Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR - Long-Term Road Test

When our long-term Mi­tsubishi Lancer Evolution MR arrived in July 2008, we were hit by a wave of sticker shock. At an as-delivered price of $41,515, the Evo exceeded the starting price of a BMW 335i.

The Mitsubishi comes with a 291-hp turbocharged engine, a six-speed dual-clutch transmission, and one of the most sophisticated all-wheel-drive systems on the market. But a great swath of hard interior plastic and a shortage of amenities such as heated seats made the Evo feel spartan for its price. Not even the touch-screen navigation system, part of the $2550 Technology package (the only option on our car), did much to shake that perception.

For 2010, Mitsubishi has added the MR Touring model that loses the juvenile rear wing and adds some luxury trappings, but it costs $2000 more than the standard MR. The base price on the MR has crept up to $39,735 from the 2008 figure of $38,965.

The Evolution lineup starts at a more reasonable $34,335 in five-speed-manual GSR trim (or $33,710 back in 2008). But we wanted to try the new TC-SST dual-clutch gearbox that is offered only on the MR, which also includes upgrades such as Bilstein shocks, lightweight wheels, HID headlamps, and keyless ignition.

In terms of performance, our Evo did all the right things. Even though it could stand to be more aggressive off the line—Mitsu­bishi says the Evo MR has “launch control,” but labeling the lazy clutch engagement as such is a stretch—the car ripped from 0 to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds when new; at the end of our test, acceleration improved by 0.4 second to 60 and in the quarter-mile. Skidpad grip also increased, from a strong 0.93 g to an astonishing 0.96, and braking from 70 to 0 mph was consistently impressive, at 158 feet when new and 162 feet in our final test. These numbers earn the Evo true sports-car credentials, and its driver-focused environment backs up that impression with big magnesium shift paddles on the steering column and deep, supportive Recaro seats for the front occupants.

The following theme emerged from the logbook: Everything in the Evo comes at a price. Especially at the gas pump. With its SUV-like EPA rating of 17 mpg in the city and 22 on the highway—and a 14.5-gallon fuel tank—we didn’t anticipate bladder-busting range, but the Evo continually surprised us with its need for frequent fill-ups. It only managed more than 300 miles on a tank on three occasions, and highway cruising at 75 mph or above would drop a given tank’s mileage down near our average of 19 mpg.

The second wave of sticker shock came from running costs, starting with the grippy Yokohama Advan A13C tires, which wore out in 16,000 miles and run $351, each. We made the slightly less expensive ($266 per corner) but still great Yokohama Advan Neova AD08 our replacement choice, but we included the price of two sets of OE tires and mounting them in the official tally. Also, it cost $463 to have new rear brake pads installed at 32,700 miles. Regular maintenance further added to the pain of these normal-wear costs, making for a total of $5059. Part of that was a $623 service at 30,000 miles featuring six quarts of transmission fluid at $35 per. The 15,000-mile service ran $228, and lesser maintenance intervals came every 5000 miles and cost between $69 and $150. Compare that $5059 sum—$3128 in tires alone!—with that of our previous long-term Evo VIII, a 2003 model, which rang up $3706 in bills over the 40,000-mile test [April 2005]. Including gas and tires, we paid 28 cents a mile to keep this Evo X on the road.

Pricey operating costs aside, the Evo was essentially trouble-free. We did have to make an unscheduled stop to fix a loose underbody tray. And then there was the rainy night in November 2008, when a Camry rear-ended the Evolution in stop-and-go traffic, sending it to the shop for $5402 worth of insurance-covered repairs.

The six-speed dual-clutch transmission was universally praised for its speedy and crisp gearchanges. We didn’t like the car’s bad habit of taking a second or two to shut down the engine after we killed the ignition; Mi­tsubishi explained that transmission fluid is cycled during this time to preserve the heat-sensitive clutches.

Almost every driver praised the Evo’s sharp reflexes and supreme handling. But as the months wore on, that initial fascination with the car’s terrific performance and technology wore off. Michigan roads, mostly straight and in various states of disrepair, offer little opportunity to take advantage of the Evo’s quick responses. Staffers complained that the ride was too stiff for workaday commuting; most of them had not driven the Evo on a racetrack and were thus short on sympathetic justification. The seats, which some drivers (including this writer) raved about, drew contempt for being too deep for easy exits, too narrow for some hips, and too low (there’s no height adjustment). By the end of our test, the front edge of the driver’s seat showed visible wear.

The trunk, which is compromised by the intrusion of the battery and the washer-fluid reservoir, couldn’t hold two hockey bags when our K.C. Colwell embarked on a weekend rife with busted knees and broken teeth. Out back, the rear wing partly makes up for its view-bisecting location by acting as a push bar for opening the trunklid.

Another driver wrote that he was fonder of the 2003 Evolution because it felt livelier. The Lancer platform on which this latest Evo is based is larger and, in part to meet newer crash standards, results in a roughly 300-pound-heavier car. This newer model offers better overall performance, though the ’03 car was quicker in a straight line. This Evo also has a highly satisfying navigation system and a better interior. (Did we just imply that the old car was a medieval torture chamber? Why, yes, we did.) But these improvements are not enough, we think, to justify the new big price—our long-term ’03 Evo cost just $30,062. Some staffers think this version feels like a fast Lancer whereas the old Evo seemed to transcend its econobox roots and felt more deeply connected to Mitsu’s rallying legacy.

Even at this lofty as-tested price, there are few sedans that can match the performance of the Lancer Evolution. As is often the case, however, numbers aren’t everything. Without a regular opportunity to take advantage of all of the Evo’s capability, the compromises that come with its perform­ance left us wishing for a lower sticker price, more refinement, or both.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $41,515 (base price: $38,965)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection

Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998 cc
Power (SAE net): 291 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed dual-clutch automated manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 104.3 in Length: 177.0 in
Width: 71.3 in Height: 58.3 in
Curb weight: 3659 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 29.2 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 101 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 150 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 17/22 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg
Unscheduled Oil Additions: 0 qt

WARRANTY:
3 years/36,000 miles bumper to bumper;
5 years/60,000 miles powertrain;
7 years/100,000 miles corrosion protection;
5 years/unlimited miles roadside assistance

(BY MICHAEL AUSTIN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY MARC URBAN)

Jaguar XF Supercharged 2010 - Short Take Road Test

Just a single model year after the new Jaguar XF hit the streets, considerable powertrain improvements have found their way under its shapely hood. The previous 4.2-liter V-8 has disappeared from all but the base XF Luxury model, while the main mill has grown to 5.0 liters, gaining both horsepower and torque in its supercharged and naturally aspirated applications. Beyond uprating the engines, Jag also added the snarly XFR to the mix, creating a sort of intra-model rivalry and relegating the once top-cat XF Supercharged to middle-child status. How does it stack up now?

Something Old, Something New

A 385-hp, naturally aspirated edition of the 5.0 moves the XF Premium with plenty of verve, while a Roots-type supercharger is added to the same 5.0-liter to create the Supercharged and XFR. Equipped with nearly all the same standard baubles, it’s primarily power that separates the latter two models, to the tune of 470 hp and 424 lb-ft of torque in the Supercharged and 510 hp and 461 lb-ft in the XFR. The XFR, of course, gets all the love because of its added grunt. But examine the performance numbers, and a compelling case emerges for the XF Supercharged.

Same Book, New Chapter

Put your right foot to the floor of the Supercharged, and 60 mph comes in just 4.3 seconds, beating the 2009 XF Supercharged by 0.7 second—and tying our best XFR run. The quarter-mile flies by in an XF Supercharged in 12.7 seconds at 112 mph, just one tenth and 4 mph slower than in the XFR. Coming to a halt from 70 mph is accomplished in 159 feet, not only an excellent number on its own, but also identical to big-brother XFR's. Snowy weather didn’t allow for a skidpad run, but with the same Jaguar Adaptive Dynamics and Active Differential Control systems as found in the XFR, we’re confident the Supercharged could come close to—if not outright match—the best we’ve seen from the burlier car, 0.89 g.

But the numbers merely add to the XF story, they don’t rewrite the book. The sultry exterior and executive-grade cabins of non-R XFs basically are the same as those of the 2009 cars; the Supercharged model now gets quad exhaust finishers. The XF’s sheetmetal continues to command double-takes, and wood and leather are spread around the cabin like butter on a crumpet. The painfully slow infotainment system and pop-up gear selector linger as gripe-getters, however. To avoid repeating ourselves, we won’t rehash the rest of the carry-over goodness. But we will reiterate that the car is athletic and very obedient to inputs, and we still love the stellar ride quality and quick shifts delivered by the six-speed automatic, qualities that helped the XF get named to our 2009 10Best Cars list. (Beyond the stellar crop of cars this year, it’s worth noting that the XF didn’t make a repeat 10Best appearance in part because of some quality issues with our long-term 2009 XF Supercharged.)

If the numbers and the style don’t convince you to give the 2010 XF Supercharged some love, how does $12K in savings over an XFR sound? Starting at $68,000—the only option is a $2200 adaptive cruise-control system that you don’t want anyway—the Supercharged model is the bargain of the bunch, delivering most of the performance and panache of the XFR minus some exterior bits and more heavily bolstered seats. Hell, if you want to save even more money, the naturally aspirated 5.0-liter XF Premium is far from slow. Our advice? Never underestimate a middle child—they may not stand out, but they definitely hold the power to surprise.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $68,000 (base price: $68,000)

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 305 cu in, 5000cc

Power (SAE net): 470 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Torque (SAE net): 424 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:

Wheelbase: 114.5 in Length: 195.3 in

Width: 73.9 in Height: 57.5 in

Curb weight: 4481 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 10.0 sec

Zero to 120 mph: 14.6 sec

Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.9 sec

Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 112 mph

Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 155 mph

Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft

FUEL (MFR'S EST):

EPA city/highway driving: 15/21 mpg

C/D observed: 15 mpg



(BY JON YANCA, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JORDAN BROWN)

Chevrolet Aveo RS Concept - Auto Shows

The new Chevrolet Aveo RS concept debuting at the Detroit auto show reveals that GM has something smart and small in the works ready to meet Ford’s much-ballyhooed new Fiestasubcompact.

Larger than the current Aveo and donning what Chevy calls a “European hot-hatch look,” the five-door “Borocay Blue” RS show car is intended to appeal to the youth market—or any market, really. It previews the production version of the next Aveo due as a 2011 or 2012 model. Raise the concept’s chin a tad, tone down the chrome-rimmed outer air inlets, and replace those aluminum-wrapped exposed headlights (circumscribed as they are in blue) with similar halogen units, and you’re staring into the face of the 2011 Aveo. De-flare the RS concept’s fenders and replace the 19-inch wheels with more feasible rollers and you get a good idea of what the rest of the car will look like—we’ve seen the production-ready base model, so we should know. There’s a sedan, too, although it’s more homely than the hatch. Of course, if Chevy ends up putting out an actual Aveo RS model with body mods like those seen here, we’re fine with that.

Spicy Interior

More hints about the next-gen car can be found in the Aveo RS’s leather-wrapped interior, a more spacious and rather highly designed piece of work. Production elements include the motorcycle-inspired, asymmetrical instrument cluster affixed to the column, as well as the prominent center stack. Blue stitching and other accents that match the exterior are sprinkled throughout the concept’s cabin, portending some probable interior color treatments in the next Aveo. The materials in the show car are quite nice. Indeed, given the popularity of premium hatchbacks in Europe and Japan, we could see a high-spec RS trim such as this going into production for other markets, although the fact that GM is showing it at Detroit indicates that it’s being considered for the U.S., too.

But cash-strapped GM may not be prioritizing super-high-output versions of cars like the Aveo in the near future. The Aveo RS concept is motivated by the 138-hp, 1.4-liter turbocharged Ecotec four-cylinder slated to appear soon in the Chevrolet Cruze, in this case mated to a six-speed manual transmission. It’s likely that the base production Aveo will get a less powerful, naturally aspirated four. An actual RS model is probably a ways down the pike.

Late to the Fiesta

Chevy isn’t being specific about exactly when it will start building the next Aveo, which will happen at GM’s plant in Orion Township, Michigan. Retooling for the plant doesn’t start until late this year, so don’t expect Aveos to start hitting dealerships until next calendar year.

(BY STEVE SILER, PHOTOGRAPHY BY PATRICK M. HOEY)

BMW M3 2008- Baubles and Bolt-Ons

A car has got to be pretty spectacular to win over the curmudgeons here at 1585 Eisenhower Place, especially when familiarity sets in over the course of 40,000 miles. But our Sparkling Graphite Metallic M3 did indeed win us over. For less than $70,000, the M3 bolts from a standstill to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and turns the quarter-mile in 12.7 seconds at 113 mph. It pulls an exceptional 0.96 g on the skidpad, stops in 147 feet from 70 mph, and reaches a governor-restricted 161 mph. On a racetrack or a back road, it’s a beautifully balanced and hugely entertaining machine.

Aside from performance, the M3 is comfortable on the highway and has plenty of space for four adults. It has a full complement of luxury accouterments and yet is very practical—even the trunk is commodious. It has muscular, raked looks and a handsomely dark interior. A bonus is that regular service doesn’t cost a cent, thanks to BMW’s full-maintenance program, which lasts for four years or 50,000 miles. (The gas bill, however, wasn’t cause to rejoice, given this BMW’s 17-mpg thirst.)

When it came to ordering the car, we went with the so-called M double-clutch transmission (M DCT), a $2700 option that replaces the standard six-speed manual with a seven-speed dual-clutch unit, BMW’s first. We were eager to try this setup because dual-clutch transmissions promise the smoothness of an automatic when the driver can’t be bothered to change gears, as well as superfast paddle shifts in manual mode. In the previous M3 (E46), BMW offered a single-clutch, automated manual gearbox that was notable for its harshness in manual mode and its clunkiness as an automatic.

Other options included the $750 Cold-Weather package, a godsend in Michigan winters; the $3250 Technology package that dumps navigation in with electronic adaptive dampers; 19-inch wheels and tires ($1200); and the $1900 Premium package that bundles power folding mirrors and Bluetooth interface along with upgraded leather interior trim that has a distinctive carbon-fiber look.

The interior held up well, but the side of the driver’s seat got scuffed up. Rear-seat space was decent.

Who wouldn’t react favorably to a perform ance car so well rounded? Here’s who: some whiners on staff anxious to get past the 1200-mile engine-break-in period, during which BMW suggests that drivers never use full throttle and refrain from revving higher than 5500 rpm. Once past this period, our crew was fulsome in its praise for the BMW’s everyday drivability—although it pays to keep the variable shocks on their softest setting on poor pavement. We even noted relatively few iDrive complaints, at least until the knob that controls it became loose at 37,000 miles. (It was replaced under warranty, without charge.) BMW has since changed the iDrive interface, and the new setup is far easier to operate. Those who plugged iPods into the M3 were satisfied with the interface between tunes and car.

We always plan for snow in the winter, so at 19,903 miles, we installed a set of Pirelli Winter 240 Sottozero tires on the base 18-inch rims. We racked up 10,500 miles on these tires, during which the M3 proved quite adept at getting around despite all the white stuff that fell in Michigan last winter and spring. The car also rode better on the 18s, although most drivers felt the decrease in ride quality with the 19-inch wheels was worth it for the improved looks.

Spot the missing iDrive knob . . .

The service history was fairly uncomplicated, and with the free regular maintenance, the only out-of-pocket cost for 40,000 miles was $1450 for new tires. Based on our experience, the stock Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s should last roughly 25,000 miles for the rears and 35,000 for the fronts. As for service, after an initial 1200-mile stop to replace the engine oil and the transmission and differential fluids, the BMW’s onboard computer determines the service schedule. It prompted us at 16,210 (engine-oil change), 27,769 (various inspections), and 29,248 miles (engine-oil change).

Due to an oversight, the M3 arrived at our offices without satellite radio installed, so we decided to add Sirius pay-radio service in the car at 13,264 miles—the unwed among us were suffering Howard Stern deprivation—which cost $245 for wiring and programming.

At the 27,769-mile service stop, the M DCT transmission was reprogrammed as part of a service bulletin that resulted from the “sudden loss of engine power when decelerating to a complete stop with light brake application.” M3 forums describe the sensation as being akin to the car stalling due to the transmission holding a higher gear than appropriate. In any event, this mechanical foul-up never bit us.

Over the M3’s long stay, several drivers banged up the perilously low frontal underbody against curbs, inclined driveways, and irritating parking-lot barriers, to the point that we had to replace the engine splash shield and other underbody parts at a cost of $501. Other than this, the car’s exterior (and interior) held up extremely well over its 17 months with us.

The only significant complaints involved the dual-clutch transmission. In automatic mode, it works remarkably well, and it was hard not to be awed by the speed of the shifts and its smoothness of operation. Indeed, technical director Dave VanderWerp observed that it “upshifts so smoothly under part throttle that it’s easier to detect a shift from the change of the exhaust note than it is to feel it. Too bad,” he went on, “that the lazy throttle tip-in from standstill is so off-putting.”

And near the end, the dual-clutch transmission was making clunks and groans. Assistant tech editor K.C. Colwell was adamant that the transmission had loosened up considerably. Twice while the M3 was parked facing downhill, the transmission slipped markedly when the driver was trying to back up. If the clutches need to be replaced, our local dealer quoted us $3296 for the job! So far, none of the M3 forums has reported any issues with M DCT, save for the service bulletin already mentioned. Indeed, most owners seem besotted with the dual-clutch gearbox.

Most of the sentimental drivers on staff would have preferred a manual transmission in the M3, although the automatic function of the M DCT is good for mindless commuting. All around, this M3 was a far better experience than our long-term E46 M3 [March 2003]. Not only is the M3 dramatically improved in acceleration, braking, and skidpad grip, but it was utterly dependable. That 2001 M3 burned through 14 quarts of oil and used to sputter, stumble, and often stall on cold winter mornings. This M3 needed just two remedial quarts, the first of which wasn’t added until 25,000 miles, and the car held a steady idle on even the bitterest cold starts. Based on our experience, the current M3 is the world’s all-around best car for the money, although several staffers would have preferred to trade some of the coupe’s looks for the added practicality of the sedan. Choices, choices

RANTS AND RAVES

K.C. Colwell

This is the finest car on the market, period.

Russ Ferguson

The slow-speed launch can really suck. One auto-shop teacher accelerated very gingerly and got the M3 to buck and hitch like a 16-year-old learning to drive a manual.

Sara Quiroga

My only complaint about this car is that I don’t own it.

Mike Dushane

The dual-clutch transmission short-shifts at the slightest hint of wheelspin in automatic mode. Very annoying. I wind up driving in manual mode all the time, so why not save money and get the manual?

Steve Spence

Very grouchy sometimes in responses to the throttle. And that’s about the only negative to this great, great car.

Tony Quiroga

The M3 didn’t work very well in deep snow—and the winter tires did little to help. But in snow less deep, the M3 tracked beautifully and worked remarkably well.

Track Tires

Here are two truths about self-respecting M3 coupe owners: They would not even consider the optional sunroof that eliminates the distinctive carbon-fiber roof, and it’s likely they will end up driving their cars at a racetrack. That second sure thing happened to us as pseudo-owners, and after a handful of laps we’d obliterated the tread on the stock Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires. They simply can’t cope with the amount of heat generated by this 3600-pound thrill machine at its flaming limits.

So we went looking for stickier, street-legal track tires—commonly referred to as “R compound”—but finding them in either the M3’s standard 18-inch size or the optional 19-inch dimension was difficult. However, Michelin has one, a BMW-specific version of its Pilot Sport Cup tires, in only the 19-inch size. In fact, these tires originated with the Euro-only, lightweight CSL edition of the previous-generation M3.

Available only as a replacement tire, this “Sport Cup +” version (fronts, $353 each; rears, $416) features additional grooving in the tread, which compromises stiffness to be friendlier in the rain (which it is) compared with an off-the-shelf Sport Cup. And these tires are also able to withstand higher temperatures than the stock PS2s. Unfortunately, skidpad results were no better with the Sport Cups (0.96 g), and braking (156 feet) was a bit worse.

On a racetrack or a back road, it’s a beautifully balanced and hugely entertaining machine.

We returned to the 1.9-mile GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan, where we’d chewed up our stock tires, with much improved results. Although it didn’t feel like there was a whole lot more stick in the corners (our best time was a 1:38.1), more important, lap times remained consistent. But after almost 1000 street miles and a couple of dozen hard laps at GingerMan, the fronts (see photo) had 2/32nds of an inch of tread left. The rears fared better, only burning through half (3/32-inch) of their tread. Even though the BMW-specific Sport Cups didn’t outgrip the PS2s, having a tire that’s consistent and lasts significantly longer during abusive lapping is indeed a boon for the track-rat M3 owner.

Ford Mustang GT 2011 - Auto Shows

Few automobiles have had the sort of longstanding street cred given to Ford’s Mustang GT. But the deference it has enjoyed for much of its four-plus decades has been called into question recently now that recently introduced muscle-machines from Chevy and Dodge have come along with larger, high-tech V-8s. With its comparatively small 4.6-liter V-8 under the hood, the Mustang has had a lot to overcome. Alas, with its lighter weight and charming handling characteristics, the GT still won our most recent Mustang GT/Camaro SS/Challenger R/Tcomparo, and by a fairly comfortable margin. Well, come fall of 2010, the Mustang GT stands to put even more distance between it and its rivals with a thoroughly modern mill of its own, the new 5.0-liter “Coyote” V-8.

Fenders Say “5.0” and Mean It

Developed by a relatively small team of engineers working on a shoestring budget, the new 5.0 V-8 is nonetheless quite an achievement. Codenamed “Coyote” during development (Ford says its official name is “5.0-liter Ti-VCT DOHC V-8 Engine.” We prefer Coyote), the new, all-aluminum DOHC engine features four-valves per cylinder and displaces a full 5.0 liters. Contrast that with the old 4.9-liter “Five-Point-Oh” motor that Vanilla Ice crooned about forever ago. Compared with that engine, the new 5.0 is nearly twice as powerful, producing 412 hp at 7000 rpm (compared with 215 for the old 4.9) and 390 lb-ft of torque at 4250 rpm (versus the 4.9’s 285) on premium gas, with 300 lb-ft of that torque available at just 2000 rpm. Regular unleaded is acceptable to use, but expect the power ceiling to drop by 10 ponies and 13 lb-ft should you choose the cheap stuff. As for that power peak at 6500 rpm, well, that’s near the veritable rev stratosphere on Planet Muscle Car.

Incidentally, the Coyote shares pretty much nothing with the outgoing 4.6-liter V-8 currently providing 315 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque to the 2010 Mustang GT. Only the bore centers are the same; nothing from the 4.6-liter will even fit on the new engine. Bore increases from 90mm to 92.2mm, while stroke increases to 92.7mm. The compression ratio rises to 11.0:1. Cylinder heads are now more compact for better intake manifold flow. The intake manifold is now partially exposed and dressed to impress during that all-important driveway hood pop, thanks to a halo-style engine cover that covers only the wiring and fuel rails. Slick.

Some of the newfound potency (and speed of development) comes about by following some of the same channels that the base Mustang’s gutsy new 3.7-liter V-6 employed on its successful quest to achieve 305 hp. Most significant among them is the fitment of Ti-VCT (Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing), which Ford says will be on 80 percent of its products by 2012. It allows for extremely precise overlap of the time that both intake and exhaust valves are open, optimizing efficiency during both high- and low-load operation. As with the V-6, the cooling system has also been reworked both for efficiency and effectiveness. Also important is that the engine was designed for the (possible) future implementation of direct injection and/or turbocharging.

Minor Fuel-Economy Improvement

Curb weight is likely to remain close to that of the current GT, since the weight of the engine only increases by about 10–15 pounds, according to Ford. The GT was already the fuel-economy champ in its class, but fitted with the six-speed automatic it will gain two mpg on the highway to 25, while the 17 mpg figure in the city remains the same as the 2010 model. With the newly fitted MT82 six-speed manual replacing the five-speed from 2010 (that’s right, six forward gears, like the rest of the performance-car universe!), fuel economy remains flat at 16 and 24, which is still an achievement considering the massive power boost.

As for that way more important performance figure—acceleration—Ford has declined to give us a figure. But we’re betting on a 0-to-60-mph number in the 4.6-to-4.8-second range and a quarter-mile run of under 13 seconds, based on that fact that we’ve consistently been able to hustle the Chevrolet Camaro SS to 60 in 4.9 seconds and through the quarter at 13 flat with all of its extra bulk.

The Rest Gets Better Too

According to Ford, the entire chassis has been retuned—again, following a rather thorough retuning for 2010—including a new electric power-steering system, new anti-roll bars, new wheels and tires, upgraded stock brakes, and a new optional Brembo brake package that brings four-pot calipers and 14-inch rotors.

The 2011 GT also gets a few new convenience items, including a message center in the instrument cluster, convex outer sections in the exterior mirrors, a programmable vehicle key, illuminated visors with storage, and a universal garage-door opener. Convertible models benefit from additional stiffening, too.

Styling of the 2011 Mustang, which goes on sale this spring, hasn’t changed a lot from 2010, although there is a new grille and the car does see a three-percent improvement in aerodynamics thanks to new rear tire spats and better sealing around the radiator and decklid. There are also three new colors for 2011: Yellow Blaze Tri-Coat, Race Red, and Ingot Silver. Clearly, then, the most important exterior changes are those huge, gleaming “5.0” fender badges, and everything that they signify.

(BY STEVE SILER)

2010 Ford Fusion Sport AWD - Short Take Road Test

An Answer to a Question We Don’t Remember Asking

Heretofore, Sport-y Fusions have been so mostly in appearance; the previous Sport package could be applied to front-drive SE or SEL trims and included a gaudy interior upgrade, a rear lip spoiler, a stiffer suspension, 18-inch wheels, and not much else. For 2010, however, the Sport becomes an independent model—with either front- or all-wheel drive—that retains the stiffer suspension, “special” interior trim, and 18-inch wheels of the 2009 trim level, and adds a tasteful and handsome body kit and its own unique engine. Indeed, the new Sport is the only member of the Fusion range to receive the 3.5-liter V-6 that was once exclusive to the Lincoln MKZ among Ford’s mid-size sedans. (Other V-6 Fusions use a 3.0-liter.) The 3.5-liter mates to a six-speed automatic transmission with manumatic shifting, and it will hold gears in a decidedly sporty way.

This all-wheel-drive Sport hits 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, four tenths quicker than a front-drive 3.0-liter Fusion SEL we tested. The Sport continues to walk away from the SEL beyond 60 mph, making it to 100 mph in 17.6 seconds versus 20 flat. (And that’s in spite of the Sport AWD’s 338-pound weight disadvantage.) Both, however, pale in comparison to the Mazda 6 s sedan with a V-6 and front-wheel drive; the last one of those we tested put up a 0–60 time of 6.1 seconds and needed only 15.4 seconds to reach 100. That “Sport” is baked into the Mazda 6 from the start and includes balanced handling and good road manners, too.

While our test numbers show the advantage of the 3.5-liter’s extra output over the 3.0-liter—increases of 23 hp and 26 lb-ft—the engine sounds raspy when pushed, resulting in three more decibels of noise entering the cabin at wide-open throttle. The six speeds backing it up are nice for highway cruising, but when called upon the transmission shifts a bit more lazily and sloppily than we like from something with sporting intentions. Against lesser Fusions, the Sport’s stiffened ride remains comfortable while body motions are better squelched, but we think the Mazda does a superior job of balancing aggression and comfort.

Back among the Ford set, the Sport’s governed top speed rises to 126 mph compared to 112 for the SEL. Fuel economy was considerably lower in our hands, as you’d expect, at 20 mpg versus 24 for the SEL. The Sport AWD is rated at 17 mpg city/24 highway by the EPA. Although the brakes performed better on the Sport than the SEL—requiring 196 instead of 203 feet to stop from 70 mph—we still wouldn’t call them good, or really even acceptable. (The Mazda? It needed just 165 feet.)

Some of the Parts are Out of Place

As to the dressier bits, the trunklid spoiler is just for show, and to our eye it’s not showing well. Ditto the loud interior; its blue seat inserts, blue-stitched accents, and blue anodized-look trim were all different hues, and visually arresting on vehicle entry. (The interior can alternatively be accented in gray or red; go for the gray.) But we’d keep the blue stitching on the door panels and wheel, and the seats themselves are supportive with a mild bolster that kept us in place during spirited driving.

Fusion Sports carry a base sticker of $26,905, which is $1850 more than a Fusion SEL. Our tester’s all-wheel drive adds another $1850, and a further $4770 in options—including blind-spot and cross-traffic monitoring, rear parking sensors, a rearview camera, heated leather front seats, a sunroof, Sync-ified navigation, and upgraded Sony audio—brought the grand total to $33,525, hardly family-sedan money. Yes, the Fusion Sport does a better job of living up to its name than before, but we’re not sold on the package at this price; we’d rather spend the money on the more well-rounded Fusion Hybrid or a serious sports sedan. If you just gotta have a sporty family car, allow us to point out that the Mazda 6 s we keep referring to starts at $27,200 and is a more satisfying proposition.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $33,525 (base price: $28,755)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 216 cu in, 3496cc
Power (SAE net): 263 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 249 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.4 in Length: 190.6 in
Width: 72.2 in Height: 56.9 in
Curb weight: 3886 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 27.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 196 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.79 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 17/24 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited.

(BY DAVID GLUCKMAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JORDAN BROWN AND MANUFACTURER )

Ford F-150 Harley-Davidson 2010 - Quick Spin

This is the latest in a long convoy of Harley-branded trucks and the sole version of the 2010 F-150 that Ford says not to take off-road. Offered in Tuxedo Black or, like ours, Lava Metallic (it looks a lot like dirt-speckled black), this year’s Harley truck is only available in four-door SuperCrew configuration with a 5.5-foot bed. All Harley F-150s ride on massive 22-inch wheels—the trucks also wear 22 Harley logos—wrapped in all-season rubber and have a unique “sport-tuned” suspension. The interior gets motorcycle-jacket-inspired seats, a unique gauge treatment, piano black trim, and soft plastic accents. Chrome flourishes are limited to the grille and running-board edge, and there’s a subtle graphic at the bottom of the doors.

How Does It Drive?

As a result of the suspension mods, it drives pretty darn well—for a truck, that is. It has an all-around good ride and is comfortable on the highway, especially considering the 22s. It stays planted and seems less reticent to be hustled through corners than most full-size trucks. The 5.4-liter V-8 remains absolutely anemic compared to the eight-pots offered by the competition and was no doubt further hampered by the big rolling stock. But the engine is at least backed by a throatier exhaust in this application. So it sounds powerful, even though it isn’t. Compounding the lack of guts is a six-speed transmission that’s slow to respond and doesn’t seem to make use of what limited power is available.

Still, the truck managed the tasks we threw at it, including hauling a mattress in the bed and some assorted furniture in the cavernous cabin with the rear seats folded. The optional tailgate step helped with loading and unloading and the bed extender allowed the queen-size bed to fit, although the extender’s trapezoidal shape doesn’t take advantage of all available tailgate real estate.

How Does It Stack Up?

As a unique image truck with no real direct competitors, it’s best to compare the Harley-ized truck to other F-150s. As mentioned, the ride is certainly better, but the road-focused suspension does compromise its payload and towing capacities—the bed can handle only 1150 pounds, while your trailer should weigh no more than 5100. A similarly equipped four-wheel-drive F-150 with the 5.4-liter can handle up to 1510 in the bed and tow 9700 pounds. There’s also a heavy-duty tow package available on those trucks that raises the towing limit to 11,200 pounds. Still, the Harley can tow his-and-hers Hogs, although those looking for an H-D truck with some serious hauling capability should check out Ford’s Super Duty offerings or perhaps the International LoneStar semi we tested a while back.

What’s the Cost?

The Harley-Davidson truck is equipped almost identically to the F-150 Limited and includes heated seats at all four corners, ventilated front seats, power running boards, and a tailgate-mounted rearview camera that’s useless when the ’gate is down. Rear-wheel drive is standard while our tester’s all-wheel drive (as opposed to the four-wheel-drive systems available on the rest of the F-150 lineup) added $3145 to the bill. Our tester was almost fully optioned, adding an upgraded stereo with navigation, a sunroof, a trailer-brake controller—for 5100 pounds? Really?—and the bed extender and tailgate step; the total was $50,010. That seems like a lot to pay for a truck with compromised utility, so this truck is aimed squarely at buyers looking for presence and relative poise in their luxury vehicles. Then again, those buyers don’t actually need pickups.
(BY DAVID GLUCKMAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JORDAN BROWN )

BMW 740i / 740Li - AutoReview 2011

Americans will finally see a rational application of BMW’s Euro-centric EfficientDynamics mantra when BMW unveils six-cylinder versions of its 7-series at the Detroit auto show in January. The 740i will occupy the lowest rung on the company’s executive-sedan ladder, below the plenty-powerful 750i, the extreme 760i, and the slightly ridiculous ActiveHybrid 7.

Power comes from BMW’s twin-turbo inline-six, which in this application makes 315 hp at 5800 rpm and 330 lb-ft of torque at a low 1600 rpm. Keeping track of BMW’s turbocharged sixes is becoming more complicated by the day; this represents a higher state of tune than the 300-hp twin-turbo version used in the 1-, 3-, and 5-series, which is separate from the high-output, 335-hp version recently announced for the Z4 sDrive35is, which is also different from the new single-turbo unit that also makes 300 hp and is debuting in the 5-series GT this spring. The engine will be backed by a six-speed automatic in the 7-series. The sixed 7 will look just like its V-8 siblings and will likewise be offered with a short (740i) or long (740Li) wheelbase as well with the full menu of packages and standalone options.

If we’re going to have to deal with downsized engines, at least the one sliding into the 7 is a sweetheart, and this car sure does make a lot more sense than the ActiveHybrid 7. Fuel economy hasn’t been disclosed, but we can safely expect mileage slightly better than the 15 mpg city/22 highway that the twin-turbo V-8 750i achieves, but not quite as good as the 535i’s 17/26 ratings. Let’s say maybe 16/24.

When the models launch in the spring of 2010 as 2011 models, it will have been 19 years since the U.S. was offered a six-cylinder 7. Mercedes hasn’t sold a six-cylinder S-class since the end of the car’s last generation, so, at least for now, the 7-series will own the six-cylinder (non-hybrid) luxury-sedan market.

(BY DAVID GLUCKMAN )

Mercedes-Benz SL-class - Spied 2013

The Mercedes-Benz SL-class is a perpetual favorite among the wealthy and glamorous, and with the current model, the Germans got the formula right again. In production since 2001, the R230 SL has already gone through two face lifts. The soft, outdated look of the original design has been sharpened, albeit at the expense of the overall stylistic balance of the car. It's time for Mercedes to get busy putting the next generation into production.

And so the last update done for 2009 will likely be the end of the road for this SL; these photos show that the next generation is well along in its development. While the basic concept of the SL will remain unchanged, there will be a lot of updates under the skin. Most important, the awesome V-12 engines, a 6.0-liter and a twin-turbocharged 5.5-liter, will get the bullet, and the naturally aspirated, 6.2-liter AMG V-8 will be gone as well.

The AMG version of the next SL will instead be powered by a turbocharged 5.5-liter V-8 which will likely produce 563 hp and 553 lb-ft of torque, says Henner Lehne, analyst at CSM Worldwide in Frankfurt, Germany. Lehne expects M-B to downsize the engine portfolio, with the three non-AMG versions that will launch initially powered by V-6 engines. Two naturally aspirated engines will make 241 hp and 311 hp, while a turbocharged V-6 is expected to turn out 382 hp—as much as the current SL550’s 5.5-liter V-8. Mercedes is working on engine stop/start systems as well, but a full hybrid is far off, if it comes at all.

Under the skin, the next SL will share many components with the E-class; outside, the look will remain similar to the current model. "Mercedes needs to be careful the SL doesn't come too close to the SLS AMG," says Lehne. Chief designer Gorden Wagener, fond of experimental styling elements, will have to exercise significant restraint if he wishes to preserve the SL's character.

For a while, Mercedes-Benz toyed with the idea of returning to a conventional softtop, somewhat more appropriate for a vehicle that is rarely used as a year-round daily driver outside of temperate climes. But in the end, Mercedes decided to keep the retractable hardtop, which has become somewhat of an SL trademark.

We expect the SL to come with all the electronic wizards—crash-prevention tech, night vision, and lane-departure warning systems, for example—for which modern Mercedes vehicles have become known. Taken from the vast corporate parts bin, these electronics will aim to make the next SL, due to be launched in the third quarter of 2012 as a 2013 model, as safe and convenient as it is glamorous.

(BY JENS MEINERS, PHOTOGRAPHY BY KGP PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE MANUFACTURER)

Porsche Boxster Spyder - First Drive Review 2011

When James Dean set out to a race in Salinas, California, on that fateful morning of September 30, 1955, he and his beloved Porsche 550 Spyder were already viewed by many as icons. Of course, in years to come, iconic status would be cemented for both Dean and Porsche, with the German company becoming known as the quintessential sports-car manufacturer. So on our maiden voyage with Porsche’s newest, lightweight 2011 Boxster Spyder—said to be a successor to the 550 Spyder, as if there really could be such a thing in modern times—it seemed only fitting to ditch the planned press-trip route and hustle from Carmel, California, to the Dean memorial in Cholame, some 150 miles distant.

Cutting the Fat

Typically, the “spyder” moniker denotes a roofless model. But given that the Boxster is already a convertible, “spyder” is simply a marker that this iteration is unique. (A version of the Cayman could wear the spyder badge properly, but what sense would that make?) With the reworked-for-2009 Boxster S serving as the starting point, Porsche engineers set their sights on a distinctive design and saving weight, pulling out a claimed 176 pounds. Ditching the conventional convertible-top mechanism was the first step. In its place sits a 13-pound, manually operated, two-piece bikini-like cover that can be fully sealed in dire weather—it’s not approved for carwashes, though—flanked by newly shaped windows that match the pitch of the new lid.

With the top stowed, the most visually alluring detail becomes the new one-piece aluminum decklid with two aero humps like those found on the Carrera GT, saving 6.5 pounds over the regular car’s rear trunk and half-tonneau. Aluminum doors from the 911 Turbo and GT3 shave 33 pounds, and the 10-spoke, Spyder-specific 19-inch wheels are actually lighter than the Boxster S’s 18s. The gas tank is reduced in capacity by 2.6 gallons to 14.3, and an optional 13-pound lithium-ion starter battery ($1700!) can save 22 pounds. Additionally, the LED running lamps are smaller, the side scoops are done in black mesh, and the standard exhaust is now finished in black. Porsche says its engineers improved the aerodynamics of the Spyder through a modified front lip and fixed rear spoiler, and a lower trim bar bearing the Porsche name is affixed to recall the 908 and 909 race cars of the ’70s.

Like the exterior, the interior is purged and reworked, and—as with all Porsches—it can be customized to each owner’s request. Standard are the new carbon-fiber-backed sports seats that reduce weight by 26 pounds and add a healthy dose of bolstering, which nicely snugs up the seats but does make ingress and egress a challenge. Customers can opt for normal seats at no cost. The radio and the cup holders are deleted unless requested at no cost, but buyers will have to pay to get the air conditioning reinstalled. The center console and dash trim are color-matched to the body, and the inside door releases are now cloth slings finished in red to match the seatbelts. There is an optional steering wheel with proper paddle shifters for cars equipped with the seven-speed dual-clutch automated manual (PDK). It has yet to be officially confirmed, but expect to see the new wheel available as an option on all Porsche sports cars in the near future.

Pavement Performance

With brisk 50-degree temperatures, our California environment has declared its intention to remain chilly. Nonetheless, the top is down as we begin our journey on scenic Highway 1 near Monterey. With the Pacific Ocean crashing into the cliffs below us, we waste no time putting the Porsche to work. Any doubts about the Spyder’s performance enhancements drift out to sea among the breakers as the extra 10 ponies in the now 320-hp, 3.4-liter flat-six are put to work. Carving through the tight and twisted sections of Highway 1, we find that the reduced weight of our six-speed-manual Spyder—at about 3000 pounds, it’s the lightest in the entire Porsche fleet—is easily apparent. The 0.8-inch lowered suspension includes shorter and stiffer springs, firmer dampers, modified front and rear anti-roll bars, and a slightly wider track, and it all combines to noticeably improve the Boxster’s already stellar handling. The car is just itching to turn in at every corner, and the steering is effortless, as if it had been engineered just for this road. Well, that impression could also be because the suspension work did lighten the steering, but the rack is quicker and even more communicative than before, allowing us to feel the pavement texture more intimately.

The Spyder can tackle 25-mph switchbacks at double that speed. The grippy seats hold you in place and the body shows no signs of pitching or rolling, yet the ride is never harsh. Traction into and out of the turns is hardly lost, with the standard mechanically locking differential enabling high exit speeds. And in a straight line Porsche is claiming a 0-to-60-mph time of 4.6 seconds on PDK-equipped cars with launch control, which seems a bit conservative considering we managed 4.3 in a less-powerful Boxster S weighing 3220 pounds with the PDK. Figure 4.1 or quicker to 60 and about 12.7 seconds in the quarter-mile once we strap test gear to a Boxster Spyder.

Carbon-ceramic discs are optional, although the standard iron rotors carried over from the Boxster S work fine, as we found out when a Mini Cooper one car ahead of us attempted to overtake slower traffic at the same time we did and nearly ran us off the road as we neared our destination.

With a pulse rate high in our personal tachometer, we arrive at the Dean memorial, where reflecting on the drive keeps us from focusing on the numbness in our extremities caused by the cool California air. We did wish for a louder exhaust on our car—an optional sport system provides a remedy—but we were, to say the least, impressed with the car as a whole. Mostly, we were stumped as to how Porsche can keep improving its entry-level model, but this Spyder, which goes on sale in February at $62,150, a mere $3200 more than a Boxster S, is an even sharper sword. Chalk it up to brilliant engineering, the greatest constant from mind-blowing early Porsches like the 550 Spyder to the mind-blowing models of today. Indeed, it’s on the back of engineering that the brand achieved its status as an icon—and became a preferred method of transportation for icons, too.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster

BASE PRICE: $62,150

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 210 cu in, 3436cc
Power (SAE net): 320 bhp @ 7200 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 273 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm

TRANSMISSIONS: 6-speed manual, 7-speed dual-clutch automated manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 95.1 in Length: 172.1 in
Width: 70.9 in Height: 50.9 in
Curb weight (C/D est): 3000–3050 lb

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec
Top speed (drag limited): 166 mph

FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST):
EPA city/highway driving: 19–20/26–29 mpg

Porsche Boxster Spyder - First Drive Review 2011

When James Dean set out to a race in Salinas, California, on that fateful morning of September 30, 1955, he and his beloved Porsche 550 Spyder were already viewed by many as icons. Of course, in years to come, iconic status would be cemented for both Dean and Porsche, with the German company becoming known as the quintessential sports-car manufacturer. So on our maiden voyage with Porsche’s newest, lightweight 2011 Boxster Spyder—said to be a successor to the 550 Spyder, as if there really could be such a thing in modern times—it seemed only fitting to ditch the planned press-trip route and hustle from Carmel, California, to the Dean memorial in Cholame, some 150 miles distant.

Cutting the Fat

Typically, the “spyder” moniker denotes a roofless model. But given that the Boxster is already a convertible, “spyder” is simply a marker that this iteration is unique. (A version of the Cayman could wear the spyder badge properly, but what sense would that make?) With the reworked-for-2009 Boxster S serving as the starting point, Porsche engineers set their sights on a distinctive design and saving weight, pulling out a claimed 176 pounds. Ditching the conventional convertible-top mechanism was the first step. In its place sits a 13-pound, manually operated, two-piece bikini-like cover that can be fully sealed in dire weather—it’s not approved for carwashes, though—flanked by newly shaped windows that match the pitch of the new lid.

With the top stowed, the most visually alluring detail becomes the new one-piece aluminum decklid with two aero humps like those found on the Carrera GT, saving 6.5 pounds over the regular car’s rear trunk and half-tonneau. Aluminum doors from the 911 Turbo and GT3 shave 33 pounds, and the 10-spoke, Spyder-specific 19-inch wheels are actually lighter than the Boxster S’s 18s. The gas tank is reduced in capacity by 2.6 gallons to 14.3, and an optional 13-pound lithium-ion starter battery ($1700!) can save 22 pounds. Additionally, the LED running lamps are smaller, the side scoops are done in black mesh, and the standard exhaust is now finished in black. Porsche says its engineers improved the aerodynamics of the Spyder through a modified front lip and fixed rear spoiler, and a lower trim bar bearing the Porsche name is affixed to recall the 908 and 909 race cars of the ’70s.

Like the exterior, the interior is purged and reworked, and—as with all Porsches—it can be customized to each owner’s request. Standard are the new carbon-fiber-backed sports seats that reduce weight by 26 pounds and add a healthy dose of bolstering, which nicely snugs up the seats but does make ingress and egress a challenge. Customers can opt for normal seats at no cost. The radio and the cup holders are deleted unless requested at no cost, but buyers will have to pay to get the air conditioning reinstalled. The center console and dash trim are color-matched to the body, and the inside door releases are now cloth slings finished in red to match the seatbelts. There is an optional steering wheel with proper paddle shifters for cars equipped with the seven-speed dual-clutch automated manual (PDK). It has yet to be officially confirmed, but expect to see the new wheel available as an option on all Porsche sports cars in the near future.

Pavement Performance

With brisk 50-degree temperatures, our California environment has declared its intention to remain chilly. Nonetheless, the top is down as we begin our journey on scenic Highway 1 near Monterey. With the Pacific Ocean crashing into the cliffs below us, we waste no time putting the Porsche to work. Any doubts about the Spyder’s performance enhancements drift out to sea among the breakers as the extra 10 ponies in the now 320-hp, 3.4-liter flat-six are put to work. Carving through the tight and twisted sections of Highway 1, we find that the reduced weight of our six-speed-manual Spyder—at about 3000 pounds, it’s the lightest in the entire Porsche fleet—is easily apparent. The 0.8-inch lowered suspension includes shorter and stiffer springs, firmer dampers, modified front and rear anti-roll bars, and a slightly wider track, and it all combines to noticeably improve the Boxster’s already stellar handling. The car is just itching to turn in at every corner, and the steering is effortless, as if it had been engineered just for this road. Well, that impression could also be because the suspension work did lighten the steering, but the rack is quicker and even more communicative than before, allowing us to feel the pavement texture more intimately.

The Spyder can tackle 25-mph switchbacks at double that speed. The grippy seats hold you in place and the body shows no signs of pitching or rolling, yet the ride is never harsh. Traction into and out of the turns is hardly lost, with the standard mechanically locking differential enabling high exit speeds. And in a straight line Porsche is claiming a 0-to-60-mph time of 4.6 seconds on PDK-equipped cars with launch control, which seems a bit conservative considering we managed 4.3 in a less-powerful Boxster S weighing 3220 pounds with the PDK. Figure 4.1 or quicker to 60 and about 12.7 seconds in the quarter-mile once we strap test gear to a Boxster Spyder.

Carbon-ceramic discs are optional, although the standard iron rotors carried over from the Boxster S work fine, as we found out when a Mini Cooper one car ahead of us attempted to overtake slower traffic at the same time we did and nearly ran us off the road as we neared our destination.

With a pulse rate high in our personal tachometer, we arrive at the Dean memorial, where reflecting on the drive keeps us from focusing on the numbness in our extremities caused by the cool California air. We did wish for a louder exhaust on our car—an optional sport system provides a remedy—but we were, to say the least, impressed with the car as a whole. Mostly, we were stumped as to how Porsche can keep improving its entry-level model, but this Spyder, which goes on sale in February at $62,150, a mere $3200 more than a Boxster S, is an even sharper sword. Chalk it up to brilliant engineering, the greatest constant from mind-blowing early Porsches like the 550 Spyder to the mind-blowing models of today. Indeed, it’s on the back of engineering that the brand achieved its status as an icon—and became a preferred method of transportation for icons, too.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster

BASE PRICE: $62,150

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 210 cu in, 3436cc
Power (SAE net): 320 bhp @ 7200 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 273 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm

TRANSMISSIONS: 6-speed manual, 7-speed dual-clutch automated manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 95.1 in Length: 172.1 in
Width: 70.9 in Height: 50.9 in
Curb weight (C/D est): 3000–3050 lb

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec
Top speed (drag limited): 166 mph

FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST):
EPA city/highway driving: 19–20/26–29 mpg

(BY JON YANCA, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JON YANCA, AARON ROBINSON, AND THE MANUFACTURER)

2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon

Vehicle Tested:	2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon
Pros:	Handsome styling, sharp handling, generous cargo capacity.
Cons:	Stiff ride with optional Performance package, rear seats uncomfortable for taller adults, not as engaging to drive as some rivals.

When it comes to wagons, those made stateside have historically tended to be looked down upon, while those made in Europe are held in high regard. That may have something to do with the stereotype commonly held regarding domestic wagons: Many expect them to be large, lazy-handling beasts festooned with fake wood paneling — the kind driven by Clark Griswold in National Lampoon's Vacation. The 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon should help put that thinking to rest. With its rakish good looks and athletic personality, it's as far removed from the American wagons of yore as Brad Pitt is from Chevy Chase.

However, we would advise Griswold — or anybody considering the CTS Sport Wagon, for that matter — to skip the optional Performance package, since it includes a suspension so stiff it'd make an old Corvette proud. With that said, the CTS Sport Wagon offers all the goodness of the CTS sedan, including spirited performance, a handsome cabin packed with user-friendly luxury features and an overall size that's probably just right for most shoppers in this segment. And of course it has a far more generous cargo hold.

Still, a few of the 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon's rivals best it in a couple of respects. The BMW 535i xDrive wagon offers a more engaging driving experience, along with a more comfortable backseat. But this Bimmer only comes in all-wheel-drive form and lists for a couple grand more than the top-of-the-line CTS Premium AWD Sport Wagon. If we were considering a lower trim level of the Caddy wagon, we'd also look at the Audi A4 Avant, the BMW 328i wagon, and maybe even a sporty crossover, such as the Audi Q5 or Infiniti FX35.

So yes, we would cross-shop some European wagons, but the fact that the CTS can proudly hold its head up high in this group says something, something that couldn't be said way back when. If you'd like some brash yet classy American style in your sporty station wagon, then the CTS Sport Wagon will likely bring you as much joy as a trip to Wally World. When it's open, that is.

Photos

View More Photos

• 

  Enlarge Photo

  The Sport Wagon combines the dashing lines of the CTS sedan with four times the cargo capacity.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)

• 

  Enlarge Photo

  A tasteful combination of shapes, textures and materials makes for a stylish, cohesive cabin design.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)

• 

  Enlarge Photo

  Trademark vertical taillights and sharply angled side windows tie in old and new styling cues.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)

Performance

The Premium version of the CTS Sport Wagon comes equipped with the more powerful of the two V6 engines offered in the CTS lineup, that being the 3.6-liter V6 with 304 horsepower. The only transmission choice is the six-speed automatic — unlike the sedan, the wagon isn't available with a manual gearbox, though for most consumers we're sure this will be a non-issue. Taxed with hustling more than 2 tons of luxury wagon, the 3.6 provides fairly energetic performance, getting the CTS Sport Wagon to 60 mph in 7 seconds flat and through the quarter-mile in 15.1 seconds. Though generally quick, that time still lags that of some others in this segment. An Audi A4 Avant 2.0T, for example, can sprint to 60 mph in just 6.4 seconds and run down the quarter-mile in 14.6.

The CTS's transmission is what we call a tri-mode, offering automatic, sport automatic and manual-shift modes. In automatic mode it's a smooth operator that's reluctant to kick down a gear when you want more juice unless you give it the boot (ostensibly, its reluctance to downshift exists to optimize fuel economy). In Sport mode, it's too much the other way, downshifting eagerly but holding onto the lower gears too long. While running through a curvy mountain road, it resolutely remained in 2nd gear after we came out of the twisty section and onto a long straightaway, screaming along at high rpm when it could've upshifted to 3rd. Manual mode, worked via a pair of buttons on the backside of the steering wheel, was about average in operation, meaning it reacted fairly quickly to a downshift call, but had a noticeable delay when you hit the button to upshift.

Within the sport-sedan class, a stop from 60 mph in less than 120 feet is considered pretty good. This CTS wagon did the deed in 118 feet, an impressive performance given the wagon's 300 additional pounds of curb weight over the CTS sedan. There was no fade noted at the track during back-to-back panic stops, and the pedal provided an easily modulated, progressive action during normal driving.

We've raved about the previously tested CTS sedan's excellent ride and handling balance, and the same can be said of this wagon. Handling was hard to fault, with quick, precise steering (albeit without much road feel) and a flat, composed attitude through quick transitions.

Comfort

Well-bolstered and generously padded, the front seats of our test car provided comfort on longer trips and support during aggressive cornering. The power tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel's generous range of adjustment allowed each of our staffers — who range in height from about 5-feet-1 to more than 6 feet — to find an ideal driving position. Both the seat heaters and coolers were powerful, warming us up quickly on chilly mornings and preventing sweaty-back syndrome while driving home on sunny afternoons.

In back, it's another story. The rear seat may look inviting, and for smaller folks it's fine. But bigger staffers (5-feet-10 and up) complained that although legroom is ample, the short seat cushion and aggressive outboard side bolsters made for a somewhat pinched, uncomfortable perch.

Equipped with the optional Performance package that includes a firmer suspension, our test car's ride was just too darn stiff. Around town, when bombarded with broken pavement and potholes, the CTS Sport Wagon gave us a bumpy ride that was seriously out of character for a car wearing the wreath and crest. Though this package also includes some enticing features such as xenon headlights and 19-inch alloy wheels (versus the standard 18s), we'd suggest skipping it and enjoying a more supple ride along with still-respectable handling capability.

Function

For a car fitted with so many luxury features (navigation system, seat heaters/coolers, dual-zone automatic climate control), the CTS Sport Wagon is easy to acclimate to. The audio system features a pair of tried-and-true knobs for power/volume and tuning, while the individual temperature controls are angled toward the driver and passenger. An analog clock sits up high, and even though the center stack has various like-shaped buttons, they are grouped logically. The nav system is simple to use and also features traffic reporting along with rerouting options. The cheeky rear roof pillars hinder vision to the rear quarters, but the Premium comes with a reverse park-assist system and a back-up camera that make parking a snap.

With the rear seats up, the Sport Wagon provides 25 cubic feet of cargo space — that's more than an A4 Avant and about the same as an FX35. Flip them down and you'll have 58 cubes, which is 7 cubes more than you'll find in the A4 and 4 cubes shy of the FX35's maximum. Notably, the cargo floor is dead flat when the seats are down and features adjustable tie-downs on either side.

Design/Fit and Finish

The Sport Wagon mostly boasts the same clean, chiseled lines as the sedan, and even with the wagon roof line still manages to have a jaunty, sporty presence. Though the rearmost side window is canted aggressively, the trailing edge of the roof line is more vertical, which optimizes cargo room. The stacked headlights and large egg-crate grille — both part of Caddy's newest design language — work well here, and the car's proportions are spot-on. Somehow the CTS Sport Wagon manages to look lower and sleeker than an equally long but taller crossover, while providing nearly identical passenger and cargo space.

The cabin design is likewise a feather in the CTS's cap, an interesting mix of textures and shapes arranged in a cohesive manner. The materials are mostly quality pieces, with just a few minor missteps. Lustrous wood accents abound, and nearly the whole dash top is covered in handsomely stitched, soft-touch vinyl, though the hood over the instruments is hard plastic. Overall fit and finish is very good.

Who Should Consider This Vehicle

If you're a casual driving enthusiast who wants a wagon with a decidedly new-age Cadillac flavor — that is to say not subtle yet not overdone — the CTS Sport Wagon should offer strong appeal. If you demand a more involving drive from your set of wheels, then we'd strongly suggest back-to-back test-drives with the rivals mentioned earlier.

Others To Consider
Audi A4 Avant, Audi Q5, BMW 328i Wagon, BMW 535i xDrive wagon, Infiniti FX35

The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.

Model Year

2010

Make

Cadillac

Model

CTS

Style

Premium 4dr Wagon (3.6L 6cyl 6A)

Base Price

$52,545

Price as Tested

$54,635

Options on Test Vehicle

Summer Tire Performance Package ($2,090).

Drive Type

Rear-wheel drive

Transmission Type

Six-speed automatic

Transmission and Axle Ratio (x:1)

I: 4.06, II: 2.37, III: 1.57, IV: 1.16, V: 0.85, VI: 0.67 FD: 3.42

Engine Type

V6

Displacement (cc / cu-in)

3,564cc (217 cu-in)

Block/Head Material

Aluminum/aluminum

Valvetrain

Double overhead camshaft

Compression Ratio

11.3

Redline (rpm)

6,700

Horsepower (hp @ rpm)

304 @ 6400

Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)

273 @ 5200

Brake Type (front)

Ventilated disc

Brake Type (rear)

Ventilated disc

Steering System

Speed-proportional power steering

Steering Ratio

16.1:1

Suspension Type (front)

Short and long arm

Suspension Type (rear)

Multilink

Tire Size (front)

245/45ZR19 98Y

Tire Size (rear)

P245/45R19 98Y

Tire Brand

Continental

Tire Model

Contisport Pro Contact 3

Tire Type

Summer

Wheel Size

19-by-8.5 inches

Wheel Material (front/rear)

Polished alloy

Curb Weight As Tested (lb)

4,202

Weight Distribution, F/R (%)

51/49

Recommended Fuel

Regular unleaded

Fuel Tank Capacity (gal)

18.0

EPA Fuel Economy (mpg)

18 city/26 highway

Edmunds Observed (mpg)

17.7

Testing Conditions

Temperature (Fahrenheit)

63.88

Humidity

64%

Elevation (ft)

1,121

Wind

2.5

Performance

0 - 30 (sec)

2.7

0 - 45 (sec)

4.6

0 - 60 (sec)

7.0

0 - 75 (sec)

10.3

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph)

15.1 @ 93.3

0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec)

6.7

30 - 0 (ft)

30

60 - 0 (ft)

118

Braking Rating

Very Good

Slalom (mph)

67.1

Skid Pad Leteral acceleration (g)

0.81

Handling Rating

Very Good

Db @ Idle

41.6

Db @ Full Throttle

70.8

Db @ 70 mph Cruise

59.8

Specifications

Length (in)

191.6

Width (in)

72.6

Height (in)

59.1

Wheelbase (in)

113.4

Front Track (in)

61.8

Rear Track (in)

62.0

Turning Circle (ft)

36.0

Legroom, front (in)

42.4

Legroom, rear (in)

35.9

Headroom, front (in)

38.8

Headroom, rear (in)

37.2

Shoulder Room, front (in)

56.7

Shoulder Room, rear (in)

56.3

Maximum Seating Capacity

5

Cargo Volume (cu-ft)

25.0

Cargo Volume, rear seats down (cu-ft)

58.0

Warranty

Bumper-to-Bumper

4 years/50,000 miles

Power Train

5 years/100,000 miles

Corrosion

6 years/100,000 miles

Roadside Assistance

5 years/100,000 miles

Scheduled Maintenance

Not Available

Safety

Front Airbags

Standard

Side Airbags

Standard dual front

Head Airbags

Standard front and rear

Knee Airbags

Not Available

Antilock Brakes

Four-wheel ABS

Electronic Brake Enhancements

Braking assist, electronic brakeforce distribution

Traction Control

Standard

Stability Control

Standard

Tire Pressure Monitoring System

Tire-pressure monitoring

Emergency Assistance System

Not Available

NHTSA Crash Test Driver

Not Tested

NHTSA Crash Test Passenger

Not Tested

NHTSA Crash Test Side Front

Not tested

NHTSA Crash Test Side Rear

Not Tested

NHTSA Rollover

Not Tested

IIHS Offset

Not Tested