Comments on: High-Mileage Chevy Small-Car in the Offing

By: carLover

carLover — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:05:18 +0000

This is a good move for GM, maybe another plan that can move them to the top spot of car manufacturers again. Autopartswarehouse.com got some tricks and ideas for simple cars to be great-looking. I like GM for their big and bulky rides and this one maybe would be the simplest but cool.

By: EBC Brakes

EBC Brakes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:55:19 +0000

Hey nice article you have here. Can i have this reposted at EBC Brakes? I'll credit this site. Thanks.

-John

By: Bryce

Bryce — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:14:13 +0000

and geos are death traps.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:10:50 +0000

I also defend Honda alot. : ) I just think that GM gets a lot of heat for very silly reasons. Toyota, I would have to say, is not the end all, best, hands down vehicle producer. They are, in many many ways, just like GM. The only reason Toyota never sold very many “gas guzzlers” is because they weren’t that great. small, with not enough horse power. (inneficient as well if I might add. I believe a tahoe will get about 14-15 mpg while a seqouia will get around 12-13 tooling around the city) GM’s cars sucked for a decade or two, that is definetly for sure. THen again, it was really a sad decade for a lot of vehicles. Half of them were death traps. Anyways, from the vehicles I am seeing on the lots and coming off the line in the future, Honda and GM have REALLY stepped up there game. Alot of people would agree. Kelly blue book, edmunds, car and driver, all rank the accord and the malibu above the camry. Though I enjoy the camry’s exterior, its interior is exactly the same as my mom’s ’99 Suburban. Compare that to the fine styling of the other two, it made sense why those 3 sources before mentioned kept bashing on its interior. Finally, TOyota makes good cars, but so does GM, and so do a lot of other automakers. There are reasons that GM and Toyota are neck and neck. They both produce fine vehicles. : )

By: dyke

dyke — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:28:01 +0000

yES THERE ARE CARS GETTINH OVE R 40 mph ,GEO METRO I HAVE GETS 44-47 ,A 3 CYL MOD EL i HAD GOT 50 ,sOI WHY DOES NOT cHEVY REINTRODUCE THAT MODEL?

By: John Dyke

John Dyke — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:34:50 +0000

Why not reintroduve the GEO Metro ? I had a 1992 that got 50 MPH and still drive a 1995 4 dr. Metro that gets 43 city and 48 highway .What is wrong with this picture? Chevy abandoned this car to make more profit on large cars ,So now is time to bring the GEO metro back .I need a new one as the 95 has over 120000 miles ,runs great but need to look ahead . JOHN Dyke

By: Butch

Butch — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:35:57 +0000

Don’t knock the Chevette!! In 1984, you could buy it with the 4cyl. Isuzu diesel and 5spd stick and get almost 54 MPG on the highway…………and that’s with 1984 technology !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they brag about 40 mpg’s in today’s vehicles. Who’s kidding who ??

By: John in Seguin

John in Seguin — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:39:57 +0000

Yeah! I knew they couldn't make the Volt. They would rather make a "40 mpg" version of the Cobalt, but I doubt they can get that much mileage out of it.

It's the kiss of death and not what will cure what ails them.

I like the name.... Chevette. Sounds like a baby Vette.
Why not use that? Oh yeah, that one was used in their disaster of a small car in the 70's.

When you find your horse is dead, it's time to dismount.

By: CardInAustin

CardInAustin — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:51:57 +0000

Hey….is that the new Corvette?!?! I mean, I can barely distinguish between this prototype and the Vette! (sarcasm….smell it?)

Some of this does seem like the typical hype from GM. A company that clearly was very very late to the mpg party (well, at least as far as market commitment is concerned). But if they can produce a better widget and actually get it to market (commercials and press stories are cute, but I want something I can buy), then we are all better off for it. GM can do great things IF they are serious about it….and I am still not entirely convinced of that.

By: kfly

kfly — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:46:48 +0000

hey Bryce, I bet IBM thought the hand built Apple 1 was just an impractical “science project”. I bet Microsoft thought the development of the first Google algorithms was an interesting but impractical “science project”. Welcome to the year 2008 were “science projects” quickly become “reality” in the blink of an eye. leaving top heavy dinosaurs to ponder what just happened.