First Impression: 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour

Starting in 1991, Honda Accord wagons began to roam American roads, but these practical cars disappeared from our market after just a few years. The rising popularity of SUVs, fueled by the emergence of “crossovers” based on car platforms, saw wagon-minded customers move to Honda’s CR-V and Pilot, as well as dozens of competitors. Now, history is about to repeat itself with import wagon-like vehicles making a revival, even if their sloping styling isn’t as practical as the Accord and Toyota Camry wagons of yore. Think of the Accord Tourer as Honda’s answer to the Toyota Venza.
 
Honda will return to the hatchback/wagon market this fall with several new model variants, including the Accord Crosstour. In addition, Acura is introducing a ZDX model derived from the MDX platform, and the luxury brand has recently announced it will also offer a TSX wagon (a wagon version of the Accord sold elsewhere in the world, called the Accord Tourer).
 
The front- or all-wheel-drive Crosstour will come only with a 271-hp, 3.5-liter V6 mated to a five-speed automatic. Three trim lines are available: base EX, EX-L, and EX-L Navi. All-wheel drive will be optional on the EX-L and EX-L Navi, making this the first Accord model to offer AWD.
 
The Accord Crosstour has created Internet buzz as due to its polarizing styling. We’ll leave that to you to debate. More importantly, we recently spent a day behind the wheel of the Crosstour, and we found the beauty is on the inside—with a familiar, Accord cabin with added versatility. However, the added functionality doesn’t rival a true wagon.
  
Behind the wheel
Unsurprisingly, the driving experience is much like the sedan, though I found the additional rear mass evident at times. The standard automatic has two “sporty” new features: gear-hold based on lateral G forces and rpm rev-matching when downshifting. The Crosstour feels, to me, far less sporty than the Accord sedan or coupe, cars where this technology might be more appreciated.
 
According to Honda, fuel economy according to the EPA is 18 city, 27 highway, for the front-wheel-drive Crosstour, while the AWD version will be slightly worse at 17 city, 25 highway.
 
Inside, the cabin is very much standard Accord fare, and any owner switching from an Accord coupe or sedan to the Crosstour will feel at home. The cargo area is roomy, measuring 55.7 inches at its widest point. A nifty feature, the carpeted floor lids can be flipped over to expose a hard plastic surface that is good for transporting dirty items. Underneath the panels is a removable 1.9 cubic-foot cargo box with two handles, making it easy to carry some items from the vehicle. 

The 60/40-split rear seats can be folded from the cargo area using one-touch levers, but when the seats are folded the narrowest point of the cargo area—just 31 inches across—becomes readily evident. While the Crosstour isn’t designed to carry sheets of plywood, this narrow area is something buyers should be aware of.
 
When the Crosstour goes on sale on November 20th, the base front-wheel drive EX model will start at $29,670. The Crosstour EX-L will have an MSRP of $32,570, which grows to $34,770 for the Navi version. All-wheel drive versions start at $34,020, with the Navi-equipped ones starting at $36,220.
 
—Jon Linkov

First impression: 2010 Acura ZDX

The ZDX is a combination of an SUV and a coupe-like four-door sedan (think Mercedes-Benz CLS and Volkswagen CC shape), with Acura MDX underpinnings. This genre-crossing vehicle is an attempt to merge usability and all-weather ability in a package that still retains the driving enjoyment of a sporty coupe. When it goes on sale in late 2010 the ZDX will feature the same 3.7-liter, 300-hp V6 found in the MDX, combined with Acura’s first-ever six-speed automatic transmission.

Like its SUV sibling, the ZDX is fitted with standard all-wheel drive. Called SH-AWD (for Super Handling), the system usually sends 90 percent of the power to the front wheels, but it can send up to 70 percent to the rear wheels for “sporty” driving. SH-AWD also can send 100 percent of the rear-wheel torque to one side of the vehicle. We found that this system added little value in the RL and RDX on the road but reduced understeer when pushed to its cornering limits on our track.

A new feature that is being introduced on the ZDX is Acura’s Integrated Dynamic System (IDS), which offers a Comfort and Sport setting. By rotating the large (and somewhat out of place) switch on the dash to Sport, the steering response is firmed up and the suspension dampening rate is stiffened.

Behind the wheel

Consumer Reports staffers had a chance to drive the upcoming Acura ZDX at a recent media event outside New York City. We drove it in heavy Manhattan traffic, as well as on twisty secondary roads in the towns and counties north of the City. Below are our first impressions:

At first glance it is obvious that style has trumped utility in some aspects of the ZDX, and Acura representatives haven’t been shy in stating that the main purpose of the vehicle is to carry a driver and a single passenger—and their belongings—to their destination in comfortable luxury. The targeted DINKs (dual-income, no kids) and empty nesters often have friends, so there are seating positions for three rear-seat occupants. However, it’s best if those passengers are well shorter than six-feet tall and don’t mind close-quarters seating.

The low-roof and close-quarters seating contributes to a cave-like feel, which is offset somewhat by the full glass roof. The front part of the panoramic sunroof opens and closes like any other, while the fixed panel above the rear seats has a retractable sunshade. Cabin materials are first rate, with plenty of soft-touch surfaces and high-quality materials.

One interesting feature is an available multi-view rear camera. Users can toggle through three views, including a wide-angle fisheye view and a top-down view--handy for parking or trying to exit a parallel-parking situation without tapping the vehicle behind.

The ZDX will be available in three trim levels. Moving from the base model, the Technology package will include the rear camera, real-time traffic and weather information in the navigation system, and keyless entry. The top-level Advance package includes IDS, adaptive cruise control, and the blind spot warning system. Pricing hasn’t been formally announced, but Acura says the base price will be in between the $41,000 MDX and the $47,000 RL sedan, and they are expecting sales of no more than 6,000 units per year.

Jeff Bartlett: The ZDX is an appealing idea. I favor the versatility of a hatchback and can appreciate the sure-footed confidence AWD can provide in northern regions. In person, the car is quite attractive—more so than in the flat lights at auto shows. However, my enthusiasm waned once I sat in the vehicle. The simple showroom experience will deter many buyers. Up front, the high floor puts the driver and passenger in a lounge-like seating position, with legs extended, rather than a more natural and comfortable bend. The rear seat is more like a subcompact coupe than a midsize sedan. The sloping roof and high door sill make it difficult to even enter the back seat. Once there, head room is so limited that at my modest stature, I would have to bend forward allowing the back of my head to touch the headliner, or lean far to the side. Sure the target may be affluent couples, but empty nesters likely have grown, full-sized children and/or friends. The rear cargo area is disappointing as well, with a high load floor and narrow width. Looks like a hard sell, given that the much more functional MDX has a lower base price.

Jon Linkov: I liked the ZDX a lot more than I thought I would, particularly after driving versions with and without IDS. The IDS-equipped car did nothing for me in comfort mode, where the steering felt overly-boosted and disconnected from the wheels, and the suspension floated over bumps to the point of being unsettling. But the sport mode was much more enjoyable—until I drove the non-IDS car. The steering in that model was fine, well-weighted and giving plenty of feedback. I’m still on the fence about the styling, and wonder if the ZDX (and the similar BMW X6) is an answer to a question that made sense before $4.00 gas, a financial meltdown, and plummeting car sales. As a fan of sport wagons, I’m worried that this type of vehicle is the future, as manufacturers and buyers (or vice versa) shun the efficient small/midsize wagon in favor of these larger, more CAFE-friendly/avoiding SUV-like vehicles.

Personal Picks: Sporty and muscle cars part 4

Here, we complete the staff's personal insights into the October-issue sporty car test group that included the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, Subaru WRX, and Nissan 370Z. (Links go to model overview pages where online subscribers can find the full road tests, specs, Ratings, and videos.)

Read the first, second, and third installments for other perspectives from our auto editors and engineers.

Jon Linkov: Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy, or because my wife is expecting our first child, but I find myself leaning farther and farther away from the sports-car daily driver than in years past. A quick, comfortable sedan that flies under the radar of the local revenue-enhancement officer is what I look for nowadays.

So while all of these sporty cars may deliver visceral fun, they just don’t do it for me as daily drivers. The coupes were either too large and awkward (Camaro and Challenger) or too harsh and full of compromises (370Z, Genesis, Mustang). This point was made clear on a recent 30-mile drive on grooved roadway in the 370Z, which was accompanied by a cacophony of tones I never want to experience again. But at the same time, I believe the Z and Mustang would feel really at home on a racetrack, and that I would enjoy greatly.
 
The cars that could potentially pry my money from my white-knuckled fist would include the Subaru Impreza WRX and WRX STi. I like the Subies for their standard all-wheel drive and hatchback body style, though the five-speed manual in the WRX is short one cog for highway travel.
 
But all things being equal, finances and mileage would lead me to the well of the four-door Volkswagen GTI, where I could drink deeply in its 2.0-liter turbocharged engine, hatchback versatility, 25-mpg overall fuel economy, and relatively affordable price. With the cost savings I could always visit the tuner world for a little more performance and still have money left over for taxes, insurance, and diapers.
 
Jim Travers: Add me to the list of my colleagues who like the Mustang GT best. Boring, I know, but what can I say. Those colleagues are right.
 
It’s far less boat-like than the Challenger. It has, in my opinion, an even better-sounding V8. And it’s easier to see out of than the Camaro. I know the others have independent rear suspensions and are newer designs, but I simply find the Mustang is more fun to drive.
 
Like the Camaro, it’s not very nice to offer friends a ride in the Mustang’s backseat, but unlike that Chevy, at least I can bring along my own head.
 
And speaking of my own head, I’ve always had a soft spot in it for convertibles, and therein lies another part of the Mustang GT’s appeal. It’s available as a ragtop, even if you have to give up some body stiffness to enjoy it. As a bonus, there’s plenty of room for everybody’s heads, big hair and all.
 

Volkswagen reveals American road map for future cars

According to, CEO of Volkswagen North America Stefan Jacoby, the German company needs to get a lot more “local” in order to be competitive in the U.S. market. Part of that will be through the new plant under construction in Chattanooga, TN, and the two vehicles that will start rolling out of its doors in 2012.

During a media roundtable session last week, Jacoby and his executive team laid out some of Volkswagen Group’s North American goals, product plans, and obstacles that have to be overcome in order for the company to reach its goal of selling 10 million vehicles worldwide by 2018. Evidently, the company thinks the U.S. market should play a bigger role.

Even though sales for January through July 2009 are down 13.5 percent compared with 2008 (117,598 vs. 135,966), U.S. market share is up 25 percent, at 2.1 percent through July 2009 compared with 1.4 percent in 2008.

In order to really grow, both Jacoby and his staff explained that VW has to move into new segments where they currently aren’t competitive.

VW has recently entered two segments--small SUV (Tiguan) and minivan (Routan)--that they were never been before (not counting the EuroVan which was not quite a minivan but not a full-sized van, either). The lack of vehicles in those segments meant they lost customers who were looking to buy in those categories.

But there are still several segments here where VW lacks an entry. They’re working to fill those holes. Subcompacts, for example, are another segment where they still don’t compete in North America. Look for a vehicle that is similar in size to the tiny Volkswagen Polo, but don’t expect the exact same car as the one sold in Europe. As Jacoby said, “American consumers need bigger vehicles than European customers.” There is some truth to this: American family size is larger than those in Europe (not sure if he meant because of children or Big Macs), and there is a greater dependency on cars in the United States. In addition, a U.S.-built, seven-passenger SUV will be offered to take on the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander.

The Passat replacement, a Honda Accord/Chevrolet Malibu/Toyota Camry mid-sized sedan competitor built in Chattanooga, will go on sale for the 2012 model year. A replacement for the current Jetta will be built in the Pueblo, Mexico factory. The current versions are more expensive than their competitors in the segment, but their replacements will be less expensive. One goal is for 85 percent of the content for the Chattanooga-produced vehicle to be sourced from local suppliers. Jacoby said 2,000 workers will be employed at the factory.

Look for a Touareg 2 hybrid to be introduced next year, to go along with the diesel Touareg already on sale. The Tiguan’s successor will be priced lower than the current model to be more cost competitive with the sales-leading Honda CR-V. A next-generation Phaeton luxury sedan will return to the market, and, while nobody would confirm it, the Bluesport roadster concept does have a lot of internal interest and support to bring it to the market. And the New Beetle line will continue, with a redesign in the near future.

Finally, the Routan minivan will run for at least as long as the contract with Chrysler Corporation is in effect. Although selling in much less volume than the industry leaders, the Routan has been one way VW has retained some family-focused customers despite their lack of a seven-passenger SUV offering. The 2010 model will be repositioned to compete more directly with the Honda Odyssey, with fewer variations and materials highlighting what VW feels are the vehicle’s competitive advantages.

Cutting back on the number of vehicle build variations shows VW moving toward a more Asian-style selection system for the U.S. market. Where in 2007 there were nearly 4,000 total VW build combinations, there are just 1,151 combinations for 2010, not including color choices. The goal, we were told, is to move to a system where buyers choose a trim level, without any factory options. Personalization of a vehicle will take place at the port or the dealership. Sounds a lot like Honda.

Cutting down on the number of versions built may also have the effect of improving reliability; one area Volkswagen has traditionally faired poorly is in Consumer Reports reliability survey data. One reason people leave the brand is because of reliability and product quality, though Jacoby says that warranty costs have been cut by nearly 50 percent. But the meeting also showed that there is a distinct opinion among the VW executives that customers don’t understand how some controls or features work in the vehicles, which, they said, results in low scores in some J.D. Power surveys. (Consumer Reports reliability surveys look at true problems that require repair.) We’ll see if VW has made progress when we publish our latest analysis this fall.

And, if it becomes more “local” perhaps it will drop the “Das Auto” tag line which, to most people, means nothing.

—Jon Linkov

Test complete: Audi Q5

At one point this decade Audi used the slogan “Never Follow” in its marketing campaigns. Audi aficionados like me found this amusing (disclaimer: I currently own a 1983 Audi UrQ and a 1996 A4 quattro, and leased a 2001 A4 Avant;, my wife leases a 2007 A4 quattro; and my father owns a 2004 A4 quattro) because Audi did its best to follow every other manufacturer on the SUV bandwagon. This despite making a series of interesting and enjoyable Avants (Audi-speak for station wagon) since the early 1980s. I wasn’t really excited about the mid-sized Q7 when we tested it and it didn’t wow us in testing. To me, my first thought was that the smaller Q5 didn’t stir any different emotions. Just another SUV.

Well, the Q5 is no Q7. And that’s a good thing, even if it isn’t a true sportwagon replacement.

The Q5 really did impress us once we got our hands on it, even among those of us who tend to find German luxury vehicles a bit too complex and overdone. It was the baby bear of the luxury, small SUV class in most areas – everything was just right. The ride and handling were impressive (unlike the BMW X3), the interior was roomy for the class (unlike the Infiniti EX), mileage wasn’t terrible (looking at you, Volvo XC60), and its low-speed ride is composed (that’s a demerit for the Mercedes-Benz GLK).

Add in its weight and price…oooh. Well, there’s a bit of a negative. The Q5 definitely is porky at 4,320 pounds (but when has a recent Audi been praised for its light weight?), and its $42,800 as-tested price puts it on the podium for pricey compact sporty sport-utility vehicles, just behind the BMW X3.

And, like the comparison made in the Mercedes-Benz GLK blog, the Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited does pretty much everything the Q5 does, while carrying about 900 fewer pounds and at a nearly $14,000 savings. While it lacks the cachet of a German brand, for some people that cash savings certainly softens the impact felt among peers at the tennis club.

While I do like the Q5—and my wife likes it even more—I wish there was a better business case for Audi to sell manual transmission-equipped, all-wheel-drive sportwagons (with diesel, please) rather than SUVs. With both the A4 and A6 Avants stuck with automatics, and the new S4 available only as a sedan, I guess there is always the pre-owned market.

Learn more about the Audi Q5, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers).

—Jon Linkov

Cash for clunkers: How CARS could have helped me

“It’s my money.” There, I said it. For the duration of this blog, I’m “that guy,” the person who claims the right to dictate how his or her tax money is spent once it’s sent in to the government. And with in regard to the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), I wanted to get my tax money back, but it wasn’t going to happen.

I am generally supportive of the CARS program, and the program has certainly been successful.  But I just wish it could have done more for me. (Read: "Is cash for clunkers for you?")

My 1996 Audi A4 2.8 quattro has nearly 160,000 miles on it. It’s long paid off, has been pretty darn reliable (really!), is in excellent condition, and doesn’t get much use because I often drive the CR test cars. But it has eaten a few batteries (mostly from lack of use), the climate control display is always on the fritz, and it needed two new catalytic converters last year. Needless to say, it has little value in sale or trade.

But I’m newly remarried with a baby on the way and the A4 doesn’t really cut it safety-wise. Not only does it lack side and curtain air bags, but it also doesn’t have the LATCH system for securing child seats. This is a biggie for me. As CR says in our guide to child seats: “Despite its flaws, LATCH installation eliminates some of the incompatibilities that may exist when you use the vehicle safety belts to install a child seat.”

So I’m officially in the market for a new car, but the CARS program won’t help me. According to the EPA my A4 gets 20 mpg combined. Perhaps with the new cats and O2 sensors my car gets near that, but I doubt it. But with CARS, over 18 mpg and you’re out.

I wish it hadn’t been configured like that, and rather that any major increase in mileage would be considered.

Running my scenarios
I certainly would have rushed out to drop off the A4 at the Volkswagen dealer for either a 2009 GTI or a Jetta diesel wagon. Both fit my needs and my tastes. The GTI doesn’t represent a huge improvement, but look at the numbers from fueleconomy.gov: a 5 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 7 mpg improvement on the highway, 3.4 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, nearly 2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $400 savings in fuel costs each year.

If I opted for the Jetta diesel, the differences are far greater: a 14 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 17 mpg improvement in highway mileage, 5.5 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 3 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and nearly a $1,000 savings in fuel costs. But the A4’s 20 mpg overall figure prevents me from getting back my tax money.

However, my old 1996 Chevrolet Blazer 4WD, with its 16 mpg, easily qualifies for CARS. What if I traded that in on something similar, say the popular Ford Escape V6 AWD: a 4 mpg improvement overall, a 4 mpg improvement on the highway, 4.3 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 2.2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $458 savings in fuel costs each year.

My whining is merely to illustrate that CARS could have been written to take a wider range of “clunkers” off the road. Mandating a floor for new vehicle mileage is necessary, but why not just set that and go from there? The newly purchased cars must get 22 mpg and a 4- or 10-mpg improvement over the old, while new trucks must get 18 mpg and a 2- or 5-mpg improvement over the old vehicle.

Yes, I realize the upgrade from low to mediocre mpg (the Blazer/Escape scenario) is often the same or better than the upgrade from mediocre to good mpg (the A4/GTI). Of course, the A4/Jetta diesel (assuming I could find a Jetta diesel wagon!) easily trumps the other two scenarios.

The overall result would still be very beneficial in terms of fuel used, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety. Through the Cars blog, we’ve received many comments from readers in similar situations, with 19 or 20 mpg overall, finding the program is just beyond their grasp. In the end, CARS stops short by focusing on gas guzzlers rather than fuel economy improvement. The irony is, had I bought a less fuel-efficient vehicle years ago, I would be $4,500 closer to a new, safer family car.

—Jon Linkov

Learn more in our cash for clunkers special section.

Also read:
Cars for clunkers: Obama signs $2 billion extension into law
Cash for clunkers: CARS program beats all expectations
Cash for clunkers: Most popular clunkers, new cars
Cash for clunkers: The safety advantages with new cars
Cash for clunkers: Recommended cars that qualify for a voucher
Cash for clunkers: The best gas guzzlers to junk
Cash for clunkers: Compare the fuel savings
Cash for clunkers: Fuel and owner costs
Cash for clunkers bill cuts fuel consumption–running the numbers

Have you traded in a clunker? Share your experience in our cash for clunkers forum.

How I learned to stop worrying and like distance-sensing cruise control

Cruise control. To listen to some people describe it, you’d think it was a scourge put upon us by evil doers. Most naysayers dislike it because they feel the system takes away their feeling of vehicle control. To me it’s a way of saving fuel (and keeping money in my pocket) and making my right foot happy.

I like traditional cruise control of the Ron Popeil variety: Set it and forget it. But the distance-sensing systems? Well they’ve always left me cold, unable (in my opinion) to balance a safe following distance with leaving too much room behind the car in front. They left an open space that literally beckoned other drivers to hop right in. Drivers cutting in then resulted in my vehicle throwing out an anchor and rapidly slowing down, taking away momentum and annoying me and the drivers following in my wake.

After driving our Infiniti FX35 and Volvo XC60, however, I’ve come around to giving the distance-sensing systems less of the Rodney Dangerfield treatment, even if I still can’t embrace them with open arms.

The XC60 treated me well on a long trip from Connecticut to southern New Jersey. It still had its annoyances, particularly when rounding a bend and passing cars. The radar would sometimes sense the cars in the other lane and immediately slow the Volvo, as if it couldn’t recognize steering input and thought I was mindlessly going to plow into them.

But on a limited-access road like the NJ Turnpike, the system worked well. I latched on to the car ahead of me and followed for miles and miles. It resulted in a comfortable trip and better than the alternative of not using cruise control at all.

Our Infiniti had a system I liked even better. It allowed the driver to toggle between both types of cruise. The initial setting was for distance sensing, but holding down the button activated traditional cruise control. This, I feel, is better for roads and highways with more frequent access points. The CT Turnpike has exits every mile (or more frequently) in some parts. The constant merging and dicing of traffic makes distance-sensing cruise frustrating to use in this scenario, where I find using regular cruise control to be comfortable.

While I won’t be running out to buy a car with a distance-sensing system anytime soon, a vehicle with a toggle-type system certainly wouldn’t turn me off.

—Jon Linkov

Pet peeve: Poor line of (In)sight

That the Insight hasn’t made a positive impression on us here at Consumer Reports isn’t newsworthy anymore. I personally wasn’t impressed with it during my time driving it, finding it very rough when the engine automatically shut off at stoplights. I also think the Insight is noisy, cramped, too slow, and overall unpleasant. But the coup de grâce for me is the relationship between seating, the dash, and the steering wheel.

I’m 6-feet tall and prefer to sit relatively upright with the seat cushion as low to the floor as possible. With the Insight, no matter how I adjusted the seat and steering wheel positions, I ran into a conflict between comfort and seeing the high-mounted digital speedometer.

In order to see the speedometer I had to lower the steering wheel…which resulted in my hands or the wheel rim impacting my thighs. If I raised the wheel enough to clear my legs, I no longer can see the speedometer, as shown in the photo.

Perhaps I’m outside of the percentile range of people to which Honda sized the car. But I don’t think I’ve ever come across a vehicle that forced me to make such a compromised choice between being able to comfortably and safely control the car and actually see all of the gauges.

—Jon Linkov

How to deal with a car break down

A vehicle breakdown or other roadside emergency is never convenient and can even be dangerous. Whether your car is old or new, there can be a mechanical failure, flat tire, or other problem that sends you to the breakdown lane.

Preparation can minimize the pain and risk, including having a plan of action in mind and carrying certain gear in the car. This is especially important when traveling long distance, driving through remote areas, or when you have young or elderly passengers. This morning, I was on the Today Show speaking about how to deal a break down (watch video), and I'll share my tips below to help make your road trips less worrisome.

Safety motto: Be prepared
Having a good safety kit is important for emergency preparedness, with the common cell phone arguably being the most essential tool. Other key items include a first-aid kit, jack and lug wrench, flashlight, road flares or reflecting triangles, basic tools (screw drivers, pliers), jumper cables, snacks, and water. A portable GPS system can also be a real safety aid, with the ability to guide you to nearby assistance, identify your location, and provide contact information for local emergency services. 

For driving through remote areas where help may be further away, the kit can be enhanced with a fire extinguisher, spare fuses, cash, extra clothes, and short board to place under the jack. Of course, in the winter, you’ll want a shovel, blanket, hat, gloves, hand warmers, windshield scraper, and kitty litter if traveling through the snow belt. (For more information, read: “Roadside emergency kit: What to carry with you.”) 

The most important things are to keep your wits about you and behave in a safe manner. 

If you break down:

• Keep calm–don’t get overwhelmed and put yourself in danger
• If your vehicle is running, activate your turn signal and pull as far off the side of the road as possible, preferably on the right-hand side in a flat, open location. Even better, take the next exit if possible, removing you from a busy roadway. Even if you get a flat tire, don’t stop in the travel lane. Limp the car to a safe location; a new wheel is less important than your safety.
• If your vehicle stopped running, use momentum to coast as far off the side of the road as possible, preferably on the right-hand side. Make sure the location you stop is one you have traction to drive away from.
• Don’t let the car idle. Heat from the car could ignite grass underneath, plus it is environmentally irresponsible. If in a cold climate, left the car warm up, then turn off engine when not needed.
• Turn on your emergency flashers/hazard lights.
• When it is safe, exit the vehicle on the non-traffic side and raise the hood.
• Stand away from the car, to the side, to make a cell phone call. Do not wait in front of the vehicle. Should another car clip yours, that could be a fatal mistake.
• If possible, change or alter your clothing to be as visible as possible, such as opening a jacket to expose a white shirt, or put on a brightly colored hat.
• If you don’t have a phone with you, walk to a call box on major highways or nearby business, while keeping an eye on traffic.
• Both the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Connecticut State Police recommend you stay inside the vehicle while waiting for assistance, particularly at night or during inclement weather.
• Never try to cross a freeway or highway.
• The Connecticut State Police recommend locking the doors and asking anyone who offers help to call law-enforcement. Make sure to ask for identification when the uniformed officer arrives.
• It’s dangerous to try and work on your car on the side of the road, even if you have flares or reflective warning devices in place.
• Be careful when placing a warning flare. Don’t place it too close to the car, anything flammable such as grass or weeds, or within the road.

Learn more in our road trips special section. 

—Jon Linkov

Suzuki SX4t: Sport compact muscle car

You may pine for the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, and Ford Shelby GT 500KR, but this may be future of pony cars.

The SX4t is small, it’s squat, and it’s based on an economy car. When viewed from across a parking lot, it looks a lot like a regular Suzuki SX4. Once I saw it in motion, the lowered stance, distinct noise from the wastegate-dumpin’ boost, and the carbon-fiber hood made me take a second look at the SX4t Concept. And after a few laps around Pocono racetrack, I came to the realization that vehicles like this will most likely be the next-generation of pony cars. Bold statement, I know, but hear me out.

I drove the SX4t at the last International Motor Press Association (IMPA) Test Days, an annual event for journalists in the New York metro area, where members assemble at one venue and sample press cars from a wide variety of manufacturers. For many freelance and local journalists, it’s an opportunity to get into cars they may not be able to drive until months later. And even for us at Consumer Reports, there are cars we may not have at our test track for months because they aren’t yet for sale, or may never be. Such is the case with SX4t.

Track time with the SX4t
When we tested the SX4 in December 2007 (road test and ratings available to online subscribers), we said it had good handling and great visibility as a little all-wheel-drive runabout. But, the ride was stiff and the 143-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine was underpowered. In fact, the SX4 with a four-speed automatic was one of the slowest cars we had recently tested.

Suzuki worked with an outside group, Road Race Motorsports, and came up with a bit more power for the car. A turbocharger with seven pounds of boost pumped power up to 221 hp and 208 lb-ft of torque, sizeable increases for this small car. New springs, performance brake pads, a five-speed manual transmission, 17-inch wheels with performance tires, and some “go-fast-looking” details rounded out the package.

Running through the curves, turns, and chicane on the Pocono road course is where this little rocket shined. The upright seating position and windscreen made it a snap to hit apexes. And there is a different type of fun when tossing a small car around a track than piloting an uber-horsepower GT around the same course. There was a bit of bounce from the shock absorbers that are a bit soft and not matched well with the stiffer springs. But the little SX4t was really fun to drive. And I wasn’t just the only fan. Consumer Reports Sr. Automotive Engineer Jake Fisher and resident hot shoe thought it was one of the most enjoyable cars at the event.

So, what makes it (and its ilk) the next pony car? Economics. The cost of gasoline and rising car prices, compounded by the other rising costs in life, mean that there isn’t money for young enthusiasts to buy a Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang, if they are even interested in them. A point I am reminded of as we are testing these nostalgic muscle cars. (See our muscle car preview video.) Remember, the Boomers of today lusting after these retro-cars were the teenagers and twenty-somethings of the 1960s. Today’s Gen Y was weaned on compact imports.

That demographic today isn’t spending $30,000 or more on fuel-swilling car that is largely impractical. Their lower earning power and PlayStation pedigree means they need an affordable, reliable, safe, and fuel-thrifty car that is still fun. Big horsepower is exciting, but cars like the SX4t concept, the Chevrolet Cobalt SS, and the Scion tC are where the money from young enthusiasts will probably be going.

What cars do you think Gen Y and Millenials will lust after in their middle age?

—Jon Linkov