the new A6) 2 - I'd like to read (hear, see) a professional tester's insight.
But thanks! - Ray Who will monitor that area as well . . .
Ah, I thought you were more interested in owner experiences; in that case, there is a First Drive review that may tide you over for a little while until some content about the automatic six speed comes along:
I still haven't driven the new Civic personally (another editor attended the press event), but from what he's told me, and what I've seen in other publications, it sounds like quite an improvement over the outgoing model...which still did quite well in our comparison test.
I think Honda is finally embracing the importance of style and performance in this market. It's ironic that Honda essentially owned the import tuner niche in the mid- to late-90s, but it was purely through a customer based that like those cars. The company did nothing to support or foster this enthusiasm for Honda products. And at about this time they redesigned the Civic and didn't do anything to play to that crowd (the suspension was dumbed down and the "updated" Si model didn't score well).
Right when all this was happening, a movie called The Fast and the Furious was hitting theatres (and some weird new import magazine called Super Street, run by some dorky white guys, was really starting to take off), and Honda finally "got it." I think the new Civic is trying to play to that crowd, with Honda fully admitting that the Civic "needs to be cool again."
I still need to drive it, but I'm satisfied that the new car is at least trying to be "cooler" than the outgoing model.
What's your opinion about Fisker Coachbuilding? Do you like their design styles, do they seem overpriced, and do you think that there is a future for other would be coachbuilders?
The right side of my brain says, "why would anyone spend that kind of money for a glorified SL?" The another part of the right side of my brain says, "People are looking for unique vehicles to drive. In today's world you can't say your car is cool because it's safe, fast, luxurious or dependable, because all cars are pretty good at those things. Style is the final differentiator, and Fisker is certainly offering that."
Then the left side of my brain pipes in, "Yeah, what he said, plus they look really cool!!"
I still need to drive it, but I'm satisfied that the new car is at least trying to be "cooler" than the outgoing model.
Related to the Civic, I caught an episode of Overhaulin' on TLC last night (good show). Usually they use older muscle cars as a base for the overhaul but this time was different. They had the owner's girlfriend narrating for the camera and she said something to the effect of "this has always been his dream car." What did the camera show next? A 95 civic coupe. Yeah. When they got the car in the garage, they asked Chip Foose (lead designer) what he thought. He goes "can we get another one?" I thought the whole thing was pretty funny, but it was at least one of the better looking civics I've seen.
Yes, I really liked that generation of Civic, but I may be biased because that was the generation in existence when I started working at Super Street in the summer of 1996 (the magazine was launched in September 1996).
But bias aside, I know it had a superior suspension that was also easier to modify for performance purposes, and I know everyone extremely familiar with the Civic was not "blown away" by the redesign in 2001 (though most admitted it was still a "fine" economy sedan).
The more I talk to you guys the more I really want to drive it. Now I'm going to have to get with my road test coordinator and get one in here ASAP.
BTW, you can count on (at least) one version of the new Civic being added to the long-term fleet in the not-too-distant future.
Great design. Soft-touch materials. We had a 93 EX Coupe that would get 40 MPG and keep up with cars it had no business following.
The new Civic is once again a car that I think people will "want" The previous generation was a car you liked because it was a Honda and still had certain Honda characteristics that kept it competitive. Otherwise it was a dowdy car compared to the 92-95's and now the 06+ Civics.
I just got out of a Range Rover Sport Supercharged. We're doing a full test on it that should post in the next week or so.
My strongest impression of this car is that it does indeed earn its namesake. The acceration is strong (0-60 in the six-second range), and it stops extremely well (in three panic stops, in a row, the numbers were 117, 114 and 115 feet -- WOW!). The steering is quick and provides decent feel -- though some SUV drivers might actually find it a bit darty (I didn't, but I like quick steering). The transmission was usually very crisp on upshifts/downshifts, but a couple times it clunked loudly and jerked abruptly when I lifted off the throttle and then pushed down on it again.
The problem with this Range Rover is that, despite several years of BMW-then-Ford ownership, it's still an ergonomic trainwreck. The power window switches are too far away (and only the driver's is one-touch -- not acceptable at this price range). The navigation system's touchscreen is also too far away, though it looks very nice in terms of video quality. The small display near the speedometer has teensy-tiny letters to indicate Park, Drive, Reverse and Neutral, though they get bigger when you put the tranny in manual shift mode and it displays, "1,2,3" etc. I find the numbers in the tachometer and speedometer too small as well, and specific speeds are hard to read because of the strange dots and slashes between the numbers.
This is unfortunate because it has some really cool features, too. I love the rear hatch than opens in two ways (either just the top half or the entire hatch). And I really liked the "cooler" between the seats that worked extremely well at cooling drinks -- though it's too short/small for any serious water bottles. The video screens mounted in the front seat headrests are an ideal that's long overdue.
A cool SUV on many levels, but for $70 large I'd need the controls to be better sorted.
Our long-term Toyota Prius is two years old this month (October). We've put 30,000 miles on it and plan on keeping it for another year at least (though the long-term updates will probably slow to once every six months going forward).
There's simply not that much to say anymore. The car has had few problems -- there was that initial fuel tank/fuel gauge issue, but that was about it. It still drives extremely well, but of course we're only averaging mid 40s in fuel mileage ("only" being a relative term, of course).
We just got our carpool stickers, so we can now drive in the carpool lane with only one occupant, but the stickers (as some of you may know) are HUGE! I haven't put them on yet, but think NASCAR sponsorship. I still love getting 400-plus miles on a tankful. With my 100-mile round-trip commute, extended range on a tank of gas remains my favorite hybrid feature (yes, I know diesels are great this way, too).
I keep wondering about the dreaded "battery replacement" cost that plenty of people harp about (mostly hybrid haters). I know the Insight has been on sale since 2000 and I've yet to hear about any nasty costs related to those cars and their batteries. Anyone else know of any actual (versus theoretical) costs related to hybrid battery packs?
Our long-term Toyota Prius is two years old this month (October). We've put 30,000 miles on it and plan on keeping it for another year at least (though the long-term updates will probably slow to once every six months going forward).
There's simply not that much to say anymore.
I'm confused. Why are you testing a car that is more limited in distribution like the Prius for 2+ years, especially when there isn't that much to say about it, but you dump the Malibu so quickly? (Full disclosure: Like my username implies, I own a Malibu Maxx). You guys got past the initial quality problems (steering wheel, etc.) of a first model year car and then got rid of it. Not to mention the inconsistencies in your reports (check the MPG #s of the log, Intro best MPG and Wrap-up MPG).
Another question, in the log, you berate the interior for being so dull, but why? Didn't you guys pick the grey color? The cashmere interior is so much nicer, it makes me wonder if you didn't pick that grey interior for a reason... :sick:
When it comes down to it, a car like the Malibu would be so much more useful to test long-term than the Prius. There aren't that many on the road (I've seen maybe 2 or 3 in the past year around here vs dozens of the new Malibu).
Finally, I've read through the posts going around-and-around about GM bais and while I really don't want to open that up again, things like this make me wonder. I compare the logbook of the Malibu to say the Honda Pilot (don't say its an unfair comparison, I'm talking about journalism here) and I see that you guys were stranded in the Pilot. Yet the writers shake it off as a minor inconvience. Yet, you guys rant about a back-ordered part (it happens with Honda too BTW) for the Malibu and mess up the milage data in the wrap-up. Hondas aren't known for their excitement either (see owner discontentment with the Accord's bland styling and bland but functional interior) but they aren't berated for it. Am I the only one to see the disparity here?
We just got our carpool stickers, so we can now drive in the carpool lane with only one occupant, but the stickers (as some of you may know) are HUGE! I haven't put them on yet, but think NASCAR sponsorship
I have seen those carpool stickers on a couple of cars. I would be embarrassed to drive around with those whoppers stuck to my bumper.
I'm confused. Why are you testing a car that is more limited in distribution like the Prius for 2+ years, especially when there isn't that much to say about it, but you dump the Malibu so quickly?
The Malibu is a basic midsize GM sedan with the same basic engine and design that has been in use (and will be in use) for years. We reported on our experience for one year, had the usual issues with recalls and rattles, and we know the next several years would have been more of the same.
The Prius is arguably the first functional hybrid vehicle sold in the U.S. (no, I don't consider the Insight functional). Demand continues to outstrip supply. Fuel prices are at an all-time high. And there's a lingering question about the supposed long-term costs of having a hybrid -- something you'll never test in a one-to-two year period, but something all of these people rushing to buy hybrids should know about (whether it's a justified concern or a bunch of Chicken Little rantings "Those battery packs will cost thousands when they stop working! Those battery packs will cost thousandswhen they stop working!").
That's why we will continue to report on the Prius, but at a less-frequent pace.
Finally, I've read through the posts going around-and-around about GM bais and while I really don't want to open that up again, things like this make me wonder. I compare the logbook of the Malibu to say the Honda Pilot (don't say its an unfair comparison, I'm talking about journalism here) and I see that you guys were stranded in the Pilot. Yet the writers shake it off as a minor inconvience. Yet, you guys rant about a back-ordered part (it happens with Honda too BTW) for the Malibu and mess up the milage data in the wrap-up.
The Malibu is a basic midsize GM sedan with the same basic engine and design that has been in use (and will be in use) for years. We reported on our experience for one year, had the usual issues with recalls and rattles, and we know the next several years would have been more of the same.
No, its not the same thing. The 3.5L V6 is derived from the 3.1L in the previous Malibu, but it has been tweaked to be quieter and smoother. The design is the same? Couldn't be farther from the truth. The '04 and up is based on the Epsilon platform, the '03 wasn't. The only thing the same between the '03 and the '04 is the name and the transmission. Everything else has changed in one way or the other. Given that the '04 was a first model year car, on a first model year platform, I think more than a year (and it wasn't even that) would have been better.
Fuel prices are at an all-time high. And there's a lingering question about the supposed long-term costs of having a hybrid -- something you'll never test in a one-to-two year period, but something all of these people rushing to buy hybrids should know about (whether it's a justified concern or a bunch of Chicken Little rantings "Those battery packs will cost thousands when they stop working! Those battery packs will cost thousandswhen they stop working!").
This doesn't make ANY sense. The long term costs of the hybrid can be predicted. Cars have declines in MPG over their life, plain and simple. The battery item just doesn't cut it. Did you guys read the warranty? You are going to have to test it for more than 8 years or 100,000 miles to find out how much the battery packs cost or you could just have a dealer tell you. It doesn't take 2-3 years of testing to find out how much a battery pack is.
And for uphill climbs in the CR-V, we found the system selecting lower gears, making better use of the 2-liter engine's 126 available horsepower. This system gives the transmission some of the leverage of a manual, making the automatic more user-friendly than ever before.
We owned one and it was woefully underpowered. Put four people and some cargo and it had lots of trouble. The transmission on ours showed it too. At 100,000 miles it was slipping due to all of the shifting it had to do due to the underpowered engine. There was NO mention of anything like that in your test. Fast forward and we get to the HHR. Comments about about how GM didn't put enough engine in it.
"Fast forward and we get to the HHR. Comments about about how GM didn't put enough engine in it. "
Today's HP wars have made it a whole new ballgame than it was 8-9 years ago. Back in 97 the most powerful Accord you could get had 174HP. The Civic topped out at 127HP out of a 1.6L engine. Now the Accord has 255HP, the Civic has 197HP, the CR-V has 160+ HP. What was competitive back then when the CR-V's only real competition was the RAV4 (which only had 120HP) is different than what is competitive now.
Another thing to consider is that HP isn't the only measure of performance. The HHR may have enough HP on paper but may fall short at actually putting HP to the wheels.
Comments
Cheers Pat.
Then I washed my 1975 Triumph Trident last May and, once again, I found myself being truly impressed and captivated by the tiny details that went into the bike's design. You could really tell it was created by old world British motorcycle artisans.
The Mini cost me $24,000 (it was loaded with every option, including nav) and the Triumph cost me $4,000. Neither was an expensive "exotic" vehicle, but I truly enjoyed washing them as much as I enjoyed washing the GT last Sunday.
I don't think it's about the car's monetary value, as many have said. I think it's about the vehicle's personal value and the fun you (potentially) can get out of washing it yourself. Plus the unwinding element -- if washing a vehicle has that effect on you, in addition to the "get to really know/appreciate your car" aspect.
No wonder you like it! Those must take like 10 minutes each! My Caprice takes me forever. I find myself slowly losing interest as the paint deteriorates, too. Like the front bumper cover with missing paint from years of flying debris.
No IRS? Bummer. They gotta realize most of the SUVs are used for personal use, it's the trucks that do most of the heavy hauling.
-juice
spray car wet and hose off big dirt,
foam soap brush car,
spray rinse,
no-mineral water rinse,
squeegee windows,
either air dry on freeway or towel dry in lot.
As long as there are no boom box dudes or overcrowded traffic conditions, the process does help unwind those long days of computer fx work!
Sadly, that's the same sentiment I have with my '02 300M Special. As a couple others have said, it's like unwinding, almost therapeutic. But now that she has so many swirl marks in the paint (she's black), the thrill is gone.
Now I dread the chore of washing it. I've had the GT for almost 10 months now and haven't washed it (or needed to) yet. I just spray it down with the pressure washer, followed by the leaf blower and it's done. As of late, I've been agonizing over the thought of stripping the 300M down and rebuilding the Zaino in preparation for the winter. :sick: It just takes sooooo long to do. It takes me longer to wash the wheels than it does to wash the rest of the car. :surprise: I don't want to own another car which wheels have more than five or six spokes.
But anyway, hand washing your car really makes you appreciate the design of the car. You notice little nuances about the car that are lost on reviewers sometimes. If you're meticulous, you'll discover little things that aren't even seen, mainly with the undercarriage design or ground effects (if so equipped). One thing I noticed with the rear fascia on my 300M Special is that the ground effects are tapered to the undercarriage. It was designed to reduce drag by having a near seamless connection to the mufflers and gas tank, and there aren't any rough edges to it. Another thing I noticed is that the ground effects on the front and rear fascia are actually molded as a single unit; they aren't bolted onto it.
I think you see where I'm going...
The Mini was relatively easy/quick to wash for the obvious reason (size) but also because I owned it since new and never let it get too dirty in the first place.
The Triumph took me almost two hours, but that included polishing it as well. It arrived pretty clean from the transporter (bought from a classic bike dealer in Dallas...off eBay), but the first night I rode it home it rained on me. That, plus the fact that it's old and British (oil is frequently oozing from various parts of the engine) made the bike look pretty disgusting in only a few days.
I never got around to washing it until I bought the Hurricane, which arrived in pristine condition (2,300 original miles) and the previous owner had hand polished every square in of it. I parked it next to the Trident and suddenly felt horrible. That weekend I sprayed off the Trident (carefully avoiding the Lucas electrics) and then rubbed it down with a cloth and then used two more cloths to apply polish. It looked like a different bike when I was done.
But don't be fooled. With all their nooks and crannies it takes awhile to properly wash a motorcycle. Since then I've kept it pretty clean (the engine was starting to gunk up again, but I degreased it a few weeks ago with an engine cleaner, so it looks good again).
I would say that washing the Trident rivaled the joy I got from washing the GT -- both are well above any other vehicles I've ever washed in terms of satisfaction. Again, the workmanship on the Trident really comes through when you wash it. Of course the lines on the GT pretty much make up for any lack of "character" it has versus the Triumph (at least to me). Plus, as you know if you saw the GT Factory Tour story, the Ford is pretty much hand assembled, too (like the Triumph was 30 years ago).
foam soap brush car,
spray rinse,
no-mineral water rinse,
Similar to how I do it, but I've learned from scratches from the brush at the car wash a slightly better way. Between 1 and 2 above, I take the high pressure wand and spray soap all over the car. Then using the rinse setting I spray out the brush. Then I go to your #2. Also, between #3 and #4, I use the spray on wax (they call it clearcoat), because I often don't have enough time or its too hot (Phoenix, AZ) to hand wax it. I usually try to hand wax it once or twice a year though. Finally, after the #4 above, I go through the dryer at my car wash. If I have enough time, I'll then take microfiber towels to any leftover water spots. Finally, there is usually some sort of spotting left on the windows, so I'll have to take a glass cleaner to them to get them completely clean.
I had told him about my Sonett's clutch going out without any warning (the next day I confirmed that the seal in the clutch slave cylinder had given up -- not surprising for a 32-year-old car). So I tell my friend about how I drove the Sonett home, parked it in my garage without incident, and then I go out to start it, I push in the clutch, turn the key, and the car starts lurching forward (almost hitting my Triumph Hurricane). The car had been in my garage for maybe two weeks but hadn't been started at all.
So my friend says, "Yeah, but didn't your GT arrive during those two weeks? Maybe the Sonett is pulling a 'Herbie' because you got a flashy new sports car. Like when Herbie's owner bought the new Ferrari to replace the cute little Beetle."
Of course, my response was, "Crap! I left both home alone in the garage today. What if I go home and find the Sonett has smashed the GT all to pieces?!!" But then my next, serious response was, "Yeah, but I still love the Sonett. It really has soul. Sort of like Herbie versus the Ferrari." And my friend says, "But do older, simpler, and 'cuter' cars really have more soul then expensive, flashy cars? Or do we just want them to have more soul, and thus assign that trait to them?"
So, this painfully long story :sick: is told to bring up a rather simple question:
What gives a car soul?
I'll start by telling you my requirements for "soul":
1. The car's designer had to have a soul. If I know who the designer is/was, and I feel like the guy had/has a soul, I can more easily believe his creation has a soul (this goes for women designers, too, I'm just using "him/his" for simplicity's sake). Additionally, if the car is largely the vision of a single man, versus a team of designers, that seems to be a requirement for "soul" (I don't think any Accord or Camry was the "vision" of a single designer; more likely a group of guys trying to satisfy multiple goals for sales purposes).
2. Assembled by men, not machines. This is where modern cars have a major disadvantage. The economies of today's world pretty much require robotic arms to build cars. The amount of hand-assembled transportation devices in 2005 is precariously low, but I know the reasons why -- and I can't argue with them.
3. Talks to the driver. This could be the single most important element. How can something have a soul if it doesn't communicate with you? This is at the heart of my earlier comments about why I'll never own a Corvette (unless it undergoes a major redesign/rethink). The Sonett (with no power steering or brakes, and a 2000lb curb weight) definitely talks to me. Same with my Triumphs and the Ducati motorcycles I used to own. Modern Japanese sport bikes? Very fast, very capable. They don't talk to me. The new Mini Cooper I recently sold (even with electric steering assist) spoke to me. The Chevy Malibu my wife now drives? Puh-lease!!
'03 Tibby, Black, Weekly for the first 3 months, monthly during/after winter.
You notice things like how the strong hood crease washes out on the "facia" in order to transition to a different line on the vinyl nose peice.
And some of it is irrational - as perfect as BMWs are said to be, I just don't feel excited in one (though I can't say I've pushed one hard). Maybe they're just "not my type." I feel like they're pure machines... I can't assign them human or animal characteristics. And to make it worse, I get the feeling that they'd drive better without me =p.
Low limits make it easier for a car to be communicative, but some are still fun at lower, safe speeds.
1991 Toyota Tercel, 1950lbs, manual (but not difficult) steering and a rolly yet relatively stiff suspension... no guts but tons of feel and fun. Always felt like it was going to fly off the road. And well engineered in the little things (except the engine), unlike my Sentra.
Everything more modern feels like a boring vault with little windows now. (By the way, why was the outgoing Civic Si said to have little character? I didn't feel it was all that much fun, but I feel that way about everything modern and over 2500lbs)
Really I am not surprised, after all the Solstice is a GM product;)
I dont see a lot of money being put into competitive large SUVs from Toyota/Dodge/Nissan in the next few years so the GM SUVs should be safe with their live axles in the rear. I think their goal is to increase share in a decreasing part of the market and there is a good chance they will be able to do that.
Karl:
Are there any new road tests coming soon?
the other thing is that the handling is much better with the irs. think mid corner heaves or potholes.
overall, i think the new tahoe is a big step forward, but it could have been better.
:-)
Amen.
And my (medium sized?) car has 'soul'.
- Ray
With 303 HP and 323 TQ driving MY front wheels with only very occasional futility . .
Mine talks to me all the time. It says "Take me into the dealer, I need repair."
On my car (2004 Malibu Maxx) I can tell when I'm reaching the limits of the steering and braking. To prove my point, I am able to, with consistency, apply exactly enough braking force to bring the car to impending lockup. I can round a turn and know whether or not I'm at the limit for the car. Is this what you mean by talking to you?
Too funny.
Actually, a car doesn't only "talk" to its driver when it's being driven aggressively. For instance, when I'm going down the freeway at a steady speed in a Ferrari or Porsche I'm not really trying to make the car perform, but I'm still getting lots of information about the texture of the road, how much space is between the expansion joints, etc. A good car will actually make even the most mundane drives fun simply because its communicating so effectively with you.
I'm sure that I could drive my wife's Malibu aggressively and be able to bring it to the edge of tire adhesion, but I wouldn't be having any fun doing it (plus she'd probably yell at me
That's great. So if someone puts on wider tires that are stickier, they end up with a much more capable car for someone who wants to drive it "hotter" than just to the grocery and back like I do most of the time.
Sounds like the base tires on LeSabres-rolled easily for mileage, soft, quiet, but rolled under easily in turns.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-juice
I've driven wonderful cars with no soul, and soulful cars that were less than wonderful but more memorable and satisfying to drive.
I had the pleasure of renting a Malibu over the weekend. It is a better car than the old one (now called the Classic), but I still have a soft spot for it. Anyway, I couldn't help but think of Karl motoring around in one and falling into a stupor -- "when can I get back into the GT?". The tires on the Malibu were pretty wimpy, but the car was easy to drive, rode pretty well, was efficient, roomy, and comfortable (but the seats are a little stiff at first). I thought the whole dashboard information system was not intuitive. And the A/C vents didn't direct the air high enough. And lots of grey: grey plastic, grey trim, grey seats. All in all, a very functional car. No soul, though.
Rob
Was this put on by GM? The car should have had Bridgestone Insignia SE200 tires on it. FWIW - I have put Goodyear Assurance ComforTreds on it and it handles much better and rides smoother.
I think I get it now about the feel when cruising. If I go over some cracks in the pavement or over an expansion joint, the ride becomes kind of jittery or jarring, but I have no idea how large they are. Then again, I'm the kind who would prefer not to feel the joint at all. :shades:
Yes, I agree with the vents! Chevy really needed to nix the upper vents in the console (totally useless, people in the back can't feel them at ALL!) and make the center stack ones larger and aim them higher. I kind of like the size of the ones on the Accord, but those are too big. When I test drove an Accord, I remember having to set the blower on high to really feel the air coming out and it was noisy. A vent somewhere between the Malibu and the Accord would do well IMHO.
As for the grey, you should take a look at the ones with the Cashmere interior. I'm not sure what it was called on the 04, but they've improved it on the '06. The seats are the same color, but the dash is a nice dark grey. Really sharp! Plus they've added little enhancements here and there (like chrome rings on the radio tuning knobs). You can find pictures on chevy.com.
I think it was an '03 or '04 Accord Sedan. I got there at about 2-3 in the afternoon. I live in Arizona and if I recall, it was charcoal or black exterior, so it was pretty hot inside. Maybe I just test drove a bad one...(did I say that out loud about a Honda!?!?).
Thanks,
- Ray
Curious why these are now in owners' hands and I have seen no review or impressions published anywhere . .
Consumer Ratings & Reviews
Steve, Host
Consumer Ratings & Reviews
Steve, Host "
Steve -
True - however:
1 - All of these posters specify that they are M6 (I am interested in the new A6)
2 - I'd like to read (hear, see) a professional tester's insight.
But thanks!
- Ray
Who will monitor that area as well . . .
It Doesn't Get Any 'Vetter Than This (Inside Line)
Steve, Host
I think Honda is finally embracing the importance of style and performance in this market. It's ironic that Honda essentially owned the import tuner niche in the mid- to late-90s, but it was purely through a customer based that like those cars. The company did nothing to support or foster this enthusiasm for Honda products. And at about this time they redesigned the Civic and didn't do anything to play to that crowd (the suspension was dumbed down and the "updated" Si model didn't score well).
Right when all this was happening, a movie called The Fast and the Furious was hitting theatres (and some weird new import magazine called Super Street, run by some dorky white guys, was really starting to take off), and Honda finally "got it." I think the new Civic is trying to play to that crowd, with Honda fully admitting that the Civic "needs to be cool again."
I still need to drive it, but I'm satisfied that the new car is at least trying to be "cooler" than the outgoing model.
The right side of my brain says, "why would anyone spend that kind of money for a glorified SL?" The another part of the right side of my brain says, "People are looking for unique vehicles to drive. In today's world you can't say your car is cool because it's safe, fast, luxurious or dependable, because all cars are pretty good at those things. Style is the final differentiator, and Fisker is certainly offering that."
Then the left side of my brain pipes in, "Yeah, what he said, plus they look really cool!!"
Related to the Civic, I caught an episode of Overhaulin' on TLC last night (good show). Usually they use older muscle cars as a base for the overhaul but this time was different. They had the owner's girlfriend narrating for the camera and she said something to the effect of "this has always been his dream car." What did the camera show next? A 95 civic coupe. Yeah. When they got the car in the garage, they asked Chip Foose (lead designer) what he thought. He goes "can we get another one?" I thought the whole thing was pretty funny, but it was at least one of the better looking civics I've seen.
But bias aside, I know it had a superior suspension that was also easier to modify for performance purposes, and I know everyone extremely familiar with the Civic was not "blown away" by the redesign in 2001 (though most admitted it was still a "fine" economy sedan).
The more I talk to you guys the more I really want to drive it. Now I'm going to have to get with my road test coordinator and get one in here ASAP.
BTW, you can count on (at least) one version of the new Civic being added to the long-term fleet in the not-too-distant future.
The new Civic is once again a car that I think people will "want" The previous generation was a car you liked because it was a Honda and still had certain Honda characteristics that kept it competitive. Otherwise it was a dowdy car compared to the 92-95's and now the 06+ Civics.
My strongest impression of this car is that it does indeed earn its namesake. The acceration is strong (0-60 in the six-second range), and it stops extremely well (in three panic stops, in a row, the numbers were 117, 114 and 115 feet -- WOW!). The steering is quick and provides decent feel -- though some SUV drivers might actually find it a bit darty (I didn't, but I like quick steering). The transmission was usually very crisp on upshifts/downshifts, but a couple times it clunked loudly and jerked abruptly when I lifted off the throttle and then pushed down on it again.
The problem with this Range Rover is that, despite several years of BMW-then-Ford ownership, it's still an ergonomic trainwreck. The power window switches are too far away (and only the driver's is one-touch -- not acceptable at this price range). The navigation system's touchscreen is also too far away, though it looks very nice in terms of video quality. The small display near the speedometer has teensy-tiny letters to indicate Park, Drive, Reverse and Neutral, though they get bigger when you put the tranny in manual shift mode and it displays, "1,2,3" etc. I find the numbers in the tachometer and speedometer too small as well, and specific speeds are hard to read because of the strange dots and slashes between the numbers.
This is unfortunate because it has some really cool features, too. I love the rear hatch than opens in two ways (either just the top half or the entire hatch). And I really liked the "cooler" between the seats that worked extremely well at cooling drinks -- though it's too short/small for any serious water bottles. The video screens mounted in the front seat headrests are an ideal that's long overdue.
A cool SUV on many levels, but for $70 large I'd need the controls to be better sorted.
There's simply not that much to say anymore. The car has had few problems -- there was that initial fuel tank/fuel gauge issue, but that was about it. It still drives extremely well, but of course we're only averaging mid 40s in fuel mileage ("only" being a relative term, of course).
We just got our carpool stickers, so we can now drive in the carpool lane with only one occupant, but the stickers (as some of you may know) are HUGE! I haven't put them on yet, but think NASCAR sponsorship. I still love getting 400-plus miles on a tankful. With my 100-mile round-trip commute, extended range on a tank of gas remains my favorite hybrid feature (yes, I know diesels are great this way, too).
I keep wondering about the dreaded "battery replacement" cost that plenty of people harp about (mostly hybrid haters). I know the Insight has been on sale since 2000 and I've yet to hear about any nasty costs related to those cars and their batteries. Anyone else know of any actual (versus theoretical) costs related to hybrid battery packs?
There's simply not that much to say anymore.
I'm confused. Why are you testing a car that is more limited in distribution like the Prius for 2+ years, especially when there isn't that much to say about it, but you dump the Malibu so quickly? (Full disclosure: Like my username implies, I own a Malibu Maxx). You guys got past the initial quality problems (steering wheel, etc.) of a first model year car and then got rid of it. Not to mention the inconsistencies in your reports (check the MPG #s of the log, Intro best MPG and Wrap-up MPG).
Another question, in the log, you berate the interior for being so dull, but why? Didn't you guys pick the grey color? The cashmere interior is so much nicer, it makes me wonder if you didn't pick that grey interior for a reason... :sick:
When it comes down to it, a car like the Malibu would be so much more useful to test long-term than the Prius. There aren't that many on the road (I've seen maybe 2 or 3 in the past year around here vs dozens of the new Malibu).
Finally, I've read through the posts going around-and-around about GM bais and while I really don't want to open that up again, things like this make me wonder. I compare the logbook of the Malibu to say the Honda Pilot (don't say its an unfair comparison, I'm talking about journalism here) and I see that you guys were stranded in the Pilot. Yet the writers shake it off as a minor inconvience. Yet, you guys rant about a back-ordered part (it happens with Honda too BTW) for the Malibu and mess up the milage data in the wrap-up. Hondas aren't known for their excitement either (see owner discontentment with the Accord's bland styling and bland but functional interior) but they aren't berated for it. Am I the only one to see the disparity here?
I have seen those carpool stickers on a couple of cars. I would be embarrassed to drive around with those whoppers stuck to my bumper.
There has to be a better way to identify hybrids.
Steve, Host
Hey, Edmunds should do one of those.
-juice
I understand the number to call to ask for the stickers is: 1-800-EYE-SORE. :sick:
The Malibu is a basic midsize GM sedan with the same basic engine and design that has been in use (and will be in use) for years. We reported on our experience for one year, had the usual issues with recalls and rattles, and we know the next several years would have been more of the same.
The Prius is arguably the first functional hybrid vehicle sold in the U.S. (no, I don't consider the Insight functional). Demand continues to outstrip supply. Fuel prices are at an all-time high. And there's a lingering question about the supposed long-term costs of having a hybrid -- something you'll never test in a one-to-two year period, but something all of these people rushing to buy hybrids should know about (whether it's a justified concern or a bunch of Chicken Little rantings "Those battery packs will cost thousands when they stop working! Those battery packs will cost thousandswhen they stop working!").
That's why we will continue to report on the Prius, but at a less-frequent pace.
Finally, I've read through the posts going around-and-around about GM bais and while I really don't want to open that up again, things like this make me wonder. I compare the logbook of the Malibu to say the Honda Pilot (don't say its an unfair comparison, I'm talking about journalism here) and I see that you guys were stranded in the Pilot. Yet the writers shake it off as a minor inconvience. Yet, you guys rant about a back-ordered part (it happens with Honda too BTW) for the Malibu and mess up the milage data in the wrap-up.
Sure, let's open it up. You say "the writers shake it off as a minor inconvience" when the Pilot strands us? Well, I'm the one who got stranded. I spend two long-term updates detailing how angry I was (including shots of the Pilot being loaded on flatbed in the middle of nowhere). Then I wrote an editorial column and called it out again. So once again, I find the "bias" regarding GM vs. the imports to be in the readers' minds, not the actual reporting. Here are the many links that will allow you all to see how we "shook off" being stranded in a HONDA (YES HONDA!!! WE ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT A HONDA!!!) Pilot.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=76080/pageId=56689
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=76080/pageId=56805
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/100237/article.html
No, its not the same thing. The 3.5L V6 is derived from the 3.1L in the previous Malibu, but it has been tweaked to be quieter and smoother. The design is the same? Couldn't be farther from the truth. The '04 and up is based on the Epsilon platform, the '03 wasn't. The only thing the same between the '03 and the '04 is the name and the transmission. Everything else has changed in one way or the other. Given that the '04 was a first model year car, on a first model year platform, I think more than a year (and it wasn't even that) would have been better.
Fuel prices are at an all-time high. And there's a lingering question about the supposed long-term costs of having a hybrid -- something you'll never test in a one-to-two year period, but something all of these people rushing to buy hybrids should know about (whether it's a justified concern or a bunch of Chicken Little rantings "Those battery packs will cost thousands when they stop working! Those battery packs will cost thousandswhen they stop working!").
This doesn't make ANY sense. The long term costs of the hybrid can be predicted. Cars have declines in MPG over their life, plain and simple. The battery item just doesn't cut it. Did you guys read the warranty? You are going to have to test it for more than 8 years or 100,000 miles to find out how much the battery packs cost or you could just have a dealer tell you. It doesn't take 2-3 years of testing to find out how much a battery pack is.
So once again, I find the "bias" regarding GM vs. the imports to be in the readers' minds, not the actual reporting. Here are the many links that will allow you all to see how we "shook off" being stranded in a HONDA (YES HONDA!!! WE ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT A HONDA!!!) Pilot.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=76080/pageId=56689
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=76080/pageId=56805
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/100237/article.html
I apologize, I didn't research my post enough. However, its not all in the reader's heads. Check this out from the '97 Honda CR-V full test:
And for uphill climbs in the CR-V, we found the system selecting lower gears, making better use of the 2-liter engine's 126 available horsepower. This system gives the transmission some of the leverage of a manual, making the automatic more user-friendly than ever before.
We owned one and it was woefully underpowered. Put four people and some cargo and it had lots of trouble. The transmission on ours showed it too. At 100,000 miles it was slipping due to all of the shifting it had to do due to the underpowered engine. There was NO mention of anything like that in your test. Fast forward and we get to the HHR. Comments about about how GM didn't put enough engine in it.
Today's HP wars have made it a whole new ballgame than it was 8-9 years ago. Back in 97 the most powerful Accord you could get had 174HP. The Civic topped out at 127HP out of a 1.6L engine. Now the Accord has 255HP, the Civic has 197HP, the CR-V has 160+ HP. What was competitive back then when the CR-V's only real competition was the RAV4 (which only had 120HP) is different than what is competitive now.
Another thing to consider is that HP isn't the only measure of performance. The HHR may have enough HP on paper but may fall short at actually putting HP to the wheels.