Showing posts with label first. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first. Show all posts

Sunday, 13 November 2011

First Test: 2012 Fisker Karma Pre-Production

holy sex appeal!

i'm diggin the data at the end... just made myself a pretty little graph =)

On your chart you have an estimated gallon equivalent for CO2, but what would be nice is the estimated gallon equivalent for the range as well as the estimate gallon equivalent in terms of cost.

In other words, lets assume your "full charge" equates to 35 miles of range.  @ 20 MPG that would be 1.75 gallons of gas.  So, any CO2 production less than 1.75 would be an improvement.

Then we could also look at cost.  In CA, 91 octane in my area is currently running @ ~4.10 per gallon.  So, for 1.75 gallons that would be  ~$7.00.  So given the average charge cost in CA of ~$2.80, that's also a significant cost savings.

Of course, given that this is a $100,000 car, you'd have to appreciate how the overall package compares to something like a Panamera to determine whether the operational savings are worthwhile.

Improving the chart with a more detailed coparison would quickly show where the Karma would be a benefit and where it wouldn't.

-T

Toyota Avalon mention.  With love and admiration.
NICE!

"Ecotec" is code for "Monkey crap"
BD

Benson, you told a couple of whoppers.

1) No one pays 12.8 cents per KW-hr in Los Angeles.  That's the base price before all of the tacked-on surcharges.  For most homes and businesses with high electricity usage (like if you use 21 KW-hrs to charge your EV every day) the total rate in LA is closer to 19 cents per KW-hr - 16.5 if you get the EV discount.

2) LA has quite a filthy supply of electricity.  About 40% of LA's power comes from the Four Corners coal-burning power plants. California's electricity might be relatively clean when averaged over the whole state, but LA's isn't clean at all.  

If you issue a correction, we will know that you've simply made honest mistakes.  If you don't, like Lassa never does, then we'll know that you're trying to intentionally mislead your readers.


View the original article here

Saturday, 12 November 2011

First Drive: 2012 Volkswagen Scirocco TDI

2012 Volkswagen Scirocco TDI Front End In Motion 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.


View the original article here

First Test: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C250 Sedan and C350 Coupe

2012 Mercedes Benz C250 Sedan Front Three Quarter 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


View the original article here

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

First Test: 2012 Mazda3 Skyactiv-G

Mazda is really doing some neat things with this SkyActiv tech.  They get what a car should be IMO.  This is what Honda or Toyota should be trying to do with their cars.

On another point, the '3 is NOT the best selling car in Canada.  Scroll to the chart and see where the 3 is.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/07/canada-100-best-selling-vehicles-2011.html

Nice research Lieberman. lol

WTH!!!!!!!!!!

No SkyActiv with that hatch at launch?  Just as with the Focus, why would anyone want the sedan?  The hatch is great and should get the SkyActiv.  If I were to buy a car now, the Ford Focus hatch, Hyundai Elantra Touring (when it is refreshed), Jetta TDI Sportwagen, Subaru Impreza hatch, and Mazda 3 hatch would be at the top of my list.  The Focus is my favorite looking car, the Mazda shows major promise, and the Subaru is super practical in the midwest with its AWD.  The Elantra Touring could be the darkhorse if it retains or improves on the current model's excellent driving manners and chassis (yes, Hyundai can make a car like this).

I would cross-shop midsize sedans including the Camry (the king), Accord (bulletproof), Fusion (best balanced), Sonata (great value), Optima (best looking), Pasat (favorite driver), Kizashi (perfect size and really fun), and redesigned Malibu (shows promise) if I wanted more interior passenger space.

jd - The 3s hatch only comes in Grand Touring trim. I don't think there is much difference in the GT trim between the 3i hatch and the 3s hatch, except for the fog lights and larger wheels. And I know the fog lights are an option on the 3i hatch.

Give it some time, and I imagine the 2.5 will be phased out completely.


View the original article here

Sunday, 6 November 2011

First Test: 2012 Kia Rio 5-Door EX

I also think its still very ugly even after the redesign. Too much like a copy of other cars. This vehicle makes Peter Schreyer's look and feel cheap. He was such a good designer. He still is but he is a total sell out. I guess that is where the money is at. Asura: Very good points and thank you for putting the price of this car into perspective as compared to its primary competition.  I too would advocate that people do a little research before making random statements with little substance.  

ALF: The weak American dollar has everything to do with the price increases of automobiles.  To keep costs in line while offering a good perceived value, we see manufactures using rear drum breaks and downgraded engines (VW), lower quality interior grade plastics (VW, Toyota, Honda) and cheaper steering components (VW) in order to stay competitively priced.  Simply put, the weaker the dollar, the more dollars it takes to buy the same product.  Prices dropping in electronics correlates to the short lifecycles of these products. As the newest products are offered, prices of the old products drop and as new technologies are adapted across a broader market, fixed costs and the costs for development are spread out over a wider range thus further decreasing the cost per unit.  

While this car may be competitively priced within its market, I would be an advocate to move up one size.  I feel that the price difference between the B and C segments is relatively minute compared to the larger size, more powerful engines, higher comfort level (NVH) and similar economy of the larger vehicles.  Factoring in resale value and one might even be further ahead with a Focus versus a Fiesta, Mazda 3 (at typically 0% financing) versus Mazda 2 and a 40MPG Elantra over the Accent.  I would conclude that the value equation (what it costs versus what you get) of the C segment is far greater than the B segment in general.

For those complaining about the price:

Ford Fiesta SE Hatch with Automatic and Sync and Sound package: $18,085
Chevy Sonic LT Hatch with Turbo engine and Connectivity Plus Cruise package: $17,005
Honda Fit Sport with Automatic: $18,530
Hyundai Accent SE with Automatic: $17,555
Mazda2 with Automatic: $17,230
Nissan Versa 1.8SL: $19,150.

So...Looking at the prices of its competition...

You make the call. But before you start typing incoherently with rage about the price, look at where everyone else is. And then look at the Economy. And look at the value of the American Dollar.


View the original article here

Saturday, 5 November 2011

First Drive: 9ff GTurbo 900 Bioethanol

9Ff Gturbo 900 Bioethanol Front End In Motion 9ff boss Jan Fatthauer admits he drives his own cars on record runs only because he can't find a test driver crazy enough to do it. As the GTurbo 900 Bioethanol -- the world's fastest biofuel car -- sparks into life and threatens to blow the windows out of a neighboring building, I start to understand why. The noise is otherworldly -- just frightening. The car is effectively a modified version of 9ff's gas-powered GTurbo, but it has been honed for top-speed duty, optimized to run flat-out on a high-speed oval. This, then, is a barely road-legal racing car.

I'm here to drive the GTurbo on the public road, but it's a stretch to say this is anything other than a record car. I burble, lurch, and bunny hop out of 9ff's Dortmund, Germany, base. And when I hit a manhole cover, it feels like my teeth might crack.

It pretty much will. According to 9ff, it hits 62 mph in 2.8 seconds, 124 mph in 7.1 and 186 mph in around 19.5 seconds. That's not far behind the Bugatti Veyron, in a car with less power, rear-wheel drive, and the kind of finish that suggests it was put together by mad men in an industrial unit rather than by an automotive powerhouse.

Under the hood of the 900 Bioethanol is 9ff's massively massaged, 4.0-liter twin turbo with stronger hoses to take the bioethanol fuel. Titanium connecting rods, new pistons coated with Nikasil, an advanced intercooler, two 9ff turbos, and a 100-cell sport metal catalytic converter are all part of the mix. The engine mapping proved a nightmare with the switch to biofuel, but it is running close to smooth for a car with this much power, bile, and sheer anger.

Thankfully it stops well, too. 9ff retained the GT3's brake calipers, but fitted them with pads from the Porsche Supercup race car. They screech and grind until the heat gets into them, but they're designed for high-speed use, so that's hardly a criticism.

It is produced primarily from wheat, barley, corn, and sugarcane, and while bioethanol-powered cars would inevitably produce some emissions, the fuel has the potential to be carbon neutral over its lifespan, if you include growing the crops. Brazil, with its sugarcane based program, has used the fuel to great effect.

And Fatthauer intends to go farther. He says 249 mph was always the goal, and he has a rather typical answer for how that will happen. "We just need more power," he says with a wry smile. "Next year we will go with 1100 hp, or 1200 hp, and we'll get 400 kph [249 mph]."

Rear engine, RWD, 2-pass, 2-door coupe 4.0-liter/900 hp/700 lb-ft 24-valve flat six


View the original article here

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

First Test: 2012 Mini Coupe John Cooper Works

2012 Mini Coupe John Cooper Works Front Three Quarters Call it what you want -- just don't call it boring. If you're struggling for a descriptor, call it a trailblazer, because the all-new 2012 Mini Coupe touts some significant brand firsts: It's the first Mini with room for only two; the first to have active aerodynamics, and the first to be engineered with what designers call a three-box structure. (More on this later.) And here comes the biggie: Nearly everything about this Mini -- particularly in sportier John Cooper Works form -- is honed specifically for "optimum performance" and supposedly entertains drivers "even better" than the rest of the lineup. In the flesh, the Mini Coupe is a car that makes you go, "Hmmm." Its design takes some getting used to, which isn't necessarily a good thing. But it is unmistakably Mini. Nothing can really prepare you for its smushed A-pillar, wraparound rear glass, and intriguing ba-donk-a-donk. (Yes, gentlemen, you can put a drink on this "Grand Turismo-style" booty and it won't topple over.) OK, I take that back. Maybe a Red Bull marketing car equipped with cute co-eds and a ginormous mock beverage could serve as adequate preparation. But that's about it.

Like other similarly equipped Minis, the JCW edition dons a wardrobe fit for the circuit. Aggressive fascias fore, aft, and at its flanks replace the more sedate versions. Bigger 17-inch alloys, a 0.4-inch lower spring height, sturdier anti-roll bars, central exhaust, and bigger (12.4-inch front, 11.0-inch rear) brakes differentiate the Coupe from other siblings, while also upping its athleticism. An integrated roof spoiler set at the latter half of its contrasting "helmet" directs air down to an active rear spoiler that rises at 50 mph. Both provide 88 pounds of additional downforce while travelling at the Coupe's electronically limited 149 mph top speed. Having all that push to the ground has does have a negative effect, mostly in the form of a slightly higher drag coefficient that's up to 0.35 versus a slipperier 0.33 of the base Cooper hardtop. If you're wondering, no Coupe can be had with a color-matched helmet.

First, it stands alone as a footwork master among a group of surefooted siblings. The sole act of applying power more effectively via stiffer, thicker, robust, mostly aluminum suspension components individualizes the two-seater from its other brandmates. Its miniscule 1.6-liter's all-too-familiar turbo lag (albeit minimal) continues its tenure, but once the thrilling 207 lb-ft of sub-2000 rpm overboost torque is dialed in, and the smooth power band gets tapped with 3000-rpm-plus six-speed Getrag throws, the zealous Coupe runs, jinks, and grips like nothing else bred in Oxford.

Of course, the most fun is had with all nannies switched to their lowest settings, or off, and Sport mode engaged. (It remaps throttle response and provides a weightier Electronic Power Steering.) Speaking of nannies, there are quite a few to mention, including Dynamic Stability Control, Dynamic Traction Control, and Electric Differential Lock Control, all standard on the JCW. Amazingly, torque steer has been reduced to next-to-nil levels thanks to Mini's tinkerers.

It's not often we agree with marketers, but of all the current-generation Minis, the JCW Coupe is the most entertaining Mini I've driven. It isn't its speed, everyday usability, or fashionable design that makes it so. Rather, the Coupe's high grip, punchy powered, and overexcited personality fused with usual Mini cheekiness earns it the title. It's the type of car that's sure to get most any driver's blood flowing, and one Mini you'll never want unbuckle from.

Front engine, FWD, 2-pass, 2-door coupe 1.6L/208-hp/192-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4


View the original article here

First Drive: 2012 Bentley Continental GTC

2012 Bentley Continental GTC Front Three Quarters 2 Movies always seem to get it wrong. In Ian Fleming's original novels about everyone's favorite numerically nomenclatured spy, Bond had a taste for cars from Crewe instead of Aston Martins. If Fleming's Bond were still fighting the Cold War, facing supervillains bent on global destruction, and ordering aerated cocktails, there is a good chance Bentley would still be his motor of choice. Why? Because Bond isn't just a singleminded killing machine. He's a thinking man, a ladies' man, and a gentleman. He's not just a bit of everything -- he's all of everything. The Bentley Continental GTC is a kindred spirit of her majesty's diplomatic fail-safe. Like any double-O, the Bentley is not about excelling at a single task, but accomplishing everything thrown at it with style, grace, and dead-on effectiveness.

The first rule of Bond is to look the part. While the Continental hasn't changed considerably since the initial 2003 launch, it has been subtly refreshed. The 2012 GTC takes all of last year's GT updates and applies them to the convertible body style. Every GTC panel is new for 2012. The front fenders are probably the most significant, as the effort and expense in the ever-so-slight visual change might define the very spirit of Bentley. Like crisply creased tuxedo pants, the character lines sweep across the headlamps and over the fenders to create a feeling of motion. Past Continentals made do with stamped panels similar to what the rest of the industry considers adequate. For 2012, Bentley turned to the aerospace industry to borrow a production process known as superforming, in which sheets of aluminum are heated to nearly 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and then molded around a single tool using air pressure. The cooling time is controlled to eliminate the need for an additional heat-treating process. The previous character lines had radii of 6.5mm, or roughly a quarter of an inch. The now-perfect pleats are 3mm, or less than an eighth of an inch radius. Not only are the sharper lines possible, but the fender is now one uninterrupted piece from the lower front spoiler to the hood and the A-pillar. The previous fender required a cut line that sliced the headlights in half, not incredibly noticeable, but nowhere near as visually perfect as the new pieces. While most manufacturers would struggle to see the value in all this effort and expense, Bentley sees it as a continuation of its heritage.

The customizable interior includes seven standard wood veneers hand-selected and matched by craftsmen in Bentley's woodshop. Drivers can also choose completely custom selections. The thin sheets of wood are formed and adhered to aluminum plates, some machined sheet metal, and others beautiful cast pieces. The entire interior has a bespoke feel to it, with a choice of 17 different standard hides for upholstered surfaces. These can be ordered in two-tone combinations, with umpteen different colors and styles of stitching and embroidery. And if those combinations don't fit your needs, custom hides are of course available. The seats are large and luxurious and offer more adjustments than those on a first-class transatlantic 747 flight. They hold you in place in even the most demanding situations. The driving position is low, and the hand-stitched steering wheel adjusts for both height and reach. The thick rim and contoured spokes fill the palm of your hand, but unlike some other steering wheels, still allow your fingers to wrap around naturally for miles of comfort.


View the original article here

Sunday, 30 October 2011

First Ride: 2012 Tesla Model S

As a handful of journalists snapped pictures, poked at touch screens, and flipped open the charging ports on the trio of preproduction (Betas, they call them) Model S's parked outside the Tesla (ex-NUMMI) factory in Fremont, California, I had one solitary thought:

None of this can be said about the Model S. In its base version, it'll cost $57,400 (add about $1950 for destination) and be eligible for a federal $7500 tax credit (and depending on where you live, additional local ones). Here in California, for instance, that means the price will be about $49,350 (after including our state $2500 tax credit as well). Not cheap, but there's a whole lot of vastly less interesting sedans out there that regularly sell for $49,350. (Don't make me name names.) Moreover, unlike the Volt and Leaf, the Model S's charger is part of the deal, built right into car.

While the Tesla Roadster has been unfairly labeled an electric Lotus (derived, perhaps), that won't happen with the Model S as virtually every spec of it is original. Overall, its presence struck me as something like a more organic Audi A7, meaning it's a stylishly windswept four-door fastback with a clear accent on performance. Parked side-by-side with the Audi, they're just about the same length, with the Tesla measuring an inch taller and wider. And like the Audi, the Model S is almost entirely aluminum, with bolding via adhesives, rivets, and welds, depending on the circumstance.

In fact, they're removable, five-belt child affairs, so their occupants' size is literally restricted by law. I actually climbed back there, but being considerably past child-seat age (when I was a kid, I used to stand on a front bench seat, for heaven's sake) all I could judge is that they're definitely close to the rear bumper. But no more so than the third row of many minivans. Would I put a kid there? Well, the seats do provide some flexibility in a pinch...and that's about it.


View the original article here

Saturday, 29 October 2011

First Drive: 2012 Mercedes-Benz B-Class European Spec

2012 Mercedes Benz B Class Side In Motion Is a compact hatch too small for you, but a crossover too large? Have no fear, my spatially challenged friends. The 2012 Mercedes-Benz B-Class has been designed with your exact predicament in mind. It's being billed by Benz as a premium compact car that puts practicality first, and it's coming to the U.S. next year. When Mercedes says this car is all-new, it's not messing around - the B-Class features the largest amount of changed parts of any replacement model the German manufacturer has ever introduced. There are new four-cylinder gas and diesel engines, a revised seven-speed dual clutch gearbox, and stacks of new safety kit. More important than all that, though, is the B-Class' new front-drive platform - the same chassis that will underpin the new A-Class, a small SUV, a baby CLS four-door coupe, and a mystery fifth model. So it had better be good.

It's on the inside where the B-Class really ups its game. The seats slide and fold in a variety of ways, allowing you to easily cram in your particular combination of passengers and cargo, while the dash layout and materials are superb. SLS-inspired vents, made from solid chunks of metal, dominate the view, followed closely by a permanent tablet-style screen that rises out of the dash. Shell out a couple of thousand dollars and Mercedes will even hook it up with a 3G Internet connection.

Topping the completely new engine lineup is a 1.6-liter direct-injection turbocharged gasoline engine available with either 122 hp in the B180 or 156 hp in the B200. That might not sound like premium levels of power, but hold on to a gear, rev it toward redline, and there's plenty of shove for overtaking and maintaining your speed on the freeway - especially in the B200. All too often, though, the turbo was caught off-boost, at which point the engine bogged down and forced us reach for a lower gear or sit patiently, waiting for the turbo to spool up. It made the B-Class feel bigger, heavier, and more cumbersome than it is.

There was no such problem with the diesel engines. Both are 1.8-liter units derived from the 2.1-liter diesel engine found in the C-Class and E-Class, but modified with a shorter stroke. Available with either 109 hp in the B180 CDI or 136 hp in the B200 CDI, the extra torque meant throttle response was more instant and the engine was happier to be left in a higher gear. There's huge fuel efficiency gains too, of up to 21 percent compared to the outgoing car, helped by the addition of stop-start to every model in the range.

It's a curious mix, the Mercedes B-Class. When you consider the affluent families it's aimed at, the combination of an understated exterior, high-quality interior, and impressive functionality is well-judged. Drive it in isolation, though, and you can't help wishing it had a little more to offer dynamically. But considering the badge on the hood and the fact that it has no direct premium rivals, it's hard not to see flush families snapping up the B-Class.

2012 Mercedes-Benz B-Class European Spec Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 5-door, hatchback 1.6L/122-hp or 156-hp, four-cylinder turbo gasoline and 1.8L/109-hp or 136-hp, four-cylinder turbodiesel 6-speed manual or seven-speed twin-clutch auto


View the original article here

First Test: 2012 Toyota Yaris SE

Why even talk about the "improved" acceleration?  The 0-60's were awful on past Yarii because you always tested an antiquated four-speed automatic.  Other magazines who had their hands on manual Yarii pulled off anywhere from 8.5 to 8.9 seconds.

The reality is the SE only performs better where they updated things-- braking and suspension/feeling.  Otherwise it's technically a slower car.  Depending on how many pieces can be mixed-n-matched with the old Yaris, I'd actually consider just buying a used Yaris hatch and throwing on the fun pieces to the lighter, less attention-gobbling package.  It'd likely cost the same to do it, but honestly it just seems more fun than having a factory built SE that I guarantee will be mostly gray-hairs behind the wheel.  Look at half the Scions and Yarii out there that went after the youth market and tell me differently.

Also, if you tested the $17k Yaris SE, why is the price as tested sitting at $15,055? (Fixed.  Thank you.)

Order
That's a pathetic excuse of a post!

What subcompact in the U.S. has a 2.0?
Oh.....

These cars are much lighter than compacts, and don't need larger engines, which would hurt, not help, their EPA.  Pay attention!
BD

pmirp
Well, you're wrong, and that's........ok.

9 seconds 0-60 is normal for this class.  Kia Rio and the base Sonic run that.  Fiesta is the slowest in the class.  And Fiesta is very expensive.  Easy to spend $20k

The base Sonic gets 25/35?  THAT'S not in the same class!

This car is fully competitive with all the new entries, except for the 6-speed.  But it's EPA and speed show it's not needed, just would be that much better to have.
BD

Is Toyota the new GM?

There was a time GM would not spend enough money on development of its smaller cars.

Looking at this Yaris, seeing how the interior is miserable still (though improved on 4th world interior of last year's), no six speed automatic, and not in same class as Sonic, Fiesta or Koreans, makes me believe that Toyota is not investing enough in their compact and sub-compact categories.

That is a shame.  Perhaps they think Prius will become the standard, but that is a very risky line they are running.  A line that lead to bankruptcy for GM, and one that now they are on, without improving their cheaper offerings in a bad economy to same standards as Ford or Koreans or GM

A better Yaris, but for $17k, a 6-speed slushbox should be there.

And that would get it to 40MPG, too.
BD

it looks good. just needs a little more power. i don't know why toyota and honda like 106hp so much. they have been offering cars with 106hp for donkey years!

toyota should make an awd version of this with a 1.6 turbo! wishful thinking lol. it looks like a little rally car. i love it!


View the original article here

Thursday, 27 October 2011

First Test: 2012 Buick Regal GS

@chris:

This car stickers for $35k-$39k. How "young" do you think the buyer would be? I see people in their 40s and 50s driving Audis and acuras all the time. Do you really think some recent college grad who is worried about impressing his 20 something date is going to be in the market for a $35k car as his first vehicle? How many 20 somethings by TSXs, 328s, TLs or G37s brand new? Not too many. The reality is a guy who can comfortably afford this is very likely to be at in his late 30s to mid 40s. I dont think Buick is targeting 22 year olds living at home with their parents with this car. Thats what Civic Si's are for.

@greenboy:

I mentioned CC. Buick has mentioned CC. Auto reviewers have mentioned CC. The two cars that best compete with the regal based on price and size and features are the CC and TSX. That's common knowledge. The CC has been a decent seller by VW standards and the car has gotten rave reviews since it came to the US. The TL is a more expensive car with a V6 engine- that doesnt mean its a "far better" car than the regal. The Lacrosse is more of a TL competitor than Regal based on price, size and availability of a V6.

Now I see your problem, you are a spurned Pontiac fanboy who is mad that Buick is around. China saved Buick and their sales have been going up since the bailout. You may not be happy, but consumers are responding to their new products. Sales can only continue to go up with the improvements to Regal for 2012 plus Verano. You and I both know you cant prove who will and will not consider a Buick. You assume that folks who drive import brands wont look at Buick but thats just a guess.

@rsrtampa

Prove me wrong? Were you wrong by assuming that I am bashing GM? I said that the Regal is a nice car. I was in favor of the bailout. I am a GM fan and am hoping for GM to succeed. That doesn't mean that I am a fan of every vehicle that GM builds. I think Cadillac is making moves in the right direction as well as Chevrolet. Personally I think that the Buick brand should have been cut in the US but that's  my opinion. If you think I'm wrong, good for you. Enjoy your Buick.

@ greenboy76

I'm about to prove you wrong because I'm almost certain my BMW will be traded in for the GS. It's been many years since I have owned an American car and I always said, when they build it, I will buy it. I think its time to stop bashing GM and once again be proud of what OUR auto industry is putting out.

Read the article again, the GS may not be blowing the doors off the competition but it sure is hanging with the pack and looking very handsome (far better than Infiniti or Acura) in the process.

@syj

I mentioned Acura, Infiniti and Audi. At no point did I mention Lexus other than the fact that Buick needs to concentrate on potential Lexus buyers as I feel this is their greatest opportunity for sales success. CC? Who mentioned the VW CC? It's been a slow seller since it's inception. Aim a little higher.  The TL is a far superior car to the Regal it's problem is that it's ugly. You are trying to find an argument for every negative statement about this car. Go buy one and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

@drek:

This same engine is used in Europe (not with this hp rating though) and in the regal turbo. Plus it will be added to Verano and perhaps Malibu in the future. The ecotec is a related family of engines so this 2L turbo has some commonality with the regular 2.4L used in many GM products. I'd guess it doesnt have the 3.6L V6 because the CTS and Lacrosse already offer it for those who must have a V6. The 3.6L cant match the torque of this turbo 4 BTW.

@greenboy:

Regal has been beating TSX and CC for months now. It usually outsells TL as well. Lacrosse directly competes with the ES350 and TL. The Enclave competes with MDX and RX350 and to some degree the MKT. Regal sales have posted year over year increases almost every month of 2011. Regal is very much part of Buick's recent success. Check the sales figures for yourself.

@ syj

You're right, Buick sales are increasing. Where are those increased sales numbers coming from? I am sure the Regal isn't stealing very many buyers from Acura, Infiniti or Audi. The Enclave and Lacrosse play in market segments that these other brands do not (other than the MDX) and they are the reason for Buicks increased sales numbers.

What the hell is wrong with GM?? Why not put the already existing 318 HP 3.6L direct-injection engine that they make in this car??? It probably would get BETTER fuel mileage and power at the same time. AND, cut costs by not having to build this non-necessary 4 banger.

Looks like bankruptcy didn't solve the problem.

@greenboy:

Compare Buicks sales to Acura, Infiniti and Audi. Not saying every Buick buyer checks  out one of those brands but the increased sales are coming from somewhere. We've been hearing the "no one driving import brand x would ever consider a Buick" line since the current lacrosse came out. Buick's sales are up and I dont think thats just from attracting folks driving American cars.

@T2:

Im stating facts regarding the GS and the competition. I didnt say the car was perfect, but whenever people cant offer any real rebuttal of the facts regarding a car they want to dismiss they turn to the weak and predictable attempts to discredit someone else by accusing them of being a fanboy or on the payroll of the brand in question. The mileage of the GS (and regal across the board) is somewhat weak. The car lacks memory seats which is expected in this class. The GS needs more interior/ext colors. Happy now?

@slowloris

Guess oyu didnt notice the 5 series, X3, A4 and A6 come with 4 cylinder engines. The C class has a 4 standard for 2012 as well. Get with the times- oops, better not say anymore because I sound too much like a Buick sales rep by stating the obvious.

@badstand:

I know the A4 has quattro- that only helps 0-60. If you think a .2 advantage is huge so be it. Its not. Subtract AWD and the A4 would likely be slower than the GS. Id love to know how 0-60 in 6.1 is impressive but 6.3 is too slow for a sports sedan.

@T2:

See my response to the person inferring his 2004 Accord is better simply because its faster. Your Altima is faster than a host of $35k cars on sale today, doesnt automatically make it a better sedan. The GS looks better, has more features, more airbags and better handling than any altima- even the ones that can  beat it in a drag race.

Most midsize cars with this type of performance are close to 3700lbs. While its true that other cars of this weight have V6s, they dont have heavy 20" wheels and tires. The wheels and tires alone probably add close to 100lbs vs 17s or 18s. Only on the internet do people evaluate cars based on curb weight, no one cares in real life.

@topheezy:

Your 7 year accord may be faster. wont stop as well, corner as hard, have as many features or offer as much safety in a crash. Almost any older car is lighter than a modern version in the same size class. We all know curb weights have generally increased along with features, increased wheel sizes and more stiff platforms. 303hp Impala SS could smoke the GS and your accord- doesnt mean it was a better car.

@lions:

TSX and GS are basically equally equipped except tsx has sunroof standard. when you add nav and sunroof to gs youre at $38k which is the price of the TSX V6 with tech package. GS has tons of kit standard.G37 Journey isnt the sport model- I realize it packs more value than the S model, but the g37 that puts up the stellar performance numbers is the S model and to get that with a stick you have to shell out $41k.

@church:

dont compare MSRPs to out the door prices. Thats just stupid. and Im sure you would get the G37 over the regal. No shock there, if you like the infiniti go buy one. Heres a newsflash, the G37 and GS can both be great sports sedans. Hows that?

@badstang:

Dude, comparably equipped the A4 is at least 5 grand more. Thats 5k to gain .2 secs in 0-60. The cars are tied beyond that.

and name another car with this amount of performance and features for 38k. Only the TSX and Maxima come close.

@asura:

price matters, dont be silly. Buick doesnt compete with the M3s and ISFs of the world. Buick sells mostly in the under $40k segment of the market. Whats ridiculous is acting like people cross shop on trim level as opposed to price. For THIS PRICE you can get a GS or C300, 328i, IS250 or TSX V6. Period.

The handling and brakes appear to be the highs for this car.  I wouldn't mind the average acceleration if the mileage was much better than 19/27.  That's only 2mpg better than a 365hp V6 AWD SHO that is much faster.  Although the handling on the SHO is average in this class.

The price is a little steep also.

To be honest, I was expecting more in regards to performance with that engine. The output looks good on paper, but to not even break 6 even..?

But this is THE sports model, the creme of the crop of the Regal...So why does it not deliver with that of more performance minded entry luxury? Going after the base models of the other luxury brands and saying it competes with them (Barely, I might add) is just silly. This is where the Regal Turbo should be, and the GS even higher.

This is how it should be IMHO:

Regal Base = IS250, G25, TSX 4 cylinder, A4, 328i
Regal Turbo = IS350, G37, TSX V6, S4, 335i
Regal GS = IS-F, RS4, M3

@ Syj Trust me I am all about the GS, but you missed a few facts.

First off I think you meant the IS 250 not IS 205, but I'm sure that was just a typo, and I won't hold that against you.

G37 Journey with 7 spd trans: MSRP is $36,200 W/ many standard features included.

Acura TSX 3.5 Liter V6 MSRP is $35,350, Also, many standard features.

Only the IS350 starts at an MSRP of over 40K, @ $40,020

However, to agree with you...priced out with options the Regal GS is hands down the best buy, and desires a serious look. It may not burn the comp in 0-60 times, but everything is either really close or better.

For those who have doubt, a base A4 2.0T FWD may start at $32,500, but like BMW you will have to add lots of options to compare it with the GS, and that puts your MSRP well above the 40K mark. same with a 328i. Besides Audi i4 turbo's are so unreliable you couldn't give me one for free.  See U.S v Audi USA docket No. 1:07 for details. 1.8L and 2.0 Liter Turbo engine...

Jimmy,

That Kool-Aid must be mighty tasty! Have some more....

@The Heartbeat of America

While your assumption may hold true with some of the posters on here, it doesn't with me and likely a few others.  I have an '08 G35XS, and it is most certainly faster.  I do agree that acceleration performance is but one piece of the performance puzzle.

Ummm....quick question to all of y'all:

What do you drive?

A toyota minivan?

A Volvo station wagon?

Point is,it's a hell of a lot faster than what most people reading this article drive. They don't know how fast 6.3 secs to 60 feels like because it takes their cars 14 seconds to do the same thing. lay off trolls.

this car has respectable performance for its class. I'm proud of buick and I hope they keep producing these kind of cars.

Good and solid first effort.

People should stop looking at just the 0-60 times..

But I thought it didn't have 19" wheels 1487? Oops, syj.  You said so yourself.  More of your fanboy games?

And as someone else pointed out, the other cars need AWD or V6s to weigh what the Regal does.

And you can get a G37S for $40,600 never mind the $5000 off stickers all over the local Infiniti dealers.  This is not a new car and they are going well below sticker.  But if you want to nitpick, and I know you do my fanboy friend, for under $40,601 I'll take a G37.  Well worth the premium over the FWD Buick.

@syj

I've driven several cars with adjustable dampers/steering.  Some were better and more effective than others.  

I also agree that this car offers a great value and performance package.  The handling capacity they achieved with this car is quite laudable.  The only thing I'd like to see tweaked is it's acceleration performance.

On another note, 3700 lbs for a FWD 4 cyl is a little portly.  The cars you listed either need a V6 or AWD to achieve that weight.

@chruch:

1. You cant get the G37S for under $40k
2. Adding dealer installed 19s will balloon the price of the $41,500 G37S far beyond the price of the GS
3. Check out the curb weight of the A4, TSX V6, TL and Maxima- all are around 3700lbs.

Haters will hate I see.

I agree details matter in cars like these- and they sweated the details on this car as evidences by the handling and braking. Its crazy that people are disappointed with the weight and peformance of a FWD car that nails the figure 8 nearly as fast as a 335i which costs thousands more.

@vectra

Do you really think the 90s GS could hold a candle to this car? I cannot believe folks think you can sum a vehicle up in 0-60. The Impala SS could hit 60 in 5.6secs which was faster than almost any sub $50k sedan on the market at the time it came out- that doesn't make it a great sports sedan. The current GS is on another level in terms of quality, styling and performance.

@church:

Name the RWD cars in this price range that have adjustable chassis components. You cant get an equivalent of IDCS in other $35k cars. And how would you know they are better to drive?

@jayhawk:

Who told you adjustable dampers arent effective? Most sports sedans costing over $40k have some sort of adjustable damping. Audi and MB and Cadillac offer adjustable damping on some models. I know the wheel and tire package isnt offered on the other competitors- its an advantage for the Regal GS. I didnt say the G37 was the only car lacking those features.

"Shifter feel is refined, possessing a subtle crispness that could even be compared to some BMWs we've driven."

 When is the last time anyone said that about a Buick?  I can't buy a car right now but when I'm back in the market I'll give one of these a test drive.  Nice car!

Buick certainly got the handling right (thank you big sticky tires), but even a regular 328 will run with this thing in a straight line, which is kind of disappointing.  And the RWD competitors are much more entertaining and adjustable chassis wise, even without their sport packages.

Ultimately, the Regal is limited in its sports sedan potential by being overweight and FWD - the same problem faced by the TSX (3700 lbs is just too heavy for a FWD 4cyl car).  These two things take the edge off no matter how good GM's efforts are otherwise.  For $40k or less I'll take a G37S any day - even with the crappy Bridgestones Infiniti puts on it (and BTW, 19's are a dealer installed option - wouldn't want em on most roads, but they are available)

0-60 in 6.3
loaded model >$35K
and its called a Buick

When Buick comes to mind, I think of buyers who need Viagra.  FAIL!!!!!!!

@Roadmastah

The devil is in the details, which separates some of these closely matched cars.

Nice effort, Buick! Now put an "X" at the end of the name and put in enough power to clearly lead the pack.

Note that the rubber-band tires on 20-inch wheels will lead to a lot of bent rims in the real world....

PS:
Wow, reading most of your posts reminds me of listening to old grumpy spouses arguing over silly nitpicking details.

@syj

None of the cars you mentioned offer 20" wheels either(other than the GS).  Also, LED running lights ARE available as a dealer installed Infiniti accessory, if that's important to you.  No, the G37 doesn't offer adjustable damping/steering modes on the current model, which would be nice if it was effective.

@throttleblip:

Agreed with your math. MT was attempting to marginalize the fact that this thing will trounce most competing $35k luxury cars by inferring its not fair to compare it with weaker rivals. It only has 52 more hp than the G25 and 66 more than IS250. Another competitor would be the S60 T5 with 250hp.

@jayhawk:

G37s can outrun any sedan that costs under $40k short of an EVO or STi. It surely can beat the Regal GS in a drag race, but it can dust the 328, C300, TSX and IS as well. Obviously anyone who is primarily concerned about 0-60 times will get the G37s over any of the cars I mentioned. And the G doesnt offer 19 or 20" wheels, LED running lights or adjustable damping/steering modes. Also doesnt have anything like Intellink which will soon be standard on all regals.

@jackal:

On any twisty road this car would embarrass any GNX. When will people realize a FAST car isnt necessarily a balanced peformance car? The Camry V6 is faster than the GS but it cant handle or stop nearly as well.

@countrycoach

I'd say the G37 has just as nice of equipment.  The sports package comes with/requires the upgraded audio, nav., etc.  Also the 6MT is only $3k more.  Nitpicking aside, we are essentially in agreement.  I love my G sedan, but if I were in the market right now, I'd give the Regal GS a hard look once it comes out.

@Jayhawk815

So I am right, the Infiniti cost more and is significantly faster, but doesn't come with as nice of equipment and doesn't handle or stop as well.  I do however think that the G37S is the only other car that can rival the GS for performance bargain.

@countrycoach
2009 G37S test results:
0-60: 5.0 sec
1/4 mile: 13.5 sec
lat. acc.: .90 g
fig. 8: 26.4
60-0: 110 ft
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0810_2008_infiniti_g37_sedan_test/test_data_and_driving_impressions.html

I've seen better handling numbers elsewhere, but they're still pretty comparable to the Regal.  Acceleration numbers aren't even close.  That being said, I do like the Regal GS and think it's a good value.

This is the best American sports sedan under $40k. And considering equipment levels, its one of the best entry lux sports sedans you can get for $38k. I priced a comparable 2012 A4 and it was $43,500 with HIDS, sport package, nav, B&O sound system, etc.

@lions:

You probably meant the IS205 is a competitor based on price, not IS350. Base IS350 is near 40 grand. A comparable G37S is about $41k. This looks better inside and out.

@diff:

I know where the regal was engineered. What in the world are you talking about? I dont hate any German cars, I am pointing out the VALUE and PERFORMANCE of this car- especially since so many internet experts were criticizing GM for not offering AWD. I am impressed that it nearly tied the 335i in the figure 8. That has nothing to do with "hating" German cars dude.

Best "American" sports sedan out right now. No one else comes close. The Charger could be awesome if a 6M was offered but it isn't, so it doesn't.

I love this car!!! The mpg, not so much, but the car...

SLOBBER!!!

A Nicely optioned A4 2.0T Quatro with 19 inch wheels and everything that the Buick offers will be at least 10 grand more. The TSX V6, IS350, and loaded G25 are it's real price range comp.

Nothing wrong with the German cars, but this Buick gives you a loaded sports sedan for 35K. I have already taken the CXL Turbo for a test drive and I was impressed by that car, I can't wait to take the GS for a ride. The smart thing would be, test drive several cars and see if this GS is really comparible. I am sure many doubters would be pleasantly surprised.

@jayhawk815

You will have to spend about 5 grand more to get a comparably equipped G37 sport.  Then you still get smaller wheels and no active suspension or steering.  Plus, I have yet to see a G37 sport sedan stop that quickly, or handle that well in the hands of MT.

@countrycoach

You can get an G37S for a few thousand more and it'll smoke the Regal.

Hello all.

Two typos, thanks for calling them out, our apologies.

Pzero tire size is 255/35. Horsepower is 270 as stated in the first reference.

Again, our apologies

"but with our optional 295/35 P-Zeros..."

I'm pretty sure the GS isn't available with that size of tire.  Based on your accompanying pics, it comes with 255/35 P-Zeros. Wow, MT's editing leaves a bit to be desired.

its ironic that enthusiasts spend so much time griping about how so many new models dont have a manual- then a Buick debuts with a manual and someone says thats stupid because no one will buy the 6M equipped car.

BTW, in that last A4 road test they noted their A4 did the figure 8 as fast as the last 335i they tested. Which means this FWD, $35k car is almost as fast as the 300hp Bavarian benchmark in the test.

So, does it have 270 or 290 horsepower?  The article states both.

"With the Regal GS' turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter inline-four engine making 270 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque..."

"Despite the GS sending all of its 290 hp to the front wheels.."

Love this car! Damn will the car handle? You damn right!  Will the car brake? You damn right? Is this car beautiful? You damn right!  Do I wish the car had just a little more ooompth down the straights? You damn right!  But this can be corrected with a tune which I will bet $ Buick will offer just like the did with the Cobalt SS/Sky Redline/Solstice GXP etc.  I could see 300 hp easy while keeping your factory warranty.  

As for the person saying the car needs an auto... I'm assuming they don't read very well because the auto is coming just be patient!  But for me - I want the manual!

Which A4 are they quoting in this article? This is the most recent test I found- and this car came up well short of the GS in performance.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0810_2009_audi_a4_quick_test/

Not faster, less grip, considernly worse stopping distance. No sport package on this car?

PS:

MT, very convenient of you to leave out other $35k-$38k entry level lux cars like 328 and C300. Both are slower than the GS and the ringer A4 you quoted in this article. And while the IS may be down 70hp to the GS the reality is the IS is priced right on top of the GS. Saying its not fair to compare the GS to similarly priced cars with far less hp is a cop out. Buick isnt forcing Lexus to offer 204hp in this class. And neither the IS or G25 offer 100 less hp, not even close.

very good review and very good handling and braking. BTW, the car has 270hp, not 290hp as stated halfway through the article. And of course it would be nice to mention the A4 has AWD which pretty much explains its outrageously quick 0-60 time. That 6.1sec time they mentioned had to be the best A4 time ever recorded. Most A4s have been in the 6.4-6.5sec range.

@seawolf:

Why does any auto brand offer manuals? They never sell in big numbes, especially in a sedan. The auto is coming for this car in early 2012. They know only a small % of buyers want a stick, but they also know that having one will make this one of the few $35k cars manual lovers can chose from.


View the original article here

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

First Test: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe

2012 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG Front Three Quarters It takes just one clockwise turn of the 2012 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Coupe's weighty black and chrome fob. With that sole click, the C63's hand-built, all-aluminum 6.2-liter V-8 welcomes its commander in one of the most evocative ways possible: by barking raucously. Over uneven L.A. pavement, the C63's athletically inclined three-link front suspension and wider axle matched to a stiffer sprung and dampened multilink rear setup returned a bumpy, yet responsive ride. Put against the harder current-generation 2011 BMW M3 Competition Package, the Merc's ride is a tinge more civilized, enough that your co-pilot won't complain on an extended road trip. Front and rear track widths grow in the name of grip by an enormous 4.3 and 3.2 inches respectively, but on city streets, this hardly made a difference aside from giving it a lower, more seductive stance that caught a number of discerning stares.

AMG's styling squad is obsessed with subtle details. Three badges -- two pasted on both front fenders, and one opposite of the alphanumeric designation on the trunk -- are the only blatant "I'm special" signs posted on the 63. Other hints are its bulging hood, Autobot-like nose, chiseled side sills, and a sculpted rear diffuser. It's also hard to miss the six-piston 14.2-inch front brakes, quad exhaust, and brilliant LED DRLs. Look even closer and you'll spot the unique grille, darkened headlight housings, and a miniscule carbon-fiber rear spoiler. The C63 continues AMG's clean, simple, and to-the-point design mantra so well that it easily gets overlooked as something more sedate.

Pushing the Coupe on our figure eight proved supremely fun. So fun, in fact, that MT test team hot shoes Carlos Lago and Kim Reynolds tormented the track multiple times just to experience the 63's extraordinary stick and responsiveness. (Side note to potential owners: You'd better think about investing in a Brazilian rubber company, stat.) Its best time of 24.9 seconds at 0.78 g average is something to be proud of, but a cheaper, less potent 2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca edges the Merc out by a few fractions (24.6 seconds at 0.81 g average). With a 0-60 mph time of 3.7 seconds, the torquey C63 slaps a twin-clutch BMW M3 in the face (4.2 seconds) and then laughs out loud to the finish line. It bested both to a stop from 60 mph with a distance of only 105 feet.

Like the rest of the crew, associate road test editor Lago didn't find much to dislike about the AMG, but did mention he wasn't fond of how easily it switched into tail-wagging oversteer. Indeed, going easy on the fun pedal allows the car's full performance potential to be tapped. Summon all of the C63's 443 lb-ft too early while exiting a corner and you'll be doing your favorite Formula Drift impressions before you realize it. And although sticky, the available 18-inch Continentals were relatively small (235/40R-18 front, 255/35R-18 rear) and could be wider to improve lateral gluing. Then again, that's what the Black Series is for.

With the C63 AMG Coupe, Mercedes-Benz has dealt a potent, V-8-packed punch to its M, V, Quattro, and F archrivals, months ahead of any next-generation competition. It has also set a high bar. Now if they could only all sound this good...

Front engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe 6.2L/481-hp/443-lb-ft DOHC 32-valve V-8


View the original article here

First Test: 2012 BMW 650i Coupe and Convertible

2012 BMW 650I Coupe Rear Three Quarters BMW's 6 Series has always required two things: style and pace. Good news: It finally has enough of the former to keep up with the latter. No, the 2012 BMW 650i isn't the best-looking 6 Series ever built (that credit would go to the shark-nosed, Bracq-penned 1976 original), but it's far and away a triumph over the frumpy second-gen car it replaces. From every angle, the new 6 Series Coupe and Convertible is a sleek, svelte road rocket -- a true gentleman's express for eating up miles of wide-open road one huge mouthful at a time. Gone are the awkward Bangleisms of the bland-o-riffic second-generation car. The trunk no longer juts awkwardly from the rear of the car, and the nose has a new sense of purpose, with its snorting, upright twin grilles and wide-mouthed lower intake. On the coupe, that trademark Hoffmeister kink is still intact, emboldened by a wider, shiny metal trim strip, and the package as a whole is longer by nearly 3 inches, lower by a bit under half an inch, and wider by an inch and a half. It looks even better in the sheetmetal than it does in photos. The convertible has a slightly frumpy look with the top up, typical of so many soft-roofed convertibles, but does look rather striking when the top is stowed.

The interior of the all-new 6 Series is another marked improvement over the previous-generation car. Upscale touches are everywhere, from the semi-digital gauges to the larger center display and aluminum accents, to the finely stitched leather surfaces. The seats are comfortable and supportive, and there's plenty of room for driver and passenger up front. While BMW claims there's actually improved headroom front and rear, the small plus-two packaging and sloping roofline means that for adults, the rear seat is strictly for very occasional use, and even then, rear passengers taller than 5'10" will find themselves slouching to avoid head contact with the roof. Rear passengers in the convertible will be happier, with the more upright roof providing an additional inch or so of noggin space, and an infinite amount with the roof lowered.

But wait, things get even better. BMW has ousted the 4.8-liter V-8 that used to sit underhood, replacing it with the brand's new 4.4-liter, twin-turbocharged eight-cylinder engine. BMW claims the new engine is more efficient than the outgoing version, but frankly, who cares, when it also makes 400 horses and 450 lb-ft of torque (8- and 20-percent gains, respectively). Two transmissions are available, so we rounded up a 650i Coupe with the M Sport package and a good old-fashioned six-speed manual gearbox, along with a 650i Convertible with an eight-speed automatic, and headed for our test facility.

And that's where things got really interesting. The slushbox convertible, designed from the ground up as an open car with a unique body-in-white, managed to just eek out a lead over the manual-equipped coupe. Just to reiterate, there's no dual-clutch or automated manual action going on here. The automatic transmission is a true torque-converter auto, designed and built by ZF and equipped with paddle shifters. So quick and smooth is the unit that we recorded a 0.1-second advantage over the manual-equipped coupe in the 0-60 mph sprint and the quarter-mile run, despite a weight disadvantage of somewhere north of 200 lbs.


View the original article here

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

First Test: 2012 Mitsubishi i

2012 Mitsubishi Imiev Front Three Quarter In Motion Mitsubishi may not be known as an EV innovator here in the States, but the brand has a history of dabbling in small, electrically powered cars back in Japan. In 2009, the automaker rolled out the electrified version of its i micro car, called the i-MiEV, in its home market. A year later, the i-MiEV made it to Europe. Now, it's finally our turn, and Mitsubishi has simplified the name and blown up the car's proportions to suit American tastes. But even with the changes, is the U.S. ready for a small, underpowered, and range-limited EV? No matter which side of the fence you're on regarding the future of transportation, electric cars are here -- and it's our job to test them. So test the Mitsubishi i we did. With regards to how the i looks on the outside and feels on the inside, among the MT staffers there were more than a few comparisons to a golf cart. With the i's bubbly, cartoonish exterior design and bare-bones interior (even in our range-topping SE model), it's easy to see how one might liken the car to something less than road-worthy. Even the doors, at first, seemed like a parody of ones you might find on some other cars - so light, I felt like Superman when opening them from the outside.

A simplified instrument cluster and center console present the driver with the bare minimum of controls. A digital display at the center of the gauges does a good enough job of relaying the car's speed, and the battery life meter looks much more like a conventional fuel gauge than the one in the Nissan Leaf, referred to by some as the "guessometer." The three modes provided by the gear selector, "D," "Eco," and "B," are each intended to optimize driving performance for a given situation. "Eco" mode was fine in the city, where it best preserves battery range. But when I needed adequate acceleration, I had to shift it into "D" if I wanted to go anywhere with any sort of urgency. "B" mode was the hardest to get used to, as it turned the i into a Disneyland Autopia car, where letting off the accelerator slowed the car down significantly. Unlike the theme park car, in this case it's the motor that's doing the braking, capturing the energy and charging the battery. This feature was useful when coasting down long grades, but perhaps a bit too jerky to use comfortably in everyday driving.

The pint-sized EV completed our figure-eight test in 30.2 seconds at an average 0.51 g. The Leaf and Volt didn't fare that much better, both posting times of 28.4 seconds at 0.57 g and 0.59 g, respectively. Lateral acceleration for the i was also in line with its EV contemporaries, at 0.71 g, compared to the Leaf's 0.79 g and the Volt's 0.78 g. Still, handling is where the Mitsubishi received the lowest marks from staffers. Testing director Kim Reynolds called it "tippy," and also noted "some rear-end instability under braking." Regarding the i's handling ability, associate editor Scott Evans said, "I thought I knew understeer. Now I know understeer."

According to Mitsubishi's PR reps, 11,000 i-MiEVs have already been sold abroad. While that could be a good indication that the i will achieve similar numbers in the U.S., the car likely didn't have to fight the same uphill battle it's faced with here in Europe and Japan, regions that have had tiny, A-Segment cars running around for years. Mitsubishi has pushed the boundaries of electric vehicles in the past, and it's certainly done the same with the i. The question is, has it pushed those boundaries a little too far for U.S. audiences? Perhaps the answer lies in associate editor Scott Evans' assessment of the i: "It works, but is that enough?" Time will tell.

Rear engine, RWD, 4-pass, 4-door hatchback


View the original article here

First Test: 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE

2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE Front Three Quarters As the alternative propulsion sector stands now, Toyota has it pretty good. The do-no-wrong Prius is indisputably the eco car standard-bearer, and continues to sell in healthy quantities -- 83,918 through August 2011. But this is America, land of the pickup truck and midsize sedan. Fortunately for Toyota, it also knows how to build, market, and peddle cars like the 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid. Let's talk fuel economy. Whereas the old Camry Hybrid's 31/35 mpg city/highway pales in comparison to the Ford Fusion Hybrid's 41/36 mpg city/highway and the hybridized Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima (35/40 mpg city/highway), our top-of-the-line 2012 XLE tester does a cool 41/38 mpg city/highway on 17-inch alloys wrapped with low-rolling-resistance 215/55-17 tires. That's a 21-percent combined mpg improvement over 2011. A spirited 200-plus-mile dash of city, highway, and quick, undulating back roads left us with a real-world consumption of 37 mpg. Go with the more basic LE trim -- replete with smaller 16-inch steel wheels and narrower rubber -- and the EPA figure rests at 43/39 mpg city/highway (up 26 percent).

The tailpipe emissions-less electric component of the power-split hybrid system is chiefly championed by the 141-horsepower tractive motor. If directed by the continuously variable transmission or slipped into the newly inserted EV mode, the motor alone can propel the Camry Hybrid with a not-unsubstantial 199 lb-ft of torque (peak torque available from 0-1500 rpm). Unless the 1.6-kilowatt-hour nickel-metal-hydride battery is at its most minimal state of charge, driving around town carefully and quietly as a bona-fide EV is a cinch, and doesn't feel particularly penalizing given the motor's output. Toyota claims there is less friction loss in the transaxle and better motor-voltage control aiding the relatively accomplished HSD system. Blending battery and gasoline energy sources in haste produces a net of 200 silky horsepower, up from 187. Powertrain integration is honestly among the best of any hybrid vehicle out there.

The soft, floaty ride helps generate the illusion the Camry Hybrid is larger than it really is, a plus if you're constantly shuttling people around. There's sufficient space in the back seat to fit three average-size males abreast without the middle passenger having to curl into a ball -- taxi fleets operating Camry Hybrids should find welcome fares. On paper, the interior dimensions haven't drastically changed, with the biggest numeric differences highlighted in rear leg room (+0.6 inch) and rear hip room (+0.6 inch).

Answer: Kind of. The interior design and build materials won't be winning any awards, not even in the pedestrian midsize segment. We found the revised color patterns a bit more inviting, and the ergonomics and controls placement and functionality to be well executed, but in the end there's a lack of intangible warmth in the cabin - it's appliance-like, if you will.

Front engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan 2.5L/156-hp/156-lb-ft Atkinson cycle DOHC 16-valve I-4, plus 141-hp/199-lb-ft electric motor; 200 hp comb


View the original article here

Monday, 24 October 2011

First Drive: 2013 Audi S8

2013 Audi S8 Front Three Quarters It's a good bet that the average Audi A8/BMW 7 Series/Mercedes S-Class buyer doesn't care much about dynamics beyond being able to merge ahead of freeway traffic while checking stock prices on their smartphones, or whatever the rich do while commuting. For the rest of us enthusiasts who dream of coming up with the kind of sports-celebrity scratch for a car that can carry the family in comfort while carving up on-ramps, there is the S8. For its first two generations, the S8 was an executive touring car. This one has a different feel. Chassis tuning is more subtle in part because the ordinary A8, with its sport and individual comfort suspension settings, is already pretty competent, and stiffer tuning can only go so far before this big sporting luxury car gets too harsh. Hence, this new Audi S8, which launches next spring in Europe and in late summer or early fall of 2012 in North America, is all about the engine.

Because it can get such great power and torque numbers, Audi put its efforts into making the V8T (as the badging on the S8's front fenders indicates) as efficient as possible. First, Audi engineers placed the exhaust manifold and turbo intercooler within the 90 degrees of the V for quicker and more efficient engine warm-up. More importantly, the direct injection engine has a cylinder cutoff system with a sleeve that kicks in a zero-lift cam to cut cylinders two, three, five, and eight at light loads. The twin-turbo V-8 can run on just four cylinders at engine speeds up to 3600 rpm and at speeds up to 112 miles per hour. The car also comes with a start/stop system in Europe that the company says will eventually make it to the U.S., though not at launch.

The noise, vibration, and harshness characteristics of cylinder shut-off and stop/start understandably concerned Audi, so engineers developed two big technological breakthroughs to mitigate the noise and the secondary vibrations that make their way into the steering wheel and throttle pedal. Two active engine mounts, designed to be much like stereo speakers, use fluid to actuate a permanent magnet that moves a diaphragm and cancels vibration from the shutoff with counter-vibrations of their own. The Audi S8 is in the running to be named the quietest, smoothest car extant. DTR VMS developed (and manufactures) these ingenious active engine mounts for Audi. It's a South Korean company that bought British supplier Avon Automotive, so don't be surprised for these to show up in a future Hyundai Genesis V-8.

One other tasty bit of high tech are the S8's optional ceramic front brakes, which shave 11 pounds off the weight of each front wheel. Audi hasn't decided whether to offer ceramics on U.S. imports, partly because the option could approach the base price of a VW Jetta and partly because ceramic brakes are not linear like steel brakes. A test-drive proved this. There's a lot of play and mush at the top of the pedal, where you expect the binders to effectively shave off speed. Then, when you find yourself stabbing the pedal further to get some results, the brakes really grab. Will American Audi customers put up with that?


View the original article here

First Oprah-Awarded 2012 VW Beetles To Be Delivered Thursday

Newsletter Stay up to date on car reviews, buying guides, articles and more

Last November, 275 people present at a taping of the Oprah Winfrey Show got a very nice door prize: in cooperation with Volkswagen, Oprah gave each audience member a 2012 Volkswagen Beetle. Not only were those present getting the cars, but all taxes and fees associated with winning the prize were taken care of as well.

This Thursday, Volkswagen of America president and CEO Jonathan Browning will be at a VW dealership in Orland Park, IL, where he'll personally hand over the keys to the first 25 lucky winners.  Since delivering 275 cars at the same time would be a logistical nightmare, the remainder of the awarded 2012 VW Beetles will be delivered in the coming weeks, probably by multiple dealerships.

The cars were given away as part of an “Ultimate Favorite Things” show, where Oprah Winfrey and Volkswagen teased the newly redesigned Beetle in silhouette before announcing the giveaway. This wasn’t the first time that the queen of daytime-talk-show-TV gave out cars to her audience; in 2004, Oprah handed out 276 Pontiac G6 sedans to those in attendance.

The PR coup soon soured, as audience members learned they’d be responsible for taxes and fees on the Pontiacs, totaling up to $7,000 depending upon the winner’s tax bracket. With the 2012 VW Beetle giveaway, however, free really does mean free.



View the original article here

Sunday, 23 October 2011

First Test: 2012 Volkswagen Passat

2012 Volkswagen Passat SE Front Three Quarters Just a few weeks ago, Volkswagen of America's state-of-the-art plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, cranked out its 10,000th Passat -- a Candy White TDI wearing a premium chrome package. Not bad for a facility that opened just five months earlier. Volkswagen is charging ahead with its goal of building 100,000 vehicles a year at Chattanooga starting next year, and the all-new 2012 Volkswagen Passat is key to hitting that target. In September alone, more than 3000 customers took home one of VW's Chattanoogian chariots. Part of the 2012 Passat's success no doubt has to do with the variety of models and trims available for the big VW sedan. There are three engine choices -- a 170-horse 2.5-liter inline-five, 280-horse 3.6-liter V-6, and a 140-horse 2.0-liter turbo four-banger -- available in a total of 14 trims. We recently had a chance to sample three combinations: a 2.5L S, 3.6 SEL, and TDI SE.

No matter the trim or mill, the Passat's sheetmetal stays basically the same. Its lines are simple, clean, and inoffensive, yet modern. A few staffers labeled it boring, but then noted the Passat and its competition in the family-friendly sedan segment aren't exactly known for avant-garde styling. Overall, we consider the styling a step in the right direction, especially with the LED touches and available 17-inch alloys.

The standard equipment list gives buyers plenty to work with: a six-speed manual (or automatic transmission), auto dual-climate control, power locks and windows, color-matched mirrors and door handles, Bluetooth, and electronically adjustable driver seat are all included. Sadly, an iPod interface isn't. You'll have to upgrade to the 2.5L SE manual to get 17-inch wheels, heated leatherette front seats, and a touch-screen Premium VIII radio. Continue up the SE and SEL trim chain in either V-6 or TDI models to get more goodies like a navigation system with Mobile Device Interface, Fender sound system, wood grain, and chrome accents or aluminum accents.

Average consumers are likely to lug friends, kids, or coworkers in this model, not carve unused back roads like my colleagues and I do. The 2.5 SE offers enough power to get from Point A to B, and that's probably good enough. Its pipes may not omit an attractive note, but at the end of the day, it returns a competitive 22/31 city/highway EPA fuel economy rating .

As you can imagine, with 110 more horses and 81 more lb-ft than the base mill, the VR6-packing Passat is a lot more entertaining. That extra power helps out if you're more of a passer than a cruiser. Its sharp turn-in impresses, as does the palatable chassis communication. Its brakes bite harder as well. Relatively speaking, the Passat V6 is the rocket of the lineup: Going from nothing to 60 mph is a 5.7-second affair; it tackles a quarter-mile in 14.2 seconds at 100.9 mph and needs 119 feet to stop from 60 mph.

Despite it not being an enthralling choice for impassioned enthusiasts, the TDI is arguably the best pick for the sedan buyer looking for decent sportiness, great comfort, massive space, and awesome fuel economy and range. The last trait rocked our proverbial socks: We went at least 450 miles between fill-ups. And we weren't friendly with the go-pedal, either.

Three Passats aimed at three different buyers. Together they comprise one solid lineup that is already throwing some hard blows in one of America's hugely important midsize sedan market. Do Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Subaru, and the rest of the lot have something to worry about? Yes, they do. And if Volkswagen's optimistic sales plans come to fruition, you'll soon be seeing a lot more Tennessee-built Passats strolling through your neck of the woods.

Front engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan Front engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan Front engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan 2.5L/170-hp/177-lb-ft DOHC 20-valve I-5 3.6L/280-hp/258-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6 2.0L/140-hp/236-lb-ft turbodiesel DOHC 16-valve I-4


View the original article here

Friday, 21 October 2011

2012 Mazda Mazda3 Skyactiv: First Drive

2012 Mazda3 SkyActiv - First Drive

Newsletter Stay up to date on car reviews, buying guides, articles and more In less than a couple of years, 40 miles per gallon has gone from a lofty goal, met by only a few select high-mileage machines (almost entirely hybrids and diesels), to, almost the small-car highway norm.

Now even Mazda is laying claim on 40 mpg in the 2012 Mazda3, with a new-generation engine and all-new transmissions that all fall under the ‘Skyactiv’ badge—that's Mazda's engineering-based initiative for efficiency, eco-friendliness, and safety.

At the same time, Mazda has a 'zoom-zoom' reputation to uphold. And with the Mazda3 a long-time best-seller, making up nearly half of Mazda's U.S. sales, the automaker says that it's kept this a top priority.

Does the Skyactiv version of the Mazda3 maintain the more enthusiastic driving feel that's characterized this lineup, despite going more than 20 percent farther on a gallon of gas? That's the reality check we tried to make earlier this week, in a first drive of refreshed 2012 Mazda3 models with the new technology.

The 'eco' choice that doesn't drive like one

And the answer, without hesitation, is a solid 'yes.' From the first impression on, it's clear that the new Sky-G 2.0-liter engine isn't as strong and torquey as the 2.5-liter 'MZR' engine, which remains available at the top of the lineup (along with the base MZR 2.0-liter); but in short, it's the eco-conscious choice that doesn't feel like an eco-conscious one—and yes, it's zoomy.

Skyactiv, as we’ve learned from Mazda, is more than new engines and transmissions (even though that's all the 3 gets for now); it’s an initiative that looks at body structures and design philosophies as well, and we’ll see some of these ideas showing up in stronger and safer yet lighter next-generation vehicles—like the 2013 Mazda CX-5.

For 2012, all Mazda3 models get a resculpted front airdam and fascia that turns the Mazda3’s freakshow clown smile into more of a relaxed grin. We like the look, as it seems to flow more smoothly anyhow through to the flared front fenders. To match the somewhat different look, there's a new rear fascia as well, with two new wheel designs to complement. And throughout, what you might notice more than anything else is that there's more trim that's body-color than ever—no more dark molded plastic. Through those few subtle changes—mainly those to the front end—Mazda has cut its coefficient of drag to 0.27 for the sedan, 0.29 for the five-door.





View the original article here