It's the new naming scheme for retirees, who fancy the idea of being an "active tourer" but who are actually "inactive sofa fillers with bad knees".

Not bad, but unlike the Supra you have a bunch of wrenching to make it happen and sorry but the chassis is not exactly the same. The Supra has a more robustly built rear suspension subframe. The suspension is also different, which is why SC guys swap the coilovers in. And I believe the Soarer has a longer wheelbase.

A gigantic FMIC is stock?

Dude, you should be thankful you got a loaner on an 11-year-old car. I was refused one on my second engine rebuild at 59K.

Your WRX had the same TD04 as the previous generation. Only year for that combo, which was the same as the Legacy GT. U.S. buyers hated it. Boost tapers off dramatically after 4500 because the TD04 is way too small for the EJ25... the VF52 fixed that. BUT. The old car spools at much lower rpm. I've driven a tuned…

It's possible that GM wanted in on the spate of compacts boasting 40 mpg highway. Several of them appeared all at once 2009-2010. GM certainly didn't have any cheap auto transmission or CVT at the time that would let them achieve that figure, so, voila, a long-geared manual with some really horrendous low-resistance…

Was this more complicated than the 2LCV's V12?

The Italians seemed best at these crazy designs. Fiat built a U12 1.5 (two sixes side-by-side) that raced just once. The 451 was the weirdest. It had a 6-cylinder 2-stroke with 12 opposed pistons.

These cars were all built to a Grand Prix formula for 1.5-liter engines in the mid-20s.

No, the long nose D was producing 270+ horsepower by 1956. When Ferrari showed up with its 625 LMs at Le Mans the much smaller four was producing 220 hp. The TRC had sweeter handling but that it didn't do it much good on a long track like Le Man.

I'm pretty sure Saab is in zombie territory now.

Wrong! 2003! Back to Saab school and retake the Saab test!

I really don't see much difference between the Cavalier of 2004 and the Ion. Both used the same mechanicals (same Ecotec, same trans), except the Ion had worse seats (I know from experience), the horrendous Toyota Echo instrument binnacle, and an additional option of an early CVT that was prone to failure. Frankly,…

I think you have to look at the rear decklid for the badge. Maybe the owner's manual has it jotted down... Plymouth had a huge identity crisis throughout most of its existence. Even the very last Neons were sometimes badged Plymouths without any distinguishing features.

I wish I didn't see them. GM took a bland design and made it absolutely hideous. Hands down, this generation is one of the ugliest vehicles GM has ever made. I really do put it up there with the Aztek, 90s Olds 88, Ion, etc.

One thing I hated about this and the Bonneville of the time was the terrible A-pillar design that made for a weirdly tiny side window. Why couldn't GM make the whole window roll down? It was constantly a distraction while driving.

Haha, yes, I remember the Lumi-Vac. I rented one to move to a new apartment. It was truly scary to drive at first. It was like driving an old 70s boat, only from the back seat. Unless you were an orangutan, you could never hope to reach whatever slid or flew to the front of the dashboard.

The FA20 has nearly the same torque rating as Honda's F20C and a broader, more usable powerband to boot. When a turbocharger is actually added to the FA20 it produces about 300 hp/tq in the Japanese market Legacy GT. I don't really consider it a slouch.

Oops, mtdrift is right... it's the especially rare 931. I've seen so many 931s converted to the GT/S look that I forget the stock version has a simple NACA duct on the hood.

The 924S is quite a nice car, and faster than a base 944 (the 944 S with the DOHC engine was quicker). But what Chris has pictured here is the 931, sold as the 924 Turbo. Sort of a different animal. It's like saying the 944 is not that fast then having someone post a twice-as-expensive 944 Turbo S in response. The…