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

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?

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?

That engine is the centerpiece in a thoroughly upgraded car. Shared with the Audi S3, the 2.0-liter TFSI delivers 265 HP at 6,000 RPM and 258 Lb-Ft of torque between 2,500 and 5,000 RPM. If you think that sounds seriously flexible, you'd be right, but it's also full of character, with noticeable turbo lag at low revs and distinct turbo whistles, whine and bumps coming from under the hood. 0-60 now takes just 5.1 seconds in this Roadster, while the top speed is limited to 155 MPH.

Unlike the 2.0-liter turbo diesel in the 2009 VW Jetta TDI SportWagen we criticized a few weeks ago, the TFSI's character matches perfectly with the DSG gearbox. Here equipped with sportier programming than in that TDI, shifts are well timed and rapid in automatic mode, even more so in "Sport." In manual mode DSG is objectively more able to exploit this engine than a traditional manual (not available) would be, with upshifts occurring immediately and downshifts taking place smoothly. DSG is a true automated manual, so you have complete control over the gearbox in manual mode.

That gearbox and engine combination is actually very reminiscent of the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR in its immediacy and turbocharged character, just with a little less power.

The suspension also gets upgraded in the TTS. The whole thing is lowered 10mm, the magnetic ride dampers receive firmer tuning, all the suspension components go aluminum and the steering is made more direct and feel-full. That magnetic ride is supposed to continually adjust the dampers to better keep the tires in contact with the road and it gets a sport mode to firm things up even further. Even with the traction and stability control switched off, we struggled to get the optional summer performance tires to break traction on the road, but the sport suspension mode doesn't appear to do much aside from make the ride annoyingly harsh.

Gelled hair marketing types needn't worry, as all this extra performance and handling doesn't come at the expense of posing. The TTS is equipped with a silver grille, a lower front splitter, side skirts, silver mirrors, LED running lights, four chromed exhaust pipes, "TTS" badges front and rear, "TTS" logos on the brake calipers and is here fitted with optional 19" wheels. The power soft top on the Roadster drops quickly, better enabling you to show off your fake tan. I got more "you're a smug bastard" looks in this TT than in any car I've driven since the R8, possibly because, from the front and to laypeople, the TT is virtually indistinguishable from that car.

The TTS Roadster starts at $47,500, but equipped with the Premium Plus package, fancy leather, 19-inch wheels and Sat/Nav system seen here, the total comes to $55,075. Unusually for a performance car, the fuel economy is reasonably high: 21 MPG city, 29 highway, 24 combined. With the soft top up, the Roadster offers coupe-like isolation from noise; with it down and the rear windscreen raised, it's still a reasonably isolated place to pass time.

On the mountain roads around my secret Pennsylvanian retreat the TT demonstrated a similar ability to put the world in drama-free fast rewind as cars like that Evo. The all-wheel drive, fast steering and revised suspension conspire to seriously increase the TTs dynamic ability, if not its level of involvement. While it's drastically improved over the old model, the TTS now suffers from the same video game-like nature of other fast AWD cars like the Nissan GT-R, requiring very little of its driver even close to its respectably high limits. The 2009 BMW Z4, the TT's closest competitor on purpose and price, delivers similar pace but asks far more of its driver and for the enthusiast, is a lot more fun to drive fast as a result.

Ultimately, the TTS's neatest trick is that it combines Evo-like character with a more grownup-friendly package thanks to a credible design, luxurious interior and plenty of on-road refinement. You can still pose in a TT, now you're just going to have a lot more fun doing it.

In addition to the corporate grin, the face-lifted MX-5 receives new taillights and side skirts, intended to give the roadster a more mature, appealing look. The 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine also gets upgraded, with a forged steel crank and connecting rods, stronger wrist pins and firmer valve springs combine with a new oil-cooler to make possible a 500 RPM higher redline; now 7,200 RPM. That doesn't deliver anything in the way of improved top-end power — still 167 HP — but it does allow you to hang on to a lower gear in corners for longer, something that will return a real, on-the-road, performance increase. Fuel economy also is nudged up slightly — now 21 city, 28 highway — but enthusiasts will care more about the intake noise, which, thanks to revised ducting, now sounds more like the roar of the 1990 original's than the stifled meow of the 2006 model's.

There's also a new, optional $500 sports suspension with firmer springs, Bilstein dampers and a limited-slip differential. This Grand Touring package, Power Retractable Hard Top version was equipped with that and every other option aside from the slushbox, bringing the price up to $31,010, but you can still get a soft top with a stick for just $22,420.

So, while face-lifts and tummy tucks are now well within the acceptable bounds of manhood, why did I get scared shitless in a cute little roadster that takes 6.9 seconds to reach 60 MPH? Two reasons. One; the MX-5 offers an unrivaled sense of occasion at legal speeds and two; I'm a terrible passenger.

I've spent years trying to become a good driver and the result of on-track training, learning from lots of mistakes and racking up hundreds of thousands of miles in fast cars is that I drive by-the-book and very smoothly. Ride with me, even when I'm going fast, and you could fall asleep. The problem is, if I'm riding with you, I can't. I'll be busy spotting every little mistake, silently critiquing each and every one of your turn-in points and cringing every time you step outside the bounds of what I consider appropriate. In short, I'm anal.

Riding along a mountain road with another journalist, my lack of confidence combined with his lack of discipline — in-corner downshifts, unintentional trail braking, changing lines in corners — had even my consistently high fear level hitting unprecedented heights. Even with the newly recalibrated stability control on, the tail was moving around on entry and exit. Well, I was scared until I looked at the speedometer, which was sitting squarely within legal limits.

You see, weighing just 2,511 LBS with a folding hard top and equipped with skinny 205/45-17 tires the MX-5 offers an experience wholly absent from other modern cars — even the more capable Lotus Elise — it's involving and exciting at relatively low speeds, just like a British sports car from the ‘50s or ‘60s. The relatively low power and rev-happy nature of the engine also helps, you never find yourself with more power than you can use, meaning you can use it all.

Of course, all the things that make the MX-5 bad for a nervous passenger also make it great for the enthusiast driver. Start out down a mountain road with every intention of behaving and by the time you've reached the third corner you'll be pushing the communicative front on the way in and, depending on how tight the corner is, either lifting or flooring the throttle to play with the rear on the way out. It's really only first or second gear hairpins in which you can do the former, but even the latter is extremely safe and easy; lower limits equal a broader range of slide with little chance of a spin.

The MX-5 is now fitted with a newly recalibrated stability control system that allows a couple of degrees of slide before kicking in, but the chassis is so friendly and so willing to tell you what it's doing that there's really no need. Don't be afraid to switch it all the way off.

If you're tough enough to live with the bouncy ride and buzzy engine in everyday driving and comfortable enough to deal with the questionable looks and aggressive behavior from overcompensating SUV drivers, the MX-5 can still deliver the thrill of real driving. For the enthusiastic driver that's a hugely welcome change from overly-competent and underly-involved modern performance cars. Just tell nervous passengers to man up.

Photography credit: Grant Ray

Full Disclosure: Ford wanted me to drive the new Taurus SHO so badly they flew me all the way to Knoxville and put me up in a fancy hotel, but only after all the buff books had all chosen to go ahead and break the review embargo, which must mean they didn't want me to drive the SHO all that badly after all.

Ford is reviving the SHO name for the 2010 model year after an 11-year hiatus. Dropped in 1999 after a decade of increasingly diluted performance, the original 1989 car was a raw, sports-focused quasi-exotic with a manual-only Yamaha 3.0-liter, 220 HP V6. At the time, it was the third fastest sedan in the country. Over the next decade, all that made the SHO unique devolved into a top trim level for the seriously lackluster Taurus range.

And that's exactly what this new SHO is; a flagship trim for the all-new Taurus rather than a quasi-bespoke performance model. Luckily, the car it's based on is now seriously good. Unfortunately, due to the bizarre world of embargoes and manufacturers kissing the asses of the sleazy "D-Bag" buff books (see, when we use "quotes" it means we didn't actually say that and we're quoting someone else so the target of the epithet can't get mad at us), we can't tell you anything about how the 2010 Ford Taurus drives. So from this point on any time where we might accidentally break an embargo by talking about our drive of the regular model, we'll just talk about how it's different from a tasty piece of Mandel Bread. So when you see "Mandel Bread" — wink-wink, OK?

Over the standard Mandel Bread, the SHO is essentially an optioned-up model with micro suede seats, SHO badging, AWD (optional on the regular car), HID headlamps, 19" wheels and "sport-tuned" shocks, springs, stabilizer bars and strut mount bushings. All that actually adds up to very little as the SHO drives almost identically to Mandel Bread, but with a touch firmer ride and a little better body control.

Oh, and there's the 365 HP, 350 Lb-Ft twin-turbo, direct injection 3.5-Liter V6 Ecoboost engine. That max torque is available in a perfectly flat plateau all the way from 1,500 to 5,000 RPM, before tapering off as it nears the 6,250 RPM rev limiter. Ford likes to claim that the EcoBoost delivers V8 power with V6 fuel efficiency and it does, but the twin-turbo six and its incredibly flat torque curve lacks the character of V8 rivals even if it does out-torque them below 3,000 RPM. We'd like to tell you that we averaged the same 17 MPG fuel economy in the SHO as we did in Mandel Bread, unfortunately we can't.

That engine is run through the same 6F55 6-speed automatic transmission as the regular car but here with slightly beefed-up friction elements capable of handling all that torque. It's a huge departure from the slush-box Ford uses on the Flex, Edge and all the other 3.5-liter V6s, now shifting unobtrusively and confidently selecting gears rather than hunting through them endlessly as the previous version did. More importantly, the Mandel Bread (in both SEL walnut k'mish and Limited chocolate trim) and the SHO both get button-cum-paddles for manual override. In that mode, gears are held even as you bounce off the rev-limiter and only shift down if you labor the engine. We'd obviously prefer a manual in a performance car, but since this SHO is more fast luxury than just plain fast, the third pedal isn't really missed.

Put your right foot down and the SHO is fast, if unexciting. The ride is firm yet controlled in the European luxury mold and the interior is exceptionally isolated from wind, road and engine noise. There's absolutely no body roll. The electric power-assisted steering is direct and well weighted, but almost completely absent of feel. Combine that with the extremely large proportions — at 202.9", the Taurus is only 9" shorter than the Crown Victoria — and the limited vision created by the high belt line and you have a car that's pretty challenging to place accurately at speed on a winding road. In western North Carolina's mountains, we were always 10-20 MPH slower than we needed to be, simply for the need of paying close attention to the shoulder to keep two wheels out of the dirt.

Ford claims the AWD system is capable of sending 100% of its power to the rear wheels, but we never felt anything but FWD bias, even as we gave it the boot out of slow corners.

There's an optional $995 "Performance Package" that brings 20" wheels, summer tires, grippier brake pads, sharper steering, fully defeat-able traction and stability control and a 3.16:1 diff (over the standard 2.77:1), but driving models equipped with it back to back with standard SHOs didn't reveal a significant change in character or capability.

All this begs the question: why the SHO badging? This isn't a sports sedan; it's a Mandel Bread with an EcoBoost engine. Because of that badge, we came into this hoping for a blue oval equivalent to the Pontiac G8 GXP, but evaluating the SHO as a performance car does it a disservice, because it's actually a luxury car. A good one.

Ford has benchmarked the $60,950, 350 HP Audi A6 4.2 and the $37,995 SHO exceeds expectations by being better to drive, faster, larger inside and nicer looking. Even the interior is nearly on par with that of the Audi. That's seriously impressive for a car fitted with the previously humble "Mandel Bread" badge.

The SHO also comes with way more technology than any of its competitors, including that Audi. Available on the SHO are: radar cruise control with heads-up collision warning, radar sensors that detect cars in your blind spots and to your left and right when reversing out of a parking space, keyless entry keypad, SIRIUS radio with traffic info, SYNC 3.0 with navigation and 911-assist, massaging leather seats, a 12-speaker, 390-watt Sony stereo, rear view camera, push button start, rain-sensing wipers and something called MyKey that can limit performance, radio volume and other parameters for your teenage kids or senile parents. Expect to pay $39,285 for a fully equipped SHO.

Compared to the original SHO, this new model is 1,083 Lbs heavier (4,368 Lbs), makes 145 HP more, is 10mph slower (133mph top speed) and is much less fun to drive. Compared to contemporary full-size luxury sedans it's considerably cheaper, very good to drive and extremely fast. Like the 1999 SHO, this isn't a unique model; it's the flagship for the Mandel Bread range. It's just that now, that range is capable of competing with European luxury cars instead of mediocre domestic mid-sizes. Had the car been called the Mandel Bread Ecoboost we'd be pleasantly surprised by its competence and quality, but badged as a SHO, we were disappointed not to find a sports sedan.

The thing is that all of the positive attributes we can apply to the SHO can also be applied to the Mandel Bread walnut k'mish, which starts at just $27,995. That bread has an equally tasty interior and, everywhere except in a straight line, drives nearly as well as the SHO. Just like the SHO begs the question "Why pay more for an Audi A6?" the Mandel Bread walnut k'mish, available with the same toppings and baked with the same ingredients begs the question, "Why pay more for the SHO?" That'd be nuts.

Think Mercedes and images of the W123 and W124 E-classes probably pop into your head. Big, boxy and somehow superior to other luxury cars from the time, they represented a reluctance to compromise that just doesn't exist at any carmaker any more. Pull up to valet parking at a fancy restaurant in a well-maintained ‘80s E-Class and your car might still get pride of place in the parking lot. Do the same in an E28 5-series and they'll hide it round the back.

In twenty years time you might be able to do the same with this W212. It's squared off edges inside and out don't just conjure memories, but trigger the same "Mercedes" synapses in your brain. That feeling will be reinforced by the high-quality plastics and spare use of wood and aluminum trim, as well as touches like the pleated leather door panels and the longitudinally stitched and perforated seats.

That's not to say that the new E-Class does without contemporary features, in fact it has all the advanced safety tech of the S-Class packed into a more manageable package. The full list of advanced safety features is staggering: Attention Assist, Lane Keeping Assist, Adaptive Highbeam Assist, Parktronic Plus, Blind Spot Assist, Night View Assist PLUS, Distronic PLUS with Pre-Safe Brake, Brake Assist PLUS, Sand Assist floor mats and Agility Assist.

All those features might sound as if they're designed to remove control from the driver, but unlike other automakers, Mercedes has employed them to enhance your range of perception and increase your control of the vehicle.

Take the night vision system. Instead of just fitting the new E-Class with an infrared camera, Mercedes paints the area in front of the vehicle with infrared beams, sort of like invisible headlights. The camera, as a result, picks up a much sharper image out to a further distance. That image is then displayed in crystal clear resolution on the nav screen. A computer is capable of identifying pedestrians, placing a vibrating box around them on the screen. You don't need to stare at the screen to see them; instead it exists in your peripheral vision like an extra rear-view mirror.

The Pre-Safe Brake is also cool. For the first time, it's capable of automatically applying 100% of brake force if the forward-looking radar detects that a crash is imminent, so it won't avoid the impact, but instead acts like an electronic crumple zone, reducing the force of the impact. Because it activates only when you're .6 of a second from collision, it won't affect your ability to take evasive measures, but could instead save your life if your attention lapses.

Highbeam Assist is also impressively useful. Rather than just automatically switching between high and low beams, it instead measures the presence and location of other vehicles, adapting the beam shape and throw to provide maximum illumination at all times without irritating other drivers. Low beam output can be extended from 215 feet all the way out to 1,000 feet, massively boosting the safety of night driving.

All this technology doesn't get in the way of driving, as the new E-Class also banishes memories of the mediocre experience of recent models. While it's still no 5-series, the Mercedes has newly found something called "steering feel," which apparently has something to do with "control," which when combined with "responsive suspension" actually makes it "fun to drive." Who knew? Better yet, switching from "Comfort" to "Sport" in either the E350 V6 or E550 V8 delivers a noticeable improvement in dynamics, firmer body control and sportier shift mapping. You can also shift yourself using the wheel-mounted paddles.

Those two engine choices are your lot until November, when the 518 HP 2010 E63 AMG goes on sale. The V6 makes 268 HP and 258 Lb-Ft of torque, enough to propel the E to 60 MPH in 6.5 seconds. Unfortunately, that kind of performance requires using all of the 6,750 RPM, something most Mercedes drivers are likely reluctant to do. The 382 HP, 391 Lb-Ft V8 does a much better job of providing instantaneous shove, but comes at a $7,700 premium. The V6 returns 18 MPG City, 25 MPG highway, while the V8 delivers 16/23. We'd want to wait for the E350 BlueTEC diesel, arriving next March. It'll have 400 Lb-Ft of torque for instant overtaking, but exceeds the fuel economy of either gas engine: 24 MPG City, 33 highway.

Given all the new features, the improved driving experience and much-improved styling and impression of interior quality, it's surprising that Mercedes is able to bring the 2010 E-Class in cheaper than the 2009 model. The 2010 E350 starts at $48,600, $4,600 cheaper, but adds standard equipment: Attention Assist, Driver Knee airbag, front pelvic airbags, and variable damping Agility Control. Combine that new price tag with all the new features and, more importantly, the newfound Mercedesness and the 2010 E-Class is an impressive package. In fact, combining all of the features of the S-Class with a cheaper price tag and, to our mind, better styling, the E-Class just became the pick of the Mercedes range and our favorite vehicle from that brand since we were riding around in the way back of a W123 wagon.

Kidd is one of the fastest competitors of the Celebrity Lap on Top Gear and also appeared in Jeremy Clarkson's Thriller, racing Clarkson himself in a Fiat 500. For Fiat UK, there wasn't a better spokesmodel to promote the new Fiat 500 Eco Test Drive being run to "highlight the benefits of environmentally-friendly motoring."

The program offers any customer that visits a participating UK Fiat dealer the opportunity to take an eco test drive. Unlike most test drives, the key to this program is that this 'test drive' also measures the driver's fuel efficiency. Fiat is providing test drivers with a unique USB key that they plug into the Blue&Me entertainment and communications slot to record their performance throughout their drive.

Fiat will then run the performance statistics through a computer which will then analyze and award a number (out of 100) that judges the drivers 'eco:Index.' The system measures the drivers efficiency based on acceleration, deceleration, gear changes and average speed. If the Eco Test Drive program proves to be successful, Fiat UK will expand it to all models that feature the Blue&Me system.

"The Fiat 500 is a lovely car," said Jodie Kidd. "And eco:Drive technology is absolutely right for the moment. People should be thinking more about their driving and the environment - it's a great idea."

We don't care what the USB says, she's a perfect 100,

[via Fiat UK]

Asked on May 18, 1999 what my favorite movie was I, like many of my contemporaries, would have had an easy answer: Star Wars. Just one day later, with the release of Phantom Menace, that answer would change forever. It didn't make sense. Episode I, compared quantitatively to its predecessors and, according the huge amount of buzz surrounding it, must have been a much better movie. It had a bigger budget, benefited from modern technology, had really neat imaginary creatures and action-packed space battles. So what changed? Well, the environment in which the space fairy tale existed had, in 22 years, become much more sophisticated. Audiences wanted to experience something new in the same way the original film had been unprecedented for its time. Instead, George Lucas contented himself with producing a fancy new version of the same old schlock. That, and Anakin was really irritating.

With the $22,995 V6-equipped 2010 Chevy Camaro LS producing 304 HP, nearly as much as the V8-engined 2010 Ford Mustang GT, and the 426 HP 2010 Chevy Camaro SS starting at just $30,995, initial impressions of GM's new muscle car are extremely good. It's faster than its competitors and benefits from more svelte looks than the Dodge Challenger and less familiar styling than the 2010 Mustang. It's even more fuel efficient, with the V6 returning an impressive 17 city, 29 highway MPG-rating, while the V8 returns 16/25 MPG when equipped with the slightly higher-geared automatic transmission.

But this Camaro's also supposed to be about more than just numbers (click here for our 2010 Chevy Camaro Numbers Comparison) for one very important reason: it's based on the 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP. When we drove that car last November, we couldn't believe that a $40,000 Pontiac was like the new E39 M5, only better. That impression was the result of a driving experience that wasn't so much about the 415 HP Corvette-derived LS3 V8 as it was the car's subtle ability to read your mind, then react to what you wanted faster than we thought possible from a big sedan. In short, the G8 GXP is a handler before it's a muscle car and that's saying something for a vehicle that can hit 60 MPH in 4.7 seconds.

The opposite is true of this new Camaro. Based on an updated version of the G8's Zeta platform (here called Zeta II), the Camaro gets a 2.5" shorter wheelbase thanks to bringing the front wheels forward 6", then moving the A-pillar rearwards 3.5" to create a longer hood and new front suspension chosen to make that hood lower. Unlike the class-defining Mustang, suspension is also independent all the way around. The V6 starts with GM's FE2 coil-over suspension package, before moving up to standard FE3 on the V8-equipped SS. Wheels start out at a smaller-than-GXP 18x7.5" on the base LS, before moving up to a standard and massive 20x8" front, 20x9" rear on the SS. The G8 GXP's are 19x8". Most of the SS's standard equipment is available optionally on the V6 models, while the RS-package essentially looks like an optioned-up SS, but with a V6 under the hood.

Somehow, all those changes translate into an experience that's no less capable — in fact the Camaro SS is 11-seconds faster around the famed Nurburgring than the G8 GXP — but a lot less involving. Where the G8 GXP is all about including you in the driving, requiring and enabling you to aggressively wring the most out of its chassis, the Camaro SS doesn't seek to make the driver a crucial part of its equation. It makes the classic American muscle car mistake of confusing grip — of which it has plenty — with handling. Throw the two cars into a second or third gear (oh how we love big V8s) 90-degree bend and the Pontiac will encourage you to explore the limits of the rear tires adhesion using your right foot and communicative steering, the Chevy will push its vague front robbing you of speed. Sure, you can get on the throttle half way around and step the rear out, but not with the same degree of control the Pontiac delivers. The Camaro does bring one huge improvement over its platform-mate: there's virtually no body roll under any circumstances.

Well that and the incredibly successful styling. Chevy knows it looks good too, displaying a level of self-assuredness that would be absurd in any other segment. Here's a great example. Our co-driver asked a GM engineer whether the new Camaro increases "length or girth?" His straight-faced response? "It increases opportunity." Cocky, right? But they're right. Where the G8 looks like a rental car, the ZR1 looks like a bass boat enthusiast won the lottery and the CTS-V, even with its classy chrome mesh grille, looks like a tuner conversion, the Camaro strikes exactly the right balance between the mass appeal of its aggression and a more sophisticated retro futurism that successfully references the original while adapting wholly new forms that are completely contemporary. Even though we've been staring at pictures of it for what seems like years, in person it's still surprising how good it looks.

If you've been following Jalopnik or even had a conversation with me at any point since last August, you're probably bored to death with hearing about how good GM's latest crop of performance cars are. The 2009 Corvette ZR1 is the best car I've ever driven, the 556 HP Cadillac CTS-V is an utterly awesome performance sedan and you've already been reading about the G8 GXP. So it comes as a surprise that Chevy's flag-waving everyman muscle car doesn't live up to those driving standards. Sure it's stinking fast, but it doesn't make exploiting that performance rewarding in the way all the above did so well. It doesn't so much defy convention, as drive like you'd expect a Camaro would, a really good Camaro.

The other defining characteristic of the Camaro's driving experience is the interior. Hop in one and like a classic Camaro, the first impression is of claustrophobia. It feels like Chevy's designers have purposefully set out to make the interior, which is actually surprisingly large with adequate space for four adults, feel surprisingly small. Most of that comes from the slit-like windshield; its top sits at about the height of your forehead, something that will be familiar to Lotus Exige owners. Out through that narrow strip of glass, the hood bulge and fenders are prominently visible, accentuating the power under the hood. Unlike the Exige, there's almost 8.5" of vertical seat movement to accommodate a wide range of drivers. All of them will end up with their head in the exact same place: about a half inch from the ceiling as that's the only position that affords adequate forward visibility. Strangely, the wheel and instruments sit very high, never affording the wheel-in-lap arrangement that I prefer, even with the seat all the way up and the wheel all the way down.

That interior is also going to be a bugbear for the Camaro. While the overall shapes are appealing, the materials are mostly cheap plastic, even on the big knobs that you use to adjust the HVAC and stereo (Nav isn't an option). A huge swath of that cheap plastic runs from the steering wheel all the way to the right door. The standard-on-SS auxiliary gauges, mounted down low in front of the gear lever, are largely worthless on the move due to their positioning, but look really cool, providing a false sense of driver/machine integration that just isn't born out in the driving experience. Believe it or not, the 2010 Mustang with a few options is actually a nicer place to spend time.

On initial impressions and despite a spec sheet that strongly claims otherwise, I'd tip the hat in the Mustang's favor when it comes to driving enjoyment too. To create it, Ford engineers essentially took the old model and made it as good as they possibly could. The result is, for the first time, a Mustang that's as much about going around corners as it is about acceleration, which is good, because the Camaro SS leaves it for dead in a straight line. Despite the Mustang's live rear axle, which never really manifests any limitations on the road, the 'Stang is ligher on its feet than the Camaro and has considerably more steering feel. The Camaro's is dead on center, never really manages a huge amount of feel in general and is overly light. It's so light, that it's possible that the engineers that drove it around the Nurburgring did so one-handed.

The much-touted performance of the V6-equipped Camaro doesn't live up to its Mustang GT-killing hype. While GM has gone to great lengths to make it as visceral as possible — the crisp exhaust note sounds almost as good as a 370Z — its flat torque curve leads to a somewhat uneventful feeling of acceleration, especially out of faster corners where the Camaro's prodigious 3,780 Lb curb weight leaves you with foot flat on the floor, wanting for more. Nor does the V6 manifest a handling advantage over the V8, even when equipped with all the RS options. Its steering still lacks feel and it becomes harder to push the car around corners using the throttle.

GM's Hydra-Matic SL50 6L50 6-speed automatic gearbox does however do an excellent job of keeping the V6 on the boil, particularly in "sport" mode. Its one of the quickest-to-shift slushboxes we've experienced and never seems to find itself in the wrong gear. In fact its so good that it renders the steering wheel-mounted shift buttons largely irrelevant. The 6L50 is clearly better than any of the Camaro's domestic rivals.

Look at the value-for-money and the performance numbers of the Camaro combined with its Dragon-tastic looks and you can't help but feel GM has a winner on its hands. It'll beat its competitors hands down, not only in a numbers-based pissing contest, but also in the public's imaginations: an advantage presented by its futuristic-yet-retro styling. It's exactly the car GM should be making, a car that will sell; it's just not the unprecedented new experience that we were hoping for, it's not a real driver's car. With the Camaro, GM has chosen to stick with the muscle car archetype rather than push the limits of what's possible, it's not likely to win many conquests from more adept sportscars like the 370Z, Audi TT and BMW 3-series as Chevy hopes it will. The result, like the new Star Wars films, is a product that will undoubtedly be a commercial success, just perhaps not a timeless classic like the original, a product that will blend in with, rather than stand out from, its rivals.

Photography credit: Wetzel Tucker

We teamed up with Fast Company, where you can read about the business and technology behind the bike, and Hell For Leather, for this review.

Like the Quantya Strada Wes and I rode around his loft, the Zero X is powered by a Lithium Ion Battery. While they share a few common specs, the X is actually a very different bike. For starters, at 151 lb., the X is 44 lb. lighter, makes 23 HP with 50 lb-ft of torque (twice that of the Quantya) and does 0-to-30 in less than 2 seconds. That's performance more akin to a 250cc two-stroke, but without the clouds of burnt Castrol R.

It's pure power to weight. The 18 lb chassis uses thin-walled aluminum construction standard in auto-manufacturing, making it so light I can pick it up with my fingertips.

That kind of lightweight strategy is applied throughout the bike's components. The fully adjustable White Brothers shock is built specifically for the X, as are the ultra-light spokes and wheels. What you end up getting is a package reminiscent of Colin Chapman's ideology: small, light and very quick. Also similar to Lotus, The Zero X is considerably cheaper than its competitors. While the Quantya comes in at $10K, the Zero X is $7,750 shipped to your door if you live in the Continental US, with an extra $700 for six-day airmail to Europe.

So how does the Zero X compare to an old-timey gasoline-powered bike? A gas motor is only about 25% efficient, the Zero X's motor, with its single moving part, is about 95%. The battery itself puts out 300 watts amps, enough to vaporize a wrench if it's electrocuted. When asked about the whole electricity-isn't-really-green issue, CEO Gene Banman said, "Yes, burning coal to charge an electric motorcycle creates a carbon footprint, but burning gasoline is much more inefficient. The Coal/Electric motorcycle is 5x better than gasoline. The American grid with its natural gas, hydro and nuclear makes the electric motorcycle 8x better. Then as green energy sources come on line, the electric motorcycle becomes a true zero carbon solution."

But can you really eat the batteries? Founder and CTO Neal Saiki explains, "The best technology is coming out of Canada, and Canada has clean facilities. These are 100 percent non-toxic batteries. You can cut them open and eat them. They're just a salt that is tightly bound. Because it's a salt inside these they're landfill approved in the United States and Europe."

The charge time on the battery is around 2 hours. Zero has made the battery a modular unit that can be pulled in less than a minute and replaced. While long distance riding is out of the question, Neal Saiki made it clear that the X is a continually evolving machine "for enthusiasts who like motorcycles, and somebody who wants to ride and not piss off their neighbors." In an era of ever-increasing restrictions coupled with decreasingly available land, that's not just a sales pitch. With the Zero I could be blasting down the streets, terrorizing small animals and kids in a noise-ordinanced, gated-community and nobody would know.

The track here at Glen Helen is rough thanks to nearly a week of heavy rains that stopped the day before, but the Zero handles it pretty well. The speed is explosive, which means really going fast at a rate I'm not ready for thanks to the 50 lb-ft of torque available instantly with just a twist of the throttle. I get myself into trouble when I forget the Zero X isn't designed to handle the tortures of an MX track famous for destroying even the most rugged machines. That ultra-light suspension is bottoming out on the landings as well as the stutters that have contracted and broken into huge chunks.

The X is designed for single-track trails, not 100 ft descents with giant ruts. And while I could complain about lack of confidence because the bike's dynamics are so foreign, there's this one nagging advantage - I can hear everything. I don't have to wear plugs to keep my ears from bleeding. In fact, the loudest noise the bike makes is when the brakes squeal as I jam the rear to keep from rocketing off a ridge.

Is the X going to outperform heavier, more robust dedicated Motocross bikes on their home turf? No. But it can offer fast off-road thrills free of both emissions and noise better than any other electric dirt bike yet designed. It's lighter and more accessible than traditional dirt bikes too. View it as a direct replacement for gas-powered bikes and you'll be disappointed, but view it as a very fun, genuinely fast indication of their future and you'll be excited. We are.

Read more about the business and technology behind the Zero X at Fast Company.

Text and photography: Grant Ray

Full Disclosure: Maserati wanted me to drive the new Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S so badly they flew me out and put me up in a nice hotel to make sure I wrote about it. Also, they fed me pasta. But not very much of it.

"Maserati! Maserati!" There's always going to be something about a bright red Italian supercar that excites nearly everyone's internal teenager. Unfortunately today, we only seem to be exciting Italian teenagers.

Some things about Italy will never change. The maze-like medieval towns will always be unnavigable, teenagers will always love cars and something on those cars, in this case the Sat/Nav, will never work as expected. But some things will change.

Maserati's of old, including previous incarnations of the Quattroporte have, as if honoring a point of national pride, been deeply flawed vehicles. Build quality has been a bugbear ever since Citroen bought it in 1968. In my lifetime they've never driven particularly well. The fifth generation of the Quattroporte addressed the former, but always delivered a confused mix of performance and luxury. Neither big enough to make a reasonable case against a far cheaper S-Class or 7-series, nor fast enough to compete with still cheaper cars like the XJR, S8 or S63 AMG. The Sport GT S changes that.

These improvements don't necessarily change the opinions of the residents of the towns on the route chosen by Maserati or their local law enforcement officials who, besieged by three previous waves of international journalists, are noticeably aggrieved by our presence (we hear the Chinese are mostly to blame). The most immediately obvious advantage the 2009 Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S has over the regular S isn't the single-rate Bilstein dampers, the blacked-out grill and headlights or even the 20" wheels, but the volume of the exhaust through the new dual-oval exits. In Sport mode this is a seriously loud car, belying the luxury of its Alcantara-clad interior and the class of its updated exterior. If the color red could be embodied by a sound, this would be it. Angry looks match the angry noise.

That sound isn't the only reason I'm in Sport mode - pushing the button opens two valves in the exhaust, essentially creating straight through pipes - it also delivers improved throttle response, much quicker shifts from the auto box, increased propensity for kick down, rev-matched downshifts and permanent control of the gear position through the bigger wheel-mounted paddles. The Quattroporte drives and sounds so good in Sport that it's nearly unconscionable to try it otherwise.

Driving again and again through the narrow alleys and back streets of Ravenna, the bright red Maserati and I are starting to draw the wrong sort of attention. The unmuted growl of the 4.7-liter Ferrari-sourced V8 reverberates off the ancient walls. Children are grabbed by stern-faced mothers blocks away as I accelerate harder and harder. Cyclists pull over and dismount at the sound of my approach. Traffic stops. Everyone's pissed off, including me. The reason I'm driving like a dick is because the SatNav system is completely and hopelessly lost, unable to find a restaurant just 80 miles from the place where it was installed. That and I really have to pee. The only people that appear to benefit from all this are the gathering crowds of pubescent males, as indicated by their excited repetition of the brand in question and the puzzled looks on their faces as they realize the unholy racket is coming from a four-door luxury car.

The first thing you have to do with this Maserati is throw away any number comparisons. With 433 HP, 391 lb-ft, a 0-to-60 time of 5.1 seconds and a 178 MPH top speed, the $133,700 Sport GT S isn't notable next to the $126,000 S63 AMG's 518 HP, 465 lb-ft and 4.5 seconds. Nor is it much next to the regular $125,750 Quattroporte S, it only makes about 8 HP more at the very top of the 7,500 RPM rev range.

But this Maserati isn't about numbers, it's about experience. Look at the dyno chart below. It's peaky in ways that don't look promising on a 4,387 lb car purporting to offer luxury accommodation for five. But, equipped with the new faster throttle response, louder exhaust and improved gearbox you end up reveling in each one of those revs, not wanting for low-end torque or more power, but more road on which to use what's available.

Also changed is the suspension. Gone is Maserati's flawed Skyhook adaptive suspension- which never really handled nor rode well - replaced instead with stiffer, single-rate dampers and lowered ride height. It doesn't sound like much and you might think the ride would be even worse, but that's not borne out on the road.

With my right foot buried in the carpet at over 160 MPH over some of rural Italy's roughest, most uneven roads the Sport GT S is utterly composed, delivering Porsche-like confidence and Ferrari-like sound. Braking hard into the 90 degree left at the end of the straight, the newly feel-full steering tells me exactly how fast I can push the front through the corner, the rear snapping wide as soon as I get back on the power.

As you're probably guessing, it was driving like this that drew the attention of the Carabinieri. Well, not specifically my driving, but the cumulative misbehavior of several nation's car journalists combined with the particularly disrespectful brand of hoonage demonstrated by American hacks abroad. Exiting a 50 Km/h limit just outside a small village, I tear past a blue and white Alfa and its comically dressed counterparts. Luckily they're outside the car drinking a coffee from a roadside stand. Staying on the power over a hill and round a corner, I don't see them again. The next journalist along, a dapper Peruvian gentleman, wasn't so lucky.

Initially threatened with jail time, the overweight female officer soon softened on him. Why? He flirted with her shamelessly.

Italy's not the same as it used to be. The cops'll pull you over while driving a fast Italian car. But, if it's the Quattroporte Sport GT S, that car will be a lot better than cars from that country used to be. Gone is the grand illusion and poor reality of past vehicles, present is a reality that although high-priced, at least finally lives up to the promise of glamorous looks, a storied history and an exotic name.

Remember the South Park episode "Smug?" All the uppity environmentalists drove around in whooshy little cars that looked like generic versions of the Toyota Prius. That distinctive shape has come to define the Hybrid vehicle in the American psyche more by luck than intention; Toyota arrived at the shape for the Prius by working out the most aerodynamic way to package a traditional five-passenger vehicle. The result looked like no vehicle before it. The 2010 Honda Insight takes the same approach and, unsurprisingly, arrives at a very similar answer. The Prius is actually more aerodynamic than the Insight (.26 Cd vs. .28), despite the latter’s slightly smaller frontal area, overall size and a significant effort invested by Honda in areas like the partially flat undertray. If anything, the Honda’s the better looking car, benefiting from its five year younger age, sharper lines and more refined detailing.

In that South Park episode people drove Hybrids because they wanted to feel “like they were doing something.” No one seemed to have any idea what that meant. They didn’t want to make any sacrifices to achieve whatever that “doing something” was, but they sure wanted their discretionary purchases to reflect their willingness to do it. What the Insight seeks to do is give people a way to be “a part of the solution, not the problem” for less sacrifice.

As you’d expect, a significant portion of that reduced sacrifice comes from the pricepoint. Honda hasn’t yet released an official price, but its own hints and informed speculation pegs it somewhere in the $18,500 neighborhood. That’s a reasonably large difference from the current 2009 model Prius, which starts at $22,000. If Honda can maintain that price differential, or maybe even increase it when the 2010 Toyota Prius is launched, it’ll have a significant advantage over the segment leader.

But does the Honda offer less due to the lower price? Yes and no. The big question is fuel economy. In this, the Honda appears to fail. The Insight hasn’t been EPA tested yet, but Honda estimates the results will be 40 MPG city, 43 highway, 41 combined. The 2009 Prius is officially EPA rated at 48/45/46. It’ll be interesting to see how big that gap is when the 2010 Prius is revealed. Of course, the $2,500 price differential will buy an awful lot of gas.

But neither is the Toyota Prius is the most economical vehicle on the block. According to hypermiler Wayne Gerdes from CleanMPG.com, Honda’s own European Civic I-CTDI is capable of returning significantly better fuel economy than either hybrid. Wayne managed to get 69.9 MPG out of the Insight while driving through a suburban area without using any of his extreme hypermiling techniques like massively over-inflated tires or coasting with the engine off. We’re hypermiling neophytes with barely a fleeting interest in fuel economy, yet last year we saw 73 MPG from a Honda Civic I-CTDI.

Honda’s decision to offer the less fuel efficient Insight in America as opposed to the Prius-killing Civic diesel can only have been made for one reason: Americans wanted the less efficient vehicle.

That’s not to say that the Insight isn’t a good car. It is, and that, in our minds, is its biggest success. Drive a Prius for any reason other than decent mileage and you’ll be massively disappointed by the experience. It’s not all that slow, but it is unresponsive and wallowy. The brake pedal feels weird due to the regenerative system and the whole thing is just sorta lacking. In contrast, the Honda is actually somewhat fun to drive. I mean, we’re not talking Civic Type-R levels of hoonage potential, but imagine a little bit heavier Honda Fit and you wouldn’t be far off. The Insight actually weighs 2,723 Lbs, the current Prius weighs 2,921 and the Fit weighs 2,359. Initial strangeness comes from the CVT, which, due the minimal amount of lightweight sound deadening used, leads to a raucous engine. Put your foot down and the tinny sounding note invades the cabin at a steady rate, it doesn’t sound like normal acceleration. Honda doesn’t quote a 0-60 time yet, but expect it to be in 11-12 second range.

Other than that, the fancy powertrain is virtually unnoticeable. Honda has gone to great lengths to seamlessly integrate the 1.3-liter i-VTEC gasoline engine and 10-kilowatt electric motor, you’ll have to be paying attention to the gauges to tell when one is working and the other’s not.

The Insight is also a remarkably practical vehicle given its overall size and low roofline. The giant hatch lifts to nearly vertical, revealing a capacious trunk and 60/40 seats that fold nearly flat. Rear legroom is a little cramped for adults and a little smaller than the Prius, but the Insight has 1.5cubic feet more cargo room than the larger Prius. All the hybrid gubbins are cleverly integrated and stowed under the spare tire, which is under the flat cargo floor. The fuel tank is under the rear seats.

The Insight’s other big trick is the Eco Assist system. Like Ford with its Fusion Hybrid, Honda has acknowledged that drivers are the biggest determining factor in its vehicles’ ability to sip gas. The Eco Assist system helps drivers drive more economically by giving them the information and encouragement to do so, but also employing an Econ mode that provides a little help on the way. That gauge set isn’t quite as informative as the Fusion Hybrid’s Smartgauge system, nor a sexy, but it is more intuitive, using a simple speedo backlight that glows green when you’re being responsible, fading to dark blue as you use more fuel. There’s also a complicated, and somewhat tacky system of growing leaves that help track your overall performance.

The Econ button is capable of making the Insight about 10% more efficient on its own. Think of it like Prozac for cars, evening out the peaks and valleys of your throttle inputs, turning the engine off earlier when coming to a stop, running the A/C more efficiently and telling the cruise control to use less throttle. It’s a welcome aid for when you don’t want to pay attention to driving slowly, while the gauges should train drivers to do exactly that in the long term.

Unlike that South Park episode, we don’t think this hybrid is going to lead to a Smug attack capable of destroying the world. Rather, it’s going to allow people who want to be seen to drive a hybrid a cheaper way to have their supposedly green credentials immediately recognized by like-minded hypocrites while giving buyers a better driving, more practical vehicle than they likely bargained for. Is it going to save the world? No. But it is going to cash in the well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided desire a lot of people have to do so in a big way.

Sure, we still liked offerings from both the Far East and Europe, but, overwhelmingly, our favorites hailed from Detroit. Believe it or not, there was a discussion earlier this year as to the appropriateness of having a road test editor who was so anti-American cars. That’s no longer a topic of conversation; check out the 11 most popular reviews, listed in reverse order below, and I think you’ll see why.

Click on the images below to read the stories.

11.) 2009 Acura TSX

Jalopnik's Take: Ray summed up the TSX in four words: "competent yet remarkably boring." I’d add “the most attractive use of Acura’s buck-toothed front end, but that’s not saying much.” According to Acura, the TSX’s buyer is looking for a well-made, fully-featured, reliable vehicle. While we acknowledge that many people fit that profile, we don’t.
How Many Readers: 20,464
How Much: $29,160
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 201

10.) 2009 Honda Fit

Jalopnik's Take: I had to choose between driving this, or the ZR1. You might be surprised to hear that I thought about that for more than 10 seconds. The Fit’s always been the fun choice for those needing a practical small car on a budget. John Krewson found that, for 2009, it’s ramped up that practicality without sacrificing too much in the way of fun. He also made friends with it. He’s a bit weird.
How Many Readers: 24,860
How Much: $14,550
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 117

9.) 2008 Smart ForTwo

Jalopnik's Take: I get really fed up with people’s preconceived notions about cars. More people have more preconceived notions about the little Smart than just about any other car, so I wrote this one to address those notions. In hindsight, I probably should have provided more justification for the “it’s not gay” part.
How Many Readers: 24,964
How Much: $18,500
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 70

8.) 2009 BMW X6

Jalopnik's Take: This one was a complete surprise. BMW’s range has really lost its “Ultimate Driving Machine” edge. They don’t steer that well anymore, they’re not that involving. Bizarrely, despite its complete absence of steering feel and complete reliance on involvement-removing performance aids, the X6 is really fun to drive. It’s the size of a Suburban, but goes like an M3. You sit 10-feet off the ground, but there’s no dive and no roll. The X6’s capacity for cornering is unlimited. When the torque vectoring differential BMW calls Xdrive trickles down to a more obvious performance application it’s going to be big news. Mark my words.
How Many Readers: 26,616
How Much: $63,225
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 300

7.) 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid

Jalopnik's Take: Ray ordered me to win the mileage challenge Ford held for journalists. So I did, getting 43.8 MPG driving through LA traffic. Most journalists got between 32 and 37 MPG, which is more realistic for the average driver. That’s only part of the story however, the Fusion Hybrid is good-looking, good to drive and, for the class, has a nice interior. All that’s wrapped up in a reasonable price tag. It’s not the kind of vehicle we fall asleep dreaming about, but it is the kind of vehicle people are going to buy in big numbers.
How Many Readers: 27,344
How Much: $27,270
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 191

6.) 2009 Subaru Forester

Jalopnik's Take: the Forester was always the anti-SUV, all capability and no pretense. For 2009 it gains a tall, SUV-style body, which, too many, is a huge step in the wrong direction. Despite this, it retains all of the utility it’s become famous for while proving fun to drive both off-road and on.
How Many Readers: 27,439
How Much: $26,195
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 224

5.) 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor

Jalopnik's Take: We didn’t actually drive the Raptor — no one outside Ford has yet — but we did ride in one and, as you’d expect from a beefed-up off-roader built for speed, it was awesome. I’m looking forward to driving this more than any other vehicle in 2009.
How Many Readers: 29,968
How Much: n/a
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 400

4.) 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

Jalopnik's Take: Cadillac reps had to order me out of the CTS-V after nearly four hours of continuous lapping at Monticello Motor Club. Combing detuned versions of the motor, brakes and suspension from the ZR1 with one of the nicest luxury sedans on the market is a winning formula, out M-ing or AMG-ing all comers. If Gawker paid me more, I’d buy one of these to live in.
How Many Readers: 30,531
How Much: $60,355
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 556

3.) 2007 Honda Civic 2.2 CTDI Vs. 2007 Audi Q7 4.2 TDI

Jalopnik's Take: A real slap on the head moment, this. Guess what? Diesels are great to drive and can deliver ridiculously good mileage. While trying kinda hard (sticking to speed limits, no aero mods) we got 72.4 MPG highway from the Civic and 33.2 MPG from the 550 Lb-Ft Q7. Yes, that’s ridiculous, and no, we don’t know why you can’t buy them here.
How Many Readers: 35,410
How Much: n/a
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 326-Q7, 138-Civic

2.) 2010 Ford Mustang

Jalopnik's Take: I’m not what you’d call a Mustang Person. I don’t watch televised sports. I don’t own a single pair of cotton hammer pants. But, when equipped with the optional Track Pack, the 2010 GT won me over. Know the romantic image saying “Ford Mustang” conjures up somewhere in the back of your mind? The one involving the PCH and lots of cheesy helicopter shots? The 2010’s handling, looks and driving experience finally live up to that.
How Many Readers: 36,148
How Much: $27,995
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 315

1.) 2009 Corvette ZR1

Jalopnik's Take: The most anticipated car of the year lived up to the hype by being faster, better handling and more involving than anyone could have possibly hoped. I’ll remember the day I spent driving it at the Lutz Ring as one of the highlights of my career and, to this day, have a hard time conveying the experience in words. The ZR1 single-handedly convinced me that the American car industry has a bright future; there’s no better car made anywhere in the world.
How Many Readers: 77,053
How Much: $103,300
How Many Horsies Under The Hood: 638

Full Disclosure: Ford wanted me to drive the new Ford Fusion so badly they flew me out and put me up in a nice hotel to make sure I wrote about it. Also, they fed me candy. Sweet, sweet candy.

Like the 2010 Ford Mustang, this new Fusion isn’t an all-new model, but rather a comprehensive update of the old one. Retaining the same basic platform, nearly every mechanical component has been upgraded to function better. The new Fusion is a much quieter, more luxurious place to spend time; it’s more involving to drive; it rides more smoothly; it’s faster and it’s more economical. They’ve even done a good job giving the outside enough curb appeal to set it apart from its main rivals: the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

It’s those two models, particularly the Camry, which are the benchmarks for the mid-size sedan segment; the most popular and the most boring segment in the country. Compared trim level to trim level, engine to engine to those two vehicles the Fusion is faster, more economical, nicer inside and, dare we say, not all that boring. That’s because it drives better than its rivals.

That’s not to say that the Fusion is a sports car. For some bizarre reason Ford insisted that we drive slushbox-equipped, four-cylinder Fusions around an autocross course. Even with the traction control off, the vehicle resisted any attempts to push its performance envelope, literally putting the brakes on things the second it transitioned into inevitable understeer. More frustrating was the gearbox, which spent the majority of the time hunting for gears than it did providing acceleration. The same was true of the 3.5-liter V6-equipped whiz-bang Fusion Sport.

In fact, the only thing more boring than driving the Fusion around the course was driving the Camry. We really fail to see what appeal the Camry holds to anyone, but it’s particularly bad at being driven quickly. In fact, it’s hard to believe that a vehicle that drives so poorly manages to find favor with anyone, let alone its millions of loyal buyers.

Also like the Mustang, the Fusion proves to be all about spec. But in this case it’s not about the stuff you add, but the stuff you leave off. The best Fusion is also the cheapest one. At $19,270, the basic, manual transmission 2.5-liter four-cylinder is the clear leader in terms of driving enjoyment. Not only is it the only model available with the manual transmission (a 6-speed), but it’s noticeably lighter on its feet than the faster V6-equipped versions, delivering more involvement and better steering.

Despite having a much slower 0-to-60 time (9.5 seconds vs. 7.9 for the 3.0-liter and 7.0 for the 3.5), the manual tranny 4-cylinder is more responsive, more rewarding and just plain more fun to drive fast. And you can drive the Fusion fast.

While it is no good on the autocross course, the Fusion is good on the road. Higher speed corners remove its tendency to throw on the stability control at the faintest sign of slip, while the manual transmission allows you to pick the gears yourself instead of relying on a semi-retarded computer to attempt to do so for you.

Through the canyons north of Los Angeles the four-cylinder Fusion proved to be a willing companion to some serious law breaking. It steers quickly, holds its line and isn’t at all reluctant to rotate the rear with a bit of braking or lift-off should that line need to tighten. While the 175 HP engine’s a bit gutless, we like the challenge of passing other auto hacks in supposedly faster models using every last one of the available revs.

All this from a car that competes in the most mundane of segments. The Fusion’s not likely to be the most economical, most luxurious or most fun car you’ll ever drive, but it is likely to satisfy most of those requirements more of the time than any other mid-size sedan on sale in America has before it. It’s product like this that’s going to give the American car industry a future. No matter how much we wish this segment of America's car "needs" would just disappear.