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 though, 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.

$2.99 gas from Chrysler—Deal or no deal?

Americans are feeling pain at the pump, with gas prices continuing to soar. To adjust to the challenges posed by the rising cost of living, consumers are putting off vehicle purchases or buying smaller cars instead of more profitable trucks and SUVs. As a result, automakers are experiencing decreased sales and profits.

One of the biggest losers: Chrysler. The company is trying to rebound from a disappointing April (sales were 23-percent below the same period last year) with its own economic stimulus plan: fixed-rate gasoline for new-car buyers. But is this really a good deal for the consumer?

Chrysler is not the first to use gasoline as an incentive, and it isn't the last, as Suzuki has stepped up to offer free gas for the summer along with zero-percent financing. Discounted or even free gas speaks to consumers' hearts and purse strings. On the surface, it may seem a pretty good deal, considering the national average is $3.61/gallon. But some Chrysler vehicles don't excel at fuel economy; Chrysler doesn't currently even offer a small hybrid or an efficient subcompact car in their fleet.

For now, let's forget about the environmental or energy independence concerns of burning more fuel. Given that (generous) assumption, is $2.99 gas enough to make up for Chrysler’s lackluster fleet fuel economy when it comes to ownership costs? As you might guess, it depends on how long you keep the vehicle:

The first three years
Given current gasoline prices of $3.61, you would need to buy a car with 21 percent better fuel economy than a Chrysler product to have equal fuel costs during the three years of discounted gas. That’s a big difference, but here are some examples (all fuel economy figures are from CR's tests, and are "overall"—mixture of city and highway driving—mpg):

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over three years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Durango 5.7L, 4WD (13 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg) or Honda Pilot AWD (17 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Honda Fit (32 mpg)
Dodge Nitro SLT AWD (16 mpg)	Honda CR-V AWD (21 mpg) or Toyota RAV4 4-cyl., AWD (23 mpg)

Six years
But let’s say that you keep a car longer than three years. After that time’s up (whether you’ve consumed your allotted quota of discounted gas or not), you go back to paying the same fuel prices as everyone else. Here the difference lessens: you would need to buy a car with about 9.5 percent better fuel economy than the Chrysler product to equal things out.

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over six years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Charger 3.5L V6 (19 mpg)	Toyota Avalon (22 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Nissan Versa (28 mpg)
Chrysler Pacifica AWD (16 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg)
Dodge Caravan 3.8L V6 (16 mpg)	Toyota Sienna (19 mpg) Honda Odyssey (19 mpg)

Ten years
The difference grows to be less and less—you only need to get a vehicle that gets about 5.5 percent better fuel economy.

Of course, these percentages will differ if gas prices keep on climbing. But after the three years of cheap gas are up, you could wind up having to pay to fill up a 13 mpg Dodge Durango or 16 mpg Dodge Nitro—and you'll then be paying just what everyone else is shelling out.

Beyond that, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances:

Chrysler restricts the number of gallons of gas covered by the deal to what they expect you to consume in 12,000 miles. (That’s the average annual number of miles driven in the U.S.) To do that, they use an average mpg figure for each model. That combines all of the model versions available: big engines and small engines, two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive.

If you combine that calculation method with the disparity between CR's fuel economy testing vs. the revised 2008 EPA overall estimates, you might not get all of your fuel covered:

Vehicle

CR overall fuel economy

Using CR overall, gallons used in 36,000 miles

Average MPG calculated by Chrysler

Gallons of fuel Chrysler will discount

Is annual fuel use covered?

Chrysler Sebring Touring (4-cyl.)	23	1,565	21	1,714	Yes
Dodge Charger (3.5L V6)	19	1,895	18	2,000	Yes
Dodge Caliber SXT (2.0L, FWD)	24	1,500	24	1,500	Yes
Dodge Nitro SLT (AWD)	16	2,250	18	2,000	No
Jeep Patriot AWD (2.4L 4-cyl.)	20	1,800	23	1,565	No
Dodge Durango 4WD (5.7L V8)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Chrysler Pacifica AWD	16	2,250	17	2,118	No
Dodge Ram 2500 (6.7L turbodiesel)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Dodge Grand Caravan (3.8L V6)	16	2,250	19	1,895	No

On the other hand, if you buy the more efficient version in a model lineup (say a four-cylinder Chrysler Sebring, when the average was calculated including V6 Sebrings), you can get more quota of free gas than you'd consume. (You can use that extra on another car that you own, assuming it takes the same fuel type.) Same goes if you drive more highway miles, where fuel economy is better. The gas deal reduces the amount of the cash-back incentives. Often the savings calculated above can make up for the difference in the incentives, but sometimes it doesn't—particularly for vehicles with big initial incentives.

Change in incentives

Cash-back without gas plan

Cash back with gas plan

Loss in incentive

Gallons of discount fuel

Fuel savings

At $3.61, do fuel savings exceed incentive loss?

Chrysler Sebring Touring	$500	0	$500	1,714	$1,083	Yes
Dodge Charger	2,000	$500	1,500	2,000	1,240	No
Dodge Caliber	750	0	750	1,500	930	Yes
Dodge Nitro	1,250	0	1,250	2,000	1,240	No
Jeep Patriot	500	0	500	1,565	970	Yes
Dodge Durango	2,500	1,000	1,500	2,400	1,488	No
Chrysler Pacifica	2,500	500	2,000	2,118	1,313	No
Dodge Ram 2500 diesel	4,500	2,000	2,500	2,400	2,784 @ $4.15 diesel	Yes
Dodge Grand Caravan	2,500	500	2,000	1,895	1,175	No

Keep in mind that cash-back is money instantly off of the price of the car. It reduces the loan price, thus reducing interest payments. Plus you know you’re getting the money—you don’t have to make sure you fit the rules of the discount gas deal.

On the other hand, the gas deal requires you to pay for gas with your credit card. That's no problem if you pay off your balance each month, but otherwise you’ll be paying interest on your purchases, eating into the savings. Same goes for if you would have paid cash for fuel rather than charging it as required by the deal.

One somewhat esoteric buyer category who can really benefit from this plan—someone buying a diesel heavy-duty pickup truck. Given that diesel prices are averaging $4.15 per gallon, fixing the price at the same $2.99 as gasoline is a big difference. And the Dodge Ram 2500 diesel we tested gets the same 13 mpg fuel economy as a Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra heavy-duty diesel. (Then again, the 2009 Ram truck is redesigned with notable improvements over the 2008, so you might want to wait anyway.) A diesel Grand Cherokee would also benefit, but the Dodge Sprinter van isn't included in the program.

Yes, you may save some money on gas, at least in the short term. But our owner cost data shows that, even with growing fuel costs, depreciation remains the biggest chunk of vehicle ownership costs. The competitors' vehicles listed in the chart have lower depreciation than their Chrysler counterparts, saving thousands over the life of the car and erasing the savings from the cheap gas deal. Also consider that, in general, vehicles sold with hefty discounts see more rapid depreciation than those that sell for closer to retail price. After all, it has essentially depreciated BEFORE you drove it off the lot, and it will continue to drop in value soon as it leaves the dealership. A model with better fuel economy (not to mention test scores and reliability) will likely hold its value better and be cheaper to refuel, possibly negating the benefit of the gas card.

Finally, you do more with a car than put gas in it—you drive it. You want it to be comfortable and perform well. Most of the Chrysler products listed (except the now-discontinued Pacifica) score near the bottom of our Ratings, while the competing cars listed score near the top.

It's interesting that in the same week that Chrysler announced this plan, Ford announced the widespread use of six-speed automatic transmissions to improve fuel economy. Most car companies, including Chrysler, are moving to technologies like this to improve efficiency.

Of course, Chrysler has to move its current inventory now. Discount gas is a way to promote their cars. But that doesn't mean you should be swayed by cheap(er) gas to buy a vehicle that gets so-so fuel economy, loses a lot of resale, or doesn't perform well in our Ratings. As with any car purchase, it pays to do your homework, looking at the complete purchase and ownership picture, and not be swayed by advertising.

—Tom Mutchler

For tips on saving gasoline and alternative fuels, see our fuel economy guide. 

From the logbook: Nissan Murano

The last-generation Nissan Murano was a staff favorite here at the track. Many of us, having no real need for competitors with a third-row seat or big towing capacity numbers, listed it in multiple SUV Personal Picks. Indeed, we mentioned it so often that some of our editors thought we, ah, were mentioning the Murano a little too much. [‘Tis true-Ed.]

But there’s a redesigned Murano now. Based on the Altima sedan, the 2009 Murano moves to the updated Altima platform, a car that now tops our family sedan ratings. The old Murano had a lot going for it, especially its sporty driving dynamics. However, fit and finish wasn’t a strong point (although it got better in a 2005 update) and the swoopy styling compromised visibility.

You’ll have to look close to notice that the Murano is new. Other than a very prominent, very chromed grille, styling didn’t veer far from that of the popular first generation. Let’s flip through the logbook to see what our first impressions are on this new model:

"Instead of building a budget BMW X5 (like the last Murano), Nissan built a budget Lexus RX."

"Engine is punchy and refined. CVT is one of the best—unobtrusive and never needs to rev the engine too much and for too long."

"Seems to have lost a bit of charm from earlier models."

"White-on-silver gauges are not a recipe for easy legibility. Can’t possibly see or read climate control AUTO labeling or indicator – probably seemed fine on the blueprints, but not in the car."

"Two separate levers for steering wheel (tilt and telescope) adjustment is a pain."

"The new Murano is fully equipped and nicely finished—so much so that it should have been an Infiniti."

"Visibility has gotten even worse —thicker pillars, tiny rear window, miserable ¾ sloping side window."

"Power (rear) hatch is slow; I prefer manual override."

"Lost some of the sporty edge from last model."

"Very comfortable and relatively quiet on the highway. Especially with the satellite radio, this car makes for good road trips."

"Very wide A-pillars hurt visibility."

“Seat cushions are flat and not much support on the side – also short cushions."

"Good handling, but you feel its size."

"Nice car and good follow-up to last Murano. Interior design is much less caustic."

At first glance, almost everyone agrees that the inside of the Murano is a much more attractive place to be and visibility remains a problem. But the jury is still out on whether the Murano is as enjoyable to drive or as comfortable as the last version.

So, will the Murano again be a frequent visitor in our Personal Picks, or have newer SUVs usurped its place in our affections? We’ll see how the Murano does against other upscale five-passenger SUVs, including its corporate-mate, the Infiniti EX35, and Volkswagen’s updated Touareg in a future test.

—Tom Mutchler

The danger of blind zones continues

Despite all the windows and mirrors, you can’t see everything around your car. Every vehicle has a blind zone immediately behind the rear bumper. It can be five feet, or 50 feet, depending on the car’s styling. In that space might lurk a toy, pet, or even a child.

Within a vehicle class, the size of this blind zone can vary widely. We measure the blind zone behind our test vehicles and have recently updated that information on our Web site.  

In general, pickups and larger SUVs have longer rear blind zones than sedans. That’s not to say that all sedans are created equal; while a high rear deck improves aerodynamics and luggage space, it adds to the blind zone.

Rear cameras are a powerful tool that allow you to see into that otherwise-hidden area behind the car. Happily, cameras are becoming available on more and more vehicles. Some now don’t require buying a lot of options (like a navigation system, which would provide a screen) to get them. Aftermarket cameras are also available and their cost and ease-of-installation has been improving. Even a small screen, like one in the rearview mirror (found in the aftermarket and on some new Mazdas, Fords, and Hondas), can alert you to unseen hazards.

Regardless of the vehicle you’re driving, here are some tips to help improve rear vision:

—Remember that when we conduct this testing, it’s in a “best case” situation. It’s daytime. It’s not raining or snowing. We know there is an obstacle there—no surprises. We’re not in a hurry, running late for work or an appointment. We look around vehicle impediments, like rear wipers or high-mounted brake lights. In other words: in the real world, you need to take the time to look carefully behind you and use the most of the view you’re given.

That goes for rear-view cameras, as well. Even if you purchase the technology (which we recommend you do), you still need to make sure that you check that screen before you start backing up. Every time. No exceptions.

If you have a camera, you shouldn’t stare at the screen when backing up. Check the screen, but then go to scanning the area behind the car as you reverse. Remember that hazards can move behind the car, changing the situation from when you began.

—An asset in improving rear visibility: a height-adjustable driver’s seat. Our “short” 5’1” tester finds that being able to raise the seat (while retaining a comfortable driving position) improves visibility.

—If you have a SUV or minivan with three rows of seats, consider lowering the rear row if you have no one sitting there. We’ve found that putting that third row up often blocks at least a portion of the rear window. (In the Jeep Commander, it nearly blocks the entire window.)

—The same goes for rear head restraints in any type of vehicle. If no one is sitting back there, lower the head restraints fully. 

Finally, rear blind zones aren’t the entire picture when it comes to visibility problems. A back-up camera works well when reversing, but what about the rest of the time you’re driving? Styling trends promoting small rear windows and thick roof pillars cause big blind zones that make it tough when passing or changing lanes or maneuvering in the city or parking lots. This is an increasing trend that we note in our vehicle reviews. Frankly, it’s a trend we’d like to see reversed.

—Tom Mutchler

Also read:
Best and worst rear blind zones
Scion xB's visibility
Blind eye to visibility, blame it on the Murano

Toyota Sienna buying challenges - take a seat

My parents were in the market for a new minivan to replace their aging Nissan Maxima. One of the models they were considering was a Toyota Sienna. After going through the details on the company Web site, it looked like a Sienna XLE would be perfect. You could add leather, a sunroof, and—according to the Toyota Web site—a memory driver's seat.

That memory seat is important to my parents; my mom is a foot shorter than my dad, and they love having the feature on their 1999 Chrysler Town and Country Limited. Configuring the Sienna in this way works out to be considerably cheaper than buying a $36,000 Sienna Limited. Honda forces you into a $40,000 Odyssey Touring to get the memory seat, and Chrysler requires a Town and Country Limited that stickers at $37,000 (with a sunroof to equal the configuration).

Then it came time to buy the Sienna. On its Web site, Toyota says the Sienna is available with a "Convenience Package," which includes the memory seats. Various online price guides and a bimonthly pricing reference book that we have in the office list an option package "SR" with that feature. So, add the value package #1 (which gets you leather) and either one of these packages, and we're in business. 

Not so fast. Go to the Toyota "build your own" section of the Web site and you find that the configurations available match those limited configurations ordered and stocked by your local Toyota distribution network. None of those configurations had the memory seat package, and most had a DVD player—something my parents didn't want.

Toyota's Web site isn't lacking disclaimers about this. At the bottom of the detailed options page is this basically-ignore-everything-you'll-read-above-about-the-options note:

"Toyota strives to build vehicles to match customer interest and thus they typically are built with popular options and option packages. Not all options/packages are available separately and some may not be available in all regions of the country. If you would prefer a vehicle with no or different options, contact your dealer to check for current availability or the possibility of placing a special order."

So we did what the disclaimer said: we contacted dealers to check on the "possibility of placing a special order." The folks contacted their local dealers while I tried mine.

One dealer told my parents that it was "no problem" and they'd have the van in a few weeks. Another dealer said, "You'll wait eight months to get that van." I had a very helpful salesman at a third dealer search through all of the Sienna XLE's available. He found none with the desired package, a sign to him (confirmed by the sales manager) that it wasn't likely we'd get one. A fourth dealer told me they "could order almost anything Toyota sells," asked for some time to confirm, and then didn't get back to me.

After a week of this, my dad was livid, basically swearing off Toyota. It doesn't really matter that, with incentives, a Sienna Limited works out to be the cheapest way to get a minivan with that memory seat. On the flip side, the dealer who sold him his Chrysler was willing—and able—to special order him a Chrysler with any available option. No hassle, no calling four dealers.

A brief search on Siennaclub.com confirmed that my parents aren't alone in their frustration. Funny thing is, Toyota knows they have a problem. Jim Lentz, the president of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., in the February 18th issue of Automotive News addressed the discrepancy between various parts of Toyota's Web site: "We create different names for the same thing."

He admitted that Toyota is as guilty as other automakers of stressing out consumers, according to the Automotive News article.

Thing is, Honda doesn't stress out Odyssey buyers; you either buy the trim level that has what you want, or you don't. Chrysler doesn't stress them out either; once you select a trim level, you can pick and choose the options you want.

We'll probably see a redesigned Sienna for 2009, I just hope it includes a redesign of the options structure. In the end, my parents didn't buy anything—the Maxima is still chugging along.

—Tom Mutchler

Discuss Toyota in the Cars forums.

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.

Workplace incentives for fuel-efficient cars

Reading The Wall Street Journal over breakfast a while back, I noticed an interesting article titled "Workers Get Incentives to Live Greener" that mentioned employers who give workers financial reasons to buy fuel-efficient cars. Clif Bar, makers of energy bars, give forgivable loans if you buy a car that gets at least 40 mpg. NRG Systems, who makes wind-measurement equipment, gives a $1,000 bonus to employees who buy a Toyota Prius. And, although it wasn’t mentioned in this article, Google gives $5,000 to workers who buy a car that achieves 45 mpg. (Hybridcars.com has a list of employers who offer such fuel economy and hybrid incentives.)

Another company that offers incentives is Topics Entertainment, a Washington software publisher. Their incentive program is considerably wider-ranging. To get those above incentives, based on what’s on the market today, you’re essentially limited to buying a new Toyota Prius. Not bad, but not for everyone.

Topics’ program covers other ways to improve fuel economy. Employees get $1,000 to trade in their current car for a new one with a smaller engine and additional money for going from a V8 to a four cylinder or buying a hybrid. That gives employees a wider range of vehicles from which to choose.

For the most part, this is a great idea. You don’t need to go all the way from a Suburban, Expedition, or Land Cruiser to a Prius to get considerable fuel economy improvements. For example, trading in a Jeep Commander for a Saturn Outlook would save 3 mpg (13 vs. 16 mpg, overall, in our tests).

As a general rule of thumb, an engine with a lower displacement or fewer cylinders typically consumes less fuel, thus creating less carbon dioxide emissions than a bigger engine with more cylinders. (This is discussed in my earlier blog "You coulda had a V8... but who needs it?' Indeed, some European nations have taxes based on vehicle engine displacement.

But there are some exceptions to the rule:

If you trade this...

For this...

…you can save this many mpg (based on CR's overall fuel economy)

2000 Subaru Outback (2.5-liter, four-cylinder)	2008 Toyota RAV4 V6 (3.5-liter, six-cylinder)	2 mpg (20 vs. 22)
2004 Volvo S60 2.5T (2.5-liter turbo, five-cylinder)	2006 BMW 328i (3.0-liter, six-cylinder)	2 mpg (22 vs. 24)
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt LS (2.2-liter, four-cylinder)	2008 Volkswagen Jetta (2.5-liter, five-cylinder)	1 mpg (23 vs. 24)
2007 Mazda CX-7 (2.3-liter turbo, four-cylinder)	2008 BMW X3 3.0i (3.0-liter, six-cylinder)	1 mpg (18 vs. 19)
2006 Hummer H3 (3.5-liter, five-cylinder)	2008 Volvo XC90 V8 (4.6-liter, eight-cylinder)	2 mpg (14 vs. 16)
2004 Mazda RX-8 (1.3-liter rotary, zero cylinders)	2008 Ford Mustang GT V8 (4.6-liter, eight-cylinder)	2 mpg (18 vs. 20)

Why do some of these disparities exist?

A manufacturer can improve fuel economy in the same engine with continued development. A new Subaru Outback 2.5i, for example, gets 1 mpg better than the 2000 Outback did on our tests.

Typically, the more gears in the automatic transmission, the better the mileage. Cars like the Outback, Cobalt, and H3 only have four-speed automatics.

Small engines pulling heavy vehicles (H3 and CX-7) can struggle, reducing fuel economy.

Rotary engines (RX-8) are very compact, building impressive horsepower per liter, but they aren’t particularly fuel efficient or low in emissions.

To sum up, if you want to improve fuel economy, you usually can’t go wrong by buying a car with a smaller engine. But take a quick look at the fuel economy numbers to make sure.

—Tom Mutchler

Visit our fuel economy hub, and see our list of best cars for fuel economy.

Lifting the hood on the Saturn Astra

Forbidden fruit - that's how some enthusiasts regard many models sold overseas that never make it to these shores. Alluring cars like Ford's second-generation Focus, Mondeo, and S-Max; the Honda Accord Tourer (wagon); and various high-performance Alfa Romeos, Opels, Peugeots, and Renaults are out of reach to the American car buyer.

The Saturn Astra represents something of a victory for the huddled masses yearning for these cars. The Astra is European through-and-through. Developed in Europe and built in Belgium, our Astra is almost identical (including suspension tuning) to the Opel/Vauxhall Astra that is one of Europe's top-selling cars. (The next Aura is also rumored to be a lightly altered Opel Vectra.)  Another victory worth celebrating: it replaces the highly undesirable Ion as Saturn's entry-level car.

But the story of the Astra highlights some of the problems of transforming a design intended for one marketplace into a global one. Since the Astra wasn't originally intended to be sold here, the decision to sell it in America reportedly came pretty late in its product life-cycle. GM made the modifications necessary to sell the Astra here in only 13 months, an impressive feat. But to do that quickly without investing a lot of money in the existing platform required some compromises:

—GM engineers picked the Astra's only existing gas engine - a 1.8-liter version of their Ecotec four-cylinder -- with an available automatic transmission. (Remember: Europeans aren't too keen on automatics.) That leaves Americans with 138 horsepower, and a choice of five-speed manual or four-speed (rather than five or six-speed) automatic. Most other competitors here have a lot more power. There are very tempting high-performance Astras in Europe, but we won't see them this time.

—Rather than using GM's very simple-to-use "Black Tie" corporate radio (the one that made even Saab dashboards simple), the Astra retains its complicated European radio. It's a mess to use. Furthermore, the only available connection in the back was used for OnStar. Big deal, you say? Well, that means that there is no auxiliary input or satellite radio, features almost every other GM car has. Worse, those are features that the Astra's target demographic will likely demand. (We've been told that the engineers are reconsidering.)

—The Astra picks up the three- and five-door hatchback body styles that the freshened-for-2008 Ford Focus dropped. Most of us at CR love hatchbacks because they add practicality without bulk. But most car buyers in this market don't share this view, considering hatchbacks to be downmarket. The Astra has a wide range of body styles in Europe, including a sedan, wagon, the Zafira microvan, and a nifty hardtop convertible - but we will not see such diversity in this generation.

—With the shrinking dollar and unfavorable exchange rates, the Astra is a rather expensive car to build overseas and import here. While Europe is more accustomed to paying a premium for well-equipped small cars, Americans see most small cars as entry-level transportation. So, in order to move any Astras here, they have to be priced to sell.

This creates a delicate balance. Consider that our Astra XE with a sunroof, automatic, heated seats, and stability control, just topped $20k—with no alloy wheels. (And you can't haggle at Saturn dealers— although incentives are sometimes available.) That money buys a Volkswagen Rabbit (the American version of the Golf, the Astra's main sales rival in Europe) with 170-hp.

On the flip side, while the Astra seems quite fully-priced here, buying a (mostly) equivalent Vauxhall Astra in England would run you 17,165 pounds (before lots of taxes). Basically double that to get the price in dollars. (It is about $32k in Germany.) Some of us have joked that you could run a lucrative business buying Saturn Astras and shipping them back to Europe for sale.

This pricing disparity has lead Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman and head of product development, to quip that "We are considering applying for non-profit status." Later remarks from Lutz in Automotive News spun it a different way. They note that importing the Astra saved GM $900 million in developing a new platform. Of course, a new platform would have a much longer shelf life than the two or three years the Astra will be sold here—and GM is in the midst of developing a new global small-car platform, anyway.

Our first impressions are that the Astra has an impressive ride/handling balance, firm supportive seats, and some rather annoying controls. So, is the Astra a case of "be happy you got what you asked for," or will it leave buyers wondering what might have been? We'll see when we test it against the Rabbit, Subaru Impreza Outback Sport, and Toyota Matrix in a future issue.

—Tom Mutchler

Discuss Saturn in the Cars forum.

Is the best-selling car the best car?

As expected, we received quite a few comments about our domestic-brand-only American Top Picks 2008 blog. Reading through the oft-feisty responses, I noted that two readers questioned why the Ford F-150 didn't make the cut—or even get mentioned—in the pickup truck category. One wrote:

Not only is it the best-selling full-sized truck for over 30 years...but when was it listed as the truck pick for a model year by CR? Not only does it outsell every truck in the U.S. but every CAR as well! Shouldn't it receive at least honorable mention every year? ...Why does that work for Camry every year and not the F-150?

Since the issue of vehicle sales vs. the ranking of a vehicle in CR's Ratings comes up on occasion, let's take a look.

No doubt, the F-150 has been the top-selling single vehicle nameplate for many years. Even with the recent drop in truck sales, Ford sold over 700,000 F-150s in 2007. Sales figures make great ad copy or fodder for Internet forum discussions. After all, people love to cheer (or boo) for a winner, and sales numbers set up clear winners and losers. But does that matter to the owner?

Topping the sales charts doesn't mean that a vehicle tops its class. After Ford redesigned the F-150 back in 2004, Toyota and GM completely redesigned their trucks and Dodge made substantial improvements to their Ram. As a result, in our last pickup truck test, the Tundra and Silverado handily outscored the F-150. The F-150's engine was strained; the seats uncomfortable; and stability control (a requirement for being a Top Pick) is unavailable. (A 2009 freshening aims to address these complaints.) The F-150 has been a Top Pick in pickups - but that was back in 1999. (See our video reviews of the current full-sized pickup trucks.)

Let's look at the car side of the market. For the last several years, the Toyota Camry has outsold all cars, selling about 470,000 cars a year. But despite what many people think, the Camry hasn't been a CR Top Pick since the 2000 V6 model. (That said, the Camry scores much closer to the top of the family sedan heap than the F-150 does in the pickup segment.) Sometimes the figures and our rankings line up; the Honda CR-V is the top-selling small SUV for 2007, and it ranks very close to the top of our ratings for four-cylinder SUVs.

It would be naive of us to think that all consumers bought products solely based on how they score in our tests. For example, we don't factor styling in to our scoring. The Ford Five Hundred (now Taurus) is a better all-around car than the Chrysler 300, but while one of them is flashy enough to star in rap videos, the other is more likely to be featured in insurance company ads with its badges removed as the amorphous Generic Car.

Brand image also plays a role in some buyer's minds. Sometimes when we're asked for buying advice (an occupational hazard), sometimes our more affordable suggestions are shunned for the sake of status. (Never mind what happens when we suggest buying a minivan or station wagon.)

There's more to it than that though. Typically domestic brands have many more dealers and are represented in more rural areas, easing sales and service for some buyers. Massive spending on commercials gets those vehicles into the public eye. Car companies have resorted to putting heavy end-of-year incentives on cars to "win" a sales race for bragging rights. Some companies spin their accounting, like Toyota's counting the Matrix in Corolla sales and including the Solara in Camry sales. And car companies can dump excess inventory into rental or other fleets to count as sales.

Motivation to sell a lot of cars runs deep in the industry. There is overhead—plants and labor—that is better utilized when kept busy. Selling more cars can translate into economy of scale of production, ideally increasing profits (unless you have to plunk heavy incentives on the cars to move them out of inventory.) While it might be hard to find parts for an esoteric car down the road, most mass-production cars sell in enough volume and have enough factory support to make this a non-issue.

But when it comes to spending your money, none of these issues has anything to do with how good a car is to drive, how it helps prevent (or protect you in) an accident, or how reliable the car is to own. As American Idol's Simon Cowell would say, this is a talent competition, not a popularity contest - and we're scoring cars based on talent.

See our true list of overall Top Picks for 2008. Watch the Top Picks videos.
Also, read "Who makes the best cars?"

—Tom Mutchler

Help us Honda - Having a fit over the lack of TSX appeal

It was tough to sit through the two Honda press conferences today. Both the redesigned Acura TSX and the Honda Fit have been stars on the Internet for seemingly months now. The Fit was introduced in Japan last fall where it is Honda's top-selling model. And various TSX pictures and the press release have been rattling around online for a while now.

So the introductions here have been awkward. With very little adieu, out rolled each car. Loud music was playing...and kept playing...and just when you thought it was done, played some more. It was as if Honda was trying to build excitement in the press corps that never quite happened.

Further, the Honda executive doing the presentation jumped directly from reinforcing that Honda is an engineering driven company to announcing that Acura was the preferred vehicle of the W hotel chain. Even engineering-driven companies wind up with marketing relationships with boutique hotel chains, I guess.

It's a bit of a shame that the TSX and Fit were received with a collective yawn here. The Fit has some solid improvements—available ESC, driving position improvements, easier folding back seats. And the very, very reliable TSX outsold Acura's initial forecasts, providing nimble handling if not a ton of power. (The new car is slightly bigger but doesn't appear to deviate far from that recipe.)

Maybe the general ennui was caused by the TSX and Fit looking an awful lot like the cars they replaced. That makes sense for the distinctive Fit, but the TSX looks like a lot of other cars melted together, namely the Euro-Accord with the latest Acura grille.

As I wrote about Hyundai, I'm all for Honda's making solid practical improvements in redesigned cars. What else would you expect from a manufacturer that bills itself as an engineering-based company? And with a Honda Odyssey in my driveway, I'm pretty far from advocating making buying decisions based on styling alone. But in a world of sleek-looking Hyundai coupes, and a redesigned Nissan Maxima and Infiniti FX that have distinctive (if controversial) front ends, I wonder what Honda loses in sales by playing it safe.

—Tom Mutchler

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Hyundai's Genesis candor

During the Detroit auto show in January, I wrote that it was unusual for Hyundai to note in their press conference that their Genesis luxury sedan used a timing chain instead of a belt. Mentioning maintenance issues during the introduction of a up-to-$40,000 luxury  sedan seemed like a disconnect - never mind that car companies just don't mention mundane things like that during the flash and glitz of a car show press conference.

Following form, Hyundai did it again during the introduction of the Genesis coupe. It wasn't all practical drudgery; Hyundai put on quite a show for journalists, doing handbrake turns and sliding the coupes around inside the exhibit hall. (It took a long, long, time for all of the smoke from the pyrotechnics to dissipate, clouding the presenters as they introduced the car.)

But while most car companies barely mention anything about the car during the press conference, Hyundai made sure to mention practicalities while introducing their coupe. The reasons for the unusual-looking "dropped" rear window: better view out for rear seat passengers and a smaller blind spot for the driver.

Hyundai also mentioned horsepower figures using both regular and premium fuel during the press conference, which makes sense since many owners (especially value-oriented buyers) want to avoid paying the premium for premium. This is a lot of detail for a car that won't be on sale before the first quarter of 2009, and certainly more info than Honda gave us on the Fit that will be on sale months earlier.

Funny thing is, coupes are far from practical cars. Hyundai is touting the Genesis coupe as the least expensive rear-wheel-drive coupe with independent suspension with over 300 horsepower on the market. It's obvious that the main selling points of this car will be sleek styling (with some Jaguar XK influence in the rear quarters), plenty of power, and an aggressive price.

Still, amid all of the flash, loud music, and hype, it's good to hear that a company remembers that real people with real budgets and real needs (like visibility) will be buying their cars.

—Tom Mutchler

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Video review - 2008 Volvo XC70

We recently completed the full road test of the 2008 Volvo XC70, the latest in a well established lineage of Volvo wagons. This model was tested outside a traditional magazine group, allowing us to provide our expert insights on the XC70 now without waiting to circle the luxury wagons.

The XC70 is now based on the new S80, which results in a longer car and brings the very latest in Volvo's arsenal of safety gear. We bought a typically equipped XC70 for $42,560. While the all-wheel-drive XC70 has a raised ride height and some SUV styling details, it is essentially the same car as the V70 wagon. We found the size and versatility of this wagon appealing and refreshing in a sea of SUVs. A quieter, better finished interior, a ride that's less stiff and more responsive handling than the previous model are welcome. The driving experience, engine performance and fuel economy aren't all that exciting, especially considering the price.

Watch the video to the right, hosted by Senior Automotive Engineer Tom Mutchler.

For the full road test, performance data, and pricing on the Volvo XC70 and any other model we have tested, visit the model overview pages from the pull-down search tools or Ratings charts in the Cars section of ConsumerReports.org. To see other car review videos, visit our video hub.

American Top Picks 2008

It’s time again for the annual American Top Picks list. While we don’t consider country of origin as a factor in our Ratings for our primary Top Picks list, the piles of mail (snail and e-mail) we get leave us no doubt that many people factor “buying American” into their decision. So, for those folks, this list looks at what domestic-branded cars are the best choices out there.

It would be a relatively simple matter to compile this list if Top Picks were merely the highest-scoring car in each group. But to be a Top Pick, a car has to have performed well in our testing, be relatively trouble-free to own, and safe, too. Here are the other criteria to determining a Top Pick:

We need to have reliability data for the car, and that data must show at least average or better reliability.

Stability control must be readily available.

If crash tested, the results have to be decent.

These criteria wind up knocking some very good cars—particularly some recent GM products—out of contention from our American Top Picks list. To illustrate, here’s the list of the top-rated domestic-branded car in each class next to the one that meets all of the criteria:

Category

Top-scoring American car

American Top Pick

Small sedan	None recommended	None
Family sedan	Chevrolet Malibu LTZ V6	Ford Taurus
Upscale sedan	Cadillac CTS	Buick Lucerne CXS
Luxury sedan	Cadillac STS	Cadillac STS
Small SUV	Saturn Vue XR	None
Midsized SUV	Saturn Outlook XR GMC Acadia SLT2 Ford Taurus X	Saturn Outlook XR GMC Acadia SLT2 Ford Taurus X
Minivan	Chrysler Town and Country	None
Pickup truck	Chevrolet Avalanche	Chevrolet Silverado
Fun to drive	Chevrolet Corvette Z06	None
Green car	None tested	None

Let’s look at each class in detail, except luxury sedan, which doesn’t need further explanation:

Small sedan: Not many choices here. Although the Ford Focus has scored quite well in the past (it was a Top Pick as late as 2005), we haven’t tested the freshened 2008 model. The underwhelming Chevrolet Cobalt scores too low to be recommended.

Family sedan: The new Malibu is a very impressive car, but we don’t have reliability data on this redesign. (Data on other vehicles on its Epsilon platform ranges from below-average to above-average reliability.) The fun-to-drive Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan lacks ESC, so it’s out of the running—hence the Taurus.

Upscale sedan: The CTS is a very impressive car, but we don’t have reliability data yet for this version. The Lincoln MKZ lacks ESC. That takes us to the Buick Lucerne CXS V8.

Small SUV: The Saturn Vue XR isn’t a stand-out, but it does score the highest of any tested small domestic-branded SUV. However, we don’t have reliability data on the new Vue. Beyond that, no small domestic SUV—Chevrolet Equinox/Pontiac Torrent, Jeep Compass/Patriot, Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner—scores high enough to be recommended.

Midsized SUV: There isn’t a lack of good recommended vehicles in this category; it’s a matter of picking, literally, which one fits. The Outlook/Acadia straddle the midsized and large category. The Taurus X is also accommodating inside.

Minivan: There’s only really one game in the domestic town: the Chrysler Town and Country/Dodge Caravan. (The outdated Chevrolet Uplander goes away next year.) While the Chrysler minivans used to score near the top of their class, this redesign is mediocre. We don’t have reliability data for the redesign.

Pickup truck: The Avalanche outscores all pickups in our Ratings, including the Toyota Tundra. But it hasn’t been reliable. Unlike the Tundra, first year reliability of the Silverado has been average, so it made our Top Picks list.

Fun to drive: The Corvette Z06 is an awesome car, but Corvette reliability is well-below average. The CTS could also qualify here, but again, no reliability data. Going down the list, the Mustang GT lacks ESC; we don’t have reliability data on the Dodge Viper; and the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky have subpar reliability. The Dodge Charger R/T V8 is reliable and fast, but its overly light steering feel keeps it from being truly fun to drive.

Green car: Not many domestics qualify here. We haven’t tested the latest Ford Escape Hybrid, but since it lacks ESC, it wouldn’t qualify for the list anyhow. We also haven’t tested latecomers to the hybrid market like the Saturn Aura Greenline, the redesigned Saturn Vue Greenline, or the Chevrolet Malibu hybrid. GM’s “light-hybrid” system does improve mileage, but it’s not on par with full-hybrid systems found on the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid. Next year brings full-hybrid versions of the Vue and Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan.

To sum up:

Some recent GM models are extremely impressive, and they would make fine choices—if reliability works out.

Ford needs to get ESC on their mainstream family cars. (We’re told 2009 should bring increased ESC availability.)

Chrysler and Ford really aren’t competitive in the upscale and luxury sedan segments—especially against a resurgent Cadillac.

The domestics are lagging behind in the small sedan and minivan segments, fields where they used to be more competitive.

While the domestics are starting to roll out more hybrid sedans and SUVs, they still lack a high-mileage small “green” car.

See our true list of overall Top Picks for 2008. See the Top Picks videos.

—Tom Mutchler

Personal picks: sports sedans, part 1

This month's selections come from an entertaining group. Sports sedans have been favorites of ours for a long time. Most are fun to drive, deliver decent driver comfort, and just enough luxury touches to remind you that you're in something special. There were miles of smiles during the testing, with all of these cars having fairly distinct personalities.

Which ones rose to the top? Take a look.

Tom Mutchler: This group of sports sedans raises a basic question: Is it more important to look good or to feel good? And is either enough?

Two cars in this group appeal to me: the Cadillac CTS and BMW 328i. The CTS simply looks awesome, inside and out. It blends a uniquely American audacity without going over the top. This great-driving car requires very few excuses, something that couldn't be said for the last CTS (and I was a fan of that one, too).

But, the BMW 328i drives better. There is no getting around that. We drive our one-day trip test convoy over some very enjoyable, twisty roads. When driving the BMW, I wanted to run over the car ahead of me, like the one I was following was holding me back. Cliches fall easily to hand, like "The BMW is a back-road scalpel."

Does that alone make it my pick? After our sports sedan report was published, I read some enthusiast forum comments from BMW owners sniffing about where the 3 Series placed. Sure the car drives great. But in this class that isn't enough. It's small inside; it costs a ton of money for not much power; the standard 16-inch rolling stock looks lame in this class; and even without iDrive, some controls are stupid for stupid's sake.

So, while some online BMW owners deride it as the "blue light special" in this class, my vote winds up with the Infiniti G35. The combination of big power and exuberant handling goads you to have fun with the car. It's attractive inside and out--something I can't say for any current BMW. And unlike the 3 Series, you don't have to pay a big premium for decent tires and big power.

Gabe Shenhar: Out of this group, as well as this whole category, there's no question that I'm going with the BMW 3 Series. It's such a terrific driver's car that's thoroughly enjoyable, yet totally livable. In terms of what makes a sports sedan a sports sedan, in my opinion, no one has yet surpassed it, even though several competitors come close.

What makes the 3 Series special? It's that extra measure of steering feedback and response, tied-down ride control, and good compliance that speak to driving connoisseurs.

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

What I also love about this car is the pull of the straight six-cylinder engine, which sings a perfect soundtrack, be it the 230 hp in the 328i or the 300 hp in the 335i. Thankfully, our 328i also delivers decent fuel economy, so I won't feel guilty. That awesome powertrain (even with the automatic) and sporty handling, augmented by supportive seats and the innate quality of the interior can really start my day on a good note. Yes, the car has a few flaws, such as some unnecessarily complicated controls and a cramped rear seat. But ultimately, when it comes to sports sedans, what matters is which car puts a bigger smile on your face.  And, for me, my smile is never broader than when I'm driving a 3 Series.

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

Not always keen going green: Honda Civic GX

We recently took delivery of a Honda Civic GX, which runs on compressed-natural-gas (CNG). At $25,185, it's the most expensive Civic we've ever tested. But that isn't even half the story.

A few days ago, I took it home on my daily commute. The same day, a truck carrying cylinders filled with hydrogen crashed on Route 84, closing it for most of the day. There isn't a direct connection, but it reminded us that the experiences we're having with the Civic show the challenges that a consumer will face during the development of new fueling infrastructure, be it hydrogen, CNG, or even E85. Had we been caught up in the traffic jam caused by this mishap, we could have become quite nervous about replenishing our natural gas.

For most people, it isn't really a big deal if you start running low of fuel in your gasoline-powered car. Unless you're in a few remote places, a gas station is likely only a few short miles away. That's not the case with our Civic GX. Starting here at the track, the nearest CNG fueling stations are either at a public utility in Norwich (about 25 miles away) or in the industrial outskirts of Hartford (30 miles).

Driving the car, which otherwise behaves just like a normal Civic, is complicated by the car's relatively short range. We can get approximately 180-200 miles out of a tank. For one of the commuters in the office, that means he can get to work and back - and then needs to refuel. Figuring out who will take the Civic when and how it will be refueled has required a level of logistics far beyond what we're used to, as well as simply taking up our time to drive to a distant station. (Honda does have a home refueling station available for the Civic; it allows you to refuel your car using the natural gas service in your home.) 

CNG has a fairly limited infrastructure in the United States. It's mostly used by fleets, particularly government vehicles. (There was a Connecticut-owned Civic GX refueling at the pump today when I was there.) And while E85 is relatively available in the Midwest, it's almost nonexistent here in the Northeast. But the infrastructure for CNG or E85 almost seems like normalcy compared to what exists for hydrogen. The limited availability of that fuel (as well as the cost of fuel cells) is going to be a notable hurdle for moving away from fossil-fueled cars.

Stay tuned for more of our experiences with this most unusual Civic.

—Tom Mutchler

Learn more about alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

Wintertime of our convertible discontent

We're working on a test group of four-seater convertibles for the May issue, just in time for the start of top-down season here in the Northeast.  But we're driving the cars around now, and it's gray, dreary, and cold outside. And on this particular day, it's raining hard enough to make Noah consider taking the Ark out of retirement. (Unlike other magazines or Web sites, we don't jet off to some sunny place with a fleet of borrowed ragtops to write a story.)

Then again, most of the cars in this group have folding hardtops. Part of the spin surrounding these complicated convertibles is that hardtops provide better interior isolation from noise and harsh weather. So despite the winter doom and gloom, we should be as happy as (hard-shell) clams, right?

Maybe not. Things started badly, right from when we picked up our Pontiac G6 GT at the dealer. The salesman took care to demonstrate the luggage blind; like most modern convertibles, you need to have a sliding cover in place in the trunk before the car allows you to fold the power top. This reduces trunk space, but it also prevents you from crushing your luggage with the top, or the top with your luggage. He lifted up the trunk lid, stuck his arm in to show how the blind worked - and then the heavy deck lid closed down on his arm. Seems our deck lid couldn't keep itself up. (We eventually got that fixed. And the salesman's arm was fine.)

Then the noises settled in. When it was cold, multiple noises and creaks came from the hardtop. Our G6 wasn't the only convertible in the fleet to do this; loud, nearly-continuous creaks came from the interface between the roof and windshield header in our hardtop Chrysler Sebring Limited convertible, as well. That's assuming you can hear them over the wind noise, suspension groans, or the luggage blind rattling around in the trunk. One logbook comment says that the Sebring is "noisier than a pickup truck loaded with plastic pipe."

The Sebring had another annoying problem. Like some other coupes, the power windows drop about an inch when you open the door. This lets cabin air out as you slam the big door, making it easier to shut the frameless glass against the weather stripping. But the windows developed a mind of their own - or maybe just plain lost it. Sometimes the window wouldn't automatically go all the way up. Other times the window seemed to freeze in place, so you had to slam the door to get it to close fully. Slamming the window across the weather stripping makes a sound like something is going to break. And once when parked and running, all four windows dropped about 3 inches on their own, as if the top was about to lower on its own.

So, are hardtops where it's at, modern convertible-speaking? One big plus: they do allow designers to put in larger rear windows. Our soft-top Mitsubishi Eclipse convertible is at the opposite extreme. The Eclipse's rear window is a narrow slit. Even backing it out of my narrow garage is scary and almost requires a seeing-eye dog to pull off this mundane task.

Like many things in the automotive world, how well a technology works depends on its execution. The Jaguar XK convertible we tested had a soft top that was nearly as quiet as some coupes. Our Saab 9-3 2.0T soft-top convertible isn't particularly noisy, and it has a decent sized rear window.

One last thought: even though it makes a car more desirable to rent during a Florida vacation, turning a crummy sedan into a crummy convertible doesn't make it better. 

Would someone please order a batch of warm, sunny weather? Soon. Life is too short to have a bunch of convertibles in the garage and lousy weather overhead. Especially when top-up is when they are least enjoyable.

—Tom Mutchler 

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.