Personal Picks: Luxury SUVs

Luxury SUVS…are there more politically-incorrect vehicles on the road today? The December test group of $58,000-$71,000 machines might seem like a head-scratcher now. But, surprisingly, our subscribers tell us in our Annual Questionnaire that they own these things: we have significant data on Toyota Land Cruisers, Porsche Cayennes, and Land Rover Range Rover Sports. However, we do not have enough data on the Hummer H2. It’s probably not a stretch to say that Consumer Reports subscribers and H2 owners usually don’t go together. So, why do we test them? To cover the full spectrum of mainstream models to empower our readers to make informed decisions.

What would we buy if we won the lottery? Here’s a look:

Tom Mutchler: If I’m in the market for a $60,000 SUV (trust me – I’m not), I don’t want to wind up annoyed every time I drive it. I don’t want the nagging feeling that a cheaper model was bigger and more capable. And when I drive it, I really don’t want people waving at me with less than five fingers.

That limits my choices here. The Porsche Cayenne annoys me: it has a stiff ride, tight seats, illegible optional $1,200 (!) brown-faced gauges, and inscrutable radio controls. A sweet exhaust note and good grip just aren’t enough to win me over. As nice as the Toyota Land Cruiser is, the Sequoia has a lot more space and tows more. (I can live without the LC’s cool “crawl” off-road mode for $10,000 less.) Unless I had to climb a rock hill everyday to get to work, a Hummer H2 isn’t in the cards. Passersby aren’t exactly afraid to share their opinions – pro and con – about the H2, either.

Even though I feel a bit guilty about it, I really like our Land Rover Range Rover Sport. It’s fetching in Lucerne green and pale leather; it’s no surprise that an identical truck was part of the prolific product placement on the aiming-at-the-upscale Bravo TV show “Top Design.” You sit up high and there are big windows. Power isn’t generous without the optional supercharger, but the HSE’s V8 sounds really good. Finally, the Sport handles a lot better than our 2005 LR3, which shares this truck’s platform.

I’m a logical guy. Land Rover is at the bottom of CR’s reliability ratings. An Acura MDX is a far more practical purchase. And the RR’s profligate with fuel. But I’m happy to put a (non-alcoholic) beverage into the Sport’s console refrigerator, go for a drive, and be happy that nothing’s broke on it yet.

Gabe Shenhar: If you’re going to be politically-incorrect and socially irresponsible, and still get your bonus this year, you might as well go all the way and treat yourself. Right? Truthfully, nobody actually “needs” any one of these four indulgent SUVs; there are other vehicles that do the same for less.

That said, I found myself enjoying two of these luxury SUVs for entirety different reasons. The Land Cruiser, with its comfortable ride, quiet cabin and utterly amazing off-road ability impresses the heck out of me. But as a suburban family three-row SUV, its tall stance, clumsy handling and compromised packaging detract. And, for that lofty price, I could get a Mercedes-Benz GL320 diesel that drives beautifully and gets decent gas mileage.

I also like driving the Cayenne. It’s one of the few SUVs you can truly hustle in corners, and it has the great steering and brake feel of a Porsche. The catapult and sound of the V8 is addicting. You put up with the stiff ride and some unintuitive controls, but what else do you expect for $70,000? Rationally speaking, however, there isn’t a whole lot the Cayenne does that the BMW X5 doesn’t do, other than being more exclusive.

Rick Small: I’m not a big fan of this group. The Cayenne is relatively sporty but heavy and large – seems like a rolling oxymoron. It really can’t do “sporty” very well and it’s too expensive. The Land Cruiser does a good job as a large luxury SUV. But for me it’s too big and clumsy to drive every day. If you need this size vehicle and want some luxury, the Cruiser is a good choice. The Range Rover is expensive and great off-road but not as comfortable or reliable as the Land Cruiser. I don’t think too many people do serious off-roading with a vehicle this expensive, anyway. The Hummer tows well but is not very roomy. It’s also expensive (do you see a pattern here?), thirsty and very awkward to drive. For my money, I would choose a three-row Mazda CX-9 or Honda Pilot. These are much less expensive, reliable, use less fuel and are better every day drivers than these luxurious beasts. The CX-9 favors the sporty side while the Pilot leans more toward comfort.

Mike Quincy: The Cayenne, Range Rover Sport and (especially) the Hummer are train wrecks: people can’t help but stare and be oddly fascinated by what they see. If I had to pick my 9-year-old son up from school or at a friend’s house, he loved it when I showed up in the H2. If my wife and I were going out, she was always a bit more jazzed to see the Cayenne. And I agree with Tom’s assessment of the Range Rover Sport: it’s surprisingly nice to drive. But to keep these brutes running means paying hefty bills – either for gas, maintenance or both. At least the Land Cruiser has a history of good reliability, but its 14 mpg overall makes me cringe.

The truth is that if I’m spending crazy money, I’d rather have a good pickup truck than any of the models we’ve covered here. But I’ll stick with the “luxury” theme and treat myself to a top-of-the-line GMC Sierra Denali crew-cab pickup. Though still a gasoline pig, it has style, luxury, one of the best sounding and smoothest V8s around, and I can actually haul stuff without worrying about it getting dirty. I’ll also save enough to buy a new road bike (hint, hint…Christmas is coming, honey). In reality, I can’t afford the truck, though, but maybe the bike.

Automotive turkeys 2008

The word “turkey” means different things to different people. Thanksgiving, for many, is a great time for turkey…unless you’re a turkey. For those of us who drive different cars every day, we sometimes come across features that rank as turkeys – perhaps the designers/engineers created them with the best of intentions, but in the real world, they prove frustrating. We’ve already written enough about BMW’s iDrive, perhaps the biggest automotive turkey of all time. Some turkeys are nice ideas that simply fall short.

In an informal poll in and around the Consumer Reports Auto Test Center, I’ve come up with some other turkeys that particularly rankle our feathers:

•    Sirius radio reception in wooded, tree shade areas is awful. Also, some car audio systems have a long delay, making you wait to see the title of the satellite radio station identification.

•    Automatic door locks that don’t unlock when you park or allow a choice to set the locks to unlock when the car is turned off. This maybe a good feature for those who want the security in a tough neighborhood, but consumers should at least be given the choice. (This turkey was mentioned more than once.)

•    The government giving a tax credit if you buy a 19-mpg Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid but nothing if you buy a 32-mpg Toyota Corolla or 29 mpg Ford Focus.

·    Outside mirrors that automatically turn and give you a view of the ground below when shifting to reverse. While this offers a good view of the curb, it makes using the mirrors to back out of a long driveway useless. Convex or larger mirrors do it all.

•    Chrysler announcing its hybrid Aspen and Dodge Durango SUVs and then unceremoniously killing them four weeks later.

·    Mini Cooper’s radio controls (see photo above), which are scattered all around the center stack. The radio’s volume knob, for example, is mounted separate from the radio head unit, lower on the dashboard. It’s easy to grab the radio’s other knob by mistake; even though that’s a multi-function knob, it only serves as a tuning knob if you push the “m” button first. (Of course!) It also takes several button presses to change radio modes.

·    Re-inventing a wheel that wasn’t broken in the first place. For example: Some keyless ignitions work OK, but some “Start” buttons are hard to find and require a push-and-hold process to start the car. The worst are those on BMWs and Mini Coopers that require using a fob placed in a slot and then pressing a start button. What was wrong with a key?

·    Big key fobs are maybe OK if you use a purse, but they’re bulky in a pant’s pocket. Kneel down at just the wrong angle, and the panic button can be activated, resulting in the car’s horn going off and waking up the neighborhood.

•    Acura’s styling department is a whole, gobbling turkey within itself. Have you seen the beaks on the TL, TSX and RL? I can’t tell them apart. They all look like grinning teenagers with mouths full of braces.

•    The headlights in the Toyota Prius Touring. On a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being the tops), these lights got a 1. Even with Xenon bulbs, low-beam light doesn’t provide enough illumination forward to allow the driver time to see and react to objects in the road. The lights also have a distinct ramp-shaped cutoff between light and darkness at the top of the low-beam pattern. These lights leave us in the dark.

•    Paying a premium to buy a Smart (ours was just under $16,000) to get 39 mpg overall but putting up with the limitations of being able to seat only two people, limited cargo room, and maybe the worst transmission ever, when--for about the same a price--you could get a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris, which seat five, and are infinitely more comfortable and (in the Fit’s case) fun to drive.

Anyway, that’s our short list. I’m sure we could go on, but you get the point. What particular car controls, models, or manufacturers drive you bonkers? Pass the gravy, and share your automotive turkeys in the Comments below.

--Mike Quincy

Personal Picks: 3-row SUVs

Times are tough if you’re selling SUVs these days. While many families like the space offered by midsized and larger three-row SUVs, they’re often concerned about fuel economy. Once you add AWD and common options, these vehicles don’t come cheap, either – a problem in a tight economy. Finally, while big truck-based SUVs used to generate big profits, sales are moving toward car-based alternatives. So how do you sell such vehicles in this climate?

Gathered in the November 3-row SUV test group are some of the latest efforts from Detroit and Japan. But as far as fuel economy goes, if you want the best you have to pony up over $40,000 for a Toyota Highlander Hybrid—but it returns an impressive 24 mpg overall. At the other end of the spectrum are the old-style, truck-based SUVs, such as the Cadillac Escalade, Dodge Durango, Ford Expedition, and Nissan Armada, which all get 13 mpg overall.

But are these vehicles necessary? Here’s a look at what we would choose if we wanted a three-row SUV in our garage:

Rick Small: Within this category, I like to drive the Mazda CX-9 the most. It has quicker response and a sportier feel to it than other competing models. The driving position is pretty good for my tall frame. But fuel economy could be better – it gets just 16 mpg overall. The new Ford Flex was a pleasant surprise; it’s quiet and rides very well. It has plenty of room in the second-row seat and a useful third row. While I like the versatile cargo area is, I wish the driving position was more comfortable.

We also have the latest version of the GM’s three-row crossovers, the Chevrolet Traverse. So far it’s very similar to the Buick Enclave and Saturn Outlook versions we previously tested. The Traverse has a good ride, fairly responsive handling, and a roomy second-row seat and useful cargo area. Unfortunately, the Enclave, Outlook and Acadia all have below-average predicted reliability. (We have no data yet for the new Traverse.)

The Honda Pilot does most things pretty well; it gets a little better fuel economy than the others here and we predict above-average reliability. You couldn’t go wrong by buying it – just don’t look for a sporty experience.

Tom Mutchler: As our Ratings show, the three-row SUV market is crowded with a lot of good choices. In fact, I’m having a hard time narrowing down which one I’d buy. I’ve very happily taken long road trips in our Mazda CX-9, Ford Flex, and our previously tested Buick Enclave. Which one you prefer depends on details: the CX-9 has sporty handling, the Flex has distinctive looks, and the Enclave blends room with luxury.

Maybe the reason I’m having a hard time picking a three-row SUV is that I’d rather own a minivan. (Indeed, I do.)

Beyond towing my someday-Airstream, there isn’t anything that I would need a SUV to do that a minivan can’t do better. My Honda Odyssey has much more cargo volume, allowing me to haul my whitewater kayaks and mountain bikes (standing up!) inside with room to spare. There’s more passenger space, with business-class accommodations in the second-row captains chairs. Like the CX-9, the spry Odyssey is surprisingly fun on twisty back roads, as proven convincingly on a vacation turn on Skyline Drive. On that same trip, I averaged 25 mpg, far better fuel economy than I got out of the SUVs. (Our test results show similar benefits.)

Sure, I don’t have AWD, but a set of Bridgestone Blizzak snow tires improve snowy road stopping and turning beyond just the traction gains of AWD. I do wish it was quieter inside, like the Flex and Enclave, but a Toyota Sienna rivals them.

Nope, a minivan isn’t cool. No one dreams of conquering the Sahara or the arctic tundra behind the wheel of a minivan. But for hauling your family or lots of stuff, you can’t do better.

Mike Quincy: Since my life doesn’t include towing heavy trailers or going very far off-road, I’m still sticking with the Toyota Highlander Hybrid. It’s the king here for fuel economy, predicted reliability is off-the-charts good, and it drives more like a nice car than a truck. I also find it more entertaining to drive (and quieter) than most minivans. I still like GM’s Traverse/Enclave/Outlook/Acadia lineup, but my wish that I made for these a little over a year ago for “a torquey turbo-diesel engine” still hasn’t come true. But now, more than ever, is the time for fuel efficiency. With improved fuel economy, GM could right the listing SUV ship.

Personal Picks: Sporty cars, part 2

Continuing our staff's personal insights into the October-issue sporty car test group. (Read: “Personal Picks: Sporty cars, part 1.”)

Rick Small: I was a bit disappointed in the new Subaru WRX/STi. The cars have more power but lost some of the sporty feel in acceleration and handling, thus losing some appeal. The Evo is much sportier with better low-end power and crisper handling. It is an enthusiast’s car with a stiff ride, limited driving position, and plenty of noise that may be too much for everyday use for some people. Definitely a “try before you buy.” And the Volkswagen R32 is nice. Still, I like the 135i best. It fits my tall body better than most competing models, and it’s quick, refined and sporty (but expensive). For a lot less money, the Cobalt SS is also quick, sporty and more fun to drive than you’d think.

Mike Quincy: I had the pleasure of buying the BMW 135i for the test program. When I drove it off the lot, I immediately knew this car was special. Didn’t take more than a few miles to realize that maybe (just maybe) this is the car that will help get BMW back on track. The 135i is a thrill to drive – it’s light, quick, has sensitive steering and fits me perfectly. But what turns the corner for this car is that its controls are WAY easier than any BMW we’ve tested for the last four or five years. There’s no iDrive, no confusing navigation system (although this stuff is optional…I wouldn’t bother). I wrote in the car’s logbook that the 135i is “magical.” I’ll also add that the 135i is a car that I’d drive for the rest of my life. Yes, it’s that good.

Gabe Shenhar: The Mitsubishi Lancer Evo really gets my adrenaline going and puts a big grin on my face every time I drive it. This road rocket is a true driving machine with terrific handling; it’s essentially a go-kart with four doors. But you’ve got to be the most die-hard type to endure this car with its stiff ride and frenetic highway behavior.

That’s why my pick is the BMW 135i. It’s agile and fun yet smooth in every move, whether it’s the clutch action, shifter, steering, or the punchy, linear power delivery of the twin-turbo six-cylinder engine. It rides compliantly and lets you hear only the noises you want to hear. The seat, driving position, and interior quality are first class, as in every BMW. The car is perceived as small and expensive. But since it provides such a spectacular driving experience, close to, say, a Porsche Boxster, it’s a relative bargain in my opinion.

Tom Mutchler: For me, this group of sports sedans brought a bunch of surprises:

·    It’s amazing how enjoyable the BMW 135i is to drive, even beyond the high standards set by the various automatic-equipped 3 Series models we’ve tested. As I wrote before in “From the logbook,” it’s not perfect, but it’s a whole lot of fun.

·    What isn’t a whole lot of fun is driving the Subaru WRX and STi. Going beyond the turbocharged powertrain, I enjoyed driving our base Legacy 2.5i sedan more; it had better steering and body control. Tellingly, Subaru is making major revisions to the WRX just one year after introduction. Too bad they didn’t get it right the first time.

·    The Cobalt SS is the prime automotive example of making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I liked the supercharged version we tested in 2005, but this turbocharged model is even more fun and refined. It’s truly a welcome surprise.

·    One of the few automotive regrets I have is not buying a first-generation (1991-1994) Nissan Sentra SE-R. The new car, while likely empirically better in every way, just isn’t fun to drive.

Since we combined two price classes here, I have two picks this month. (Let’s assume I need a back seat, so a Miata is out of the running.) For $24K, I’d buy a VW GTI four-door – it’s practical, fun, and well-equipped. At $37K, I would find it very hard to resist an Infiniti G37 coupe. This gentleman’s coupe looks awesome (without all of the boy-racer flippery of the Evo or STi), has a great powertrain, and is roomier than the tight 135i.

One last surprise might be on the horizon: Could the Hyundai Genesis coupe be a contender? The specs and tentative pricing look very promising, but Hyundai isn’t known for building sports cars. We’ll see…

Personal picks: Small SUVs, part 2

Continuing our staff's personal insights into the August-issue small SUVs test group. (Read: Personal Picks: Small SUVs, part 1.)

Gabe Shenhar: I really like the new turbocharged Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited. The car marks a big step forward over the original Forester, which is not something that can be said for every redesign these days. The new Forester provides effortless acceleration, a great ride, lots of room, a quiet cabin and lots of agility. As soon as I brought it home for the first time, I showed it to my wife and made sure it fit in the garage. It would really make a nice family vehicle for us, with enough rear seat room for two growing boys—which wasn’t the case with the original Forester. But after we finished testing it, I realized that it only got 20 mpg overall (on premium to boot). The excitement suddenly waned, which is too bad.

That brings me back to the Toyota RAV4. I’ve always had a soft spot for the RAV4, ever since it pioneered the segment in 1996. Although the design is two years old now, the current generation is still a standout. It looks good, rides and handles well, has many thoughtful interior features, and is roomy inside without being bulky. Even with the V6, I won’t have to feel guilty -- it gets 22 mpg on regular. Being quick, smooth and quiet, is the icing on the cake. So, if I were shopping for one of these today, the RAV6, as we call it here, would be my top contender.

Mike Quincy: I’m in three-row seat mode right now. Every car I look at or envision taking a permanent spot in my garage has to have this feature. Why? Well, like most households, if Mom’s happy, everybody’s happy. (Likewise, if Mom’s not happy… well, you get the picture.) Mom’s not too happy right now. See, we have two small boys who like to bring friends with them when they go places. My wife drives a Camry sedan. To keep everybody safe, all the kids ride in the backseat. Hence, with two boys and only three seating positions, only one can bring a friend. Also, Mom wants a dog. And Mom wants to build a garden. And Mom likes to buy antiques. So we need a vehicle that does everything: carry people, dogs, stuff. We don’t need to go off-road and, with a set of winter tires, we don’t need AWD. And, like everybody these days, it has to get good fuel economy and can’t break the bank. She’d love a Toyota Highlander Hybrid, but they’re simply too pricey (nearly $40,000 with the third row).

What’s the best choice here? The Mazda5. It’s not a minivan, it’s not an SUV, and it’s not a wagon. But it can get done what Mom wants in her hectic life. Even a top-level Grand Touring model tops out at $24,000 (thousands less than most in the small SUV group when popularly equipped), and still gets 23 mpg overall. Exciting to drive? Well, she’s been driving that Camry for several years, which isn’t exactly a carnival on wheels, so the Mazda5 will likely feel like a new beginning. So, as it turns out, this isn’t exactly my personal pick, but it’s the pick for domestic harmony.

For more on this small SUVs group, read the road tests and watch our review videos.

Fuel economy feedback

A number of letters and e-mails have reached my desk regarding our most recent test of compact economy cars in the July 2008 test group.

One of the more frequent comments was why we didn't test Volkswagen's diesel models. We would have loved to include a TDI Jetta or Rabbit, but there's one, slight problem: neither are currently for sale in the United States. We tested a Jetta TDI in 2006 (available to subscribers) and got 34 mpg overall. VW plans to reintroduce the Jetta TDI this August; we'll buy and test one as soon as we can. (Read "How we test fuel economy.")

Another comment burning up my in-box was from readers saying how their 3-cylinder Geo Metro got 50 mpg gallon and "Why the heck aren't modern cars as fuel efficient?" One of the reasons cars today haven't made greater strides in fuel economy is that while engines and transmissions have gotten more powerful and efficient, the cars themselves have gotten heavier. You see, over the years, we've all become accustomed to air conditioning, power windows and door locks, quiet (heavily insulated) interiors, and high-end, multi-speaker stereo systems. Plus we take comfort in having front and side air bags, side-impact door beams, and solid overall structures. Plus, larger vehicles are often fitted with all-wheel drive and third-row seats. All of these creature comforts and safety gear add weight. And the extra poundage detracts from fuel economy.

Also, the engines and transmissions in cars today have helped improve performance to levels that was unheard of 20 years ago. For example, the last Toyota RAV4 V6 we tested went from 0-60 mph in 6.7 seconds and still returned 22 mpg overall. Our model had a third-row seat, standard stability control, and could tow 3,500 pounds. Put this in historical perspective and it's impressive: A two-seat Nissan 300ZX we tested in 1992 made it to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds, but certainly didn’t have the utility, safety equipment, fuel economy, or light-duty off-road ability of a modern RAV4.

However, in some respects, while cars haven't made the fuel economy strides they could have, all the vehicles are a LOT safer. While most of this safety equipment adds weight, we think it's a fair tradeoff. And when you think about it, the 1980s micro cars were all very thrifty on fuel, but none had antilock brakes, stability control, or front-, side-, or head-protection air bags.

Ideally, we think fuel economy should not come at the expense of safety. Today's cars are safer than anything built 20-30 years ago; they’re also cleaner and more comfortable. I don't miss the "good old days" in terms of automotive safety. And the future looks exciting with all the emerging technologies (electric cars; plug-in hybrids; cleaner diesels). And yes, we'll test all that we can, once they become available.

—Mike Quincy

For information on the most fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels, see our guide to driving green. Also, see our video above on how to improve your gas mileage.

Personal Picks: Gas-saving sedans, part 2

Continuing our staff's personal insights into the July-issue gas-saving sedans test group.

Gabe Shenhar: The small sedans we call entry-level cars here serve as mainstream family cars in many parts of the world. We see a lot of people looking down at these cars, but there’s no reason for this. Some of the better ones in this class are well-rounded, fun to drive, just roomy enough, and get great fuel economy.

I may be in a minority, but the Hyundai Elantra SE doesn’t really do it for me—it’s just not engaging enough to drive. And if that wouldn’t be a priority for me, I’d choose the Toyota Corolla for a slightly more mature demeanor and its excellent 32 mpg overall.

I like the looks and the spirited powertrain of the Honda Civic. But for me, taking into account handling agility, seat comfort, and decent interior quality brings me to the Mazda3. When I drive one, I feel like I’m driving a small package, but without being deprived of anything that would frustrate me.

Mike Quincy: How often can you get something for nothing? I recently drove from CR’s home office in Yonkers, NY, back to our test track here in CT – typically a two-hour trip. I spent those miles in the Chevrolet Cobalt. It drove OK, but I felt completely anonymous. However, when I drove a Mini Cooper last week to my son’s soccer practice, I (almost) felt like Beckham arriving at a posh L.A. nightclub. Even though the modern Mini has been around since 2002, this car still makes people smile. And I doubt any car in this month’s test group will get a wave or headlight flash from another driver of the same car. Compared to the Cobalt, for roughly $2,500 more, I can get a Base Mini (with minimal options) that gets superior fuel economy but have loads more fun. I understand that almost no one pays sticker price for a Cobalt (hence, the price difference argument is tougher to make), but I’d be willing to get something (an attractive, entertaining package) and not give up fuel economy. Bottom line: The beauty of the Cooper is that you don’t feel like you’re driving a cheap-o tin can or a forgotten rental car.

For more on this gas-saving sedans test group, read the road tests and Personal picks: sports sedans, part 1, and also watch our car review videos.

Corvette ZR1 – Side air bag not included

The Chevrolet Corvette has been an American performance icon since the original Blue Flame six-cylinder engine was replaced with a V8. Through six generations, the Corvette has built on its legacy as an attainable sports car rippling with Detroit-bred muscle. Certainly there have been many milestones through the decades that can warm Bowtie enthusiasts’ hearts, often signaled by option codes, engine designations, and displacement figures, like ZL-1, 427, L-88, Z06, LT4, ZR-1, LS2, and many others.

Consequently, when General Motors issued its latest press release, "Corvette ZR1 By The Numbers," we were eager to saturate our brains in the latest ‘Vette factoids. After all, the last Corvette we tested was a thrilling burnt-orange Z06 that combined real-world civility with ferocious track potential. Even in a test group that included the high-performance war hammer Dodge Viper, pampering Mercedes-Benz SL550, and benchmark Porsche 911, the Corvette impressed our team.

Diving in to the marketing brief, we soon realized the horsepower figure wasn’t there. Isn’t horsepower the number with a performance car? (Being ‘Vette obsessive, we conjured the 638-hp number from a previous release.)

GM released a bunch of numbers, big and small, such as the price (big) and fuel economy (small).

The official figures include:

• $103,300 – base price
• Top speed – 205 mph
• 0-60 mph –3.4 seconds
• Quarter-mile –11.3 seconds at 131 mph
• Fuel economy, EPA – 14 city / 20 highway mpg

Those all add up to what promises to be the highest-performance Corvette in history and a solid super car competitor on the world stage.

However, reading the less interesting numbers, we found that the sole options package for $10,000 brings a variety of niceties, like Bose premium audio system, navigation system, Bluetooth connectivity, and power telescoping steering column. It also includes side air bags.

That’s right; at just over $100 grand, the ZR1 doesn’t include side air bags. But, it does tack on a $1,700 gas-guzzler tax.

We wouldn’t buy a subcompact car without side air bags, let alone a ground-based road missile.

So, the Corvette ZR1 is effectively $115,000, skimping on the $2,000 chrome wheels. Or the cost of five Mazda Miatas.

In the end, it all adds up to a serious thrill ride.

—Jeff Bartlett and Mike Quincy

From the logbook: Infiniti EX35

Sometimes the question of how do you make a good car better can be answered with “just add some utility.” For example, the folks at Infiniti infused their already great G35 sedan with a hatchback cargo area and created, basically, a wagon. Or is it an SUV? Infiniti calls it a "personal luxury crossover." (Reminds  me of the pitch for the "personal luxury cars" of the ‘70s…like the Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Oldsmobile Toronado. But I digress...)

Our EX35 Journey AWD model came equipped with the Premium Package, plus a few odds and ends, and it stickered at $39,425. So did the EX make the G more of a good thing? Here’s a look at the first impressions from the testers’ logbook:

"Small and nimble—very much like the G but quieter and rides better."

"Very good steering and responsive handling."

"Great power, responsive transmission."

"20 mpg is not impressive."

"Rear visibility is really hindered to the corners by huge pillars and the restraints."

"Cannot tip the driver’s seat for thigh comfort, and the seatback is too narrow."

"Beautiful fit and finish."

"Sloping roof and tight back seat limit cargo and passenger room."

"I like how the mirrors light up when you approach the vehicle."

"Hard to pigeonhole the car…hatchback? Wagon? Has a lot of appeal, though."

"Why doesn’t $40K get you a nav system or back-up camera?"

"The car’s size is tough to justify for a family, as rear seat room is quite tight."

"What’s not to like about an all-weather G35 with a bigger trunk?"

There are times when things get lost in the translation, but, overall, many of the driving virtues we so strongly praise in the G35 are alive and well in the EX35. But the jury’s still out as to whether or not the extra utility (and price: our EX is about $1,900 more than a similarly equipped G35 AWD) are worth it. Then again, none of us here fit the yuppie-couple-with-a-dog-in-the-city profile at which the marketers are aiming the EX. We’ll have a full comparison test with this and several competing models—including the Land Rover LR2 and Volkswagen Tiguan—in the pages of Consumer Reports in the coming months.

—Mike Quincy

Pickup trucks: Forget green… it’s harder to be yellow

My two boys love it when I bring home yellow test cars. Doesn’t matter how well they drive, whether or not the back seat fits their boosters. As long as it’s yellow, it’s cool.

The other day, after a session on WebKinz.com, my boys asked me to find them some pictures of yellow trucks on the computer. So we went to Chevrolet.com to configure a Silverado 1500 crew-cab. No yellow paint option. We also couldn’t find a yellow Ford F-150 on the company’s Web site. Nissan was a bust with its Titan. No yellow Honda Ridgelines, either. Yellow Toyota Tundra? Forget it.

Finally we went to Dodge. Lo and behold, we found a Quad Cab SLT 4x4 in "Detonator Yellow." Looked great. So, just for ha-has, I continued on and picked the options I’d like. Big Hemi V8? Check. Popular Equipment Group? Check. Top-level sound system? Check. Finally, being a good CR safety advocate, I clicked on Electronic Stability Program. I also chose the Supplemental Side Curtain Air Bags option. But, to my amazement, a pop-up surfaced with the message "Detonator Yellow Clear Coat Exterior Paint, Medium Slate Gray Interior Color will be replaced with Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl Coat Interior Paint, Khaki Interior Color."

Huh? What does an exterior color have to do with an interior safety feature?

Curiosity got the best of me, so the next day I contacted Chrysler. The initial response was, "Weird; on the face of it, doesn't make sense. I'm checking with the Product Planning guys…" To the PR person’s credit, he got back to me fairly quickly and said, "The short story is that side air bags (which currently have a very low take rate) are installed at only one plant, and Detonator Yellow is painted at only one plant—not the same plant. The good news is that side air bags are standard on '09 Rams..."

So, if you’re currently shopping for a truck (and all the auto companies are hoping you are, since truck sales these days are taking a pounding) and want a yellow Dodge Ram with all the safety features, you’ll have to get one without the brightest paint scheme out there. But I guess there’s a reason most school buses are painted yellow: makes them pretty easy to see coming or going. In the end, when buying a new vehicle, make sure you get all the desirable safety features, even if you have to compromise on the color.

It may not be easy being green, but it’s even harder to be yellow.

—Mike Quincy