Bepsf has it absolutely correct.
Much better to get it perfect and out on schedule than rough around the edges but ahead of schedule.
Of course, this is GM we're talking about. We'll be lucky if it's rough around the edges and on schedule! Seriously, the last version of the Chevy Cavalier went 10 years (1995-2005) between major updates.

Tasteless and crass!? Surely not!

Korean conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the last generation was pretty handsome. I think the 635 reminiscent features come from the slope of the rear section of the car (the hood). This is a marked step back from the high decklid designs of the late 90s "wedge" school of car design... It'll make the trunk smaller, even without a spare tire (BMW is a big believer in the run-flat tire).

I hadn't realized that LandRovers have been using aluminium for such a long time... I guess the old Grumman trucks used by UPS and the like are probably also aluminium. I guess I was only aware of the big fuss that Audi makes about all their patents for working with aluminium (more than 40, apparently).
The engine components, suspension components, etc are all made by casting the aluminium in molds.

Audi is the one that's really known for pioneering the use of aluminium in car bodies. Apparently, aluminium isn't very easy to work with, preventing body panels from being too complicated or curved. However, they worked out many bugs with their partner (Alcoa's AATS) and I guess this has filtered through to other car companies. Any idea which aluminium producer Tata is partnered with?

Incidentally, Audi were also one of the first companies to galvanize steel bodies. I'm excited about the prospect of Audi A4s with carbon composite bodies...

I'm absolutely with Hector on this one. I can only assume Martan never tried a Honda element (or even a Honda Fit), which both drive better than the PT Cruiser and are even more practical.
The PT Cruiser has the honour of being the rental car I refuse to accept. It's piggish economy, lousy turning circle, terrible suspension, appalling visibility and cheap interior just don't do it for me. In other words, without even considering the love it or hate it looks, it's still a terrible car.

I agree they look great, but I took one for a test drive when they first came out. Lousy driving position, terrible uncommunicative steering, not enough power (I didn't get to try the GXP version, though), and when I pulled the door shut, the interior trim pulled away from the door! It was a brand new car, still on the dealer's lot!
I was profoundly unimpressed. It's a classic case of an uncohesive American car, where the body, chassis, and engine are all designed separately in the hope that they will combine well.

Don't forget KERS, the technology that allows energy from braking to be stored and deployed later. My understanding is that it's a bit like a hybrid system but without the batteries. All the car companies that raced in Formula 1, including BMW, had access to it this year. I think only Ferrari has considered putting it into a road car up to this point, but it's only a matter of time until it becomes more widespread.

It has elements of the Dino, P4/5, McClaren F1 and even a hint of Alfa 8C - absolutely gorgeous. Another note: the power output per litre of engine displacement (normally aspirated) beats that of the Honda S2000, which held that record for a while.

I understand your frustration with previous attempts by manufacturers to half-heartedly claim they could make and sell ZEVs by leasing them. However, I'm not sure why you're so adamant about owning a battery pack. The last thing I want to do is deal with the memory effect and eventual disposal of something that weighs so much and is pretty toxic. Leasing seems fine to me. Even better would be a form of energy storage that didn't make the car intrinsically less efficient (carrying an extra 1000 lbs is not good) and less safe (neither nickel nor lithium is an environmentalist's dream - still at least it isn't mercury!).