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

From the logbook: A "green" Chevrolet Tahoe—a hybrid hopeful?

Even though G.M. touts its new full-sized Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrids as "green" machines, buyers haven't exactly stampeded dealerships. According to a recent article in The New York Times, "G.M. has sold about 1,100 of its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon hybrids since their introduction in January…[a] pace [that's] well behind its goal of 12,000 sales a year, and a fraction of the more than 100,000 hybrids sold so far in the United States this year."

We were eager to find out if this new hybrid really could make sizeable fuel economy improvements over the conventional Tahoe we last tested, which got a deplorable 14 mpg overall. Our well-equipped "Summit White" 4WD Hybrid stickered for a cool $55,585. So far, we’ve put nearly 3,000 miles on it; here's a look inside the logbook:

"Hybrid system works smoothly…even used no [gas] engine for a couple of miles of 0-20-0 mpg driving."

"18.3 mpg overall isn't great, but it's [obviously] better than the non-hybrid version." [Note: other drivers logged 16-17, 17.5, 18.6, and 20.8 mpg]

"Ridiculously low mpg…and this is 'green'? This gets tax incentives and the Toyota Corolla doesn’t? Insane."

"Ride is stiffer than regular Tahoe.” [But other opinions said: "Rides well and easy to navigate despite its massive size."]

"Brakes are very touchy, and then very hard."

"Steering has hardly any feedback."

"Feels heavy and slow reacting even in casual driving."

"Gee, can you tell it’s a hybrid? Our truck has more stickers and badges than a NASCAR racer…gets attention, though."

"Very quiet interior and comfortable seats."

"No power recline/lumbar for the seats and no powered tailgate is cheap for the crazy $55K sticker."

"Third-row seats steal virtually all the cargo space."

"Want to get [similar] fuel economy, seat eight and tow 4,500 pounds? Buy a Honda Pilot and save $15K."

Perhaps the final word on the big Tahoe Hybrid's fuel economy came from one of our most trusted bottom-liners: Auto Test's Data Program Manager (and keeper of all things statistical), who wrote "18 mpg is quite an improvement for such a big vehicle especially that it can be used for towing."

Look for a full road test soon.

—Mike Quincy

For tips on saving gasoline and alternative fuels, see our green car guide.

Personal picks: Hatchbacks

This month's group almost seems like a blast from the past. Hatchbacks are back and we are excited about driving them because of their combination of pretty good fuel economy and versatile cargo carrying capacities. Many of my colleagues have owned hatchbacks in the past. Here's a look at their picks:

Tom Mutchler: We heard it from family members and friends. We even heard it from contractors visiting the track. People see this group of hatchbacks and say, "Wow, you're testing a group of #@$%boxes this month." Sales figures of these hatchbacks versus their sedan counterparts hint that many Americans feel the same way.

But my fellow engineers at the track and I bristle at the dismissal of these logical cars. They do an awful lot of things right. They get good fuel economy, they can haul a wide variety of cargo, safety equipment is up to snuff, and the best ones can even be fun to drive. All this for not much money. In fact, before this group of cars, my top choice for "If I Had to Buy a Brand New Car Today, What Would I Buy?" was a Mazda3s Grand Touring hatch.

But the VW Rabbit vies for my affections and theoretical dollars. The Rabbit is fun to drive, comfortable, and has better crash-test data and a more substantial feel than the nimble Mazda. I really like that the Rabbit defies the logic that all German-designed cars must have inscrutable controls (Exhibit A: the Saturn Astra. Exhibit B: the Mini.)

Only one misgiving: having owned a VW, my attitude toward the company’s overall reliability history is "once bit, twice shy." The reliability charts for older VWs show that, as those cars aged, reliability went super bad. Hopefully the Rabbit can shake this history…

Gene Petersen: I love hatchbacks. My first brand new car was a three-door Honda Accord hatchback, the only way you could get one back in 1978. I would fold down the rear seats and use it like a station wagon to carry lumber, garden supplies, or move smaller pieces of furniture. This new crop of hatchbacks reminds of the versatility of that old Accord, plus these cars have four doors for getting passenger out of the rear seat in a respectable manner. My choice here is the Mazda3. It offers versatility, is roomy for four adults, and has a sporty flair that makes it fun to drive. It's also well finished, nicely styled inside and out and gets a respectable 25 mpg with the 2.3 liter engine and five-speed automatic. In this age of $4.00 gasoline, it may be time for me to consider a hatchback again…

Gabe Shenhar: It's too bad the Volkswagen Golf (sorry, Rabbit) isn't available with the 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine attached to the DSG (automated manual) transmission. On second thought, it does exist, only then it's not a Rabbit anymore—it's called the GTI. Such a combo would give me greater agility, punch and fun-to-drive quotient as well as versatility and affordability. But I already had my GTI days in the 1980s (I owned two of them), so it’s time to move on. Besides, we’ve classified the GTI as a sporty car, so I better re-gear for the hatchbacks at hand.

Both the Rabbit and the Mazda3 hatchback possess similar driving characteristics: agile handling, decent ride and some zip in their acceleration. Both also have comfortable seats and interiors that are solid and pleasant and make you feel like you are surrounded by a nicer environment than is typical for the class. However, the Rabbit's standard 2.5-liter, five-cylinder engine sounds too coarse for me and it doesn’t help that it has a relatively big thirst for fuel. The Mazda's 2.3-liter four-cylinder has a sweeter nature to it and sounds happier when it’s revved. So I’m leaning toward the Mazda3. And then there’s the likelihood of the Golf (woops—did it again—Rabbit) having more problems over several years then the Mazda3. But then again, the Rabbit has better IIHS crash test results than the Mazda3.

This has become a much bigger dilemma now, so I think I'll go with the Mini Cooper. All the Minis (S, non-S or Clubman) are a blast to drive. They look like nothing else and ooze charm and character. Good fuel economy is an extra bonus.

Rick Small: These small models are enjoying a surge in popularity due to the ever rising 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 others. The Saturn Astra has a nice ride, but it is slow responding and fuel economy falls short for this class. Of this group, I like the Volkswagen Rabbit the best. It feels more solid and sporty than the others here and has a good driving position for taller people. I also really like the Mini but not this Clubman version. While the "bigger" Mini does provide a little more room in the back, I dislike the split rear doors and big blind spot they create. The Clubman's handling is not as crisp as the other Mini versions, either. The Base or Mini S are a blast to drive, get very good fuel economy and (surprisingly) have a very good driving position for tall drivers like me. The back seat is petty much for storage or very small passengers, though. Fuel economy for this group is pretty good, but if you want even more mpg get the manual transmission.

Mike Quincy: My first new car was a 1987 Honda Civic Si. It was a three-door hatchback, got great fuel economy, and was more fun to drive than the car I replaced it with—a 1985 Mazda RX-7. To this day, it was one of the best cars I ever owned. Hence, I have a soft-spot in my heart for these little hatches. I think the Mini Cooper (Base model, manual transmission) comes closest to the fun and value of my original Honda. And while it's small inside, it doesn't drive that way. It's not too noisy, the ride is tolerable, and it overflows with personality. The Clubman is almost practical, but its styling seems just a bit out of proportion. Go easy with options and the Mini is affordable. Go nuts and you wind up shelling out money that could buy a larger, more comfortable car. Like I said: Base model Mini Cooper is the way to go.

From the logbook: Land Rover Range Rover Sport

Elegant, exclusive, and expensive (ours is $61,900, with the 300-hp, 4.4-liter V8), the Range Rover Sport competes with other pricy (and gas thirsty) SUVs, including the Porsche Cayenne and BMW X5. How is such a luxurious guzzler fairing under our scrutiny? Are we ashamed to drive it in public, or does merely “arriving” in this prestige machine get us more attention than we deserve? Will the controls be any better than the cryptic ones in the last Land Rover we tested – the LR3, upon which the Sport is based – which we called “confusing [and] poorly located”? Read our first impressions from the logbook and find out if there’s much “sport” in the Range Rover Sport:

"Without the supercharged engine, this drives just like our old LR3 – kind of slow."

"Engine sounds great, but the hefty weight is apparent on acceleration."

"The ride is stiff and has abrupt impacts."

"Steering is short on feedback."

"For such a large vehicle, there is no room for the driver. I feel boxed in."

"The navigation system is the most complicated and least comprehensive I’ve ever used."

"It’s a nice looking vehicle, but $62K should include a backup camera, heated steering wheel, and six months of free satellite radio."

"What kooky controls…same radio faceplate as our LR2: big rotary knob on the right side, but it doesn’t tune the radio frequency…simply idiotic."

"Common controls like mirrors, windows, and door locks are ill-placed."

"Good visibility all around, comfortable seats."

"Thermonuclear seat heaters."

"The shoulder belt tugs hard and my knee bashes against the center console and door panel."

"Cramped rear seat for this class."

"Looks great, nicely done interior."

"Wonderful headlights, especially high beams."

"The solid feel of the car doesn’t carry over to the doors, which are hard to close the first time [you shut them] and have a loose, rattly sound when shutting. The tailgate is the same."

"Comes with lots of prestige, and it might be good off-road, but it’s really not exciting to drive. I can’t understand why this car is so fashionable and popular." [But, of course, this person lives in tony Westport, CT, which is chock-a-block with Land Rovers…]

"Strangely appealing, but not a smart purchase in any sense of the word."

So the debate continues as to whether or not there is much practicality in the Range Rover Sport…or is that missing the point? High-end SUVs look nice, many are seen as status symbols, and they cost truckloads of money both to buy and at the pump. That might address their affluent owners’ goals, but it doesn’t mean they’re good vehicles.  We’re putting together a test group that will include the Range Rover Sport, as well as the Porsche Cayenne, Toyota Land Cruiser, and others to see how these trucks perform as vehicles, not just as rolling jewelry.

—Mike Quincy

Personal picks—convertibles

To say that we're all not eagerly anticipating warm spring breezes here in Connecticut at the Consumer Reports Auto Test Center would be a gross understatement. The gray, cold weather is quickly turning to warm, bright skies and the 300 acres surrounding our track is becoming green again.

Slogging through the winter with these cars wasn't exactly joyful. Even with heated seats on several of these models, I wasn't tempted to drop the top until the temperature reached at least 50-degrees F. Finally, we can all drive the convertibles from the May issue with the tops down and truly enjoy the open-air experience.

With that in mind, here are our Personal Picks for convertibles.

—Mike Quincy

Tom Mutchler: This is a tough group to pick a favorite, mostly because my favorite cars in this group leave me feeling ambivalent (and somewhat poor). The BMW 328i feels just like a coupe, making it the best to drive of this bunch. Problem is, it's just barely under $50K even if you go light on the options. That's serious money.

I could console myself with our $37,000 Volkswagen Eos. It makes the more-expensive Saab 9-3 and Volvo C70 convertibles seem redundant. I would go with a base-level Turbo with leatherette and DSG for under $31K.

But driving with the top down isn't fun unless the car itself is fun, and I don't want to break the bank. My solution: a used 2006 Mazda MX-5 Miata. Yeah, it only has two seats. And unlike later Miatas, the 2006 isn't available with Mazda's clever folding hardtop that improves visibility and noise without giving up trunk room or adding much weight. But all of the back seats in these cars are near worthless, and the Miata's manual top is the best out there. Surfing on AutoTrader, I can find a loaded 2006 Miata Grand Touring with stability control for around $19,000 with under 20,000 miles on the clock. That's a lot of fun for the money.

Gabe Shenhar: These convertibles are really not my type of car. If there's a choice between the open-top car and a coupe version, I’d always go with the more solid and rigid structure of the one with the fixed roof. For me, I can’t imagine a Porsche 911 with an open top or a BMW M3 convertible. If I already sacrificed practicality, it might as well be for some serious driving fun.

But let's say my kind of fun is having some wind in my hair and catching some rays, rather than blasting down a race track. In that case, I have two favorites. If money was not much of an object it would be the BMW 328i. First of all, it looks gorgeous; second, it drives every bit as wonderfully as its sedan counterpart with a sweet powertrain and a rewarding chassis that's agile and easy to control. Third, for a convertible, it's astoundingly free of the typical nasty body shakes of most drop-tops.

But the BMW, mind you, (and this is a 328i without the sports package) is scratching the $50K mark. This is where my rational choice comes: I'll take the $35,000 Volkswagen Eos. It's easy to consider it merely a Jetta convertible, but the Eos is actually a sophisticated, upscale car with a plush cabin. It's quick, gets good fuel economy, and the automated manual dual-clutch gearbox gives it a sporty character with its quick shifts and an interesting soundtrack. The Eos has a sunroof-only mode, which I find extremely useful when you don't feel like stopping, waiting and fussing with the full-blown, top down experience.

Mike Quincy: Honestly, none of these really lit my fire. The 'fun' factor must be high to put up with the inherent drawbacks of a convertible: noise, limited trunk space, and usually shaky structure. And while the 328i convertible is a refined and "nice" car, it’s not fun—and for less money, I’d get a 335i sedan and probably enjoy the drive more. Back to fun: I’ll take a Mazda Miata any day of the week. It is so perfectly balanced in its handling, steering response, amazingly satisfying shifter, and its just-enough-horsepower. But if I had to have a couple miniscule rear seats (my two young sons like convertibles), I’d choose a Ford Mustang GT. Amazing V8 sound, classic looks, and more-than-just-enough-horsepower. In fact, there are gobs of it. And that’s always fun.

For more on this convertibles group, read the road tests and also watch our car review videos.

From the logbook: Toyota Prius Touring

History shows that Toyota made the right decision when their designers made sure that the second-generation Prius looked like nothing else on the road. Most buyers wanted the world to know that they were proudly piloting a hybrid. Unlike the Honda Civic and Accord Hybrids—which looked nearly identical to the non-hybrid models and sell in much lower numbers, so much so that the Accord version was dropped—the latest Prius silently screams, "Here I am! And I'm burning less gasoline than you."

Actually, because the car is so quiet when moving on battery power alone (except when you put it in reverse and an annoying beep reminds you to be careful backing up), it makes its biggest statement at the gas pump.

This time around we're testing a Touring model with stability control ($23,220) to see if it improves the Prius' handling. What have we learned over the past few months driving it? Is the Prius just a rolling science project or is it a real car? Read on for our test teams' initial feedback:

"First impression isn't too hot, but this car grows on you."

"Switching from electric power to gas makes the engine shudder to life; I don't remember our last Prius doing that."

"Not impressive to drive (stiff ride, poor steering feel)."

"This car was more amazing when we tested it in '04."

"Transmission selector makes you push forward for reverse and pull back to go forward? (I remember complaining about that arrangement in another vehicle with the initials 'B.M.W.')"

"One display screen for all secondary functions is ridiculous."

"I spent too much time switching from screen to screen when I should be looking at the road."

"All this software to calculate 'instant' and 'overall' fuel economy but no 'distance to empty?'"

"Sub-par driving position - plenty of room, but the [steering] wheel is too far away and the dead pedal is badly angled and too close."

"Visibility is OK, but there are lots of pillars and that odd back window."

"Great packaging for four people and lots of luggage space for what is a small car."

"Good rear-seat room for kids."

"40+ mpg is still amazing."

As you can see, while the Prius doesn't deliver an engaging driving experience, it delivers fuel economy in spades. ("A genius of a car, but too bad it's not fun to drive" said one engineer.) There's enough substance here to help you understand why this car continues to be all the rage for environmentally-focused people. And I think this line really sums up what we feel about the Prius thus far: "An impressive, ground-breaking product, but far from perfect."

—Mike Quincy

Ford Transit - Taxi of tomorrow?

The Ford Transit is a neat idea. At the NY Auto Show, Ford has it decked out in taxicab yellow; I think it looks like a cross between a Ford Fusion, Taurus X, and previous Land Rover Discovery. Senior Director of Consumer Reports Auto Test Division David Champion likens it to a big Honda Element. Also, says Champion, it seemingly "could take the place of an SUV or pickup truck for companies that do deliveries and other light-duty trade work." Plus, he adds, it's very likely that this new Dodge Sprinter-like model could make a tradesperson rethink whether or not they really need the weight (and poor fuel economy) of a full-sized van.

And if Ford uses the diesel engine offered in Europe, it could further boost fuel economy gains, not to mention the urban potential for a hybrid system.

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Freaks and geeks - Speed Racer and flying cars

If you attend the New York International Auto Show be sure to check out the displays on the lower level. It is here where the true mechanical freaks and geeks of the auto world are on display. (Cars, that is.)

For example, to promote the upcoming "Speed Racer" movie the producers rolled out a mock-up of the famous Mach 5. Sure brings back memories of my childhood, although I'm still not sure if Racer X was a good guy or a bad guy, and I think Trixie and Spritle (the oddest name for a younger brother ever) probably wound up in psychotherapy. (Speaking of, I have to wonder if the stowaway tendencies of Spritle and Chim Chim lead to the need for emergency trunk releases?)

Learn about Speed Racer here.

Also on the lower level of the Jacob Javits Convention Center is a flying car, several electric car prototypes, and cut-aways of the Toyota Tundra and new Dodge Ram pickup trucks. VW also shows some of its very funny TV ads ("Vee-dub in da house") and a couple German-language ones that defy explanation.

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

NYC muscle car madness

New York has a bevy of Detroit Three iron on display. Growing up in the 1970s, I never thought that we'd see the day when you could get a 430-hp Corvette that got 21 mpg overall. Now it seems that you can have your cake and bring it home driving a V8-rumbling muscle car.

Ford has two Mustangs of note here at the NY show. There's a beautiful Bullitt version—decked out in the classic Dark Highland Green—complete with a 315-hp V8, big pipes coming out of the back, and no excess spoilers taking away from the shape (which still looks good three years after the redesign). Ford is also displaying a fire-breathing Shelby GT500KR. As if the 500 hp of the "standard" GT500 wasn't enough, Ford decided to bring back the spirit of the top-level Shelby of the 1960s with this new, 540-hp version. The KR resurfaces a number of the design details from the original, including vents in the hood, bold body stripes, and a chunky cue-ball shifter. What the new model has all over the old one, however, is safety equipment: three-point safety belts for all seating positions (plus pretensioners for the fronts), ABS, traction control, and front and side air bags were barely a pipe dream in 1968. All are standard on the GT500KR.

While the big-engined Shelby is dubbed the "King of the Road," Chevrolet brought out its "King of the Hill" Corvette ZR1. The supercharged V8 supposedly makes "620 hp+"—more than enough to run with the best sports cars in the world. It also comes with great-looking 19- and 20-inch wheels, enormous brakes, as well as a unique "window" on the hood that lets you peer into the engine compartment. It's stunning.

Interestingly, while GM chose not to showcase its new Camaro in New York, at least Chrysler unveiled three versions of its hot Challenger: a base V6 SE, a 5.7-liter V8 R/T, and a top-of-the-line SRT8 (in all of its 425-hp, 6.1-liter glory). All wowed the crowds with their faithful reproduction of the original's styling and hunkered-down stance. But even the V6 model makes 250 hp (not bad - even by muscle car standards. Well, perhaps more "pony car" standards; the highest hp V8 in the Mustang GT was just 271 in 1965. (Don't bet me on this; I have one in my garage.)

By looking at the high-horsepower hand-ringing here in the Big Apple, you'd never guess that gasoline prices are averaging $3.28 a gallon, with a high of $3.60 in California. Will these fast and furious machines go begging if gas tops $4.00 - and stays there? What do you think? If you had the money to buy one, would you take the plunge? Use the comments feature and let us know.

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

New York auto show - Random thoughts

The keynote speaker for this morning's breakfast was Bob Nardelli, President and CEO of Chrysler. In his introduction, it was said that he knew the company's products well, since he used to own a PT Cruiser, Prowler, and a Jeep. No word as to whether or not he used Stanley hammers or DeWalt drills when he headed Home Depot.

Everything seems to be moving at the speed of sound these days. Decisions, according to Mr. Nardelli, are made at Chrysler with either a "quick yes or a quick no, but no more slow maybes." Acura, too, is coming up to speed as they touted the expression "say no to slow." Judging by the rather dull appearance of its redesigned TSX, I don't think the company will get a "say yes to best dressed" anytime soon.

With all the talk about going "green" I still find it curious that Mercedes calls its cleaner diesel engines "BlueTec." Why not go "GreenTec"?

It's amazing to me that "adults" have to be reminded to turn down the ringers on their cell phones before the start of a press conference.

The rear styling of the Saturn Flextreme concept is revising the look of the 1963 Chevrolet Corvette split-window. Nope, can't see out of the back of this one, either.

Toyota is really taking the "green" theme seriously. It has signs posted all over its display saying, "The fabric panels and overhead canopies in the Toyota display are made from post-industrial and post-consumer content using non-toxic inks." Hmmm. The company must be trying to ease its guilt or counter-balance the Land Cruisers, Sequoias, and Tundras it has on display.

My colleague Jake Fisher made this pronouncement: the new Acura TSX is said to be wider and longer but sporty and agile, and the new Nissan Maxima is claimed to be smaller but sporty and agile. That, naturally, reminded me of a commercial for the AMC Pacer which claimed that its wide stance helped give it a stable ride. It also could also be counted on to help you make a mean sandwich.   

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Green in a NY minute

The opening hour of the press preview days for the New York Auto Show started off with a virtual love-in between the manufacturers, their advertising agencies, and a mysterious panel of judges. Awards were distributed for what was considered the best in TV advertising. I really could have used the extra sleep.

And while all the ads up for awards were clever, sentimental, or daresay funny—I mean, what's not funny about a Jeep-load of woodland creatures singing "Rock me gently"?—the most baffling was the "Green" award won by Subaru. The winning ad showed a man standing outside a Subaru factory proclaiming that it's the greenest one anywhere. In its press releases, the company says its Indiana facility "is recognized as the first U.S. auto plant to achieve zero-landfill status, with all its waste being reused, recycled or utilized in a waste-to-energy program to generate electricity for the city of Indianapolis."

However, the term "green" and Subaru usually don't get very cozy, at least not in Consumer Reports testing. In an article in our April issue, titled "Who makes the best cars?" Subaru ranked third, behind only Toyota and Honda, respectively. In the article, we said that "Only two automakers, Honda and Subaru, earned the distinction of having all of the models we tested make our Recommended list." Clearly, we think the company makes good products. But as its "report card" shows, we listed "fuel economy" as a "low."

As a whole, Subaru products are not the most fuel efficient in their class; neither a hybrid nor diesel is offered in its North American lineup. In fact, just about the greenest you can get with a Subaru is by choosing its "Evergreen Metallic" paint for a Forester 2.5 X L.L. Bean Edition. That said, a green factory is a good start.

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Personal picks: sports sedans, part 2

Continuing our staff's personal insights into the March-issue upscale sedans test group.

Rick Small: I like most of the cars in this group. The new Cadillac CTS handles well and is now very competitive with the European sedans. The BMW 328i feels sporty, but I feel it’s not as sporty as the last generation. Plus, the 3 Series controls are needlessly awkward. My tall frame is still cramped in the front, and the back seat if for small kids only. For me, the Infiniti G35 really stands out as a sporty and fun car to drive – it’s also a good value. It has great road feel and a firm but sporty ride that isn’t punishing. The powerful V6 delivers strong performance, sounds great, and is quicker than many V8s. Fuel economy is decent considering the high level of performance. The AWD version is a little less sporty and uses a bit more fuel; I’d go with the rear-wheel drive model and get a set of good snow tires for the winter. I still also like the Acura TL, it has a good combination of luxury and sport and a better driving position than most in this class. Other good choices are the roomy Nissan Maxima, and less expensive Altima. Likewise, a Honda Accord V6 comes close to the Acura for less money.

Mike Leung: I felt the last generation Mercedes-Benz C230 Sport that we tested was better in every regard than the newer one we just tested. The old one had better controls and a superior driving experience. Plus, it was more comfortable and better looking.

That being said, in this category, the Infiniti G35 still reigns supreme when you take cost into account.  Even if you don’t take cost into account, the G’s performance is easily as good as the competition and it’s generally more reliable.

Mike Quincy: I agree with Mike Leung—the last C-Class was better than the new one, which seems to have lost an edge not only in performance but also in styling. And while I’m an admitted fan of Saabs, the V6-powered 9-3 Aero’s $37,000 price is simply too dear, with its cramped backseat and mediocre fuel economy (only 20 mpg, overall).

I think the star of this category is the rear-wheel-drive Infiniti G35. It combines excellent steering, a fabulous engine and transmission, and simple controls. It’s a sports sedan when you want it to be, as well as a (mostly) quiet and comfortable luxury car when you’re in the mood for a relaxing cruise. I also like the Lexus IS 350 (deceivingly fast, nice interior, great reliability) but at $44,000 fully optioned, it’s way over the price of all of the models in this group. And hat’s off to GM for actually producing a car that I’d consider buying: the new CTS is the only Cadillac in my lifetime that I wouldn’t be embarrassed to own. I’m WAY too young to be of the generation when Cadillac was considered “the world’s standard.” The brand was never an aspiration of mine (nor for any of my friends, family and neighbors). But the CTS has more than style: it’s quite substantive and a pleasure to drive.

There’s a lot to like about all the cars in this category. (Really, there wasn’t a “dog” in the test group). Consider yourself lucky if this is a car category in which you can shop.

For more on this sports sedan group, read the road tests and Personal picks: sports sedans, part 2, and also watch our car review videos.

Personal Picks - Family sedans

The February-issue family sedan test group represented the vehicle type that, still, many people buy. Sedans remain such good sellers because most combine decent handling, interior room, and fuel economy and low noise levels. Not every car company carries monstrous SUVs, wicked-fast sports cars, or pickup trucks, but almost all sell a variety of sedans.

This group included our first test of the redesigned Honda Accord (both 4-cylinder and V6 versions), as well as a handful of larger sedans, including the Ford Taurus and Kia Amanti.

Here are the personal picks from the Auto Test Center:

Rick Small: My favorite family sedans continue to be the Honda Accord and Nissan Altima. Being the tallest auto test engineer (at 6' 4"), they fit me well. The Altima has one of the best driving positions for tall people, because of the generous head and leg room. Also, both are sportier than most family sedans. The Altima four-cylinder model with the CVT delivers better performance than many V6 family sedans, and its fuel economy is among the best. The V6 versions of both the Accord and Altima are quick and responsive, and they deliver respectable fuel economy. I also like the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan sedans; they also have a sporty feel and good performance.

Gabe Shenhar: Although, technically, the Nissan Altima outscores the Honda Accord, I'd go with the Accord. The Altima, with its CVT, optimizes fuel economy and acceleration, but to me the Accord is both a more satisfying drive and a roomier family sedan -- not to mention it's better looking. The Accord also comes with standard stability control, which is a major safety advantage. You can't even get that on a four-cylinder Altima that's not a hybrid. An Altima V6 with stability control easily shoots past $30K. So, if you're asking my advice, I'd get an Accord EX either with the four-cylinder or V6.

But why be such a conformist? Who says you can't think outside the box? A Volkswagen Jetta GLI, with the wonderful DSG transmission (a manual that shifts like an automatic, but with a great soundtrack), could serve both my family and sporty driving needs. It's essentially a GTI with a huge trunk.

Tom Mutchler: A wealth of great choices means that this is a great time to be in the market for a family sedan. The Nissan Altima has an amazing blend of acceleration and fuel economy. Even though Internet Toyota Camry-bashing (some of it deserved, based on reliability issues) has become such a game that it will likely be an exhibition sport at the next Olympics, the Camry remains a very quiet, comfortable, and efficient car.

Those cars score well in our tests, but I want a family sedan to do it all. I want enjoyable handling (something the Camry lacks). I want easy-to-get (if not standard) stability control—tough with the Altima. So, out of this month's group, that adds up to the Honda Accord. I'm impressed by the Accord's great driving position, generous visibility, huge rear seat, standard stability control, and entertaining handling. (I'd get a loaded EX-L four-cylinder instead of our LX-P or EX-L V6, though.) But the Accord isn't perfect: it drives me nuts that you don't get a temperature display unless you get leather and you can't get a trip computer. Plus, Honda can develop a business jet but can't seem to conquer road noise. And what's with the cheapo gooseneck hinges that crush ill-placed luggage? Meanwhile, the Chevrolet Malibu handles well, has less road noise, and has all of those little trinkets—temperature display, trip computer, classy scissor-hinges in the trunk—that the Accord lacks.

Mike Quincy: Last year, I chose the Accord because of its combination of good steering, excellent fuel economy and rock-solid reliability history. Thankfully, Honda didn't mess with such good DNA for the new Accord. It still drives like a car that you'd think cost thousands more. It still looks good and does nearly everything well. I drove our V6 model to Saratoga Springs last fall and (despite some road noise) came away deeply impressed. Yes, this is a car I could drive every day.

From the logbook: Volkswagen Rabbit

Question: When is a Golf not a Golf?
Answer: When it's a Rabbit

Question: Why do car companies spend time and money creating a model name and then kill it? Or, why does it seem like they can't make up their minds?
Answer: In the 1970s, Volkswagen renamed the European Golf the Rabbit here in the United States to replace an icon (the original Beetle). The company also went so far as to make several versions of it: two- and four-door models, a convertible, and the memorable GTI. But then VW decided to scrap it all and rename its mainstream model the Golf. Lo and behold, Golf sales didn't shoot through the roof. The name game has come full circle, and the latest hatchback model is called the Rabbit. I suppose this keeps the marketing people busy, but for the rest of us it just seems baffling.

Regardless of what you call it, we now have a four-door S model. For $19,725, our test car includes an automatic transmission, stability control and 16-inch alloy wheels. Interestingly, the word "Rabbit" doesn't appear on the car's exterior - makes you wonder how much confidence the company has in its name...

Here are the raw, first impressions written in the new Rabbit's logbook by the test team so far:

"Engine sounds a bit coarse, but it's torquey."

"Runs out of oomph at higher revs."

"Automatic transmission is a bit slow to downshift, but the 'Sport' mode works well."

"Handling is good but steering feel is vague."

"Great chassis—quiet, nimble, and rides very well."

"Quick, easy and fun to drive."

"Wide C-pillar makes rear viewing a chore."

"Seats are comfortable and supportive."
(But others said):
"Seat is too small, particularly the seatback where the pocket is very narrow and my back bridges the wing bolsters."

"Rear seat room is marginal."

"Surprisingly quiet inside, especially on the highway."

"Controls are simple - why is it easier to set the clock on a $19,000 Rabbit than a $50,000 BMW?"

"Great seat heaters. Good thing because the heat sucks—takes about 20-30 minutes to warm the cabin at 24-degrees."

"Heater is slow, slow, slow."

"Great fit and finish and high content level for the money—including heated seats and power-seat recline."

So, what do you call this car? One tester went so far as to write that the 'Rabbit' name is "unfortunate." Whatever the final nomenclature, we're fairly impressed with VW's entry-level model. Look for a complete test later in '08.

—Mike Quincy

'60 Minutes' of premium gasoline

In a December report on "60 Minutes," Andy Rooney said, "There are a lot of things I'd do if I was rich... I'd fill up with high-test gas instead of the 89-octane I usually buy now."

I don't know what kind of car he drives, but if it's one that doesn't require premium, he'd be wasting his money.

And "89 octane?" If he drives, say, a Lexus or BMW (which require premium - at least 91 octane), he's likely to void his engine's warranty if something goes wrong. And if he drives something that only requires regular, well, he's pouring money down the drain.

We've always said that if your car specifies regular fuel (87 octane), don't buy premium under the mistaken belief that your engine will run better. Most cars are designed to run just fine on regular gasoline. Furthermore, many cars that recommend premium fuel also run well on regular.

What should you do - even if you are "rich?" Check your car's owner's manual to find out if your engine is designed to handle either grade. Think twice about using the more expensive gas even if your owner's manual suggests "for optimum performance use premium." We have found that the differences aren't perceivable during normal driving. However, if your car "pings" or knocks with lower grade fuel, buy premium.

Again, for all models where premium fuel is not required, buying the high-grade gas is simply a waste of money... even if you have it to burn.

What octane do you use? Post your comments below.

—Mike Quincy

Read more about fuel economy.

Detroit auto show - Personal picks

The Cars team reflects on the 2008 Detroit auto show, selecting their personal picks for the most memorable, significant, or simply favorite cars at the event.

Audi R8 V12 TDI:
Last week, I gushed over the brilliant Audi R8 V12 TDI concept (see blog). The intoxication of it has stuck with me like a bad cold...I can't seem to shake it. The look is mean. The headlights squint at you like Clint Eastwood. The engine looks like it should be in a museum of modern art. And while Audi also had a "standard" R8 on display, it was one of only a few cars people were waiting in line to sit in. This car could reside in my garage forever.—Mike Quincy

Chevrolet Corvette ZR1/Hummer HX:
These pure vehicles push American icons to new reaches. The ZR1 is history in the making. It is an amazing performance machine that will fuel my automotive fantasies for quite some time, and is certain to be chronicled for generations to come. The Hummer HX represents the long-rumored H4, a Jeep Wrangler alternative intended to provide an attainable entry to the off-roading brand, and, now it may also represent a potential production savior for a brand that has become the pariah of the Green movement. Make it affordable, with a traditional square back and a thrifty diesel, and watch the Hummer "jamborees" flourish. Granted, the Corvette and Hummer are quite  different vehicles, but each represents extreme fun, and who doesn't want more of that?—Jeff Bartlett

Fisker Karma:
Designed by custom car designer Henrik Fisker (who also penned the BMW Z8, one of my favorite cars ever), the Fisker shows that hybrids -- even futuristic advanced plug-in hybrids that will run all day on electricity -- aren't just for environmentalist ninnies. It looks great and reportedly goes fast. (A top speed of 125 mph and 0-60 mph in less than 6 seconds are as fast as any mere mortal should need to go on land.) In short, it should give even the most jaded car enthusiasts an environmentally friendly hybrid they can lust after.

In terms of affordability, however, I've got to name the Honda CR-Z as my runner up. It marries hybrid efficiency to sports-car fun just like the Fisker. It isn't as advanced, and it is limited by being a two-seater. But it has the fun-to-drive element sorely lacking in Honda's last mileage champ, the Insight. And best of all, most car shoppers should be able to afford it.—Eric Evarts

Jeep Renegade/Cadillac CTS coupe:
This was my 15th time attending the Detroit auto show and, overall, it was a relatively boring event. There were no outrageous introductions such as a Chrysler minivan landing on stage, no retro chic surprises like the Volkswagen New Beetle, or first-time viewings of highly anticipated significant vehicles.

That said, I'd have to go with styling features that caught my eye. The Jeep Renegade concept, for example, was eye candy that I hope someday becomes a modern beach buggy. Forget the electric drive. Cash-strapped Chrysler is busy enough trying to survive. Not to mention the paradox of"go anywhere" marketing and getting stuck with an empty battery. A much more realistic and closer to production styling statement was the Cadillac CTS coupe. Even though I'm not much of a coupe fan, it looked spectacular.—Gabe Shenhar

Honda CR-Z:
I really liked the Honda CR-Z. With styling that is a dead-ringer for the old (and beloved CRX), the CR-Z's possible hybrid powertrain looks to vault this little runabout to the top of the fuel economy mountain... just like the original CRX. Honda is also disciplined at keeping weight low and suspension tuning interesting, so I imagine driving one will be a ball. Let's hope it's affordable.—David Champion

Toyota Venza:
Over the course of the show I was consistently drawn back to one car: the Toyota Venza. But not because I'm wowed by its styling, price, powerplant, or features. It's because I have no idea where it will fit in the Toyota lineup. Between the RAV4, Highlander, Avalon, and even the base Sienna, how many 5-passenger people movers are needed from one manufacturer? This odd vehicle certainly drew my attention each day... and the resulting quizzical stares as I tried to determine its niche.—Jon Linkov

Also read Cliff Weathers' pick for best in show.

See our complete coverage of the 2008 Detroit auto show. And discuss the event in our auto show forum. 

                                                                                                           

                   

Audi R8 V12 TDI concept: Beauty and the diesel beast