Rest of the Web Says We've gathered reviews from Edmunds.com, Cars.com plus live Tweets on this car. See What We Found »
The Toyota FJ Cruiser has changed very little since its introduction five years ago, and during that time the range of serious off-road-worthy models hasn't changed much. Hummer is now gone, and Jeep has honed its Wrangler, but the FJ Cruiser remains one of the better bets for off-road toughness and trail prowess.
The FJ blends retro and contemporary so well that its design should be quite ageless. Looking a bit like a vintage 1960s-era FJ40, crossed with modern cues from the 4Runner and Land Cruiser, with a MINI Cooper-like edge, the FJ Cruiser looks ripe for the trail, yet like a stylish accessory that would make as much of a statement parked in front of an outdoor outfitter as in front of Urban Outfitters. Inside, the appointments are intentionally stark, with body-colored panels and simple gauges and sturdy switchgear.
The 2012 FJ Cruiser is built from the sturdy underpinnings of the last-generation Toyota 4Runner, with off-road ability the priority. Especially when considering its shortened wheelbase and additional ground clearance, it shines off-road. Skid plates protect the underbody, and components are tucked into frame rails. On the trail, you'll find good wheel articulation, without making too much of a sacrifice on-road, and the FJ's approach and departure angles and water-fording depth (27.5 inches) are better than other stock vehicles.
Considering that, on-road performance isn't quite the afterthought you'd expect. The FJ does quite well, even on the highway, provided the path is relatively straight, but in any corners its height, tall tires, and hefty 4,300-pound curb weight get in the way of any attempt to change direction quickly. Its 260-horspower, 4.0-liter V-6 provides strong performance from a standing start, whether with the five-speed automatic or six-speed manual, though it's not as quick on the highway.For carrying backseat passengers, or for ride comfort on long trips, there are far better choices. In short, the back seat is just too cramped, and getting in and out is a challenge for some due to the high step up and narrow opening from the rear-hinged back doors. You won't find the settled, sophisticated ride quality or quiet, refined interior here, either. All FJ Cruiser models include a good set of interior comforts, along with the bones for real off-road ability, but packages and options help boost the off-road credentials—there's some scruffiness and a hint of military-grade here, and it's intentional.
Safety is relatively strong among off-roaders; the FJ Cruiser hasn't been rated by the federal government, but it achieves mostly 'good' ratings from the IIHS. The side-curtain airbags are roll-sensing and tied with the stability control to work preemptively.
Serious off-road equipment includes an A-TRAC active-traction system, a special multi-information display (inclinometer, compass, temperature), big BF Goodrich Rugged Trail tires, Bilstein shock absorbers, a Cyclone air precleaner, and 115V/400V power outlets. Last year Toyota increased the FJ Cruiser's standard tech features, adding iPod connectivity and XM satellite radio, in addition to a USB port, Bluetooth audio streaming, and a Bluetooth hands-free system with steering-wheel controls.
Handsomely retro designStylish, back-to-basics interiorNo-compromises trail abilityDocile enough for daily drivingLack of maneuverabilityPoor visibilityDifficult backseat accessNoisy highway cruising
Range-extending gas/ethanol/methanol-Electric HybridWe are all well aware of Lotus Cars, but the Lotus umbrella also shades a motorsports group and an engineering consultancy that is responsible for handling the design/development of many systems or entire vehicle lines of cars, trucks, military vehicles, etc. that are marketed by myriad other companies without attribution. The engineering group recently invited me around to show off some of its recent accomplishments that are nearly ready for prime time. 
Remember the Lotus Evora 414E concept unveiled in Geneva in 2010? It was a Volt-like range-extending electric built to showcase a special piston engine Lotus Engineering has optimized for range-extender usage. That engine concept has grown into a family of gen-sets that are being put into production by Spanish Tier-1 supplier Fagor Ederlan Group which will in turn supply hybrid drivetrains for as yet undisclosed OE manufacturers for sale in Europe and North America by 2014.
The Range Extender Engine family includes an 866cc inline-2 laid flat, and an upright 1299cc inline-3. Each engine is available in both naturally aspirated and supercharged forms (using an inexpensive centrifugal supercharger). They’re all capable of being run on ethanol, methanol, or gasoline. Horsepower & pound-feet ratings for the engines running on gasoline step up from 31 & 49, to 44 & 69, to 51 & 79, to 74 & 111. The two cylinder measures 22 x 16 x 13 inches and weighs 132-165 pounds including the generator and inverter, while the three measures 20 x 17 x 24 inches and scales at 209-223 pounds. Officials hinted that the top spec engine may find its way into a Transit-Connect-style urban delivery van, while the two-bangers would likely be destined for A-class or mini-compact cars. 
Volkswagen, as you likely know, roughly translates to "people's car" in German. Decades ago, what it really meant was the Beetle, an inexpensive means of getting four people and a bit of cargo to their destination. Today, it means the Up!, which carries the same mission statement. I owned a 1967 Beetle. It was my first car, and my dad figured I couldn't get into much trouble with it (only spun it once!). I had that car for years and it made a lasting impression on me, but as I was driving the new Up! through the streets of Rome, my rusty old Bug wasn't the car I was thinking about. It was the third-gen Geo/Chevy Metro three-door hatch I drove to deliver pizzas in college. After all, that was a "people's car," too, and much more comparable to the Up!.Stop rolling your eyes and keep reading. I'm fully aware of the Metro's reputation, and I'm not using it to insult the Up!. The Metro was a better car than it got credit for being. Do recall that it lasted over 15 years and three generations. At its peak, the Canadian plant that built the Metro was cranking out more than 100,000 cars a year. For as much grief as the Metro gets, it was a fairly popular car in its day. And let's not forget just a few years ago, during the gas price panic of 2008, people were paying thousands of dollars for used Metros that still achieved as much as 50 mpg.The Up! is like that, but better. A lot better. Unlike the Metro, the Up! is a pretty stylish little car, if you're into German minimalism. The funky lines in the fascias and window borders bleed European postmodernism, as does the always-blacked-out, all-glass rear hatch. Love it or hate it, you certainly won't miss it. Me, I'm still trying to decide whether it's grinning or if it's been gagged.More than just better-looking than the Metro, the Up! is a better-quality car. The materials, though rather inexpensive by Volkswagen standards, aren't even close to the worst we've seen in a sub-$15,000 car. The fit and finish is certainly up to Volkswagen standards. Also considerably better than the Metro is the Up!'s ride quality and NVH. The ride is a bit firm, befitting its German roots, but it still handled Rome's bumpy cobblestone streets nicely. If ride comfort were the only measure of a car, I'd have rather been driving those streets in the Up! than the Ferrari 599 I saw enduring them.Aside from being a small, inexpensive, three-door hatch, the likeness between the Up! and Metro struck me most while driving it. Both cars are powered by inline three-cylinder engines (though the Metro later came with an optional four-cylinder) and standard manual transmissions. Each offered two three-cylinder engine options making almost the same power, 60 horsepower for the base Up! and 75 horsepower for the top models, 5 more in both respects than the Metro. As you'd expect, all models are rather slow by American standards. After all, with a quoted 0-to-60 mph time of 13.2 seconds, the Up! would lose a drag race with a Smart Fortwo by nearly half a second. Of course, all of these cars are designed to be big city runabouts, not race cars, and as such they're all geared to provide adequate acceleration up to about 40 mph.Driving through the manic streets of Rome, the Up! never felt under-powered in traffic. After all, when you're doing the stop-and-go shuffle through city streets and topping out at 35 mph, you don't need a lot of muscle under the hood. Some of that's due to the throttle mapping -- in the high-powered model there was no difference in acceleration between 50-percent throttle and 100-percent throttle. Interestingly, the base engine was the exact opposite. The only time the Up! felt truly slow was merging on the highway and when trying to climb a steep hill, an arduous process in second gear with the pedal melded to the floor. That may have been the exact moment I was transported back to my pizza-schlepping days.Like the Metro and original Beetle before it, the Up! is a strikingly honest car. It tries to be nothing more than a stylish, inexpensive mode of transportation, and at that it excels. At the right price point, in the right markets, it might actually succeed at being the wildly popular Beetle incarnate the conservative Polo never was. In Germany at a price just under 10,000 euros, it should prove pretty tempting.But is America one of those markets? At the moment, Volkswagen doesn't seem to think so, as there are no plans to bring the car here. Three-door hatchbacks just don't do well in this market. There is, however, a five-door version coming soon. Could that car make it in America? That depends largely on how good the automated manual transmission is and what price Volkswagen can sell it for. Directly translated, the Up! would cost about $13,000 in America. Is it $2000 better than a base model Nissan Versa? That depends on how much style is worth to you. If Volkswagen can ship the five-door to America with 25 more horsepower and an even lighter price tag, it might just work. After all, a lot of Metros and original Beetles found homes in this country despite the presence of bigger, faster, nicer cars. And hey, near-Prius fuel economy for half the price is hard for even most stubborn American to argue with, especially in this economy.Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 3-door or 5-door hatchback 1.0L/60-hp or 75-hp DOHC 12-valve I-3 5-speed manual, 5-speed auto-clutch automatic 
Newsletter Stay up to date on car reviews, buying guides, articles and more 
Nearly halfway into my one-year test, the Juke's odometer ticked passed 7500 miles. To a Juke owner like me, that meant heading to the dealer for a minor service and checkup. Nissan categorizes its recommended services under two banners based on driving severity: Maintenance Schedule 1, or checkups every 3750 miles (or three months, whichever comes first), is tailored towards those that drive their vehicles hard or in particularly dusty climates. Schedule 2, on the other hand, is for those that drive in less severe conditions and recommends dealer stops every 7500 miles (or six months). As I'm not one to push the Juke to its extremes all the time (okay, once in a while, I've been known to), I opted for the latter schedule. In doing so, Power Nissan performed a lube, oil, and filter change, and rotated the Goodyears to even out normal wear.I made the executive decision to upgrade to Mobil1 synthetic oil for improved viscosity and, well, because Melissa, our resident service advisor, remarked that "the Juke is a turbo, so it's better for it!" All joking aside, the 1.6-liter turbo will likely be happier with synthetic oil running through its veins. In discussing which oil to choose with associate online editor, Benson Kong, we both found it surprising that Nissan didn't fill the Juke with synthetic at the factory. Then again, Kong said, he'd wager the Juke's cooling efficiency is pretty good without it.Oftentimes when I spend so much time in one vehicle, I forget what makes it special. Luckily for me, appreciating what the Juke has to offer is just a key grab away. Case in point, during lunch following my visit to the dealer, I managed to sneak into one of our newest long-term sports cars (that shall remain nameless until an Arrival article is published shortly). Without revealing too much, the sleek two-door arrived with on-the-fly dampener adjustability. In its stiffest Sport mode, it felt just a smidge more responsive and harder than the Juke's unsophisticated suspension.Sadly, however, after all the handling fun waned and it was time for my 1.5-hour commute home, I pined for a GT-R-like "Comfort" suspension mode. Rolling on any surface that's less than billiard smooth means having to duck and dodge every pothole in sight. In Los Angeles, that's nearly impossible, but hey, in the span of just a few hours, I've relearned to admire my quirky little ride.
I have recently (re)discovered that the Honda Odyssey is just about the perfect road trip vehicle. Over the long holiday weekend, I took the minivan on a camping trip up to Sequoia National Park. Having not made a campground reservation, we removed the second row seats in the Odyssey in case of a last minute need for sleeping in the van. Luckily, that wasn't necessary since we eventually found a campsite. Two reasons why this was lucky: first, the lock-down points for the seats protrude above the floor level, making kneeling or sitting in the center of the floor less than comfortable (let alone sleeping on it). And second, can you call it camping if you're not sleeping in a tent? Aside from the floor knobs, the Odyssey really feels cavernous with the second row removed. We could have fit a bear in there!During our stay in the giant forests of Sequoia, we were tempted to forgo a campfire, make ourselves comfy in the third row seats, and fire up the DVD rear entertainment system with its 16.2-inch wide screen. Instead, we enjoyed our view of the night sky, and the peace and quiet afforded by the surrounding wilderness. It's nice to know the luxuries are available but, more importantly, the Odyssey got us there and back in comfort, with plenty of room to spare.
See What the 
See What the 
Would it make you feel better if I told all you, my fellow Americans, that the Scirocco is nothing more than a Golf with a steeper windshield? What if I said the wider stance, just under an inch and a half in front and almost two and half inches in the rear, makes no difference at all? What about it being an inch and quarter lower -- that can't make any difference, right? If it helps you sleep better, I will tell you all these things -- but they aren't true. Since the Scirocco's re-release in 2008, American VW fans have been clamoring for a chance to own one. It may be just another example of us complaining that we don't get all the good stuff, or maybe VW was worried they would fly off lots like the new Jetta. With the GTI and the Scirocco's European and U.K. pricing so similar, VW may be concerned that instead of attracting new buyers, the Scirocco would take sales away from everyone's favorite hot hatch.Getting over 200 kph is almost too easy. There is no drama, very little noise, and certainly no feeling of danger. Again, very unlike older Sciroccos that felt like setting a speed record at anything over 100 mph. Sadly, the car is electronically limited to 220 kph, roughly 137 mph, although the speedometer did show just a little more than that. Making all this even sweeter is that it's all completely legal. Sausage, beer, castles, gummy bears, great drivers, unlimited sections of the Autobahn -- there is just so much to love about Germany.
No, your eyes aren't deceiving you. The revamped 2012 Mercedes-Benz C-Class bears a striking resemblance to last year's car. But of course looks can be deceiving, and despite what its familiar exterior may suggest, the C has been significantly revised for 2012. More specifically, some 2000-plus components have been replaced or changed. But the most significant update by far was the addition of a sleek new two-door model to the C-Class range, and thankfully it isn't yet another confused four-door "coupe" wannabe (we're looking at you, CLS). For the 2012 model year, the C-Class gets two new engines (not counting AMG models): a 201-horsepower 1.8-liter turbocharged four-cylinder found in the base C250, and a heavily revised, direct-injected 302-horse 3.5-liter V-6 used by the C350. The brand's 228-horse, 221 lb-ft 3.0-liter V-6 still lives on, but only in the C300 4MATIC. (That model's six-speed manual gearbox has been axed for 2012).While not significantly updated, the C's sheetmetal remains attractive, with chiseled, recessed character lines and angular edges. The aluminum hood, doors, and front fenders have been slightly tweaked to accentuate width and athleticism. The restyled, sweeping C-shaped head- and taillamps with LED elements distinguish the model from everything else in the Benz range. Sport models equipped with the optional Dynamic Handling packaged sit 0.6 inch lower and receive stiffened dampers and higher spring rates for improved lateral performance. Distinct twin-spoke 17-inch alloys and AMG-styled cladding also separate the model from its Luxury edition sibling.With valve-timing, direct-injection, and Lanchester balanced shafts (ones that run faster than the engine to counteract movement), the 1.8-liter turbocharged four-cylinder fitted provides a peppy, relatively fuel-efficient (21/31 city/highway mpg) means of propulsion. Sixty mph from nil comes up in 7.2 seconds, while a quarter mile gets slowly defeated in 15.4 seconds at 89.5 mph.In the esses, the 250's smooth and communicative hydraulically boosted rack-and-pinion steering feels weighty throughout rotation, which, together with an engine screaming for mercy and the optional Sport suspension shouldering the 3515-pound mass, makes cornering a surprisingly entertaining -- albeit not super-sticky -- proposition. Around our figure-eight course, it manages a 27.2 second run at an average 0.63 g.The C350 Coupe is nearly identical dimensionally to its four-door brethren, but sits 1.5 inches squatter thanks to a vastly raked A-pillar. Interior shoulder- and headroom suffer slightly (front kneeroom actually grows 0.3 inch to 42 inches), but not many staffers complained, especially with the standard-issue panorama roof expanding the perceived space. Testing mastermind Kim Reynolds did smack his head upon entry, however. Engineers eased rear seat ingress and egress with an easy one-push front seat fold/return. To the delight of rear passenger knees, the front seatbacks are generously scalloped.Much as it is with the sedan, the most interesting aspect of the coupe is what motivates it. The new 3.5-liter V-6 uses a bevy of innovative tech, and offers additional power and efficiency compared to its predecessor. It is direct-injected, uses a multi-spark ignition system, and has better balanced 60-degree cylinder angles (with 12:1 compression ratio) in place of the outgoing V-6's 90-degree configuration (with 10.7:1 compression). Its revised cam chain drive allows for smoother operation and lower noise levels. The redone cooling system dissipates heat soak during hard driving via a two-stage flow, and warms up the powertrain more efficiently in the coldest of climates. Benz's familiar seven-speed automatic gearbox with dinky plastic Touch Shift paddles delegates power to the rear 18-inch rubber.While Mercedes-Benz has beaten arch nemesis BMW to the next-gen-turbo-four-in-a-small-sedan punch, you have to remember that Audi and its A4 have been there, done that. Until we get the trio together next spring, we'll reserve judgment as to who is the legitimate king of the ever-popular small luxury sedan segment. Nonetheless, the C-Class, be it two- or four-door, four- or six-cylinder, remains one cool, classy contender.Front engine, RWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan Front engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe 1.8L/201-hp/229-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4 3.5L/302-hp/273-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6