>Jeez, dude, you seem to be taking this awfully personally.
>

I'm really not. But I'm terminally frustrated over the few people left that
seem to feel a sports car can't be a sports car without a huge engine to back
it up. We live in the 21st century, and automotive technology has come a long
way. Admittedly, Chevrolet has come a long way in 30 years, and they've turned
a fairly primitive engine into a respectable performance product. I don't think
that this makes turbocharging a bad idea though, and I personally don't feel
like it's a gimmick technology pushed on Americans who don't know any better.

>More obsession with 0-60 times. How does it handle? How communicative
>is the steering? How is its near-limit behavior? Is it
>confidence-inspiring in the twisties? There's more to a car than how
>fast it goes in a straight line.

I agree. Which is why I've used the Legacy 2.5 and WRX STi as examples. They
represent two of the best cars avaliable right now in their respective classes.
Not only are they far quicker than most of the others, they handle, ride and
stop better than most of them too. Of course, for quite some time, handling was
not the strong suit of the Corvette either. And even with the C5s, only Z51
equipped coupes or Z06s were really capable of holding their own aganist the
imports from a handling perspective.

>Um, I would say that comparing a car against a *Pontiac* is setting
>one's sights a bit low, eh?
>

Not in this case. The new GTO is actually a Holden, an Australian GM that's
generally receieved positive reviews in it's home market. It also happens to be
powered by a version of the 350 that's also powered Corvettes, Camaros and
Firebirds.
Steve Grauman