Personal Picks: Midsized SUVs

Models such as the Ford Explorer, Honda Pilot, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota Highlander have been popular for years. This group easily makes up the bulk of SUV sales, probably because you can choose get almost any combination of three-row seating, good off-road abilities, luxury-lined cabins, boat-pulling grunt, or hybrid technology. Really, there’s something for everyone.

A recent Consumer Reports test group included a diverse cross-section of SUVs: the Chevrolet Traverse, Kia Borrego, Infiniti FX35, and Lexus RX 350. While the Chevrolet and Kia lean toward the practical side (both have 3rd-row seats), the Lexus and Infiniti, respectively, treat drivers to luxurious cabins and relatively sporty handling.

But when the rubber meets the road, which ones would we buy? Take a look at the testers’ personal picks:

Rick Small: While the Lexus RX is nice overall, it’s very expensive. I would save some money and buy the very similar Toyota Venza. The Infiniti FX is very quick and sporty, but it is a bit cramped for my tall frame and not as roomy or versatile as many in this group. The Borrego is priced right but rides stiffly, and it is not as economical as most in this category. The Traverse is the best of the GM offerings -- it does most things well and is roomy and not bulky to drive. However, reliability is still an open question. Overall, I still prefer the Nissan Murano. It has a good combination of comfort, performance, and fuel economy. The Honda Pilot is also a roomy, reliable choice but not if you are looking for a sporty ride. I look forward to testing the new Chevrolet Equinox, which looks promising with its choice of four-cylinder or V6 engines. Plus, it’s not as big as the Traverse, so it should handle better and be more economical.

Gabe Shenhar: Among these types of SUVs, I’m leaning toward the luxury end. I’ve always been drawn to the BMW X5. I think it looks great and it drives beautifully. It very much possesses the steering precision and body control you’d associate with a BMW. And, if you get the diesel, 22 mpg is pretty sweet for a vehicle this size. But it also costs a pile of money. No matter how you slice it, you’re hovering around $60K. That’s why my sensible side leads me to the Acura MDX. It’s smooth and refined, and it drives in a responsive, relatively connected way without beating you up. In terms of value for the money, I think it’s unbeatable. Everyone in my circle of friends and family to whom I’ve recommended the MDX couldn’t be happier.

And yet, both the X5 and MDX have become such an overly popular suburban soccer-mom mobile that I find myself balking at the idea. And both are kind of large for my personal taste. That’s exactly why I could see myself getting the new Audi Q5. It’s just the right size, so you don’t feel like you’re driving a truck. It has enough room, provided you are giving up the third row. It has a beautiful interior that’s tasteful, luxurious, and quiet. Most importantly, the Q5 is entertaining to drive with a sporty demeanor, good steering and a nice powertrain. As an extra bonus it also looks great. CRO subscribers can read about it on the Audi Q5 model overview page.  Or you’ll find it in the September issue of CR.

Mike Quincy: I so wanted to like the new Toyota Venza. It just seemed like the right size, and the styling really caught my eye. And when I drove it into New York for the city’s auto show, I got lots of questions from the parking attendants. They were mostly dazzled by the Venza’s slick lines and 20-inch wheels. But driving the Toyota made me feel like I had, well, influ-venza. The ride was harsh and noisy, I couldn’t see out of it, the steering felt dead, and the whole package needs to visit Jenny Craig. Instead, for a small-family-sized SUV with some pizzazz, I’d go with the Mazda CX-9. The Mazda’s handling is quite engaging, and the powertrain is surprisingly responsive. Three-row seating helps when my young boys want to each bring a friend to the movies, and the cargo area easily holds my bike. I wish the CX-9’s fuel economy was better (only 16 mpg overall), but, for me, it strikes the right balance between the nice-but-dull Highlander and the sporty but expensive and smaller FX35.

Personal Picks: Scooters and motorcycles

Summer has arrived, bringing with it warm days and elevated gas prices—conditions that make riding a scooter or motorcycle more appealing. If you are looking to buy your first two-wheeler, there are many things to consider, such as licensing, safety, and model choice. See our scooter and motorcycle report for buying advice, ratings, and safety information. 

For our report, we tested several small scooters (50cc), large scooters (125-150cc), and motorcycles (250cc). We have to confess, the staff enjoyed donning helmets and riding these bikes on our track and real-world streets. Through the process, everyone learned something about entry-level bikes and which they would choose.

Here’s we share personal picks from the test and editorial staffs.

Eric Evarts: There’s no question, the Kawasaki Ninja 250 is great fun to ride. Corners feel invigorating, as you lean the bike into turns, crouched over the handlebars. The little engine screams to redline, which comes up in a flash. And the brakes haul you down like you rode through glue. Best of all, the Ninja costs less than some of the scooters we tested.

For me, though, the best use of a motorized two-wheeler is in not taking a 3,500-pound car on simple, local trips to town for shopping and other errands. And for that, a scooter would work a lot better (providing your errands don’t include a week’s worth of groceries for a family of four). They have a lot more storage space, plus the easy step-through seating and lack of manual gear-shifting makes riding a lot easier. And by far the best scooter of the bunch is the comfortable and capable Kymko People. Its big wheels mean not every pothole is a menace, and it responds more like a motorcycle in curves.

It’s an axiom around here that riding a scooter makes everyone look like a dork. And that may be true. But if we could just man-up the Kymco’s color a little bit, it could feel a bit more righteous, rather than embarrassing.

Mike Leung: The Kymco People was the only scooter I’d consider of the group we tested. It was quick enough, went fast enough and felt the most stable in a corner (I’d remove the kickstand that scrapes on hard cornering, though). Plus, I’d choose a different color.

The Vespa 150 was nice enough in terms of comfort, but its cost is prohibitive and the performance was sub-par for that price tag.

The Honda Ruckus would be good as a pit vehicle at the race track.

Gene Petersen: A lot of people consider purchasing a scooter to save on fuel, but with overall mileage of many being not much better than a hybrid car, I wonder if they make sense. Still, if you’re going the scooter route, there are only really two that we tested that can be used for practical transportation: the Kymco People 150 and Vespa LX 150. Both feel substantial enough to ride securely around town and have just enough power to keep up with the flow of traffic typical of city and suburban roadways. I like the Kymco over the Vespa for its lower leg reach to the ground when at a stop, and the larger wheels bridge over cracks in the road to make for a smoother ride.

Before giving up four wheels for two, I think that anyone considering a scooter should take a scooter/motorcycle safety course.

Mike Quincy: I’ve had a great time getting reacquainted with two-wheeled motorized transportation. Like many, I used to ride but got sidetracked by houses, kids, and getting older. I’m glad to be back.

I like the classic looks of the Vespas we tested, but I can’t get past the price. Over $4,000 for the LX 150? You’ve got to be kidding. These things are supposed to save money.

I think if I spent the summer on Block Island, Martha’s Vineyard, or Nantucket, I’d get a Honda Ruckus. It seems nearly indestructible, has a classically-Honda smooth engine, and a no-nonsense attitude. I’d get it dirty, leave it out in the rain, ride it on the beach, and not worry a bit.

But for all-out fun, nothing comes close to the Kawasaki Ninja 250. It’s so unbelievably easy to ride and more comfortable than it looks. It could be the best bang-for-the-buck of anything with wheels and an engine.

Gabe Shenhar: As a former motorcycle rider, I came in to this test with the notion that scooters are by definition inferior to motorcycles. But now, after testing a bunch of scoots and as a middle-aged man, I discovered that scooters can be fun, a whole lot easier to ride and yet without hurting one’s masculinity. (Ahem – Ed.) They are easy to get on and off, have an upright riding position, under-seat storage, and their CVT automatic transmissions work well.

So with all the sex appeal of motorcycles, for me it’s “been there – done that.” Among the scooters we tested, we were quite surprised with how well the Kymco performed – quick, quiet, stable and sparing with fuel, but I could never see myself on one because it is just sooo ugly. That leaves only the Vespa LX 150 as a viable option – it’s quick enough, comfortable with a just-right riding position, wide and comfy suede seat, and of course, its classic charm.

Jim Travers: I’ve always felt more at ease and in control on motorcycles than scooters. Some may find the high, chair-like seating position of scooters more comfortable and their step-through frames easier to get on and off, but I’ve always felt like I’m perched high atop a scooter, rather than being an extension of it. You use your legs and body to help lean and control a motorcycle much more than you can a scooter, and a motorcycle’s larger wheels and tires add to that feeling of stability.

That said, my pick is the Kawasaki Ninja 250, hands down. The frame fits my own 6’2” frame much better than the Honda Rebel, and the ride is surprisingly comfortable. The Ninja is nimble, with precise handling, and the brakes are terrific. And there’s something about running the sporty, affordable Ninja up through the gears to that 13,000-rpm redline that never gets old. All this, and decent fuel mileage, too.

Personal Picks: Small cars

With all the doom and gloom news dominating the airwaves these days, it’s good to know that there’s a new, small car that really blew us away...and it doesn’t cost a fortune. For about $17,000, the manual transmission Honda Fit goes from 0-60 mph in under 10 seconds, holds five people (or lots of cargo) and still gets 33 mpg overall. Remember the “economy” cars of the 1980s? While several got terrific fuel economy, none were as comfortable, fun to drive, or as safe as the Fit. It does so many things well, the Fit is the answer to many buyers’ needs.

As gas prices continue to climb, more and more people may retreat to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. All of the other fuel-thrifty models in this test group--the Chevrolet Aveo, Nissan Versa, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Yaris--were competing for second place.

But vehicle choice is a personal one, and here are our staff picks:

Mike Quincy: The Smart ForTwo sparks more conversation than just about anything I’ve driven in the last 10 years. But when people ask me about the diminutive design, I immediately bring up the Honda Fit. I’ve repeated these lines so many times: For about the same money as the Smart, the Fit is immensely more fun to drive and easier to live with. The Fit is faster, has superior steering, loads more cargo room, and only gives up 6 mpg overall. I don’t hate the Smart, but there’s no way I’m buying one over a Fit. Finally, what puts the Fit over the top for me is the relationship between its four-cylinder engine and manual transmission. I can’t think of many engine/transmission combinations that come close to the shear precision of their operation. And after running through the gears in our manual Sport model, I have to again remind myself that it only costs $17,000. The Fit is the smartest choice.

Gabe Shenhar: The engineer in me admires the originality of the Honda Fit design. What a genius of a car. With the gas tank mounted under the front seats, rather than the rear seat, it frees up a lot room, which gives the car its amazing spaciousness and in-cabin flexibility. It’s not for nothing the Fit has already established a cult following during the relatively short time it’s been for sale in the U.S.

But I’d have trouble shelling out $16,000 on a new Fit that’s still a noisy and jittery-riding car. For me, a used Mini Cooper for similar money would be much more enjoyable with similar gas mileage, go-kart agility, and nicer interior (but, admittedly, less space). You can’t have everything.

Rick Small: These small sedans are enjoying a surge in popularity due to poor economy and fresh memories of high gas prices. The Subaru Impreza is a nice car, but only comes in AWD--hurting fuel economy--and the driving position doesn’t fit my tall body as well as some. The Hyundai Elantra is very nice, has a long warranty and good fuel economy. The Toyota Corolla gets very good fuel economy but my tall frame also doesn’t fit in it so well. The Ford Focus has lost some of its grip and with it went braking distances and some of the fun-to-drive factor. The Focus’s driving position is decent for tall drivers but it has no rear headrests which is a serious safety omission. The VW Rabbit feels more solid and sporty than some here and has a good driving position for taller people.

All that being said, my favorite, though, is the Mini Cooper. Both the base and S models are a blast to drive, get very good fuel economy and surprisingly have a very good driving position for tall drivers. The back seat is petty much for storage or very small passengers, however. The Honda Fit has a versatile interior, a useable rear seat and good driving position for taller drivers; a new tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel really helps here. The manual shifter feels sporty. Fuel economy is very good--even with the automatic transmission--but if you want even more mpg, get the manual.

Tom Mutchler: True confession time: I had already written my Personal Pick for this group, the Honda Fit. I started out with a diatribe about the lack of ESC unless you get navigation, but then noted that the Fit was great fun to drive with a very clever interior.

But then I read a post on our expert forums by a Pontiac Vibe owner, suggesting that his car might be the best "budget car" over the Fit. Never mind that the Vibe is larger than the Fit and isn't really a subcompact, or that the MSRP of his Vibe 1.8-liter manual with air and power accessories is $18,630 compared to the $16,730 Fit Sport manual.

Let’s examine his idea. First, that price difference mostly dissolves with the Vibe’s incentives. You can likely buy that Vibe for a little over $17,000; you’ll probably pay list for the high-demand Fit. The Fit doesn't give you the Vibe’s standard ESC or a fold-flat front passenger seat or OnStar. (You do get iPod control and alloy wheels on the Fit Sport; the cheaper base Fit lacks cruise control.)

The Fit isn't exactly a ball of fire and the interior trim is on the cheap side - ditto for the Vibe. Neither is that quiet inside. We haven’t tested a Vibe 1.8-liter manual, but given that our Toyota Corolla manual got 32 mpg overall with the same engine, we’d expect the larger Vibe to get something less. Not quite up to the Fit Sport manual’s fuel economy, but probably still quite good.

Both have room for four and a spacious cargo area. The Vibe has long been reliable too--remember, it's basically a Toyota Matrix that costs less.

My heart still leans towards the spunky, fun-to-drive Fit (or a used Mazda 3s Touring); put simply, I wouldn't look forward towards hustling a Vibe down a twisty road. But logic says that a discounted Vibe is a fine alternative.

Just in: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro

The Camaro is back, which is good news for old-school muscle car fans. Except this version is simply light years ahead of the older Camaros that gave the nameplate such a strong and loyal following. In 1969, for example, who ever thought that a Camaro would have six air bags, antilock brakes and stability control? Inconceivable. How about 25 mpg on the highway? Ha.

We went to great lengths to get our “Rally Yellow” SS model – all the way to North Carolina. Mike Leung had the privilege of flying down and driving back, putting nearly 1,000 miles on one of the hottest cars on the road. Throughout the trip back to Connecticut, Mike said that people kept speeding up to the car, slowing down and whipping out their cameras/cell phones to take a quick picture. Rock star treatment, indeed. Perhaps they thought it was a star car from the new “Transformers 2” movie.

We shelled out $37,690 for our car, which included the RS Package and few other assorted extras. In keeping with its mission to restore pony car tradition, our Camaro has the 426-horsepower, 6.2-liter V8 and six-speed manual transmission.

How does it compete with the new Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger? Stay tuned for an extensive road test. Until then, check out our muscle car showdown preview, complete with video. Highlights from that tire-shredding experience can be seen in the video embedded here.

—Mike Quincy

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

Pet peeve: Automotive pop-up goes the weasel

I’m on auto manufacturer’s Web sites all the time. I’m checking data, looking up prices, figuring out which safety equipment is available on which trim lines, and configuring cars to buy for our test program.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why any Web site has a pop-up when you try to use the configurator, rather than just have it embedded within the page. Don’t most people use browsers that block pop-ups? Do you know anyone who says, “Oh, cool. I was hoping for an unwanted advertisement for the all-in-one doohickey that promises to solve all my problems…I think I’ll buy 10 of them.”

Aren’t pop-ups, like, so 1990s?

If there’s a pop-up that you actually want to see – such as a car configurator – my version of Internet Explorer makes me temporarily disable the blocker. Some browsers require that you hold down “Ctrl” to allow pop-ups. I admit, that’s not so hard. But why make me go through an extra step when I’m trying to buy your product? (Audi doesn’t even have a “Build your own” link on its homepage – you have to chose a model and then click on the configurator before the pop-up explodes.)

Here are the list car companies that, for whatever reason, require a pop-up so you can “build” a car:

• Audi
• Cadillac
• Porsche
• Saab
• Saturn
• Smart

Am I the only one who finds this practice annoying? Use the comments feature below and weigh in on this.

—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

Personal Picks: Compact Sports Sedans

We used the word “fun” several times in our recent comparison test of sports sedans. The test group included the Acura TSX; Audi A4 2.0T; Infiniti G37 Journey; and Volkswagen CC. And while few of the available models are actually dull, most tested models fulfill the goal of scoring decently in the fun factor. But they’re not cheap – ranging from around $32,000-$40,000.

If you’re looking for basic, four-door transportation, you can save a lot of money forgoing these sports sedans – and you’ll note that several of us lean toward this. But if fun is on your radar screen (and you’d like a dash of luxury thrown in), look no further than the current offerings of sports sedans.

Which ones piqued our fancy? Here are our Picks from this highly-touted (but expensive) category:

Tom Mutchler: "You know how I always say I’d buy a (Infiniti) G if I needed a car? Let’s face it – I’d never spend that much money on a new car.” Those words from my colleague Jake, spoken during one of our morning coffee sessions, ring true to me this month, especially as the economy tends to waver.

This is a fine group of cars. There are quibbles with each, but not a loser in the bunch. Like Jake, I would definitely gravitate toward the G37 if I were buying a new luxury sports sedan. But as I wrote before in a BMW 135i logbook blog, my arms are short and my pockets deep. Put simply, there are a lot of things I could do with $38K.

So my sports sedan aspirations may be less ambitious, but they’re still very pleasing to me. I’d buy a nice used, first-generation Acura TSX. I’ve been kidded on our forums about how often I advocate this car, but I think it’s an overlooked gem. Super-nimble handling (better than the new TSX), compact dimensions yet roomy enough, a well finished interior, one of the best manual transmission linkages out there, and an engine that loves to rev. All this for easily under $20K.

Gabe Shenhar: Out of this whole category, there’s no question that I’m going with the BMW 3 Series. It’s such a terrific driver’s car that’s thoroughly enjoyable, yet totally livable. In terms of what makes a sports sedan a sports sedan, in my opinion, no manufacturer has yet surpassed the 3, even though several competitors come close, including the Infiniti G37 and new Audi A4.

What makes the 3 Series special? It’s that wonderful steering feedback and response, tied-down ride control, and good compliance that speak to driving connoisseurs and puts a smile on my face.

Unfortunately, BMW chose to equip the non-sports package cars with underachieving Bridgestone Turanza run-flat tires, which cost the car points in our testing in terms of empirical stopping distance and avoidance maneuver speed. To make this car really spectacular, I’d buy the optional sports package, bringing sharper steering response and more grip, yet with a negligible loss of ride comfort. I realize I’d have to switch to winter tires, as the performance tires are not all-season, but I do that anyway.

What I also love about this car is the pull and tractability of the straight six-cylinder engine, which sings a perfect soundtrack -- be it the 230 hp in the 328i or the 300 hp in the 335i. Thankfully, our 328i also delivered decent fuel economy, to alleviate the guilt of how many times I put my foot into it. That awesome powertrain (even with the automatic) and sporty handling, augmented by supportive seats and the innate quality of the interior can really start my day on a good note. Yes, one can nit pick about some unnecessarily complicated controls and a cramped rear seat. But ultimately, when it comes to sports sedans, what matters is which car elicits the biggest grin. And, for me, my smile is never broader than when I’m driving a 3 Series.

Rick Small: In this group, I prefer the G37. It has loads of power, delivers decent economy and is very sporty and is competitively priced. Downside? The G is just a little tight for my 6’3” frame. Considering these tough economic times, I would buy a Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, or Ford Fusion. All are roomier, have good performance and economy are reliable and much cheaper to own. They offer four-cylinder or V6 engines, and the Fusion Hybrid delivers good performance and excellent fuel economy.

Mike Quincy: Do you ever find yourself rooting for the underdog? You vote for candidates that don’t win, root for movies to get nominated for Academy Awards that don’t have a chance, or you’re a Cubs fan... I think I do this with cars. For some strange reason, I have a soft spot in my heart for beleaguered Saabs. For me, the cars’ many flaws are somehow overcome by their charm and personality. But no more. I’m turning the page and moving on. The company is on the ropes and I’m jumping ship. Instead, I’m getting behind the Lexus IS 350. It’s not as sporty as the edgier G37 or 3 Series, and the IS’s interior is snug. But I love its combination of comfort, reliability and relatively decent cost of ownership. I’d also consider the cheaper IS 250 with a manual transmission (good luck finding one, though). Is the IS still somewhat of a dark horse in this sports sedan derby? Sure, but you never know when an underdog might surprise you. I still like Saabs, but I don’t think enough people share my affection to keep the flame burning bright.

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: 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