Having driven the ML320 in diesel trim, I've never been convinced of the need for something like a hyrbid in the lineup. But it's what buyers want and the ML is a good platform for the company to test out their first full system.

This is an Atkinson cycle V6 with 279 HP and a pair of electric motors. Total power output is a robust 340 HP, giving it V8-like juice with a considerably better 21/24 MPG; the 2010 ML350 BlueTec diesel returns 18/25. The only trim this is available in is 4MATIC permanent AWD, which hurts it in terms of fuel economy but responds to market desires in this segment.

On the road it's clear traffic was maybe the best choice for driving this, as you get to experience the frequent starting-und-stopping and gobs of brake regeneration. Other than the fuel economy meter and "eco" or "sport" settings, the concept behind this hybrid is to make you feel good about yourself without paying for it in terms of driving feel.

Compared to clunkier systems, this stop/start engine is almost unnoticeable but for a slight kick in certain quick starts. Brake feel is fantastic, without a hint of regeneration. It allowed me time to act like a real LA driver and scream at others while tweeting about Tiger's mistress.

Overall it drove just like an ML but without the rush of torque you get in the diesel. If you must have a Mercedes SUV with a "Hybrid" badge, you can lease one (Mercedes isn't letting anyone buy one yet). Our advice? Put a hybrid sticker on an ML350 diesel instead.

First impressions aren't good, at least if you're looking for a pared-to-the-bone performance car like the 2009 Nissan 370Z Sport we tested back in July. The interior in this car looks like it came from Infiniti, which the Navitainment system and 7-speed automatic gearbox with paddles actually did. Then there's the seats, they're heated and cooled in addition to power adjustable and part covered in leather, part in a swishy net material.

Weight is also up by 135 Lbs over the coupe and the soft top is now operated by a transmission tunnel-mounted button rather than folding manually.

So two pedals, more weight, luxury interior, power top. This is a poseur's car then, right? Wrong. Despite offering the ability to cool your hot ass while letting your hair blow in the wind, the 370Z Roadster is still a driver's car. Click through the gallery below to find out why.

Exterior Design: ☆☆☆

We gave the coupe a four star rating and, while this new roadster loses the 350Z's incredibly awkward soft top proportions (remember that long deck lid?) losing the top is less than flattering to the 370Z's over the top detailing. Where the cantilevered roof on the coupe nicely offsets the wildly flared rear arches, top off these look far too big for the rest of the cars proportions. The same can be said for the door handles and taillights. They work on the coupe, but not without the roof. It's still a decent looking car, just in an awkward kind of way.

Unfortunately, I managed to park the Z under a tree full of loose-boweled birds shortly before I took these pictures. Since no one wants to see a red convertible top completely covered in green shit, we can't bring you top up photos.

Interior Design: ☆☆☆☆

"Touring" trim really dresses things up inside, not only are the materials now of a quality befitting a $45,840 car, but the spot-on relationship between the position of the seat, pedals and wheel is carried over from the coupe. Forward vision remains unparalled for a front engine car, even if what little rearward and rear 3/4 vision that exists in the coupe has now completely dissappeared, even with the top down. Infiniti details like the partially leather-wrapped shift paddles and large screen for the navigation and entertainment systems really move the interior up a notch.

Performance: ☆☆☆☆

We gave the Coupe a five-star rating, saying "4.7 seconds to 60 MPH is damn good for a $30k sports car." Unfortunately, 5.1 seconds to 60 MPH is slightly less impressive for a $40k roadster. It's not that the gearbox is bad, it's actually one of our favorite automatics, but it does carry with it a small performance deficit. Where the manual tranny car will spin the wheels under hard acceleration in third, the automatic will only do that in second gear. Despite being a torque converter auto, manual shifts occur rapidly the instant you select them, no annoying delay between selection and actuation as in the $200,000 Mercedes SLS AMG. Most automatics with six or more speeds also tend to stick themselves in the highest possible gear the second you lift off the throttle in the vain pursuit of fuel economy. The means that when you do ask for power again, it takes two to three shifts before actual acceleration occurs. The 370Z shares its auto with the 2009 Infiniti G37 Convertible and neither car wants to upshift when you don't want it to. Thank you Nissan for making your automatic do what it's supposed to.

The rest of the nice stuff we said about the Z coupe's performance still applies to the Roadster. Peak torque (270 Lb-Ft) arrives at 5,200 RPM and peak power (332 HP) at 7,000. That might not sound hugely flexible, but there's now plenty of power and torque throughout the rev range, even low down.

Ride and Handling: ☆☆☆☆

We gave the coupe five stars for handling and three stars for ride and, as far as we can tell, the Roadster performs identically to its hard topped brother. That means huge amounts of grip (over 1g on the skid pad is possible) and a very neutral chassis with neither under or oversteer present in huge amounts. You'll pay the price for the excellent responsiveness when it comes to driving over bumps. While there's no detectable scuttle shake or similar - typically the bane of soft tops - the springs and dampers are very firm. Poseurs may find their Bluetooth earpieces dislodged from their ears as a result. Buyer beware.

Toys And Tech: ☆☆☆

The Infiniti navigation system is excellent and simple to use thanks to the intuitive controls. Mercedes and BMW would do well to emulate it with the next generations of iDrive and COMMAND. But since this is the auto-equipped version it loses our favorite Z toy, the Syncro Rev Match throttle blipping thingy. Still, heated and cooled seats and a power top aren't to be sniffed at.

Value: ☆☆☆☆

There's really no other convertible at this price level that drives like a real sports car, so taking that into consideration, we're giving the Roadster one more star than the Coupe, which faces stiffer competition in its class.

Overall: 73%

An honest-to-god convertible sports car that's only compromise over the coupe is in the price, about $6,000 more than an equivalent 370Z coupe. Like the hard top, the 370Z Roadster raises the bar for performance convertibles both in terms of outright speed and, most importantly in driver involvement. We'd buy the coupe, but won't look down on drivers that will pay more to have messy hair.

Suitability Parameters: Who Should Buy This?

● Speed Merchants
● Fashion Victims
● Very Successful Hairdressers With A Need For Speed

Suitability Parameters: Who Shouldn't Buy This?

● Poseurs
● Penny Pinchers
● Golfing Grandparents
● People Who Can Live Without Their Hair Blowing In The Wind

Also Consider:

● Ford Mustang GT Convertible: Cheaper, slower and less fun, but it has four seats
● Audi TTS Roadster: Just as fast, less involving, poseurs only

● BMW Z4: wayyyyy more expensive, equally good to drive, folding hard top, looks like a clown shoe
● Infiniti G37 Convertible: same platform and drivetrain, more refinement and luxury, tiny back seats, more money

Vitals:

Model Year: 2010
Make: Nissan

Model: 370Z Roadster

Trim: Touring with Sport Package

Price, Base/As-Tested: $36,970/$45,840
Engine: 3.7-liter DOHC 24-valve V6
Horsepower & Torque: 332 HP @ 7,000 RPM, 270 Lb-Ft @ 5,200 RPM

Transmission: 7-speed Automatic

Curb Weight: 3495 Lbs

0-to-60: 5.1 secs

Top Speed: 155 MPH (limited) 

Crash Testing, Front/Rear/Side: N/A

Fuel Economy, EPA: 18/25 MPG

If you read our review of the 2011 Buick Regal, it was pretty plain to see we liked the car a lot. It's probably the most fun, nicest-looking, sporty FWD mid-size sedan in the market. And we're saying that about a Buick, not an Acura TSX or Mazda6.

The Regal is more or less exactly the same as the Euro-spec Opel Insignia, which means by commutative property, since we like the Regal, we like the Opel Insignia. When GM takes that enjoyable, 220 HP front wheel drive car and puts a stonkin' 325 HP, 2.8-liter turbocharged V6 with a six speed manual and a Haldex all-wheel-drive system in it capable of rear-axle torque vectoring, it's a fair bet we'll be giddy with excitement. Then they add 14-inch (front) Brembo binders, Recaro bucket seats, 20 inch wheels and body work so aggressive it makes one's inner hoon squeal. GM brought one along during the Regal drive and let us have a crack at it.

It might not be the fastest, hardest cornering, most extreme factory tuner in the world, but God damn it looks good. This could have the three-cylinder wheeze-fest from an old Geo Metro and we'd still want to roll around naked on it. That's not to say it isn't fast, 0-60 MPH takes 5.8 seconds, which is impressive for a car that weighs 3,990 Lbs.

But lifting off the accelerator is a high crime. Maybe it's the super-grippy Recaro buckets, the Darth Vader meets Tron interior graphics or the knowledge that you're driving one of the only OPC's to ever grace these shores, but you can't help but drop the transmission down a couple cogs and obliterate the speed limit with dangerous regularity. It's easy to find oneself hunting for even the slightest bend in the road to exaggerate into a high speed corner. The car's good, but more importantly, it's involving.

The OPC bases much of its greasy bits on the Saab 9-3 Turbo X powertrain, though it's tuned to a higher level, it makes many of the same moves. That Saab had only 280 HP, but the torque vectoring AWD system is identical.

Compared to the Regal, the Insignia OPC is more of a boy racer, such things are obvious based on the obnoxious body work and giant wheels, but it lives at an interesting intersection of hooligan and grown up. The car is tighter in corners, but doesn't punish you over jarring bumps, turn-in is faster, but it isn't tiresome. Should you lose your mind and want a more sedate experience, you can turn the car down a couple notches with three different suspension settings, each progressively softer until its throttle response and damping rate is rather pedestrian.

The fact that GM brought this car to a Buick Regal media launch is not a signal lost on us. We aren't saying GM is preparing a version for the United States, but the shoulder shrugs and veiled smirks from GM engineers say they're at least thinking about it. Although there was much talk of the letters "G," "N," and "X" but none of it coming from anyone wearing a GM badge — and unfortunately, GM's CEO's already nixed the idea. Still, a car fan-boy can dream, can't we?

It's November in Michigan, and that means it's cold and dreary and dark, not the most appealing time to be out driving, but when GM tosses us the keys to it's latest Buick we actually felt a twinge of excitement. Over a Buick. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's seen the accolades piled atop the Regal's twin the Opel/Vauxhall Insignia. Combined the two identical cars have racked up over thirty awards across Europe and have managed to claim top-seller status.

This is where you replay the last twenty years of General Motors history and put on your skeptic's hat. 'They'll decontent the car, turn the suspension into a squishy mess, the seats will be made of muppet soft cloth and the steering will feel like it's connected to the road through a damp rope.' This is a supposition any healthy car consumer should have, especially regarding a Buick made from an Opel. On all counts however, you'd be wrong.

The Regal in the US is different than the Korean market version in tuning only, it shares 95% of it's parts with the Insignia. Basically the changes come down to different headlights and tail lights per federal requirements, new software in the radio and navigation system, different rear view mirror glass, and all-season tires. They actually improved over the Insignia's NVH requirements, adding sound deadening material in the cabin to make it align with Buick targets.

We drove the European spec Insignia against the Regal and believe it or not, the Regal is better.

We drove Regals equipped with the 2.0 liter turbocharged inline four with both the six-speed automatic and the manual six speed. Off the line the car pulls hard with both the manual and the auto, squealing the tires through first, making use of all 220 HP and 258 lb-ft of torque on the way to a mid-seven second 0-60 MPH time. The transmissions are pretty respectable too, the manual shifts crisply and the engagement point is smooth, gears are well placed to work with the slightly heady engine and spirited driving is downright fun. The six speed auto isn't anything to sneeze at either, passing is a remarkably swift endeavor, it kicks down and away you go, pulling like a mule all the way. Steering under normal and spirited driving has an excellent on-center feel the thick-rimmed tiller has just the right weighty feel under turn-in and the car stays flat through hard sweepers. Potholes and heaves are soaked up though don't completely disappear, the car is tuned fairly stiff for a sporty communicative feel. If there's one thing we can fault in the Regal, it's the steering under hard acceleration, there is a tendency for the wheel to get light and darty, while it's not nightmarish vintage Saab-like torque steer, it's the one thing that could use improvement in the car. Did you catch that? One thing.

Everything about the car is solid, it feels overwhelmingly Germanic in nature. The build quality of the interior is on-par with modern VW's, the seats even look and feel like something out of Germany — firm, supportive, well bolstered and extraordinarily comfortable, they even have extending thigh supports. The leather is extremely high-quality but the cloth seats are nothing to sneeze at either. Buttons have a satisfying damped click, knobs are detented just right. The gauges are clear and communicative and the info center works without complaint. The car comes with all the latest gadgets like Bluetooth, satellite radio, navigation, and other widgets people seem to like. The entire layout is sculptural and quite handsome, though like the Buick LaCrosse, the sculpture results in storage that's somewhat lacking.

While we couldn't find a good place to put our camera and notepad, it didn't matter, just look at the thing, it's gorgeous. The looks which made us simultaneously jealous at the Europeans and furious at General Motors when they announced the Insignia for Europe translate to the Regal virtually unscathed. While following a train of maniac journalists through the twisty roads on the outskirts of Detroit, I regulaly found myself thinking 'Dayum! That's a good lookin' car up there.'

So let's see what we have here; A gorgeous, fun-to-drive, quick, comfortable, well-equipped American sedan built with the quality of its German competitors... and it's a Buick. Who knew?

The biggest difference between this 2010 and the old model first introduced in 2007 isn't the power and torque bump (from 500 HP and 480 Lb-Ft to 540 HP and 510 Lb-Ft), but rather the fitment of better suspension and particularly a whiz-bang stability control system that doesn't just make driving the live rear axle muscle car safer, but also much faster.

How does it do that? Not just by controlling wheelspin on the rear axle due to an overly enthusiastic right foot, but also by reigning in understeer. That means you can hold a tighter line in corners which, in turn, means you can go faster.

The system's got three modes: everything on, traction off, and full traction and stability off. It's that middle mode that you'll want to drive the GT500 in most of the time. It allows seven to eight degrees of rear wheel slide before intervening to stop you slamming into a tree. Yes, your ability to posture masculinely on the internet is reduced by admitting you use stability control, but it's just way more fun to drive the car like this. Not only because the car doesn't understeer so much, but also because you're free to really beat on the engine without worrying too much about bodywork repair bills.

Exterior Design: ☆☆☆☆☆
I'm an unrepentant euro car snob, but I love the 2010 ‘Stang's looks and they're even better in aggressive Shelby form. That huge grill, the hood-mounted air outlet, the dark wheels, the functional rear wing with a Gurney lip; all that just exudes menacing purpose. I literally dream about driving the GT500 down desert roads at night, all car commercial style. Now if I could just grow a five o'clock shadow it'd be perfect.

Interior Design: ☆☆☆
Some decent shapes and the huge Sync screen is nice but the interior just doesn't belong in a $48,175 car. The cue ball shifter is cheesy, the polka dot dash inlays are tacky, the seats feel cheap, the flimsy black plastic belongs in a ‘90s economy car. Worst of all, the steering wheel doesn't telescope so, thanks to my 34-inch inseam dictating my seat position, I'm stuck extending my arms fully to reach the steering wheel. This is not only uncomfortable, but is detrimental to car control too. At least the steering column is high enough that my long right leg can clear it for heel and toeing. We'd gladly sacrifice gimmicks like lighted door sills and changeable color clocks for a telescoping wheel. This applies to all Mustangs. Ford, you really have to fix this.

Still, the Mustang has a usable back seat and a big trunk. Can you name another 500+ HP two-door that does the same? Not for this money you can't, it's actually a fairly practical car.

Performance: ☆☆☆☆☆
How's driving a 540 HP Mustang on summer tires in 38-degree rain on winding roads in the Adirondacks? You'd probably guess frightening, sphincter tightening or at least white knuckled but I'm going to go with "fun."

Driving in California in the summer we said the new GT500 could keep up with AWD cars in corners. In these conditions it wouldn't, but it's a hell of a lot more involving. There's just a lot to be said for the feeling you get when you slowly squeeze the accelerator towards the floor out of a wet corner, correct a slide safe in the knowledge computers will take over if things get too crazy, hear the supercharger whine scream louder and louder, grab third then stay flat into fourth and then the hood full of overnight ice flies up onto the windscreen completely blocking your vision as you get close to the 155 MPH speed limiter. You still have to drive the GT500, it just does what you tell it now.

Even on warm, dry, smooth roads the GT500 has a hard time putting its power down completely, hence the somewhat disappointing 4.3-second 0-60 time for a car that weighs 3,917 Lbs, yet has all that torque. In October in New York the Shelby will spin its wheels under power all the way through fourth gear if you're not smooth with the throttle.

Ride and Handling: ☆☆☆☆
For 2010 the GT500 gains firmer springs and stiffer dampers all round. Intended to reduce roll, squat and dive, they enable a thinner front swaybar, spec'd to dial out some more understeer. The steering shaft is also stiffened with stronger couplings. All this transforms the GT500's handling but it remains a relatively unsophisticated setup with front struts and a live axle rear, so it can't work miracles. Handling is improved, but the ride is stiffer. But do you really expect a 540 HP Mustang to ride like a Jaguar?

The previous cars understeer, then snap oversteer has been cured by this arrangement as has its tendency to float around imprecisely rather than behave like a sportscar. Even without the stability control system, this would be a drastically better car to drive, but the system elevates it to an entirely new level. As expected, you're going to have trouble putting your power down on wet, cold, bumpy roads, but now the slides those conditions produce are predictable and controllable.

Toys And Tech: ☆☆☆☆
It's got the latest version of Sync, our favorite sat/nav communication thing operated through a huge eight-inch touchscreen. Unlike OnStar you actually get a map to look at and you don't have to talk to Jimmy Joe Bob from Arkansas in order to get directions somewhere in New York. Even I can connect my phone to for hands free use, but don't tell Ray, "I'm Driving" is my favorite excuse to ignore his calls. Sync and the huge screen alone are worth five stars, but I'm subtracting one because Ford considers MyColor a legitimate Toy on a car designed for adults.

Value: ☆☆☆
Not only is the GT500 the cheapest car you can buy from a major manufacturer with 540 HP, but it's basically the $79,995 2009 Shelby GT500KR for $30,000 less. We like to think of the GT500 as the working man's supercar, but numbers aside, it's not much more fun to drive than the 2010 Mustang GT with the Track Pack, yet costs $18,000 more.

Overall: 80%
Fast, fun, challenging, rewarding, great looking but suffers from the regular Mustang's crappy interior and struggles to offer more than numbers over the cheaper GT. Despite all that, we'd love to own one of these. The Shelby GT500's combination of power, control, practicality and looks is completely unique.

Suitability Parameters: Who Should Buy This?
● Speed Merchants
● NASCAR Dads
● Penny Pinchers shopping for supercars
● Jalopnik Road Test Editors

Suitability Parameters: Who Shouldn't Buy This?
● Poseurs
● Treehuggers
● High Falutin' City Folk

Also Consider:
● Chevy Corvette: better handling, even worse interior, just as fast

● Dodge Challenger SRT/8: a competitor in looks only

● Camaro Z/28 (if/when it happens): All speculation at this point, but if it gets the LS9 it'll be faster

● Mustang GT with Track Pack: just as much fun if quite a bit slower

Vitals:
Model Year: 2010

Make: Ford

Model: Shelby GT500

Trim: N/A

Price, Base/As-Tested: $48,175/$48,175

Engine: 5.4-liter supercharged, 32-valve V8

Horsepower & Torque: 540 HP @ 6,200 RPM, 510 Lb-Ft @ 4,500 RPM

Transmission: 6-speed manual

Curb Weight: 3917 Lbs
0-to-60: 4.3 secs (manufacturer quoted)

Top Speed: 155 MPH (limited) 
Crash Testing, Front/Rear/Side: *****/*****/*****

Fuel Economy, EPA: 14/22 MPG

(We're taking a step back from 500 HP Week to bring you a timely first drive of a new vehicle. Sorry, these damn automakers are always messing with our timelines. — Ed.)

No, you're not seeing things –- that's a Mitsubishi Lancer's snout tacked onto the nose of a seven-passenger truck. This is the 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander. Do not adjust your screen.

We know what you're thinking: That is one big nose job.

In the industry, this sort of thing is known as a mid-cycle face-lift, a planned rejuvenation that occurs roughly halfway through a vehicle's production life. In these face-lifts, cosmetic updates are usually paired with a handful of mechanical and electronic refinements; the goal is to give sales a small boost and retain interest in the model until its replacement is ready for sale.

But enough with the background. We mention all of the above only so we can tell you this: Rarely is a face-lift this extreme. In one fell swoop, the Outlander has made the jump from relative nonexistence to something else entirely, something both polarizing and compelling. (Go ahead: Try and remember what the 2005-2009 Outlander's nose looks like. Five bucks says you can't.) It's like John Travolta's shift in Pulp Fiction –- at some point during that dance with Uma Thurman, Vinnie Barbarino began to matter again. And somehow, by borrowing a face, Japan's most anonymous SUV became interesting.

Also, Mitsubishi gave it an updated interior, the aforementioned differential, and ten more horsepower. We have thoughts on all of this.

Exterior Design ☆☆☆☆

This is one of those things that's entirely up to taste. The last Outlander suffered from anodyne looks and a wallflower vibe that encouraged parking valets to mistake it for a turkey sandwich. The truck you see here is as extroverted as its predecessor was sleepy; the gaping hole in its maw is either a killer shout-out to the Evo's rally heritage or a tribute to the everlasting glory of the Mississippi River catfish. We like it, but we also like bourbon milkshakes and playing the music of John Philips Sousa very loudly at three o'clock in the morning. We acknowledge that such things are not for everyone. Your call.

Interior Design ☆☆☆

Excellent use of space. A mix of above-average and below-average materials. (On a recent press launch, a certain journalist accidentally scratched the bejesus out of an Outlander's dash by simply skittering his fingernails across it. Diamond-like fingernails, or an interior in need of slightly more attention to detail? You be the judge.)

The Outlander's interior has the same refreshing sparseness and black-coffee simplicity found in all current Mitsubishis; things are occasionally boomy over rough pavement, but the thin pillars and good visibility prompt you to throw the truck around in ways that you probably shouldn't. The thickly bolstered front seats may not suit the girthier folk of middle America, but they hold you remarkably well when dropping into seemingly bottomless off-camber turns with one wheel in the air. (Not that we would know.)

Performance ☆☆☆

Make no mistake: There's no Evo firecracker under the Outlander's hood. Mitsubishi's 230-hp, 3.0-liter V-6 lives in the GT's scowling snout, and while it's competent and smooth, it's by no means overly potent. As with the old Outlander, the standard 6-speed automatic — intuitive and quick to respond to a prod of the shifter or the column-mounted paddles — is the best part of the package. (Interesting question: Would we take an Evo drivetrain if it were available? Sure, even though it would probably send the Outlander's sticker price through the roof. But we doubt that anyone else would want one.)

Ride and Handling ☆☆☆☆

Handling is the Outlander's main party trick — it's blessed with decent steering feel and a suspension just sharp enough to be handy in the hills. The Super All-Wheel Control business is Japanese embroidery for the electronically controlled front differential; it shuffles torque between the front wheels when it senses wheelspin, but most people won't notice it in action. (The "Tarmac/Snow" setting on the console knob simply modifies how aggressively the system does its job.)

All told, the end result is something that sneaks up on you. The Outlander will hustle down a country road or blaze down a freeway with surprising speed, but it doesn't have any interest in throwing its talents in your face.

Toys and Tech ☆☆

Items of note: a 710-watt Rockford Fosgate stereo with a ten-inch subwoofer in the trunk; a sunroof; an optional navigation system. The stereo can store songs on its internal hard drive, and there are iPod and video jacks in the center console. Given the price point, this is a respectable, but not remarkable, amount of icing.

Value ☆☆☆

At $29,990, the Outlander GT is almost three grand more than the base Outlander ($27,130). Neither is a bargain, and both feel a bit too expensive for what they are. It's kind of like eating out in California if you're from the Midwest –- the food is generally pretty good, but you can't shake the feeling that there's a better deal just down the street.

Overall: 76%

A good SUV, but not a great one. That said, the GT is a more well-rounded truck than the base Outlander, and it's definitely worth paying a premium for. On top of that, the competition — specifically, the offerings from Nissan, Hyundai, and Ford – isn't anywhere near as much fun to drive. This is what you buy if you have to have a mid-size crossover and don't want to spend a lot or drive an appliance. It'd be nice if both this and the regular Outlander were a bit cheaper, but you can't have everything.

Suitability Parameters: Who Should Buy This?

● Tuner Crowd
● Soccer Moms
● Rally Freaks who breed

Suitability Parameters: Who Shouldn't Buy This?

● Penny Pinchers
● Speed Merchants
● Treehuggers
● People who think the Mercury Mariner handles just fine

Also Consider:

● Ford Escape
● Honda CR-V
● Mazda CX-7
● Nissan Rogue

Vitals:

Model Year: 2010
Make: Mitsubishi
Model: Outlander
Trim: GT
Price, Base/As Tested: $29,990/$29,990
Engine: 3.0-liter SOHC V-6
Horsepower & Torque: 230 hp @ 6250 rpm/215 lb-ft @ 3750 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed automatic
Curb Weight: 3860 pounds
0-to-60: 7.5 sec (est.)
Top Speed: n/a
Crash Testing, Front/Rear/Side: n/a
Fuel Economy (EPA): 18/24 mpg

Despite its horrendous brake overheating issues, Jaguar is a brand that we desperately want to love. It's got the history, it's got the personality and it's getting better and better products. Sadly, those products still lack the completeness of those from better funded rivals like BMW and Mercedes. Maybe it's our fault for going into each new Jaguar hoping to find a car that's genuinely competitive, but whatever the reason, we walk away from each successive product underwhelmed. That's exactly the word we used to describe the 2008 Jaguar XKR after finding that it didn't handle with even an ounce of precision, had an automatic gearbox that refused to do what it was told and an interior that was partially amazing hand-stitched leather and partially parts sourced from a 1990s Ford Fiesta. It was fast though, the 420 HP supercharged 4.2-liter V8 was enough to spin the rear wheels up virtually everywhere.

So what's new for 2010? A sharper looking front bumper, LED taillights, different lower valance on the rear, body-color side vents, nicer leather door trim, a new steering wheel with a leather bottom spoke, the rotary drive selector from the XF operating a six-speed ZF automatic gearbox, an active limited-slip differential and continuously variable electronic shocks. So not a huge change except for the last and most important thing, the 510 HP, 461 Lb-Ft, 5.0-liter supercharged V8.

Did Jaguar just put a bigger engine in a car that didn't need more power to make up for all its other flaws? Yes. Yes it did.

Exterior Design: ☆☆☆

It's not like the 2010 XKR isn't a handsome car, it is, but the changes amount to very little and don't alter the boring headlights, the awkward front bumper (thank you pedestrian crash test regulations) with its distinct horizontal hood shut line or the impractical proportions. The XKR is a huge car outside, yet tiny on the inside.

The low roof-line means the top of my head sticks out over the top of the windscreen, making me look like a circus clown and forcing me to hunch down to see forwards. Dropping the top cures the horrendous rear 3/4 blindspots, but its inevitably going to rain sometime and when it does, if you don't want to get wet, that means you're not going to be able to change lanes confident in the knowledge that a car is 100% not next to you.

Interior Design: ☆☆

Despite the lack of vision while up, the XKR Convertible has convinced us that fabric convertible roofs are far superior to folding hard tops. It takes up only a tiny space in the trunk and is dead quiet while shut. It's even lined in nice material, creating the illusion that it's a real roof over your head.
Other than the rotary gear selector, which we're learning to like if only for its novelty (it brings no functional benefit over a standard selector, but does clean up the center console), the interior appears virtually unaltered over the old car. I guess there is the single leather-wrapped steering wheel spoke, but that leaves two nasty painted plastic spokes which just happen to be the ones you'll actually be touching.

Forgive me for going on a little bit of a rant here. Silver-painted plastic is possibly the worst material a luxury car maker could be using in a material right now, it's evocative of cheap, shitty phones and happy snap digicams from 1998. Consumer electronics have moved on to glass, metal and piano black, why can't cars? You'll find that horrible material not only on the steering wheel, but also on the door-mounted seat controls and on the controls for the sat/nav stereo and HVAC. Those are all parts you'll be looking at and touching regularly.

Elsewhere in the interior, things are much, much, much better with classy piano black taking a cue from iPhones and looking super nice. The contrast stitched leather used on the dash and seats is dreamy. It's also used on the rear seats, which appear to be there for no reason other than to hold shopping bags. There's probably better shopping bag storage solutions than pretend seats complete with seatbelts, but Jaguar must be hoping to really cash in on that doll collectors market.

Performance: ☆☆☆☆

Giving the XKR four stars is hard for me. It has probably the ultimate fast luxury car engine, but makes using it frustrating with an awkward gearbox. Developing its maximum torque of 461 Lb-Ft at just 2,500 RPM, you can safely apply every cliched auto journalist hyperbolic metaphor to its performance. It accelerates to 60 in a stump pulling 4.0 seconds. It rockets towards the horizon like a Saturn V. It does all that while delivering smoothness, refinement and a uniquely crisp exhaust note all Jaguar's own. We haven't driven this motor alongside the stronger LSA in the CTS-V, but we think we'd take the Jaguar's simply for its smoothness. The transition from cruising to light speed takes only a wiggle of your big toe, while plaid is delivered any time you plant your foot. It's a Druish miracle that I'm not writing this from a jail cell after playing with the car all over Brooklyn.

BMW take note, this Jaguar V8 makes all your torque-free M-car engines look limp wristed in comparison.

Thanks to that active differential, the XKR's ability to put its power down without wheelspin is now drastically improved, but unfortunately for your tire budget, Jaguar upped the power so much that it overcomes that newfound traction. That's part of the reason it can be so frustrating to try and tap into the performance, but the other is the gearbox.

Try to take off from a stoplight quickly in manual mode and you'll hook up pretty well in first, but when you grab second with the cheap plastic paddle, there's a good two-second delay between selection and engagement, spoiling what little fun you can have at low speeds. Much less powerful cars will easily beat you when the road slims down to one lane on the other side of an intersection. That shouldn't happen in a 510 HP 2+2. Things are much more predictable in automatic mode. The previous car's tendency to shift down two gears at unpredictable points in the throttle travel has been cured, probably by the plethora of torque making downshifts unnecessary, but when it does shift it's intrusively clunky. In Sport or Manual, it's difficult to come to a smooth halt with the shift into first coming with a pronounced jerk.

Combining a powerful engine with an auto transmission isn't necessarily a recipe for performance disaster, as proved by another small, troubled car manufacturer with the 2009 Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S.

The brakes are powerful, easily modulated and, surprisingly, I couldn't convince them to fade.

Ride: ☆☆☆☆

The constantly variable dampers can be firmed up by selecting Competitive Mode, but they're always on the firm side of comfortable when you're cruising and on the soft side of taught when you're hauling ass. Luckily, they're bolted to a very strong aluminum frame so there's no scuttle shake even while tackling the East Coast's most challenging off-road course, the BQE.

Toys and Tech: ☆☆

Other than the rotary gear knob, there's nothing new to play with in the Jaguar's interior. We should probably count the 525-watt Bowers & Wilkins stereo as a toy, but you'll have to use it through Jag's horribly obtuse touch-screen interface and won't be able to hear it with the top down and the engine working and your head sticking out over the top of the windscreen anyways.

Value: ☆☆☆

The $102,000 XKR is cheaper than a $107,900 BMW M6 or a $135,000 Mercedes SL63, but cheaper cars do a better job of both performance and luxury, most notably the $88,800 Porsche 911 Convertible.

Overall: 60%

Does the new engine transform the XKR into an entirely different car? Surprisingly yes it does. But, it's an entirely different car with the same old problems. Very fast, pretty nice looking, fundamentally flawed. Thanks to the amazing new engine we're no longer underwhelmed with Jag's flagship, we're just frustrated that its still not able to live up to its now greater potential.

Suitability Parameters: Who Should Buy This?

● Poseurs
● Very Serious Businessmen
● Girlfriends of Sheiklets
● Jews who won't buy German
● Men who want handjobs

Suitability Parameters: Who Shouldn't Buy This?

● Penny Pinchers
● Speed Merchants
● Men with bald spots

Also Consider

● BMW M6 Convertible: torque-free engine, better handling, real back seats
● Mercedes SL63 AMG: just as fast, more fun to drive, bad image
● Porsche 911 Convertible: slower, yet way more fun
● Audi R8 Convertible: gorgeous, fast, fun, capable

Vitals:

Model Year: 2010
Make: Jaguar
Model: XKR Convertible
Trim: base w/20" wheels
Price, Base/As-Tested: $102,000 / $108,000
Engine: Supercharged, 32-valve, 5,000cc V8
Horsepower & Torque: 510 HP @ 6,00 RPM, 461 Lb-Ft @ 2,500 RPM
Transmission: 6-speed slushbox
Curb Weight: 4,079 Lbs
0-to-60: 4.0 secs (estimated)
Top Speed: 155 MPH (limited)
Crash Testing, Front/Rear/Side: not tested
Fuel Economy, EPA: 15 MPG City / 22 MPG Hwy

Despite the price difference, the $85,750 E63 and the $200,000 (est) SLS actually have a fair bit in common. Most obvious is the 6.2-liter AMG V8, here developing only 518 HP to the SLS's 571, but they both also use AMG's new Speedshift seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Whereas that gearbox is tuned to be quicker shifting and is mounted in rear transaxle style on the SLS, we actually prefer the smoother tuning on the E63; it allows the sedan to pass as a refined luxury car when you're not in attack mode, a trick the SLS doesn't manage.

In fact, keep the rotary shift map selector in C (for "Controlled Efficiency"), the adjustable dampers on the softest of the three modes and the stability control all the way on and the E63 does as good a job at luxury as any other sedan in the the Mercedes range. We actually prefer the less ostentatious E to the look-how-much-money-I-have S-class not just because we don't look like Albanian sex traffickers when we drive it, but also because the uncluttered E-class interior brings with it a certain austerity that evokes a more classic sense of luxury.

Cruising along the highway, there's nothing to indicate that you're driving a 4,300 Lbs sedan that can hit 60 MPH in just 4.4 seconds. You can't feel the 2.2-inch wider front axle, the beefed up subframe bushings or the thicker sway bars. You can feel the wider, more low profile tires and their tendency to track over road imperfections but that's not as pronounced as the sense of power the car creates in its driver.

C mode allows the engine to make use of its low-RPM torque for seamless acceleration without frequent downshifts to access the high-RPM power, something that makes barging through traffic feel like second nature. Drive the E63 on the highway and you're the master of your domain, it's faster than any car around you even though you can't hear the engine or feel the road's bumps.

Pull off the highway onto a back road, push the damper button once and switch the transmission to Sport+ (we tend to skip sport as it's an unhappy medium between relaxed and responsive) and you're suddenly driving a car that feels smaller, lighter, tauter and higher revving. Acceleration goes from seamless to kicking you in the ass and you can suddenly feel everything the road is trying to tell you. With stability fully on, you're making fast, smooth, event-free progress.

Want more fun? Try manual shifting, two lights showing on the adjustable damper button and ESP in "Sport." Like all auto transmissions the E63's is too prone to unexpected kickdown while you're pushing the limits, so shifting yourself through the steering-wheel mounted paddles eliminates that tendency and also lets you exploit the full power band without some computer deciding what's optimal. On their firmest setting, the dampers make the car respond even better and feel even smaller, while the more liberal stability control allows a couple degrees of slip, allowing you to have some fun and actually drive the car yourself, but still keeps you from plummeting over that thousand-foot cliff.

So far, so impressive. Then you get to the race track. While the E63 is still a very fast car and more than capable of easily lapping a track, the ability of the adjustable suspension, fancy gearbox and big V8 to overcome the physics of a big, heavy sedan are somewhat diminished in this environment. Unlike some competitors like the CTS-V, the E63 lacks a track-focussed stability control mode, so you're stuck with something that's either too conservative to really get the power down out of slow corners or nothing at all standing between your $1,000 a month payments and a tire wall. There's an optional performance package that bumps the speed limiter from 155 to 186 MPH, adds ceramic brakes, stiffer suspension and, much more importantly, a limited-slip differential, but while it noticeably improves the E63's ability to put its power down, you're still left with a car that's happier on road than track.

Exterior Design: ☆☆☆☆

The 2010 Mercedes E-Class is already subtly handsome thanks to its new-found boxiness and the AMG addenda — flared wheel arches, deeper front splitter, new LED running lights, badges, four square tailpipes — adds a nice sense of aggression. Anyone smart enough to tick the "Badge Delete" box gets an extra star.

Interior Design: ☆☆☆☆☆

Our favorite Mercedes interior hits all the classic Mercedes austere, squared-off, notes while adding super supportive bucket seats, a transmission-tunnel mounted gear selector and a manlier steering wheel. Make sure you spec the glass roof, the standard interior can feel a bit dark, but the extra light eliminates that. Don't choose the carbon interior accents, this isn't a tuner Integra.

Performance: ☆☆☆☆☆

Not only is the E63 fast (0-60 in 4.4 seconds, an optional top speed of 186 MPH), but it feels fast thanks to loads of torque throughout the rev range, yet a still definite peak coming in the form of top end power. The four-mode gearbox does a good job of offering drivers a range of responses and even a manual mode that gives you full control. Brakes are pop-your-eyes-out strong and we couldn't make them fade. Six figure speeds are disturbingly easy to reach and will likely become a threat to your license.

Ride: ☆☆☆☆☆

The E63 is never going to be the outright handler that smaller cars like the C63 and M3 can be thanks to their smaller size and weight. But, rather than trying to play that game it creates its own, combining ability and luxury in a hitherto unprecedented combo that sacrifices neither. It's kind of silly to expect that such a big car could be great on the track, but its so capable and fun on tight mountain roads that after driving it there you simply come to take track ability as a given. All that and it's also supple, quiet and smooth. Other cars have adjustable dampers and whatnot, but no other system offers this breadth of adjustment. The suspension didn't bottom out while landing an 80 MPH jump, which gives us loads of confidence in its ability to soak up anything else.

Toys and Tech: ☆☆☆☆

All the toys of the standard E-Class, plus all the new AMG buttons that help you alter the driving experience. We've never liked COMMAND, Mercedes' flawed attempt to copy iDrive, which is the only thing keeping the E63 from a five star rating. Somehow we always manage to turn navigation off mid-journey, then struggle to figure out how to turn it back on. Literally everything is adjustable on this car, even the speed at which the seat's bolsters inflate to support you in corners.

Value: ☆☆☆☆

Sure, with a starting price of $85,750 and the ability to tick boxes to reach a price north of $100,000, the E63 isn't cheap, but it does both speed and luxury better than much more expensive cars in the Mercedes lineup. Rather than thinking of it as an expensive E-class we like to think of it as a cheap S-class that also drives like an SL63. That's a bargain in our book.

Overall: 90%

Our favorite vehicle in the entire Mercedes lineup, the E63 makes us feel like we could be either an elderly European plutocrat or Lewis Hamilton, all depending on our mood and which buttons we push. If we had lots of money, but only the ability to by one car to satisfy all our vehicular needs, and those needs didn't include driving on a race track, this would be the car we would buy. We just wish we could afford one.

Suitability Parameters: Who Should Buy This?
● Speed Merchants
● Technogeeks
● Very Serious Businessmen
● Albanian Sex Traffickers with a need to travel incognito

Suitability Parameters: Who Shouldn't Buy This?
● Penny Pinchers
● Treehuggers
● Anyone who can squeeze into the CTS-V's tiny interior

Also Consider:

● BMW M5
● Cadillac CTS-V
● Porsche Panamera
● Audi S6

Vitals:

Model Year: 2010
Make: Mercedes
Model: E63 AMG
Trim: N/A
Price, Base/As-Tested: $85,750/$85,750
Engine: 6.2-liter 32-valve V8
Horsepower & Torque: 518 HP @ 6,800 RPM, 465 Lb-Ft @ 5,200 RPM
Transmission: 7-speed dual-clutch manumatic
Curb Weight: 4,300 Lbs (est)
0-to-60: 4.4 secs (manufacturer quoted)
Top Speed: 155 MPH (limited) or optionally 186 MPH (limited)
Crash Testing, Front/Rear/Side: not tested/not tested/*****
Fuel Economy, EPA: 13/20 MPG

Most of you probably fondly remember our three part reviews. In part one we told you a story, part two was an objective breakdown of the car's characteristics and part three was about numbers and buyers. The problem was, the three part, three day format was awkward and required me to show up to work three days in a row. So now we're combining all three parts into one stripped down, more powerful model that puts everything you want to know about a car into a single place.

Also, some other points of note:

● A new never-before-seen rating system featuring an overall score expressed as a percentage based on the total number of stars. It's sort of like the automotive version of Rotten Tomatoes movie scoring. You'll love it. Or you'll be indifferent. Who knows? That's what makes this so exciting!

● New suitability parameters!

● New setup!

● Same silliness!

● Also, Jalopnik Reviews compare vehicles against other vehicles in its class.

You can follow along through our Jalopnik Reviews tag that's always up on the top of the main page.

Before we go any further, let's make one thing clear: When I say "sideways," I mean sideways. What we have here is some unhinged, prescription-strength, industrial-grade madness. And the cars—bone-stock Evolution Xs—do it happily, and they ask (beg, plead, pray) for you to keep it up, and all four tires burn like the Cuyahoga while you dance the dance of a thousand rally stars. If you listen closely, you can hear Tommi Mäkinen laughing.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

For the most part, one-day driving schools are not the stuff of legend. You show up, you take a class, you play on a skid pad, and you go home. This is not what happens at the one-day Evolution Experience. Mitsubishi Motors and Russell are well aware of the Evo X's strengths, and as such, the Evo school's curriculum was designed to highlight the car's killer chassis and all-wheel-drive system. Over the course of eight hours, you become intimately familiar with both the laws of physics and the Evo's staggeringly talented rear differential. You also spend most of your time leading with your taillights.

If the whole process sounds boring, then you're either the type of person who gets carsick in the parking lot at church or you have no soul. The school's exercises are spread across two large skid pads and all of Infineon Raceway's 2.5-mile track; the program is aimed at drivers of modest skill, but the ass-out exposure to one of the best all-wheel-drive production cars on the planet should be enough to draw more experienced 'shoes. As with most Russell programs, the emphasis is on tailored instruction and at-your-own-pace improvement; the school's instructors are happy to vary their teaching style based on student skill and need. Counterintuitive lessons abound—the Evo's unique all-wheel-drive system and active rear diff ensure that a lot of old-school techniques don't apply, and you can find yourself at minimum yaw if you try and go with your instincts. (A tip: Countersteer less, throw the car around more. And don't be afraid to throw it hard.)

All told, the Russell program isn't so much driving school as treatise on the Evo's genius—by showing ordinary folk the ins and outs of sliding a rally rocket on dry pavement, it merely reinforces the Lancer's formidable legend. At $1000 tuition, is it a bit too expensive for what you get? Probably. Is the whole production simply an elaborate advertisement for the most capable Mitsubishi ever built? Of course. Does that make it any less worthwhile? Not in the slightest.

The details: Jim Russell Racing Driver's School. Infineon Raceway, Sonoma, California. One thousand ($1000) dollars tuition per driver. www.jimrussellusa.com.

I'm not a huge energy drink imbiber, so when the giant NOS box with a canister-like blue bottle and ugly t-shirt showed up I turned to the one place I was sure to find numerous caffeine addicts: a political field office. The job of a field organizer on a political campaign is to identify every potential voter within a given geography and then turn them out on election day.

It involves long days of knocking down doors/making calls and longer nights of entering the information into database. Therefore, it involves drinking a shit ton of caffeine at every turn. I selected Cameron as my victim tester because he exclaimed "Oh, I've never tried that one."

Because it wouldn't be a real review unless I actually tried it, I warmed up with my palette with an appropriate amuse bouche (a Shipley's Bulls Eye Do Nut, which is a yeast donut filled with creme, topped with chocolate, and then topped with whipped creme). Pouring the NOS into a white cup you get to see what you're drinking and it's pretty clear why they've done all they can to disguise it with an opaque bottle.

It looks like radioactive piss.

Fortunately, it tastes better than I can remember radioactive piss tasting (ahh... college). It's clearly citrus-based, sort of a Fresca meets Mountain Dew with an undeniable hint of Flintstone's chewable vitamin you get in any drink that's got a high Taurine content. Cameron rates it a 7/10 but I could really give a shit what he thinks about how it tastes. He's here for one reason: to see how long before he can enter data before the crash.

He downs the drink at around 8:00 pm and we're making bets on just how far he can make it while entering voter IDs into the voter database — a job about as interesting as watching flies fuck. My guess was the witch's brew of taurine, inositol, ginseng, B vitamins, and L-Carnitine (whatever that is) would keep him juiced for a couple of hours before the inevitable crash.

Having ingested only donuts but also involved in boring labor, I worked as the lame control group and decided to check in every 30 minutes. Through the first couple of hours there was no discernible crash and he continued on with an extra bit of zest. Unfortunately, having not ingested an energy drink I wasn't able to stay up long enough to track just how long Cameron went before passing out — but he claims 2 AM, which isn't bad.

Overall, it's not the worst tasting energy drink. it's certainly better than Monster but not quite as refreshing as Bawls. In terms of energy it does the trick, providing about four hours before a crash. The t-shirt I got with it wasn't great, but Cameron was happy to take it off my hands as a reward for his work. And the packaging works if you're mostly an idiot, and I'm guessing mostly-an-idiot is going to be the demo buying this.

From the first moment you get into the SLS there's no escaping the improbably long nose. The nearest equivalent car I can think of that sits the driver so far from the front axle is the 2009 BMW Z4, but where that car's been described as a clown shoe, Pulitzer Prize-winning auto hack Dan Neil says the SLS looks like "a hairbrush." Unlike that car, the SLS is also wide (76 inches) so guiding it out of a parking lot is a daunting task, requiring placing the front wheels with guestimation versus vision. Open the hood and there's a good foot of clear space between the radiator and the airboxes mounted just in front of the engine. Good packaging this is not, but this long nose lends the understated super car the only visual drama it really has; the abbreviated cabin and low roof help to emphasize just what the big Merc is packing up front. The cabin is also further midship than it feels, with the relatively large 22-gallon tank sitting between the seats and the rear axle.

At speed, those awkward proportions cease to negatively impact the driving experience and the SLS actually manifests some steering feel, mostly felt over bumps and cat's eyes rather than in corners, but that's OK, because the car is heavily biased toward oversteer so it's only really the rear you need to feel. Actually, let's take a quick step back. The 9.5" wide front wheels wearing 265/35 low profiles and 11" rears with 295/30s don't really have an issue with grip. The problem is the 6.2-plus-change-liter (ignore the badges) V8 and its 571 HP just makes pushing the limits of what's possible way too easy.

Heavily modified over the standard AMG V8 that's in everything from the C63 to the S63, this M159 6.2-and-change (same capacity as all the other M156 engines) breathes much freer thanks to an all-new intake system, more aggressive valve timing, tubular steel headers and a de-throttled exhaust. It also switches to dry sump lubrication so the engine can be mounted lower in the chassis. In addition to that 571 HP at 6,800 RPM, it now develops 479 Lb-Ft of torque at 4,750 RPM, delivering the unique mix of high-revving power with low-RPM torque. That's also a healthy increase over the 525 HP the M156 normally develops and all it has to motivate is a 3,571 Lbs curb weight gull-winged bird of prey (703 Lbs lighter than the SL63 and 326 Lbs lighter than the SLR thanks to an aluminum chassis and body). Weight distribution is 47% front, 53% rear (unintuitive by look, but makes sense when you consider the aforementioned extra crumple zone space), aiding traction but still failing to overcome the fast-revving engine's ability to easily overcome the rear.

Driving an oversteer-biased car at a corner-biased track like Laguna Seca, like we did yesterday, is actually kind of refreshing. Where most cars would understeer into turn 2 and push the front around turn 11 and onto the back straight, the SLS is aggressively trying to step out the rear, even on a constant throttle. Credit for recovering the slides goes to the almost unbeatable stability control system. While you can push enough buttons to make it say "ESP-OFF", that doesn't fully shut down the system, with it still moderating acceleration-related wheelspin and re-engaging automatically the second you tap the brakes. While the SLS is a fast and engaging car even with all the nanny systems fully on, we of course mourn the loss of full driver control. My planned photo for the top of this review was a doors-up burnout, but sadly the car just wouldn't spin up the rear tires from a standstill.

That same system acts to control wheelspin on a hard launch, contributing to a manufacturer-reported 3.8-second 0-to-60 MPH time, eventually reaching a limited top speed of 197 MPH.

That engine also feels far more alive than in any other AMG application. It pops and burbles on the overrun and, mated to the seven speed dual clutch gearbox, is fast to rev and shift. It's also somewhat awkward in any of the three automatic modes, somehow always managing to be in the wrong gear, no matter the setting. The manual paddle shifter improves that, but compared to competitors, are a little slow to shift. Mercedes claims the transmission takes as little as 100 milliseconds to shift, but in practice it feels far slower, with a pronounced delay between a pull of the paddle and the transmission actually doing what you told it to.

The seven-speed rear-mounted transaxle is connected to the engine, as is the fashion these days, by a rigid torque tube containing a carbon fiber drive shaft. This arrangement maximizes the connection between the rear wheels and the engine, while minimizing the torque's impact on the handling and reciprocation mass.

I came into this drive expecting a luxury grand tourer that was also fast, but instead found a track-oriented super car that is also luxurious. On the road, the limitations of this incredibly fast car are relatively easy to reach, yet hard to live up to. It's also firmly sprung, always loud (both from road and engine noise) and fairly cramped. The SL63 would probably make an equally fast, yet more refined, spacious and comfortable road car, but the SLS would literally drive circles round that car on the track. Still, this combination of outright performance with extreme luxury is relatively rare. The 911 GT2 is harsh and edgy on the road, a 599 is way more expensive, as is the even-faster Lexus LFA. On the opposite end of the spectrum the Audi R8 does luxury a little better but track performance is a little less involving. At an estimate $200,000, the SLS carves a performance-oriented, luxury-capable niche all its own, something that's aided by the classy, restrained looks and the visual drama of the doors.

Is the Mercedes SLS AMG the fastest, most exciting super car on the market? No. Is it the most luxurious GT? Not by a long shot. Does it have significant flaws, most glaringly from the gearbox? Totally. But, fercrissakes, have you seen how sexy those Gullwing doors are when they pop open?

Held at Connecticut's Lime Rock Park, I drove the Mazda MX-5 Cup Racecar over the Formula 2000 car in the hope that it'd be more relevant to the Jaguar XFR sedan I'll be driving in the race — both were sorta owned by Ford, so I figured it couldn't hurt. As an added bonus, completing the course qualifies me to race MX-5s in the Skip Barber Mazdaspeed challenge.

The advanced two day program is designed for students who've already completed the three-day fundamentals of racing course and is much more lap-intensive than that initial program. I've completed a few other racing and advanced driving courses at other schools, but going into this, hadn't had any experience with Skip Barber.

The largest racing school in the world, Skip Barber visits 22 tracks in this country and is widely reputed to be the last word in driver training. The school's namesake and founder is one of only a handful of Americans to drive in Formula One and essentially invented the idea that driving could be coached, just like more traditional sports. The school was founded in 1975.

I was largely skeptical of the Skip Barber hype going into this-after all, how different could driving schools be?-but quickly found myself in a little over my head with classmates who were already up to a pretty good speed; two straight from the three-day course and one who'd already done this advanced course seven times this year.

One big advantage the other students had over me was confidence in braking while turning, something that none of the other schools I've attended have taught. Traveling flat out in fifth down the main straight, you turn into Lime Rock's turn 1 very, very late while braking and downshifting into 4th gear, then turning harder and shifting down to 3rd. The theory behind this makes total sense-just like accelerating, you can brake while turning in an inverse relationship to how far the wheel is turned-but after having "brake in a straight line" drilled into me over and over elsewhere it took a certain leap of faith to trust the car wouldn't spin, even if the classroom sessions explained clearly why it wouldn't.

Luckily, there were only three other students driving MX-5s and more instructors than students, so they had ample time to browbeat encourage me to pick up my pace. My lead instructor was Bruce MacInnes, widely considered the leading driving instructor in the country, his former students include Tom Cruise and Paul Newman. Positioned around the track during lapping sessions, they provide instantaneous feedback via radio and detailed analysis immediately following each session. Other instructors take to the track with the students, demonstrating how to apply the improvements that are being suggested. It's a system of continuous, individual feedback that's broken down corner by corner and delivered in a few different ways. I'm typically a slow learner (in addition to just being slow), but I found myself able to implement their lessons on the next lap, probably because their analysis was so clear and immediate. As a result, I felt myself improving lap after lap, throughout both days.

The cars we were driving weren't just plain Mazda MX-5s, but Cup Racecars. Over the standard vehicle, they add a $5500 Mazda racing package that includes a new intake and exhaust, boosting power from 167 to 200 HP. There's also remote reservoir Eibach dampers, considerably stiffer Eibach springs, solid antiroll bars, racing brake pads and 225/45WR-17 tires. The cars are also stripped of their interiors and soft tops, have a full cage welded in and you sit in racing buckets with five-point harnesses facing a removable wheel. The whole thing weighs just 2,600 Lbs. In short, it's a real race car with much improved throttle response, steering and outright grip. It's an extremely neutral car that'll understeer if you push it too fast into corners and let you tighten your line if you lift the throttle, making it near perfect to learn on. I just wish the Jaguar was going to half as adjustable on the limit.

In addition to the high instructor-to-student ratio, large amounts of lapping and the excellent instruction, the other thing that makes Skip Barber unique is that they treat their students like responsible adults rather than reckless children. Where most schools ban passing or even close driving, these guys encourage it and teach you how to drive competitively, safely. As long as you demonstrate responsibility, you're free to overtake other students or even instructors. The method they teach you for overtaking is also novel in its safety and efficacy, involving intercepting the racing line from the inside, then holding it against your opponent. No need to out brake anyone. The first time you try it you'll be amazed at how well it works; I can't wait to try it on an unsuspecting victim, it's just a shame that the CTS-V Challenge is time trial format or that victim would be Bob Lutz.

Like other Skip Barber courses, the two day advanced is anything but cheap at $3,500, but unlike purchasing a faster car or tuning your engine, that's an investment that's virtually guaranteed to make you a much better, much faster driver. Now that I've completed it, I am too and I'm going to kick Bob Lutz's ass.

Full Disclosure: Lexus wanted us to drive the LFA so badly they flew me to Miami and put me up in a fancy hotel. Also, they fed me cornbread with jalapenos in it. If anyone wants to bribe me, southern food is definitely the way to do it, but I'd really have preferred country ham biscuits and red eye gravy.

You've probably been bewildered by how much attention one car from a previously maligned automaker is getting on this and other enthusiast sites. But the attention we've paid pales in comparison to the attention to technical detail Toyota's displayed in the design and construction of the LFA. The car's gestation has taken nearly a decade not because the program had problems or limited resources, but because Toyota decided to design and build nearly every element of the LFA, its first ever supercar, in-house. Where most companies — Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche included — contract out things like gearboxes and the design and construction of carbon fiber components, Lexus chose to teach itself how to make those things better than anyone else, then build its own tools in order to make them.

Take the carbon fiber, for instance. To make the LFA's, Toyota created one of only two circular looms in the entire world, then used it to simultaneously weave one tube of carbon inside another. They built this system just to make the A-pillars on the car.

This all sounded like little more than corporate grandstanding to us. It's the largest car company on earth patting itself on the back for being able to use the money it got selling the automotive equivalent of beige orthopedic shoes to build some fancy tools.

That attitude lasted all the way to turn 6 at the Homestead Speedway road course. An over enthusiastic application of the sharp throttle had the 552 HP, 4.8-liter V10 spinning rapidly towards its 9,500 RPM redline and the tail sliding out towards the grass. Normally that'd have been an oh-shit-I'm-going-to-break-a-$400K-car moment, especially in an unfamiliar supercar, but in the LFA it barely requires conscious correction as it just blended into rocketing down the following straight at three-figure speeds. In fact, oversteer in the LFA doesn't feel so much like oversteer as it does like the rear tires are sitting on castors and being pushed around by a couple of assistants. There's no body roll, no drama, just complete communication and smooth recovery. The reason for that? The impossibly anal approach Toyota took when building the LFA.

The LFA has an unprecedentedly low center of gravity of 17 3/4" — located directly beneath the steering wheel's rim. So far a conventional attribute executed perfectly, but how that CoG got there is way more complicated. First, the engine is located way back in the engine bay and mounts to a 6-speed rear-mounted transaxle through a carbon torque tube. The oil coolers are in the front fenders, while the radiators are at the rear to aid weight distribution, they're fed by the shoulder scoops. That creates a 48% front, 52% rear distribution for the 3263 Lb curb weight. That accounts for the CoG's position front-to-rear, but not vertically. That was achieved by using a world's first counter gear to raise the relative height of the torque tube, allowing the engine to be mounted incredibly low in the car, accounting for the CoG's height.

Of course, that's still only part of the story. The rigid drivetrain assembly (engine, torque tube, transaxle) is connected to the car by four mounts positioned at the geometric extremes of the unit. With no twist in the assembly due to torque, this arrangement eliminates the effect of power delivery on the chassis, there's no torque reaction.

You see where this is going?

Of course, the reason I was over aggressive with the throttle is that the engine revs extraordinarily quickly. From idle, it can be bouncing off the 9,500 RPM fuel cut off in just 6/10ths of a second. That's thanks to an incredibly low reciprocating mass, but achieving that wasn't simple either. They used technology developed by Toyota's F1 program to develop the block, for example, which was cast in the same foundry, using the same technique as the F1 engine. The same goes for the gearbox. The paddle-shifted hydraulically actuated 6-speed features a traditional H-pattern over the more popular dual clutch design because it was determined that the two clutch plates of the latter would negatively impact that low reciprocating mass. Shift speeds are adjustable, taking just 2/10ths of a second a their fastest, but can be slowed to "smooth" for everyday driving; at their fastest, they're anything but.

Transitioning off the incredibly powerful brakes — 15 1/3" diameter carbon metallic discs at the front with Brembo Monoblock 6-piston calipers — and onto the super sensitive throttle isn't currently as smooth as easily driving on the edge of grip requires. But these LFAs are pre-production prototypes and will be continually refined before production begins December 2010. Lexus plans to "break the molds" after just 500 LFAs and plans to build each car for a customer's own bespoke requirements. The company half-jokingly estimates that there's "30 billion" potential combinations of spec.

With only a 202 MPH top speed, a 3.7-second 0-60 MPH time and a 7:30 ‘Ring time, the LFA isn't going to be a bench racer's dream. But we actually admire Toyota for eschewing the conventional, numbers-based approach to supercar success. The LFA's 500 lucky customers aren't buying bragging rights, they're buying the most comprehensively complete supercar package ever made. As a statement of technological ability and performance intent, the LFA firmly establishes Toyota firmly within the upper echelons of sports car manufacturers. The real payoff to us enthusiasts isn't going to be the the incredibly rare LFA, but the trickle down reaching forthcoming Toyota FT-86 sports car and other future Toyota performance models. If the FT-86 can be 1/20th the car the LFA is, us everyday enthusiasts are in for a real treat.

Click through to see the technical presentation given to automotive journalists today.

The vehicle is equipped with the GM-designed 3.6-liter V6 straight out of the unpopular XL-7, putting out around 260 HP, an increase of at least 75 HP over the Kizashi's standard fourbanger. On the track, the V6-equipped mule does clearly provide more power, able to pull itself out of corners with a level of aggression completely absent from the production car.

Unfortunately, the added weight is felt and the well-balanced feel of the regular sedan is reduced. Also, speed is limited in the straights by a CVT transmission unwilling to let you push the car hard (there's a soft rev-limiter on the manual version allowing more leeway).

Overall, we preferred the four-cylinder GTS model and think the Kizashi is better suited to a small turbo than a full V6. Unfortunately, we think the V6 is where they're headed with a future higher performance Kizashi model.

Whatever engine is chosen, they need to make sure the next model update includes the more aggressive bodywork and attractive fascia. It gives the car more of a presence and makes the Kizashi as attractive as any vehicle on the upper end of the class, exceeding the funky TSX and nipping at the heals of the sensuous Passat CC.

Suzuki wanted me to drive the Kizashi so badly they flew me to North Carolina and fed me salt-and-pepper shrimp fried with the shells on and provided me with 1 GB of files on an 8 GB Sony Walkman.

On paper, the new Kizashi isn't overwhelmingly impressive, offering a 2.4-liter DOHC four-cylinder engine putting out 185 HP and 170 lb-ft of torque, good for a 0-60 MPH time of just 7.5 seconds, on par with the Accord EX and faster by 0.7 seconds than the Mazda6. Mileage ranges from, at best, 23/31 MPG with the CVT in FWD configuration and just 20/29 in manual FWD mode with the 17-inch or greater-sized wheels.

I immediately snagged a red, FWD GTS model equipped with a six-speed manual transmission, no leather seats but 18-inch wheels. I'd have grabbed a manual AWD version, but one doesn't exist and I wouldn't hold my breath. In a market crowded by vehicles dull in appearance, it at least looks like an angrier VW Jetta in red.

On the inside, the new Kizashi is well featured for its expected starting price of under $20,000, offering iPod connectivity, soft-touch plastics everywhere, steering wheel audio buttons, dual-zone climate control and comfortable seats. Move up through the trims and you'll add a thumping 425 watt Rockford Fosgate audio system with Bluetooth music streaming and hands-free calling. It's not the greatest design, lagging behind the Mazda6 and new Accord, but it's better than most domestics and unlike anything in the price range.

In a strange twist, the newest Kizashi attempts to be the best value by mimicking the formula abandoned by most automakers. As sedans like the Camry, Altima and Accord have gained in popularity they've increased in terms of size and decreased in terms of enjoyable driving. Even the Mazda6, once nimble and small, has swollen to giant proportions and shed some of its original appeal. The Kizashi is much smaller, 183.1 inches in length, or about ten inches shorter than a Mazda6.

Criss-crossing the North Carolina/Virginia border it's clear all the time the Japanese engineers spent at the Nürburgring paid off. It manages to be as forgettable and comfortable as a Fusion or Jetta even across the narrow and poorly-maintained Virginia roads and yet unexpectedly spry on the twisty, high-quality North Carolina streets, making the most of its five-point, multi-link rear suspension and 18-inch tires.

Across a wet slalom at the Virginia International Raceway, the CVT AWD version also exhibited precise, predictable results from steering input and a relatively neutral feel, similar to the Subaru Legacy I drove across the same wet course. In extended hot laps, not something you'd ever actually choose to do in such a vehicle, the large-for-the-class vented disc brakes up front exhibited limited fade given the autojourno abuse they'd endured.

Around the short south part of the course the manual-equipped model performed admirably, exhibiting little roll and showing great poise around VIR's famous Oak Tree turn (just aim for the oak tree)... for a toaster. Power is lacking in the lower range and RPMs top out at 6,500, so coming out of the turn proved to be the greatest disappointment. It feels underpowered compared to cars it's apparently more powerful than.

Falling in between a compact sedan and the current mid-size market, the car is actually more likely to appeal to people thinking about a Civic and liking the added features rather than someone trading down from the benchmark vehicles like the Mazda6 or Volkswagen Passat CC. It's also likely to snag people trading up from an SX4 to something larger.

It's hard not to notice that the Kizashi, which went through three iterations of concept cars before the reveal, is seemingly incongruous with the company's recent expression of outdoor, X-game lifestyle vehicles built on their marine, motorcycle and ATV sales. The new Equator can haul Suzuki bikes, the SX4 can take you rock climbing and the the Grand Vitara can haul your boat. The Kizashi doesn't do any of those things.

Like the SX4, the Kizashi is part of a rapidly improving family of vehicles few American consumers are aware of, so the failure or success of it is going to be more heavily dependent on marketing than the vehicles themselves. If Suzuki can make people aware they sell toasters and get them into the store, we doubt the company will have a difficulty selling what is, overall, a very good appliance.

Let's get the numbers out of the way first. When equipped with the DSG manumatic gearbox, the Golf TDI returns a seriously impressive, EPA certified 31 MPG city, 42 MPG highway. In comparison, the smaller 2010 Honda Insight hybrid does 40/43. Unlike that Insight, the Golf TDI is pretty fast, running 0-60 MPH in 8.6 seconds and topping out around 130 MPH. Well, that's as fast as I could get it to go on the Autobahn near Wolfsburg earlier today. Equipped with this diesel engine, the Golf starts at just $21,990. Standard equipment includes a 5-speed manual transmission and lowered, stiffened sport suspension and a touch-screen audio interface with Sirius satellite radio.

The version I drove today was essentially that base 2-door model with the addition of Sat/Nav. Sticking with the manual gearbox, as any keen driver will want to do, means your official mileage number comes down to 30/41 MPG.

This MK VI Golf, launched in Europe last fall, is essentially the same chassis as the MK V, but updated to address concerns with dull looks, somewhat poor interior quality and a lackluster driving experience.

The amorphous MK V exterior has been replaced with more sharp lines and soft curves, as well as more aggressive headlamps and Walter de'Silva's new corporate face.

The interior initially looks somewhat spartan, but all that black plastic is very high quality and bolted down so tightly it feels like you could rampage with a baseball bat without so much as marking any surfaces. There's also new seats covered in a checked white cloth. Those are firm, supportive and immensely comfortable. The standard touch screen helps with the impression of quality too. In fact, the whole thing feels like the robust VW interiors of the ‘80s, just updated with 2009 gadgets.

As for the driving experience, well, while I was doing over 120 MPH, I casually asked my passenger how fast he thought we were going. His honest answer was 80 MPH. Equipped with the sports suspension the MK VI Golf is rock solid at speed, corners with a near complete absence of body roll, changes direction quickly and has very communicative steering for a front-wheel drive car. All that, but it still manages to absorb bumps and ruts like a luxury car. Thank the stiffened body structure for a lot of that. It's also very quiet at speed, with wind noise around the mirrors only becoming noticeable above 110 MPH. You can carry on a normal volume conversation even while maxed out. Thanks to the insulated firewall and hood liner, you never detect in aural sign that you're driving a diesel.

The common rail direct injection 2.0-liter turbo diesel is shared with the Jetta TDI and develops 236 Lb-Ft of torque from 1,750-2,500 RPM and 140 HP at 4,000 RPM. That flexibility is really felt while driving, allowing fifth gear to pull strongly from 60 all the way to 120 MPH and providing plenty of in-gear acceleration for overtaking and exiting corners. We love the manual transmission combined with this engine because it allows us to exploit that flexibility to its fullest, something that our previous experience with DSG operation in automatic mode doesn't manage.

We also prefer the two-door model for its sharp looks, but rear seat accommodation is noticeably tighter than the four-door, which can seat 6-foot adults comfortable in both rows.

The Golf is an iconic car in Europe, where it's been the de facto mode of practical, economical, fun transportation since the ‘70s. Due to a couple wide-of-the-mark generations and limited choice of specification, the Golf (occasionally known as the Rabbit) has drifted out of mainstream consciousness here. With that $21,995 starting price, the 42 MPG highway fuel economy, sharp looks, seriously nice interior and a responsive chassis, this new Golf TDI makes more expensive cars look frivolous and direct rivals look behind the times. In short, the diesel engine and the host of refinements make the Golf not just a people's car, but a car people are going to want to buy.

No, not dorks or dweebs, although there may be some who overlap into this bracket. We're talking DINKs, as in the acronym for Double Income No Kids. Your DINKs are people for whom no one else exists save that one significant other; couples with grown children or no plans to have children. This immediately distances the ZDX's mission from that of the soccer-mom and grocery-hauler SUVs. Acura's core concept for the ZDX was the "Passionate Getaway," meaning the car would be both vehicle and destination in itself. As it turns out, as odd-looking as it is outside, it's actually an extremely pleasant car for two people to be inside.

The cockpit of this Acura is one of the nicest we've seen, period. It doesn't really break any new ergonomic ground, although everything is right where it should be. What makes it truly stand out is the design, which puts the driver and passenger in comfortable and attractive "pods," and the quality and tactile feel of the surfaces. A lot of time and effort was spent in determining the best materials for surfaces in the ZDX, and it was time well spent. The leather, which Acura selects and applies by hand using techniques developed specifically for this car, is of especially high quality and is a tactile delight. Plastics are few but sturdy and soft-touch where they occur. Nighttime accent lighting gives a nice, subtle blue backlight to your surroundings. It's a great place to spend time with your companion/partner/spouse and your no-kids.

Your no-kids will also enjoy the back seat, which is just the right size for nonexistent children. To be fair, existing children will fit back there, but double-income couples with more than two friends, or only two friends who happen to be over five-foot-nine, will need to take another car for longer Passionate Getaways. These seats seem built specifically to fold down, which they do, nice and flat, giving you plenty of room for a double income's worth of active-lifestyle stuff on the cabin floor and in the many cubbies.

So you and your co-DINK have no kids and no friends, which means the two of you are splendidly isolated in that extremely nice cabin even before the Passionate Getaway. If that's what you like, the ZDX can give you isolation in spades. The already remarkable sound and vibration insulation is augmented to almost eerie levels by an ingenious, if invisible, active noise cancellation system, in which white noise is piped through Acura's legendary sound system to counteract background noises so you can hear yourself (and possibly one other person) think.

That legendary ELS sound system, plus the climate control and optional nav system, are controlled through the nifty "Monolith" center stack, which has no visible lettering on the switches until powered on with each set of switches only powering on when needed. Although not very practical, i's a very striking user interface. Once you can see what's going on, it's easy enough to use, and the familiarity of ownership may have DINKs playing it like a piano, but to the newcomer it may seem somewhat unwieldy.

It should, in all fairness, be mentioned that there's also a capable 300 HP 3.7-liter VTEC engine in front of this lovely interior. The ZDX puts that adequate if not exactly stirring power down through a paddle-shift 6-speed auto transmission which will actually shift down two gears with one pull if the revs are available, which is genuinely cool but may be wasted here. The drivetrain incorporates Acura's SH-AWD system with torque vectoring across the rear axle, which should allow DINKs to make their Getaways nice and Passionate in all kinds of weather. And while the ZDX is based on the big MDX platform, lots of careful and clever chassis engineering has been done on this SUV-like but coupe-esque-from-certain-angles vehicle. As a result it can do more than just getting out of its own way, delivering unobtrusive if not inspiring handling while delivering an extremely smooth ride over most surfaces.

We're assuming most potential buyers won't care about most of that. They'll care that the ZDX does everything a person, or two persons max, could want it to on a getaway, passionate or otherwise. It has all the connectivity luxury buyers have come to expect, and all the nifty gadgets like adaptive cruise control and ventilated seats are available. From the outside, the wide-haunched and glass-heavy exterior styling which looks good from the rear except for certain viewing angles which look almost Aztek-y, and that Acura grille that always makes us want to open up a really big bottle. But none of that stuff will be important to the DINKs who will be inside, enjoying each other, that marvelous interior, and little else while Passionately Getting Away from everything.

Stepping up to the LR4, you immediately see an SUV very similar to the LR3 — but with a few minor updates. The LR4 gets exterior enhancements such as new tail lights, a two-bar mesh grille (with matching fender vents — ooh!) and new front bumper and fenders. But the exterior was never the problem for us.

The two biggest problems we had with the 5,800 lb. LR3 were the clumsy and — thanks to the 300 HP, 315 lb-ft o' torque 4.4-liter V8 under its hood that helped it to chug to 60 mph in an anemic 8.6 seconds — sluggish on-road experience and an interior that seemed to borrow more from the Ford parts bin than a luxury vehicle ought to.

Land Rover's fixed the first problem with a brand new engine for the LR4 — 375 HP, 375 lb-ft of torque 5.0-liter direct-inject V8 — mated to a new, upgraded 6-speed ZF auto tranny with a select-a-gear manumatic system called "Commandshift." The powertrain upgrade's propel the 5,800 lb-plus SUV from 0-to-60 in a manufacturer-claimed 7.5 seconds while simultaneously getting the same 12 / 17 City / Highway fuel economy numbers as the LR3 and helps the once-only-capable-off-road SUV feel like it's got the power necessary to get back home from a to-late-for prep school night date faster than your over-Xanaxed parents can ground you.

But the engine wasn't the LR3's only problem. It was combined with a teeth-rattling suspension. Luckily, Land Rover redesigned the LR4's front suspension, increasing the stiffness of the anti-roll bars, and provided the dampers some much-needed re-tuning. All of those suspension upgrades combine to significantly reduce the LR3's much-maligned tendency for body roll 'round the turns and make the overall on-road driving experience shockingly significantly better.

The LR3 was always capable off-road. Land Rover added some minor updates and tweaks to their Terrain Response system that, combined with the traction-control system and the automatically locking differentials, makes the LR4 even more-so. Whether slipping through two-foot-deep muddy ruts in the hills of Vermont, or scrambling over foots and tree stumps that managed to fell even a mighty Land Rover Defender, the LR4 took on anything in front of it.

But back to the second problem with the ol' LR3 — the interior. If we look at Land Rover's LR2 as the entry-level into the second oldest off-road brand, then the LR3 was always meant to kick things up a notch. For the mid-level buyers in the $45,000+ luxury SUV segment to go "Yeah, I'll try one of those $95,000 Range Rovers — you know, so I can give this to the kids." However, thanks to an interior with a center console that looked like it was built out of alphabet blocks from Peter Horbury's parts bin and plastics that somehow managed to be simultaneously rock-hard and flimsy.

The seven-seater LR4's interior has been completely redesigned from that craggy mess into something that actually approaches luxury rather than sidestepping it to save money. The center console almost flows into the rest of the dash. The key controls have been repositioned to enhance both the appearance as well as ergonomics. And speaking of ergonomics, the LR4 also receives an optional captain's chair with side bolstering — a must-have for off-roading in order to avoid smacking your left side into the door on sudden, steep sideways descents. And speaking of the seats — thank god for Land Rover's continuing use of infinite-adjusting arm rests. I wish more automakers still had anything approaching that minor, but important, accoutrement.

The LR4 is substantially better than its parts-bin-born predecessor and shows that maybe Land Rover's new Indian owners can teach the Americans — and even the British — a bit about luxury.

Let's get the lingering question out of the way: Is there any difference mechanically? In a word, no. The only difference as far as the vehicle is concerned is the suspension tuning required for the 19 inch wheels not available on the Equinox. Other than that the Equinox and Terrain are identical. Same engine packages: 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine with 182 HP mated to a six speed auto with an electric power steering rack and shockingly achievable 32 MPG; same 3.0 liter DI V6 good for 264 HP and mated to a six speed transmission, etc. The same all-wheel-drive system as the Equinox can be had with both engines.
The options list includes leather, navigation, dual pop-up rear-seat DVD players, power programmable lift-gate, sunroof, a 40 gig hard drive, iPod integration, and 17, 18, or 19 inch wheels, based on trim level.

Those big wheels are at the root of one of the only dynamic differences in the vehicle as well. Like the Equinox, the Terrain is competent over all road surfaces and handles well on corners of all shapes and sizes. Understeer is moderate when you overcook a corner, but if you're so inclined you can induce oversteer by lightening up the rear end with the brakes. Of course there won't be a lot of soccer moms hitting the track with this car, but in daily use it's just a little stiffer over bumps with the big wheels than the Equinox. Acceleration is the same; the 2.4 liter can squeal the tires off the line but loses pep through the mid range, though it's adequate for the vast majority of appliance drivers. The V6 does offer some decent grunt, but we'd be lying if we didn't want to see the 2.0 liter turbo Ecotec dropped in that engine bay. Since this is a GMC, we'd be remiss in leaving out the tow ratings of 1500 lbs and 3500 lbs for the I4 and V6, respectively fine for most weekend jobs, but bigger loads will require bigger trucks.

Feeling the deja vu? You should. There's no equipment you can get on the Terrain that you can't get on the Equinox. What the Terrain offers has more to do with its personality. First and foremost is that exterior-that massive grille is the first full implementation of the new GMC face, first seen on the GMC Denali XT concept at last year's Chicago Auto Show. It's certainly polarizing, drawing equal parts love and hate, but it's definitely distinctive. The controversial styling extends down the sides as well, with extremely squared off wheel-well arches and pronounced, almost cartoonish fender flares. However, the side glass is something we think everyone can get behind, with sharp chrome surrounds giving the glass a clean, defined look. We have to admit to liking it when done up in the black with the 18 inch polished wheels, but the chrome wheels are a little much.

Inside there's not much in the way of unique styling. The dash gets considerably higher-quality soft-touch material that's stitched together with nice contrasting red thread, complimented by the red accent and interior lighting, all differentiated from the blue of the Equinox. Seats are shared between both models, with the excellent mid-level cloth seats again taking the cake for comfort, grip, and styling. Rear seat passengers enjoy limo-like leg room with the sliding rear seat in he back position, and the bench is plenty comfortable for even the longest trips. There is a bit of news, as GM representatives let us know there was a Denali version coming along, so expect a garish front grille, a significantly upgraded interior with wood and aluminum trim, and unique wheels and exterior trim pieces.

And that's kind of the modus operandi of the Terrain: appealing to a different buyer than the Equinox. Where the Chevy is sort of soft-looking and inoffensive, the Terrain is a louder, more look-at-me vehicle. It can be had with more chrome than any GM vehicle in recent memory, and decked out in a suit of black, it looks pretty dang sharp. Just because it might not be our flavor doesn't mean it won't find a strong audience of buyers. Add that it's base price is only $1800 higher than that of the Equinox primarily due to standard backup camera, floor mats, tint, fog lights, and USB integration, it's not that bad of a deal either. If this product came out first, we'd be shouting its merits as we did with the Equinox, but while it has everything which makes that product so good, it's only claim to fame is styling and a softer dash. The value proposition is still there, but the necessity is hard to argue. It's a great compact SUV, no question there. It's just not any greater than the Equinox.

Pulling up to the large four-wheel playground on the outskirts of Bryan, Texas, which is itself the outskirts of another small town, I'm not sure what to expect. I'm meeting up with the Bryan-College Station Chapter of the TX4WD club and I'm doing this in an import. Will I stand out?

As I expected, the grounds are populated mostly by Jeeps, a seriously jacked-up Chevy S10 ZR2, and a Ford Explorer ready to pick up the kids from soccer practice — if they happen to by playing soccer at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I put on my best Texan smile and introduce myself, hoping for the best.

Thankfully, the group is as welcoming as a bucket full of blueberry muffins and, because they're almost all using daily drivers, their philosophy is: we want you to go home with stories, not parts of your truck — reassuring when the $29,400 truck doesn't belong to you. As there are other novices in the group, we set out for the "playground" for a bit of practice.

Practice typically implies something basic to start with. In this case, "practice" was driving into and out of a small, but deep, scar in the ground (it felt like a ravine). With BCSTX4WD president Jim Taylor guiding me, I put the Frontier in 4-low to take advantage of increased torque at the wheels. The trick with an independent-front-suspension vehicle like the Nissan is to keep the deepest part of the trail between the front wheels.

All of this sort of goes out the window when you actually do it. At this point I'm mostly keeping my eyes glued to Jim, hoping to not embarrass myself. As with racing, it's all about taking the right line. Into the ravine I'm being led on a clear line, straddling the dry sand. The 4.0-liter DOHC V6 pumps out 261 HP and a useful 281 lb-ft of torque, enough to easily pull the truck out of the sand.

Climbing out of the pit I suddenly feel like I'm being led on a course designed more for its photogenic qualities than its appropriateness as a path. This is confirmed when I'm told to stop while I feel the right rear wheel is suddenly no longer connected the ground. It does make for a good photo and, even without the rear-locking differential engaged, the Frontier pulls itself out like it was nothing. I knock the rear bumper a bit as I leave, but it doesn't do any damage.

Assuming this is about the worst we're going to see I confidently watch everyone else go through the playground and others tell me how well the 4x4 system works. Unlike some vehicles advertised as "off road ready," the PRO4X package adds serious equipment, including Bilstein off-road performance shocks and a shift-on-the-fly 4WD system. Clearly, this truck can handle anything. I can handle anything. We're an awesome team. This feelings lasts for about ten minutes, right up to the point I end up staring at a rutted 45-degree hill. Unsure if I can make it and fearing I'm going to fall back, I hit the gas and the Frontier does what it's built to do and throws me and my passengers (probably too quickly) up the hill.

The next few obstacles follow a similar theme. My confidence levels are lower than the truck's abilities and I'm pleasantly relieved (and covered with a thick layer of sweat) each time. But then I reverse the two and take a path too narrow to support the truck and bottom out (or, more technically, high-center). This is where everyone adds a few qualifications to the excellent Nissan 4X4 system. It's great — but the truck needs a couple of inches more height, more serious tires and shorter overhangs if it's going to tackle truly difficult terrain.

A quick tug and I'm ready to back the truck all the way down the hill we just climbed (it works just as well going the other way) and start heading down a bypass trail. The NIssan continues to eat up the narrow path, snaking through dense woods and jumping over obstacles. The transmission has horizontal gate for switching between first and second gear, making it easy to switch between the two when transitioning from climbing to crossing. I'm once again more confident in my abilities when I make another serious miscalculation.

Going down another steep grade I forgo the "keep the deepest part between the front wheels" advice and instead cut one wheel inside the lowest part of the trail. I now have one right wheel firmly planted on the ground and the left rear wheel resting against a bank. The rest of the truck is pivoting back and forth depending on how the passengers in the spacious cab move. This would be a good time to mention the brakes, which are holding the truck firmly in place.

I can sense that if I make the wrong move I'm going to end up hanging by my seatbelt. Rather than decide, I honk the horn until someone shows up to guide me out. To prove I'm not completely screwed, someone is nice enough to grab my camera and take a few pictures before they guide the truck out. Apparently, the price of off-road instruction is a few laughs at my expense.

The rest of the journey continues on as expected, over ditches and into paths cut through dense brush, the Nissan rarely faltering. Part of me wants to go again. The other part of me wants to get the hell out of there. Though the Frontier manages to propel this novice off-roader across rough terrain, without a few modifications there's the ever present risk of snapping an axle or leaving part of the truck behind.

The $28,980 as-tested price tag is less than the starting price of a base Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, and while the PRO4X Frontier certainly isn't as capable as the Jeep, it keeps pace and offers an attractive interior, four doors, and a large bed with a spray-in liner and an adjustable track.

After saying my goodbyes to the BCS TX4WD crew I head back to Houston with a dirty truck, a bag full of fried chicken and an iPod hooked up to the radio. That's the other part of this truck— the livable part. Most owners probably won't need to use the locking rear differential or hill-decline assist. Instead, they'll drop a giant container of white gravy into the cupholder and be pleasantly surprised when it fits.

Yes, super cars certainly come prettier in the conventional sense, but they have "bodywork." The Atom pretty much has shrouds that cover the hot parts and the moving pieces, at least most of them. They come more luxurious, but they have "interiors" where the 1375-pound Atom has a pair of seats — really, with its open frame, it barely has an exterior. But if you're the right sort of driver, it looks exactly like it should — see, right there's the engine, there are the Bilsteins, there are the brakes (Alcons on our example), and there are the tires (Toyo R888s) — and it's exactly the right place to be. It's a tool, and like a chef's knife or a stonecutter's mallet, it's made as simple and direct as possible with nothing added to it that you don't need to generate velocity along the appropriate axes.

Unfortunately, gorgeous Lime Rock Park was not quite the place to be on Saturday, as it had been drizzling steadily all day and the track was a glistening piece of black snakeskin where there wasn't actually standing water, so we would be limited to a few laps on the autocross track. This was disappointing, but it gave me time to talk to the people from Trak Motorsports International, who took over building the Atom from former owners Brammo last year; they'd already after handled the Ariel Atom Experience driving events for them and knew what they wanted to do with the car.

Primarily, they decided to replace the Atom 2's Ecotec, which was serviceable but still a compromise. They went back to the Atom's roots with a version of the K20A two-liter four found in Japanese-market Civics, a potent engine that makes 245 horsepower normally aspirated or 300 with a Jackson Racing supercharger. "It's a serious little engine, a race engine," TMI's engineer told us, "no balance shafts, baffled oil pan, Hondata ECU." It shows; the Atom has never in its short existence been anything like slow, but the supercharged Atom 3 gets to 60 in under three seconds. It's now a much more useful speed tool, and it's still relatively cheap to own and operate.

I wasn't able to approach that on the autocross track, naturally. On my own raggedy laps, the engine was flexible enough that it could be left in third and dart around just fine. TMI vice president Mark Swain had told us that the car was a very direct and transparent instrument-"It will do exactly what you tell it to. Exactly," were his exact words. My limited and damp time in the five-point harness proved him correct. The Atom turns in immediately; don't cough or twitch. It accelerates immediately; be prepared. And it stops the same way, except when it stops while going backwards because you weren't paying attention to just how quickly it turns and accelerates-but even then, it's just doing what you told it to, like Swain said. There is definitely as much speed there as you can get out of it. Like any tool, it reveals the strengths and shortcomings of the tool-user; you can use a chef's knife to prepare an epic feast, or you can take your hand off at the wrist.

Later that afternoon a dry line opened on the track and Swain, who turns out to be an extremely fast and smooth driver for a vice president, was allowed to take us for a handful of laps around Lime Rock lovely mile-and-a-half to give us all more of a feeling for its potential. I expected the Atom, at speed on a larger track, to feel darty, frenetic, and nervous, but that didn't seem to be the case; the still-damp track didn't upset it even through the water flowing across the track, it took the transitions through the esses in stride, and despite the astounding speed it seemed composed and solid. The Atom may have been running out of steam at the end of the half-mile straightaway, as top speed is "only" 140 or so, but it was never straining.

So if you're dedicated enough, or have the patience to try and become driver enough, and you have $65,000, by all means, get an Ariel Atom 3. It's a phenomenal track car, and in some places it could be a unique and character-building road car. It's certainly the sharpest and simplest — and cheapest — tool in the supercar trade. One way or another, you'll be a better driver for it.

Special thanks to the Manhattan Car Club and TMI AutoTech for providing the Atom and track time.

Photos by Peter Orosz

Here's the thing about the Audi R8 V8 and a manual transmission it is a testament to the breed; It's fast, gorgeous, makes beautiful music, it's easy to handle and it's as easy to drive as an old Ford Escort. When equipped with the R-Tronic transmission though, it's merely magnificent when you're driving fast. However, when you're puttering around town, it's an utterly tragic, annoying, searching, shuddering mess.

Like the V8, the V10 is simultaneously gorgeous and sinister. The intakes under the headlights have a reduced numbers of fins and the entire grille treatment wears a black finish, the chin is slightly tweaked, the sideblades have bigger intakes, new wheels and at the rear the twin exhaust tips are replaced with single oval outlets. Everywhere you go it's thumbs up and long drawn out stares leading to the inevitable lane corrections. In the R8, you have to drive more defensively than normal just to avoid the staring masses.

At 525 HP, the new 5.2-liter V10 makes a little more than 100 HP/L and with 399 Lb-Ft, it's a little down on torque against competitors, but as soon as you floor the throttle, that concern disappears. It accelerates to 60 MPH in 3.9 seconds and pulls like a mule well into the triple digits. Going fast in a super car is easy, it's the quality of the car that makes it so much more satisfying. The "snick, snick, snick" of the aluminum gated shifter, the neurotically perfect feel of the clutch, a steering weight heavy and confidence inspiring. With the suspension set in regular mode, the car happily soaks up road imperfections, while in sport mode the whole thing tightens up, gets even more communicative, and gives you that masochistic punishment supercars are known and loved for.

However, you can't be a lazy driver when on the road with the R8 V10. If you want to go fast, you have to row the shifter. Cruising along at 70MPH in top gear, the R8 will accelerate strongly if you floor the throttle, but drop it down two cogs and it'll explode in a chorus of V10 serenaded acceleration. Acceleration like this can't possibly be legally contained to public streets, luckily, we had the chance to drive it at Infineon.

Infineon is built on natural terrain at the edge of a valley, utilizing the dramatic elevation changes afforded by the foot of a mountain. Its fast, banked, bumpy in places and technically demanding. Some of the corners here are downright dangerous (cresting a hill over a blind corner off camber with a wall bearing down on the track anyone?). That said, here's one of our runs in the R8 V10, time we'd like to call 12 minutes in heaven:

Click to play

It's very possible to run the whole track in one-gear in a car with this much power by just leaving it in third. The 8700 RPM redline with no lack of power all the way to the top makes it almost too easy. To get things really going you'll need to be down into second and up into fourth on the front straight. The car is extremely communicative at the limit of adhesion, the stability control system does an excellent job of independently grabbing brakes at different corners to limit understeer. A driver can take a terrible line and the car will make it faster, but take the right line and it stays out of your business and you're even faster. It's a magnificent handler with the crushing acceleration and powerful brakes to back that cornering ability up.

A few laps in, you start to feel the track as much as the car. The physical effort of driving the car becomes the effort of driving the track and you start internally competing. Better, tighter line than the last pass, smoother clutch engagement, later, harder braking. The R8 draws you into the addiction of speed. You forget how much it costs, and it's probably good the handlers at Audi limited our track time.

We'd be shocked if this was not the case, for the manual. But what of the R-Tronic manumatic which made the R8 V8 a tarnished star? Good news, in the V10 version, R-Tronic has been perfected. Even in full auto mode, the transmission makes snap decisions and executes them quickly, driving through heavy traffic is no more a chore than in a normal auto and it's completely unintrusive. Put it into manual control mode and the sport setting and it's utterly awe-inspiring. Shifting with the paddles is lightning quick and you can knock out upshifts and downshifts like an F1 driver. The car feels even faster with the automatic. If manual transmissions die as a result of transmissions like this, we'll only be a little heartbroken, because the V10 mated to the R-Tronic is a seriously good combination. The car that passed me in the video... it was an R-Tronic.

Complaining about the somewhat disappointing spec sheet numbers - conventional wisdom states that 420 HP and 317 Lb-Ft isn't enough in a $114,200 car - is to fail to understand the beauty of the base R8. But it's that complaining which has resulted in this V10 version. The base R8 is about control, not power. It's a scalpel to other supercars' sledgehammers. It asks its drivers to make the most of the sublime chassis to achieve a truly rapid pace, then gives them the feel and response to do just that. In some ways its the anti-supercar. Its subtle looks aren't meant to be the stuff of adolescent posters. Its numbers aren't meant to be the stuff of barstool bragging. That identity means it appeals more to people who wouldn't traditionally buy supercars.

What the V10 does is add an "11" to the R8's volume knob. Does that make it more awesome? Of course it does. But the R8 was always about defying that word. It was about requiring its buyers to view the car as a whole rather than an exclamation point. The V10 brings the R8 into direct competition with cars like the Ferrari F430, Lamborghini Gallardo and Porsche 911 Turbo. Like those cars, it's impressively fast, but in being like them it's somehow lost some of what made it so different.

While I've been lucky and opportunistic enough to get my hands on a lot of interesting machinery in my day, somehow the Corvette experience has always eluded me. A shame, because there's always been something essential about it, something vital and visceral and deeply masculine, although it seemed I could never figure out the exact image the Corvette represented.

It goes deep; when I was a kid in small-town Midwestern America, it seemed every man had one, or wanted one, or was looking for ways to get one. Many disapproved, and if someone was brash enough to take theirs out in public, "decent people" would loudly voice their disapproval and shield their kids from the sight. Often the police were called. Nice ladies were assumed to dislike them, and tolerated them only to please their husbands' baser animal urges. Later on, when I went to college, I learned some women liked them, and some women even had them. This at first seemed like an affront to the natural order, but I've become more accepting since.

However, I haven't come any closer to defining exactly what the Corvette really is, and I hadn't when I went to pick up mine on a rainy day last month. There's no doubt it's a striking unit, and as it sat there, dewy with moisture, throbbing from root to tip, something about its quivering presence told me that as much fun as it could be it was also a lot of trouble. Flaunt it in front of people and I'd go to jail. Let it think for me and it could ruin my life and perhaps even endanger others. And if I damaged or broke it, it would hurt in a way that would be impossible to describe. Yet it was already affecting my thinking, altering my judgment, and I hadn't even done anything yet. I hadn't felt this way since my early teens…but that couldn't possibly be related to the Corvette in any way. Could it?

Oh, well. Back then I wouldn't have known what to do with one of these, but now I am a full-grown man. Surely I could control it now, right? Well. Ha. I've heard older men than me make that claim, men whose lives were in shambles and whose families had cast them out after they'd let their own Corvettes led them to younger, faster women. Or something.

Mine wasn't a particularly threatening specimen. A base-model convertible, it was supposedly less sensitive and a bit floppier than the uncut models, although some find it more aesthetically appealing. I didn't miss the extra stiffness; enough's enough, I guess once you're a certain age, and it's not like I could complain about the performance. The 6.2-liter LS3 has so much oomph that every surge forward is like the first time all over again. The power seems to come from the base of your spine, and it's easy to lose yourself in the swelling surge; you can see why so many young men lose it every year when the sudden rush of sensory overload clouds their heads and they wind up splattered all over the landscape. Luckily, it's a responsive unit as well; if you're mature enough to resist the temptation to be a 0-60-in-4.7-seconds man, the control and responsiveness running through every inch of it will let you last as long as your back holds up. Refined? No, not really. But somehow you don't want that.

But that's a lot of sports cars, not just the Corvette. What's so special about it? What's it's aura, and what's the allure in its tapered yet swelling shape? It looks bigger than it actually is, which pleases the hindbrain in ways that are difficult to describe. It comes in many varieties-the Z06 with more potency and a larger opening at the tip, the ZR1 with a supercharger for the ultimate rush of oxygenated fluids where it really counts-there's a vas deferens between them all. And even the older models have their appeal. But I just can't, for the life of me, figure out exactly what it is about this car in particular.

Oh, well. Maybe decent guys just don't think that way. But I really wish I could at least find a way to describe what I think it looks like.

The Routan is advertised as "the only minivan in America with German engineering." But the badge does not make the car, and the VW badge on the front of what is actually a Chrysler Town & Country doesn't make it a Volkswagen. Far from it.

Despite the slightly reworked interior and attractive new front fascia, there's not much to connect it to its German heritage. It lacks what Ze Germans call Wesentliches — the essential essence. Volkswagen fans are, above all else, dash-stroking snobs. It's one of the reasons why they get to make American customers eat the exchange rate.

The Routan has none of this. There are no blue/red gauges, Teutonic type faces nor above-par materials. The key doesn't fly out of the fob like a switchblade in a 1950s musical. Rather than a turbocharged engine, something diesel or a naturally-aspirated engine with an odd number of cylinders, there's an 18-year old 3.8-liter Chrysler V6 putting out an adequate but uninspiring 197 HP and 230 lb-ft of torque. With a 0-60 MPH time of 10.2 seconds and a wobbly top speed of 112 MPH, the Routan is about as suited for the Autobahn as you'd expect any other American minivan to be.

At 16 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, the Routan is crying out for a clean diesel engine.

My would-be hipster friends noticed and, even with the Dirty Projectors playing through the wimpy six-speaker stereo, could sense this wasn't a true VW.

So as a Volkswagen it sucks, but it's not awful as a minivan. There's great visibility all around. The seating position is typically commanding, with the driver towering over the road and the children. For the mom on the go there's dual remote-control sliding doors on both sides with power windows. The kids get 12-volt power chargers. There's stow'n'go rows for stellar storage.

Most of the Routan's shortcomings as a van are due to the perplexing mix of features offered in the SE trim. What's available falls into sort of a weird middle area where you get half of what you need. The front seat is an eight-way adjustable power system inside an uncomfortable cloth covering. You get the attractive 17-inch wheels but the smaller engine. Most noticeably, the entertainment system includes a DVD player but you get no screens.

All this could be forgivable if Honda, VW's Japanese nemesis, didn't already make a significantly better minivan. The Odyssey has a stout V6 churning out a superior 240 HP and 245 lb-ft of torque yet offering comparable mileage. It can swallow more cargo (147 cubic feet compared to 144 cubic feet for the VW), and an EX Odyssey with DVD Rear Seat Entertainment MSRP's for almost a grand less than a similarly-equipped Routan.

As buyers we expect innovation and quality from a German automobile, even if we don't always get it. The Routan lacks both. The quality is on par with its American counterparts from Dodge and Chrysler, while some of the most innovative features found in the Town & Country (the swivel chairs with fold-out table) are absent. What's left is a vehicle that's more expensive and offers fewer features. The giant badge is nice but it doesn't hide the truth.

At $30,735 there are vehicles that carry more passengers, drive better, offer more quality and are an overall better value. After spending a week with the Routan, the claim that this is "the only minivan in America with German engineering" just makes me feel bad for German engineers.

Because Europeans are more likely to spend a lot of time close to the Speed3's 155 mph electronically limited top speed and tend to treat the sporty Mazda as a practical family car, it needs more stability than the US-spec vehicle. Enthusiast drivers here are more likely to exploit the performance on twisty mountain roads and are willing to make some compromises to do so, which means the Mazda USA engineers have been able to swap some stability for quicker handling.

That difference points to the Mazda's unique position within the American market, where it's really the only serious FWD hot hatch and is cross shopped more with cars like the Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Ralliart. Europeans, spoiled with choices like the not-softened-for-America GTI, truly wonderful French cars like the Renault Clio Cup and the hotter-than-hell Ford Focus RS tend to treat the Mazda as a bit of an also-ran.

That second-rate status was created not by the 2.3-liter turbocharged engine — which remains largely unchanged for 2010 with 263 HP and 280 Lb-Ft of torque — but by the chassis, which exhibited a strong predilection for understeer and wasn't terribly agile by fast hatch standards. The boring styling also played a roll, but it at least gave the Mazda a certain sleeper appeal.

The new car adapts the regular Mazda3's happy new design, but makes that grin louder with a deeper front splitter, a huge hood scoop, a big wing and 18-inch wheels of the same design as those on the RX-8 R3. Driving the 2010 model on the roads around Laguna Seca, we really missed the old under-the-radar styling. Other journalists driving these roads the day before had seriously pissed off the local law enforcement by hitting three-figure speeds in residential neighborhoods and catching air in Mazda5s in a school zone. In response, the CHP swarmed the area with speed traps.

Thankfully, Mazda still makes cars in grey, so we grabbed one of those and slowly made our way to roads far, far away.

The new 3's chassis is now purportedly much stronger (although Mazda hesitates to put a percentage on that) allowing the fitment of stiffer springs and firmer dampers. Those changes actually appear to improve the ride by better controlling impacts and minimizing their invasiveness on the chassis, but that hasn't come at the expense of feel. Like other vehicles in the Mazda range, power steering is boosted by an electric motor, but unlike vehicles like the 2009 BMW Z4 this appears to increase rather than reduce steering feel. Geometry remains the same as the old model, just with upgraded componentry throughout.

Finally on some roads free of prying eyes and radar traps the new Speed3 responds to aggressive driving in a similar manner to the old one, albeit with more feel, more agility and, as a result, more speed. The engineers deliberately left in some torque steer rather than going overboard with power retardation in the early gears, but, while its still very noticeable, that sideways yank on the steering wheel now feels more like character and less like a dynamic limitation. Throw the car into a tight corner hard and it'll understeer, but a small lift works wonders to correct that. Even over heavily rutted tarmac it now puts its power down very effectively with a minimum of wheel spin.

Mazda has actually made gears 2 through 5 slightly taller which better suits the character of the torquey engine. Peak torque hits at 3,300 RPM while peak power is at 5,500. After that, the next 1,000 RPM is basically overrun. Thanks to the new gearing you can leave the car in third for most roads and sit happily in the broad power band. A peaky four-cylinder this is not.

Back at Laguna and what is now a pretty exciting road car is transformed into a competent if somewhat less exciting track car. The understeer that's still evident on less-than-perfect roads disappears on the smooth surface of Mazda Raceway, replaced with quick turn ins and good mid corner speeds. The faster uphill curves leave us wanting for a bit more power while the tight 2nd gear corner onto the main straight leaves the Speed3 struggling to put its torque down. Still, it's unflustered by the whole experience which leaves us to do some much needed concentrating on our lines. I think I finally have the right one through Rainey.

All the upgrades make the new model slightly more expensive than the old one at $23,195 before destination and delivery, but the thoroughness of the changes more than compensates for the thousand extra bucks or so. The 2010 Mazdaspeed3 is faster, more agile and more fun to drive than before. It's still not the best hot hatch in the world, but it is the best hot hatch Americans can buy.

Based on the stock 2009 Ford F-150, the Raptor adds little more than some fancy suspension, fancier electronics and some sporty exterior design. It retains the stock engine, the same 6-speed automatic gearbox (albeit in a less enthusiastic state of tune), the stock frame and a gussied-up stock interior and flared exterior. But oh, what suspension and electronics.

Headlining the changes are the internal triple bypass Fox Racing shocks. Like other off-road suspension packages, they add lots of travel (the total now stands at 11.2" of travel at the front and 12.1" at the rear), but unlike other systems they take radical steps to control that travel with the damping becoming four times stiffer at the end of the shock's travel as it is at the beginning. The initially soft, progressively stiffer damping means the Raptor floats over undulations both off-road and on, but controls that float so there's no bouncing around on the springs.

Drive along at whatever speed, hit a bump and the jolt is absorbed with no further impact on the experience. The suspension compresses to the extent required to clear the obstacle, then extends back to its normal position rather than compressing and extending through a few decreasing cycles like on virtually every other suspension setup.

That control isn't just down to the dampers, the Raptor increases the width of the F-150's track by seven inches, necessitating the use of unique "SVT" stamped upper and lower control arms and the wild new bodywork. The result of that is stability, especially noticeable at high speeds.

Connecting that new suspension to the road are bespoke 35-inch BF Goodrich tires on same-size, but unique-looking, 17-inch wheels. They use the same tread pattern as other BF Goodrich off-road tires, but everything else about them is designed to boost on-road refinement while retaining off-road ability. They're dead quiet even while bouncing off the 100 MPH speed limiter on the road, yet grip rocks and loose sand just like their off-road-only brothers and sisters.

Helping all that out is an "Off-Road" mode button that lets the ABS lock the wheels up at low speeds for more effective braking in the dirt, makes the shift programming and throttle response much more aggressive and backs off the traction and stability control.

That we've just spent five paragraphs describing the fancy suspension and electronics should give you some idea just how special they are. In fact, they transform the F-150 from a practical and luxurious utility truck into the most bitchin' multi-purpose vehicle we've driven all year. It's just a shame about the transmission.

That the Raptor is fast, refined and utterly stable up to its limited top speed belies its true nature as an off-roader. We were initially disappointed in the truck because we couldn't imagine a situation where all this roadability couldn't come at the expense of off-road speed. The thing is, we were wrong.

Designed for high-speed desert running, the SVT engineers didn't find it necessary to sacrifice any rock-crawling or mud-plugging ability. The extra ground clearance, improved approach and departure angles, beefed-up half shafts and other assorted upgrades like the huge SVT-branded aluminum skid plate actually make the Raptor more capable in the slow stuff than the stock F-150. All that truck's off-road aids are retained in the form of super slow-motion hill descent control and locking differentials.

And then you get to the go-fast stuff.

There's plenty of trucks, SUVs or whatever that can competently tackle a boulder. There's none available straight from a show room that are designed to run across the desert at 100 MPH. That's exactly what the Raptor does.

Push the "Off-Road" button, turn off the traction control and engage the rear axle locker in two-high and you're in the unofficial sport mode. This sets you up to tackle the loose surfaces, bumps, jumps and corners of your average desert. Point it down a dry creek bed or across the open desert and hit the gas. Add some corrective steering to overcome that slide and you're good to go. It's like driving your average pickup down a dirt road, only, in the Raptor, you'll be going twice as fast and you don't need that dirt road.

The triple bypass dampers absorb any bump small enough for the Raptor to actually make it over or cushion the landing off just about any jump. You'll find yourself going so fast - we bounced off the 100 MPH limiter without a thought - that when it comes time to steer around that boulder or cliff you won't realize how much you need to slow down until you're right on top of that obstacle. That's ok, because the off-road ABS programming has been tuned so perfectly that it can bring the Raptor to a rapid halt even on loose sand. It does that by allowing a controlled amount of wheel lock at low speeds to build up a berm in front of the tires, but keeps the wheels from locking at higher speeds to retain steering control.

Sadly, even with the more aggressive programming in off-road mode, the transmission will put itself in too high a gear, causing the Raptor to occasionally bog down, spoiling your tail out fun through some slow corners.

We first drove the Raptor over a month ago here in New York and walked away from the experience distinctly underwhelmed. Rather than finding the extreme race-focused off-roader we expected, the Raptor, in city traffic at least, turned out to be a better-riding, taller and more refined version of the stock F-150. The gearbox kept trying to put itself in sixth gear, no matter what the speed, and was then reluctant to kick down. That means it was slow. Really slow.

Unfortunately that gearbox didn't get better between that pre-production truck and this final-spec vehicle. Trying to get some maintenance throttle through the hairpin curves between San Diego and Borrego Springs resulted in either nothing or, with a bit more throttle, a two gear downshift and way too much acceleration. I almost had to drive it like an ‘80s turbocharged Saab, hammering the throttle before the apex to ensure that there'd be some acceleration on tap by the time the corner exit appeared.

Ford plans to add a 400 HP/400 Lb-Ft of torque 6.2-liter V8 to the Raptor lineup near the end of this year, but it's going to be equipped with the same shitty gearbox as this 5.4-liter, meaning the extra 90 HP and 10 Lb-Ft will largely be wasted. Some sort of manual override beyond the ability to select first, second or third and the ineffective overdrive off switch is desperately needed, but sadly not planned.

Of course, bitching about the lack of an appropriately tuned gearbox in a 6,000 Lbs, 78.4-inch tall truck is indicative of how satisfying the rest of the experience is. Throw the Raptor into an on-road corner and it heaves way over to the outside, but settles into that position through the rest of the corner. Nothing about its cornering ability is wayward, imprecise or challenging. In fact, its far more able than the stock F-150 and is capable of pulling .83 G on the skidpad, which is nearly as much grip as the stock 2010 Ford Mustang GT. 0-60 takes 8.2 seconds, well, if the gearbox cooperates.

The way to get around the ridiculously awful gearbox is to floor the Raptor down every straight, then slam on the 13.8-inch front, 13.-7-inch rear (same as the stock truck) brakes just before a corner. The front dives towards the ground alarmingly and the tires go "fizzzzz" in protest, but the brakes never fade. Stay on them to just before the apex to quicken the steering then slam on the throttle so that you stand some slim chance of accelerating at some point on the following straight.

Ford's PR team carefully planned a jump free route for us to avoid the liability of inadvertently jostling the pacemakers of geriatric buff book hacks, but we managed to channel our inner hoon and find a good ramp regardless. We hit the four-foot high berm at 80 MPH and caught what felt like serious air, but even that failed to overcome the natural stability and the Raptor's ability to soak up anything thrown at it. It landed perfectly and carried on as if nothing had happened. Even sliding sideways into ruts and bumps near the limited top speed failed to provoke any roll or any sign at all that we could do anything to upset the Raptor.

With the stability control off, things got a bit looser, but were still impressively controlled given the amount of sideways action taking place, while with four high locked in, the same speeds were attainable, albeit with less fun.

We'll have to wait until we try a Raptor in an unsupervised environment to definitively declare that it's impossible to flip or roll one, but on this initial trial that appears to be the case.

The Raptor's performance potential is so unique that we have to look outside the car and truck world to find any serious parallels for its ability. Off-road it performs like a faster, taller KTM race quad bike with its huge slides and go-anywhere high-speed ability. But we've never gotten a quad up to 100 MPH. On road the nearest equivalent would be a supermoto - a dirt bike converted for road use with sticky track tires - it's long travel suspension actually boosts cornering ability over the stock vehicle. But we've never ridden a supermoto this refined.

To put it plainly, the Raptor is the fastest off-road vehicle we've ever driven, yet remains a refined, capable and fun daily commuter or work truck. It's ability to travel at extremely high speeds over rough terrain is utterly unique among stock vehicles. It does all that while only asking a $2,900 premium over the F-150 FX4. In a world of cars and trucks designed only to compete with peers in specific classes and on boring things like fuel economy, trunk volume and stereo spec and in a society beset with oppressive liability concerns, the Raptor sets itself apart by doing something no one else has ever thought was a good idea, was possible within the legal framework of an automobile company or, hell, even possible at all. The 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor is fucking awesome.

Launch control. On face, it's an anti-manly feature. Using it is an admission of incompetence; You're fundamentally admitting the car is it's own master, and you are only a passenger. Fine. It still makes a tire-shredding drag run ride a hell of an awesome thing. Launch control for the 2010 ZR1 is buried in the traction control options. So how do you do it? Press the traction control button twice and you put the car in performance mode, rock the ZR1-only traction knob once and you're sitting pretty in the performance dry programming.

Now is when all the magic happens. You put the car in first gear and mat the accelerator with the right foot, clutch with the left one. Normally this would mean bouncing the engine off its rev limiter and being a total prick to all the internal components, but in the ZR1 the engine bounces off the 5000 RPM mark then settles in right at the 4000RPM mark. With that 6.2 liter supercharged monster serenading you, the next step is to do what you're taught to never ever do with a manual transmission car — dump the clutch with extreme prejudice. It feels wrong, but it delivers results that are oh so right.

For the controls engineer in us, this next part is like magical happy land. To provide launch control, the car starts by measuring wheel spin. By measuring fleeting instances of wheel spin, it determines the surface friction available and the maximum amount of torque the wheels can handle at a given speed, it then sends a torque request to the engine which delivers the maximum power exactly by modulating fuel and spark for every instant of torque demand. It's a beautiful feedback loop which delivers crushing performance.

It's definitely fast, but it's very dependent on the driver too. Dog the clutch release and the car will bog down and only deliver a 4 second 0-60MPH time. Shameful. But if you let if go just right, like we did, you'll see a crushing, blistering, surreal times of only 3.48 seconds (Ben's being somewhat modest here. He had the best time of the day and best of all the auto journalists in attendance — Ed.). Considering the ZR1's quoted time with an experienced pro-driver behind the wheel is 3.4 seconds, this is as close to perfect as you can possibly get.

Of course, you can easily defeat the whole system and still get the "oh-my-god-this-car-is-trying-to-kill-me-but-this-is-awesome" experience, but you won't be beating every single car you line up against.

Think of the latest incarnation of the Grand Sport as the Z06 light, for about $55k you get a lot of the goodies in the Z06 but at a $20,000 discount. It's not so much of a kidney-pounding, mean and nasty brute, but it'll hang on the track all day and do it reliably, because it's built to a higher spec than the normal LS3-equipped Vettes.

So, what do we have then? Well for starters, the Grand Sport rides on the steel frame of the base Corvette but wears the bodywork and dimensions of the Z06 all around, modified with a set of gill slits in the coves as well as a slightly taller spoiler. This will be the first time the more aggressive Zed's style will be available with an open top, so that's potentially where a lot of sales will originate. It also gets unique wheels in Z06 dimensions all around which come in either chrome, silver painted, or our preference the Competition Gray, hot. Those wheels wrap around bigger brakes shared with the Z06, 14" up front and 13.4" rear, with six-piston and four-piston calipers, respectively. It really announces its presence when optioned with the telltale hash marks sprouting from the wheel wells. Unlike the original 1963 race spec Grand Sport or the 1996 limited run GS, this one has matching stripes on driver and passenger side — a little spit in the eye of tradition, but unless you're a stickler, it's pretty neat, especially when you notice the Corvette crossed-flags emblem in the corner of the leading stripe.

That's all well and good, but we suspect the part that'll get Corvette owners talking is the engine. It's an LS3, yes, but with some very tasty upgrades. All Grand Sports get a forged steel crankshaft instead of the standard cast iron piece which can withstand higher loads for longer times as wells as tri-metal main bearings that'll take a whole lot more abuse than standard ones. On the manual transmission cars, you get a dry-sump oil system standard, with a higher flow and higher pressure oil pump and a 10.5-quart capacity, that dry sump occupies the same space as the battery normally gets, so it's moved to the rear as a result. Because of the dry sump complexity, the engine is being built by hand right alongside the LS7 and LS9. That means you get a properly balanced engine and a reinforced bottom end for the price of admission on the "cheap" Grand Sport model. Add to that the differential cooler at the rear and you have exactly what you need for a solid track day. Sounds pretty good to us.

As with all Corvettes, you can hand it off to Grandma to go pick up groceries and she'll only complain about sitting so gosh-darn low. However, she'll also be able to turn around and rip off 3.95 second 0-to-60 times all day thanks to the addition of launch control, which GM cheekily assured us would never void the warranty, not only that but it works pretty well too (sadly we only had time to test it on the also-equipped ZR1, which was in no way more exciting than sex on a roller coaster, turning in 0-to-60's in a plodding 3.48 seconds). You'll note that 3.95s time puts the GS 0.35 seconds faster than the standard Vette, due to improved traction, transmission gearing and final drive. On the track, unsurprisingly, the Grand Sport reminds us of a Z06 missing about 70 HP, which is actually more manageable than the 7.0-liter brute. 436 HP with the valved exhaust is more than enough to get you rocketing to delirious speeds in no time, and the big brakes haul you down even faster. You can throw every mistake in the book at the car and it's almost too easy to drive at speed, easy to catch when you push too hard, and riotously fun when you do everything right. The upgraded brakes and anti-roll bars really make a difference when late-braking for corners and diving through chicanes as accurate turn-in and quick transitions are incredibly rewarding.

GM's thinking the Grand Sport might top 50% of total Corvette sales at least in the short term, and there's good reason to believe it might. On the one hand, it offers the boulevardier Corvette owners the enticing pitch of the Z06 body with the convertible top, upgraded suspension, unique looks and a reasonably good automatic transmission (really, in manual mode, it's pretty respectable). On the other hand, the base Grand Sport coupe with a manual gives you a lot of the Z06 goodies with a hand-built engine equipped with a dry-sump and upgraded internals for $20,000 less. And here we thought it was just a stickers and wheels package.

Although we think maybe they need to have someone take a quick run-through of the pictures they're using for each vehicle. Somehow we don't think the Ford Fusion's a GM product (check the gallery for further proof) or that there's any Avis location that'll rent you a Pontiac G8 GXP.

Also, for some reason, it shows that Detroit Metro airport has no cars to rent. Ever. Somehow we don't think Detroit's such a tourist and business attraction that they've completely sold out. But otherwise, the app seems fairly robust. Check it out in the gallery below, or download it yourself. Don't worry, it's free. Unlike the "GPS upgrade" on your rental.

The rise and fall of minivans and then SUVs and social pressure towards more responsible and fuel-efficient options is making the time right for the return of the wagon. They offer the gear-toting capability of SUVs, the step-over height, performance and fuel-efficiency of cars and they take nothing from the minivan, thankfully. Their major weakness has been styling, considered the more staid option compared to their sedan bases. The CTS Sport Wagon takes the wagon form to a level of sexy rarely seen in the segment.

An easy gauge of public interest in a car is how many times you're goaded into rolling down the window at a stop light by a dumbstruck motorist excited to know more about it. We knew Cadillac had done their job the fourth time someone stopped us to talk in the same day. The fellow behind the wheel of a Mercedes C-class wore a wide-eyed expression of an eight-year-old at the toy store, which told us what we already knew. This wagon is hot. It takes everything we like about the Cadillac CTS and somehow makes it even better. The long roof-line makes it seem sleeker, more finished — as if this was the original design, and the sedan was cut from it.

Like its CTS brother, the Sport Wagon is one of the best luxury cars on the market. It does absolutely everything right. The interior is beautifully finished, the wood, leathers, technology and quality are everything we expect of a Cadillac reclaiming its position as a global luxury power player. The car benefits from all 2010 CTS upgrades, including 6.5 lbs of additional sound damping and completely redesigned transmission mounts to remove harshness at certain engine speeds.

The base 3.0-liter V6 makes 270HP and our optional 304 HP direct injection 3.6-liter V6 balanced power and smoothness; there's significant thrust underneath the grown-up physique. Sadly, the manual transmission won't be available in the Sport Wagon, but the automatic transmission is well sorted. It's equipped with a manual mode activated by buttons on the back side of the steering wheel, but we recommend leaving it in full auto, as the shifts in manual are a bit sluggish for our tastes. The car is expected to return 18/27 MPG figures, and we saw 16.5/25.5 MPG with aggressive driving, so we're certain it'll do those numbers without trouble. Turn off the traction control and the car will happily indulge your mischievous side — donuts and oversteer are only a throttle stab away and the car is predictable as a go-kart, just like the CTS.

Then you pull into the driveway, fold down the seats, and toss your bicycle in the back. Or a month's worth of groceries. Or the dog. There's 58 cubic feet of storage back there with the seats down, 25 up. The only concession you make to get the massive storage is reduced visibility out the back window. The blind spots are there, but are no more intrusive than the sedan, and the backup camera and proximity sensors eliminate those in tight spaces.

Production on the Sport Wagon started last Monday, and with a starting price of $40,485, the car thoroughly crushes its remaining German rivals for the price. Our optioned-out performance package came with heated and cooled seats, XM radio, 18" Contisport 3 summer tires, more aggressive suspension tuning, a faster steering ratio and stiffer anti-roll bar. Well worth it in our opinion. The CTS Sport Wagon is everything a luxury wagon should be, it's refined and comfortable, not afraid of a little work on the side, and very importantly, fun to drive. After the CTS-V, the Sport Wagon is the best car in the Cadillac lineup right now. Well, until the CTS-V Sport Wagon. Hello, GM bean counters, are you listening?

The Corvette Stingray concept, first introduced at the 2009 Chicago Auto Show, and starring in the recently-released Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen as Autobot Sideswipe, represents a visionary modern interpretation of the past, present and future of the Corvette. Conceptually, it represents the merger of high technology with high design in the powertrain, exterior and interior.

Exterior Design

Despite the recent trend toward concepts as nothing more than an exaggerated preview of a production car, don't expect the next-generation C7 Corvette to look like this concept car. Tom Peters, designer of both the Stingray concept as well as the new Chevy Camaro says very plainly "it's not the C7." Then, pausing, he continued by saying

"that's not to say there aren't elements here that can translate into what the C7's about. There's no parameters to this concept...our goal...I would tell my team, guys, go kick that car's ass. Go beat that."

Despite only being revealed earlier this year, and despite obvious similarities in exterior design between it and the new Chevy Camaro, it's not for the reasons you think. You see, the Stingray was actually first sketched over six years ago, predating the Camaro.

What that means is Peters took the methodology used designing the Stingray concept and applied it to the new Chevy Camaro. That's why you'll see design elements from the Stingray concept in it.

So, despite many enthusiasts' belief the Camaro influenced the Stingray concept car, it was, in fact, the other way around. As Peters says, "that [Camaro's egg crate] grille came from that grille [egg crate grille on the Corvette Stingray concept]." When you see the Camaro sitting next to the Stingray concept, you realize immediately the design influence from the concept's front end to Chevy's new mullet-lover muscle car.

What the Corvette Stingray concept's exterior design did draw inspiration from was almost every generation Corvette — starting with the 1959 Corvette Stingray racer concept, the iconic split rear window from the 1963 Stingray and front wheel arches and side coveys from more modern generations — mixed with distinct, classical aeronautic lines.

The doors open like a Lambo — scissor-style — and the reverse-clamshell hood both open at the touch of a button. With the three carbon fiber appendages spread, it look like nothing less than a bird of prey. It's a sight to see in person.

Achieving the design took a mix of materials that Corvettes are used to seeing as part of their make-up. The concept utilizes advanced composite materials — no new thing for Corvettes, as Richard Pinto, Creative Designer on interior trim told us, aseven the first generation utilized composites — but nothing like the carbon fiber and graphite/nylon reinforced plastic found on the newest Corvettes.

Interior Design

Taking cues from artwork outside the GM Design Center and the flowing, aerodynamic exterior, GM interior designer Micah Jones built a dual-cockpit design to exist in cohesive harmony with the Autobot surrounding it. Sitting in it, we've got to say it works — the ergonomics and touch-zones feel snug but not tight — with all controls available in close proximity to the driver.

Because, unlike base models of the current generation Corvette, this concept's filled to the carbon fiber-gills with conceptual and currently available technology designed to be totally customizable for the driver. To that end, on the steering wheel are two spherical balls. Right side controls shared functions like entertainment, air con and nav. Left side controls the driver's arena — items explained in more detail in the powertrain section below.

The information cluster features, in addition to basic information from a speedometer and a tachometer, small circular screens with 3-D animated shocks and brakes spinning around to give you a visual of what you're adjusting using the two spherical balls.

The center console screen is a dramatic and expansive display where you'll see five settings able to be controlled — the same five you find on the wheel — Entertainment, Air, Home (laptop mode that allows you to access the internet and your information from home. And yes, Twitter fans, you'll be able to tweet from it), Nav and Race modes — allowing you to utilize the advanced haptic touch screen to alter all of these. The really cool features in the center console are a very iTunes cover flow-like ability to shuffle through songs and a system designed to allow for downloadable iPhone app-like racing content — think 0-to-60 timers, race course maps with the fastest lines and the like. Which, given the powertrain, is something we think you'll need.

Powertrain

Under the hood there's a radical conceptual hybrid powertrain, theoretically mating mild hybrid technology with a high performance V8 engine with cylinder deactivation for even higher fuel economy in non-performance driving situations.

The theoretical concept extends to include the driver's ability to switch from pure electric mode for city driving to full use of the big LS-series V8 with five different settings (the left-hand control sphere on the steering wheel) controlling the feel and sharpness of the shift, the intensity and sensitivity of the regenerative brakes, and playing up some of the hybrid system's opportunities. You could theoretically control the output — and how quickly the electricity is put back down to the road — from a more Eco-friendly mode or crank it up to ultimate sensitivity and just pound power out of the car.

But, despite the lettering "Hybrid Stingray" emblazoned on the underhood packaging, it merely represents a futuristic vision from the design studio and not a powertrain exercise. So don't expect the C7 Corvette to get a hybrid powertrain.

How'd It Drive?
It's a multi-million dollar one-off concept car driven at 15-20 MPH, how do you think it felt to drive? Right. It felt awesome, which is exactly how it should feel.

Why you should buy the 2010 Lincoln MKZ:
You need a car that looks nice and gets you where you're going comfortably. You used to drive a Mustang GT, but now that you've got a kid and a respectable job, you need to step it up. You fancy yourself a Lincoln man, but aren't ready to pay MKS bucks nor do you need the space. You think your buddies paying a premium for German brands are idiots and besides, you don't need the razor sharp performance or the maintenance bills. You own a very nice JCPenny suit.

Why you shouldn't buy this car:
Wrong-way-drive cars make your skin itch, even if they do an excellent job of pretending they aren't. You consider luxury cars to be as much about the emblem on the grille as the car behind it. You aren't swayed by "Buy American" sentiment in the face of stiff competition and a somewhat dear price tag, (in any case, this car hails from Mexico). You already test drove a Fusion and don't see what the big deal is about the Lincoln version. You still think Lincoln is an old man's brand.

Suitability Parameters:
Speed Merchants: No
Fashion Victims: No
Treehuggers: No
Mack Daddies: No
Tuner Crowd: No
Hairdressers: No
Penny Pinchers: No
Euro Trash: No
Working Stiffs: Yes
Technogeeks: Yes
Poseurs: No
Soccer Moms: No
Nascar Dads: Yes
Golfing Grandparents: Yes
Sheiklets: No
Very Serious Businessmen: Yes

Also Consider:
• 2010 Buick LaCrosse (No, really)
• 2009 Audi A4
• 2009 Cadillac CTS
• 2009 Lexus IS350
• 2009 Acura TL
• Staring slack-jawed at the sticker price

Vitals:
• Manufacturer: Lincoln
• Model: MKZ
• Model year: 2010
• Base Price: $34,115
• Price as Tested: $38,444
• Engine type: 3.5L Duratec V6 engine
• Horsepower: 263 @ 6250 RPM
• Torque: 249 @ 4,500 rpm
• Transmission: 6-speed automatic w/sequential shift mode
• Curb Weight: 3598 lbs (FWD) / 3796 lbs (AWD)
• LxWxH: 189.8" x 72.2" x 56.9"
• Wheelbase: 107.4"
• Tires: P225/50VR17
• 0 - 60 mph: V6: 7.1 seconds (Manufaturer quoted)
• Top Speed: NA
• EPA Fuel economy city/highway (MPG, Estimated): 17/24 (AWD V6), 18/27 (FWD)
• Jalopnik Fuel Economy: 25 MPG (city/highway mix 60/40%)
• NHTSA crash test ratings: Front: five stars; Side: Five Stars; Rollover: N/A

Also see:
• 2010 Lincoln MKZ, Part One
• 2010 Lincoln MKZ, Part Two

When we first drove the base model 2010 Cadillac SRX with a 3.0-liter V6, we were happy to find an excellent CTS-inspired interior, handsome styling inside and out and thrilled to discover suspension that actually made the crossover, we dared to say, fun to drive. The only problem was that engine. It was adequate, but not much more. With a 0-60 MPH time of around 8.1 seconds it wasn't exactly the leading edge of performance for the segment either. The chassis was begging for more.

Enter the 2.8-liter, 300 HP, 295 Lb-Ft, turbocharged V6. The horsepower is improvement is a nice number, but it's the torque that provides a big kick in the pants. Instead of peaking at 5,100 RPM like the 3.0, maximum twist in the 2.8 turbo comes in at 2,000 RPM and stays there throughout the rev range. As you might imagine, this pays great dividends in the fun department.

To illustrate this, we were given the chance to put the SRX Turbo through its paces at GM's Milford Proving Grounds' Milford Road Course, affectionately known as the "Lutz Ring." It's the very same track we put the Corvette ZR1 on to put it through its paces. It's not a place you normally launch a crossover.

Pegging the throttle out of the pit lane reminds you why turbos and V6's belong together. Power delivery is smooth and constant, right off the line. Turbo lag is nonexistent, this was the engine the car was begging for. Everything about the SRX now feels right with this motor. With an unofficial 0-60 MPH time of around 7.2 seconds, the SRX still isn't as fast as rivals like the 2010 Acura MDX or the Audi Q5 3.2, but the power is notable for the way it makes everything else in the car shine.

The SRX Turbo gets an upgraded transmission in the form of an Aisin six-speed, spec'd to cope with the added torque. All Turbos come standard with the active damper system that we liked so much on the non-turbo SRX and the Haldex all-wheel drive system that's capable of transferring 100% of power to the rear. There's also an electronic limited-slip differential able to shift 85% of power from side-to-side across the rear axle only, which means torque vectoring, but not on all four wheels as on the BMW X6. Like the Acura MDX, which uses a similar setup, this means a very capable and fun drive, just not the mind-bending cornering ability of the X6.

Twenty inch wheels also come along for the ride in either painted finish or a super gaudy chrome. Had we been driving sanely on public roads, this Caddy is expected to get a 16/23 MPG fuel economy rating from the EPA, only a 1 MPG penalty in the city over the non-turbo. We weren't driving sanely.

We're in sport mode, tapping the brakes at the end of the Lutz Ring's first straight, you come to a decreasing radius corner, and the car sticks just like it shouldn't, steering weight builds as the input increases, the transmission downshifts aggressively, engine braking perfectly and keeping the car in the wide power band, the car stays balanced as you push it through the corner. Throttle on through a chicane which crests on a hill and plunges you into a valley, body roll is controlled and precise; disturbingly good for a car weighing 4300 Lbs and topping 65 inches in height. What kind of crazy black magic has GM pulled here? Through a mid speed lightly banked sweeper and the tires start to squeal, hard on the throttle as it heads for a highly banked uphill left called the "Toilet Bowl" that compresses the suspension and looks highly dramatic, but is actually really easy. Over a blind crest with an abrupt turn in and the car is reassured, confident on its feet and stunningly capable.

Hard on the brakes, through a corner and wide open throttle down the short back stretch, by the time we hit the markers we're over a hundred miles per hour. The high speed essess are tackled with what would otherwise be dangerous speed and they give way to hard braking and tight chicanes. The transmission picks the right gear before we hit the throttle, we're not even able to lament the lack of manual option. A wide corner and a sweeping uphill right at full throttle completes the course. None of what we did in this crossover makes any sense. We had to hop out of the car to make sure it hadn't transformed into a CTS mid-lap.

The thing about the SRX 2.8T isn't the engine or the transmission or the all-wheel drive system or the brakes. Heck it's not the quality of the interior or the easy-to-use pop-up nav screen. Individually those elements are good, but the flawless integration makes this car a standout in the segment. It all works together to form a cohesive unit, a completely resolved product, everything a Cadillac should be and something crossover's haven't traditionally been. Pricing is unannounced, but it'll start somewhere in the mid $40,000 range. If we were Cadillac's competition, we'd be concerned.

Exterior Design: ***
This updated version of the MKZ is handsome without being obnoxious. This is only the second generation for the entry level Linc, so it still feels a bit awkward in the enty-luxe segment, but it's much more believable than the previous model. The slimmed down tail lights and smoother front end make it a convincing pretender in the luxury segment, though we're not yet entirely sold. Take those as constructive criticism, cause it's a rather handsome car, though you can easily see its Fusion heritage.

Interior Design: ****
There's really little for want in the new MKZ's interior. A few niggling fit and finish issues hopefully tied to early fleet builds aside, this car is bolted down tighter than the deck of an aircraft carrier. The wood and chrome trim flows beautifully into sturdy and appropriately finished plastics, the gauges are handsomely designed and everything possesses a simple but functional harmony that's fitting for the segment. The well-appointed seats are covered in Bridge of Weir leather and both heated and cooled and provide enough power adjustments to accommodate nearly anyone. Order the high-contrast interior and it really pops with piping and seat inserts.

Acceleration: ***
A 7.1 second 0-60 MPH puts the MKZ in the adequate but not noteworthy portion of the price segment. We're talking $34k to $42k, so it's a very, very crowded field and 7.1 isn't something to write home about. Quicker would be welcomed, but the balance of fuel economy means we're not going to complain too much. That recently announced 2.0 liter turbo Ecoboost would certainly make things more interesting.

Braking: ***
Brakes are strong, and they come with ABS and electronic brake force distribution. Repeated stompings produce mild fade, but if you're punishing your brakes in this car, may we politely suggest something sportier?

Ride: ***
The MKZ rides the line between a comfortable luxury tune and one which provides enough feel so you know what's going on at the wheels. It doesn't get upset when extended rough pavement presents itself, you'll know it's there, but you won't be dodging it in the interest of comfort. It's right on par with the excellent ride we've seen with recent offerings from Lincoln, composed and smooth, but without the distant feeling from some of the more established competition.

Handling: ***
Toss the MKZ into a corner and it'll obey till you get really silly, then it understeers. It's somehow not particularly controlled and yet really fun to drive. Our FWD model reminded us of the first gen Focus in its predictable, nimble handing and FWD competence.

Gearbox: ***
Unfortunately the four-pot and manual transmission are not available on the MKZ as they are with the Fusion, but the six-speed automatic mated to the 3.5 liter V6 isn't too shabby. Yes it makes it a bit more of an old man's car, but it's snappy with the upshifts, downshifts in the manumatic mode are somewhat okay and in general it's as transparent as a modern autobox could hope to be.

Audio: ***
The sound system is suited for the car, it does everything you ask in relative competence without making you feel like there's any undue effort required. It's clear when you want clarity, booming when you want bass, easily tuned, the satellite radio system works flawlessly when you get tired of the contents of the in-dash CD changer.

Toys: *****
We've yet to find a better all-around toybox than that offered by Ford. Their optional navigation/satellite radio/Sirius Travelink/Sync system makes systems on cars costing tens of thousands more seem years behind. That has nothing to do with this being a Lincoln, that's just the Ford system in general. Of course it also comes with the de rigeur superfluous backup camera, heated and cooled seats, iPod hookup through USB and aux in.

Value: **
As we mentioned yesterday, the MKZ lives in the $34k to the $42K price range, which buys you an awful lot of car elsewhere. We'd have a hard time picking one of these over the cheaper and larger 2010 Ford Taurus.

Overall: ***
The MKZ is a solid improvement over the previous version. It wears better styling, noteworthy improvements inside and under the hood and it's generally a nice car to live with, but so are its competitors. The MKZ is one of the few cars we were genuinely sad to see leave the driveway, if only for its competence, decent fuel economy, brilliantly executed technology and lack of annoying foibles, but we're not sure we'd feel the same way if we'd paid for it. As a marker on the path to the reborn Lincoln, it points in the right direction. Bottom line is, this car makes a great Ford and a nice, though questionably priced, Lincoln. Nice, unfortunately, will not cut it in this segment.

Also see:
• 2010 Lincoln MKZ: Part One

We're at the time of year when school is out, every teenager who's going to get a high school diploma has done so and they're either getting started with an embryonic career or waiting till the fall and the start of college. They've all been deemed proficient in reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, but let's be perfectly honest, they're not prepared for the real world in any noteworthy way. A college graduate, as soused as they may be when they pick up their sheepskin, has been put through a different type of wringer, more strenuous, more focused on something useful to society. Well, unless they majored in communications.

For Lincoln, a brand struggling to find its place in the world for quite a long time, the 2006 MKZ represented a basic level of competency in the entry luxury segment. It made all the right moves: leather, navigation, shiny chrome, et cetera, but it didn't really have what it took to make it against the competition. It was your basic high-schooler setting out to take on the world. It was okay, but for the price it was a a tall order. Now it's 2010. It's gone to college, matured a bit and is more comfortable in its role, but that doesn't means it's not still wet behind the ears.

The MKZ adopts styling fully realized on the MKS and MKT. On those vehicles its bold and polarizing and, let's be honest here, if the brand wants to make waves in the lux market and leave its old-man-and-the-car image behind, Lincoln has to be bold. On the MKZ, the styling wears a bit awkwardly. Not quite as jaunty as the sportier Fusion, not as serious as the MKS. It's a car whose looks are highly dependent on color. It's spectacular in pearl white, a little funny looking in green or brown. The optional satin finish wheels go a long way to make the car play in the big-boy leagues. If you get past the baleen grille, it's quite handsome in proportion, and the rear has a far more finished appearance than the original.

When the rubber hits the road, the MKZ fits perfectly into the segment, its 3.5 liter V6 and six-speed automatic provide smooth power delivery which is not for want. As with its Ford Fusion platform mate we're not talking drag strip stunner, but in a straight line the car will accelerate to 60 MPH in 7.0 seconds, which is pretty respectable. At freeway speeds the car is dead silent, dangerously silent actually. It's not uncommon to look towards the instrument cluster only to find thoroughly illegal speeds. The ride is a good balance between comfortably soaking up road imperfections and providing flat enough cornering to raise the pulse of any mid-level manager who buys this car.

As with any car in this segment, the primary focus of the car is the interior. Leather seating comes in everything from a sedate black to a snazzy white-on-black contrasting mix which looks extremely nice. French stitching classes up the joint while adding a bit of durability for the long term. If there's one thing Ford products show mastery in, it's the electronic gadgetry. The MKZ comes with Sync, Sirius Travelink, aux inputs, MP3 integration, hands-free phone operation, heated and cooled front seats and other various goodies. The good news is all that "base" tech is invisible if you have no use for it and flawless in operation if you do. As far as electro-doo-dads, Ford really does have its ducks in a row.

It all sounds pretty good doesn't it? A mid-size sedan with comfy seating, well-executed features, decent power delivery and segment targeted handling, but here's the dubious part: assembly quality. This is always the terrible balance in evaluating press cars. With a couple thousand miles on the clock, the possibility of serious abuse at the hands of fellow hacks is definitely real and we have to balance it against what we see in the rest of the car. Most cars get a pass at small imperfections, but the MKZ just had too many issues to ignore. The hood didn't align properly at the cowl, the bumper cover continually popped out of flush just below the headlights on both sides after rough pavement driving and the ignition didn't even come close to lining up with the surrounding plastic. They're outliers on an otherwise extremely well assembled car, but we're leery of dismissing these issues as abuse related. Judge for yourselves at the dealer if you're so inclined.

For sure, Ford sent the MKZ to a mid-level private school where it made high marks. It's part of a more competent Lincoln as of late, one attempting to move up in its class, make a name for itself rather than just coasting along with a C-. If you've got your heart set on a Ford product, we'd be hard pressed to recommend it against the newly-minted Taurus as the MKZ starts at $34,240, and a well appointed one enters Taurus SHO territory at $37,255. Otherwise, there may be better options out in the marketplace than this.

The 2010 MDX retains the 2008 model's torque-vectoring SH-AWD, adding re-tuned Active Dampers a new 6-speed, paddle-equipped automatic transmission, larger 13-inch front, 13.2-inch rear brake discs, optional 19-inch wheels and retunes the 300 HP, 270 Lb-Ft 3.7-liter V6 with a more flexible power band.

Put together, it makes the MDX both more capable and more refined. Engaging "Comfort" mode on the adaptive dampers now better isolates passengers from bumps, further differentiating it from "Sport" mode, which is still taut and controlled, delivering a near absence of body roll.

You can now click the paddles twice in rapid succession to shift down two gears at once, useful for overtaking and cornering as that sixth gear is now a very tall overdrive, spec'd to boost highway fuel economy and refinement. However, one needn't worry — the more flexible engine means sixth doesn't lack the ability to accelerate.

Engage "Sport" mode, knock it down from fourth to second, get on the accelerator and throw the MDX into a corner fast and the result is something akin to a dialed-back BMW X6. Like BMW's strangely-shaped crossover-car-coupe, there's virtually no roll or steering feel, but there's not really any understeer either. The MDX just takes corners at any speed you require of it. Thank the torque vectoring rear differential for that, although, unlike the X6, the front wheels can't push power side-to-side to really capitalize on available traction. Still, the ability to send power to the outside rear wheel in a corner greatly boosts confidence, speed and outright cornering ability. I was disappointed I couldn't convince the MDX to hang its rear out like the X6, but I suppose the desire to do that in a 7-passenger SUV is strongly indicative of its ability to push the boundaries of physics.

The tech fest continues inside with new VGA screens front (8") and rear (9"), the latter featuring a detachable remote that mimics the main HMI on the dash. Neat. There's also LED ambient lighting in high-tech blue, a backup camera with three selectable views (180 degree wide-angle, normal and one that points 90 degrees down for precise negotiation of obstacles), blind sport warnings, radar cruise control with last-second collision mitigating brakes, heated and cooled leather seats, a power tailgate, Sat/Nav with real-time Doppler radar weather maps and live traffic info, a 15 GB hard drive for storing music, full voice-controlled iPod integration with Bluetooth audio, lane guidance and a wallpaper function for the Nav screen capable of displaying your favorite cute kitten picture. Hang in there!

Bizarrely, Acura has slathered the dash and console in an ugly wood trim that isn't in keeping with the otherwise tech-focused nature of the interior.

All these interior features, 6-speed tranny and SH-AWD will also be used on the 2010 Acura ZDX.

At 7.0-seconds to 60 MPH, the new MDX is faster than V6-equipped rivals like the Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7 3.2, Lexus RX350, Infiniti FX35 and BMW X5 3.0. At 16 MPG city/21 MPG highway, it's also more fuel efficient than all but the Lexus. It's expected the new MDX will start around $43,100 when it goes on sale late this year and top out around $55,000 with the "Advance" (the dynamic stuff), "Technology" and "Entertainment" packages.

The restyled MDX is also the best interpretation of Acura's otherwise awkward new design language. In fact, if we were in the market for a 7-seat luxury SUV with tiny rear seats, this would definitely be the one we'd buy. But we're not in the market for a 7-seat luxury SUV, we're in the market for cars that aren't inherently compromised by the desire to conform to the questionable fashion for tall, aggressively-styled wagons. The MDX is arguably the most fun-to-drive, most comfortable and nicest looking car in Acura's range; the problem is there's also cars in Acura's range and they should drive better and look nicer than a big honkin' SUV.

Based on the four-cylinder 2009 Acura TSX, the new year brings a more powerful engine, stronger springs and firmer dampers to the independent double-wishbone front suspension and adds more feel to the electric power steering. Both are present to accommodate the 210 Lbs of extra weight the new engine brings as well as the additional performance made possible by its 280 HP, 254 Lb-Ft 3.5-liter V6. That engine changes the weight distribution from 60/40 percent front/rear to 62/38.

Also added are a larger brake master cylinder, 18-inch wheels and all-season performance tires, larger front fascia openings for improved cooling and a V6 badge on the trunk.

Where the four-cylinder TSX is a still frugal, albeit slow (0-60 take 8.6 seconds) near-luxury car with a starting price of just $29,310, the V6 is more capable but much more expensive, starting at $34,850 and only available with a 5-speed, paddle-equipped automatic transmission. Figure on 0-to-60 MPH time in the low six-second range and the same limited top speed of 131 MPH.

Adding the "Technology Package" and its Nav system, real-time weather radar and traffic rerouting, 10-speaker stereo and GPS-linked climate control system brings the price up to $37,950. These prices are nearly exactly equal to those of the admittedly less powerful BMW 328i.

Despite its limited performance or maybe because of it, the four-cylinder TSX is a competent car to drive even if it's a bit boring. Its narrow tires and soft suspension mean the limits are relatively low, but it's naturally-balanced and light on its feet. In the quest for greater ability, the V6 sacrifices much of those qualities. The ride is much harsher, but like several recent Hondas and Acuras (the Insight and TL come to mind), that's not balanced by good body control. Drive the TSX V6 over pot holes, ruts and ridges and the steering wheel will jerk in your hands and the suspension will intrusively fail to soak up the bumps, in short it feels like a firm setup. But, drive the TSX quickly around a corner and it will roll, change direction quickly and the roll is more noticeable. Hit ridges or bumps mid corner and the body will wallow, in short, it feels like a soft setup. The end result of the revised suspension is a car that's firm when you want it to be soft and soft when you want it to be firm. Despite that flaw, the revised steering does deliver plenty of feel, which, combined with the lack of torque steer, is impressive for a front driver. Of course, the rear-wheel drive 328i has none of those problems.

The rest of the TSX is as before. It's a right-sized sedan with a little more interior room than the competition and, with the optional Technology Package, is extremely well equipped with the kind of whizz-bang gadgetry everyone but me seems to get excited about. The ELS sound system with the technology package is one of the best sound systems around and the real-time weather — with Doppler radar maps just like you get on your iPhone — is particularly neat. The seats are supportive and comfortable, the interior well constructed and the rear accommodation slightly better than competitors like that 3-series or an A4.

The thing about the V6 TSX is that it asks more questions of the platform than it answers. Sure, it's faster than the four-cylinder, but does that performance justify a price that's on par with more thoroughbred competition? Are the handling and ride sacrifices necessary to install a powerful engine in a front-wheel drive chassis justified by the increased straight line performance? If the 2009 Honda Accord Coupe V6 is faster and comes with a manual transmission, does the Acura brand really justify the premium? Would you buy a FWD Acura over a RWD BMW for the same price?