From the logbook: 2010 Buick LaCrosse CXS

According to Autoblog, GM has been taking their time building LaCrosses, shipping 300-400 or so in August and then stopping for a few weeks to work out bugs. Given the importance of this car to Buick, and how often LaCrosse advertisements compare the car to Lexus, patience in manufacturing to work out quality issues may be a virtue.

But we weren’t patient to find out how the new LaCrosse would perform, so following our typical testing timetable we grabbed one of the first to hit dealers’ lots. Our loaded LaCrosse CXS comes with GM’s 3.6-liter V6; lesser-level LaCrosses come with a 3.0-liter V6 similar to the one in our tested Chevrolet Equinox. A 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine will become optional this winter.

Our car has the touring package (19-inch wheels, continuously variable suspension damping), navigation, and an “oversized” sunroof. (That makes it sound like it doesn’t fit, or there is no roof left.) All in, the car lists for $37,555. Given the car’s size and content, it is a relative bargain compared to a comparatively-equipped Acura TL or Lexus ES.

You might be wondering if a Buick really should be mentioned next to a TL or ES. After all, most recent Buick sedans have been based on dated platforms. So far, our logbook entries suggest that this is indeed a very different Buick:

“Impressive drive. Very refined and inviting.”

“Wide A-pillars and short rear window impact outward visibility.”

“Driving position is narrow – high console and footwell intrusion from left.”

“No car with 40-series tires should ride this well.”

“Wish it was a Cadillac. Not sure if people who would appreciate this car would appreciate buying a ‘Buick.’”

“Good steering, smooth powertrain.”

“Sea of buttons in center stack.”

“Lots of features for the money--a good step forward for GM.”

“Trunk access is a bit tight.”

“Feels like sitting in a tub with high beltline with a very deep dash.”

“Nav system is easily the best that I’ve used. This one actually agrees with the route picked from (previous) mapping. Recalculates quickly, no U-turn, no persistence (to stay) on the planned route.”

“Great handling, nice steering feel.”

“World-class luxury interior. Quiet.”

“Big A-pillars are like blinders. Other than that and the busy control layout, a delightful car overall. I might like this more than the CTS.”

“Wraparound dash limits access and inside door pulls put style over function.”

“Refreshing styling. A woman wanted to trade her Camry for the Buick.”

“Overall quite competitive. It drives like no other Buick ever before, but falls down on some important details.”

“Was told it looks like a Lexus--maybe GM can pull this off after all…”

Our initial thoughts show that, in general, we’re pretty impressed with the LaCrosse. We’ll see how it does against the redesigned Ford Taurus and other large sedans soon.

—Tom Mutchler 

From the logbook: 2010 Mercedes-Benz E350

Some cars simply are tough acts to follow. Take the last-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class. This midsized luxury sedan set benchmarks in its class for steering and ride. It was quiet, comfortable, and quick. Complicated controls and a checkered reliability history--until its final years--counted against it.

So Mercedes-Benz faced a challenge when they redesigned the E-Class for 2010. To find out if they measured up to the task, we bought one to test. Our E350 came, like most rear-wheel-drive E-Classes sold around here, with the sports package, adding a sports suspension, some lower body cladding, and all-season 18-inch tires. Snazzy AMG wheels, a Premium Package with navigation and harman/kardon stereo, and a panorama sunroof brought the total to $55,245.

How is the car to drive? Let’s check the initial feedback from our testers by cracking open the car’s logbook:

“Quick, linear steering but has very low effort.”

“Silly shifter easily confused for right stalk. Started to rain and I instinctively pushed it up for wiper – went into neutral on highway.”

“Once again, a redesign comes out and I prefer the previous-generation car.”

“Steering here is too light and short on feedback, despite tons of grip and great body control.”

“NAV is frustrating to use, even by voice.”

“Not fond of the seatbelt power snugger trying to choke me.”

“Powertrain is very smooth and pulls great on highway for passing.”

“Back-up camera only works if audio system is on.”

“Car has an ‘avant-garde’ feeling to it”

“Steady as a rock long distance cruiser. Quiet.”

“Center control thing can be confusing at first but handy for moving between presets.”

“Fit and finish is superb.”

“This E-Class leaves me completely cold. Overly contrived styling, inside and out.”

“Ride is a bit stiff-legged.”

“I like the old one better. More impact harshness and noise now.”

“Strong and quiet powertrain.”

“Gets lots of looks and favorable comments.”

“Still engaged cruise control rather than turn signal three times.”

“Somehow it’s not quite the same as the previous generation.”

To sum up, the new E350 is eye-catching, especially given that the last E-Class grew familiar as it remained essentially unchanged for seven model years. But some faults--particularly complicated controls--remain. Perhaps more troubling, the E350 doesn’t drive like the old one, and given how good that car was, that’s a big disappointment.

—Tom Mutchler

From the logbook: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox

Even though Chevrolet is GM’s volume brand, selling something for everybody, they’ve lacked a competitive small SUV. Sure, they offered the original Equinox; it had a roomy interior and comfortable low-speed ride, but it suffered from an outdated and inefficient base engine, clumsy handling, uncomfortable seats and blatantly cheap interior. The redesigned 2010 Equinox rectified those problems.
 
Almost the same length (but narrower) as a midsized Toyota Highlander, the Equinox is something of a “tweener.” GM frequently compares it to the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V on their Web site, and it’s priced up against those small SUV sales juggernauts. I guess the name Equinox—one of the two times each year when day and night are the same length of time—makes a bit of sense, as it’s aimed right down the middle of two SUV segments.
 
We bought two all-wheel-drive Equinoxes to test: a basic four-cylinder 1LT with optional Bluetooth and remote steering wheel controls listed for $26,350. We also got a loaded $31,780 2LT with the optional 3.0-liter V6, 18-inch wheels, leather heated seats, and a moon roof. Buyers with less fiscal restraint can option up an Equinox with features that the RAV4 and CR-V competition doesn’t offer, like a power liftgate and rear seat DVD entertainment, but doing that puts the price tag up to where better models exist.
 
By now, you may have read about our less-than-joyous purchase experience. Let’s move past that and see what the Equinox is like to drive. Below are our engineers’ first impressions from the vehicles’ logbooks:
 
“Competitive family SUV. Roomy – stylish interior.”
 
“Large blind spot from wide front A-pillar, along with C and D pillars.”
 
“Good power, but transmission hunts or is slow to respond at times.”
 
“Really nice rear seat room. Plenty of leg and head room for adults.”
 
“Too bad you can’t get the RAV4’s 3.5-liter V6 in this.”
 
“Sluggish [V6] powertrain lacking low-end grunt and the six speed is always working.”
 
“Ride is well controlled and comfortable.”
 
“Lock (button) on center dash never works for me.”
 
“Nice interior materials but some sharp edges.”
 
“Smooth [4-cylinder] powertrain and quiet when cruising level highway, but engine needs to be pushed to keep up speed on incline or when quick acceleration is needed for passing.”
 
“I really like how this feels to drive. Nice steering weight, responsive, rides well, feels very solid at speed.”
 
“Power height adjustment [on 1LT] nice to have, but it changes fore/aft way too much – then you need to grab the [manual] lever to fix that…”
 
“Tune knob is quite a lean for me.”
 
“Transmission moves so much I thought it was a CVT.”
 
“Accents like the red stitching and [storage compartment] liner are a nice touch.”
 
“I hate the top-hinged preset buttons that force you to press lower on them.”
 
“Better steering feel on the V6 model.”
 
“Looks and feels like a scaled-down Traverse.”
 
Overall, our impression of the Equinox is that it’s a pleasant SUV with a few annoyances. For more on the Equinox, check out our First Drive review.
 
—Tom Mutchler

From the logbook: 2010 Toyota Prius

The last-generation Prius deserved a lot of accolades. It has been our Top Pick for Green Car for six years running. Of course, a big reason for that honor is that the Prius has the best fuel economy of any car currently tested. But that’s not all; it’s also roomy and reliable. Plus, according to our owner satisfaction data, owners love them.

All of this doesn’t mean the car was perfect. There was room for improvement inside, with some odd controls, lackluster interior materials, and a somewhat compromised driving position. The driving experience itself was affected by numb steering and body roll.

We looked forward to getting the redesigned 2010 Prius to see if it improved the overall package. The new car is slightly bigger, and Toyota claims it is both faster and gets better fuel economy, a combination of claims that can be mutually exclusive. To find out how Toyota did, we grabbed the first Prius we could get. Loaded up with heated leather seats and a JBL stereo, our Prius IV stickered at $26,750. (The base price starts at $22,750, all the better to rival the $22,010 Honda Insight EX.)

Did Toyota deliver on its promise of an improved Prius? Let’s see our engineers’ initial comments in the car’s logbook as the car gets its real-world break-in miles:

“Don’t like the energy display – looks like my old Atari 2600.”

“48.1 mpg over 370 miles, which included a trip to NYC.”

“Driving position greatly improved, thanks to more foot room, telescope wheel, and seat height/lumbar adjustments.”

“Split rear window is crap in the rain – wiper only clears small area.”

“55 mpg on the commute home.”

“With this kind of fuel economy and a base price of $23k, why bother with lithium-ion or plug-ins?”

“The color screen [in the last generation Prius] has been downgraded to a low-res green screen out of 1983.”

“Roomy, but high center stack takes up lots of room and makes it feel cramped.”

“Can easily get over 50 mpg if trying.”

“As an engineer, I’m impressed. As a Gen 2 Prius owner – not as much. There is little reason to trade in our ‘06 model.”

“I dislike the seat heater switches buried under the console.”

“Beeping in reverse is so annoying.”

“Numb steering, especially off-center.”

“Took four adults into New Haven – all said they were comfortable.”

“Hard to use instrumentation info modes – seem cumbersome and illogical.”

“Efficient transport, but no fun to drive.”

“Steering firmer [than previous Prius] but no more direct.”

“More engine torque and less boomy sounding.”

So, at first glance, the new Prius that is improved in several ways, but certainly isn’t devoid of annoyances. Unlike the Ford Fusion hybrid, a car that showed that you can buy a car that combines both high fuel economy and driving enjoyment, the Prius remains biased towards maximizing practical and efficient transportation.

We’ll see exactly how efficient it is when we finish running our full fuel economy tests—including city and highway driving cycles—as well as our other tests here at the track. We’ll also publish a First Drive with more driving impressions shortly.

Visit our Toyota Prius model overview, for pricing, specs, and eventually ratings and road test (available to online subscribers).

—Tom Mutchler

From the logbook: 2010 Volvo XC60

It is arguable that the Volvo XC60 navigates in murky waters: It’s a premium-priced SUV that isn’t premium-sized. It fits into the same league as vehicles like the Acura RDX, Audi Q5, BMW X3, Land Rover LR2, Mercedes-Benz GLK350, and Volkswagen Tiguan—all priced between $36,000 and $43,000. Although so far many of us like the XC60 better than some competitors, the fact remains that buyers in this segment may be more focused on nameplate than substance and there are many other choices that give you more for less.

Loaded with a bunch of options, our XC60 rang in at $42,245. Speaking of options, we were eager to test out all of the XC’s newest technology and highly-advertised safety equipment, such as Adaptive Cruise Control; Lane Departure Warning; Collision Warning with Auto Brake Distance Alert; and Driver Alert Control. All of these are included in the Technology Package.

How do all these safety gizmos (and the rest of the car) work? Read on for candid exerpts from the testers' logbook:
 
“Smooth engine with decent power (but you do need to rev it to get it).”
 
“Rides decently.”
 
“Very quiet on the highway.”
 
“Lane-departure warning is not nearly as sensitive as in the Infiniti FX.” [But many thought it was annoying on country roads.]
 
“Parking aid kicks in too soon and leaves you far from the curb.”
 
“Ignition switch is awful.”
 
“Seats are very comfy, and the headrest doesn’t push my head forward like most Volvos.”
 
“Interior fit and finish is good but lacks warmth and feels antiseptic.”
 
“Good cargo space and rear seat.”
 
“Power-operating tailgate is agonizingly slow opening/closing.”
 
“Active cruise is the best system I’ve used – smooth braking and acceleration to blend with traffic.”
 
“Why isn’t BLIS [Blind Spot Information System] included in the Technology Package? Seems like we got every other electronic safety doo-dad…”
 
“For all the safety gizmos loaded on this thing, I’m surprised that $42K doesn’t get you a backup camera.”
 
“Very easy car to live with, but not exciting.”
 
“Easily my favorite Volvo of recent memory.”

All-in-all, the XC60 packages a fair amount of interior and cargo space, but a relatively underwhelming driving experience. If you’re a big fan of the latest in safety technology or Volvos in general, you might want to give this a try. But be sure you don’t mind all the bells, lights, and whistles going off. We’ll have more on the XC60 soon, with a first drive coming in the days ahead, and further down the road, a full test.

—Mike Quincy

From the logbook: Volkswagen Routan

School’s almost out and road trip season beckons. And having mapped dozens of trips all around the country, I don’t think there’s anything better to drive than a minivan – especially with kids. These vehicles offer the best combination of seating and cargo-carrying flexibility ever.

One of the newest (well, sort of) models is the built-in-Canada Volkswagen Routan. However, despite the German engineering tag line, this is a merely a Chrysler minivan in disguise. (Some have taken to combining its pedigree and moniker, Chrysler and Routan, into a tasty new name: Crouton.) While Volkswagen made some exterior styling changes, according to the company, most of the money was retuning the suspension and steering. Unfortunately, the van is powered by Chrysler’s noisy and inefficient 3.8- and 4.0-liter V6 engines. (See our Chrysler Town & Country ratings and road test, available to online subscribers. Watch our Chrysler and Dodge minivans video.)

Our SEL model with the 4.0-liter engine rang in at $36,215 before we bargained for some substantial discounts. These vans are not exactly flying off dealer lots, so there’s a lot of room for haggling.

How does it all work? Can VW turn some American iron into European sophistication? Have a look at the book:

“A Town & Country by another name – comfortable ride, but lots of rattles inside with shaky seats and plastic panels.” [But another tester countered, saying the VW was “slightly better than the Chrysler-branded products, but that isn’t saying much.”]

“Feels nothing like a VW.”

“Still has dead steering on center [as well as] loose body control.”

“Feels too bouncy on side roads.”

“Engine has good power and transmission is responsive and smooth.”

“Road and wind noise are quite high.”

“Not comfortable to drive – seat needs more lumbar.”

“Lack of telescope steering wheel makes it tough to find a good driving position.”

“Six adults traveled into and out of Boston and everyone hated the seats.”

“Shifter on dash is awkward – the huge steering wheel blocks the ‘PRND.’”

“Main gauges pick up too many reflections.”

“Some very clunky, plasticy interior components (center console, glove box, etc) – not characteristic of VW.”

“Certainly no Odyssey or Sienna, but the VW treatment benefits the van. Chrysler should adapt the suspension and dash modifications ASAP.”

“Like putting lipstick on a pig.”

In the end, only a few people thought the Chrysler-to-VW transformation works, with a few comments saying that the suspension, steering and brakes are a step-up from Detroit’s original. Most didn’t see where VW supposedly spent money improving the van. We’ll have more on the Routan in an upcoming road test.

—Mike Quincy

From the logbook: Mercury Mariner Hybrid

Even amid the bad news from Detroit, Ford seems to be on a roll. Its Fusion line is garnering much praise these days, the company has avoided any talk of bankruptcy, and its products have done very well in CR’s reliability surveys.

We’ve recently written about the possibility of the price of fuel rising, which might prompt some new-car buyers to seek out more fuel-efficient transportation.

Our Mercury Mariner Hybrid (twin to the Ford Escape Hybrid) gets the best fuel economy of any SUV we’ve tested (26 mpg overall). It also has lots of interior room, easy access, and good visibility. But our fully loaded Mariner  cost us $36,000; it was the only configuration we could find in dealers late last year. It included a moon roof, as well as a navigation system (part of the Premium Package that also gets you heated leather seats, premium sound, etc.). Bypass the Premium option, saving you $3,595, and you can get into one for a more reasonable $33,000.

What’s it like to live with day-to-day, bearing in mind that we are critics? And is the high price worth all its “greenness?” Take a peak at comments from our tester’s logbook:

“Adequate power – can go up to 40 mph on electric power alone on a flat road.”
 
“Engine is loud when accelerating hard but much more civilized than before.”
 
“Ride is rough.”
 
“Navigation system has nice features and the voice-recognition works well.”
 
“Touch screen’s letters and numbers are too small to enter addresses and select options.”
 
“Flat [front] seat isn’t very comfortable…manual recline and telescope steering wheel is absurd at $36,000.”
 
“Rear passengers complained that the seats were uncomfortable after a few hours.”
 
“Cheap interior.”
 
“Rear hatch takes more than one slam to close.”
 
“Clever drivetrain looking for a more modern vehicle.”

So while some question the Hybrid’s value, all agree that the technology is successful. We look forward to measuring the fuel economy of our next Ford hybrid – the Fusion, which many of us like much better.

Read our full Mercury Mariner Hybrid road test, ratings, and other information on the model overview, available to online subscribers.

—Mike Quincy

From the Logbook: Audi Q5

The growing segment of small luxury SUVs has suffered a bit from Goldilocks syndrome--nothing has been “just right.” Here’s the scorecard so far:

The BMW X3? Stiff ride, even after a mid-life update.

Land Rover LR2? Odd controls, less than luxurious interior, and lousy reliability.

Infiniti EX35? Fast, but tight inside.

Acura RDX? Stiff ride, road noise, and an unrefined powertrain.

Further complicating the value equation: more mundane small SUVs like the Volkswagen Tiguan and high-level versions of the Subaru Forester and Toyota RAV4 are very well-rounded and cost thousands of dollars less than the zootier nameplates.

Enter the Audi Q5. Fashionably late to the party (or this market segment), the Q5 is based on Audi’s A4 sedan. Our typically equipped Q5 cost $42,800 including the Premium Plus package, a lot of money considering we didn’t get navigation. But putting the high price aside, how does the Q5 do at balancing utility, luxury, and sport? Let’s check the logbook:

“Ride is firm at low speeds but has good isolation and is steady.”

“Very quiet!”

“Nothing like an Audi to make a VW look like a bargain! The Tiguan is very expensive compared to a Forester Turbo but cheap compared to this.”

“Same old (Audi) control gripes.”

“You can buy a new Acura MDX for this price.”

“Huge sunroof that stretches from front to rear is nice on a sunny but cold day.”

“Dislike controls – still too many steps to get to what is wanted.”

“Nice engine; I like this V6 more than our A4’s 2.0T.”

“Handling is quite agile.”

“Seats comfortable, but push forward into shoulder blades.”

“What a nice SUV–blows away X3 and RDX.”

“I just wonder how many of the target buyers can swing the note on this right now…”

“Nice size gives practicality and enough room without being trucky and balky.” “Awkward radio controls are frustrating to deal with.”

“No rear view camera in a $43K SUV is disappointing.” (It’s packaged into the $3,000 navigation system option that our Q5 lacks.)

“Pleasant to drive, plenty of power, and smooth.”

So the Q5 is enjoyable to drive and a handy size, but the controls are a pain and you have to pay a steep price to play.

–Tom Mutchler

From the logbook: Dodge Challenger

The revival of the American muscle car is a chance for some old-school enthusiasts to forget about the current state of the economy. The brand-new Chevrolet Camaro, retro Dodge Challenger, revamped Ford Mustang certainly aren’t going to single-handedly save Detroit, but, for some, these cars are simple escapism. No more, no less. (Links are to the model overview pages, available to online subscribers.)

The Challenger is back, in all its big-engine, high-horsepower glory. We’ve logged a few thousand miles on our $36,300 “Inferno Red” R/T, and what we know so far is this: The Challenger is a cruiser that sounds good with thumbs-up styling. We also know this: It isn’t a light and lively sports car that’s agile enough to keep up with a Mazda3 or Volkswagen GTI on a curvy road.

How does it drive? Here’s a look at the logbook:

“Cool looks and sounds great, but it handles like a vintage Challenger with dull steering feel and response.”
 
“You know what? This isn’t all that bad. Easy clutch, so docile to drive.”
 
“Too much retro – like the fact that ‘they don’t make ‘em like the used to’ is a good thing.”
 
“Steering is totally numb: Driving this ‘sporty car’ is like navigating a boat.”
 
“Handling is mundane and imprecise – car feels front-heavy, flabby, and large.”
 
“The shifter is easy to use, but a far reach; the clutch lacks feedback on engagement.”
 
“Foot-operated parking brake is ludicrous.”
 
“Comfortable, supportive seats.”
 
“Huge rear blind zone from massive C-pillar; also have to crane your neck at traffic lights.”
 
“Worthless rear seat.”
 
“Not a sports car but a major shot of testosterone.”
 
“Engine is only turning 1,700 RPM at highway speeds. However, drop the transmission a gear or two, put your foot into it, and you get to hear God’s own exhaust system belting out a symphony.”

Many felt that the Challenger looked sporty but wasn’t sporty to drive. A few said that its looks and sound made up for some of the car’s faults. In the end, it is what it is. We’ll have more on this car and the new Camaro and Mustang in the near future.

See the Dodge Challenger at the New York auto show, complete with video.

—Mike Quincy

From the logbook: Hyundai Genesis

Car companies usually have a few competitors that they target, be it for benchmarking or simply for stealing sales. This list is usually a short one of a few top sellers and performers. For example, a car company would be crazy not to target its new family sedan at the Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, Mazda6, Ford Fusion, or Chevrolet Malibu. Simple enough.

But Hyundai’s Genesis goes up against one of the largest possible cross-sections of competitors that we’ve seen:

•    At the Genesis' debut in Detroit this winter, their promo video showed the car competing against the Mercedes-Benz E-Class and BMW 5 Series. Of course there are tons of cars in that class, such as the Infiniti M35, Lexus GS, Acura RL, Audi A6, to name a few.
•    Price wise, it lines up exactly against a Lexus ES, and it targets the same comfort-oriented customers. 
•    Folks shopping a loaded Toyota Avalon could consider the Genesis, especially if you skip some options. Same with a Buick Lucerne or even the Hyundai Azera.
•    Yet, Hyundai claims the Genesis has as much interior volume as a Mercedes S-Class. That brings a whole other realm of competitors, including the king of posh rolling isolation, the Lexus LS.

That range of competitors raises some questions. While Hyundai has been building some knockout products – the Elantra SE and Santa Fe were CR Top Picks in our April issue – their brand image is still recovering from the days of the first craptastic Excel. Although the car is aggressively priced, all the better in a down sales market, does Hyundai have enough cachet to pull off selling a car of this stature?

In the end, that’s not really our concern. We just want to know if the Genesis is a good car. So, we bought a $36,000 Genesis 3.8 with the Premium Plus Package, including a Lexicon stereo, swanky brown leather dash inserts, and a sunroof. (The V8 wasn’t out in time for our test group, and we avoided the navigation system with its iDrive-lite-like controller.)

How is Hyundai’s most ambitious car to date working out so far? To the logbook!

“A good cruiser with lots of room in the back for kids and stuff.”

“Strong acceleration and brakes.”

“Steering is light, but a lot better than most Lexi.”

“Wonderful fit and finish, nice materials, and great fit.”

“Low speed urban ride is a bit stiff.”

“Blue switch lighting very hard to read at night or on a rainy day.”

“Doors close with a satisfying thunk.”

“I don’t think the market is going to support a $36K Hyundai.”

“Strong stereo, but I needed to look in a dictionary to know what Lexicon means.”

“Impressive vehicle. Parked next to a (Cadillac) DTS, it cedes very little.”

“Controls are nice and large.”

“Great motor – V8 power [from a V6].”

“Quiet cabin, easy controls, comfy seats.”

“Exterior styling is a bit invisible – I walked past it twice and actually got into the Sonata before I realized that it was the wrong car.”

“A screaming deal at $36K, and I’d buy this over an ES 350 or Lucerne – but a car needs to be near perfect to take on M35, E-Class, or 5 Series.”

“A number of my neighbors thought this was a Lexus or Infiniti.”

Given the questions in the introduction above, it’s no surprise that we don’t all agree if the Genesis will be a success in the luxury car field. But we’re pretty much in agreement that the Genesis is a really nice car. We’ll report how well it performs in our February magazine group.

--Tom Mutchler