I hope they get it ironed out for you Bill h.I have been lucky knock on wood.My Malibu has 9000something miles and no issues.My 05 Buick went through the warranty period with no issues.I just bought a GMPP to cover it for 4 more years I like that car and plan to keep it.I just traded my old 1994 Buick Regal work car with 142000 miles for a used 1999 Buick Century with 80,000 miles. My parents have a 05 Buick Teraza that has had issues.It now has 34,000 miles and goes in Friday for a Check engine light issue.They had to order the part EGR valve to solve this issue.They had a rattle clunky sound awhile back from the front.Turned out to be the rubber bushings were worn at less then 30,000 miles.They also have tire ware issues.There remote sliding door sometimes does not close completly.Plus a few other things early on.There not real happy with the van.I mentioned they should consider a GMPP if they plan to keep it.I think they just might need it.I bought one on my 05 just for piece of mind.Hope I never need to use it.

Golf rebadge proves Rabbit didn't die After two years of waiting and wondering, Canadians finally get a chance at the new Golf and it's not even a new Golf ... it's a new Rabbit. The Rabbit was beaten to Canada by the new GTI, which will also carry its own identity rather than also tie it to the Golf (of which both are versions). A 5-door GTI is available as of July 2006. It was 1984 when the Volkswagen Rabbit was last marketed in Canada to coincide with the change in Golf generations. The Golf has been one of the best-selling nameplates in history and will undoubtedly continue, since the Rabbit is simply a rebadge only for North America (as it was between 1975 and 1984). The reason is that VW wanted to capture some of the nostalgia of the name, but in the process it also brings the car appeal to a younger audience. VW Canada originally projected sales of 4,500 cars through to the end of the 2006, but is already adjusting its projections upwards under the knowledge of initial demand, and an aggressive lease strategy. There are several exclusivities to Rabbit, including the 2.5-litre 5-cylinder engine that isn't available to Golf (but is also dropped into Jetta), and its being sourced out of Wolfsburg (most of Canada's Golfs were made in Mexico). The engines continue to be sourced out of Mexico, which means they'll rack up the frequent flyer miles since they get shipped to Germany to be bolted in cars that then enter Canada through Halifax. VW Canada's Executive VP, John White says there is no import gains realized in relation to Free Trade. Rabbit comes to Canada in 3-door and 5-door hatchback bodystyle, all powered by the 150-hp 2.5 20-valve inline-5. Power delivery to the front wheels is entrusted to 5-speed manual or an optional 6-speed automatic with Tiptronic sequential mode. That allows the automatic to actually attain better fuel economy, due to the extra gear and the capability to short-shift. Both transaxles feature gears that take good advantage of the engine's power bands, meaning progressive acceleration. The manual's crisp shifter and smooth clutch make for very relaxed driving. As with any VW, the cars are stocked with an abundance of safety assists, including anti-lock brakes, traction control (ASR, for anti-slip regulation), and electro-mechanical steering assist, which VW claims is nearly an active steering system. A fully independent suspension grants a typically solid Golf ride, soaking up just about any severity of broken pavement. Handling is relatively stable and there isn't any reason to believe the new Rabbit won't adopt the Golf trait of lifting the rear inside wheel on tight, high-speed corners. Standard equipment includes semi-automatic climate control (you can set the temperature and it the system will maintain it, but the fan speed and vent location are manual), power windows, locks and mirrors, height-adjustable driver's seat, active head restraints, and front side-impact airbags and full side curtain-airbags. The 5-door Rabbit adds 8-way adjustable front seats, upgraded centre console with adjustable armrest, and a rear armrest with pass-through for the 60/40 split folding seatback. Popular options include the 6-speed automatic, stability control (ESP), a power sunroof, 16-inch alloy wheels, rear side-impact airbags (5-door only), in-dash 6-CD changer, and heated front seats and washer nozzles. An iPod plug-in is available later in 2006. http://www.autonet.ca/Spotlight/NewModels/story.cfm?story=/Spotlight/NewModels/2006/06/15/1634865.html

" Is it nuts to hold onto an old car?" Not no but He@@ NO! Whats nuts is buying a new car. First off, the only time you ever get a chance to drive a "New Car" is that brief period at the dealership when they allow you a test drive. During the test drive the car is still registered under the dealers "In Transit Title" and it is legally a new car. The moment the title is put in your name and you sign the document it becomes a "Used Car" and the value instantly drops from the MSRP window sticker to the "Blue Book Price" even before you attach your license plates or start the motor the first time. What is really nuts is taking a cash rebate instead of demanding they take that number off the selling price. Consider the facts. They artificially inflate the price by $2,000 and offer you a $2k rebate which you are to receive after the sale. You negotiate your best price (which still contains that artificially inflated $2,000) and you sign the contract. You now have two choices, you can write them a check for the full amount or you have to finance the transaction. If you have to finance it, you are now paying interest for the full term of the note on that rebate, even though you will get the money back at closing. Not a bad deal for them, they hold your money for perhaps one day and you pay interest on it for 5 years. Now, when you get insurance you are also paying insurance on that $2,000 rebate that you took back immediately and went shopping for other stuff you probably didn't need. Oh yes, Did I mention that you also payed sales tax on the rebate money tooo. But then it is not all bad, hopefully you don't live in my state where you have to pay an excise tax on the value of your vehicle every year, including that $2,000 artificial markup. Personally, I wouldn't buy a new car if I won the lottery.

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is). I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.). The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children. Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience. As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.