Test complete: Hyundai Genesis Coupe

Let’s get this straight: The Hyundai Genesis Coupe is not a coupe version of the Hyundai Genesis luxury sedan. Instead, the Genesis Coupe is more like a very grown-up Tiburon with rear-wheel drive. We paid $28,375 for our Grand Touring model with a 306-hp V6 and a six-speed manual transmission. Simply put, it’s a lot of car for the money.
 
The Coupe is a sporty car with a stiff ride and handling like no other Hyundai we’ve ever experienced. For example, the steering is direct and communicative. On our track, the car was agile and very fun to drive. The most notable flaws were the manual transmission that makes the car jerk if you shift too quickly from first to second gear, and the stiff ride that can get grating on a long trip. The interior is nicely finished with leather, but – like most coupes – there’s not much room in the back seat.
 
Take a look at the video to see how it performs on our track. Online subscribers can read full test results and compare it to competing models, such as the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang, Subaru WRX, and Nissan 370Z.
 
—Jake Fisher

Test complete: Nissan Cube

The Cube is a funky-looking box on wheels with a youthful appeal as noted with Nissan’s marketing tag line of “mobile device.” The car is a fun runabout with a variety of personalization options such as colorful interior lighting, shag dash topper (which has no practical function), interior hooks and pouches, and custom exterior accents. But, don’t judge a book solely by its cover.
 
The Cube is practical with a great deal of space, easy access, and good fuel economy, returning 28 mpg overall. However, handling is lackluster, acceleration slow, braking longish, and exterior noise pronounced. While the interior has some whimsical aspects, the fit and finish is cheap. Antilock brakes, stability control and six air bags come standard.
 
The Cube is similar in theme and price to other small boxy wagons, such as the Kia Soul and Scion xB, but trails them both in our tests. However, with a starting price just below $14,000, impressive space, good fuel economy, and standard safety features, this car has distinct appeal.
 
Learn more about the Cube in our model overview where you will find our full road test, specs, pricing, safety data, and more.

—Liza Barth

Test complete: Volvo XC60

Times sure have changed from my days of Volvo ownership. I had two old-school, mega-mile Volvos: a 1984 240GL sedan and a 1987 740 turbo wagon. Volvo built these models essentially unchanged for decades. These were introduced back in the days when Volvo’s image was built on two pillars: the turbos were fast, and--their biggest claim to fame--if you had to crash, you wanted to crash in a Volvo.

But what happens now that the much of the competition advertises 5-star crash test ratings or “Top Safety Pick” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety status? Beyond air bags and stability control, the next frontier in automotive safety is electronic aids that try and improve--or sometimes work around--the biggest variable in the system: the driver. Indeed, our XC60 has piles of electronics to improve safety, partially contributing to Volvo calling it their safest car yet.

But once you strip away all of the electronics, and get beyond considering how the car crashes, what remains is this: how good is the car? That’s been something of a problem for Volvo, since while their cars are mostly solid mid-pack performers, they haven’t really stood out.

The XC60 continues this tradition. It’s certainly not devoid of charms: the interior is very well finished, the turbocharged inline-six pulls well, and the XC60 is a handy size. But it still has Volvo’s typical stiff ride, and handling isn’t sporting. Despite Volvo’s reputation for creating great seats, these leather seats are too slippery, causing fidgeting.

Like a lot of other upscale compact SUVs, the Volvo ultimately gets squeezed from both directions. The larger three-row Acura MDX drives better and costs about the same if you skip all of the electronic doo-dads. From the bottom, loaded versions of the Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester Turbo have similar space and pace yet cost much less. (But they won’t beep and flash a light at you if you’re tailgating someone.)

Learn more about the Volvo XC60, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers). 

Also, see our related blogs:
Driving the Volvo XC60 with City Safety
From the logbook: 2010 Volvo XC60 
How I learned to stop worrying and like distance-sensing cruise control

—Tom Mutchler

Test complete: Audi Q5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Jon Linkov

Test complete: 2010 Mercedes-Benz GLK350

Based on the C-Class sedan, we had high hopes for the Mercedes-Benz GLK. Mercedes sedans have a well-earned reputation for delivering an excellent, composed ride and agile handling. With the standard 3.5-liter V6 and seven-speed transmission, it appeared on the scene as a promising new competitor in the ever-growing luxury small SUV class.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t achieve its potential. The steering isn’t very responsive and the ride suffers from too much side-to-side rocking at low speeds. A cramped rear seat with narrow door openings and a wide expanse of a doorsill compromises utility. The refined powertrain does provide plenty of motivation, but the 18 mpg overall on premium fuel is less than you would get in a much roomier and better mannered Lexus RX350.

Overall, much like some others in this class - it’s difficult to find many reasons to pay the $41,760 sticker in our test car over a loaded Toyota RAV4 V6 or a turbocharged Subaru Forester. Both can be equipped with leather, offer comfortable rides, are more agile to drive, and cost around $10,000 less. Then again, they don’t have the coveted Mercedes Tri-star logo, nor distinctive Lego-block styling and golf-club cachet.

Learn more about the Mercedes-Benz GLK350, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers).

—Liza Barth and Jake Fisher

Test complete: 2010 Ford Fusion

As reported in the September magazine, the freshened Ford Fusion is now the top domestic family sedan in Consumer Reports ratings. We tested three versions—the four-cylinder hybrid with CVT ($32,360), four-cylinder SE ($22,145), and SEL V6 ($28,400) models. While we are space constrained in print, we have full reports on each variant at ConsumerReports.org.

Overall, the staff was quite impressed with these practical, refined machines. Through our testing, we found that the 2010 models are much improved over the previous version with less road noise and a tighter turning circle. The ride is firm and controlled with responsive handling.

Essentially tied with the Toyota Camry Hybrid, the Fusion Hybrid offers sportier driving and matched the Camry's 34 mpg overall in our testing. It can also drive up to 47 mph on electric power alone.

Interior space on all Fusions is generous and comfortable, but the hybrid model sacrifices the folding rear seats and has a smaller trunk.

Crash-test results and reliability are both impressive, and stability control is now standard.

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

Also see: Ford Fusion: The best car you don’t know about

—Liza Barth

Test complete: 2009 Kia Optima

Sensible and well-rounded, the 2009 Kia Optima ranks among the better family sedans. We tested both the 2.4-liter four-cylinder LX model and 2.7-liter V6 EX with individual reports on each variant now available on the model overview at ConsumerReports.org. Prices as tested were $20,365 for the LX and $24,640 for the EX.

Admittedly, the Optima is not very exciting to drive, but it's roomy, rides well, and handles securely. Fit and finish is very good and the rear seat is very accommodating. Standard equipment includes ABS, side-curtain air bags, and stability control.

In our testing, the four-cylinder powertrain got a commendable 25 mpg overall. The six-cylinder returned 22 mpg overall. Since the underwhelming six-cylinder offers little more power than the four-cylinder, yet significantly drops fuel economy, we suggest sticking with the cheaper four.

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

—Liza Barth

Test complete: Mazda 3 sedan and hatchback

The Mazda3 has been one of our top-scoring small cars for several years, distinguished by agile handling and a high-quality, well-laid-out interior. The freshened 2010 model brought modest changes, including transmission upgrades and a new 168-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine for higher-level models. The 2.0-liter got an optional five-speed automatic and the 2.5-liter now has either the five-speed automatic or a six-speed manual. Stability control is standard on all but the lowest two trim lines of the sedan.

We tested three Mazda3s: a pair of 2.0-liter Touring sedans—an automatic and a manual—and a Sport hatchback with its standard 2.5-liter. Prices ranged from $18,170 for the stick-shift sedan to $20,700 for the Sport hatchback.

While the Mazda3 rated well, it doesn’t quite take the top spot. The Hyundai Elantra is quieter; the Toyota Corolla gets better fuel economy; and most small cars these days have more room for rear-seat passengers.

Where the Mazda3 stands out from the pack is how it feels to drive. The 3 is almost like a good sports car, especially when equipped with one of the slick-shifting manuals. In fact, it’s vastly more fun to drive than some traditional “sporty cars” like the Scion tC or the Mitsubishi Eclipse. 

Learn more about the Mazda3 line, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers).

—Jake Fisher