2011 Chrysler 200 Convertible Limited

I know Chrysler significantly upgraded this 2011 Chrysler 200 Convertible Limited after the bankruptcy, and I also know it's an interim model meant to maintain sales while an entirely new midsize car is brought to market. But the 200 just isn't a competitive vehicle, even in hardtop convertible form, and even with the new Pentastar V6.

Full disclosure: I had the 200 convertible on a murky, cold, rainy night (and morning) in Detroit, so I was stuck with the top closed--never an ideal situation in which to evaluate the merits of a cabriolet. With the top up, the 200 was noticeably tight, with a solid-sounding body structure and no trace of water leakage.

The flaws were in the details. The shifter slid in its gate with a plastic-on-plastic scrape. The autolock mechanism on the doors sounded like cell block H bolting closed for the night. Even the vaunted Pentastar V6 engine was coarse and poorly insulated in this application.

My girlfriend in high school often borrowed her mother's 1988 Chrysler LeBaron convertible for us to tool around the Atlanta suburbs in. While my memories of that car may be artificially rosy, I was surprised at how much the 2011 Chrysler 200 convertible reminded me that old K-car ragtop--the feel of the controls, the rough edges, the raspy engine. It was all there.

I'm always up for a trip down memory lane, but I doubt that most buyers shopping $35,000 convertibles will be as forgiving.

This car is a step up from the one it replaced in the Chrysler lineup, and that's about all the good you can say about it. It looks better; the interior is a couple of steps up as far as looks and materials. But the suspension is not up to par, crashing over bumps and wobbling through corners. God help you if you happen to have to move the steering wheel while in a fast corner. This suspension does not like to be upset.

The V6 is anemic, with barely enough oomph to get up to freeway speed from an on-ramp. You learn quickly to mash the throttle hard at your earliest just in case there's a big truck bearing down on you.

I give Chrysler props for working to make the old Sebring better. It's a good attempt, but it just didn't quite make it. At $35,000, I'd look elsewhere for my top-down ride.

As the other guys noted, the 2011 Chrysler 200 Convertible Limited is definitely a step up from the previous generation, but still has a ways to go.

The exterior is mostly unchanged. It still has the stubby, squared back end and still sits up too high for me. I never disliked the front end, but the new shape of the headlights and the LEDs make it much better.

I'm still pretty sure there are few cars that look good with a convertible hardtop. The Ferrari California is one, and I think that's it. On this car, like the other 95 percent, its lines are thrown off by the back window coming into the trunk. It's the same on the BMW 3-series convertible. Not that this car looked stunning from the get go, anyway.

The interior though, is another story. I thought it was a huge step up from the previous models. The black leather seats were comfy, the center part of the dash was covered in piano black, and I didn't even think the analog clock looked out of place. It sports the same easy-to-use radio/navigation system as the rest of the brand.

Power felt low from the Pentastar V6, which is probably attributed to the near 4,000-pound curb weight. You do have to get on the gas early and often if you want to keep speed.

2012 Nissan Altima 2.5 S sedan

I came out of perhaps our most ostentatious vehicle--the Ford Transit Connect Taxi--into our most invisible: a 2012 Nissan Altima 2.5 S sedan. With cloth seats and a continuously variable transmission, it's pure bread-and-butter transportation.

It had been a few years since I'd driven an Altima, and I can see now why Nissan keeps selling these things in droves (other than incentives, that is): It's a good car. Comfortable, roomy, quiet and reasonably powerful--piloting the Altima was an exercise not so much in driving as in commuting, being transported home isolated from, noise, detritus and my fellow man.

Sporty? Not a chance. But the Altima did everything well. Nissan still has the best CVT integration in the business, and the Altima's 'box went about its business with minimal intrusion. Acceleration was decent, and the brakes had a ton of initial bite followed by good pedal modulation.

The overall impression was one of superb competence. The Nissan Altima will never be at the top of my must-drive lists, nor will it be my next vehicle. But this car is what a vast majority of American drivers are looking for in daily transportation, and Nissan has done an admirable job of keeping it near the top of its class.

So far, Nissans have not impressed me much. The Nissan 370Z and the GT-R are exceptions, because, let's face it, those cars are just plain fun. But I digress.

When grabbing the keys for this Altima, my expectations were low, really low. I hypothesized that this car would be chintzy, boring, loud and rough riding. Few of my thoughts were proved to be true; for the most part, I'll easily admit, I was way off.

While the Altima's exterior is far from exciting, it's also far from ugly. The optional moonroof wind deflector is incredibly distracting. But other than that, the Altima provides what a majority of car buyers need--a basic design that serves most purposes.

On the road, this car performs well. It provides a smooth, quiet ride. The CVT almost goes unnoticed, and I got up to speed without a hitch. The cabin provides a comfortable environment, and while the layout and materials are pretty cut and dried, Nissan still added a bit of flair with wood-grain accents, adding a bit of upscale style.

All in all, this Altima didn't completely turn me around on Nissans, but it did start the rotation.

SENIOR ART DIRECTOR CHERYL L. BLAHNIK: The first thought that popped into my mind when I got into this 2012 Nissan Altima 2.5 S sedan was rental car. It's not a bad-looking car, but it's a far cry from an exciting car.

However, this Altima is a solid all-around car. Ride quality on the expressway and around town is smooth, and the four-cylinder powertrain is up to task for daily running. The interior has comfortable seats but is basic in styling.

The as-tested price of this car makes me cringe because it's approaching $28,000, but this one is heavily optioned. For a commuter car, I have no problems with the Altima, but I definitely wouldn't want to own one. If I'm going to spend a couple of hours a day in a car, I want it to be a little entertaining. Unfortunately, this Nissan doesn't offer that.

2012 Scion iQ

I am somewhat predisposed to like dinky cars. OK, not even somewhat. I like the things. The B-class takeover of the lower end of the market was something I looked forward to and continue to look forward to with every new model that comes out.

I appreciate efficiency, especially if it can come attached to fun. A go-kart is the best example of that. So when I first saw a multicolored fleet of Scion iQs hanging on the wall above the Toyota stand at the Tokyo motor show two years ago--or was it Frankfurt 2007? Geneva 2008? Is it Tuesday? Is this Belgium?-- I thought, hey, those things look cool.

I still think they look cool, and though the 2012 Scion iQ has many good things going for it, unfortunately being fun to drive is not one of them. Sure, you could easily blame the CVT, which could suck the life out of a Ferrari. When it's bolted into the drivetrain of a 1.3-liter I4 driving the front wheels, that awfulness is only exaggerated. Granted, the 94 hp has only 2,127 pounds to pull around, so the weight-to-power ratio sits at a lugubrious 22.5 pounds per hp. Add a driver and passenger of skinny proportions, and that figure leaps to almost 26 pounds per hp. Then when you add the CVT to that burden, it just makes you want to take the bus. A couple of 0-to-60-mph launches on an empty street yielded 10.7 seconds, which is not really sporty.

The MacPherson-strut front and torsion-beam rear also don't preclude a fun drive but didn't seem to bring the iQ to life in my hands as it does other B-class cars that are bigger. Scion lists the turning circle at 25.8 feet, about five feet shorter than your average "car," though when I measured it myself on the outside of the front tires, I got 27 feet, 2 inches. Combined with the car's clownlike 78.7-inch wheelbase, I found myself falling off curbs a lot when backing out of driveways. I haven't had such an awkward time maneuvering since high school.

Braking was similarly weird. While the pedal feel and linear stopping felt perfectly normal, when I suction-cupped the Racelogic test gear to the windshield and tried braking from 60 mph on the same piece of flat pavement, I got 131.2 feet, 116.7 feet and 126.4 feet. So either the test equipment is screwy or the car is screwy. Or me. Could be any of the three.

The EPA rates this at 36 mpg city/37 mpg highway/37 mpg combined, which is good but not the spectacular figure you'd expect given all of the size you give up with this. I got one fill up of 3.011 gallons after 118.5 miles for 39.4 mpg of mostly freeway driving. But you can get 40 mpg in all kinds of cars that have more room, cost the same or even less, have a real back seat and are more fun to drive.

Scion officially calls this a 3+1 or a 3.5-seater. That's a clever way of saying, "Adios, legs" if you sit in the back seat. With a normal-size driver in front, the back seat is for bags of groceries only. So if you have a family of four with two small children, even they will not be happy in back.

On Los Angeles' notoriously bumpy freeways the ride was choppy. The short wheelbase combined with what feels like a stiffer setup to counter the tall car's lean makes it bounce all over the place.

This car is not as bad as the obvious competitor, the Smart Fortwo, which is the worst car on the market bar none, but the iQ is not as good as it could be. Put in a manual transmission and most of the iQ's sins could be forgiven.

For $16,000, there are any number of alternatives that are fun to drive and far more practical. The Chevrolet Sonic with a turbo and a manual and the Hyundai Accent manual wagon come to mind. Scion says this is for young urban dwellers. Maybe stylish urbanites will like it? I hope so, because if the iQ sticks around for a few model years, maybe they'll put a manual transmission in it. Or an electric drivetrain, which is coming next year but for fleet sales only.

I would like Scion to fix this car so it's fun to drive and maybe even a little less expensive. Sounds like I'm asking too much, but so might the market.

2012 Mazda 3 Skyactiv

Three months ago, we got to drive some riveted-together Mazda 6 mules with Skyactiv gasoline and diesel technologies beneath the hood. Those showed promise even in the larger, heavier Mazda 6 bodies. Now we've had a chance to drive a production 2012 Mazda 3 with a Skyactiv gasoline engine on a fun mountain road, and we came away even more impressed.

Skyactiv is Mazda's new approach to automotive efficiency. The heart of the 2012 Mazda 3 models we drove was their new high-compression Skyactiv gasoline direct-injection fours. Using direct injection, reduced back pressure and a number of other technologies, Mazda engineered this system to operate at a compression ratio of 14:1. That's unheard of in a mass-produced compact car. Even the Ferrari 458 Italia has only a 12.5:1 compression ratio. However, U.S.-spec Mazda 3s with Skyactiv will get only a 12:1 compression ratio because of two factors:

1. There's no room in the current Mazda 3 body to fit the requisite longer exhaust headers.

2. We Americans insist on using regular gasoline in everything, all the time.

Nonetheless, even at 12:1, the 2.0-liter four goes from 148 peak hp to 155 hp, while torque increases 10 percent to a 148-lb-ft peak and goes up 15 percent in mid and low ranges. Fuel economy goes up by 21 percent to 28 mpg city/40 mpg highway with the six-speed automatic.

Both six-speed manual and six-speed automatic transmissions are thoroughly revamped for more efficiency, too.


The 2012 Mazda 3 starts out as one of the most fun-to-drive cars in the compact class, and this one adds more power and quicker shifting to that equation. Power and torque bands are wide and flat, with power available almost all across the tach. The 155-hp peak comes at 6,000 rpm, but there's plenty of torque below that.

The fact that you can get a six-speed manual in this huge seller should garner some kind of medal for Mazda. The fact that the six-speed was reengineered with shorter throws and reduced friction just makes it all the better. It's almost Miata-like. The six-speed automatic is quick, too, with none of the low-speed slogging that accompanies DSGs from Volkswagen and others. A soul-sucking CVT was never considered.

The Mazda 3s we drove remained nicely balanced in the many corners into which we flung them; the 3 is truly one of the leaders in this class for driving glee. Steering feel from the electrohydraulic system (an electric motor powers the hydraulic pump) was direct and relatively tight, another much-appreciated feature.

The ride might seem a bit stiff for those seeking Toyota Corolla-like brain balm, but it felt entirely livable for everyday driving.

Do I want one?

There are seven engine and transmission pairings available with Skyactiv drivetrains (no diesel yet) in both sedan and hatchback body styles. There are even more powertrain combinations outside the Skyactiv line.

The base 2012 Mazda 3 with the old 2.0-liter MZR four, which does not have Skyactiv, can be had for just $15,995. Skyactiv comes with enough standard features to increase the price to $19,245. Above that in horsepower but without Skyactiv, the 2.5-liter four is still available, and at the top of the heap is the all-conquering Mazdaspeed 3 for about $24,000. So there are a lot of Mazda 3s out there.

The Skyactiv technology almost certainly will be adopted by other carmakers as a way to meet ever-increasing fuel-economy standards. Mazda is to be congratulated for bumping mileage up and still making cars that are fun to drive.

2011 Audi A5 2.0 TFSI Premium Plus Coupe

It seems to me that the 2011 Audi A5 coupe is the best-looking Audi aside from the hardtop R8. It has the purposeful nose of the brand with only two doors and the swoopy roofline. When it came out I was immediately impressed. The new wheel choices that debuted for 2011 nicely set the exterior package off.

The base price is about where you would expect it, at just less than $40,000. The Premium Plus trim adds some convenience features, but nothing I couldn't live without. However, I would miss the xenon headlights, but that's about it.

The Sport package is a must. It adds the sport suspension, big wheels and sport seats. If you only checked that box, you could get out of the dealership for less than $40,000. It does surprise me that you can't get a V6 in the A5 anymore. The turbocharged 2.0-liter does its job well, and the gas-mileage bonus is probably worth the drop in power. The A5 never felt sluggish, but a bit more grunt would have been welcomed. At least the coupe gets either the manual or the eight-speed automatic, and not the CVT like the A5 cabriolet.

On the subject of transmissions, this one has the six-speed manual. The throws seem long and a little sloppy. The second-to-third shift in particular seems difficult to hit with any sort of gusto. Lots of elbow movement. The clutch pedal has a lot of travel, too. I moved the seat up so my left foot could hit the floor, which put me pretty close to the wheel.

Other than that, it's a comfortable ride. Even over the potholes on way home, the car wasn't upset. The sport suspension is stiff but doesn't beat you up. The steering is sharp as a tack. There are only a few curves on my commute home, but the A5 ate them up. I wish I had a bit more time with the Audi coupe, and a longer ride home.

The A5 remains my favorite Audi of the present lineup, and if we're talking S5, I honestly think I would rather have that car than even an R8.

Even without the S5's V8 and smoking bag of performance goodies, this 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder is a fun and fine engine to power what I still think is one of the best-looking cars on the road. However, for the first time in recent memory, I detected a fair hint of what seemed like turbo lag, though it might be that the throttle tip-in is simply not responsive, just as we've encountered in other Audis from time to time. Your right foot's movement does not result in an immediate forward punch, which my brain processed as turbo lag. Perhaps it is throttle-response lag, though.

Overall, the 2.0-liter is a smooth engine and is well liked by many, but I do wish there was a powerplant option between this and the S5's direct-injection V8. The chassis can certainly handle much more power, and I think it's a shame that performance-biased drivers have to look at other manufacturer's offerings if they desire more power than the A4/A5 delivers. I would certainly find myself doing so, even though the A5's style--inside and out--is one of my favorites.

I am a fan of almost any car built in Germany, especially if it wears the Audi badge. So I approached the A5 with high expectations, and the sporty coupe didn't disappoint.

The A5 drew me from the moment I laid my eyes on it. As Jake pointed out, it has that definitive Audi nose and swoopy roofline. The sport package's 19-inch wheels make the A5 look even better.

The inside is typical Audi with quality materials, comfortable seats, great technology and a driver-friendly layout. I, like Jake, had to move the seat forward to fully depress the clutch. This is something I've come to expect from all Audis with a manual gearbox. I think the seating position in the A5, just as in our long-term S4, is perfect for my driving style. It allows me enough room to be comfortable but provides me with that up-on-the-wheel seating position I love.

But I don't understand why Audi put back seats in the car. Only a small child could sit in the back seat comfortably, even after I moved my seat up. The only thing I foresee the back seats being good for is hauling my hockey bag and goalie pads to and from the rink.

I think Mac is spot on with throttle-response lag. It is there regardless of how much, or how little, you move your right foot. Thankfully, the 2.0-liter four-cylinder has enough power to get you going when the lag passes. But I still found myself longing to drive the S5 variant with the V8.

All in all, I greatly enjoyed my time in the A5. It's a great car for a reasonable price that I wouldn't mind adding to my garage one day. The A5 is my favorite car built by Audi.

Sorry to make this sound like a broken record, but I'm an Audi A5/S5 coupe fan, too. The lines on the car are both simple and seductive. Everything flows together so well, from the integration of the Audi's company grille to the simple bodylines. It's a great-looking coupe.

On top of that, it's a hell of a driver. As Jake points out, Audi doesn't offer the V6 in the A5 anymore, leaving the turbocharged four-cylinder as the sole engine option--which isn't terrible because it's a great engine. Some people might have a problem dropping more than $40,000 for something packing “only” a four-cylinder, but with fuel-economy figures becoming more vital, you probably should get used to your luxury coupe or sedan being powered by a four-banger.

As pointed by others, there is a slight hesitation before the engine comes alive to offer a healthy surge of power. I'm going to say it is turbo lag instead of a lazy throttle tip-in. Get past that, and this engine moves this near-3,600-pound vehicle with no problems, especially when you can wind it up with the six-speed manual at hand. The gearbox is fluid and easy to use; I had no problems grabbing gears at anytime.

Even with the sport suspension, I have to give the BMW 3-series coupe the nod when it comes to dynamics. Steering on the Audi is light and responsive but not quite up to that of the BMW. The A5 is still fun to throw around and it responds admirably and can certainly handle more power as we've experience in the S5. And there is a RS5 over in Europe that needed to come to the U.S. yesterday. The brakes are strong with solid pedal feel.

From a ride-comfort standpoint, the A5 is better than the BMW with its harsher suspension setup and awful run-flat tires. For a daily sports coupe, the Audi would be in my garage over the BMW. The Audi delivers performance that you can exploit on a daily basis without being hauled off to jail (well, at least too easily), looks spectacular and boasts an interior that's comfortable and well built.

As Morrison said (and I'm shocked that I agree with him on anything), the A5 is a fine Audi--arguably the best-looking car Audi makes. If you can get your head around paying more than $42,000 for a four-cylinder-powered car, you should love this thing.

The 2.0-liter four is simply a great engine--plenty of power and torque, and it's smooth. Like Morrison, I'm sure the chassis could handle much more power, but unlike him I find this to be the near-perfect combo of power, balance and weight distribution. There's a stability to the way Audis drive that few other cars can match. There's a high grip level, and the ride motions are well damped.

The interior is stylish and well built, as one has grown to expect from Audi.

As I said, if spending more than $42,000 on a four-cylinder doesn't bother you, this is a terrific place to start looking.

2011 Audi A5 2.0 TFSI Premium Plus Coupe

Base Price: $37,375

As-Tested Price: $42,655

Drivetrain: 2.0-liter turbocharged I4; AWD, six-speed manual

Output: 211 hp @ 4,300-6,000 rpm, 258 lb-ft @ 1,500-4,200 rpm

Curb Weight: 3,583 lb

Fuel Economy (EPA/AW): 25/23.9

2011 Honda Fit Sport

Almost three years have passed since the Autoweek garage obtained a long-term Honda Fit, and two years after its departure, I feel the same as I did then: practical B-class car, some hints of sportiness, but ultimately it's missing something.

Shopping this class today, I'm looking much more seriously at Ford's hip little Fiesta or Chevrolet's fun-to-drive Sonic. The Fit doesn't match the Ford in the looks department, and based on a brief back-to-back test drive I had in May, it doesn't match the Sonic's relative punch.

What it does do is haul a surprising amount of cargo, rev high and shift well through its five-speed manual gearbox. But our long-standing complaint of no sixth gear remains an issue, as the engine spins high, almost to 4,000 rpm, at freeway speeds and you tire quickly of the accompanying buzz.

It's hard to point a finger at one specific thing, but a drive in the Fit still makes me feel as though there is just something not quite spot-on about the overall experience. Maybe it's the slightly too-light-to-the-touch feel that comes through the controls, and/or maybe it's the road and wind noise, and the sometimes rattly ride. It doesn't help my perception that there are now more fuel-efficient and better-looking (to my eyes, anyway) competitors available. The pricing among the B-class contenders is so close that if you test-drive a Fit, you absolutely must test its rivals.

In a past life, I worked for a company producing a Fit competitor, and occasionally the company would arrange back-to-back drives with the little Honda and other B-car competitors such as the Toyota Yaris and the Nissan Versa. I never failed to come away from the experience thinking that the Fit was the hands-down winner in the category, and that my employer would be wise to not include it in further comparison tests.

A few years later, my opinion hasn't changed. I still think the Honda Fit is the car to beat in the B-segment. The engine feels surprisingly strong, the gearbox and shifter are a delight to use and outward visibility is near perfect.

As important as the driving dynamics, upon entering the Honda Fit, you're treated to an automotive magic show. Like a carnival fun house, the Fit feels three times larger on the inside than seems possible given its exterior dimensions. Headroom? Tons for this six-footer. Ditto the legroom. Even rear-seat space was fine for two kids in car seats. Sure, they could kick the back of the front seats, but they can do that in a Honda Odyssey.

Just for grins, we crammed the 100-pound dog in the cargo area to see what would happen. He gave us a chagrined glance, then turned around three times and lay down--with the hatch closed. Try that with any of the Fit's competitors; not going to happen.

And, to top off the interior spectacle, Honda includes its Magic Seats in the Fit package, allowing the bottom cushion of the rear seats to fold up against the seatback. Coupled with the low floor and the tall roof, the feat allows taller cargo to fit upright in the middle of the car. The seats also fold flat for maximum storage through the hatch.

For me, complaints about the Honda Fit are minor. The driver's seat could use more bottom cushion and better adjustability. The intermittent wiper could use an adjustable delay. The rear drum brakes should be exorcised from the automotive world, and the power steering is a touch overboosted at highway speeds.

As for the lack of a sixth gear, I'm not sure how useful it would be given the Fit's torque output. The car is a city commuter with a flexible powertrain and good in-town gas mileage. If you have to hit the highway, just pretend it's Italian.

I spent a lot of time in our old long-termer, and it was actually a fun little car to drive. The five-speed is like a joystick, and the steering has plenty of response. I like the relatively light weight, tight chassis and reasonable price.

I do think Honda has been passed by in this segment, as it seems the fuel economy and aesthetics just are not what they should be. The interior looks and feels a bit inexpensive, the seats are not comfortable to my taste and it's rather loud. Conversely, you can put a ton of stuff in Fits, and I vividly recall loading one up for holiday duty in 2008.

Still, the easy clutch and the high-revving engine make for eager and agreeable driving for enthusiasts. I had a good time in this car.

The elements that made our long-term Honda Fit (the Deerslayer!) an excellent daily driver are still here--loads of interior room, a smooth and robust powertrain with an easy-to-work five-speed manual (this clutch-and-stick combo is perfect for teaching the manual arts to new drivers), and a solid chassis. And being a southpaw, I take special delight in the cupholder on the left edge of the dashboard--even if putting something in the holder blocks the air vent.

A weekend with the Fit also brings out areas where this car is being challenged by the competition. There is plenty of road noise that gets into the cabin, for starters. Much of that comes from the large expanse of glass in the car, which is not a great sound barrier. Also, there doesn't seem to be that much sound-deadening material in the floor, likely a tactic to keep the car's weight lower.

For short-to-medium drives, the contoured foam in the Fit's driver's seat holds up well. But you'll want a break, and you'll be wishing for more support, if your trips stretch beyond three hours.

The forte of the Fit is its ability to swallow great amounts of cargo, more than you can image by just looking at the outside of the car. The Fit's flip-fold rear seat is a model of engineering simplicity. And it's nice to be able to easily roll into a parking space that's be squished because of a badly parked minivan in the next space over.

2011 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe

At first glance, I wasn't very impressed with the 2011 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe, as it has two less doors than my favorite E-class. Then I drove it and had a complete change of heart. The E-class sedan is one of my favorites from Mercedes, with the size of the car feeling just right for me. And, oddly enough, I like having four doors. But the styling of the E350 coupe is alluring. Stand back and take it all in, and you can see some CLS in there amidst the E styling.

And then, driving the coupe, well, it drives just like you'd expect from Mercedes. As coupes go, there's a decent amount of room in the back seat, but in reality, adults would certainly complain on any long trips. The engine and transmission is a good match, with the seven-speed auto smoothing out every shift. The V6 is equally smooth.

If I were in the mind of dropping $60,000 on midsize car, I think I'd opt for four doors. But after driving this E350 coupe, I wouldn't need much convincing to change my mind.

The surprisingly potent V6 really stood out to me during my stint in the E350 coupe. It's quick, powerful, sounds angry and propels this car with ease. I rocketed away from a light to blast smoothly onto the expressway at full stride one dim morning, obliterating all competing, traffic thanks to the six-cylinder and the silky shifts of the gearbox.

I like the swoopy looks, impossibly bright and sharp headlights and elegant curves. I clicked the key fob just after 6 one morning, and it brightly illuminated my apartment.

The chassis is tight enough to be sporty--but not abusive--and the body handles turns and curves with composure. The steering is a bit light, but I liked it.

The cabin is stately. This example is furnished in dark materials, broken up only by the sharp white dials of the instrument cluster. It's laid out reasonably well, but some road and wind noise does filter in.

My main quibble: For this kind of coin, you should get a more powerful engine. I mean $60,000 for 268 hp? This car is no slouch, but it's not the greatest value.

I love this 2011 Mercedes-Benz E350 coupe, even with the eye-popping sticker. The exterior is great--especially with the four windows down. I heard "nice car" more than a few times this weekend; and the interior is E-class wonderful. What's not to like?

It rides on the C-class chassis, but that's not a bad thing. It's a refined driving experience. The ride is smooth and comfortable, but not too soft. The car is no rocket, but I don't think that was the intent here, and it's certainly not a dog.

The interior is well built and comfortable, and there's plenty of room in the front. The buckets in front are superb. But the rear can be a little tight, not to mention the back seats can be tough to get in and out of it.

As for the price, the base car is closer to $50,000. This particular model is optioned to the hilt. Leave a lot of that stuff off, and you'll still get a terrific car that's more reasonably priced.

2011 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe

Base Price: $49,725

As-Tested Price: $59,225

Drivetrain: 3.5-liter V6; RWD, seven-speed automatic

Output: 268 hp @ 6,000 rpm, 258 lb-ft @ 2,400-5,000 rpm

Curb Weight: 3,585 lb

Fuel Economy (EPA/AW): 20/20.7 mpg

2011 Nissan 370Z Touring

I had an outstanding weekend in the 2011 Nissan 370Z Touring. It remains one of the most athletic drives an enthusiast can get in this segment. But, the price comes in at nearly $42,000, so I will temper my excitement a touch because for that kind of money, this sports car should be good.

Traditionally I've looked at the Z as an alternative to the pony cars from the Detroit Three. Different, but exciting. Really, the price of this car is well above most Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro or Dodge Challenger models, though in base version, the Z can be had for a touch more than 30 large, thus the comparison. Perhaps the best way to characterize the Nissan is as an entry-level luxury sports car with an excellent exterior and a nice cabin, though some of the materials are a bit underwhelming. Feel free to disagree.

From a driving perspective, this 370Z is a joy. It has a rigid body, a stiff chassis and tight steering. The six-speed manual is smooth, far smoother than the six-speed I had in a V6 Mustang the weekend before. I absolutely loved the SynchroRev Match system, which blips the throttle during downshifts. Acceleration is impressive, especially when merging onto the expressway and when the driver needs to create separation.

To my eyes, the design is near perfect. The lines, the elegant headlights and taillights--it all flows together and works in harmony. If I were in the market for a sports car, this would be on my list.

This car is a looker. The beefy-looking wheels also help accentuate the athletic body to make it a real head-turner.

The interior isn't all that bad either. But one weird thing which I've noticed in other Nissans is when you put your head back on the headrest, it feels like the stakes keeping it in the seat are going to pop out and poke you in the back.

Most importantly, this is a fun ride with power and a slick-shifting six-speed manual gearbox. It jumps off the line with authority, and the seats are well bolstered for hard cornering.

The downfalls include a really loud cabin and the stiff suspension, which beats you up on Michigan roads. Those are minor complaints, though, and should be expected in a sports car.

Overall, I still loved the 370Z.

A long night in the Z gave some good perspective on the car. First, I love the look. The fangs in front, the wide-body rear end, the giant wheels and the brushed-aluminum door handles--it all combines for slick look. I liked the 350Z when it came out in 2002 but next to this car, it just looks dated.

The seats are well-bolstered, and between the electric switches for sliding forward and back and the rotating knobs for the raising and lowering, I was able to find a good seating position.

The controls are mostly easy to use for the navigation and the radio. I had my iPod plugged in and just used the roll dial and center button to navigate it. A friend did remark that the buttons were facing up, toward the roof, and not really toward the driver. It's the same system in our long-term Infiniti QX56, so I was used to it.

As for the driving, the 3.7-liter V6 has a metallic rumble on startup and throttle. And when you really get going, a bass note is added. I thought it was loud at 4,500 rpm but it really wails near redline. Out on Woodward there's a quarter-mile that is walled in by the expressway that gives a great echo.

Smoking the tires is simple and just requires a bit of gas and quick clutch action. A quick tap of the traction-control button and you're on your way. Same deal in second gear.

Speaking of clutch action, it's tight and has good weight to it. It'll take some practice to drive smoothly but once you get it, it's worth it. It does get a bit noisy underneath when the clutch engages and disengages; I've heard other cars do the same but not quite as loud. My friend noticed it immediately.

At mid-corner, the 370Z just keeps gripping. Super-wide tires keep it planted and the sports suspension soaks up the bumps while simultaneously transmitting them to your hands and butt. Big ones will jar you a bit but the small ones aren't bad. Near the limit, the Z grips the road tight and seems to spring side to side, instead of up and down. I always felt confident, never nervous.

The $36,000 base price seems fair. Our long-term Subaru Impreza WRX STI Limited is $38,000 with less horsepower and it's less refined. On the other hand, a 305-hp Ford Mustang can be had for about $23,000 and the Hyundai Genesis coupe we have is $32,000, for comparison.

I was excited to get behind the wheel of the 2011 Nissan 370Z Touring but was sadly let down.

First and foremost, this is a good car. But it's a good car that could be great. It teeters on the edge, not realizing its full potential. It seems to be suffering from an identity crisis.

First, I love a rear-wheel-drive, six-speed manual car. I was elated to see this setup when getting behind the wheel. There is nothing quite like running through the gears and rev-matching my downshifts. Wait, what's that? The car does the rev-matching for me? Well that's not nice. While Nissan is at it, why doesn't it just take the clutch out so drivers can't stall the car, either?

Speaking of clutch, the engagement is touchy and takes some getting used to, and so do the brakes.

I was shocked to discover that this Z had a Touring package. I thought it was a joke or a misprint. Riding around Detroit, where the roads are far from perfect, it let me know of every bump and gap in the surface.

On the redeeming side, as other editors have mentioned, the exterior is well done. It looks fast, fun and like a good time. A car that comes with Ray's wheels from the factory sets the functional cosmetic wheel's bar high.

The interior, for a two-seat sports car, is on par for what I would expect. The seats are supportive but not restrictive; the interface and functionality are good. Could be it better? Sure, but you'll be paying more, no doubt.

It's a manual with rear-wheel drive, decent power and a traction-control off button--I like that.

But, as I said, this 370Z suffers from an identity crisis. I can't take away that it is a good car, but it could be great. But this one doesn't cut it for me, especially with a price tag north of $40,000.

I had been gazing at the Nissan 370Z for the past week or so, hoping I got a chance to drive it, and when my time came, I was thrilled.

I took a moment to soak up the exterior. The silhouette is a knockout in itself, creating an aerodynamic shape that entices the enthusiast in people to want to hop in and get moving. Nissan paid attention to details with this one; the super stylized headlights and taillights organically follow the extreme body curvature while still giving off a futuristic, almost space-age vibe. The door handles are also very well executed and integrated into the overall design.

After I wiped the drool from my lower lip, I opened the door. As comfort goes, the seats were OK, but I did acclimate to them quickly and it was an even trade considering the level of support the cabin provided.

While the 370Z felt very controlled on the road, the stiff suspension made for a rough ride on our construction-ridden Michigan highways. This is definitely not a car you would choose to tackle rush-hour traffic in either. The loud engine noise alone made the stop-and-go areas a bit maddening. The rev-matching feature also confused me at first considering that this is the first vehicle I've driven with such an option. While slightly annoying at first, it is something that is quickly adjusted to.

The addition of a backup camera was a huge plus considering the squat nature of the back window. While merging, I also promptly discovered that the rear driver's side sightline is next to nothing, making my decision-making process a tad slower.

Overall, the 370Z provides a nice package, and while it may not be on the top of my list for a daily driver, I'd never turn down a chance to hop in.

I remain a big supporter of the Nissan's current Z car, the 370Z. When this generation debuted, it was refreshing because Nissan made the car a bit smaller than it's large, more rounded 350Z predecessor. In doing so, it also chopped a decent amount of weight from the car. That, along with the more defined body lines, won me over. Oh, and we can't forget about the much improved interior with the many surfaces wrapped with soft-touch materials and accent stitching. All the changes made the Z better to drive and sharper looking and made it feel like a higher-quality piece.

Of course, this car is all about the drive, and it doesn't disappoint. The V6 pulls strong throughout the rev range and offers very respectable throttle response. I will say that it's not the smoothest-sounding engine, but it's a sports car and there is nothing wrong with a roaring exhaust note, right? Clutch take-up is a little abrupt but easy to get the hang of after a few launches. The SynchroRev Match works beautifully, and for those who say it detracts from the driving experience, well, it can be turned off at the push of the button.

The 19-inch Ray's wheels wrapped with wide Bridgestone rubber return all the grip you'll ever need on the street. There's slight body roll here, but the ride is still firm. Don't let this "Touring" trim fool you into thinking that the ride is softer. The Touring model adds heated, leather seats with suedelike inserts, adjustable lumbar support, Homelink, Bluetooth, Bose sound system, XM satellite radio, an auto-dimming inside mirror, cargo cover and aluminum-trimmed pedals. Note that there are no changes to the suspension.

Steering is heavy and responsive, and the upgraded brakes included in the sport package offer plenty of bite.

As much as I like the Z, my heart belongs to the Mazda RX-8 in this class--I know, big surprise. That car feels much lighter on its feet and there is a connection between the driver and the car there that the Nissan doesn't match. Of course, the Mazda is riding off into the sunset after this year. Wonder whether there are any deals to be had on a RX-8 R3 now?

I haven't had the chance to drive a Nismo version yet, though. Maybe that would win me over from the Mazda camp?

2011 Nissan 370Z Touring

Base Price: $36,030

As-Tested Price: $41,895

Drivetrain: 3.7-liter V6; RWD, six-speed manual

Output: 332 hp @ 7,000 rpm, 270 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm

Curb Weight: 3,278 lb

Fuel Economy (EPA/AW): 21/19.0

2012 BMW 128i Coupe

I can't wait to drive the 1-series M coupe after streaking around town in this 2012 BMW 128i. The tight chassis, weighted, responsive steering and athletic demeanor all are good signs for the performance version.

Still, this entry model is plenty stout. I love the six-speed manual, which takes what could be a potentially boring little car and enlivens its spirit and that of the driver. The shifting is smooth, easy and eager. It makes the pilot want to nail the throws and feel the interaction. I didn't really drive this thing hard, but it feels like it needs some hard cornering and intense maneuvers to really be at its best.

The straight six is reasonably powerful for this application, and merging on to the freeway is easy and brisk if the driver wants to move with verve. The brakes return a solid bite, and the body is quite composed. I like the looks and subtle curves evident in the doors. It's a sharp execution for the segment.

My only quibble is the price. I realize this is still a luxury-level BMW, but it seemed a little Spartan and the price a touch steep with a sticker of more than $36,000. Small cars can be premium and luxurious--no argument there. It just seems like this car commands its sticker because it has three certain letters on the badge. I feel as if I've been in Hyundais and Fords that cost less and have more extras.

Still, the 128i is a hoot to drive for enthusiast motorists.

The 1-series is certainly a fun and entertaining package. The car is Exhibit A in how a small coupe should handle and behave. The six-cylinder is strong and willing, meshed with a terrific six-speed gearbox with nice short throws.

Greg sort of hit nail on the head in that the interior does have a rather Spartan feel, harking back to German cars from 20 or 30 years ago. Obviously it's more updated than that, but manual seats in a $36,000 car? I think not. No satellite radio in a $36,000 car? Really?

No question this is a fun, more than competent car that engages the driver during every mile driven. But for this price, you can find less expensive cars that deliver just as much fun in a more comfortable package.

Both Greg and Roger hit on the fundamental problem with the BMW 1-series: It's too expensive. Knowing it had that reputation, I deliberately didn't check the sticker or our as-tested price before I spent an evening in the car, since I wanted to evaluate based on its driving merits. And there are a lot of them.

The 128i drives like an E36 3-series, and that's a high compliment in my book. The engine makes all the right sounds, and the shifter feels directly connected to the torquey powertrain as God intended. Steering is well weighted and direct, and the brakes are BMW-good. The 128i offers an engaging, visceral driving experience that's been engineered out of most new cars, including those built by BMW.

The problem is, the 128i is also equipped like an E36 3-series. The infotainment system is mediocre at best, the interior plastics are chintzy in some places and there's little to break up the design elements. Note that I don't have a problem with a fun-to-drive car that's lightly equipped. I do have a problem with said car costing $37,000.

I had a blast spending my commute in this 2012 BMW 128i coupe. When I wasn't crawling in accident-riddled rush-hour traffic, I took advantage of the chance to really push this puppy.

This car is a pure pleasure to pilot. Shifting this BMW was a breeze and loads of fun. I felt right in tune with this car, feeling instant responses to my actions with respect to the gearbox, steering and brakes. The impeccable engineering allowed me to focus on the genuine enjoyment of driving, and that is a difficult find these days.

BMW did an excellent job carrying the sporty, strong nature of the 1-series performance to the exterior design. The mildly curved body lines and updated lighting give the 1-series a sleek, athletic yet upscale look. This car is full of energy even while it's parked.

My one gripe concerns the interior. Other than the fact that I expected a better material mixture and composition, it was simply not that intuitive. I found myself having to search for some controls because of hit-and-miss labeling and/or odd placement.

All in all, I was very impressed with the character that this little car churns out. I do agree that a little more needs to be done to reach the sticker-price level, but a few additional features and a touch of interior refinement would easily get it there.

2012 BMW 128i Coupe

Base Price: $31,825

As-Tested Price: $36,125

Drivetrain: 3.0-liter I6; RWD, six-speed manual

Output: 230 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 200 lb-ft @ 2,750 rpm

Curb Weight: 3,208 lb

Fuel Economy (EPA/AW): 22/22.9 mpg

Options: Black Boston leather ($1,450); sport package including 17-inch style 370 with mixed-performance tires, sport seats, sport suspension and shadowline exterior trim ($1,300); titanium silver metallic exterior paint ($550); comfort access keyless entry ($500); heated front seats ($500)

2012 Chevrolet Sonic

First of all, no, it is not built on the same platform nor is it mechanically affiliated with the product formerly known as the Aveo. The all-new Chevrolet Sonic, General Motors' entry in the B-class segment, is the first car to ride on the all-new Gamma, or Global Small Vehicle platform, variations of which you will soon see popping up in markets all over the world. The Sonic is on sale now in U.S. Chevy showrooms.

It comes as a sedan or a hatchback and with either a 138-hp 1.8-liter or 138-hp turbocharged 1.4-liter four driving the front wheels. Yes, they both make 138 hp. The normally aspirated 1.8 makes 125 lb-ft of torque at 3,800 rpm and the turbo makes 148 lb-ft at 1,850 rpm, so the turbo's the one you want. The 1.8-liter comes with a six-speed automatic or a six-speed manual. The turbo comes standard with a six-speed manual but will get a six-speed automatic this spring.

Just remember to order the turbo with the manual.

Early engineering drives in prototypes last May showed a promisingly fun little car. Turns out those analyses were pretty accurate. We spent a day driving several Sonics in the hills above Santa Cruz, Calif., and had a surprisingly good time. Surprising because the Aveo was about as much fun behind the wheel as driving a wet paper bag. Engineers proudly pointed out the Sonic's higher torsional rigidity versus that of the Aveo. Greater use of high- and ultra-high-strength steel gave them a much better basis on which to build. The resonant frequency of the Sonic is 23 hertz, an exponential improvement over the 18-hertz carcass of the Aveo. Forged alloy wheels--yes, forged alloy wheels--tuned bushings and an engine cradle bolted straight to the unibody helped keep the Sonic controlled. A quick 14:1 ratio for the electric power steering further helped.

We got to drive competitors such as the Ford Fiesta (another great chassis but with a softer automatic transmission and more kickback than a Chicago alderman), the Honda Fit (another soft automatic trans but another good chassis) and the Hyundai Accent (GDI for $15,000? Yahoo!). The Sonic came across as having the best ride isolation and as being the quietest of the bunch while not sacrificing any of the tossability inherent in small cars such as this.



It's a buyer's market in the B-class segment. You almost can't go wrong. The Sonic starts at $14,995 including destination and 10--count 'em--10 airbags. A five-door turbo with a sunroof is about the most you can spend on one of these, and it's about $19,500. Chevy builds these in Lake Orion, Mich., too, unlike the competition, all of which, Chevy points out, are built outside the United States.

2012 BMW M5

The fifth-generation M5 is the first of its breed to eschew a highly strung naturally aspirated engine for a torque-led turbocharged powerplant. A big change in philosophy from BMW's M division, then.

Set to go on sale across North America in August 2012, the new model is, as tradition dictates, based on the latest 5-series. But don't think of the new four-door performance saloon simply as a warmed-over version of BMW's midrange model. As project leader Siegfried Friedmann reveals, “The new M5 shares just 20 percent of its components with the 5-series.” The remaining 80 percent is claimed to be unique.

The new M5 is bigger than ever before, putting on 55 millimeters in length and 46 millimeters in width over its direct predecessor. Some 19,331 examples were produced between 2004 and 2010. However, height has dropped by 13 millimeters. It also rides on a wheelbase that has grown by 74 millimeters and runs front and rear tracks that are up by 27 millimeters over the standard 5-series up front and down by 38 millimeters at the rear--the latter part of a complete chassis upgrade that sees the latest M car adopt a vastly different geometry to its more conservative four-door sibling.

Central to the technical advances is a decision to supplant the naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V10 engine of the previous M5 with a twin-turbocharged 4.4-liter V8 running the latest in piezo-guided direct injection. The 90-degree unit, which is mounted 20 millimeters lower in the engine bay than standard 5-series powerplants, is a development of the similarly configured engine used in the X6M, complete with its cross-bank induction system. However, there are sufficient differences between the two engines to lead BMW M officials to describe the M5's engine as being new. “They use the same block and crank. They are the only common parts. The induction, cylinder head, internal architecture and exhaust system are unique,” says Friedmann. It's not the truck engine many suspected, then.

Key among the changes is the adoption of Valvetronic, which provides fully variable inlet and exhaust timing while enabling shorter injection cycles for what Friedmann describes as added throttle response. The M5 also receives unique intercoolers and a pair of Honeywell turbochargers that run a nominal 0.9 bar of boost, or 0.1 lower than that of the X6M's engine. The pistons also were modified for lower reciprocating masses, something that allowed BMW to up the ignition cut-out point to a reasonably high by turbocharged-engine standards-- 7,500 rpm. There's also a new electronic management system that boasts more computing power than any existing system used by a series-production BMW engine.

Assembled at BMW's specialty engine workshop in Munich, the new forced-induction powerplant--the first of its kind to ever find its way into an M5--delivers 51 hp more than the old naturally aspirated engine at 552 hp. However, the power is now delivered 1,750 rpm lower in the rev range, at 6,000 rpm. More telling, though, is the torque. It peaks a substantial 153 lb-ft higher than before, at 501 lb-ft, but can be tapped some 4,600 rpm earlier at 1,500 rpm--or just 700 rpm beyond the engine's nominal idle. These figures see the new M5 continue a long tradition in which each iteration has successively become more powerful while boasting more torque than the model it replaces.

A further technical highlight of the new M5 is the adoption of a new seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox as standard. Essentially the same unit used in the M3, the Getrag-engineered unit replaces the seven-speed sequential manual of the old model. Running a unique set of ratios, including a very short 4.80:1 first and a heavily overdriven 0.671:1 seventh gear, it channels drive to the rear wheels through a newly developed version of the BMW M division's electronically operated Active M differential, capable of providing continuously variable lockup to each of the rear wheels and imbued with a 3.15:1 final drive.


In a word, rapid. It might weigh 4,114 pounds, 88 pounds more than its predecessor, but in real-world terms, the M5 is considerably faster than the car it replaces by dent of its more accessible performance. BMW claims 0 to 62 mph in 4.4 seconds, bettering the old model by 0.3 second up the strip. But I, for one, won't be surprised to see independent tests better this figure by a considerable margin.

It certainly feels faster. Its superb traction, heroic acceleration, rifle action gear change and ability to sustain high speeds on roads that would have worried the old M5 puts it on a higher performance plane than its predecessor. How does 50 to 75 mph in 3.7 seconds grab you? Top speed is, like all M cars, limited to 155 mph. However, an optional M Drivers Package bumps it up to a limited 190 mph--a figure BMW says its standard Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires are rated to.

So it is fast, fast enough to be a real threat to your license, so addictive is its performance and the deep thrum of its engine under full load. But what really distinguishes the new M5 from every M5 before it is the enormous flexibility of its power delivery. Bury the throttle at anything beyond 1,500 rpm--the point where peak torque is developed--and it surges forward with immense force, seemingly in any gear. Given the heady output, the tractability at low revs is quite staggering. It's a vastly different driving experience from the old M5, which required a good 4, 000 rpm before its engine would begin to deliver anywhere near the same vigor.

Driving the old M5 was always an event. But its performance relied heavily on your level of commitment to extract it. This new model is, for the most part, even more thrilling from behind the wheel. Yet it doesn't ask for any special favors on the part of the driver. Its performance, molded in no uncertain terms by its new engine's mountain of torque, is omnipresent. Overtaking is truly effortless, helped by the effectiveness of the new seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox. I'm not sure how BMW has done it, but the shifts are race-car quick, accompanied on full-throttle upshifts by an alluring bark of exhaust and a hearty blip on downshifts.

Still, the added flexibility while making the new M5 a more welcome everyday proposition does have its drawbacks. Chief among these is a curious lack of crescendo in its delivery. Because the torque is developed across such a wide range of revs, the engine doesn't feel much stronger at 6,000 rpm--the point where peak power arrives--than it does down low. The shove is colossal, but it is also oddly constant. Among the many delights of the naturally aspirated engine used in the old M5 was the way its intensity grew in line with the number of revs it was asked to carry. The new turbocharged engine is clearly more user-friendly but has nowhere near the same character. And despite running a relatively high 10.1:1 compression ratio and the latest evolution of BMW's Valvetronic system, it doesn't possess the same rabid throttle response.

The best part of the new M5, though, is not its outright pace but its overall agility. The overall feel is determined largely by the damper mode chosen by the driver: comfort, sport and sport-plus. A further factor in the new M5's dynamic ability is just how willing the driver is to alter the stability-control setting, which offers three settings: default, MDM (M Driver Mode) and completely switched--the latter of which requires the button to be depressed for three seconds.

In default mode, there's a lot of intervention from the dynamic stability control, which clearly was calibrated to provide a wide safety net and allow what Friedmann describes as “even the modestly skilled to take big liberties without coming to grief.” Switch it into M Driver's Mode, though, and the handling instantly becomes much more fluid in nature. I worried the big engine and all of its ancillaries might make for a nose-heavy cornering feel, but I was wrong. The new M5 feels wonderfully balanced--more neutral, in fact, than the car it replaces. Grip from standard 265/40ZR-19 front and 295/35ZR-19 rear tires is immense, but with all of that torque on offer the M5 is a willing sideways companion when you switch the dynamic stability control off.

The aluminum intensive chassis--with its new double-wishbone front suspension and heavily modified multilink rear end bolted directly to the body rather than braced with bushing as on the standard 5-series--offers superb body control. There is a moderate degree of lean as you guide the M5 into corners, but it actions are wonderfully progressive thanks to terrific damping that ensures any movement is retained within a tightly dictated range. Where it really impresses is in its ability to settle quickly when faced with nasty crests and undulations. There is sufficient give to ensure it doesn't fight the road, choosing instead to work with the lay of the bitumen.

There's also an impressive level of suppleness thanks to inclusion of variable damping that serves up three levels of stiffness--comfort, sport and sport-plus. Despite the obvious lack of compliancy in the standard tires, the overall ride quality is outstanding. Even in the most extreme sport-plus mode, the new underpinnings manage to retain a good deal of composure, seldom allowing anything more than a sharp ripple to upset progress. In this respect, it's much calmer and more relaxed as speeds increase than its predecessor.

It's the steering that slightly disappoints. The speed-sensitive hydraulic steering, geared at 2.7 turns lock-to-lock, is an improvement on the electromechanical arrangement used by standard 5-series models, offering a more convincing feel and greater levels of feedback. But it possesses a lifeless feel around the straight ahead. It's a pity because, once you've negotiated this tough spot, it's is much more alert. The weighting varies.


Are you kidding--yes! I don't care how, just make sure you sample the new M5 in one way or the other. It is in many respects a landmark car, one that's going to have the fast-car competition--Audi, Cadillac, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz and Maserati, among them--scratching their heads as they attempt to come up with a reply.

The sheer potency and accessibility of the new turbocharged engine alleviates any lingering doubts about BMW's M division's decision to turn a 25-year tradition of naturally aspirated engines on its head. The question that really needs to be asked is, why did it take so long? What marks the new M car as something really special, though, is its superb combination of agility, ride and refinement. With a 21-gallon fuel tank and combined-cycle fuel consumption of 23.7 mpg (U.S.), it is not only the new muscle car of choice but also the perfect cross-continent express

2011 Volkswagen Routan SE

This 2011 Volkswagen Routan SE ain't no Microbus, and it's not even the best of this breed of minivan (read: Chrysler). That's not to say it's a poor vehicle--all Chrysler, Dodge and VW versions of this van are strong, but this one might not be worth the bother to get the German label. This essentially is a Dodge Grand Caravan with some noticeably lacking features such as automatic headlights and automatic climate control. Those are odd omissions. So what you get is a nice Dodge minivan with navigation and buff interior trim. Is that worth the VW experience? Not so sure.

On the downside, the interior roof-rail system in this vehicle is so creaky and clunky that it reminds of bad panel vans of old. It's a rattletrap.

I've been on the disabled list lately, so I now pay special attention to a vehicle's ease of use, and this Routan has functionality for people who are physically challenged covered in spades. The power options really ease entry and exit. Being able to open the power rear liftgate to load a chair or a wheeled crutch is a huge help, as is popping open the power sliding driver's side door to easily load crutches and backpacks and other carry-ons. The ride height allows for easy in and out, though it'd be helpful to have power pedal adjustments and a telescoping steering wheel to help fit the driving position around encumbrances such as oversized casts and boots.

Overall, this is a handy vehicle for anyone who needs or values ease of access and ingress/egress.

As Bob said, this isn't a VW bus but simply a rebadged Chrysler. OK, the Volkswagen version has different suspension tuning and its own front and rear fascia, but there's not much else to distinguish itself.

Visually, the changes aren't enough. It lacks the coolness and funkiness of a Microbus, and the interior is equally as boring as the outside. Volkswagen usually excels in the interior department, but the Routan is an exception.

On the road this, the 3.6-liter V6 offers healthy pickup and it rides comfortably on the expressway and around town. It's also a respectable handler for a minivan, but it's far from exciting. Then again, what minivan is?

2013 Audi A5 and S5

Since its debut in 2007, Audi’s A5 and S5 models have received a warm reception in the marketplace, being generally well-regarded by critics and selling in respectable numbers. Now, for the 2013 model year in the United States, the car has undergone a tidy facelift and profited from various technical upgrades, including a change in the engine lineup.

While the base A5 continues to be powered by a 211-hp, 2.0-liter turbo inline-four, teamed with either a six-speed manual or seven-speed S-tronic dual-clutch transmission (or a continuously variable transmission on front-wheel-drive cabriolet models). The S5 gets a new supercharged 3.0-liter V6 good for 333 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque.

The lovely V8 engine that used to power the S5 is now the sole province of the RS5. While Audi offers no fewer than four diesel variants in Europe and elsewhere, we have yet to see what the company’s approach will be to the U.S. market in this regard. What we know for sure is that all new A5-series cars get a new electromechanical power steering with the motor mounted coaxially to the steering rack.

Inside, we find Audi Connect, a feature first noted on the new A6, which provides in-car Internet connectivity via an integral G3 SIM card. This allows the navigation system to use Google Earth virtual-map overlays on the display, letting the driver see the same landscape he or she is traversing. If the connection fails, the display reverts to conventional mapping.

Audi Connect allows owners to visit the my.audiusa.com Web site at home before the trip and download travel plans direct to the car. Other technical upgrades include tweaks to the optional Audi drive select system, adding an efficiency setting that selects high gears, slows throttle rotation and otherwise blunts egregious driver inputs for maximum fuel mileage.

There’s now even a transmission-fluid intercooler to reduce cold-start friction, as well as a start/stop feature across the board in global products. We might not see that yet on U.S. models because of EPA fuel-consumption-testing protocols.

Both the four-cylinder and the V6 cars have abundant torque and feel decidedly sprightly on the road. But the V6 obviously sustains urgent thrust longer and adds speed with greater authority at wide-open throttle and elevated engine revs. Isolation is good in both models, with just a little mirror hiss to remind you how fast you’re going.

The new electromechanical steering assist is pretty close to the feel of Audi’s previous Servotronic system, but since both mechanisms offer precise response and accurate path control rather than unadulterated bionic feedback, it’s hard to say which feels better without a back-to-back test. But the new one is said to save almost 1 mpg, so we’d better get used to it. Plus, it can intervene actively to help correct lane drift and understeer or oversteer slides.

As with other high-performance Audis, the handling is stable, the grip levels high and the ride motions well damped, particularly in models that have the optional drive select set in sport mode. Also typical to the A5 and S5 models is Audi’s stylish interior and high level of equipment. Even the MMI system has been optimized to make navigation among the various features easier.


With even sharper looks and more elegant moves, the reborn A5 series is arguably more desirable than ever. However, none of the models is inexpensive, and although that’s offset to some extent by the car’s comprehensive dynamic, convenience and safety portfolio, one is reminded that this is a pretty indulgent coupe in these tight times.

2011 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI Premium

I've gone on record dozens of times saying how much I love this chassis and engine combination in the 2011 Audi A3. I do think it's a little pricey, but this is a nice little car if you're willing to part with the extra dough to move up from a Volkswagen to what an Audi will cost you.

The build quality is among the best in the biz (the back seat is a little tight), it's the right size and it's plenty fast enough. It drives like a little sportster around town. Jump on the gas from a light and there is a little bit of turbo lag at the lower revs, but boost builds quickly and the engine has good response above 3,000 rpm. It drives like a bigger car on the freeway. It's clearly tuned for autobahn speeds. Composed is the word that comes to mind.

The seats are above average, and I found a nice comfortable driving position.

I enjoyed my drive in the A3; I always do. But I don't see one tempting me away from a Volkswagen GTI.

If you need a car without a third pedal, it's hard to go wrong with this combo--it's one of my favorite small-car powertrains. The torque of the turbocharged four-cylinder really moves the A3 along with authority, and once you've driven the S tronic six-speed you'll wonder how other manufacturers can get dual-clutch transmissions so wrong. (Ford, I'm looking at you.)

Inside, the Audi feels upscale but not overly so. What was a premium small-car interior two years ago is now just competitive, thanks to the onslaught of upgraded compacts such as the Ford Focus. Similarly, interior room is nothing special. Despite its almost wagon-esque exterior design, this is a compact hatch, a truth immediately apparent as soon as one pops the fifth door.

Perhaps the larger problem is that the Audi A3 really is priced at a premium to other really good small cars. More than $31,000 for a vehicle in this category stings a bit, particularly when as much as $1,500 of that price is wrapped up in options such as metallic paint, heated seats and Bluetooth capability, which I'd expect to find included in a compact with a base price just shy of $30,000.

I'd imagine that's why I see so few A3s on the road. Most folks cross-shopping them probably end up either swallowing the few extra grand to move up to an A4 or they look at other larger competitive options at the same price point. As Wes mentioned, squeezed between the GTI and the A4, it's hard to make a solid case for an A3.

NEWS EDITOR GREG MIGLIORE: The reflexes of this 2011 Audi A3 Premium are outstanding. It drives with the energy and athleticism of a car that wants to be driven and has guts. The chassis is composed and sporty, and the steering has a light but pleasing response. It's a fun, practical thing to drive.

I found myself tossing it into corners and pushing it, just because it's a fun thing to do on a late summer morning as the sun slowly rose. This powertrain is outstanding, with plenty of power low in the band and a hefty dose of torque served up in enjoyable fashion. I knifed in an out of traffic with ease and jetted through congestion on the expressway. The driver is close to the ground, connected and invigorated. Frankly, it feels lighter than 3,200 or so pounds.

If we have to accept smaller cars, this is a good one. Still, I'd say the interior is just OK. As Stoy notes, cabin furnishings have gotten so much better; this is just solid. Not bad, but solid. Overall, this would be a great runner for daily commutes.

2011 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI Premium

Base Price: $29,625

As-Tested Price: $31,200

Drivetrain: 2.0-liter turbocharged I4; FWD, six-speed dual-clutch sequential manual

Output: 200 hp @ 5,100-6,000 rpm, 207 lb-ft @ 1,800-5,000 rpm

Curb Weight: 3,296 lb

Fuel Economy (EPA/AW): 24/23.4 mpg

2011 GMC Terrain SLT-2

This 2011 GMC Terrain SLT-2 is a nice little crossover/ute that is exactly the type of vehicle on a lot of friends' radars these days. They want some utility to haul kids and stuff, yet they also want some halfway-decent fuel economy, as even when oil dropped below $100 per barrel, the needle at the fuel pump didn't drop all that much.

But the problem I have with the Terrain is twofold. First, the powertrain has a couple of little of hiccups. The engine is buzzy and the gearshifts are way too herky-jerky for a vehicle selling in today's market. I thought maybe the gearshift issue was one of it just being cold and that it would go away when it warmed up. After a while, it did seem to get a bit smoother, but automatics today make gear swaps seamlessly, and if you're producing one that doesn't you need to go back to the drawing board. As for the buzzy engine, I guess the little V6 is struggling hauling around nearly two tons.

My second issue is on the inside of the Terrain. There's a ton of hard plastic in here, and while the top of the instrument panel has some soft-touch, topped-stitched what looks like leather, the majority of the dash is filled with some inexpensive-looking plastic. And what's worse, some plastic that's done up to look like chrome, which makes it look even worse.

The exterior design is handsome enough, the wheels and tires look good and the seats were comfortable. As I said, the vehicle is certainly the size that many folks are looking for today. But the Terrain is just a bit too rough around the edges. And with this being a GMC, I'd think more attention would have been spent on the interior.

As Roger mentioned, the Terrain is just the kind of ride a lot of folks are seeking right now, evidenced in part by the consistently high sales numbers for its sister vehicle, the Chevrolet Equinox. The segment's popularity is also the main reason I was so surprised by the Terrain's deficiencies.

My primary concerns center on the Terrain driveline. The V6 feels weak. The six-speed automatic would shudder every time I slowed, and in traffic, the rubber-banding effect was disconcerting. It was bad enough to suspect that there might be something wrong with our particular vehicle.

The navigation interface felt at least a generation old, but otherwise I actually thought the interior was one of the nicer aspects of the Terrain. The contrasting materials with highlight stitching helped it feel open and airy, and the flat floor and sliding/reclining rear seats were easy to use and quite comfortable.

Then there's the sticker price. Close to $40,000 for a compact crossover, particularly one with amenities and appearance that are just good? No thanks, even if the sloppy powertrain was just an anomaly.

Yeah, the sticker on this 2011 GMC Terrain SLT-2 is a bit of a shocker, but it's easily whacked down by eliminating some of the stuff this car has--or better yet, getting the dealer to cut the price of them. I'd be willing to bet you get one of these out the door to closer to the $32,000 base price than this $38,000 sticker, making it more competitive with its rivals.

That said, I didn't experience the drivetrain difficulties mentioned above. I thought the six-cylinder was powerful enough and the transmission was smooth. I drove it both in traffic and on the freeway. No muss, no fuss. I might have to drive it again to see whether I can duplicate the rubber-banding mentioned, or perhaps the four-cylinder is the way to go. Meanwhile, the steering is overboosted and the suspension is soft, but aren't they all in this class?

Yes, there are some inexpensive bits inside, but at least the design is decent and the sliding rear seats work easily.

2012 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Roadster

Mercedes-Benz takes the top off the SLS and lets the sun shine in. The same great drivetrain and suspension is now topped with a fully automatic retractable canvas roof with solid rear glass. The top goes up or down in 11 seconds and can even be operated at speeds up to 31 mph, so you don't have to block traffic when the sun comes out all of a sudden.

Since the SLS was designed from the outset to accommodate a soft top, additional structural reinforcements were limited to slight modifications of the door sills and some cross-bracing, all of which added only 4.4 pounds to the body-in-white. Total weight increase for the roadster version was only 88 pounds. Total increase in fun was considerably more.

Is there a better grand tourer made today? Seriously, if you had to--say someone forced you--to drive the greatest roads of, say, Europe, all of the greatest roads, well, OK, then you'd have about a million choices for which car to take. But if you wanted to take someone along and you wanted that person to be comfortable and, indeed, you wanted a high level of comfort to go with your high-speed Alpine Pass-crossings, the list of cars to do it in shrinks a bit. After careful consideration you might find the SLS Roadster on top of the list.

The powertrain is unchanged from the coupe. The 6.2-liter V8 still makes 571 hp at 6,800 rpm and 480 lb-ft of torque, and it still sounds great doing it. The difference is you can now hear that wonderful thunderous cacophony much better with the top down. Blasting through the many tunnels of the Alpes Maritimes we pulled the "down" paddle on the left side of the steering wheel just to hear the sound of the pipes echoing off the cool limestone.

Our drive route took us from the Grand Prix course in the streets of Monaco--specifically through the start/finish, the bus-stop chicane and through the tunnel--to long winding stretches of the Rallye Monte Carlo through Sospel. In the city and along the beaches of the Cote d'Azure with the top down, the SLS Roadster was perfect for communing with the beach community. The SLS behaves perfectly smoothly in stop-and-go traffic and could easily function as a daily driver. Once up in the hills we could set the transmission and suspension to whatever was appropriate for mountain pursuit driving. The transmission can go from normal to sport and sport-plus depending on your mood and there is a new feature, to be shared with the coupe, that allows for three stiffness settings for the suspension. And, thankfully, there is a "traction off" button, which we employed for the many hairpin switchbacks. The power of the car was easy to lay down onto the roads, and the stability of the SLS Roadster, just as in the coupe, is amazing. We never got into any trouble despite roads that would eat lesser cars for lunch.

In a straight line, 0 to 60 mph comes up in 3.6 seconds and top speed is 197 mph. We didn't try the top speed but we believe the car is quite capable of that.

There are more competent sports cars that could negotiate a racetrack faster than this and provide more immediate, direct feedback to your sitzplatz, but the SLS Roadster is a car that you could live with spending a summer crisscrossing every pass in the Alps just as easily as crossing every intersection in Paris (or Peoria).

Of course, it ain't cheap. Mercedes says pricing will be "under $200,000" when cars begin arriving in dealerships in early November.

Chevrolet reveals more details of Camaro ZL1

The 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 will not be anywhere near as rare as its 1969 namesake when it arrives during the first quarter of next year, but the most powerful production Camaro to date should deliver performance easily worthy of its model designation.

Camaro engineers on Thursday offered media members a preview of the upcoming Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 fighter, and the tale of the tape is impressive, especially in terms of grunt. The 6.2-liter supercharged LSA V8 will make 580 hp at 6,000 rpm and 556 lb-ft of torque at 4,200 rpm, besting Chevy's original targets for the engine's output and bettering its efficiency in the Cadillac CTS-V by 24 hp and 5 lb-ft.


For those keeping score against the GT500, the ZL1 trumps the top-of-the-range Mustang's ratings by 30 hp and 46 lb-ft.


As the Camaro team explained, the engine's improved numbers come thanks to “a unique induction system, with a lower-restriction air filter, dual ‘bell mouth' inlet paths, and improved airflow through the supercharger housing. Other changes include a higher-efficiency supercharger intercooler and electric power steering system, which consumes less engine power than hydraulic steering systems.”


However, Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser and his colleagues made it clear that they intend the ZL1 to be far more than a drag racer right out of the box.


“[This car] is [road course-ready] from the showroom,” Oppenheiser said, pointing to the list of standard equipment to make his point: a liquid-to-liquid oil cooler lifted straight from the Corvette ZR1, a deep-sump oil pan, rear-differential cooler and--according the Oppenheiser--a fuel system with additional pickups that should feed the engine during hard cornering even when the gas tank is low on juice.


The ZL1 also comes with the third-generation of magnetic ride control, which reacts faster than before and now adjusts the suspension up to 1,000 times per second. Chevy said the new MRC “uses new twin-wire/dual-coil dampers at all four corners. The smaller dual-coil system--with one coil at either end of the damper--replaces the larger single-core design of the previous generation.


“The new design allows even more precise control of the electrical current and magnetic flux, allowing greater range than before between the softest setting for ride comfort and the firmest setting for track driving.”


If it works as claimed, the ZL1 has strong potential to join the growing rank of performance cars that provide extreme dynamics with little compromise to livability.


Meanwhile, the latest version of General Motors' Performance Traction Management is also present, with a Ferrari-like range of five settings spanning conditions from “wet” to “race.”


While the list of hardware is enticing, the ZL1's weight could be an Achilles heel in the eyes of road-course drivers: The power-to-weight ratio of 7.24 pounds per horsepower is, for example, better than a BMW M3 coupe's 8.9, but not as good as the GT500's 6.94 pounds. At about 4,200 pounds, the Camaro is a long, long way from a lightweight and will outweigh the GT500 by about 400 pounds.


From a driver-interface standpoint, the engineering crew's decision to adopt electronic power steering might appear an odd choice for an overpowering, rear-drive performance car, but Team Camaro insisted that the belt-driven, variable-ratio system is instead the best solution for controlling such an extreme automobile at speed while also making it comfortable for drivers at relatively low velocities in “real world” scenarios. “Hydraulic steering wasn't going to get it done,” Oppenheiser said.


Likewise, he stressed that the optional six-speed Hydra-Matic 6L90 automatic gearbox is “not for poseurs who don't know how to shift.” As a general rule, hard-core enthusiasts will choose the six-speed Tremec manual transmission, but at least the auto 'box is built for performance, with three different driving modes including a manual setting that only shifts when a driver commands. Automatic upshifts will not occur even at redline, and Oppenheiser promised that it will select and hold the appropriate low gear into corners to match the manual-equipped ZL1's performance.


“Contrary to what we could have done [by taking the easy way out with a simple, off-the-shelf transmission], the automatic is not a compromise,” he said. “We spent a lot of time working on it for the track.”

Other ZL1 items of note include Brembo brakes (six-piston front, four-piston rear), an active exhaust system like the one featured on the ZR1, and aerodynamic elements including a “belly pan” flat-bottom cover beneath the car. (Chevy was not ready to reveal final downforce numbers.)


Variable stiffness halfshafts and strengthened joints and suspension parts are intended to help reduce wheel hop under acceleration. As for rubber, Goodyear designed ZL1-specific Eagle F1 tires (285/35ZR-20 front, 305/35ZR-20 rear) to put the generous power to the road surface, be it straight, twisting or somewhere in between.


Chevy still will not confirm final details such as price (expected to fall in the low $50,000 range) or production numbers--figure on about 5,000 ZL1s built per year in General Motors' Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, assembly plant. But from what we've seen at this point, the Camaro ZL1 is armed with plenty to look forward to when our first drives occur in about two months--test drives are timed to coincide with dealerships opening their books for orders. The preliminary spec sheet, like the Corvette's, promises top-notch speed, ride and handling, and enough comfort for daily driving and road trips.


Speaking of which, we have reason to expect that fans who trek to Florida's Homestead-Miami Speedway for NASCAR's Sprint Cup Series season finale in November might very well find themselves on hand for the definitive ZL1 production car's official public debut.

Why the Honda Ridgeline pickup is driving off into the sunset.

The Honda Ridgeline is a good example of what happens when an automaker abandons a model.


After much fanfare with its introduction in 2005, little was done to upgrade the mid-sized pickup. Ridgeline's plummeting sales are no surprise considering the lack of sheet metal changes and significant engineering improvements over the seven-year period.


The pickup's best year was 2006 when 50,193 sales were tallied. After that point, it's been all down hill. Last year, sales for the 12-month period totaled a 16,142, a 2 percent drop from the previous year. This year's sales through August nosedived 49 percent, to 5,776 vehicles.


While the Honda Ridgeline does not fill everyone's pickup needs, nor was it intended to so, it is a credible pickup. Despite the fact that it was developed off a front-drive platform, it has a 1,500-pound-plus payload capacity and tows up tow 5,000 pounds. Four-wheel drive is standard.


And, from what I hear, Ridgeline owners like the pickup, especially the towing capability, the ride, the handling, and the standard tailgate that swings down or to the side like a door.

Honda doesn't talk about future products. But Automotive News reported last month that the Honda Ridgeline will be discontinued in about two years. Based on conversations with industry sources, the story said a smaller pickup is under consideration, derived from the Honda CR-V platform.


Presuming less payload and towing capacity than the Ridgeline, I can't imagine why a smaller pickup based on a front-drive platform would be a more successful product formula for Honda