2013 Dodge Dart Rallye

2013 Dodge Dart Rallye

I'll admit it, at first; I was skeptical of the Dart.

Based upon an aging Alfa Romeo platform with a Fiat engine and the front fascia of an updated Dodge Neon, I figured the Dart was simply snake oil; a car composed of leftover bits, haphazardly thrown together to get the Dodge name back into the compact sedan segment.

I was wrong.

While the Dart's virtues quickly became apparent to me, I am afraid they don't present themselves quickly enough for the average American buyer on, say, a test drive. Let me explain.

At first glance, the Dart's interior is a winner. It's huge. And even at the $23,560 mark, my test car had the 8.4" Uconnect system complete with satnav, rearview camera, and Bluetooth streaming audio. At six-foot-five, it's hard for me to comfortably fit in smaller cars. The Dart, however, had so much legroom that with the drivers seat all the way back, I couldn't completely depress the clutch--that's how much room it afforded me. Adding to the versatility of the Dart interior further, Dodge has cleverly included a storage cubby underneath the passenger bottom seat cushion.

The Dart interior isn't just big and well designed; it has some great design touches, too. Surrounding the instrument cluster and Uconnect screen is a red accent light that illuminates at night. While not functional in anyway, it's gives passengers the sense that the Dart is something special.

But for car buyers in the Millennial Generation like myself, the interior alone doesn't sell the car. Driving dynamics are important, too. Luckily the Dart hits the mark.

The Dart Rallye I tested had been fitted with a Fiat designed 1.4-liter inline four-cylinder, turbocharged Fiat engine with "MultiAir" technology producing 160 horsepower and 184 poundfeet of torque. It should be mentioned the 1.4-liter is a $1,300 upgrade from the standard engine: a 2-liter, normally aspirated four-cylinder called "Tigershark." Interestingly, the 2-liter produces the exact same amount of horsepower as the 1.4--and without a turbocharger.

For the first few days behind the wheel of the Dart Rallye, I was convinced the 1.4-liter MultiAir turbocharged engine was a miss.

Even with the six-speed manual, power was hard to wring out of the little Italian hunk of aluminum. Until the engine exceeds 3,5000 RPM, the 1.4-liter is slower than molasses on a cold day. Over 3,500, though, the engine comes alive in a buzz of Italian fury. After 5,500 RPM, however, power dwindles quickly up to the 6,500 RPM redline.

I had to learn to drive the Dart. But once I did, I became quickly enamored with it. The Dart definitely isn't a turnkey operation. There's a learning curve before the driver and the Dart harmonize. Once I made that connection, however, and driving the Dart became second nature, I loved it.

Delightfully, both handling and steering are quick and responsive. The six-speed manual is easy to shift and the gears are spread wide enough apart that I never found myself hitting the wrong gear.

Although the Dart really does resemble the discontinued Neon, I still really fancy its looks. Designers walked the fine line between accentuating the Dodge family resemblance but also modernizing and improving a signature look. Tops, too, is the "Blue Streak Pearl" paint that my test car sported.

On the window sticker, Dodge proudly touts the Dart's combined fuel economy score of 32 MPG. With an EPA estimated 27-MPG city and 39 highway, the Dart--on paper--is a fuel economy dream.

My experience with the Dart's efficiency was drastically different than advertised. By my approximation, I spent equal time on the city and the highway. According to the Dart's onboard computer, I only averaged 23 MPG during my week behind the wheel. Certainly, 23 MPG isn't bad. But it's not good when you're expecting those numbers to be flopped.

I'm afraid turbo spool spoils the Dart's fuel economy, like it does for most turbocharged engines.

If drivers can manage to keep their foot out of the accelerator and the engine below 3,500, never taking advantage by the turbo power boost, they very may well achieve the estimated fuel economy numbers. Drivers in the real world, however, who find 90 horsepower (my unofficial pre-turbocharger power estimate) to be inadequate in a 3,200-pound car will most likely want to stick with the base engine.

While both engines are European designed, the 2-liter is decidedly less European in its power band. Drivers accustomed to a more American and linear power output will find the 1.4-liter perplexing.

Don't worry; the Dart isn't a wash in my book because its real-world fuel economy numbers--for me--were low.

I still really like it. It looks great. It handles fabulously. It goes pretty well. It's tech-savvy. It's affordable. And it is backed by a five-year, hundred-thousand-mile warranty. What's not to love?

If it were my money, though, I'd wait for the R/T version. The R/T, which is slated to go on sale in mid-2013, will have a 2.4-liter MultiAir engine also called Tigershark...for some reason. The R/T will produce 184 horsepower and 171 poundfeet of torque and should be a real kick, that one.

2013 Infiniti M Hybrid

2013 Infiniti M Hybrid

Nearly every automaker has its own take on the hybrid. Whether they shape it like the Prius or not, they all want to capitalize on the popularity of hybrids. While I've derided some (the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid) and loved others (Prius C) each surprisingly has its own distinctive characteristics. None more distinctive, however, than my most recent hybrid encounter: the 2013 Infiniti M Hybrid.

First, let's get to the basics: the 2013 M Hybrid carries a base price of $54,200 but my test vehicle weighed in at $66,245. Under the hood Infiniti has placed a 3.5-liter V6 mated to an electric motor that together produce a net 360 horsepower that is sent to the rear wheels through a seven-speed automatic transmission. The EPA has rated the M Hybrid at 27 MPG city and 32 highway with a combined score of 29.

Now we've gotten the nitty-gritty out of the way; let's talk design.

Say what you will about the looks of the new Infinitis. I think they appear to have been stung by a bee and suffered unsightly swelling. Plainly put: new Infiniti body designs take rounded, aerodynamic-inspired bodylines to an all-new level. The grille is rounded, the fenders are entirely rounded, and the bumper is rounded. I don't believe the exterior has one truly flat surface. Everything is curved and rounded.

Infiniti continues the rounded line design aesthetic onto the interior. Infiniti has given the dash and center stack many wandering, rounded lines that don't seem to serve any purpose other than to say "look, it's round-y in here, too!"

While many automakers are opting for wood trim with a flat finish, Infiniti has buffed their Japanese Ash wood trim to a nearly faux plastic finish. While it looks good, it's just not that modern. Then in the back, where there's normally a spacious trunk, Infiniti has chosen to stow the lithium-ion battery pack. Mind you, the trunk is still usable; it's just not as big as it once was without the batteries. The batteries also impinge on the ability to fold the rear seats down, cutting even further into potential cargo capacity.

My complaints with the interior end there, however. With a staggering 16-speaker Bose sound system; satnav; intelligent cruise control; blind spot monitoring; Bluetooth; rain sensing wipers; and much more; Infiniti leaves little to be desired in the way of technology and luxury.

Admittedly all those things sound great. But let's be honest: most automakers' features lists read nearly exactly the same. It's the M Hybrid's driving characteristics that truly set it apart.

If you've ever driven a Hybrid, you've probably noticed the driving characteristics that haunt virtually every hybrid: lumpy, uneven power delivery. Every hybrid (save the Prius C) suffers from it. The Infiniti is no different. But while the M Hybrid, too, is lumpy, it makes up for it with boatloads of power on the backend.

There's no mistaking: the M Hybrid is fast. Shift the drive mode selector into "Sport," and the M Hybrid becomes the heavy-hitting, fuel thirsty car it was designed to be before Infiniti over complicated it with an electric motor and some batteries.

The M Hybrid pulls and pulls, no matter the speed (or RPM) because the two motors (gasoline and electric) pick up where the other leaves off. Then at stoplights the engine shuts off, which saves fuel. When the gas engine shuts off, the AC system doesn't have to shut down because there's enough power to still run your accessories thanks to the extra batteries on board.

In Sport mode, the M Hybrid is the best hybrid over $30,000 that money can buy. But when the driver pops it over into "Eco" mode, the story changes. Drastically.

Typically in hybrids (when in Eco mode) the throttle response is simply ratcheted back by the on-board computer. Not so, in the M Hybrid. From a stoplight, the accelerator feels normal for the first quarter throttle. Push your foot any harder into the throttle, however, and the M Hybrid pushes back. I kid you not, the throttle pedal pushes back against you, resisting throttle. It is the most bizarre sensation I've ever felt. It's hugely unnatural feeling and I never once got used to it. It made me feel like my leg and foot were failing me. It felt like a mental block. It never felt like the vehicle was pushing back, resisting my desired throttle application; no, it must be my muscles are simply incapable of performing the task at hand. It was infuriating.

Why Infiniti decided to design a throttle that fought back against the driver rather than just electronically withholding throttle response is beyond me. For a neurotic fellow like me, the bully of a throttle pedal made the M Hybrid virtually undrivable in any setting other than Sport.

And that's really too bad. Since it left my driveway, I've spent a lot of time thinking back fondly on our time together. I never thought I'd say this about a hybrid; but I kind of miss it.

If you're in the market for one of the out-and-out strangest hybrid on the market, I urge you to rush into your local Infiniti dealer as quickly as you can. If, however, you're simply interested in an M37 and are alternately considering the step to the Hybrid model I advise you save your self the $18,000 and stick to the "plane Jane" M37 version instead.

Old BMW Road Trip

First Drive: 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL-Class

First Drive: 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL-Class

The 2013 GL-Class has a lot of Bang(&Olufsen)--but not for your buck.

When engineering wizards at Mercedes first conceived of the full-size GL-Class SUV, they momentarily imagined it as a G-Wagon replacement. Thankfully, that never came to fruition. Instead, the G-Wagon would live another day--at least through 2019--and the GL was designed to be a more minivan-ish, soft-roading family hauler.

After its initial launch in 2007, the GL quickly became one of Mercedes-Benz best-selling models in the US with sales numbers (around 26,000 units annually) actually growing as the GL got on in years. For 2013, Mercedes has re-envisioned the GL with subtly updated bodylines, and updated interior, and a few new drivetrain options.

With a base price around $60,000, the Mercedes GL-Class competes with the likes of the Cadillac Escalade and the Infiniti QX56. Though God only knows who in their right mind would cross-shop the Escalade with the GL. That'd be like a horse and buggy with the SpaceX Dragon.

Though it doesn't look it, the new generation GL is longer, wider, and taller than the previous incarnation. In spite of these enlargements, the 2013 GL only weighs 50 pounds more than the 2012, which improves fuel economy.

The 2013 GL's looks are more masculine and striking than the previous generation but do still retain some of the minivan-ish lines. The front fascia has been masterfully reshaped for better aerodynamics without sacrificing its bold, iconic, and somewhat menacing look. Around the rest of the body, other tweaks have been made; the D-pillar, for instance, now has a slight up-kick to it and flared wheel arches have been added to the GL550.

Mercedes offers four models of the GL for 2013: a clean diesel-powered GL350 BlueTEC, GL450, GL550, and the soon-to-be unveiled GL63 AMG. The majority of sales will fall to the GL450 in the US with the rest split between the GL305 BlueTEC and the GL550. Sales figures of the GL63 AMG are still to be seen.

Interestingly, under the hood, the GL450 and the GL550 are nearly identical. They both share the same 4.6-liter direct-injected (amusingly called "Multi-Squirt"), biturbo gasoline V8. In the GL450, the engine has been detuned and produces 362 horsepower and 406 poundfeet of torque. The more powerful GL550, however, produces 429 horsepower and 516 poundfeet of torque.

Mercedes boasts fuel efficiency in the newest generation GL-Class is up 20-percent over the previous generation. But don't let those stats fool you; no GL drivetrain will achieve fuel economy numbers much higher than around 17MPG. In fact, the GL450 and GL550 will average around the 15MPG mark. And if you have to ask what the GL63 AMG fuel economy numbers will be like, you should just keep on car shopping; because if you have to ask, you can't afford it. If I had to guess (and I do) I'd wager an average around 10MPG.

Importantly, it's on the interior where the GL really hits its stride. Not surprisingly, all interior materials are of the highest quality both in terms of visual aesthetic and tactile stimulation. Available with an optional Designo (pronounced dee-zeen-yo) leather interior and three rows of seating, the GL is both elegant and versatile. Option it with the Bang & Olufsen sound system and the GL interior is transformed into a literal symphony to the senses.

Despite the GL's hefty base price, the standard COMAND system--which includes a seven-inch touch screen, Bluetooth, and a six-disc DVD/CD changer--does not include satellite navigation. As buyers add optional packages to the GL, however, and the GL will include some pretty nifty tech treats. Most impressive is the 360-degree Surround View camera. When the vehicle is in reverse, a series of cameras mounted around the vehicle are digitally stitched together to show a virtual bird's-eye view of the vehicle--clearly displaying everything within several feet of the GL.

The 2012 GL-Class has been loaded (or can be loaded) with tons of safety features. In the spirit of brevity, I'll outline the most noteworthy: ACTIVE CURVE SYSTEM, which limits body roll during cornering; ATTENTION ASSIST, which will alert the driver to take a rest from driving at the first signs of drowsiness; Active Lane Keeping Assist, which alerts the driver of unwanted lane departure by vibrating the steering wheel ever so slightly; COLLISION PREVENTION ASSIST, which will flash warnings at the driver if it senses the risk for a collision and also prepare the parking brake for emergency braking as soon as the driver applies the brake; and lastly PRE-SAFE, which will pre-tension seatbelts and even move the front passenger seat to a safer position if an impending collision is detected.

For buyers who want the off-road capability of the G-Wagon with the family-oriented versatility of the GL, Mercedes offers an On/Off-Road package. Featuring a two-speed, electronically controlled transfer case that provides 1:1 on-road gearing and 2.93:1 ratio for off-road capability, the GL can quickly become a weekend warrior workhorse at the push of a button.

As impressive as the 2013 GL is on paper, delightfully, it is even better in the road. While the diesel-powered GL350 BlueTEC has some trouble pulling up hills at highway speed, the GL450 and GL550 are veritable rocket ships.

The Production Chief, Axel Heix, admitted to me the feature of the new GL of which he is most proud is its car-like handling. And he's right to be proud. The GL handles better than virtually any other full-size SUV on the market, save the Range Rover.

As brilliant as the GL is to behold and to drive, I am still left scratching my head when looking at the sticker price. None of the GLs we drove on the press launch was priced under $92,000. Mercedes divulged the average GL buyer is a bit of an odd bird. The average GL buyer is a 48-year-old man whose yearly income is around $292,000. It is by far the youngest Mercedes customer with one of the highest average incomes (next closest is the income of the average SL buyer).

I reckon, though, you'd have to be a young, rich family man to justify the cost of the 2013 GL as it isn't really capable of doing double what, say, a Chevy Traverse, Dodge Durango, or Ford Explorer can do for half the money.

Despite my penny-pinching ways, I can see how--for the right buyer--the GL is a fabulous investment. For better or worse, it has no real side-by-side competition in terms of build quality, amenities, and aesthetics. So if you're in the market for a full-sized luxury SUV that will seat seven, look no further than the GL.

2012 Scion tC Review

2012 Scion tC Review

The layman's FR-S.

Last year I proclaimed the 2011 Scion TC the only new car I would actually buy. I loved its looks, its driving dynamics, but most importantly, I loved its low, low price. At just below $24,000, I thought it a Japanese econobox in sports coupe clothes.

A lot of things can, however, change in a year. The mere thought of the car that was once the apple of my penny-pinching, sport-inspired eye now--instead--conjures a cheeky grimace.

The 2012 Scion TC is no different than the 2011--not one bit. In fact, the information Scion sent to me about the TC read "2011 Scion TC." Clearly, it isn't the TC that has changed but rather the world around it.

In the last year, I bought a Range Rover, bought a FIAT, I took up running, and Scion debuted the 2013 FR-S.

The FR-S is a stripped-down rear-wheel drive sports coupe created as a joint venture between Subaru and its parent company, Toyota. The Scion FR-S is the Toyota USA version (known as the Toyota GT-86 in most other world markers) of the 2+2, sold in competition with its twin, the Subaru BRZ.

Priced around $26,000, the FR-S isn't much more expensive than the TC. Producing 200 horsepower , the FR-S's 2-liter boxer engine is more powerful than the TC's 2.5-liter inline four. The FR-S has a sleeker, sportier body and has a much stylish interior than the TC. And while the TC is based upon the old Camry platform, the FR-S is a purpose-built sports car.

This time around, I found the TC just as fun to drive. As I lead-footed my way around town, its blaring exhaust notes embarrassed me. There are loud, unrestrictive exhausts that improve power output and there are loud exhausts that have been tuned to showoff what's under the hood, shouting at the world, "Look at me! I am man!" The exhaust on the TC fits neither of these categories. It was closer to the not-so-subtle tones of paperboy's coffee-can muffler'd Civic than a factory-installed sport exhaust.

For the longest time, I couldn't figure out why Scion would continue the TC alongside the FR-S. That was, until I drove the 2012 TC with the optional six-speed automatic transmission.

It is a fine transmission. It is peppy in first gear but quickly finds its way up to forth and stays there as long as it can; neutering what sporting nature the TC had been blessed with. I greatly prefer the standard five-speed manual but the more I thought about it, I realized the automatic is actually the TC's saving grace.

While true gear heads and racing junkies will eagerly line up to get their hands in the FR-S, the less performance-obsessed motorist will likely prefer the TC.

The TC is cheaper, it's less flashy looking, it's more useful (with its huge rear hatch versus the FR-S's small trunk), and it will certainly carry a smaller car insurance premium. Plus, when optioned with the automatic, it's the best of both worlds. For 99-percent of a TC owner's driving time, it's a hassle-free, two-pedal setup. But for that one day a year they'll actually wish to shift the car themselves, reigniting their connection to the rolling hunk of steel beneath them, they can pop the shifter into manual shift mode and have at it.

The 2012 Scion TC, then, is perfect for someone who isn't ready to give in and buy a Yaris but also doesn't have enough testosterone (for better or worse) coursing through their system to step up to the FR-S. The TC is edgy without getting anywhere near the edge, instead remaining safely buckled into the tour bus.

2012 PriusC Review

Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee

2012 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T Review

2012 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T Review

The 2012 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T is a good; just not heart-poundingly good.

This is a review that I've been mulling over for a few weeks, trying to find the right angle. The problem I've been facing is that the Sonata is too good. It doesn't have any glaring defects I can viciously attack. Nor does it conjure up any anecdotes or rambling opinions. It's a very good car. But just because something is good doesn't make it worthy of coverage.

I enjoy plenty of deserts. I am exhilarated by a great deal of wooded walks in the Portland area. And I'm rather fond of several of my pairs of pants as well. None is, however, worthy of an article of its own. This is the problem facing me when I turn to the Sonata 2.0T review.

I first drove the normally aspirated Sonata last year, when it was new. It was fine. Pretty good in most every respect but it didn't really stand out. I then drove the Sonata Hybrid, which was great on the highway but absolutely nightmarish in the city--especially when attempting to parallel park.

So when I was thrown the keys to the Sonata 2.0T ("T" stands for turbo) I expected more mediocrity. To my surprise, it was far better than I had anticipated.

I feel like I should have seen it coming: the Sonata's greatness. After all, turbochargers make everything better. My first car was a perfect example: a 1983 Volvo 245 Turbo. Having more in common with a tractor than a car, the 245 should have been crap. But with the turbo, it came to life. I loved that damn car. With it I enjoyed many an evening filled with turbocharged adventures.

The Sonata, now in its sixth generation, shares its underpinnings with the Kia Optima and has benefitted hugely from its newfound turbo. Although Hyundai is a Korean car firm, the Sonata is built in Alabama. The turbocharged 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder engine placed under the hood of the Sonata 2.0T produces 274 horsepower and 269 pound-feet of torque and has been mated with a six-speed automatic transmission. Altogether, the Sonata 2.0T has been rated by the EPA to achieve 22 MPG in the city and 34 MPG on the highway.

The SE model I tested had a sticker price of $28,455. For that money, the Sonata was fitted with sport suspension; 18-inch wheels; power windows, doors, and locks; dual climate control; Bluetooth; a backup camera; and satnav. Strangely, however, at this price point, the Sonata 2.0T is still comes with cloth seats. Arguably more durable, I found them out of place. On top of all of that, the whole vehicle is protected by Hyundai's five-year/60,000-mile warranty.

While small engines fitted with turbochargers for extra, on-demand power sounds nice on paper, customers are beginning to find turbochargers aren't quite what they're cracked up to be in terms of fuel economy. In actuality, unless blessed with a featherweight foot, drivers are finding their mileage numbers far below the EPA estimates in turbocharged cars. I, for example, achieved 13 MPG in the city in the Sonata 2.0T--far below the EPA rating. But one of my fellow automotive journalists on an extended trip at speeds upward of 75 MPH achieved 36 MPG, which was above the rating. Go figure.

In spite of its unpredictable fuel economy, driving the Sonata 2.0T was a delight. Every aspect of the vehicle was easy and enjoyable. I had plenty of room. The seats were wonderfully comfortable. The cabin was quiet. The satnav and Bluetooth were easy to use. The acceleration from the turbocharged four was the perfect mix of pull and grace. The steering was light but precise and didn't leave me feeling disconnected from the road. And the suspension was firm, luxurious, and forgiving. Add to that the Sonata's stunning looks and the fabulous "Sparkling Ruby" paint color, the strikingly large rims, and chrome-tipped exhaust and I was sold.

In spite of all its wondrous qualities, I am not sure I'd still buy the Sonata 2.0T. That, you must understand, is my ultimate rulebook. I can only comfortably recommend a car if I would realistically put down my own money for it. I could sit there in the driver's seat of the Sonata and list every reason why I should be chomping at the bit to own one. But logic wasn't enough. It lacked that X-factor.

The Volkswagen Passat--one of the Sonata's competitors--has that X-factor. Like the Sonata, it's big, powerful, fuel-efficient, and gorgeous to behold. For whatever reason, the Passat has 'it' but the Sonata doesn't.

I would never anyone buy a Passat, however. After the warranty is up, the Passat will be a maintenance nightmare. The Sonata on the other hand will be cheap and reliable, especially since the powertrain in the Sonata is covered by the 100,000-mile warranty.

Here I am left writing a review for a wonderful car that I am just not in love with. Perhaps it's for the best. When I am deeply in love with a car, it usually turns out all wrong. I get my priorities all screwed up. The Sonata might be better off with my admiration over my undying love.

Ultimately, I recommend the Sonata 2.0T over its competition--even if it isn't heart-flutteringly good. It's just great. And that'll have to just be good enough.

2013 Aston Martin Vanquish Revealed

2012 Nissan Versa Review

2012 Nissan Versa Review

America's cheapest car could also be the solution to its weight problem.

Time was, even the highest-end vehicles were fitted with manual windows, mirrors, door locks. Thankfully by 2012, however, most every brand-new vehicle has been built to include a plethora of electric power assist features.

In fact, power assist has become so prevalent, most car windows don't even require the operator to hold the switch anymore; a single push of a button will raise and lower the windows in most modern vehicles. As for power locks, not only are they widespread, most brand-new cars are sold with remote-operated locks as standard, rendering the interior-mounted door lock switch virtually useless.

There is one holdover, however, from the manual-powered days of old: the 2012 Nissan Versa, which holds the record of being America's cheapest new car.

With a base price of $10,990, the Versa is equipped with some seats, a steering wheel, and an AM/FM radio. Though sparingly equipped, the Versa isn't all that bad. It might not look like it, but it's rather spacious on the interior. In fact, the backseat of the Versa boasts more legroom than a BMW 5 Series.

Under the hood of the Versa, Nissan has placed a 1.6-liter inline four-cylinder engine producing 109 horsepower and 107 pound feet of torque, which--in its base form--is mated to a five-speed manual transmission. While a horse and buggy is capable of hitting 60 MPH in less time than the Versa, it boasts an EPA estimated 30-MPG combined fuel economy rating on 87-octane gasoline.

To recap: the 2012 Versa is cheap to buy, cheap to operate, and relatively big on the interior. What's not to love? As it turns out: actually driving one.

While on paper a cheap, "big" little car seems like a no-brainer, in reality it's a bit unpleasant. Many modern car owners--myself included--have forgotten what it's like to own a no-frills car. When faced with a manual transmission, manual adjust side mirrors, manual window, manual seats, and manual door locks (that all need to be operated individually), a driver quickly wonders why they bother with a car at all.

It might sound like nitpicking but allow me to paint the picture for you.

I go out to the Nissan Versa in the morning and unlock the driver's door. Having parked on a busy road, I need to open the passenger side backdoor to let my dog into the back seat. Urging my coonhound to stay close to the side of the car, I lean into the Versa and unlock the passenger door.

My dog and I walk around to the passenger side. I lean into the Versa--this time on the passenger side--and attempt to squeeze my arm between the side of the passenger seat and the B-pillar to reach the rear door lock. Scraping my forearm badly against the rough plastic, I finally manage to unlock the passenger rear door.

I open the rear door and let my dog jump into the back. Making sure I don't pinch his tail, I close the door and head back to the driver's door. I plop down behind the steering wheel and notice the passenger side view mirror is out of adjustment. I must then lean across to adjust it--darting back and forth between my normal driving position and the far side of the cabin in order to adjust it correctly. After several minutes of struggle, I'm ready to head to the office.

Once at the office, a very similar procedure follows in order to re-lock the Versa. Except after I run around, lean through, and scrape my arm against the Versa, I realize I have forgotten my briefcase in the backseat. I am then forced to tie my dog to a near-by tree and recreate my entry procedures just to gain access the back seat. What is typically a 15-minute commute takes a sweaty and arm-throbbing 30. And why suffer this ordeal, to save a couple thousand at the dealership?

While I openly revile this manually operated nightmare of a brand-new car, it's got me thinking...

I recently read that over one third of Americans are now obese and another third are overweight. My thoughts on this topic are numerous but since this is a car review, I'll spare you. After my horror over this new factoid subsided, it made me think of the Nissan Versa. Perhaps the Versa is just what the American public needs to get back on its feet, as it were.

Experts say we Americans are more sedentary than ever and the food with the highest calorie content is cheapest. Studies show even walking a bit more than normal can help tremendously to keep weight off. Enter the Versa.

Why watch your diet or walk around your neighborhood when your daily commute can become your source of exercise? Go sell whatever you're driving now and get behind the wheel of America's cheapest car and watch the pounds melt off!

All kidding aside, the 2012 Versa is a pretty good car--for the money. At the base $10,990 it's not a bad deal. It has a huge interior, it's fairly fuel efficient, and not terrible to drive. Option the Versa any higher than the base model, however, and the value immediately falls of a cliff.

The Versa I drove for a week had an MSRP of $14,040. As best I could tell, the only upgrades were the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT), cruise control, and carpet floor mats. For that money I'd much rather have a Kia Rio or Mazda2, which come standard with power amenities.

The Versa is a unique vehicle, then. It's cheap to buy, a workout to own, and somehow--at the same time--not really worth the money. In spite of these things, I strangely like it.

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Review

2013 Hyundai Genesis

Coupe 3.8 Track Review

The Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track was my favorite car of 2012. I loved its understated looks. I loved its interior design and quality. I loved its intoxicating power. I loved its remarkable handling. Simply, it blew me away.

Honestly, I hadn't expected much from the Genesis Coupe before I drove it. I mistakenly assumed Hyundai had taken the Tiburon--its last attempt at a two-door sports coupe--moved the power from the front to the rear and gave it a new name. Delightfully, the Genesis Coupe had me eating crow.

If the 2012 Genesis Coupe weren't good enough, to my delight, Hyundai has added direct injection and a new eight-speed automatic to the already uproarious Genesis Coupe lineup for 2013.

The new direct injection system has upped the 3.8-liter V6's power from 306 horsepower to 348 (344 on regular gasoline) and 295 pound feet of torque. The Genesis Coupe 3.8 will make a 0-60 run in around 5.3 seconds and hit an electronically limited top speed of 149 MPH. The EPA has estimated the 3.8-liter-powered Genesis Coupe at 18 MPG in the city and 28 on the highway with a combined fuel-economy score of 22 MPG.

Not only did Hyundai up the Genesis Coupe's power for 2013, it also upped its dynamic looks; with a new, meaner front fascia complete with Audi-style LED accent lights, the 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe is a real head turner. I was honestly shocked how many people turned toward, stared at, and even pointed to the 2013 Genesis Coupe as I drove it through the streets of Portland, Oregon.

While I had fallen in love with the 2012 Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track with the six-speed manual transmission, the 2013 I was given to test had been fitted with the new eight-speed automatic.

If you're confused as to why I keep referring to the Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track by its entire name, it's because there are so damned many 'Genesis' products from Hyundai. There's the Hyundai Genesis, which is a full-sized sedan. There's the Genesis Coupe, which is an entirely different vehicle altogether. From there, the Genesis Coupe is available in several models: a 2.0T model and a 3.8 model. Then there are variations from there. There is the R-Spec, Premium, Grand Touring, and Track. Confused? So am I.

Typically, we automotive journalist get the sportiest version of any new car--to better 'wow' us. While the Genesis Coupe with the eight-speed auto is certainly the most news worthy of the lineup, it's not the sportiest of the breed. That title goes to the Genesis Coupe 3.8 with the six-speed manual and I'll explain why.

The eight-speed auto is a glorious transmission. Shifts are smooth and precise and with so many gears, the engine is practically idling--no matter the road speed--which saves fuel. Even when popped over into "Sport" mode, the transmission doesn't hold gears very long. But that's the problem. The Genesis Coupe is a sports car with nearly 350 horsepower. Who on earth wants to go all eco in a shout-y, rear-wheel drive sports coupe?

If the quick-shifting sport mode weren't disconcerting enough; when in manual shift mode, the eight-speed auto will still shift gears on its own.

Automatic transmissions from other automakers--when in manual shift mode--will hold the specified gear no matter what. In Acuras, for example, the transmission will allow the driver bounce off the redline. Obediently, an Acura automatic won't shift until the driver taps one of the flappy paddles.

The eight-speed auto in the Hyundai Genesis Coupe is another story. If the driver gets within 300 RPM of redline, the eight-speed will shift to the next gear. But by then, the driver has already tapped the flappy paddle, ordering a shift. But instead of going from second gear to third as the driver had hoped; it goes second to third and instantly to forth because it puts the driver's desired shift after its own automatic shift. Suddenly, the Genesis Coupe has lost power and dropped its RPMs down to 1200.

The problems with the eight-speed auto don't end with manual upshifts. Downshifts are problematic, too.

I'd be cruising in third and I'd begin to enter a corner and wish to downshift to second. I'd hit the flappy paddle and wait. Nothing. I'd hit it again. Nothing. A third time: nothing. Then without having had any changed to engine or vehicle speed, it'd listen and perform my downshift. By then, however, the Genesis Coupe was well through the corner and now engine braking on a straight.

The 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track with the eight-speed auto is far less infuriating left to its own shifting devices in normal drive or sport modes. In those modes, however, it's not very sporty.

The eight-speed auto is best suited, I figure, to the "big daddy" Genesis sedan with the V8. Surely, few drivers of the big Genesis will ever wish to flappy paddle their sedan around the back roads. And on the off chance they do, their sensibilities won't be rocked by a wayward automatic shift.

Another reason I loved the Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track was its sticker price. A 2012 had an asking price around $31,000. This new one, however, with the eight-speed auto will set customers back $35,230; the only upgrade at that price point being carpeted floor mats. Once the Genesis Coupe nears that $35,000 mark, it's hard not to consider the Nissan 370Z (with sport package) instead. Quite the buyers' dilemma indeed.

If it were me, I'd take the 2013 Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track. I think it handles just a bit better than the 370Z with a bit more interior room and has a far better warranty. But I'd make damn sure to order the Genesis Coupe 3.8 with the six-speed manual.

2012 Ford Explorer Review

When it was debuted in 1990, the Ford Explorer effectively changed the American automotive landscape.

Long having an affinity for big vehicles, the Explorer took the American automotive psyche on the next logical direction: Up. The Explorer ushered in a new era of taller, stouter, fuel-thirstier vehicles.

Americans quickly forgot about the big, floaty sedans beloved by their fathers before them and embraced even bigger, truck-based 4x4s. Vehicles that once attracted only the most seasoned outdoorsman quickly became soccermom mobiles.

As the years rolled by, the Explorer grew--as did its popularity. Eventually, though, sales numbers diminished and it was clear that the Explorer had to be retooled. Ford looked to its--then­--subsidiary, Volvo, and borrowed the platform from its extremely popular XC90 SUV and went back to the drawing board.

What Ford came up with was a drastically new Explorer. More car than traditional SUV, the Explorer aimed to satisfy the new American sensibilities. The new Explorer is softer, more car-like, and much more tech-savvy.

Proudly, Ford fitted the Explorer with Sync and MyFord Touch, systems that allow owners to utilize multimedia features and customize and their vehicle settings all from one touch-screen input.

My test vehicle had the base 3.5-liter V6 engine producing 290 horsepower and 255 pound feet of torque. Mated to the V6: a six-speed automatic transmission and the optional four-wheel drive system. The EPA has rated the Explorer with the V6 and all-wheel drive at 17 MPG in the city and 23 on the highway.

Ford does also offer an engine upgrade: a 2-liter EcoBoost inline four-cylinder turbocharged engine that produces 240 horsepower and 270 pound feet of torque. While the V6 is designed to run on regular 87 octane gasoline, the EcoBoost requires premium.

The big, new body design of the Explorer is rather polarizing. Some love it and others hate it. I'm rather in the middle. The front end, in my mind, is spot-on. The middle and back sections are a bit too minivan-like for my taste.

On the interior, Ford went above and beyond the call of duty, in terms of safety. Ensuring they met or exceeded crash ratings, Ford over engineered the Explorer making it incredibly safe, especially in side impact collisions. Outward visibility does suffer, however, thanks to this overwhelming attention to safety. The C-pillars are so thick it is virtually impossible to see anything out of the Explorer over the driver's right shoulder. If it weren't for lane departure warning lights in the side view mirrors and the backup camera, maneuvering the Explorer would be virtually impossible.

Having been a life-long Explorer fan, I was immediately skeptical of this new, bulbous creature sporting an Explorer badge. After several days behind the wheel, however, I was sold.

Interior space is enormous and easily accommodates seven passengers. Even tall drivers--like myself--have cavernous headroom. The third-row of seats cleverly fold and stow away electronically in any number of ways with the push of a button.

Power delivery from the base V6 was smooth and controllable and cornering felt solid and nothing like the rollover prone Explorers of the past. With the electronic power steering, Ford even includes park assist, which will find a parking spot and then parallel park itself with the driver in control of the brake and throttle.

Shockingly, I felt the 2012 Explorer a homerun. Except for one big issue: price. The vehicle I tested had an MSRP of $46,345. For that money customers can get a well-equipped Volvo XC90, an Audi Q7, or an Acura RDX. All of which handle better, are more luxurious, and have more powerful engines.

Time was, American cars weren't as good as those of other countries. But they were cheaper, so they had a viable place in the market. That business model, however, proved unsustainable. And American car companies--like Ford--had to step up and modernize. Ford is now faced with a new, more frustrating problem: The Explorer is just as modern as its competitors from any continent. It's just too expensive.

2012 Chrysler 200 Convertible Review

2012 Chrysler 200 Convertible Review

Perhaps the best car review I have ever read was Jeremy Clarkson's review of the Chrysler Sebring Convertible. After having filmed an episode of Top Gear out on the Bonneville Salt Flats, Jeremy, James, and Richard all piled into their rented Sebring and headed for Salt Lake City.

The ferociousness with which Jeremy tore into the Sebring was absolutely delightful. After reading his review, I couldn't wait to get my hands on a Sebring Convertible to experience the catastrophe for myself.

To my chagrin, the Sebring was discontinued before I could get my hands on it; replaced by the Chrysler 200. To my delight, however, the 200 is now available in Convertible form as well.

My test 200 Convertible was "Deep Cherry Red Crystal Pearl" or as I like to call it "burgundy." Beyond the extensive list of standard equipment, my 200 Convertible had been fitted with heated seats, Bluetooth, and a black cloth convertible top. Though, if I'm perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the standard roof would be if not black cloth.

My press vehicle had been given a $1,795 upgrade from the base engine to the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6, which produces 283 horsepower and 260 pound feet of torque. The base powertrain offering is a 2.4-liter inline four-cylinder producing 173 horsepower and 166 pound feet of torque. Bolted to either of the engine options is a six-speed automatic.

Driving the 200 is a fairly unique experience. With the Pentastar, the 200 is blessed one of the smoothest V6 engines around bolted to an even smoother automatic gearbox. The Pentastar is capable of producing enough power to rival lower-end BMWs in a straight line. Try to do anything but a straight line pull in the 200 Convertible and the vehicle goes all wonky. Turn the wheel slightly and torque steer will overpower. Hit a bump and the flex-y body will send you equally off course. It is, without a doubt, a vehicle best kept under 50 MPH and at half-throttle.

This isn't to say the 200 Convertible is bad. It isn't. It's just not what one might expect. Look to the rest of the American convertible market at vehicles like the Mustang Convertible or the Camaro Convertible and one might assume the 200 Convertible is a worthy opponent. It's not. A comparable Mustang Convertible starts at $31,200 and a comparable Camaro Convertible at $30,180. Both are rear-wheel drive with similarly sized V6 engines but producer far more horsepower.

So clearly the 200 Convertible can't be sold on price, power, or creature comforts. It can, however, be sold on looks and sheer determination.

While it's not a knockout, it doesn't look anything like a muscle car, which will certainly be a benefit to some buyers who don't wish to look like they're making up for something (if you know what I mean). Also, the automatically retractable top stows away nicely into the trunk in a matter of moments so there's no unsightly cloth hump in your rearview.

In addition, the 200 Convertible is backed by a five-year/100,000 powertrain warranty, which is a far sight better than any of its competitors.

Returning to Jeremy Clarkson, he recently--and rightfully--observed that the wind is an all-consuming thing. Whether you drive a $100,000 convertible or a $20,000 convertible--above a certain speed--it doesn't really matter. The wind then is a great equalizer.

If you're in the market for a convertible and simply won't be caught dead in a Camaro or a Miata and dare not spend $40,000 on a Volkswagen EOS, then by all means consider the Chrysler 200.

I recommend the base model, however, which starts at $26,575. Although I love the Pentastar V6, I fear it is just too much for the 200 to handle. I can only hope the next generation 200 will be Alfa Romeo-based and a bit more stout and truly worthy of the Pentastar's power.

2013 SRT Viper Unveiled

Jeremy Clarkson Doesn't Exist

I don't think Jeremy Clarkson actually exists.

Think about it. Jeremy, as we are lead to believe, is a 6 foot 5, well spoken, quick-witted Brit gallivanting around the planet driving cars and having adventures. When he's at home, he's known to berate road crews for causing a delay and call for the assassination of striking public workers. Surely, he's a ratings magnet invented by the British media to both horrify and demonstrate British social dominance over the rest of the world.

But you might argue that we've seen him for over 18 series on Top Gear and countless candid photos on the web, therefore he must surely exist. But we've seen plenty of tall, curly haired beasts on the TV and Interwebs that don't really exist: Sasquatch for example.

I don't know anyone who has ever seen him in person. I have met many--if not most--big-name automotive journalists and none has met him. I've been to the towns that he's written about and the locals don't recall him. They saw camera crews, Richard Hammond, etc, but never Clarkson himself.

As an automotive journalist, he's hit unfathomable success. He drives the best of the best that the world's automakers have to offer. He writes pithy, tooth-achingly funny reviews of them. And he's the mind behind the world's foremost automotive program Top Gear. If that weren't enough, Clarkson's annual income is just slightly above that of Shaq and only a hair below the Queen.

I must conclude then that he is simply an invention of a conglomeration of entertainment geniuses much like Franklin W Dixon, Santa Clause, and Ronald Reagan.

I once wrote:

Step one: Become an automotive journalist.

Step two: _________________

Step three: Profit.

I now know step two should read 'Become Jeremy Clarkson.' Ya know, if that were possible.

2012 Land Rover Defender

Test Drive: 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD Advance

Test Drive: 2012 Jeep Wrangler

Back in...Dozer Yellow?

The 2012 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited is one of the five vehicles currently on sale that I would actually buy. This is no small feat for a Chrysler product to hit the top of my wish list. Before the government bailout, I would never have even considered a Chrysler product.

For 2012, the Jeep Wrangler receives several updates, most notably to the drive train. It has been fitted with the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 and an optional 5-speed automatic transmission.

For most any other automaker, the move from a 3.8-liter to a 3.6-liter V6 isn't very newsworthy or exciting. Out with the old and in with the new. But for Chrysler and Jeep, it's a bit more significant.

The outgoing motor stands as a stark reminder of the old, pre-bailout Chrysler. For years, a 4-liter inline six-cylinder engine famously powered most Jeep products. It was powerful and reliable.

But eventually the old 4-liter just couldn't be tweaked enough to meet increasingly stringent emissions requirements so it had to be replaced. With nothing much better in the pipelines, Chrysler looked through its spare parts bin and found a 3.8-liter minivan motor that would fit, bolted it in, and sold it. Essentially ruining the Wrangler. It was still amazing off-road but it lacked soul, which was the one thing Wrangler had above any of its competitors.

Fortunately we're past all that now. Chrysler was bailed out and picked up by Italian auto giant Fiat. And we finally get to see release of all those decades of pent-up passion. We get marvelous things like the Pentastar and the re-birth of the soulful Wrangler.

The old 3.8 V6 had 202 horsepower and 237 foot-pounds of torque. It was slow and gas-thirsty. In stark contrast, the Pentastar has 285 hp and 260 ftlbs. And for the first time ever, the Wrangler achieves 21 miles-per-gallon.

Inside, the interior has greatly improved as well. Unlike Jeeps of old, the interior in the 2012 feels solid, well made, and it seems like someone actually took the time to think through cabin materials and layout.

On the outside they've also made the Wrangler more appealing and approachable. Jeep is rolling out a hand-full of fun new colors (my favorite is "Dozer") and You can now get a body-colored hardtop to match. The Wrangler now looks more solid and, with a body-colored roof, not as pieced together. The Wrangler finally looks finished.

To me, the Wrangler Unlimited is the ultimate American vehicle. It has distinctive good looks. Its off-road prowess is stronger than ever. And not only will it virtually drive itself over any obstacle you throw in its path, it'll also get your kids to and from school with ease and comfort. You can drive it to the mountain or you can take it out on date-night without appearing out of place on either outing.

What's astonishing is that it only took a few upgrades to bring the Wrangler up to contender status. Proving any bad car isn't actually too far from stardom--at least when it's got the kind of pedigree that the Wrangler shares.

Ultimately, I couldn't be happier or prouder of Jeep and Chrysler. They were given a new life and have taken it by the horns, proving the American auto industry isn't dead. And I can't wait to see what they build next.

Test Drive: 2012 Honda Crosstour EX-L 4WD

The future of crossovers.

Automotive journalists and consumers alike have great disdain for the Crosstour. Not only do they knock its looks, they're also not sure what to other vehicles on the market to compare it to. While I can't change people's minds on its outward appearance (personally, I have grown accustom to its looks and find it rather cheeky) I can influence the way the see it in the market. To do so, we need to travel back 31 years to 1980.

Remember the AMC Eagle? It was the eight-year-long experiment with the heart of a wood-paneled family wagon and the brawn of a 4×4 Jeep. It also stands as having been the first crossover (CUV) ever built, which is now a hugely popular breed of automobiles.

But as brilliant as the idea might have been, the Eagle was not without its faults. The Eagle was far smaller on the interior than the exterior would lead on. The engine was famously gas-thirsty-despite AMC's hopes that it would prove more efficient than its Jeep cousins. And the steering was frighteningly numb and unresponsive. It could, however, off-road with the best of them.

For better or worse, the AMC Eagle did not live on. But its soul did, inspiring newer, better vehicles like the Honda Crosstour. Would Honda ever admit the AMC Eagle was inspiration? Probably not, but you can be the judge for yourself.

Thankfully the Crosstour didn't fall into the traps left by its long-lost predecessor the Eagle. The Crosstour is roomy on the interior. The 3.5-liter, 271 horsepower V6 is also rather miserly with fuel. And the Honda real-time all-wheel-drive system runs with the best of them.

So why is there such an uproar over the lack of current competition for the Crosstour? Isn't that a good thing? The AMC Eagle was like nothing else on the market in the '80s but it set the stage for one of the most profitable segments in the auto industry today. Perhaps this is the fate of the Crosstour as well.

Since the launch of the Honda Crosstour in 2009 we've seen a rash of like-bodied vehicles from some of the most hard-hitting automakers in the world. Here are just a few:

Fall 2009 - The Porsche Panamera

Spring 2010 - The Aston Martin Rapide

Summer 2011 - The Audi A7

Ultimately I don't think it matters that the Crosstour lacks a direct market comparison at the moment. It doesn't need one. I imagine it represents a forward-facing view aimed at the future of automobile design.

Most CUVs still handle like their more truck-like cousins, the SUV. With the introduction-and subsequent popularity-of high-end sedan-hatches (my designation) like the Panamera, we're beginning to see the demand for vehicles that handle like big sedans with the utility of a wagon. The Crosstour fits that mold perfectly.

As a fan of wagons, large sedans, and crossovers, I find a lot of sensibility-based pleasure in the Crosstour. It's powerful, roomy, well built, and fuel-efficient. It handles well and delightfully its distinctive looks aren't minivan-ish in the slightest.

The Crossover is the perfect car for a modern family man. You have the AWD to handle most anything the planet throws at you. You have the handling and power that give us men that certain fizzy feeling we so desire from time-to-time. It's a practical family hauler, when you need. And it doesn't look like you've been browbeaten into a mom-mobile.

So if you're the kind of person who is concerned that another automaker doesn't offer a Crosstour clone, you're probably just not ready for it. I think it's the future of CUVs. And I, for one, am already onboard.

DownForce Motoring Goes Down Under