> the Park Ave Ultra since the very early 90's that got mid-twenties in > > the
> > city and over 30 on the highway. At the same time the Grand Am got equal
> > mileage. Two ends of a scale in terms of types of cars - one excellent
> > luxury and the other a fairly sporty car for American tastes. They are > > by
> > no means the limit of GM's offerings, just two representative examples. >
> **This is a joke, right? A Grand Ma, sporty?
>
> The Grand Am GT's are very sporty. Especially with the Ram Air hood. My
> sister has an '03, and the thing is rather quick too for a 3400.
It could be fast (in a straight line) as a Corvette and it still wouldn't be sporty. A FWD midsize family car can't be made "sporty" by the addition of ugly plastic cladding and red backlighting for the gauges. A manual transmission option, decent sport seats, and a real handling suspension would be a good place to start. ================================================= Unfortunately the manual transmission was only available on a very few base models, but as for the rest of the car, I consider it sporty. Like Mike said, it isn't a "sports car", but I do consider it a sporty car. As for the red backlighting for the gauges, that has nothing to do with the Grand Am. That is a Pontiac tradition, and has been for many many years. It also happens to look incredible at night. My SSEi Bonnie looks like the cockpit of a fighter jet.
================================================= The fact that GM *thinks* that the Grand Am is sporty is also why people who want sporty cars don't think of GM as an option. =================================================
I disagree. Take a look at the Corvette, and Camaro.
> Maybe we are talking two different things here. I'm not talking about > > the
> > smallest possible thing you can mount on 4 wheels. Those cars all suck, > > no
> > matter who they are from. They ride like crap, are under powered, and > > feel
> > like junk when you sit in them. Why would anyone want that kind of
> > offering when you've been able to match or beat the mileage of those > > pieces
> > of junk, with a decent sized car?
>
> > Notwithstanding the hybrids, just how many of those Toyotas and Hondas > > and
> > Hyundais, et al, smoked GM on the mileage ratings? Do you really even > > know
> > what GM cars got for mileage over the past 10-15 years?
>
> **Nope, nor do I care. I can't remember the last time I drove a GM car
> **that didn't piss me off in some regard.
> **(thinks)
> **OK, I do recall. It was when I borrowed a Malibu while my Impala was
> **in the shop. The 'bu was actually fairly decent, although bland as
> **vanilla pudding.
>
> And I think the same about Porsches'. It's called opinions. You like
> Porsche and Volkswagen's. Personally, I wouldn't own either if you paid me
> too. Not because they are not reliable, but because they are ugly.
> Different people have different opinions, views, and experiences.
> Unfortunately the Impala you drive happens to be a complete lemon. Most GM
> vehicles are not.
It's not really a *lemon* per se, it's just an awful car. A complete ergonomic disaster, and loud as hell and slow to boot. It could get
90 mpg and I'd still want to trade it in. ================================================= And as I have stated before, the problems you have with the car (beside's comfort) are not something all Impala's are affected by. I have several family members who own them, and love them. As for comfort, that is in each's mind. What you find comfortable, I may find uncomfortable, and vise versa.