Testing LLNW channel video:

"O, just the sedan?"

Whenever there's a sedan and a coupe of a model, the coupe always gets the attention. And why not? It's always usually the prettiest one. In some model lineups (I'm lookin' at you BMW) the coupe gets the damn-I-should-have-got performance package standard, and it's always only an option on the sedan.

This one's a little different though. It's my favorite type of car - a Q-ship. An inconspicuous, boring-looking car but with all the goodies underneath. This one's a 2004 Infiniti G35 sedan, however with the optional '6MT' package: limited-slip diff, performance suspension (similar to the G35 coupe), and the aero kit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't have the upgraded 280-HP VQ engine like in the G35 coupe, but rather the standard 260-HP unit in the G35 sedan. Still, none the less, it was a 'secret' performance package that few buyers were aware of.

I'm not a race-car driver. I haven't mastered any of the necessarily skills for performance driving. However, I think it's nice to try and pick-out certain peculiarities between different kinds of cars. I'll admit I haven't driven a lot of fast cars - however one of the reasons I love the G35 is because it's so good, you can feel the differences. Especially in everyday driving.

Aggressive evasive maneuvers feel possible in this car. The limited slip always manages to add more steering control at higher speeds. Brakes are excellent and with good feel. The best part is the part that it's a stick. The VQ engine family is one of my favorite engine families in all of the auto industry - but to get the most of it, it needs a stick. The VQ is known to be torquey, it is. It pulls in every considerable normal everyday traffic situation. However, the VQ is known to be a peaky, it does lose it's stride (especially on late-night highway pulls)

Nissan's 6-speed manual, shifted properly, solves most of these issues, while highlighting all the VQ's bright spots. It makes the car a joy to drive, and a great driver's car. It's definitely the transmission the engineers had in mind when designing the drivetrain. The automatic had to be an after-thought. I think any normal everyday driver with a little leaning towards performance will appreciate all the sporty attributes of this car. The RWD architecture does allow you to steer with your right foot, however RWD w/ a limited-slip isn't so great for snow.

The interior is certainly step up from other Nissan sedans of that era (1999-2005, the NRP/Nissan 180 era). It's important to remember that Nissan was just beginning to realize that in order to sell cars at luxury prices, you needed to have luxury cars. It isn't Audi/Mercedes/BMW standards, not even Lexus, but close. I'd say Acura-standards of the time.

The interior isn't a bad place to spend your time with the car. The build quality is actually pretty good, with a noticeable attention to tolerances. Still, I don't like how it shares the same window switches and turn staulks as a Nissan Sentra. The Bose stereo isn't quite as clear and punchy as I'd like, but I was never impressed with Bose products anyway. Seats are comfy and a little supportive, and the reclining seats in the rear is a charming touch.

In short, maybe the G35 sedan isn't the performance equal of it's coupe brother. Yet, it has enough room to seat 5 and their luggage, and NOT make it's driver look like a boy racer like every G35 coupe does. In this case, maybe the sedan version isn't so bad after all.

Mustangs, Camaros, and vapormetal.

I know it may seem as if the Big Three isn't doing anything right, but there's something that I can think of that they absolutely excel at: cheap performance. That's bang for your buck, instant-grin, maybe not-so-perfect, excellent price/performance ratio vehicles. Currently, I'd say it's the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang.

However, which is the better two?

Thing is, I admit I'm a Detroit Muscle guy. They're one of my favorite types of cars. Big and gasoline-slurping, but can't you beat that sound.

That leads me to my next point. Which do I choose?

Probably my biggest complaint about the Camaro is the fact that it completely copied the Mustang yet again. They killed it off, then they decided to bring it back once they realized there really was a market for it - just like in 1967. When I first heard the rumors all over the interwebz about another GM F-body, I was one of the few who actually wished for a 'non-retro' design. I admit the design does look quite awesome anyway, but I kinda would have wanted to see what GM's designers would have come up with if they actually, you know, designed. It wouldn't hurt to have an original, new, distinctly American/GM design for a change.

The new Mustang's refresh for 2010 definitely struck me at first, but I'm still not sure if I like it or not. It's kinda like they tried to appease the retro-design lovers, while trying to appeal to the non-retro camp. I still love it just because it's a Mustang, but I don't know if I would rank it among the, maybe top 5 Mustang designs over the years.

Still we can't judge books by their covers, right? What's the most important part? The engine!

Let's see. I'm not going to bother comparing the GT500 and it's numerous variants, and the top of the line SS, which will probably have some sort of monster LS7 engine, mostly because I believe, while awesome and spectacular and such - anyone could do a lot better with $45-50,000 than to blow it on a Pony car.

So let's stick with debating the mid-level V8's in these models, mostly because that's probably all I could afford.

For 2010, Ford has massaged additional horsepower from their tried and true 4.6 Liter 'Modular' 3V V8 engine. The 2005-2009 GT's had 300 HP and 320 lb/ft of torque, while the 2010 has 315 HP and 325 lb/ft of torque. Not a bad increase. The 2010 Mustang GT, with the aforementioned engine has a mileage return of 15 City/23 Highway with a manual transmission. The Mustang GT starts at $27,995, an increase over the last generation's price.

One thing that still disappoints me is that Ford is still pushing their lower V6 model Mustang as the base/rental-special, while keeping most of the goodies for the big bad V8. The 2010 V6 Mustang gets an anemic 210 HP and 240 lb/ft of torque. Not fun for a car with a ~3500 curb weight. What I think Ford should explore, is alternative engine options for the Mustang. Maybe to broaden the market, but I think mostly to keep the name alive. I'm not begging for a Hybrid yet, but in these times, a high-power V6 with better fuel economy is much more attractive. They tried this in the 1980's (with a turbocharged 4-cylinder model called the SVO), but the concept didn't fly - but could very well now.

Which leads me to actually consider a Camaro. If anything, GM realizes the value of that concept by not offering a lower-end and ancient base engine, but by stuffing the 3.6 Liter DI V6 with 300 HP from the Cadillac CTS. I hear it's a beast of an engine that actually returns decent numbers, given the power. It's supposed to start at $22,995 with this engine (OK, I have to see it to believe it), which is around $2000 more than the base V6 Mustang starting point.

Of course, there wasn't Hall without Oates, so of course there wouldn't be a 'real' Camaro without a V8. GM still realizes the value of giving more for less by giving us the base Corvette's 6.2 OHV V8 as the mid-spec option. This would give GM a suitable Z/28 and/or base SS to compete against Ford's Mustang GT and 'in-between' variants (like the Bullitt or the probably-cancelled Boss models). However, at $30,995, GM's last hope starts at around $2000 more than Ford.

Which to choose? I don't know. I guess it would come down to how they both drive. However, a bigger concern is the fact that, as Jalopnik.com says, were in the midst of the Carpocalypse. Ford seems to have began delivery of the 2010 Mustangs, while, as I've always complained about before - all we still see are concepts, pre-productions, drawings, and bad promotional sites. Where's the actual car? Mustang sales took a dive the past 2-3 months, but they are still selling. GM does not have a suitable car at all to compete in the same segment as the Mustang until their vapormetal Camaro comes out. I will keep saying this until the actual car does come out. Hell, the Grim Reaper is practically banging at Chrysler's door - and they were still able to bring out their overpriced and underperforming pony car, why not GM?

OK, maybe the affordable sports coupe market isn't that huge - but seriously, any sales should be looked at as good sales over at the Renaissance Center. Just need to get those cars out, Ma General.

First Post.

Hello. I suppose the first post has to be something about, right?

My name is Josh, and I love Cars. Always have. Ever since I was 3 or 4, I was able to name the manufacturer of each car. Pretty impressive, I know. 

I also read a lot of Car press. Doing so, I do have quite an opinion about the car industry and I needed a place to post all that stuff. 

So here.