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.