Mazda RX-8 R3 2009 - Short Take Road Test

New sports coupes arrive like summer lightning and depart like uneaten guacamole: ignored, slowly fading to brown, awaiting the inevitable flush. The six-year-old Mazda RX-8 languishes through 2008 with sales the Hubble telescope wouldn’t register: just 2591 units through the end of August.

Mazda isn’t giving up, however. The Hiroshima headquarters considers rotary engines integral to its identity, so the RX-8 stays, a place keeper for a future all-new rotary engine currently code-named “16X” and due perhaps by 2012.

Meanwhile, the RX-8 gets a little stir to keep it green. Most obvious is the new front bumper that flares the grille and brake-duct openings for a more dangerous, grinning-cobra menace. Four glassy robot eyes now fill the taillight teardrops, the exhaust tips are bigger, and fresh wheel designs adorn the various trim levels.

Underneath, Mazda adds chassis stiffeners to further tighten an already athletic platform, and tweaked rear-suspension geometry settles the back end and helps sharpen steering response. The prop shaft also has been strengthened to reduce driveline vibration and noise.

Also new for ’09 is the R3. At $32,600, the RX-8 R3 is priced just $930 above the luxury Grand Touring and trades a few of the GT’s comfort bits—heated mirrors, automatic climate control, power seats—for go-fast bits such as 19-inch forged aluminum wheels, Bilstein shocks, and Recaro-brand leather-trimmed buckets. A spoiler, side-sill extensions, fog lights, and an even angrier front bumper also ride along, as does a 300-watt Bose stereo.

Steering that answers to palm twitches remains the RX-8’s best selling point, the R3 cruising flat and neutral through the wiggles without tire squeal or shimmy. Call us surprised that our skidpad runs were lower, generating 0.87 g to our previous 0.92. Brake performance stays about even, and the R3 impresses as every bit the joy toy its predecessors were.

The six-speed-only R3 runs on the same 232 horsepower and 159 pound-feet of torque as other RX-8 manuals (autos have 212 horses) but has foam-filled front crossmembers linking the front-suspension pickups for better sound-and-vibration damping. At 3060 pounds, the R3’s curb weight exactly matches that of our last RX-8 test car [“Four of a Kind,” June 2007].

The low-torque RX-8 was always tricky to get rolling without a stall. A shorter rear-end ratio in all 2009s—4.78:1 versus 4.44—means less revving and clutch slip in everyday driving. However, the second-to-third shift is now perilously close to 60 mph, which likely slowed the acceleration runs (6.7 seconds to 60 mph versus 6.5). Fuel economy isn’t helped or, apparently, hurt. We averaged 15 mpg, same as before.

Sporty cars come and eventually go, but for now, Mazda’s entertaining eccentric is signing up for another rotation.

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2+2-door coupe

PRICE AS TESTED: $32,600 (base price: $32,600)

ENGINE TYPE: 2-rotor Wankel, aluminum rotor housings with iron liners and end plates, port fuel injection
Displacement: 80 cu in, 1308cc
Power (SAE net): 232 bhp @ 8500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 159 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.4 in Length: 175.6 in Width: 69.7 in Height: 52.8 in
Curb weight: 3060 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 40.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 141 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/22 mpg
C/D observed: 15 mpg

(BY AARON ROBINSON, PHOTOGRAPHY BY MORGAN SEGAL)

Toyota Land Cruiser (2009) CAR review

It’s almost 60 years old, five million have been sold throughout the world and, with this all-new model – cue drumroll – the UK will add, well, around 1200 units to that tally annually. You’re unlikely to see one over here, then, so take a good look at the all-new Toyota Land Cruiser while you can.

It looks familiar…

Evolution’s certainly the name of the game here, the new car looking much like the one that’s been around since 2003. Headline changes for spotters include a bigger front bumper with integral fog lamps, a new grille with vertical bars, revised headlights and rear LED taillights, plus more aggressively flared wheelarches.

The dimensions remain much the same, partly because there was always plenty of interior room, partly because Toyota didn’t want to swell the exterior dimensions for fear of reducing off-road manoeuvrability. So, it’s 45mm longer and 10mm wider than its predecessor while maintaining the same wheelbase and rear overhang. If you’re serious about your off-roading, you might be interested to know that the approach angle is 32 degrees, the ramp breakover angle 22 degrees, the departure angle 25 degrees.

The V8 Land Cruiser (introduced in 2008) continues to be offered here, but Britain will only take this bodystyle in five door, 3.0-litre TD trim – a seriously big four cylinder.

If it’s so similar, what’s the point?

Toyota’s aim has been to build on the Land Cruiser’s rugged, go-anywhere DNA, while also making it a far nicer drive on the road.

So, body-on-frame construction remains – it’s tougher, and, says Toyota, the separate body better resists the twisting forces exerted by serious off-roading than a monocoque does – and there’s all manner of acronyms to bail you out when the going gets tough: an LSD for the centre diff, A-TRC (Acitve traction control) MTS (Multi-terrain select), multi-terrain ABS.

However, there’s also extra sound insulation in the A, B, C and D pillars, plus the door sill and roof. There’s extra sound deadening inside too, an acoustic windscreen (a layer of film between the glass helps refinement) and extra attention has been paid to keep wind noise down. And it works. Once you’re up to speed and making only small adjustments to the throttle you’ll notice precious little wind-, tyre- or road noise.

I sense a ‘but’ coming on…

I prefer the word caveat, but yes. Accelerate hard and the engine becomes far more vocal, and it’s not particularly quick off the mark either. The Land Cruiser also rides with a lolloping gait, has very light and slow-witted steering and, while it’s generally composed, there’s too much thumping about over ripples and pockmarks for our liking.

However, the standard five-speed automatic shifts smoothly and, if you spec the top LC5 trim level, you’ll get three-way adjustable dampers that help to quell the roll and better absorb the bumps – although the sub-30mph ride still fails to impress.

What’s this business about specs?

You can choose from LC3, LC4 and LC5, the former being the bare bones poverty spec, the latter offering both the most luxurious interior appointments –rear seat entertainment system, sunroof, electric seat memory – and the really serious off-road kit – multi-terrain select, crawl control, locking rear diff, steering angle display and active height control for the rear suspension. You can’t, sadly, spec the most basic car with the best off-road kit.

Whatever the spec, it’s more Mitsubishi Outlander in here than Land Rover Discovery. The plastics and controls are pretty cheap and everything just looks a bit dated, even if it is comfortable (another caveat – the Lexus RX seats are far more comfortable) and easy to see out of and place on the road thanks to its chunky square corners.

And what the big Toyota lacks in quality it makes up for in practicality. It has seven seats, and six-feet-tall adults can easily sit one-behind-the-other in rows one, two and three. Yes, the third row is a bit more compromised – you sit higher so your view out of the windscreen is marginal and headroom is much tighter – but it’s not a squash for full-sizers.

You can also lay all of rows two and three flat in all sorts of different configurations for when you’re lugging big loads around. Got something long and narrow plus four passengers? Drop one seat in row two and another in row three and away you go. And with all the seats up there’s still room out back for a couple of suitcases.

What’s it like off-road?

Absolutely amazing. Truth be told, this writer hasn’t much in the way of off-road experience, but I drove down a river, up steep, chalky hills clogged with mud and bordered by trees, and teetered down hillsides I probably couldn’t have walked down, and all without incident. The Hansel and Gretel sat-nav that keeps track of where you’ve gone even when you’re off-road, and the central screen that shows what you see through the windscreen plus the trajectory of your front wheels (LC5 only) – it’s so easy to lose track of where you’re pointing in really slippery conditions – deserve particular praise.

In an hour I reckon I did more than what 99% of 4x4 owners would do in a lifetime, and did it all while relying entirely on Toyota’s technology, not my skill.

Verdict

We were impressed by the Land Cruiser, but it’s easy to understand why we see so few in the UK – the Land Rover Discovery is just the better bet. We can’t really verify which car is better off-road, but we have driven the Landie and Toyota on off-road courses and both 4x4s simply shrugged everything off, and so will be equally adept at dealing with everything a UK owner will throw at them – even those who do regularly stray off-road.

Perhaps the Land Cruiser’s body-on-frame ruggedness would come into its own in the Outback or the Middle East, and I know which name I’d rather trust in a life-or-death situation, but this excellence is largely wasted in the UK.

What you’re left with is a 4x4 that doesn’t look or feel as plumply, premiumly, safely special as the Discovery either inside or out, isn’t as nice to drive and costs similar money.

A good effort, but soundly beaten in our market.

(By Ben Barry)

Mercedes SLS AMG (2009) CAR review

Mercedes-Benz is on a roll. After the excellent new C-class and E-class saloons – proper Benzes, as opposed to BMW wannabes – now comes the most eagerly waited new sports car since… well, since last week’s launch of the Ferrari 458 Italia, and the previous month’s unveiling of the McLaren MP4-12C, and the previous month’s brilliant new Porsche 911 Turbo. So much for the prophets of gloom, foretelling the death of the supercar!

This Mercedes SLS AMG is most famous for its doors, which is a little weird. First up, do those gullwings work?

They do – though there is no benefit to ingress and egress compared with usual front-hinged doors. These roof-hinged doors are commendably light – as with the rest of the car’s skin, they are made from aluminium – so they’re easy to open and close. The only trick is to grab the door handle on the way in. The door is too high to grab once you’re seated.

They could have fitted electric doors, but that would have added weight in the very place you don’t want it – up in the roof, where the electronic actuation would have been sited. Weight paring was a priority, which is right and proper for a sports car.

OK enough about doors. Is it supercar fast?

You bet. Top speed is electronically governed to 197mph (you wonder what’s the point of stopping the fun at almost 200mph?) and 0-62 is dispatched in only 3.8 seconds. The big 6.2 V8 revs hard, woofles pleasingly when touring, bellows like a bull elephant under hard acceleration, and all the time the soundtrack is backed by that lovely V8 rumble. When it’s on full song, an SLS sounds like a NASCAR stocker at full chat on the banks of Darlington. It’s marvellous music.

The only slight surprise is the lack of big punch at low revs – you need to get the engine spinning before it really delivers.

Gearchange is by a seven-speed dual clutch paddleshift box, which changes fast and smooth. If you fancy lazy-man motoring, it will happily and smoothly drift along in automatic.

The engine is based on the same 6.3 engine (actually 6208cc) used in the C63 and E63 AMG models – except for inlet and exhaust systems, different valves and the dry sump engine. Power is also boosted – up by over 100bhp compared with a C63.


(By Gavin Green, main image photography by Mark Bramley)

2009 Mitsubishi Outlander Review

INTRO TO THE OUTLANDER VEHICLE

Despite the fact the Mitsubishi Outlander is a decently equipped affordable vehicle, it could get lost in the car lot due to the fact its just another compact crossover. It must be carefully compared, and I couldn't help thinking during my week-long test drive the best vehicle to do a side-by-side study would be the Subaru Forester.

A 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander with a 220-horsepower 3.0-liter V6 ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) engine, a 6-speed auto transmission with 2WD, the high-end XLS trim (standards include roof rails, fog lights, stowable 3rd-row seating, steering wheel mounted paddle shifting), the Luxury Package ($1,650 with xenon headlights, leather seating, heated seats) and Sun & Sound package ($1,600 for Rockford Fosgate 9-speaker audio system and power glass sunroof) totals to $28,355.

In retrospect, a 2009 Forester with the 170-horsepower, 2.5-liter 4-cylindar PZEC (Partial Zero Emissions) engine ($451), a 4-speed auto transmission with Sport Shift ($1,000), the All-Weather Package ($400) and a standard premium package that comes with a large, power moonroof, roof rails and steering wheel mounted controls totals to $25,623. Remember, no leather or power seating unlike the Outlander. Both do not have navigation.

The Forester PZEV and the Outlander ULEV engine is basically the same thing; although these vehicles use gasoline, they produce extremely clean (or practically zero) evaporative emissions.

HEELS ON WHEELS REVIEW CRITERIA

Stylish But Comfortable Results: The Forester did drop its nerdy look and adapted an SUV sex appeal; the Outlander hasn't really changed its looks since 2005 (it doesn't need to). My Forester model didn't have power seating; the Outlander did (at an extra cost) and leather really makes a difference. The climate controls on the Forester were very basic with only four settings, making it more difficult to maintain the right temperature. The Outlander, on the other hand, had two flexible dials. The panoramic moonroof is a real standout on the Forester.

Reliability & Safety Factor: There is a helpful longer-than-most delayed dome light that comes on during leaving with the Forester; and when the unlocking button is pressed on the key fob, a bluish light casts away any dark shadows under the car. The Outlander needs larger side mirrors for better clearance. The Forester has the honor of being awarded Motor Trend's 2009 Sport/Utility Car of the Year; also it's Consumer Report's top-rated small SUV.

Cost Issues: In a nutshell, a $25,623 Forester gets you cloth seats, a great moonroof, all-wheel drive and roof rails – step up to a limited trim and make it just like the Outlander, adding much-missed leather seats, power seating and a turbo engine, and you'll pay around $28,860 – but the Outlander has a V6 at this price.

Activity & Performance Ability: I had a hard time believing the Outlander had a V6 under the hood (performed on the scale of a 4-cylinder). The Forester's 4-cylinder not loud and whiny. The Outlander has a pull-up or stowable 3rd row; although it's not comfortable, it's convenient.

The Green Concern: Gas estimations for the Outlander are 17-mpg city and 24-mpg highway with the V6; the Forester's 4-cylindar gets 20-mpg city and 26-mpg highway. So go with the Outlander's 168-horsepower 2.4-liter engine instead which will net you the same.

FINAL PARTING WORDS
Essentially, you are staring at the same car. I suppose the Forester's panoramic moonroof lends edge; but the Outlander offers a V6 at the same price of a Forester's 4-cylinder (if interior features were equal) and stowable 3rd-row seating. Both vehicles pull at your purse strings by using modesty about being very capable and affordable.

(By Katrina Ramser
San Francisco Bureau
The Auto Channel )