2007 Saturn Aura: Rear Seat Audio

Not to sound patronizing, did you look in the trunk? That is where the headphones were in our XR. They are great to keep the teenager engaged. According to her, she can listen to one station on the XM radio, and mom and dad listen to another up front. Talk about bliss.
 
A second bonus is that the teenager looks a little silly with the headphones on. Such a price to pay to not hear rap music. Thank god for rock and roll.

Are those cupholders useless, or are those cupholders useless? They look like spill-o-matic 3000.

Gm, could have had somthing.... then they got cheap and "forgot" to put a screen on it. Stupid bean counters....

def. could have made it better...and if they aren't on separate channels, imagine the fight between your 2 kids on the radio station

langjie:
 
Showing your bias again. The wonderful Camry doesn't even offer this at all. Could it be that GM has provided something the others don't and you are not happy? Instead of admitting that maybe the others should offer this, you complain about no display. My daughter and wife have had no problems finding radio stations to listen to using the system. If Toyota had provided it, I bet you would be saying how wonderful it is. The system is nice and works greatly. It appears GM is ahead of at least Toyota in this regard. By the way, my wife's van had the ability in 2000 to play both the radio/CD/Cassette in the front and let the kids in the rear hear either the radio or CD/Cassette with headphones. Nice to see it in cars.
 
But either way, even without the rear display, still ahead of the Camry.

As big as that strip is, I imagine GM intends to put a screen back there eventually.

aurakr -
 
I seriously think you need to see a psychiatrist. Just because a person makes a comment about the Aura 1) Doesn't mean they are saying Toyota is better and 2) They do not work for a secrete communist regime that is trying to crush Saturn by posting comment's in Edmunds' blog.
 
Perhaps you work for GM which is why you are constantly challenging other's opinions as it relates to the Aura. If that is the case, may I recommend reading "Feedback is a Gift" by Stephen C Lundin.

2002blksle
 
No, I have been told I am perfectly normal. Me thinks you protest way, way too much. I on the other hand, am simply trying to get the editors at Edmunds to do what many of us do in the real world, provide fair evualuation. If more people like me had spoken up in the past, maybe people like you wouldn't feel so good about bad things happening to the American manufacturers.
 
Here is a way langjie can improve her evaluations and be fair minded.
The XR has the ability to let rear passengers listen to different music than the front passengers if so desired. While it would be nice if the rear controls had a display, at least this vehicle offers this feature, something the Accord/Camry/Altima do not. See balanced. Offering a fair critique, while admitting that others do not offer it. Instead of the definitely could have made it better comment. While it is not perfect, I simply pointed out that at least it is offered, unlike other competitors.
 
Remember, although the car is not perfect, and I admit it, the car is at least as good as the Camry, but not in the eyes of the editors. They are the persons giving the XR the low review, not owners. Therefore the same editors must be challenged everytime they do not present a fair evaluation. Again a fair evaluation, no more, no less. Criticism is ok, but admit when the competition does not even offer something.
 
By the way, I do not work for Saturn anymore than the Honda/Toyota fanatics at my place of employment work for Honda/Toyota. I simply will no longer sit quietly by anymore. Welcome to the real world.

:grabs some popcorn and takes a seat:
 
2002blksle, I'm inclined to think aurakr isn't a GM employee because he or she mentioned in another blog entry comment that he or she is from the San Diego area (Go Padres!!!).
 
However, I think 1487 is a GM/Saturn employee based on the comments I've read on these Aura blog entries and on Karl's blog. The amount of time he or she has "invested" in writing comments is so great that he or she must be quite unproductive at work...or commenting is related to his or her work in some way. His or her comments also demonstrate a greater than average familiarity with and access to GM/Saturn products.

subytrojan:
 
Thank you for the Go Padres. This year our beloved Chargers will actually win a playoff game. Superbowl here we come, I hope.
 
What frustrates me is that as an XR owner, I have no problem admitting that other cars are good. It just seems that certain people really, really don't want to acknowledge how far GM has come in the last few years. Did GM bring a lot of problems on itself, of course it did. Have they improved, yes they have. The XR is a wonderful car to drive, I would rate it behind the new Altima for sportiness. I think it will be very competitive with the new Accord, which now weighs in at 3600 pounds. It is far better to drive than the Camry. The Camry drives more like my Impala LS, great ride, just floaty. I like more firmness.

actually I do not in the auto industry at all. Of course if all my comments were pro-Honda/Toyota you wouldnt have any concerns about my productivity at work. I work in local public sector and have never had any financial ties to GM or any other car company.
 
Every bit of info I have came from public sources- I just read and retain info.
 
auraKr is on the money. What I find is import lovers (Edmunds staff may or may not qualify) have a tendency to magnify any features missing on a domestic car while failing to mention any features found on that car but not on their fave import. These radio controls are a great example- others dont offer them but you criticize GM for not doing them the way you want. I guess its better to be like the Camry and Accord and not offer them.
 
Also, looking at those camry pics reminded me that Toyota continues to use furry fabric when most GM models use a tight woven fabric that is akin to what you find in Euro products without leather. Amazing how this stuff never gets noticed, even in a long term test.

The car comes with 2 wireless headphones. Your dealer should have provided them to you when you bought the car. Of course, they also should have addressed the power steering hose TSB. It sounds like you have a shoddy dealer. You should ask for the headphones from your dealer, and contact Saturn corporate if they give you any trouble.

wow, that's being biased? stating an obvious fact that if there were displays, the system would be better?
 
what do i care if the aura does well or not? i think that if they went all the way with their design of the rear audio it would be better. they are just setting themselves up for another manufacturer to use the same idea and make it better. this is where i think they made a mistake. don't just creep into that feature, blow everyone else out of the water...don't do the bare minimum on a feature, give people more. for what? a cost of $50 extra per car if even?
 
and my comments aren't all pro honda/toyota....honda's look old and their suspensions aren't comfy at all, toyota's are expensive and ride like boats, nissan's have many little quirks and recalls and until recently, went cheap with their interiors

langjie:
 
Tough day, huh? The point of our critiques, like yours of the car, is that there is a way to do things better. Your response to 1487 indicates you are on the defensive. Saying what do I care if the Aura does well or not is very illuminating. All we ask is that if any car offers something other competitors do not, admit it. Then you may offer a critique. In this case, a display in the back would have been better, no one is arguing it. However imperfect, the system still offers more than Honda/Toyota/Nissan. Then when you drive the Camry L-T, harp on Toyota not offering this and ask why. See how many more people respond, you will be enlightened.

Aurakr- I for once agree with you!
 
 "All we ask is that if any car offers something other competitors do not, admit it. "
 
                                             Camry XLE Aura XR
Rear Window Shade Yes N/A
Rear heat ducts Yes N/A
Dual Climate Yes N/A
Air Ionization/filtration Yes N/A
Rear Arm Rest Yes N/A
Fuel Capacity 18.5 16 100 fewer hwy miles
Pretensioners front/Rear Yes Front Only. Sorry passengers:-(
Knee Airbag Yes N/A
Rear headrests 3 2 Dont get rear ended
Audio 440 wtts 240 wtts
 
Plus camry offers more HP, a 10% tighter turning radius, individual rear reading lights, reclining rear seats and better fuel economy than the equivalently priced Aura. To be fair, Edmunds never called out these features offered by Camry but not Aura.
 
For additional $, the Camry also offers something called a DVD Navigation and push button start as options which you can't get on the Aura.. but then again the Aura does offer the same rear audio technology found in your wife's 2000 van.
 
Regards.

2002blklse
 
See how easy that was. !00 more highway miles, not with my math. 2.5 gallons x 30 miles(see I give the benefit of the doubt) = 75 miles. Maybe it is the new math. The XR doesn't need the knee airbags, 5 stars front and side without it. Amazing huh? Actually to be proper, it is only 2 gallons more 16.4 and 18.5. Makes your other information quite suspect.
 
Then again, to get all the features you speak of you get to spend $5000 more on a very, plain looking car. The XR does come with a remote start, something you may not have heard of. Guess what, I don't use a key to start it. I push a button too. I guess that equals a push start button.
 
Remember at the end of the day, the Camry owner has to look at his Camry. Glad it has personality, cause it certainly don't have looks. The XR provides the looks and the personality. Remember, the XR won car of the year because when it comes down to it, it is a better driving car. Not the best, but far more enjoyable to DRIVE, than the Camry. The Camry is the 2007 equivalent of an 50-60s Buick. You just aim it at the road, you don't drive it.
 
Oh and by the way, the last time I traveled, the passengers in the rear seats didn't ask for reading lights. They wanted music. Again the XR provides the better choice. My wife's van has reading lights, and they are not allowed on at night, driver safety. Kind of a very useless option if you ask me. The music availability, however, that allowed us to travel 15 hours without 2 teenagers harming each other. A gift from above.

2002blksle: i don't want air ionization in my car, ozone is really bad for people and that's what ionization will do, create more O3
 
aurakr: yes, it would be a nice feature to have. and for the other blogs, if the feature isn't brought up there i tend not to think of it. if the question is brought up in another blog saying "hey, this car should have rear seat audio" then i would probably comment and agree

I'll be honest here... I think remote start trumps push button ignition. This is standard on the Aura XR... Whereas the camry has optional push button ignition...
 
People need to grapple the concept that these are 2 different cars, two different set of advantages etc. more important, people need to grapple that this is a long term test of the Aura here, and has NOTHING (as in zilch, zero, nada) to do with the camry.

2002blke,
 
your post makes no sense. YOu list features offerd on the camry XLE V6 but do not refrence price or the features the Aura offers. Last time I checked the Aura XR has standard 18" wheel, stability control, remote start, ONstar, trunk struts and rear radio controls and offers all that for thousands less than Camry XLE and stability isnt standard on ANY camry model. The armrest is handy and the Aura should have one. The knee airbag is totally unecessary.
 
Why dont you compare the Camry SE to the Aura XR? The SE lacks auto climate control, 18" wheels and fold down seats. Also no push button start OR remote start is offered and the car costs about $3k more than Aura comparably equipped. I'm not even sure if the Camy has sat radio offered.

I stand corrected- the Camry SE does offer remote start for $529 which is funny since its standard on the XR and it offers sat radio. An SE equipped similarly to a loaded XR will run you $33,488 MSRP and TMV is about $29,800. This compares to an XR with a price of about $27,100 + a $1500 rebate right now.
 
Sorry, not impressed by the Camry- especially when you factor in the looks of Aura, auto climate control, folding seats, Onstar and price gap.

i don't think you would say the knee airbag is totally unnecessary if the aura had it and the camry didn't. anyways...i know you probably won't die if your knee bangs against the dash or anything, but if you're walking with a limp the rest of your life i think you would want the additional knee airbag
 
i on the other hand, thing Onstar it sort of moot. great for the 1 year, but i wouldn't keep it if i had to pay for it. i have a cell phone and a navi. it's a nice service and all, but not worth the monthly fee

1487 -
 
I'm tired.
 
Big picture. Every long term car in this blog will receive criticisms. Criticisms are not unique to the Aura. Go read the Camry blog. A viewpoint on the Aura 1) does not mean it is a piece of crap 2) that Aura is not the only car that has opportunities called out in the blogs and 3) to address the comment that "All we ask is that if any car offers something other competitors do not, admit it "... I listed features found on the Camry but not the Aura. Not sure why everything has to be so twisted.
 
I like the Aura- It is a nice car. I like the Camry- It is a nice car. I like the Altima- It is a nice car. The Camry's features and characteristics fit my lifestyle... but it has opportunities. The Aura fits others lifestyle... but it has opportunities. All people were asking in the blog is why Saturn didn't go all the way with the idea and exceed expectations by spending a little more to add a display which would make the feature that much better. They obviously chose to remove or not include features like rear air vents, rear head rests, rear arm rests, and a few other more common features to help fund the rear audio control expense. If they are going to do that IN MY OPINION it should do it right. It would have been even better if they elevated the idea, added more innovation, and made it a wow feature.. not a feature found on some cars for the past 10+ years (I.e my parents 98 Aerostar). That's all.
 
Edmunds staff- Thanks for the great postings, candid findings, and critiques.

2002blklse
 
Don't be tired. Rest, yourself. After all, if you don't have your health, truly you don't have anything. No lie.
 
The only thing I have been waiting for is for the import fanboys to admit the XR is a good car. I am so sick and tired of them cheering anytime something bad happens to GM, Ford. I truly feel if they feel that way, go live in Japan and see if they like it. The Japanese, while honorable in many ways, aren't exactly known for their fondness of foreigners.
 
Back to the car stuff. The XR compares incredibly well with the Camry, which is amazing considering the XR is a 4 year old platform and the Camry is a clean sheet new one. I think langjie is very wrong concerning OnStar. The number one reason is that if you get into an accident and the airbag(s) deploy, OnStar immediately tracks it and contacts the driver. No response, emergency medical personnel are notified immediately. That can and has saved lives.
 
I agree with you that all the cars have opportunities, well put.

2002blksle, your post is very reasonable and well-said. I for one agree with you on all points.
  
I am also in the camp that if a feature is to be offered, ANY feature, it better not be half-assed. For instance, if the A/C capacity on a car cannot sufficiently cool the black interior, either raise the system capacity or don't offer the black interior choice.
  
I would certainly consider this a unique and desirable feature for the segment, but it's a few tacos short of a combo platter. What amazes me is how the comments on this post were initially limited to commenting on the specific feature on this car, then it erupted into the usual Aura vs. Camry war. Every single Edmunds LT car has been criticized and commented on (I've been around since they started this blog) but not one has elicited the domestic versus import war that the Aura has. Who knew.
  
Oh, and my parents' '86 Aerostar also had this feature!

i'm not an american car company fan because of the direction they made. they introduced the bigger and "better" massive SUV's to the market which triggered other companies to do the same. $2.50 a gallon is what ensued
 
also all the lobbying about keeping CAFE down just puts a bad taste in my mouth as well (not denying that some japanese companies probably also lobbied, but on the surface it just seems like the big 3 was part of that)
 
same thing with the electric car and hybrids
 
but hey, if the chevy volt is as advertised, i would be interested

langie,
 
as with most import fanboys you are poorly informed and then you allow your lack of knowledge to influence your opinions about manufacturers. Toyota has joined the Big 3 in opposing the CAFE standards but you obviously seem to be a little confused about that. In fact NO automaker has come out an endoresed the CAFE standards, not even Honda. As for hybrids, GM has made a bigger commitment to them than anyone except Toyota. By November GM will have 5 hybrids on the market- more than Ford, Honda and Chrysler. Get the facts straight.
 
As with most people of your viewpoint, you loath american cars because one or two have disappointed you in the 80s and CR tells you they are crap and you blame them (and not the American public) for America's love of large vehicles. The facts do not back that up at all.
 
As for SUVs, the American public created the demand for SUVS, not GM. You need to understand that. In fact once the public showed an interest in big SUVs the Japanese quickly rushed to beef up their SUV offerings to better compete. You cannot blame a supplier for giving people what they want. The ENTIRE time SUVs were hot the Big continued to sell I-4 and V6 powered cars for anyone who wanted them.

As for Camry vs Aura, I agree both cars are nice. But the question is MONEY. The camry is fine but the bottom line is you will have to pay thousands more for a comparably equipped car or skimp on features to get a car priced like an Aura. When you factor in the Aura's rarity and good looks its the easy choice for me. For those who want to drive what 40k other people buy in a month, the Camry is the only choice in this segment.
 
I cannot honestly think of anything besides 2mpg that you sacrifice in getting the Aura over Camry. The $2500 you save will buy a lot of gas though.

I was saying the knee airbag is unecessary because the Aura gets the highest crash rating and because I read there is no proof that knee airbags prevent injuries, NOT because the Aura doesnt have one. Until we see proof that the 7th airbag saves limbs I don't see why I should be afraid to buy a car without one.
 
2002blk,
 
Most cars in this class do not have rear AC vents. Most only have heat ducts under the front seats. The Aura is hardly alone in that. I think we can all agree it should have a rear armrest although it doesnt matter to me since I dont ride back there.
 
for all those who are concerned about the lack of screen it should be noted that Gm's SUVs do have a system with a screen. I suspect that space limitations or the Aura's price tag led to that being omitted. Again, its still more than the competition is offering. I think the Camry should get trunk struts like GM cars but apparently Toyota felt that money could be saved and used elsewhere.

1487 will you actually read and interpret before you go diving off the deep end?
 
besides, you made my point for me, toyota JOINED the big 3, so that means the big 3 was first at it huh?
 
and you praise GM now for FINALLY coming into the hybrid market after toyota and honda have been at it for years? they don't care about the environment, they care about dollars and they see that there actually is a hybrid market. and what are gm's hybrids? belt alternator hybrids are trash compared to the hybrid synergy drive. when there are more chevy volt-type cars that come out, then it's something to brag about
 
have you ever heard of anything called marketing? japanese manufacturers took a choke hold of small/mid car sales, so what does ford/chrysler/gm do...they see, hey, we still have the truck market, let's make something big like our trucks and market it as japanese cars are wimpy wimpy wimpy, and our cars are hefty hefty hefty. and the public goes, wow, they are safer and i can do so much more with them. yes, the public is to blame as well for all of the SUV's on the road, for the 1 petite lady in the excursion next to me as i drive to work, for the H2 that is all blinged out and will never get a spot of dirt on it.
 
yes, japanese manufacturers are also to blame because they followed suit to try to take stake in the market as well
 
seriously, a few years ago, i really liked the design of some of the european fords, mondeo, but they didn't bring a car like that to the states. over here we got some iteration of the taurus or a contour. they shot themselves in the foot.
 
yes, US market is getting some better stuff now, I like the look of the Aura and the fusion isn't bad, kind of how i think the accord is getting uglier and uglier

oh yeah, the camry also got 5 stars for front and side
 
not saying you should be afraid of buying a car that doesn't have knee airbags, just saying it's not useless

langjie:
 
Does the Altima have a knee airbag? I don't know, just asking.
 
The point 1487 was making you made for him. Every person I know who is pro-Japanese cars says, well GM fought the raising of CAFE. Guess what so did Toyota. However, because of biases in the media, the only thing consumers saw in the headlines was GM fights raising fuel economy. Nothing about Toyota. It is this type of bias against the domestic manufacturers that we are fighting, and will continue to fight.
  
If however, you believe that Toyota cares about the environment anymore than GM, or Porsche for that matter, you have been drinking way too much koolaid. This is the bias we are talking about. Toyota cares about the environment so much that it just came out with the 381 horsepower Tundra. Or should I say, the 15 mpg Tundra, to go along with its 15 mpg Sequoia, and its 18 mpg 4 Runner, all V8. Care to ask about the mileage of the Lexus fullsize SUVs, all V8. Toyota is simply an auto manufacturer, not the savior of the environment.
 
Speaking of marketing, Toyota is the best at it right now. People like you think Toyota cares about the environment. They also think they are an American company. That is marketing at its best, doesn't matter that neither are true. In many people eyes, not sure about you, Japanese good, American bad.

no it doesn't....would i mind or question it's effectiveness if it were in my car, not at all. would i pay an extra $50 for a knee airbag, why not? extra $1 a month
 
and leave me alone about thinking toyota is clean about CAFE. if you saw my first post, i did say that "it seems like" which does make your media bias valid. but even without the bias, i would just think that an american company has more pull in america. i do not turn a blind eye at the poor fuel economy of the tundra etc, they suck for introducing it as well
 
i do respect toyota for taking the chance with the hybrid...the big 3 all had hybrid prototypes but when the law was dropped for hybrid vehicles, big 3 scrapped their plans for it...sort of like the electric car (that every stupid company scrapped when that law was killed)
 
i am not that naive to say that all japanese products are good, and i don't think all american cars are bad. i don't group things and say it's all bad, i judge on a case by case basis unlike some other people on this forum

langjie
 
Just to show I am not like the import fanboys and recognize GM screwups, I will show you some of the decisions by GM which are driving me crazy.
 
First, with the new Malibu and the 2008 Aura, the 2.4 with the 4 speed automatic makes me crazy. GM should have made sure the 6 speed automatic was available at time of entry. If you test the 4 speed combination, I would readily expect you to crucify it. And, I would agree.
 
I disagree with you about the BAS system. While I would not classify it as a full-hybrid, it is a mild hybrid equivalent to the Civic and now discontinued Accord. The system does offer up to 20% better mileage and somewhat better performance. I think GM should really think about putting it in their two-mode vehicles across the board.
 
Regarding the 08 Aura, GM should be criticized for putting the 2.4 in the Aura with only the 4 speed. The Aura 2.4 should only come with the 6 speed automatic, as the Aura is slightly heavier than the Camry.
 
BTW, what do you think of the growth(weight, size) of the new Accord?

what I actually meant to say, is that the BAS should be in all GM non two-mode hybrids. My mistake.
 
Imagine a 15-20% improvement in fuel economy across the board.

I didn't really look into the specs of the new accord, all i know is i don't like the look of it. accord designers have been on sabbatical for 10 years already, they just get uglier and uglier (though the new one is better than the old one).
 
OK, BAS systems aren't entirely crap, but it's a pretty feeble attempt. i (and many others) feel that some manufacturers who use this system just do it so they can slap a "hybrid" badge on the car. in the most minimal set up, BAS systems only increase mileage by 2-5% (http://www.hybridcars.com/types-systems/belt-alternator-starters.html)
 
if someone who was going to buy a regular car and then decides on a BAS car, great! if someone is in the market for a hybrid and goes with the BAS car then not so great

langjie:
 
See we can agree? Different studies have shown BAS anywhere from 10-20%, not the 2-5 % they got. But for a base car, I agree it is a useful starting point, if the cost is no more than $1000.
 
What happened to the steering on the XR? It is amazing, I have had mine nearly 10 months, no problems. I follow Saturnfans.com and no one has ever reported this happening to their XR. Believe me, they would have it it had happened. Get it to the dealer quick. Seems like somebody forced something they shouldn't have.

langie,
 
YOu need to relax. Most import lovers get flumoxxed when they are presented with facts that run counter to their CR backed viewpoints. You are totally off base when it comes to hybrids and fuel economy. Toyota execs have ADMITTED that hybrids were just an hi tech experiment and they did NOT make them as a way to appear more green or to reduce foreign oil dependency. Toyota was just as surprised as GM that gas prices took off and hybrid sales accelerated so quickly. let's not forget that the first Prius was almost a failure and generated little buzz in spite of having great mileage. At that time Toyota was focusing on launching SUVs like the Sequoia and the Prius was a quirky small volume car. Once Toyota realized the press was crowning them the King of Green they took that concept and ran with it.
 
GM is more committed to hybrids than Honda at this stage in the game. That is simply indisputable at this point. Honda may have been first but GM is moving aggressively on hybrids while Honda is dropping the Accord hybrid.
 
As for CAFE, the Big 3 endorse an aggressive CAFE standard that is going to be hard to meet. They do not endorse the radical one being pushed by a bunch of CA politicians that have no idea how cars work. The standards being advocated by Pelosi and company would be impossible to meet without drastically reducing the size and performance of the vehicles american like to by. Thats not a pro-GM or anti-green stance, it's fact. You cannot change the laws of physics and you cannot acheive significant efficiency gains without using high tech, expensive materials and cutting engine size and power. The Big 3 (and quietly Toyota) are simply being honest while the rest of the industry is afraid to speak up.
 
BTW, Toyota did some intense lobbying in DC to get senators to back off the radical CAFE idea and it seems to have worked.
 
"have you ever heard of anything called marketing? japanese manufacturers took a choke hold of small/mid car sales, so what does ford/chrysler/gm do...they see, hey, we still have the truck market, let's make something big like our trucks and market it as japanese cars are wimpy wimpy wimpy, and our cars are hefty hefty hefty. and the public goes, wow, they are safer and i can do so much more with them."
 
Gm sells more cars than Toyota. Just thought that should be noted. The media has taught us that Detroit doest sell cars, but the truth is Ford and Chrysler dont sell many cars. GM relys on trucks a lot, but it's never fallen behind Toyota and Honda in car sales.

"GM is more committed to hybrids than Honda at this stage in the game."
  
Hybrids are a stop-gap until more advanced technologies become cost effective. Honda is pouring investment resources into developing the fuel cell and clean diesels. The next gen FCX is amazing. You could say BMW isn't committed to hybrids either - they are dumping money into hydrogen power and their own clean diesels. M-B has introduced us to BlueTec. Point is, many companies are pointing their resources to the future technologies. I don't have GM's product plans in my back pocket, but if they're putting their eggs in the hybrid basket then they may end up behind the curve again.

"GM is more committed to hybrids than Honda at this stage in the game."
 
Also keep in mind that Honda has a higher average mpg across their lineup, so hybrid technology isn't as necessary. Honda could easily pass the 32mpg CAFE standard whereas GM could not.

Honda has a higher fuel economy average because they sell fewer SUVs and the Ridgeline. I refuse to call the Ridgeline a pickup, because it isn't. If Honda sold as many as GM, Ford, or Toyota, their average fuel economy would plummit. Look what happened to Toyota, now reduced to fighting the proposed CAFE amendments.
 
Right now, Toyota is considered the leader in hybrids. But with the new two-modes coming out this year, that might change. I say might, because even if the system is better than Toyotas, many will not give GM credit. Toyota has put most of their eggs in the hybrid basket.
 
While I am a fan of diesel, I just don't think they will do that well, especially in California. The new CARB requirements, to my knowlege, no manufacturer has met them yet. Believe me, if one had, they would be selling them right now.
 
I love the idea behind the Volt. The next few years will be very exciting.

"Also keep in mind that Honda has a higher average mpg across their lineup, so hybrid technology isn't as necessary. Honda could easily pass the 32mpg CAFE standard whereas GM could not."
 
HA! The desire to blindly defend imports never ceases to amaze. Honda doesnt make V8s or trucks and thus they have the best CAFE average. On top of that the average is weighted and Honda's few trucks arent all that successful. The Pilot sells pretty well but its not a huge % of overall sales. Honda's regular V6 powered vehicles largely get average mileage. The Accord, TL, Pilot, Ridgeline, etc. are not blowing away the competition in mileage by any means. The Civic is the ONE Honda product that truly whips competitors in mileage.
 
Honda CANNOT easily meet the 35mpg (not 32mpg) standard proposed by COngress. That is an AVERAGE not a highway number. the civic hybrid is the only current Honda that could come close to this number, even the regular civic doesnt have a 35mpg combined number under the new standards. The Accord, TL, RL, MDX, etc. are a LONG way off 35mpg average mileage.
 
"The next gen FCX is amazing. You could say BMW isn't committed to hybrids either - they are dumping money into hydrogen power and their own clean diesels. M-B has introduced us to BlueTec. Point is, many companies are pointing their resources to the future technologies. I don't have GM's product plans in my back pocket, but if they're putting their eggs in the hybrid basket then they may end up behind the curve again."
 
your comments prove you dont have GM's plans in your back pocket or ANYWHERE. GM has been talking about fuel cells for years now and has a fleet of Equinoxes in use now. GM is also working on diesels, a 4.5L V8 will be on sale in 2009 for GM trucks and a 2.9L V6 will be here in 2010 for Aura and CTS. GM is also using AFM (which Toyota isnt) and has the Volt concept. Toyota, not GM is putting all its eggs in one basket. Toyota has said little about diesels, fuel cells or anything that isnt a hybrid.
 
Oh yeah, GM is also working on HCCI engines that will boost economy by 15%. Others have talked about it but GM has actual test models on the road.

langjie
 
This is for everyone. Who was the first auto manufacturer to build a fuel cell car with more than 300 mile range? Guess who it wasn't? It wasn't Toyota, it wasn't Honda, it wasn't BMW. It wasn't Nissan.
 
Oh my, it was GM and in an SUV no less. 1487 is correct, GM has a fleet of Equinoxes which are fuel cell vehicles. They were the first to go over 300 miles, and guess what in the real world. Highways, city streets, the whole nine yards. Airconditioning running, 75-80 mph blasts.
 
I hope diesel cars are in California by 2009, but I am not holding my breath. I would just love a diesel Avalanche. I hope all the manufacturers can meet the requirements. Just right now, noone has met the California requirements, and they only get worse.
 
By the way, BMW and Mercedes are smart. They looked at the Toyota version of hybrids, looked at GM's two-mode, and guess what they chose? The two-mode. As I said before, the next few years should be exciting.

unfortunate thing is, fuel cells are seen as the future, but the future keeps on getting pushed back and back and back. forgive me if i don't find it impressive for a company to build stuff for the future while their lineup now isn't all that impressive (with regards to fuel economy). there are a lot of short comings to fuel cell technology, the biggest being, hydrogen (how to create it, how to transport it, etc).
 
i'm all for fuel cells if they can make it viable, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be improving the ICE.
 
1487, you're blaming honda for not creating v8's? can't you give credit to honda for not introducing v8's into their lineup instead? it's not a good excuse to say that their v8's would suck too if they built them...the point is that they aren't building them.

But you were praising the Honda FCX as the future and how wonderful it was. I guess since Honda has one car, the Civic, which gets really good gas mileage, you can say how wonderful their fuel cell vehicles are.
 
Doesn't matter that the range of their FCX is about 2/3 of the GM fuel cell vehicle. That is the height of hypocrisy. You can't criticize GM efforts, especially when they are ahead of the company you praise. Really far ahead. The FCX doesn't go more than 200 miles in range.
 
Face it, GM is criticized because they are GM. But when you really look, their midsize, fullsize, trucks and SUVs get the same or better mileage than anyone else. Have you seen the blog regarding the steering issue. Looks like the editor bias is finally being attacked for what it is. Have a great day, we will be paying attention.

i never praised the fcx. that was 1487 maybe
 
i did, however, praise the chevy volt in another blog

langjie
 
You were correct, you did not praise the FCX, BimmerJay did. I apologize profusely. I sometimes think I am the only person who is really excited about all the potential changes in the future.
 
With all the challenges ahead in the future, it still is a great time to be an auto enthusiast. I tip my hat to all auto enthusiasts, even the import fanboys.

When did GM release a fuel cell vehicle?