Link to referenced comparo:

"The problem was that most of them were built for the sake of building them."

If memory serves, it was a pretty damn decent little car, particularly in SRT-6 form. It handled well, it drove smoothly, it had the best build quality of anything with a Chrysler badge up until that point in time, and it had plenty of scoot for what it was. Aesthetic quality is a matter of opinion, but I liked them,…

Hardibird,

You can keep Kate Upton; or swap her out for Brooklyn Decker. Otherwise, I'll just take the Enterprise.

Why thank you! I'm going to look at the focus and escape in Sunday!

Styling is subjective. There isn't a particularly exciting, luxurious, or great-handling car in the non-premium midsize car market. The Malibu's fuel economy is actually at the upper end of its class. Cars have been using NASA-developed technologies since the 1970s. Making the same comment twice or using ALL CAPS…

The myth of Japanese cars' superior reliability these days is precisely that - a myth. Granted, it's one that they like to perpetuate, but quite honestly, at this point, they have no significant edge over any of the competition. Even GM can match it. The Koreans can sometimes (but not always) do it a lower cost, but…

On the bright side, that old model was so bad that it didn't actually get any worse with age.

I agree. I know that the Malibu and other cars like it do little to interest the "enthusiasts" around here, but as it was never meant to, I see no reason to arbitrarily knock it. It was designed to do something different, and as long as it does it well, I'm good with it.

Several things here:

Actually, the ironic thing is that GM is actually, in a sense, looking to decrease the profitability from the Malibu and the Impala. In the past, a huge chunk of the profit for those lines came from fleet sales, something they are desperately to trying to change. If they can do anything to repair that image, they seem…

Easy, Orlove.

Oh, that Malibu.

I admit to not having seen that link at the bottom. I'll own that one.

Even so, try maintaining that environment in a tunnel runs underneath 400 miles of Grade-A Prime California earthquake territory. I'm not an engineer, so I could very well be wrong, but that sounds pretty damn tough to do.

Would Cameron Diaz care beyond simply thinking it was kind of cool and convenient?

From the standpoint of the semantics of pure logic, you're absolutely correct. From the standpoint of the reality in which we live, you are flat out incorrect. We do not take precautions if we do not perceive there to be a risk. And, conversely, just because we do not perceive their to be risk and therefore do not…

I don't know what you're reading, then, as the abstract that I quoted for you very clearly does a lot more to support Mate's stance than it does yours.

Re-read. In this case, the abstract: