Car Auto Magazine

COUNTERPOINT

LARRY WEBSTER
Theoretically, the SRT4 is my kind of machine—plenty of power, a good price, and a body style that can almost carry a couch. It’s got the goodies but, sadly, not the soul. There’s not enough friskiness in the chassis, too little joy to be had blipping the throttle, and a good amount of torque steer. I loved the Neon-based SRT4 and hoped the Caliber would be a hatchback version. It’s not, which goes to show that no amount of polishing can put a shine on the Caliber.

CSABA CSERE
Some hot cars get faster when they graduate to the next generation. Others, such as this Caliber SRT4, develop a refined maturity. This ’08 model has a tightness of construction and dynamic stability that are light-years beyond its rorty predecessor. But these virtues come with greater size and weight and the loss of that on-the-edge-of-control tossability that made the previous SRT4 occasionally irritating but always engaging.

Regular readers will recall that the Neon-based SRT4 we tested in April 2004 posted better numbers: 5.3 seconds to 60, the quarter in 13.9 at 103. You’ll also recall that a Mazdaspeed 3 [“Power Toys,” May 2007] ran to 60 mph in 5.4 and through the quarter in 14 flat at 101. We should note here that at 3233 pounds the Caliber is 249 pounds heavier than that Neon-based SRT4 and 48 pounds heavier than the Mazdaspeed. Mass is never a plus for acceleration, nor does it help braking. The SRT4’s brakes don’t fade, but 175-foot stops from 70 mph can’t be called impressive.

Handling: It didn’t take many circuits at Putnam Park near Greencastle, Indiana, to convince us that the SRT4 isn’t happy on a racetrack. Understeer in this environment ranges from mulish to absolute, the limited suspension travel provokes some unpleasant wallowing, and the actions of the traction control produce some strange sensations, although the engineers insist it’s more effective than a conventional limited-slip diff, which they tried initially.

On public roads, the story improves. The car still doesn’t thrive on bumpy corners, but it inspires confidence nevertheless, with decent grip (0.84 g on the skidpad), sports-car steering, and surprisingly brisk responses in rapid transitions—surprisingly, because the SRT4 has a high center of gravity and hard cornering does entail a fair amount of body roll. But it hangs in there anyway.

The rest of the car: SRT cosmetic and aero enhancements include a deeper front air dam, rocker-panel extensions, a king-size spoiler extending over the rear hatch, a row of vertical diffuser strakes at the bottom of the rear end, and a four-inch echo-can exhaust tip.

Inside, there’s a set of excellent bucket seats with leather outers, red stitching, and grippy cloth centers providing plenty of lateral support, particularly for the torso; a leather-clad steering wheel; the obligatory aluminum pedal pads; and white-face SRT instruments. A nifty instrument option is the “performance pages” reconfigurable display that can give the driver acceleration times, lateral g, braking distance, and more.

As with previous SRT hot rods, the latest rates as a performance bargain, with prices starting from $22,995. Amazingly, that’s similar to the base price for a Mazdaspeed 3. Coincidence? And which is preferable? Maybe we should get the two cars side by side and head-to-head? Ya think?

More on that later. First, let’s take a look under the hood, which is distinguished by one real hood scoop and two fake breather vents. The starting point for the SRT4 engine was the same 2.4-liter Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi DOHC 16-valve aluminum four you can get with a Caliber, except the Caliber version generates 172 horsepower and 165 pound-feet of torque. This one, as you already know, generates a helluva lot more. Here’s how. The pistons are cast aluminum, running in iron liners, with forged con rods and trimetal bearings. SRT was confident the standard forged-steel production crank could take the extra heat and power. Oil squirters help keep the pistons cool, and an external cooler keeps temps of the Mobil 1 synthetic oil uniform.

At the top end, there’s variable valve timing on both cam banks, with bucket tappets punching the valves, which are made of Inconel (a high-temp alloy) on the exhaust side. And, of course, there’s that most essential of ingredients—boost, 12-psi max at sea level, but it can rise to 15 psi at high altitudes, provided by a Mi­tsubishi TD04 turbocharger via a big (11-row) Valeo air-to-air intercooler. Like the previous SRT4 engine, this 2.4 is a long-stroke design and not a high-revver. The power peaks are more like lofty plateaus. Max torque is available from 2000 to 5600 rpm, max horsepower is on tap from 5700 to 6400, and the small-scroll turbo spools up quickly.

The engine feeds its output into a six-speed Getrag manual gearbox via a dual-mass flywheel. Like the gearbox in the garden-variety Caliber, it’s a cable shifter, but the throws are shorter and the engagements are far more decisive.

There are cosmetic elements to the SRT package, too, but we think you’d rather hear about the dynamic payoff first. Okay. Let’s start with the what’ll-she-do department. Getting an effective launch is tricky, something that’s true of most front-drive turbo cars. The SRT people predict 0-to-60 mph in a little over six seconds. We clocked 5.9. The quarter-mile ate up 14.4 seconds, showing a 103-mph trap speed. Top speed is officially listed as 155 mph, although one of the SRT development guys says he ran a prototype to as high as 161.

As you’d expect, the suspension has undergone a general stiffening, with ZF Sachs twin-tube dampers all around, higher spring rates fore-and-aft, and a stiffer (by 0.71 inch) rear anti-roll bar. Given the car’s speed potential, the SRT team decided it was best to be conservative with rear roll stiffness. However, for hard-core autocrossers, Mopar plans to offer a track kit with much higher spring rates and firmer dampers.

The brakes are formidable: 13.4-by-1.1-inch vented front rotors squeezed by twin-piston calipers and cooled by vents molded into the front fascia, 11.9-inch solid rear rotors, and standard anti-lock. Not only does this system provide fade-free braking, but the heavy-duty dimensions of the front rotors allowed the engineers to be aggressive with the so-called brake-lock differential. The brake-lock diff is an alternative to a conventional mechanical limited-slip differential and relies on the traction-control system. Operating on info from the ABS sensors, it limits wheelspin by squeezing the rotor of the wheel that has lost traction, which sends power to the opposite wheel. This is not a new strategy—Audi, BMW, and Mercedes use this technique—but the SRT4 system operates up to 85 mph, much higher than any other, according to Dodge. The system tends to chew the rotors pretty hard, but the SRT engineers figure their robust setup can handle it.

Braking power gets onto the pavement via 225/45R-19 tires (optional Goodyear Eagle F1s on our test car). Other elements of the chassis inventory include power rack-and-pinion steering, traction control, and stability control. The latter can’t be entirely shut down, although its threshold is high. But it does add to the challenge of achieving optimal drag-racing holeshots.

However, we’re getting ahead of our narrative. What you really want to know is the hardware story, what the hardware adds up to in terms of performance, what it costs, and how all of this stacks up versus the other pocket-rocket players. So let’s address those power points in that order.

Mechanically and cosmetically, the not-so-blank canvas on which the SRT troops were invited to exercise their go-faster artistry represented a much bigger challenge than did the Neon. Tall (59.7 inches), brickish, and ungainly, the Caliber isn’t the kind of car that activates the salivary glands of street racers. But you play the cards you’re dealt, and considering the nature of the base car, the SRT achievement is impressive.

The first order of business was the suspension. Although there were no concerns with chassis rigidity—the front-shock-tower connecting brace common to so many factory hot-rod packages is conspicuous by its absence here—the team had to figure out how to make a big reduction in ride height and still retain acceptable ride and handling. There were two reasons for the lowering job. One—minor—was cosmetic. Getting the car a little closer to the ground, and filling the wheel wells with 7.5-by-19-inch cast aluminum wheels, makes it easier to sell the idea that this Caliber has attitude. Second, reducing the ride height—1.1 inches front, 0.8 inch rear—helped to reduce torque steer by making the half-shaft angles essentially flat between the differential and the wheels.

A Higher Caliber: Dodge reloads its budget bullet.
BY TONY SWAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY BILL DELANEY November 2007


The basic recipe has been a Chrysler cookbook favorite through several management regimes, foreign and domestic. It goes like this: Take one small basic-transportation appliance. Add boost. Cook to taste.

Chrysler’s tradition of pressure-cooker pocket rockets began in 1985 with the Dodge Omni GLH Turbo (it stood for “Goes Like Hell”), created at a time when the corporation was still edging back from the lip of an economic abyss and had little in the way of engine resources. The solution was turbocharging, a cheap route to extracting big power from small displacements.

Fast-forward to now, and the much-anticipated resurrection of the Dodge SRT4, known in this incarnation as the Caliber SRT4—just in case there might be some confusion with the previous Neon-based SRT4 (which is likely only if you’re Stevie Wonder).

Standards have changed since the GLH. For example, it is no longer acceptable for the car to try to snatch the steering wheel from the driver’s hands. Our GLH road test [May 1985] warned the world that if an unwary driver should “apply full throttle in first or second gear with the front wheels cocked a bit to port or starboard, the GLH Turbo is going to go where it’s pointed—into that ditch, up that snowbank, or around that tree.” It’s called torque steer, a phenomenon that is still not uncommon in small front-drive cars with lots of power. With 285 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque, the Caliber clearly fits that description. We’re happy to report that the SRT guys have largely tamed that particular demon, at least compared with a couple other cars in this class.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $23,695 (base price: $23,695)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 144 cu in, 2354cc
Power (SAE net): 190 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 162 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 110.2 in Length: 194.1 in Width: 72.7 in Height: 58.1 in
Curb weight: 3263 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.8 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.1 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 185 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 22/31 mpg

If only size translated into grandeur. When the Accord EX sedan rolled into our lot in Ann Arbor, its squared-off front fascia and upward-sweeping body sides were not met with universal praise. Some of us see it as a pleasant departure from the butter-knife-dull styling of the past two Accords, but others found it a bit too derivative. At one point, we actually parked it next to a new BMW 535i to see if the similarities in the rear quarters were real or imaginary (they’re real). Whatever. In typical Honda fashion, the styling of Honda’s bread butterer should stir few but offend even fewer. Want to add spice? Go to SEMA—the aftermarket tends to love anything with a block “H” on the hood.

The interior, on the other hand, is modern, fresh, and, yes, huge. Three six-and-a-half-footers fit comfortably in the back seat behind two such creatures in the front buckets. The multicontoured dash sweeps around like a mix of Acura TL and Honda Civic, dominated by a zillion-button center stack atop which a display is perched. The size of that readout depends on whether it is equipped with the optional voice-activated navigation system, but in either case, the graphics are almost clear enough for Grandma to understand. Well, almost. Although some of us thought the interior was just as risk-free as the sheetmetal, others of us thought the opposite: Especially in darker colors, the environment is rather cold and geometric, and we can imagine its starkness scaring mature buyers right back into their Avalons.
The Right Balance

Make no mistake: the Honda Accord is a terrific automobile no matter how it comes, but it also compels us to consider something we don’t think about often: At what point does horsepower become truly superfluous? Especially as fuel efficiency and low emissions, both longstanding hallmarks of the Honda brand, become more important than ever before, we are looking for cars that are fun to drive and easy on the earth.

We just found one.

Drives Smaller Than It Is

As expected, the Accord’s steering is splendid, if a bit light. With just 2.6 turns lock-to-lock, response is immediate yet predictable. The chassis is strong and the suspension comfortably firm, fostering a feeling of complete composure at all speeds. Part of this, frankly, comes from the four-cylinder engine’s modest torque, which rarely challenges front-axle grip even as it rushes the sedan to 60 mph in a surprisingly swift 7.9 seconds. However, that’s not quite as quick as the less powerful previous-gen Accord four-cylinder, which did the 60-mph deed in 7.5.

However, our Accord didn’t want much to do with any spirited driving, its Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 tires howling in protest at any attempts at enthusiasm, so a middling 0.81 g on the skidpad (we’ve gotten the same performance out of a Honda Ridgeline pickup) wasn’t a surprise. Neither was its longish 185-foot stopping distance from 70 mph. But, all told, it drives much smaller than it is.
Big on the Inside, Big on the Outside

Which brings up another point: The Accord is now officially big, so much so that it squeaks into the EPA’s “large car” category, mixin’ it up with the Toyota Avalon, the Chrysler 300, the Hyundai Azera, and the Buick Lucerne—all pricier proposals than the Accord. In fact, with a starting price of $20,995, the Accord is the least expensive full-size automobile available today. We’re sure that’s no accident, as size matters in America as it does in no other country in the world.

The Accord four-cylinder, on the other hand, is more casual and correct, reminding us what’s so great about Accords in general: It’s not that they offer an extraordinary amount of any one thing; it’s that what they offer goes a long way to satisfy their drivers.

The Accord’s 2.4-liter DOHC four-cylinder with i-VTEC actually comes in two calibrations. Accord LX models produce 177 horsepower and 161 pound-feet of torque. Our Accord EX tester came with a five-speed manual transmission—a rarity in this class anymore—and the more powerful of the 2.4s, capable of 190 horsepower and 162 pound-feet, with a 7100-rpm redline (300 higher than that of the LX four-cylinder or any Accord V-6), not to mention the same 22 city/31 highway fuel-economy rating as the LX. We were in love. Silky smooth throughout the rev range, just audible enough to arouse, and sufficiently powerful to invoke thoughts of the Acura TSX (powered by a slightly more potent version of this same engine, in fact), it made us rethink our power-hungry sensibilities.

Indeed, more than one of us preferred this engine to the big six, which not only crowds an extra 78 horses into the stable but also brings an additional 300-plus pounds along for the ride (an estimated 3600 pounds versus our test car’s 3263 pounds). Some 60 pounds of that is due to the V-6’s mandatory five-speed automatic, which is also available with the four but is something we’re happy to live without since the manual tranny has delightful precision complemented by light clutch effort.

Leave it to Honda to show us how to do more with less.
BY STEVE SILER, October 2007

Here we go again. Honda’s mega-selling Accord has undergone a ground-up redo after its usual four short model years, at no point during which it fell off our annual 10Best list. And as usually happens when Honda redesigns a car, there is more good news than bad, including more space, greater efficiency, more features, and more power for both four-cylinder and V-6 models, the latter now making a whopping 268 horsepower.

You know how this is going to end.

But what of this power thing? In any given car company’s quest to keep its products ahead of the pack in horsepower and torque, if only for bragging rights, is there not a point at which a car ends up with too much power? Moreover, in the case where a car offers a less potent, more efficient alternative powertrain, is there not a point at which that smaller motor makes not only enough to please modest drivers but also enough to please enthusiasts? On both counts, we think so. And for proof, we submit the Honda Accord EX.
Four Is Enough

Now, this is not to say that the 3.5-liter V-6 Accord has too much of anything, really, but it’s certainly way more powerful than any front-wheel-drive family sedan needs to be, especially since, at this level, it’s hard to get that kind of power to the ground without the traction-control nannies beeping, blinking, and wrist-slapping during bursts of enthusiasm. Besides, to some of us, the six-pot’s character is a touch too mature—almost luxury-car-like. Indeed, after driving several Accords with the hyper-potent six, our prevailing thought is that Acura dealers must be pissed; their base TL makes less horsepower than its much cheaper corporate cousin.

The four-speed auto transmission is $1000, and a Touring package with stability control, upgraded stereo, spoiler, and keyless ignition is also $1000.

The SX4 Sport comes sporty only. It's solid-feeling on the road and notably refined inside, the low-gloss plastics and metal-like trim giving a deluxe feel. Aside from owing its shape to a British bowler hat (and supplying enough headroom for a Texan 10-gallon hat), the SX4 has only one potentially deal-busting flaw: The back seats don't fold. Suzuki opted to plug the tunnel with chassis braces for body rigidity. At least the trunk gets 15 big cubic feet, and the inert rear seatback is pitched at a comfortable 27 degrees with lots of knee- and legroom.

The SX4 ran the skidpad at 0.83 g and stopped from 70 mph in 174 feet. It pulled five successive stops without breaking 180 feet, better than decent performance in this dollar class. Acceleration takes slightly more patience, the 143 horsepower of the 2.0-liter twin-cam four carrying this Sport's 2762 pounds to 60 mph in 9.2 seconds. The lighter Honda Fit does it quicker, but with no more driving satisfaction.

A leap forward for the brand, the SX4 Sport upgrades Suzuki to well above the water line.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $16,895 (base price: $15,395)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1995cc
Power (SAE net): 143 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 136 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 98.4 in Length: 177.6 in Width: 68.1 in Height: 60.8 in
Curb weight: 2762 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph 9.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 28.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 9.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.9 sec @ 82 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad 0.83 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city driving XX [t/k] mpg
C/D observed 25 mpg

Smart handling, comfy back seat, the cure for the common Corolla.
BY AARON ROBINSON, November 2007

2008 Suzuki SX4 Sport

The Highs: Smart handling, comfy back seat, the cure for the common Corolla.

The Lows: No folding rear seats, looks like a bowler hat on roller skates.

Steerage class has suffered a bad rep ever since the Titanic sailed. But if you're prowling the lower decks of the new-car market, at least one company thinks you shouldn't have to curb your enthusiasm.

Neither tinny, tippy, nor asthmatic, the 2008 Suzuki SX4 Sport starts undoing expectations at a base price of $15,395. Corollas, Civics, and Mazda 3s are strippers at this price. Hyundais and Kias are no match for the SX4's firmer suspension tune, quicker steering, tighter shifter, and more abundant fun.

The front-drive SX4 Sport, a sedan spin-off of the SX4 all-wheel-drive hatchback, is a true Suzuki, not a Korean-made pretender like the Daewoo-sourced Forenza and Reno. The genetic ties are to the plucky Swift hatchback, a hit in hot-hatch-crazy Europe. The SX4's standard equipment includes 17-inch alloy wheels inside 205/50 V-rated Dunlop SP7000 Sport tires. A/C, ABS, curtain airbags, power windows, and remote entry are also baked into the base price. The SX4's options include a $500 convenience pack of cruise, auto climate control, and leather-wrapped wheel.

COUNTERPOINT

STEVE SPENCE
Is it overstatement to say this is the first Audi that’s as rock solid and heavy—a sense of buttoned-down mass—as a Mercedes? It’s slick and low slung, resulting in close quarters inside, but the sense of luxury is winning, as is the delivery of its considerable power, which comes without any turbo roughhousing. A peek-in suggests no rear legroom, but a five-foot-four adult fits nicely in back. It’s a wonderment in every way save its sticker, which will likely add to its exclusivity.

TONY SWAN
This car is likely to suffer versus an all-out road warrior such as the ’08 BMW M3. The clash is inevitable; Audi cites the brashest of Bimmers as the S5’s key competitor, and I’d be surprised if the M3 didn’t trump the S5 in every objective test category. But so what? The S5 may not be as quick on its feet as the M3, but it’s gorgeous inside and out, makes lovely noises, and seems almost incapable of making a misstep in fancy dancing. For many, that will be more than enough.

But even those figures don’t reveal the silkiness and captivating appeal of the S5’s powertrain. When you drive with the windows down around town, you hear a terrific V-8 burble from the quad exhaust pipes. When feeling lazy, you can almost forget about shifting because the engine will take full throttle at 1000 rpm in sixth gear perfectly smoothly. And at any speed, the V-8 spins with an eager and refined hum.

Despite its speed and sexy looks, this coupe is always well-behaved and surprisingly practical. The driving position benefits from a highly adjustable seat and a tilting-and-telescoping steering wheel with an unusually broad range of adjustment. The S5’s beltline is high, and you feel a little buried in the car, but it’s hard for us to imagine a driver who couldn’t get comfortable behind the wheel.

The back seat is also fairly roomy for a coupe, although a six-footer will be touching knees and head when sitting behind another six-footer. Getting in and out is easy, thanks to conveniently located seatback-mounted switches to move the power seats fore-and-aft. The trunk has impressive space, too, a prodigious 16 cubic feet of usable volume.

For its price niche, the S5 offers the usual posh options, including keyless start, a rearview camera, and a navigation system. Ours also had a fine-sounding Bang & Olufsen stereo. But one odd feature is a sunroof that can’t slide and only tilts open. Why bother?

The Audi coupe’s competitors are the BMW 3-series coupes and the Mercedes CLKs. In price, the S5 splits the difference between its German rivals, given that a loaded 335i doesn’t quite reach 54 grand and a loaded CLK550 is pushing $70,000. There’s not much to differentiate these three cars in pure speed, refinement, or practicality, although the BMW, being the lightest and most balanced of the trio, feels the sportiest.

What the Audi brings to the party is a real sense of style—a combination of sculpted metal and striking interior design that makes driving it a special experience. Isn’t that what coupes are all about?

Moving the front wheels forward not only makes the S5’s styling possible but also yields a large improvement in weight distribution. The last S4 we tested had 61.9 percent of its weight on the front wheels. This S5 is only 57.7 percent front-heavy. Combined with the 40/60 front-to-rear torque split in the standard Quattro drive system, this reduction in nose heaviness provides the S5 with balanced handling and a natural steering feel when driven swiftly.

The improvement over the old S4 is not, however, as pronounced as we would have expected from the four-percentage-point improvement in weight balance—although that reflects how well the S4 performed. In driving an S4 and the S5 back-to-back, the coupe turns in a bit more sharply and accurately, but even the S4 has decent cornering balance. It likely requires the elevated speeds of a visit to the racetrack to find the benefits of the new architecture.

What is immediately apparent is the tighter structure of the S5. It’s rock solid, and even on our fractured Michigan roads, the suspension keeps body motions under control and the tires tightly pressed to the pavement at triple-digit speeds. We would prefer that the steering didn’t become unnaturally stiff above 80 mph, and the 35-series, 19-inch tires don’t have much compliance on rough roads. But the S5 is so refined and effortless that it’s easy to lose sight of just how fast it is.

Motivated by the latest version of Audi’s 4.2-liter direct-injection V-8, rated at 354 horsepower in this application, the S5 is a rocket, hitting 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and ripping through the quarter-mile in 13.4 seconds at 105 mph. That performance is a testament to the power of the V-8, the short gearing of the powertrain (75 mph in sixth gear has the engine spinning at 3000 rpm), and the quick shifting of the six-speed manual transmission.

The S5’s exterior appeal is more than skin-deep. The keen observer will notice that the front wheels seem closer to the car’s nose than on most other Audis. This reduced overhang not only enhances the S5’s looks but also reflects some major changes under the coupe’s sexy skin.

The S5 is the first Audi to arise from the company’s B8 architecture, which will also underpin the next-gen A4—scheduled to appear at the Frankfurt auto show in September—as well as future A6 and even A8 models. Besides the usual improvements in structural stiffness and crashworthiness, there are two major areas where the B8 differs from the current A4/A6 platform. That reduced overhang at the nose reflects a transaxle whose front differential is about six inches farther forward than in other Audis. The engine is still completely ahead of the axle, but only just. The front differential is now adjacent to the transmission bell housing (on the right), and the cross-shaft that feeds the left half-shaft barely clears the flywheel. In fact, the clutch is attached to a second flywheel behind this cross-shaft.

The second key change is the migration of the steering rack from behind the engine to a more conventional position below it, which helps lower the car’s center of gravity. Otherwise, the front suspension is a sophisticated aluminum control-arm layout with two separate links forming the arms to achieve superior geometry. The rear wheels are attached to a multilink suspension that’s similar to what is used on current A4s and A6s.

High-Zoot Coupe: A luscious bit of auto erotic arrives in a boisterous V-8 package.
BY CSABA CSERE, PHOTOGRAPHY BY TOM DREW October 2007


You can picture the Audi product planners checking off the boxes as they continue their run against BMW and Mercedes. Small, medium, and large sedans: A4, A6, A8. Check. Sporting versions of same: S4, S6, S8. Check. Super-sporty sedan: RS 4. Check. Mid-priced sports car, medium SUV, attention-grabbing flagship, convertibles, stations wagons. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

The only missing model is a big coupe, something to compete with the likes of the BMW 3- and 6-series and the Mercedes CLK- and CL-classes. Presto: With the 2008 S5—Audi’s first coupe with adult-size rear seats since the demise of the Coupe Quattro in 1991—that hole in its lineup has now been plugged.

And it has been plugged by a machine that delivers the sex appeal that is a coupe’s major reason for being. The S5’s combination of big grille, rakish roofline, and artfully sculpted character lines will turn heads with regularity. And inside, the S5 provides perhaps the most engaging experience since the original TT.

Our test car was finished in black and deep-red leather and brushed aluminum, and in the current world of mostly monochromatic interiors, the effect is striking and luxurious. A new dashboard arrays all the controls and displays toward the driver, enhancing comfort and usability. Details like the metallic vents and the subtle red stitching on the black leather shift boot and steering wheel enhance the posh atmosphere. Even Audi’s control-everything MMI knob falls readily to hand and eye.

COUNTERPOINT
DAVE VANDERWERP
It’s hard to argue with Nissan’s launching an entry into this bestselling SUV segment, and the spacious Rogue drives as well as its top two or three competitors. But I have a question: How have we arrived at a place where Nissan employs a ratioless CVT for efficiency but then electronically fakes ratios that are controlled by paddle shifters? Not only does this exactly contradict the CVT’s reason for being but also seems terrifically contrived on an SUV.

MARK GILLIES
The Rogue is going to do well for Nissan. The small-SUV segment is hot at the moment, and this vehicle ticks all the right boxes. It will probably steal some sales from the Murano but will still increase Nissan’s overall volumes. However, I’m down on small SUVs because no matter how well they handle or how dramatically they are styled, they still look and drive like tall wagons. Everyone tells you Americans don’t buy wagons anymore, but that’s not true. They just buy the inferior, taller variety.

When the conversation turns to fuel-economy measures, Nissan points to its Xtronic CVT (continuously variable transmission). We aren’t crazy about the CVT in this new vehicle, or in any other for that matter, nor have we been convinced yet of its claim to dramatically improve gas mileage, but the wide spread of gear ratios and the smooth power delivery do seem to be a better idea than the four- or five-speed conventional automatics of the competition. A downside of the CVT is the inevitable engine drone that occurs under most acceleration rates. In many CVT-equipped vehicles, the monotone engine note is obnoxious to the point of inferring mechanical cheapness. Fortunately, the Rogue keeps the noise to a murmur (a luxury-carlike 74 decibels at full throttle), which should stave off CVT buyer’s remorse.

Highway cruising is where the Rogue and its transmission work best. Secure on-center steering feel, a firm but compliant ride, and a quiet cabin combine to effortlessly count down highway miles. At 70 mph the Rogue is turning a fuel-efficient and hushed 2200 rpm. Were this car equipped with a conventional automatic, such tall gearing would likely result in the annoying habit of constantly downshifting (or upshifting) between the two top gears. In the Rogue, the CVT seamlessly raises engine revs as the transmission moves imperceptibly through its ratios. Highway passing is a smooth experience. Still, if you’re old-fashioned and must have a conventional shifting sense, the Rogue offers six preset ratios that mimic the gears of a conventional transmission.

At the track, the CVT makes the most of the Rogue’s power-to-weight ratio and delivers a 0-to-60 time of 8.8 seconds. As noted earlier, we haven’t tested any of the Rogue’s four-cylinder peers, but we expect this SUV’s acceleration to be class competitive. Keeping wheelspin in check at takeoff is Nissan’s clutch-based all-wheel drive, set to send 50 percent of the engine’s power to the rear wheels at launch; then, once rolling, the power split shifts to the front wheels until slip is detected. Stability and traction control are standard if you find yourself exceeding the Rogue’s nearly carlike 0.77 g of skidpad grip. Keep pushing, and you’ll find that the Rogue comes standard with side airbags for the front seats and curtain airbags all around.

Our leather-lined, Bose-stereo-equipped Rogue with all-wheel drive came in at an estimated $27,000. Base versions are expected to start at roughly $20,000.

On its first try, Nissan has produced a good-looking and spirited small SUV. It doesn’t have a third row or optional V-6 power, but there are plenty of small-SUV buyers who desire neither feature. The Rogue has the rest of the small-sport-ute checklist covered. Perhaps the name is a tad theatrical, but calling it the Nissan Competent just didn’t have the ring to it the company was looking for.

Those extra inches of height do allow the Rogue to sit higher off the ground than the Sentra and translate into 16 more cubic feet of cargo space. The high roofline lends an airy feel, and there is decent legroom in the back seat, although three adults sitting across the rear bench might not be a stellar idea as the Rogue is just a smidge wider than the Sentra. The Rogue’s innards are a bit smaller than those of a Honda CR-V or Toyota RAV4 but about the same as a Saturn Vue’s. Some rivals in the Rogue’s class offer a third row, but the Rogue will go through life without one. What you do get in the way back is 29 cubic feet of cargo space, which is a few six-packs shy of the space in the CR-V and RAV4 and, again, about the same size as a Vue.

Having that extra space to haul the goods of an expanding family is what Nissan tells us most of its small-SUV buyers will want. Presumably, those shoppers will be less interested in the performance capabilities of the mandatory 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. Unlike some others in the small-ute class that will haul out an optional six-cylinder for more spirited buyers, the Rogue only comes with a 170-hp four-cylinder, which is, however, slightly more than the 2.4-liter fours in the RAV4, CR-V, and Vue. The Rogue’s engine also enjoys more torque: 175 pound-feet.

Although we recognize that prospective Rogue buyers are going to be more concerned with fuel-economy numbers than burnout abilities, the forever-young goons in the home office rang up a semirespectable 21 mpg over a 550-mile mix of highway and city driving. Which turned out to equal the EPA’s city-driving mpg estimate for the Rogue. We don’t have a C/D-observed fuel-economy number for any other ’08 small four-cylinder utes, but the EPA city figures for the ’08 RAV4, CR-V, and Vue are expected to be 20, 19, and 19, respectively.

Captain Capable: Nissan's first small SUV won't be entering any Rubicon free-for-alls. It's simply a competent, five-seat, small sport-ute with pretty good fuel economy numbers.
BY TONY QUIROGA, PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY November 2007


To our ears, the word rogue has a kind of bad-ass appeal. It conjures up Cold War films where a rogue Soviet submarine, captained by a bushy-browed Sean Connery, causes a tenuous nuclear standoff. Such an image is probably fine by Nissan because although its new Sentra-based Rogue isn’t likely to cause any kind of political rift, the name should allow it to distinguish itself in the increasingly competitive and rapidly saturating small-sport-utility market—a segment that is expected to generate more than 1,000,000 sales this year. Okay, Rogue, you got our attention, but is this economy-car-based SUV worthy of its swashbuckling name? Or even a road test? Is there anything rogue about the new Rogue?


An SUV that emerges from the bones of a Sentra doesn’t exactly cause shoving matches at our car sign-out board. We’ve compared two of the latest Sentras and found that the first, a Sentra 2.0S, ranked last in a field of five peers [“Sensible Shoes,” December 2006]. A second comparo [“Power Toys,” May 2007] placed the sportier Sentra SE-R Spec V one step up from last place. However, plopping an SUV body atop that platform works better than we had expected. One major advantage of this relationship can be seen at the scales: Our fully loaded Rogue SL with all-wheel drive weighed in at 3533 pounds, hundreds of pounds lighter than the portliest small utes and nearly identical to the weight Honda claims for the AWD version of its bestselling CR-V.

Transforming a Sentra into a Rogue apparently didn’t require much stretching of the architecture. The Rogue’s wheelbase is 0.2 inch longer than the Sentra’s, and the Rogue’s width is 0.4 inch greater. The overall length grows by just 3.1 inches. Aside from the 5.8-inch-taller, Murano-like body, the Rogue has nearly the same footprint as the Sentra.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster

ESTIMATED BASE PRICE: $500,000

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged and intercooled SOHC 24-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 332 cu in, 5439cc
Power (SAE net): 617 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 575 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.3 in Length: 183.3 in Width: 75.1 in Height: 50.4 in
Curb weight: 3950 lb

PERFORMANCE (MFR’S EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Top speed (redline limited): 207 mph

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST):
EPA city driving: 12 mpg
EPA highway driving: 17 mpg

n fact, Klaus Nesser, head of exclusive products for Mercedes, expects droptop-SLR buyers to be more inclined to cruising than racing. An open car provides more opportunity to be seen and envied. Just drop the automatic top, which takes about 10 seconds.

Nesser says the convertible conversion was easy: “All we had to do was remove the roof.” Herr Nesser was joking, but only a little. The roadster’s body uses a stronger carbon-fiber weave than the coupe (triaxial weave versus biaxial), and there are hefty steel beams in the A-pillars. But beyond that, the body shell needed no reinforcement. If there’s any compromise in chassis rigidity, it’s subliminal.

Click here to find out more!

Chassis rigidity is the cornerstone of agility, and the roadster’s credentials on this score are hard to fault. Grip is abundant, responses are mongoose quick, and the carbon ceramic brakes are equal to the power, which is both vast and seductive.

Nesser says the convertible conversion was easy: “All we had to do was remove the roof.” Herr Nesser was joking, but only a little. The roadster’s body uses a stronger carbon-fiber weave than the coupe (triaxial weave versus biaxial), and there are hefty steel beams in the A-pillars. But beyond that, the body shell needed no reinforcement. If there’s any compromise in chassis rigidity, it’s subliminal.

Chassis rigidity is the cornerstone of agility, and the roadster’s credentials on this score are hard to fault. Grip is abundant, responses are mongoose quick, and the carbon ceramic brakes are equal to the power, which is both vast and seductive.

A half-million bucks will also buy you 21 Miatas. But the effect wouldn't be the same.
BY TONY SWAN, October 2007

From the perspective of Chris Davies, this car makes no sense. Davies is the Brit who’s pushing a European Parliament initiative to limit the top speed of all cars in Europe to just over 100 mph. Since the Mercedes SLR McLaren roadster can do about twice that, it has to be near the top of the list of “boy toys” that Davies wants to ban.

There’s something to his position, but not for the socioenvironmental reasons Davies cites. Traveling at speeds of more than 100 mph in any top-down automobile gets to be uncomfortable, and that applies to the SLR more than most, thanks to the basso bark of its side pipes, relentlessly reminding occupants of every combustion event in the 5.4-liter SOHC 24-valve V-8 engine. With supercharging and intercooling, these are eye-widening events, and they produce eyeball-flattening results: 617 horsepower at 6500 rpm, a prodigious 575 pound-feet of torque, 0 to 60 mph in a little under four seconds, the quarter-mile in a little over 11 seconds at about 125 mph.

The roadster may hit these marks a smidge slower than the hardtop, due to its slightly greater mass. Mercedes reports that the roadster weighs about 100 more pounds than the 3858-pound coupe. But that won’t matter to the deep-pocketed few. The roadster is about style and exclusivity, high speeds or low.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $38,915 (base price: $34,665)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 213 cu in, 3498cc
Power (SAE net): 306 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 268 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 112.2 in Length: 187.0 in Width: 69.8 in Height: 57.8 in
Curb weight: 3774 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 27.1 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 17/23 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

One is money. With a base price of $34,665, the G35x automatic undercuts all but the Audi A4 2.0 Quattro automatic. It’s a little less than the BMW 328xi or the new Mercedes C300 4MATIC, and far more potent than either of those cars.

Which brings us to compelling advantage number two: bang for the buck. With the exception of the BMW 335xi, the G35x delivers more hustle than any of the AWD offerings from the German Big Three. And pricing for a 335xi starts at $41,575.

Is $7000 a significant chunk for you? It is for us.

In the end, it gets to be a matter of what’s important to you. As noted, the BMW 3-series is still the pacesetter in blending performance, refinement, and panache. But if grip, power, agility, and value are your priorities, the G35x is hard to beat.

Another element that could use some work is noise—noise coming up through the suspension, noise from the engine when it’s making all those ponies.

Other demerits: The G35’s throttle tip-in is abrupt, reminiscent of recent Audis’. An unjudicious jab at the pedal produces unwanted lunging from a standing start.

Although the rack-and-pinion power-steering effort varies with speed, it’s a little heavy at a school-zone pace—although it would be hard to criticize on-center feel or overall path accuracy.

Similarly, as in other G35s we’ve encountered, the brake pedal travel is a little long and feels a bit spongy for our taste, although braking performance—stopping distances and fade resistance—is exemplary.

Almost all these small black marks fall under the general heading of refinement, an area where BMW still sets the pace.

But if the G35x is a little rough around the edges, it nevertheless has two compelling advantages versus the other entry-luxury all-wheel-drive sports sedans—in addition, of course, to a comprehensive list of standard features and all the options so necessary in this class (navigation, power sunroof, and premium audio).

The G35’s ATTESA E-TS all-wheel-drive system (this mother of all acronyms stands for Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All Electronic Torque Split) is shared with other Nissan products—the Infiniti FX SUV and M35x sedan and the Nissan GT-R supercar, due next summer.

Like other systems, it automatically varies the front-to-rear power split, in this case via an electronically controlled center clutch. Unlike some other systems, though, the G35’s power apportionment is totally transparent. It delivers the thrust of the 3.5-liter V-6—306 horsepower, 268 pound-feet of torque—as needed, primarily to the rear wheels, shifting to the fronts when grip gets marginal aft.

Another impressive powertrain element is the G’s five-speed automatic, which features adaptive logic that alters shifts to fit whatever the driver may be doing with the throttle over a particular stretch of road.

More significant, when the driver selects Sport mode, the transmission will hold the selected gear until told to do otherwise by a nudge of the shift lever—forward for upshifts, rearward for down. The system would be even more impressive if it included paddle shifters on the steering column, but that’s not part of the deal.

Like other G35 sedans’, the G35x’s suspension is firm, keeping body roll to a minimum, a formula that delivers exceptionally crisp responses at the expense of ride quality that can be less than civilized on bumpy surfaces. BMW still leads the pack in this respect—blending supple ride with athletic moves—and the Infiniti chassis engineers still have work to do.

On the other hand, if you perceive all-wheel drive as a performance enhancement, you’re likely to be disappointed. In almost any sedan application you care to name, all-wheel drive adds mass—that 150 pounds noted under “B” above—and it either provokes or aggravates understeer, the tendency for the car to resist steering inputs as speeds increase.

Both generalizations apply to the G35x.

But we must also say that they apply less to this car than most others in its class. In fact, the effect of the additional mass on acceleration is measurable only at the track with our Racelogic VBOX test gear. In our first test in 2006 of the latest generation of this car, a Sport model with a six-speed manual transmission, the G35 hustled to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and continued on through the quarter-mile in 13.9 seconds at 103 mph.

Our G35x tester, burdened with AWD and a five-speed automatic, blitzed to 60 in 5.4 seconds and the quarter-mile in 14.1 at 100 mph.

Similarly, that 2006 test car stopped from 70 mph in 160 feet, two feet better than the G35x. But the G35x recorded an identical number on the skidpad, where we measure maximum grip—0.87 g—even though the AWD car is equipped with Goodyear Eagle RS-A all-season tires, and the manual model wore Bridgestone Potenza performance rubber.

So, measurable distinctions, for sure, but they’re essentially academic in everyday driving.

The G stands for grip.
BY MORGAN SEGAL October 2007

Presuming you’ve already sifted through the bigger decisions—BMW 3-series? Mercedes C-class? Audi A4? Cadillac CTS?—and arrived at the Infiniti G35, let us confront the lesser included question: What’s the difference between the rear-drive G35 and the all-wheel-drive G35x?

Let’s go to multiple choice:

A. About $2500.

B. About 150 pounds.

C. Increased understeer.

D. All of the above.

The answer, of course, is all of the above. But before we get into specifics about the foregoing, here’s another question: Do you really need all-wheel drive?

We ask because a rear-drive car with a good set of snow tires will perform better in winter conditions than an AWD car on performance or so-called summer tires. But if you live in a four-season climate, and all things are equal tire-wise, then yes, all-wheel drive is a definite plus.

First Place: Hot Hatches: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
Introduction
Fourth Place: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Third Place: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Second Place: 2008 Subaru WRX
First Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
December 2007

2007 Mazdaspeed 3
Highs: Felonious power, crisp steering, Porsche brakes, fits of giggling.

Lows: Wheel-wrenching torque steer, spongy shifter, dash rattle.

The Verdict: It may cause jail time, but never boredom.
A Shark draws the final blood by bringing a gun to a knife fight. Where have we seen that ending before? Always fast, often loud, and occasionally unpredictable, this 263-hp gangbanger rivets your attention and wins our devotion. It’s a poster-boy Shark, and it’s also a Jet at its most relaxed moments.

The Mazdaspeed 3 shows its chops at the track with the quickest 0-to-60 and quarter-mile times, shortest braking distance, and highest skidpad number. Power, grip, brakes, agility—it’s all there in quantities so prodigious as to encourage pure evil in the hearts of men. On a busy two-lane the Mazdaspeed 3 flies past a line of semis so effortlessly as to convince you of your immunity to traffic. It attacks turns with a viscous bite and sticks to pavement with Fixodent-quality adhesion. Throttle-response delay can be counted in thunderclaps. Concentrate, because it also steers itself under full throttle, the front tires having radar for the divots and camber pitches that heighten the innate torque steer.

It booms, it whooshes, it wails. It demands that your best sweaty-palmed driving skills be applied to the light steering and alloy pedals, and it rewards, delivering a type of demonic, antisocial fun in the same vein as burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Drop it into sixth with the ropy, imprecise shifter, and the 3 untenses. Road impacts are damped by a suspension exhibiting ample wheel travel. The five-door body supplies respectable rear-seat legroom augmented by a comfortable seatback angle, and there’s decent baggage area (although it’s slightly smaller than the Dodge’s and Subaru’s). Mazda offers a clever fold-away navigation screen for those who want it.

Details set the Mazdaspeed 3’s cockpit apart. Fancy fabric lines the doors, and painted trim rings circle the vents and speaker grilles. Perfectly spaced red-stitched chevrons march up the inside of the steering wheel. The stereo’s red LEDs flash left or right depending on which way you’re seeking radio stations. Back-seat riders get a fold-away center armrest.

The list goes on: The brake pedal’s rubber grip dots are configured to encourage proper heel-and-toeing. Two brightness controls for the backlit gauges—one for daytime with headlights off, one for night, headlights on—mean you don’t have to fuss with the meter every time the sun sets. The headlight dip angle is even adjustable.

Based on a low-priced car, the Mazda­speed 3 never feels cheap. Nor is it uncomfortable. The front buckets’ bolsters are plump and hold fast—there’s even a crotch blister for holding, uh, whatever.

Lumbar is adjustable, as is the wheel telescope, ensuring orthopedic satisfaction on long hikes. Indeed, the Mazda’s worst offense is its ability to generate repeated court summonses.

Gee, Officer Krupke, what are we to do?

Second Place: Hot Hatches: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX
Introduction
Fourth Place: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Third Place: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Second Place: 2008 Subaru WRX
First Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
December 2007

2008 Subaru Impreza WRX
Highs: Rock solid and refined, comes closest to rear-drive moves, the torque is spread thick.

Lows: Understated inside to the point of Accord-ness, looks dumpy next to the Mazdaspeed, worst mpg.

The Verdict: A budget BMW in a plain beige wrapper.
It was swimming with the Sharks only last year, but the WRX emerges from its complete makeover as a confirmed Jet. The lines of the mini-wagon are more taut (if not excessively handsome). The roof looks lower, the rear-end rake is steeper, and the flaring hood scoop is now tamped down into a narrow cheese shaver. There’s no body-color stitching on the upholstery, no epileptic boost meters, no race-boy adverts embroidered on the seats. The black and titanium trim is so understated—red-numbered gauges notwithstanding—that the car should really be called the Impreza LX.

Disappointment? It can’t be measured in milligrams. This ’08 WRX is so capable and willing, such a leap in livability and refinement over its predecessor, that the words “budget BMW” actually crossed our lips without causing gags.

Unfortunately, some of the old WRX remains for nostalgic types. The Evinrude-esque putter of the 224-horse, 2.5-liter flat-four is just as lame, although more damped in the quieter cockpit. The engine’s four-armed intake tract has been changed from aluminum to plebeian black plastic. It might be lighter and cheaper, but it won’t encourage WRX lovers to crack their hoods at the hamburger stand.

Five-on-the-floor seems about as outdated as three-on-the-tree in a world full of six-speeds. The ratio spacing is almost identical to the Caliber’s but without the second overdrive. No surprise that the Rex’s recorded 20-mpg average is at the bottom. The turbocharged boxer spreads its torque thickly around 3000 rpm, so the extra gear was only missed on the interstate. Little joy was derived from shifting, anyway, the stick’s floppy connection to the transmission seemingly done with bungee cords.

So much for the bad. Our back-road bash brought out the WRX’s manifest improvements, including a new solidity in the ride, competence to the brakes, and fluidity in the suspension and steering. Arcs are traced cleanly with well-greased and reactive steering, the suspension restraining roll and pitch but letting the body down over dips and bumps as gently as a ballerina in slippers. Or a BMW on Michelins, we thought. As in a Bimmer, Subaru’s new chassis filters out everything you don’t need to know to go quick with confidence.

And quick it is, the WRX’s all-wheel drive supplying much appreciated rear-drive throttle response in this group. Injudicious right feet easily overwhelm the front tires of the other cars, especially the hyper-boosted Mazda. But the WRX responds to mid-turn gassing by tucking in the front end and tightening the line. From this, great drives are made.

A snore to look at, the WRX keeps its assets hidden from view. Subaru surely is saving all the red-hot visuals for the forthcoming and pricier STI. Could it be? Yes, it could. Something’s coming, something good.

Third Place: Hot Hatches: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Introduction
Fourth Place: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Third Place: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Second Place: 2008 Subaru WRX
First Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
December 2007

2008 Volvo C30 T5 Version 1.0
Highs: A cuter butt than any in Hollywood, quiet inside and composed on the road, pass-it-quick power.

Lows: Floats on softer springs, interior has the blahs, melt-away brakes.

The Verdict: The aging boomer’s Mini Cooper.
Thoroughly outgunned on this playground, the little glass-rumped cosmopolitan from the way, way north had us uttering the word “Volvo” as if for the first time. An enormously civilized and well-packaged bundle of Euro-chic efficiency, our base C30 was a delight betrayed only by its overly elastic suspension and drab interior hued in three shades of Scandinavian winter.

The lone car here lacking rear doors, this Jet sacrifices back-seat accessibility for its fascinating body shape. A low roof and a fast sloping hatch set in extra huggable hips garnered double takes for the C30 all up and down the high roads leading to our test venue in southeast Ohio. Those who don’t spend a few moments absorbing the C30’s mile-high taillights pouring like strawberry syrup down the corners and over the flanks need to get their curiosity in for a tuneup.

A C30 stands apart in this group for other reasons. Sporting a soft suspension and wearing all-season tires, it’s no shocker that the C30 tanked in the braking, lane-change, and skidpad tests. This cabin offers only four seatbelts, the rear ones accessed by awkwardly climbing over and around the front ones. The turbo engine has an unnatural five holes, from which a stirring exhaust note was never expected and never delivered.

Some anomalous test numbers, however, tell the story of a slingshot punch from the five-cylinder engine.

Lightest at 3134 pounds, the C30 was the slowest from 0 to 60 mph at 6.3 seconds—Houston, we have wheelspin!—but the quickest from 5 to 60 at 6.5 seconds. The Volvo was also fleetest in the 30-to-50 top-gear slog. You say you want usable power more than big horsepower numbers? The C30 serves it up, no waiting. Lift your foot, and it also vanishes, no waiting. The engine shuts down abruptly when the fat boost blows off.

Tuned as an urban errand runner, the C30’s Mazda 3–derived multilink legs sag under the g-forces of country-road cornering. The brake pedal also got long as a hard-driving day wore on. For better back-road acumen, go for the “Dynamic sport suspension,” $575 by itself on the 1.0 (Volvo charges a one-time $300 fee with the first of any “custom build” options, including the suspension) and standard on the 2.0, which is also fitted with larger, 18-inch wheels and lower-profile tires. But be prepared to trade in the absorbent ride that makes freeway plods a relaxing, stress-free stroll in the base car.

The widest car at 70.2 inches proved roomy even for rear-seaters, who get ergonomically scalloped buckets and expansive windows to look through. The “flying buttress”—er, “flying VCR remote”—center console with its Sony-inspired knot of black buttons is a bit of hand-me-down Swedish whimsy from the S40/V50. The plain gauges, the rubbery shifter, and the listless gray plastic trim applied in vast unbroken sheets are hand-me-down items from all Volvos. None of which dissuaded anyone from declaring this happy hatchback an ideal daily driver.

C30! We just met a Volvo named C30, and suddenly that name will never be the same again.

Fourth Place: Hot Hatches: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Introduction
Fourth Place: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Third Place: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Second Place: 2008 Subaru WRX
First Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
December 2007

2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Highs: Planted through corners, gratifying shifter feel, gives good quarter-miles.

Lows: A mug its own mother would slug, high-sheen plastics among the cheap bits, a bucking ride.

The Verdict: A running shoe trapped in a running shoe’s box.
Is this Dodge’s new hot rod or just the box it came in? The high-seated, proto-SUV shape adopted for the regular-grade Caliber looks every bit the Shark behind the SRT4’s goalie mask of air ducts, spoilers, and screens, yet it’s still tall and trucklike and definitely doesn’t feel so pretty. A tailgate wing and the blocky rear bumper only pump up the visual heft, and the 19-inch rims and 225/45 Goodyears look like Sasquatch soles, even in this company. The line forms here for those who like their dance partners big-boned and square-shouldered.

Inside, the forms are big, too, the towering dash and the slab-o’-granite steering-wheel boss unchanged from those of the base car. It doesn’t say “speed” so much as “safe for kids.” Acres of hard, high-sheen black plastic advertise the cost cutting.

The SRT mojo is applied tastefully with carbon-fiber-print upholstery for the wheel and shift boot; white-face gauges include a cleanly integrated boost meter. Lavishly bolstered buckets with SRT embroidery suck torsos in and keep them there, but eventual back fatigue turned the minutes to hours on long hauls.

Chrysler’s Street and Racing Technology department is known for baking real meat in its burritos, and the SRT4 is no exception. The best power-to-weight ratio (11.1 pounds per horsepower) didn’t produce the quickest drag times, but the SRT4’s 14.4-second quarter-mile at 101 mph and gold-medal lane-change performance showed its strengths.

At street level, the Caliber chisels away doubts prompted by its styling. Lines through the corners were tight and bracingly fast and faithfully adhered to by the sticky tires. Mid-turn weaving was occasional on uneven surfaces, the consequence of the snorting 2.4-liter four’s 265 pound-feet of torque pulling the steering around. Always threatening to tear the front rubber loose, the engine’s rabid twist is tamed by subtle applications of the left or right front brake to shift torque away from the smoking tire. This virtual limited slip, superior to a real mechanical limited slip, claims Dodge, operates with a slight jerkiness that was offensive to some, unnoticed by others.

The body remains flat on its firm springs and anti-roll bars, but it also bucked more over bumps, having an altogether harder, harsher ride than the others. Sensations through the wheel, artificially light on center and artificially heavy off, are duller than in the Mazda or Subaru. However, the clipped, direct motions of the Dodge’s six-speed lever were judged the most satisfying of all the shifters.

The old Neon-based SRT4 had a boomy track-rat crudeness that has been expunged from the quieter, slightly plusher, more thoroughly integrated Caliber SRT4. Yet a persistent tinny feel—the hood prop falling off in our hands, the wads of foam insulation sliding around in inadequate glue, the various engine rattles on shutdown—kept our hearts from fully defrosting for it.

Hot Hatches in the Roaring 20s: A couple of outlaws dice with a pair of smooth cruisers for your love and money.
Introduction
Fourth Place: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4
Third Place: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
Second Place: 2008 Subaru WRX
First Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
BY AARON ROBINSON, PHOTOGRAPHY BY DAVID DEWHURST December 2007


It seems like mere minutes since we were shocking and awing the 1578 residents of Bagdad, Arizona, with a similar assortment of giant-slaying subcompacts. However, since that test in May 2007 identifying the Mazdaspeed 3 GT as our favorite little hooligan, the auto industry has birthed a few more turbocharged street runts.

These new torpedoes break down into two gangs, we discovered. The Sharks take reasonable compromise and trample it under stiff suspensions and fat rubber, flaring with eyeball candy and simmering with just-try-it styling. The Jets just play it cool, boy, with less pushy graphics and a lighter, quieter step to their sprints. Like the brawling punks of Bernstein and Sondheim’s 1957 West Side Story, each gang has endearing qualities as well as social diseases.

A cash payment of $22,995 snares the Dodge Caliber SRT4, a superpower-suffused version of Dodge’s economy shoe box wielding 285 horsepower from a 2.4-liter turbo engine and grille-fed intercooler. This Shark, sunburnt in $150 optional Sunburst Orange, had a price further fluffed by a $915 stereo, $1075 navigation system, and the 19-inch aluminum wheel and tire pack, which runs $450. Okay by me from America!

There’s also the totally, radically, belatedly redesigned Subaru Impreza WRX. The original civilian rally car returns larger, heavier, more mature, with a few traditional Rex cues—224-horse turbo flat-four engine and all-wheel drive—and a few tradition breakers, including full-frame windows (finally!) and a deluxe interior. This WRX was earmarked to the gills with $4100 worth of satellite radio and navigation equipment, plus a $75 rubber cargo tray (worth every cent) and a $163 armrest extension. When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way.

Volvo—of all the unlikely brands to be here! It joins the subcompact fracas with its ’08 227-hp C30 T5 hatch. The C30’s launch timing precluded us from comparing it with a VW GTI and Mini Cooper in Bagdad, perhaps the C30’s more natural gang affiliates. And car availability meant the only example with a six-speed manual was this base Version 1.0 model, fitted with soft-running all-season tires and lacking the optional sport suspension. At least its $23,920 price sits at the bottom (a $475 metallic-blue paint job is the only option). Somewhere, there’s a place for this Jet.

Finally, we invited the leader of the Sharks from our Bagdad comparo, the 263-hp Mazdaspeed 3. Stripped for fighting with zero options, it trades at $24,650, a gray 150-mph missile plunged into the heart of our price range. A car like that wants one thing only, and when it’s done, it’ll leave you lonely.

In the meantime, let’s mambo!

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 5-door wagon

PRICE AS TESTED: $82,415 (base price: $77,750)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 333 cu in, 5461cc
Power (SAE net): 382 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 391 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 121.1 in Length: 200.6 in Width: 83.7 in Height: 75.4 in
Curb weight: 5569 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.6 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 33.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.5 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 165 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.78 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 13/17 mpg
C/D observed: 14 mpg

*Stability-control-inhibited.

We drove approximately 1400 miles in various conditions, and fuel economy was a dismal 14 mpg, although that figure falls within the EPA estimates of 13 city and 17 highway. Stepping up to the GL550 isn’t about saving the earth, though—it’s about salvaging your street cred. The GL550 is aimed directly at rich guys who care a lot more about the image they project than pinching pennies or saving fuel.

Those guys will gladly pay the massive premium, some $24,000 over the diesel and $21,000 more than the GL450, which makes just 47 fewer horses. To be fair, much of the GL550’s cost is tied up in standard equipment that is optional on the other GLs, and Mercedes is happy to offer the much more reasonable GL320 or GL450 to folks who don’t like crappy fuel mileage or flashy body kits. The GL550 is fast and stylish and screams exclusivity. Sounds like it should be wearing an AMG badge on the liftgate instead of the wheels, doesn’t it?

We’ve never taken to the typical Mercedes steering sensation—it always feels as if road feel were being delivered to you on a tiny pillow by a tiny butler—but there is good precision and heft to the wheel. The seven-speed automatic is fantastic in full auto mode, with smooth, nearly seamless up- and downshifts, but the transmission gnome that controls the button-actuated shifts needs to drink some Red Bull, as it takes a while for anything to happen.

Inside, the accommodations are first-class, although for the extra bucks this commands over its siblings, there should be far more differentiation and even more upscale appointments. Headroom and legroom are good in the first two rows but merely adequate in the third. Being in the far back, though, isn’t all bad, as a fixed-glass panel above helps alleviate the gloom associated with most other third rows.

Standard equipment includes, well, almost everything, but if you’d like to get more specific, here’s an abridged list of what’s tossed in: a rearview camera, heated rear seats, a power sunroof, power rear quarter-windows, a power steering column, and a top-spec Harman/Kardon stereo system. The only options on the GL550 are things such as a cargo-area box, rear-seat entertainment, keyless ignition, and a trailer hitch. The last option we heartily recommend. We towed a little bit with our test vehicle, and we can say that it tugged like a champ, although we admittedly didn’t really get anywhere near its 7500-pound limit.

And looking at the GL is something you’ll actually want to do now, what with the standard AMG body kit. Whereas lesser GLs look a bit tipsy, nouveau riche, and just sort of ugly, the GL550 really looks the part. Those AMG-inscribed wheels? They’re 21-inchers, wrapped in low-pro 295-40 rubber. The rest of the dress-up kit includes side sills, running boards, new exhaust outlets, and some seriously boss fender flares.

The cherry on top, though, has to be the manhole-diameter three-pointed star centered in the grille. It’s the largest badge Mercedes has put on a passenger vehicle. Ever. The overall effect is one of machismo and purpose, although the running boards are perfectly sized and placed to make getting into and out of the GL550 a pain.

Dynamically, the GL550 is pretty good, too. There’s still a touch too much squat under hard acceleration and brake dive, but those are easily mitigated by popping the standard Airmatic suspension into sport mode. (As in every other Airmatic-equipped Benz, sport mode is comfortable enough for all but the roughest sections of bombed-out pavement while returning adequately agile handling.) The suspension does a pretty good job in all modes of quelling any wheel crash you might get from those heavy, oversized shoes, too, but the smaller 18-inch wheels of the more inexpensive GLs allow for a cushier and more buttoned-down experience.

Forget about AMG—this thing is already the real deal.
BY ERIK JOHNSON, October 2007

In a world where everything from the E-class station wagon to my toaster oven has had a huge AMG engine foot-stomped into the space between its fenders, Mercedes-Benz has shown remarkable restraint in thus far refusing to AMG-ify the GL-class SUV. And with the release of this latest version, the muscular GL550, why would it? Besides, the wheels are from AMG. Isn’t that good enough?

Using the same delicious 5.5-liter V-8 that has wormed its way across the Mercedes-Benz lineup—here it makes 382 horsepower and 391 pound-feet of torque; it’s also found in the CLS550, E550, S550, and you-get-the-idea 550—this latest GL has some serious balls in its basket. This is one fast SUV. How does a best-in-class 5.9 seconds to 60 mph sound? If you’re still not impressed, consider that this mastodon-sized piece of hardware weighs in at a whopping 5569 pounds, roughly equivalent to the weight of the piles of gold bullion it requires to afford the $82,415 as-tested price.

Still snorting derisively from your armchair, sure that we’ve inhaled some Mercedes-scented smoke? Here’s one more performance figure to blow your mind: The GL achieved a 70-to-0-mph stopping distance of 165 feet. Kind of pedestrian for a sports car, but when you consider that it took the last Lotus Elise we tested just three fewer feet to achieve the same, uh, feat, you kind of start to look at the GL550 in a whole new light.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $70,905

BASE PRICE: $52,375

ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 113.7 in Length: 191.1 in Width: 72.7 in Height: 58.3 in
Curb weight: 4042 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.2 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile 14.0 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (governor limited) 155 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph 177 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad 0.82 g


FUEL ECONOMY:
2008 EPA city driving 16 mpg
C/D observed 19 mpg

Modestly refreshed for 2008, the latest 5-series Bimmers get some optional techno-tweaks. The most intriguing is a video-based lane-departure warning system that vibrates the steering wheel when its brain decides you've deviated from your intended path without meaning to. This has value on long freeway grinds, but it's annoying when you're clipping apexes on a favorite stretch of back road. Fortunately, it can be switched off.

BMW has enhanced its adaptive cruise control to include stop-and-go traffic-we wish the programmers would add an adaptive off feature-and the iDrive control collective is a bit more user-friendly, but tortuous logic still abounds.

Aw, darn it, I coulda had a V-8.
BY TONY SWAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY NICK SAY November 2007

2008 BMW 535xi

The Highs: Abundance of torque, subliminal turbo lag, typical BMW dynamics.

The Lows: Overly cautious adaptive cruise control, iDrive program logic is still labyrinthine.
We were much impressed by our first encounters with BMW's 3.0-liter twin-turbo six, a force-fed smoothie that propelled the equally new 335i coupe to acceleration numbers all but equal to those of an E46 M3.

But the performance of this versatile power module is even more impressive hitched to a bigger buggy, such as the all-wheel-drive version of the 2008 BMW 5-series sedan. The 535xi's numbers may not seem quite as newsworthy-until you consider its mass: 4042 pounds, 485 more pounds than the coupe in our November '06 test (and about 250 more pounds than the rear-drive 535i, per BMW). The 535xi was further handicapped, albeit only slightly, by the six-speed Steptronic automatic.

No surprise that the coupe was quicker: 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds, the quarter-mile in 13.6 at 105 mph. The 535xi got to 60 in 5.4 and did the quarter in 14.0 seconds at 102. But consider how the 535xi stacks up against the 550i with its 360-hp, 4.8-liter V-8, as tested last year [“Faster Horses,” November 2006]. The 535xi is only 0.2 second slower to 60 mph and actually 0.2 quicker in 50-to-70-mph blasts. The 535xi is helped by a shorter final drive, but the real key is torque that ramps up early and stays ramped up for a long time. If you're not in a big hurry, it's fast enough and saves some seven grand (nine for the rear-drive 535i) versus the 550i.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door sedan

ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED: $60,000 (estimated base price: $59,000)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 303 cu in, 4969cc
Power (SAE net): 416 bhp @ 6600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 371 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.5 in Length: 183.5 in Width: 71.5 in Height: 55.7 in
Curb weight: 3800 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 114 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 172 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/23 mpg
C/D-observed: 16 mpg

It also permits the 3800-pound car some restrained roll through the esses but not enough to wither confidence. The IS F’s steering rack accurately puts tires where they’re needed and provides talk-back, albeit faint, on how things are holding. And hold they do, with excellent grip.

The all-important sport button also perks up throttle response and relaxes the stability-control system to allow some controlled tail-out action. Lexus also allows you to shut the system completely off, but the shutdown can only be called for while at full stop. Brembo-sourced front calipers on broad cross-drilled rotors deliver solid braking but with a soft pedal.

The muted interior, the slightly watery controls, the heavy price tag; the IS F is at core a Lexus with extra muscle, not as raw as the BMW M3 or Mercedes C63 AMG. The next steps for F may decide if the performance sub-brand thrives or is only a brief experiment.

Polished paddles put your fingers in charge when you wish it. And they’ll be busy, the swift-revving engine and ratio-stuffed, eight-speed automatic gearbox bringing forth the redline cutoff with annoying frequency. With all that engine fettling, the warning beep reminding you to upshift at 6400 rpm and the cut-out at 6800 rpm feel a bit low. The new 414-hp BMW M3’s engine screams all the way to 8400 rpm.

Despite the bling of braided-aluminum trim on the doors and shifter console, temperance rules indoors. Blue-lit gauges and blue seat stitching, alloy pedals, a digital gear-position display, and the subtle F logo on the wheel are the differentiators that drivers see. The base car’s rear bench is divided in the IS F into two non-folding buckets with a ski pass-through.

At leisure speeds, the air is hushed, Lexus-like, with just a distant snort from the engine and the extra thrum of the fat summer Michelins disturbing the peace. Given the low profile of the rubber mounted to the 19-inch forged aluminum rims, the ride is tightly controlled but commendably mellow. The ride-and-handling balance is perhaps the IS F’s biggest achievement. It makes allowances for road fissures and drops the body into holes with cushioned lurches.

Fuji’s Firebomb: New IS F is fast, fun, and in many ways quite familiar.
October 2007

Why the letter “F” in the new V-8–powered, 416-horsepower Lexus IS F? Simple: Toyota’s luxury brand and the letter F have a long history. In the mid-1980s, the Lexus luxury division was then just a classified notepad document codenamed “Circle F.” The first Lexus LS400 of 1989 was known internally as the “F1” or “Flagship.” And the stylized Fs on the 2008 IS F are drawn, it’s said, to mimic a few hairpin turns of Toyota’s Higashi-Fuji test track.

This first F (there’ll be more Lexus models with the F treatment soon, most likely) is a V-8–powered sledgehammer that rockets to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds—fleeter by 0.1 second than the new M3—has a 172-mph speed governor, and generates 0.92 g on the skidpad. It also keeps us grinning through hard track laps, even though the frequent fill-ups of premium were inhaled by street driving at the rate of 16 mpg. We’ll have to wait until March, 2008, when the IS F goes on sale at an expected price around $59,000 to see how many buyers are interested in a wicked-performing Lexus.

Developed in cooperation with Yamaha, the IS F’s engine, or the 2UR-GSE as Toyota calls the 416-hp variant of the 389-hp 5.0-liter V-8 found in the LS600h hybrid, sans hybrid gear, is peakier, actually losing 17 pound-feet of torque on the operating table as the changes pushed the horsepower and torque peak higher up the revs. Solid lifters and titanium intake valves with 10 percent more lift reside in new higher-flow cylinder heads. At full throttle above 3400 rpm, a barn door in the box snaps open with vacuum released from a small reservoir, and the unleashed induction noise is raw and thrilling.

The Journey rides on a four-wheel independent strut-front and multilink-rear suspension. Customers in the U.S. and Canada can add all-wheel drive to models with the 3.5-liter V-6.

In keeping with other models Chrysler offers, the Journey offers such things as YES Essentials seat fabric, which wards off stains and odors, and the MyGIG multimedia audio and entertainment system for escape between cries of “Are we there yet?” Other options include a DVD entertainment system, navigation, and rear backup cameras, as well as a cooler in the glove box, a rechargeable flashlight in the rear cargo area, and a trifold load floor behind the second row for more hidden storage.

Pricing has not yet been announced for the SUV that will be built at Chrysler’s plant in Toluca, Mexico, but we expect it to range from $22,000 to $32,000. Toluca is also the production home of the PT Cruiser, which apparently still has a little longevity in its current guise—as does the Pacifica—which leaves us still guessing as to whether the Journey ultimately replaces either of those.

Those wanting to complete the look can opt for the high-contrast black roof rack with buffed stainless steel rails. The single-piece, lightweight liftgate has an integrated spoiler and complements the glint of chrome-tipped dual exhausts, standard with the 3.5-liter V-6 that is available for North American buyers. The 235-hp V-6 is matched to a six-speed automatic transmission with AutoStick for North America, for an estimated 16 city and 23 highway mpg. This engine is standard on the R/T and R/T AWD models—and AWD is only available with that mill.
Lots of Engine Options, but North America Loses on Tranny Choices

Other powertrain options include Chrysler’s 173-hp, 2.4-liter four-cylinder “world engine” rated at 19 city and 25 highway mpg with a four-speed automatic transmission in North America and a five-speed manual in other markets.

The flexible-fuel 186-hp, 2.7-liter V-6 that can run on an E85 ethanol-gasoline blend delivers 17/23 mpg, with a four-speed automatic for North America and a six-speed automatic elsewhere—yes, second-class citizens that we are over here.

The rest of the world also gets a 2.0-liter turbo-diesel that delivers 140 horsepower and 229 pound-feet of torque. Outside North America, customers get a six-speed manual or a new dual-clutch six-speed automatic from Getrag. Something for us to aspire for here, as well?

And although there are no sliding doors, the rear doors do open 90 degrees for easy access to the available third row, especially when the front passenger seat is folded flat.

A further nod to its family-vehicle status is the “child presenter seat” in the second row that allows the 60-percent part of the 60/40 fold-flat, reclining seat to move forward two inches to be within arm’s reach of Mom or Dad. And Dodge says the Journey is the first in the segment to offer an integrated child booster seat in the second row—a claim the Volvo XC70 might want to dispute.
Cubbies Everywhere

As for Chrysler’s minivan family, there are hidden storage areas in the floor (Dodge suggests cans and lots of ice, especially since the liners can be removed for cleaning). And under the front-passenger seat cushion is a new system known as Flip ’N Stow, where the hinged seat cushion flips forward to reveal the bin inside the seat.

In the U.S., the Journey will be available in three trim levels: SE, SXT, and R/T in early 2008. Other parts of the world will get their versions—left- and right-hand drive—starting in mid-2008.

Design-wise, the ’09 SUV is clearly a Dodge, with the signature crosshair chrome grille with a Ram head stamped in the center. Quad halogen headlamps can be augmented with fascia-mounted fog lamps, and the trucklet rides on optional 19-inch wheels. An aluminum hood, sculpted wheel arches, and an angled beltline so kids can better see out the rear windows suggest a mix of bold and practical.

Although late to the party, the Journey brings innovative storage and other features to make up for it.
BY ALISA PRIDDLE, August 2007

The old Chrysler insisted it was all-in when it comes to the popular crossover market, fighting rumors it was killing off the Chrysler Pacifica while its other car-based SUV, the Chrysler PT Cruiser grows long in the tooth.

So in Frankfurt next month, at its first auto show as the new Chrysler, the automaker will show the world an all-new offering, the Dodge Journey. This SUV hails from the same D-segment platform as the mid-size Dodge Avenger and Chrysler Sebring sedans and is the crossover that had been initially referred to as the Dodge Crew in recent rounds of spy shots.

The Journey is a global SUV, crucial to the continued rollout of the Dodge brand in Europe that began in 2006—hence, the choice of Frankfurt for its world debut.

The five-passenger Journey has available five-plus-two seating, expected to be a draw in Europe where vehicles of this size essentially serve as the family minivan. To make it possible, the Journey’s 113.8-inch wheelbase is 4.9 inches longer than the Avenger’s (overall length grew less than two inches).

The new Vibe will continue to be offered with front- or all-wheel drive, and marks the return of the GT model to the lineup that was discontinued for the 2007 model year. The base 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine now produces 132 hp and 128 lb-ft of torque, but remains fuel efficient with estimated fuel economy of 26/32 mpg in city/highway driving with a manual transmission. The larger 2.4-liter engine has 158 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque, and has a 21/28 mpg estimated fuel rating with a manual. A five-speed manual is standard, with an optional four-speed automatic with the base engine. The automatic is standard with the larger mill, or customers can opt for a new five-speed auto with Driver Shift Control.

We’d have welcomed a turbocharged four-pot—perhaps the same 260-hp mill that adds more than a dash of dash to the Chevrolet HHR SS and would make a Vibe so equipped an excitement-division-worthy competitor to the Mazdaspeed 3 and Dodge Caliber SRT4.

The new Matrix and Vibe have been engineered to accommodate a hybrid powertrain, which conceivably could come from either automaker, although GM’s hybrid systems are geared to larger vehicles.

Pontiac shows its next youthful hatch.
BY STEVE SILER, October 2007

Pontiac gives us much-needed detail on its all-new Vibe hatch/wagon/crossover, which is scheduled to debut at November’s Los Angeles auto show. This will be the second generation of the Vibe, which, along with its mechanical twin, the Toyota Matrix, first hit the road in 2002 as a 2003 model.

What has changed for ’09 includes every body panel—some a little, some a lot—to inject some much-needed flair into the Vibe’s styling. Gone, thankfully, is all that cladding, which presumably was there to fool people into thinking the tall wagon was actually an SUV. Also missing are the current generation’s integrated roof rails, which effectively disguised the tall, flat roof and allowed stylists to present a more sloping roofline while preserving cargo space. The new model has a more conventional roofline yet still appears sporty.

What won’t change is that the Vibe will continue to share its platform and certain powertrain combos with the 2009 Toyota Matrix that was unwrapped at October’s Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) show in Las Vegas. Word is that GM moved up Vibe production (at GM’s joint-venture plant in Fremont, California) by a couple months to first-quarter 2008 to keep up with Matrix launch plans. The Matrix is built at a Canadian Toyota plant in Cambridge, Ontario.

The base Corolla, as well as the LE, XLE, and S models, will come with an all-new 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine with 132 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque. The new XRS trim level, however, borrows the 158-hp, 2.4-liter four-cylinder, with 162 pound-feet of torque, from the Scion xB and tC. Manual and automatic transmissions contain five gears, with the automatic including a manual tap-up, tap-down feature, which is a first for a Corolla.

Overall, the 2009 Corolla will offer more standard and optional features, with newfound luxury items thrown in. Unfortunately, from what we’ve seen, the interior takes no quantum leap to upscale materials or design.

With six airbags and ABS standard, plus optional stability control, the Corolla has finally entered this century in regard to safety features.

Prices will be announced closer to the on-sale date, which is estimated to be February or March of next year. How it will stack up dynamically next to segment favorites such as the Mazda 3 remains to be seen.

Say hello to Camry Lite.
BY STEVE SILER, November 2007

Toyota used the SEMA tuner and aftermarket mega-extravaganza in Las Vegas to show the 10th generation of its Corolla sedan, which at 30 million units sold in 40 years, is the bestselling passenger car in history. It also is important because one in three of the 390,000 people who buy Corollas annually trades in for a new one. Others trade up to a Camry.

From the window line to the cut-lines on the hood to the head- and taillamp graphics, the 2009 Corolla and Camry appear to be two sizes of the same dress, right down to their use of body cladding.

Previous Corollas have taken a one-size-and-style-fits-all approach, but with five trim levels—two of which profess to be on the sporty side—the 2009 Corolla will attempt to reach more buyers in the crucial younger demographic. At the bottom is the Standard Array for the budget-minded, complete with crank windows and manual locks. From there, the LE and XLE trims should continue to appease the more conservative, older set with power accessories and other comfort items, including a navigation system, JBL sound, and stability control.

For the younger crowd, the S and the new XRS trims stem from the Standard Array, with an emphasis on performance and cosmetic enhancements, such as a spoiler.

Along with particulate and NOx emissions, BlueTec is rapidly abolishing that characteristic cylinder-full-of-pebbles diesel clatter as well. At idle, the driver has to be paying very close attention to notice that the engine underhood is popping diesel fuel rather than gasoline. Under acceleration, the exhaust sound is a little deeper and boomier than a gasoline Jetta, but not too noticeable to the average sorority member, a demographic that hoards transporter-loads of Jettas here in Ann Arbor. If they’re not used to running a gasoline engine up to redline (truncated in the diesel at just 4500 rpm), the only thing the Tri Delts will notice while driving the TDI is the inordinate number of leering stares they get at the diesel pumps.

Despite the BlueTec partnership, Volkswagen will refrain from using the BlueTec name on the Jetta TDI. Early information suggests that consumers associate BlueTec with Mercedes-Benz and incorrectly assume that a Volkswagen with a BlueTec badge is powered by a Mercedes engine.

Incidentally, to celebrate thirty years of selling diesels in the U.S. Volkswagen is searching for both the oldest and the highest-mileage diesel VWs still running their original engines. If you think your car could be a contender for one (or both) honors, go to www.vw.com starting March 1 to enter your car. VW is expecting at least one to be a 1977 Rabbit diesel. We know a guy who ran one at the 24 Hours of LeMons in October….

Volkswagen’s 50-state-compliant Jetta TDI will be among the cleanest diesels in the U.S.
BY JARED GALL, February 2007

Amid the looming hordes of European luxury automakers planning a North American compression-ignition invasion in the next couple years, humble Volkswagen has announced its plans to return the Jetta TDI to the diesel dogpile in the spring of 2008. Powered by a new 2.0-liter four-cylinder making 140 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, and either a six-speed manual or DSG automated manual transmission, the 2008 Jetta TDI will be cleared for sale in all fifty states.

Some of the earlier diesels to make it to our shores over the next few years will only be available in 45 states; California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont have all adopted stricter emissions regulations for diesels that bar some vehicles from entry. Using technology developed under the BlueTec cooperative formed by Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, the Jetta TDI will slip by these stricter regulations without resorting to a urea-based exhaust treatment, as many BlueTec labeled models will.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are, along with particulate emissions (soot), the biggest hurdles facing diesels in the U.S. Most BlueTec vehicles will control NOx by injecting a urea-based solution called AdBlue into the exhaust system upstream of a catalytic converter that specifically targets NOx. In that catalytic converter, the ammonia in the urea reacts with the NOx in the exhaust gas and neutralizes it into nitrogen and water.


Volkswagen’s Jetta TDI will manage without a urea injection system by using a NOx-storage catalyst. Like the particulate filters in place on this car as well as other diesels, this catalyst is basically a trap that temporarily holds the offensive emissions. Periodically, the engine will switch to an air-fuel mixture that will burn off the material in the traps.

We had a chance to drive a near-production Jetta TDI and were pleasantly reassured by the transparency of not just the BlueTec technology keeping the car clean, but the diesel engine overall. Horsepower in this new 2.0-liter common-rail diesel engine is up 40 percent over the previous 1.9-liter four-cylinder, with torque up 33 percent. Those figures mean an increase in drivability of about 500 percent. With the previous engine, the best performance we managed to coax from a Jetta TDI was a sluggish 10.3 second 0-60 wheez. The additional power and torque produced by this new, cleaner engine bring that number down to somewhere in the low- to mid-eight second range. Under less aggressive feet, the TDI’s prodigious torque effortlessly whisks the Jetta away from stops and around traffic.

Tundra-like Interior, As Well

Likewise, the Sequoia’s interior appears to borrow much from the Tundra, and seating for eight should be no problem, given its formidable girth. Expect a full boat of luxury and comfort features in the top-shelf Limited model, which we expect to carry a base price in the $45,000 neighborhood, with an SR5 trim level slotting in beneath the Limited at a base price in the mid-to-high 30s.

Mechanically, the Sequoia will be available with a pair of V-8 engines: a 4.7-liter V-8 with 271 horsepower and 313 pound-feet of torque, and the impressive and buttery smooth iForce 5.7-liter V-8 with its 381 horsepower and 401 pound-feet.

With its standard six-speed manumatic transmission, the 5.7-liter V-8 should make towing 10,000-pound trailers a cinch (the 4.7-liter comes only with a five-speed autobox). Also, in keeping with the squeaky-green reputation Toyota has worked so hard to foster, the Sequoia will be offered as a hybrid for the first time, thus giving GM’s upcoming Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon hybrids some serious competition. Toyota is also studying diesel-electric hybrids for its light trucks.

The Sequoia hybrid, to be positioned as the flagship of the Sequoia lineup, will be Toyota’s chief weapon to thwart off another round of protests from the persnickety Prius-pride activists who blasted Toyota last year when it rolled out the mammoth Tundra. Perhaps rightfully so—in a very un-Toyota-like move, it launched honking trucks with honking V-8s that lack the efficiency of cylinder deactivation technology—essentially putting it one giant green step behind GM and Chrysler. Who’d’a thunk?

Sequoia goes super-size.

BY STEVE SILER, PHOTOGRAPHY BY CHRIS DOANE FOR BRENDA PRIDDY & CO. July 2007

When it comes to future-vehicle prototypes that we catch in public, the camouflage used to conceal them is sometimes almost as much fun to look at as the vehicles themselves. And, man, we’d like to meet the artists who slapped together the garb on the prototypes of the 2009 Toyota Sequoia we just nabbed during towing tests.

Indeed, one could probably tie the earth to Jupiter with all that duct tape, and we can only imagine what inspired the tabbed trim piece behind the front wheels—the uniform from the Mad Max High School cheerleaders? Or maybe they are a new take on trendy fender vents. Alas, they are probably just there so the engineers can open the doors without revealing the cutline.

We don’t know why Toyota is taking such pains, since even so fetchingly wrapped in tarps and tape, it’s pretty evident that from the B-pillar forward, the Sequoia is more or less identical to the full-size Tundra pickup on which it’s clearly based, confirming that the automaker’s biggest SUV will indeed be big. Looks like we’ll have to wait a bit longer, however, to see what the Sequoia looks like aft of the B-pillar, but we expect few surprises from ever-conservative Toyota.