2011 Lamborghini Gallardo review

 

 

2011 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 570-4 Superleggera Coupe

Although it's probably difficult for most people to think of a nearly $200,000 automobile as "affordable," that's the position the Lamborghini Gallardo finds itself in within the Lambo product lineup. But no matter -- sports cars with exotic looks and the performance to match have a built-in ownership audience.

Since its introduction, the mission for this "baby Lamborghini" has been to maintain the style and attitude of Lamborghini's 12-cylinder cars but be more livable in everyday use. It's been a successful strategy, as there's been no shortage of takers who rightly lust after such a usable and alluring sports car. In fact, the Gallardo has become this Italian automaker's best-selling model ever.
Without too much difficultly, one can claim that the Gallardo LP560-4 is Lamborghini's best sports car ever. If there's anything lacking, it's the outrageous spirit and flair so often associated with the company's more expensive or legendary offerings. But the trade-off of a little spirit for a lot of functionality has been a good one, and there's no doubt that the Gallardo is a true, world-class exotic.
Current Lamborghini Gallardo
The exotic Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 is currently available in a coupe body style and spyder convertible. The name LP560-4 refers to its engine position ("longitudinale posteriore" or longitudinal rear), its European horsepower measurement (560 ps) and that all four wheels are powered. There is also a limited-edition model called the LP550-2 Valentino Balboni, which is a rear-wheel-drive-only model named after Lamborghini's storied test driver.
The Gallardo LP560-4 is powered by a 5.0-liter V10 good for 552 horsepower and 398 pound-feet of torque. The Valentino Balboni model produces 542 hp. A six-speed manual transmission with gated metal shifter is standard, while an automated six-speed sequential-shift manual transmission known as e-gear is optional. Expect 0-60 times in the high-3-second range.
In terms of layout and design, the Lamborghini Gallardo is a true exotic. To keep weight down, the chassis is a composite blend of alloy stampings, extrusions and castings. And except for the traditionally opening steel doors (no scissors), the exterior is constructed of thermoplastic-formed panels.
Inside, the Gallardo's handsome furnishings sublimely marry form with function and offer a surprising level of comfort for a vehicle of this type. Credit is certainly due to the influence of parent company Audi, whose expertise with interior design has been of no small benefit since the Volkswagen Group purchased Lamborghini in the late 1990s. The impact is obvious given the precisely fitting leather and soft-touch materials.
Despite the fact that this is an exotic sports car, seating is comfortable enough to accommodate the occasional road trip. Though not as flamboyant as its extroverted exterior, the interior styling still befits a vehicle in this price range. Storage space is tight, though, with a minimal amount of room available behind the seats and in the nose-mounted trunk.
But once behind the wheel, you'll gladly leave everything behind in exchange for the sweet, sonorous symphony of its V10 at full throttle. With 500-plus horses at your command, the Gallardo is capable of spine-compressing speed in any gear. At wide-open throttle, the lusty V10 plays a veritable mechanical symphony in keeping with the car's Italian heritage. The big V10 and all-wheel-drive system add quite a bit of mass, but in return the AWD system gives Gallardo drivers extra traction when the road ahead is slick and unfamiliar. The Balboni edition, on the other hand, is a nod to the driver's tail-happy antics and can produce lurid powerslides at the slightest provocation.
Used Lamborghini Gallardo Models
The Lamborghini Gallardo debuted for 2004 in a coupe body style only. Originally, it was powered by a 493-hp version of the 5.0-liter V10. The same transmission options were available, although e-gear was improved over the years for better shift response. For 2006, the lineup expanded to include the spyder convertible with an automatic folding soft top, and a limited-production SE model featuring 520 hp, shortened gear ratios, revised suspension tuning, quickened steering, better tires, a new exhaust, special trim and two-tone color schemes. Other than the colors and trim, all the SE's mechanical improvements were made to the standard Gallardo later that model year. For '07, a change in horsepower measurement technique resulted in a lowering of hp to 512.
Produced only for 2008 was the Gallardo Superleggera. This coupe-only model was modified for even better performance. It featured 522 hp, slightly different suspension settings and an approximate 150-pound-lighter curb weight thanks to extensive use of carbon fiber and reduced feature content. It would be a rare used car find.
For 2009, the current Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 arrived along with a number of updates. Compared to those that came before, it lost 45 pounds and gained 40 additional horses as well as quicker e-gear shift times. There was also revised exterior styling, particularly around the rear fascia and taillight area, which softened the Gallardo's angularity a bit. Chassis rigidity was also stiffened. Finally, the Gallardo LP560-4 differs from the previous Gallardo from rear suspension modifications adopted from its Audi R8 platform-mate, which enhanced the Gallardo's already otherworldly cornering capabilities.
There was no Gallardo Spyder for '09, but it was reintroduced for 2010 with the same changes made the previous year for the LP560-4. That year also introduced the Valentino Balboni special edition in honor of the noted Lamborghini test driver's retirement.

cars design training video

Audi R8 Review

 

Yes, I own the keys to a smoking hot new Audi R8 and this is a review for those with the cash to burn, but there’s more to the story than that. Before I go into detail and review this goddess of a vehicle, I’ll explain how I came to own an Audi R8. Um, It’s mine till Monday, thanks to Audi and my friend Wang Chuanfuh. It’s a long story, but the fact that my birthday is July 17th (tomorrow) and having talked with Wang and explained the R8 is one of my all time favorite cars, that and possibly working with Audi’s marketing department next month for a bit all turned into what I consider, a freak of nature opportunity.

I got a call from an Audi Rep, headed over to an Audi warehouse or whatever they call it, and had a look at some of the R8’s there. The Rep sat with me in one I picked out, the one down bellow, yes, ha, die of jealousy, and talked me through the specs, as if I didn’t already know them by heart.
Then, he handed me the keys, and another rep came and gave me some paper work, said keep that with you, it’s your car till Monday, bring it back in one piece if you can. She smiled and walked away, I was left sitting in the car, keys in one hand, paper work that I didn’t even have to sign in the other…the Audi R8 was mine. All mine…

So, apart from having driven it practically none stop since I got it, and oh the joy i’ve had showing off, unbelievable, I have finally decided to type up a review, so without further delay, here’s my review on the Audi R8:
First off, the Audi R8 will make you weak at the knees, at the elbows, ankles, finger joints, at the everything. It’s the best thing Audi has produced since sliced bread, yes Audi are the ones responsible for sliced bread, don’t doubt my words, I am typing this on my macbook from the back of my (yes, my) parked R8, so i know what i’m talking about.
Let’s take a look at this beasts Performance:
Let’s look at it this way, 100kmh in 4 seconds flat with a top speed of 300kmh…yes I knew you knew it was a supercar, but do you get what those numbers mean? Earth-shattering. The speed would grow hair on a babies chest. Stick your head out the passenger window with it doing 300kmh and you will be smiling for life, whether you like it or not…and yes, I can confirm that it does around a 100kmh in 4 seconds…I had to give it a shot, what can I say. Then there’s the 4.2 v8 Lion that comes with it…really, it’s untouchable.
The handling in the R8 is second to none, and while it’s four-wheel drive, most of the insanity (power) is directed to the back wheels making it that much more of a ‘car’. You can really tell Audi has done unthinkable magic to get the Audi R8 the way it is, to handle how it does, to drive the way ti does.
The R8 is not Cool. You can’t call the R8 cool and expect to be taken seriously, if you think it’s cool you have not driven one.
The R8 is  totally ballistic bordering impracticality and by it’s own right the most outrageous car on the planet. It has it’s own little bubble filled with special awesomeness made up of angelic baby monk  farts and all things wonderful in this world, and nothing can change that.
Another thing, the interior…I tried to take a picture of the interior,  my lens cracked. You know how they say real angels are so magnificent and pure that if you were to lay your eyes on them, you’d lose your eyes, and mind, and go mental? I would live in the R8, I would eat sleep and …. yes, in the R8. Hell it’s more comfortable than my $3,700 leather sofa made from baby unicorn skin.
It’s comfortable, great vision, and surprisingly quite when you’re not unleashing hell. It’s low, so if you have a bad back, I suggest you get a back transplant, because not owning an Audi R8 simply because of a blown out back or old age is not an excuse you pussy. Sell you kids, a kidney, or both  and buy one, i’m serious.
While it’s a supercar and servicing will more than likely have to be paid in uncut diamonds, it really is worth it, and nothing to worry about if you can afford it in the first place. It’s as impressive as a Lamborghini Reventon that I recently drove, much more affordable and easily an every day car too.
Anyway, I want to thank Audi again for this experience, the car is as awesome as I thought it was the day it was brought to life. And Wang, I owe you one, thank you

2010 Lancer GTS Review

I say “Mitsubishi.” You think “Evo.” And not much else, except perhaps, “Are they still around?” The problem: not many people are willing and able to spend BMW money for a Mitsubishi, even if it does offer stellar performance. So Mitsubishi developed the Lancer Ralliart, with a detuned Evo engine, less sophisticated AWD system, and softer suspension. The TTAC conclusion: “save up for the Evo.” Want a manual transmission? Then the Ralliart isn’t an option anyway. And, with a starting price over $28,000, it’s still pricey. So, how about the Lancer GTS, with a standard manual transmission and a starting price just over $20,000?

The Lancer GTS shares the Ralliart’s and Evo’s convervative, mildly upscale styling, sans Audified grille but mit ricerific wing spoiler and 18-inch multi-spoke alloys. When introduced for the 2008 model year the Lancer was one of the more attractive cars in the segment, with more than a hint of Volvo S40. Today it looks either timeless or mildly dated, take your pick, while staking out the middle ground between the trendy, overstyled Mazda3 and the homely, understyled Subaru Impreza. Select the $150 “rotor glow” orange paint if you desire to attract eyeballs.

The Lancer’s budget-grade interior plastics and switchgear seem much more acceptable (if still behind the curve) when the window sticker is comfortably under $25,000 than when it’s over $35,000. As with the exterior, the cabin’s styling is restrained, with a hint of BMW in the instrument panel’s convex curve from door to door. Optional leather upholstery takes the interior ambiance up a notch, but no one will feel like they’re living large. The new Chevrolet Cruze demonstrates how much more is possible at this price point.

One bonus: the Sun and Sound Package’s 710-watt Rockford Fosgate audio system can rock the neighborhood, though sound clarity at “11” doesn’t seem to have been a top priority. “Punch” the large subwoofer in the trunk up to +6 to shake everything within a 100-yard radius. On the other hand, this package’s keyless access system proved finicky. I never did figure out how to make it work the first time, every time.

The driving position combines the good, the bad, and the ugly. Good: you sit a little lower than in most compact cars, so the Lancer feels sportier and less like the budget compact it is. Bad: the wing spoiler splits the rear view, and is thick enough to largely obscure following cars. (Solution: get the hatchback.) Ugly: the steering wheel (wrapped in overly slick leather) is too far away, and does not telescope. And indifferent: the front seats don’t feel substantial and provide modest lateral support. The rear seat is roomier than most in the segment, but is a little low to the floor.

With the Ralliart’s and Evo’s turbocharged engines kicking out 237 and 291 horsepower, respectively, the GTS’s 168-horsepower 2.4-liter normally aspirated four is clearly third best. But how much power do you need, really, especially when not saddled with the weight of all-wheel-drive? The 2.4 feels much more energetic than the 148-horsepower 2.0-liter in lesser Lancers, and is competitive with the 2.3 in the Mazda3 s and the 2.4 in the Kia Forte EX. There was a time not so long ago that a compact with this much power was considered quick. The 2.4 sounds a little raspy when pushed, almost as if there was a small leak in the intake, but otherwise sings a pleasantly mechanical song. Peak output nearer 200 horsepower might be nice, but as-is the engine’s powerband is usefully broad. Consequently, the five-speed manual’s relatively tall, widely spaced ratios aren’t an issue. Engine speed is about 3,500 at 80, not too bad. The 2.4 is smooth enough that around town I sometimes found myself cruising in third, and could have driven it at 5,000 rpm all day long. Shifting feels like pushing and pulling cables, but it’s easy to find the desired gear and effort is low. It’ll do, but a short throw kit is an obvious mod.

The EPA ratings of 20/28 (improved to 22/31 for 2011) are a little low for the segment. In the real world, I observed from 22 to 28 MPG depending on frequency of stops, and generally averaged 25. A very aggressive drive around a curvy test loop sunk it to 10.1, but this was more a testament to how I was driving the car.

Why bother pushing the Lancer hard enough to nearly sink MPG into the single digits? Because, despite the car’s middling specs and various shortcomings, it’s quite fun to drive. The light steering gets more communicative as it loads up. In hard turns you know exactly what’s going on at the contact patches. The steering is so quick just off center that the car initially felt unstable at highway speeds, but I soon got used to it. There’s a fair amount of roll—some will find the suspension too soft—but no untoward body motions. The Lancer doesn’t feel quite as precise and tied down as the Mazda3, but it’s close. The stability control cuts in a little too early to rein in understeer (which isn’t excessive). The system is unobtrusive—an idiot light is often the only obvious indication that it has intervened—but turning it off permits higher cornering speeds with little risk. The Lancer’s handling remains thoroughly progressive and predictable right up to the limit. The Dunlop SP Sport 5000Ms squeal quietly, so they won’t draw undue attention.

NVH is about average—for 2008. So there’s enough wind and road noise, especially at higher speeds, to make it evident that you’re not in a premium car. The ride is a little thumpy, mostly due to the low profile tires, but isn’t harsh. For maximizing handling short of killing the ride, the tuning is about right.

Ultimately, the Mitsubishi Lancer GTS is more than the sum of its parts. The specs aren’t impressive. The interior and NVH, even less so. And yet it vies with the Mazda3 as the segment’s most enjoyable car to drive. By the end of the week, it felt like a car I’d been driving forever—in a good way. The loaded-up price of $23,000 seems a bit steep, even if it does get you the sunroof, leather, Rockford audio, and various uplevel electronic features. But with generous sales incentives or as a not-much-sought-after used car, and with a 5/60 standard warranty (plus 10/10 on the powertrain for the first owner), the Lancer GTS could be a great buy for the enthusiast on a budget who doesn’t want to drive what everyone else is driving.

The Chevy Volt: As Efficient As You Want It To Be

If the recent flap over the Volt’s drivetrain has taught us anything it’s that A) GM’s internal-combustion-assisted plug-in is more complicated than we thought, and B) GM is fine with simplifying its complex reality in order to make it appear as attractive as possible. Which is just fine: they’re the ones trying to sell a $41k car, and as such they’re entitled to do what they can to make it seem worth its many shortcomings. What the automotive media needs to take away from the brou-ha-ha isn’t necessarily that GM’s hesitance to bring forward “the whole truth” is an intrinsically big deal (let’s just say this wasn’t the first time), but rather that knowledgeable writers should focus on explaining the Volt in ways that are both comprehensible and fully accurate. In this spirit, the most important question isn’t “what should we call the Volt?” but “how efficient is the Volt in the real world?”And on this point, there’s plenty of room for some truthful clarification.

But as with questions of the Volt’s taxonomic category, objectively analyzing the Volt’s efficiency requires a certain amount of semantic clarity. After all, unlike any car that has come before, the Volt operates in two discrete modes: “EV mode,” in which it drives on pure electrical energy, and “Charge Sustaining” or “CS Mode,” in which its gas “range extending” engine generates electricity and (under certain circumstances) even sends torque directly the Volt’s wheels. Unlike a Prius (or other parallel hybrids), the Volt doesn’t continuously vary between gas and electric drive, but runs on pure plug-in power until the battery reaches 30 percent capacity, and then switches to CS Mode.

Because of this drivetrain concept, it’s crucial that EV Mode range is presented separately from CS Mode MPG. After all, combined MPGs from a trip using both EV and CS modes will depend entirely upon the length of the trip. If a trip lasts (say) five miles longer than the EV range (say, 40 miles in EV mode and five miles in CS mode), and the car returns (say) 50 MPG over those last five miles, it will have burnt .1 gallons for the entire trip, resulting in an average MPG of 450 MPG. But if you charge the car’s battery once (giving another hypothetical 40 miles of EV range) and then drive 450 miles (410 of which burn gas at the hypothetical rate of 50 MPG), you’d be lucky to get 55 miles per gallon for the trip. In short, how often you recharge the Volt’s batteries is the single defining factor in determining an overall MPG rating for the Volt.

And this reality is already leading to confusion. Over at Motor Trend, former TTAC writer Jonny Liebermann claims to have wrung 127 MPG out of his Volt tester, gushing

Broken down, over the course of 299 miles on Los Angeles highways, byways and freeways, the Volt burned 2.36 gallons of gasoline (fine, 2.359 gallons — we rounded up). Most other cars use up a tank of gas going 299 miles. The Volt, to reiterate, used 2.36 gallons over 299 miles. That’s freaking amazing!

Unfortunately, Lieberman prevents us from concurring with his breathless assessment by failing to include an accurate log of the trips he took to achieve that number. Working backwards through his less-than-scientifically-presented data, we reckon Lieberman got about 52.6 MPG in CS mode, with at least one battery recharge somewhere in the middle. That’s better than the consensus forming around the Volt’s CS-Mode efficiency (somewhere around 35 MPG according to Popular Mechanics and Car & Driver), but it’s still nowhere close to supporting 127 MPG as a consistently-achievable CS Mode rating (it’s also a number that GM would likely not stand by if pressed).Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t prevented GM’s social media and PR team from sending copious numbers of detractors to Lieberman’s piece by way of “educating” them.

Of course, Lieberman’s analysis is not without value: it shows that the Volt can achieve 127 MPG in “normal” driving. But with an extra charge-up somewhere in his poorly-defined test, he could easily have achieved twice that number (think the infamous “230 MPG“).  Without an actual trip log showing how much gas and electricity were used on each leg of his test, however, Lieberman’s 127 MPG number means nothing. By using it as proof that the Volt is indeed a “game changer” GM’s PR team is simply proving the extent to which they’re willing to exploit confusion (even among the august ranks of buff book contributors) in order to hype their car.

At the end of the day, the Volt’s efficiency will most accurately be represented to consumers by outlets that test EV range and CS mode range independently and transparently. Actual EV mode is important, because it will give consumers a real-world sense of how far they can go without using any gas (i.e. whether their commute is short enough to use the Volt regularly in EV mode alone). CS mode MPG is also important because it tells consumers what they can expect when the Volt’s EV range is expended. Any attempt to fuse the two into a number that can be compared to the MPG of a Prius or Escalade must be clearly qualified by a transparent accounting of the trips used to get that rating.

Thus far, a consensus on these points is building:

Popular Mechanics calculates a 33 mile average EV mode range, and between 32 and 36 MPG in CS mode.

C&D claims between 26 and “the upper 30s” for EV range in miles, and 35 MPG for CS mode.

We’ll keep a close eye on efficiency test results for the Volt, and report them here at TTAC in terms of EV range and CS mode efficiency. Anything else would be less than the whole truth.

Hyundai Sonata Turbo And The Economics Of Added Horsepower

For some people (you know who you are), the 200 horsepower provided by the 2011 Hyundai Sonata’s 2.4-liter four-cylinder base engine just isn’t enough. The traditional solution: a V6. But Hyundai, taking a page from Chrysler’s Iacocca-era playbook, has opted to offer a turbocharged 2.0-liter four instead. The specs look good: 274 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 269 pound-feet of torque from 1,750 rpm. The pricing? Even better. The Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T lists for $24,865, only $1,550 more than the regular Sonata SE. Are these the cheapest horses new car money can buy in a midsize sedan?

I ran the lot of them through TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool. This made it easy to similarly configure each car with both available engines and then adjust for remaining feature differences. Uplevel engines often come with features that aren’t offered with the base engine. In the case of the Sonata SE, the 2.0T adds dual zone climate control. The tool doesn’t adjust for wheel size, so I’ve added a $250 adjustment here (noted with an *).

Model	Std HP	Opt HP	Extra $	Adjusted	$/HP
Hyundai Sonata	200	274	1550	1225	16.55
Nissan Altima*	175	270	1395	1095	11.53
Volkswagen CC	200	280	5615	1290	16.13
Buick LaCrosse	182	280	1615	1615	16.48
Chevrolet Malibu	169	252	1595	1595	19.22
Ford Fusion	175	263	2105	1755	19.94
Honda Accord	190	271	2075	1650	20.37
Trimmed Mean					24.38
Mazda6 (2010)	170	272	2700	2600	25.49
Toyota Camry	169	268	2665	2665	26.92
Ford Taurus	263	365	4150	3200	31.37
Subaru Legacy	170	256	3300	3125	36.34
Buick Regal	182	220	1655	1655	39.40
Chevrolet Impala*	211	230	1810	1460	76.82
BMW 5-Series*	240	300	4150	3900	65.00

* includes $250 adjustment for one-inch difference in wheel diameter

A trimmed mean was calculated after excluding the outliers (Altima, Impala). The average price per horsepower: about $24.

A couple of GM sedans occupy the top end of the range. In both cases the cost of the optional engine isn’t out of line. Instead, the engine simply doesn’t provide much additional output. Buick might want to reconsider tuning the Regal’s turbocharged four for only 220 horsepower, given the much more powerful mills offered by Hyundai and most others. The Impala? Offering only 19 additional horsepower with the uplevel engine is just one of many ways it’s well past its sell-by date. Even BMW (5-Series included for comparison purposes) charges less power horsepower.

The Ford Taurus, also near the top of the range, is a unique case, since its base engine is about as powerful as the other cars’ uplevel engines. It simply costs more to go from 265 to 365 horsepower than from 165 to 265. In this case, you’re paying for not one but two turbos. These turbos could be providing more power, but the transaxle’s life would be endangered.

Subaru’s excuse? Unclear. They haven’t historically sold many flat sixes, and aren’t a large manufacturer, so lacking the others’ economies of scale their cost for each H6 is likely far higher. They used to charge even more for them.

Though not far from the average, Mazda and Toyota nevertheless charge about a grand more for a V6 than Buick, Honda, and Ford.

While the Hyundai Sonata 2.0T is within the low end of the range, it’s not quite the lowest. That honor goes to the Nissan Altima, by a substantial margin. Even without adjusting for feature differences the Altima would still lead the field. They’re charging fewer dollars per horsepower than anyone else AND tossing in plus-one alloys. So, if you’ve been wanting a VQ…

The Volkswagen CC is an odd case. Last year the VR6 cost thousands more—but could be purchased with fewer features. This year many features are no longer available on the 2.0T turbocharged four-cylinder, but everything is standard with the VR6. Hence the huge price adjustment—which only includes $100 for the VR6’s 600-watt Dynaudio sound system (for its surround sound feature). Essentially, if you’re ready, willing, and able to drop forty-large on a VW, they’re willing to charge only $16 per horsepower for the VR6. Even less, depending on how much the Dynaudio system is worth to you. On the other hand, if you don’t want to pay for all of the stuff, then no VR6 for you.

The LaCrosse is next. Buick has been touting the fuel economy benefits of equipping these heavy sedans with a direct-injected four-cylinder. But their pricing suggests that they’d rather sell you the much more brand-consistent V6. Bonus: it’s a 3.6-liter in all trim levels for 2011. The underwhelming 3.0-liter has been dropped.

Hyundai’s charging only pennies more for each extra horsepower than Buick. Seems they’re as eager to sell turbocharged engines as Buick is to not sell four-cylinders. The Sonata’s bonus: the new turbo four runs on regular unleaded (some of the others require premium), and with EPA ratings of 22/33 is nearly as fuel efficient as the base engine. Next closest: the Accord’s 20/30. Not in the ballpark: the Chevrolet Malibu’s 17/26.

So, what’s not to love? As with nearly every other car in the class, the Hyundai Sonata’s uplevel engine won’t be offered with a manual. Shift paddles will have to do. The unexpected exception: Buick’s Regal.

2011 Chevrolet Volt Take Two review

We’ve been hearing about the Chevrolet Volt for so long that it’s hard to believe that it is finally here. Or almost here. Close enough for a preview drive. And?

I never expected the Volt to look like the obviously impractical original concept. Similarly, I was not surprised that the production Volt resembles a prettified Prius, since the Toyota’s styling so successfully communicates its advanced technology to the general population. The most questionable aspect of the exterior design: the ultra-wide glossy black beltline moldings. They’re intended to disguise the small size of the side windows. Why not just make the windows larger? Because this would increase the load on the battery-powered AC.

Does the Volt’s interior seem like that of a $33,500 (post tax credit) car? Well, no. I was more impressed by the materials and workmanship of the much more conventional interior in the related, much less expensive, conventionally powered Cruze. But the Volt’s interior is distinctively styled, effectively communicates the car’s technology, and is significantly nicer than the interior in the Prius. If the Prius interior is good enough for a nearly $27,000 car (with nav)—and sales suggest that it is—then the Volt’s is good enough for a $33,500 car. Don’t care for the glossy white iPodish trim? Then get the dark trim instead. The reconfigurable LCD displays seem to provide a wealth of information, including a grade on your driving style (92 while I was trying to behave). But they provide no clear indication of when braking is hard enough to engage the conventional brakes (reducing efficiency). Also, no report of miles per kW-h while running off electricity. According to the GM exec in the back seat, few people desire such numerical statistics. Though GM will be adding features in the future—the Volt will be a work in progress. And more detailed reports are already available on the Internet, where the Volt regularly uploads data via OnStar. The controls on the center stack are the touch-sensitive type that recently debuted in the 2011 Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX. Whether or not you like them—I do—they’re the future. The oddest bit among the various odd bits of the interior: you must reach into a cave at the base of the center stack to grasp the shifter when it’s in Park.

The rake of the distant windshield is reasonable, obviating the need for windowlettes ahead of the doors. In the current GM fashion, the A-pillars are thick, if not quite to the point where they reduce safety more than they enhance it. Rearward visibility is considerably worse—the optional Park Assist Package is highly recommended. The front seats don’t feel as substantial or as solidly upholstered as those in the Cruze, but they do provide decent lateral support. Unlike in the Cruze, there’s only a single manual height adjustment, so the tilt of the seat cannot be adjusted. The rear seats are the weakest aspect of the car. Low to the floor, overly firm, and cramped, unless you’re a child (or the size of one) you won’t be comfortable. Cargo volume beneath the wiperless hatch is similarly marginal, but will do for typical around town errands. The Prius offers considerably more room for both rear passengers and cargo.

The Volt’s powertrain is more complex than previously imagined. Around town with the battery pack at a viable level of charge, the primary 149-horsepower electric motor-generator powers the car through a fixed gear ratio. At highway speeds this ratio becomes too short, so a second, smaller motor-generator engages the planetary gearset to reduce the ratio. Once the battery pack is depleted (figure 30-50 miles), a 84-horsepower 1.4-liter gas engine automatically starts. Around town it spins the smaller motor-generator to send power to the primary motor-generator via the battery pack. At highway speeds with the battery pack depleted, the second motor-generator again engages the planetary gearset to vary the transmission ratio, but now with the gas engine coupled to it. In this last mode the gas engine enjoys a mechanical connection to the front wheels. While this mechanical connection has purists a little perturbed, it is more efficient when running on gasoline. Personally, I’d prefer a mechanical connection at lower speeds for the same reason, though perhaps the powertrain design, with the engine only driving the planetary gearset through the smaller motor-generator, precludes this.

So, what does it all feel like? Surprisingly normal. I feared that a gas engine decoupled from the drivetrain and running to suit the needs of the battery would sound odd. Would the engine sometimes be racing while sitting at a traffic light? As it turns out, no. If anything, the Volt’s engine sounds less disconnected from the accelerator than that in the typical CVT-equipped conventional car. Transitions among the various modes are not only smoother than those in the Prius or Ford Fusion Hybrid, but are nearly undetectable. In some situations the engine might be a little too undetectable, as it sometimes generates a low frequency rumble right at the edge of perception. A barely perceptible noise can be more annoying than one a bit louder.

GM suggests that, given the high torque output of the primary motor-generator, the Volt feels about as strong at low speeds as a V6-powered sedan. Well, not really. But even with four adults aboard the Volt does feel considerably more energetic than a Prius, and almost as quick as the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Three driving modes are available, including one for mountains and “sport.” I detected little difference between normal and sport, apparently because my foot was too heavy. The modes make the most difference with the pedal less than half way to the floor. Moving the shifter from D to L aggressively engages brake-energy regeneration whenever you lift off the accelerator, nearly eliminating the need to use the brake pedal. I found this too aggressive for typical around town driving, but it would no doubt be welcome on a hilly road.

Only the first five miles of my drive were on battery power—there hadn’t been much time for a recharge since the car’s previous outing. I then babied the car for a while, and achieved about 35 MPG. The second half of my drive—when I was seeking the claimed V6-like low-speed performance—burned a gallon of gas every 28 miles. These figures are about five MPG short of the Fusion Hybrid when subjected to similar (mis)treatment, and about 10 to 15 MPG short of the Prius. GM envisioned the gas engine as backup power which most owners would not need often, so it was optimized for cost not fuel economy. They also talk about improving this aspect of the Volt in future iterations, with just about anything a potential future power source.

The biggest surprise: the Volt handles significantly better than either the Cruze or the Prius. GM has long demonstrated a talent for making cars feel larger and heavier than they actually are. With the Volt they’ve at long last accomplished the (for me at least) more desirable opposite. The steering isn’t exactly chatty, but through it even a fully occupied Volt feels light and agile, with minimal understeer, far exceeding my expectations. In contrast, even the latest Prius feels oddly heavy and pushes wide in turns. While the Volt is still certainly no sports car—even the Ford Fusion Hybrid feels a little sportier—it’ll serve well as a commuter. I sincerely hope the Volt team shares its chassis tuning tricks with the rest of GM.

Body motions are fairly well controlled, though some additional damping would be welcome. The Volt’s ride is a little firmer, busier, and noisier than that in the Cruze, but the Cruze rides better than anything else in its class. The Volt’s does ride better than the Prius and Fusion Hybrid. Among efficiency-maximizing alt-energy cars, this is about as good as it gets.

People have been critical of the Volt’s pricing, but a $7,500 tax credit brings the net MSRP down to $33,500. Nearly everything, including nav and the fancy displays, is standard. Options are limited to heated leather seats, the Park Assist Package, and polished wheels. TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool suggests that the Prius lists for about $4,000 less when both cars are equipped with leather, nav, and 17-inch alloys. A Ford Fusion Hybrid with nav lists for only $1,150 less. Adjust for feature differences (most notably a sunroof, unavailable on the Volt), and the Ford’s advantage increases to about $3,000. Adding leather to both cars adds about $1,000 to both figures—Ford kicks in additional savings when all of the boxes are checked. Three or four grand isn’t pocket change, but it seems reasonable for the Volt’s extended electric-only capability. Likely a better value: GM is offering a lease for $2,500 down and $350 a month.

So, my first drive of the Chevrolet Volt included a few surprises, nearly all of them to the upside. The largest: oddly enough, the handling. The powertrain most impressed with its normalcy. The largest disappointment: the small rear seat. GM has clearly put a great deal of thought and effort into this car, and achieved a much higher level of detailed execution and refinement than I thought possible just a few years ago. My personal commute extends all the way from the second floor of my home to the first. So no Volt for me. But if you daily spend an hour or two commuting, and the thought of expending no gas in the process excites you, then go ahead and get in line. At least initially, there’s likely to be one.

2009 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class Road Test Review

Vehicle Tested:	2009 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class SLK55 AMG 2dr Convertible (5.4L 8cyl 7A)
Pros:	Stupendously powerful V8, addictive engine and exhaust notes, retractable-hardtop versatility, capable handling, brilliant voice-command functionality.
Cons:	Mandatory automatic transmission, miserable stereo, COMAND interface is a hassle without voice commands.

So you've got yourself a dilemma. You're in the market for a high-end roadster, but your country club's parking lot is so full of Boxsters and 911 Cabriolets, it makes you wonder if Porsche owns the place. Not that you'd really consider those cars anyway — they're soft-top only, and besides, they sound like lawnmowers. But what should you buy instead? Here's an unconventional answer: a 2009 Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG.
Why unconventional? For one thing, the SLK55 is stuck with an automatic transmission. Not an automated-clutch manual, mind you, but an old-fashioned slushbox that doesn't even blip the throttle on downshifts. Most competitors offer stick shifts, and Porsche's new dual-clutch PDK tranny punts the Benz's slow-witted seven-speed into the Schwartzwald. Furthermore, Mercedes isn't exactly renowned for making world-class sports cars, though this AMG drop top does corner athletically when you give it the crop.
But the SLK55 has more than just a slick retractable hardtop to lord over its Porsche compatriots. In a deliciously vulgar rejection of the "less is more" approach, Mercedes has gone and wedged a gigantic hand-built 5.4-liter V8 under this Miata-sized hooligan's hood. That's the same displacement as the top-of-the-line V8 in Ford's F-150 full-size pickup; what's more, the F-150 would actually benefit from an engine swap, as the SLK55's mill makes 45 more horsepower and 11 more pound-feet of torque. In other words, this is one bad little Benz. Put your foot down at any speed and the SLK55 hurtles forward like a runaway locomotive, quad exhaust tips belting out an intoxicating eight-cylinder symphony.
When you're not feeling felonious, the SLK55 makes for a surprisingly civilized companion, boasting well-shaped seats, a tolerably firm ride and a refined top-up demeanor marred only by intrusive road noise over coarse surfaces. It's an adroit double act that recalls the SLK55's big brother, the SL63, which costs twice as much. The SLK55 still doesn't come cheap, but our nicely optioned tester's $72,545 sticker isn't entirely unreasonable for a wickedly fast V8-powered luxury roadster. Lackluster transmission notwithstanding, we strongly recommend asking the Lord to buy you this Mercedes-Benz.

Performance

The rear-wheel-drive 2009 Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG is powered by a 5.4-liter V8 that pumps out 355 hp and 376 lb-ft of torque. A seven-speed automatic with manual control is the only available transmission, and it's the SLK55's weakest link. Manual downshifts aren't rev-matched, and overall responsiveness is disappointing. At the test track, our SLK lunged from zero to 60 mph in a fleet 4.9 seconds and blasted through the quarter-mile in 13 seconds flat at 108.8 mph. It might have been quicker still with grippier tires, as wheelspin was a limiting factor in the first two gears.
On the road, the SLK55 AMG is essentially a modern-day Shelby Cobra, albeit with a thick layer of luxury slathered on top. The Benz's basic formula comes straight from that icon's playbook: Start with a capable compact roadster, stuff it to the gills with a honking V8, sharpen the suspension and proceed to scare the living daylights out of people. Cars don't get much more thrilling than a top-down SLK55 at full throttle, engine roaring, landscape blurring, speedometer needle spinning clockwise at an impossibly rapid rate. With an as-tested weight of 3,474 pounds, the feature-laden SLK55 is hardly an elemental sports car, but only the most depraved horsepower fiend will find its acceleration wanting.
When the straights turn to curves, the SLK55 remains in its element. The new-for-2009 "Direct Steer" variable-ratio steering isn't hyper-responsive, but it's crisp enough, and there's a reassuring heft that builds as cornering loads increase. Body roll is negligible, and there's plenty of grip for spirited driving on public roads. However, we found this short-wheelbase Benz was best at nine-tenths or less — push it to the limit and the SLK55 gets squirrelly.
Our best panic stop from 60 mph in the SLK55 took 115 feet, which isn't particularly impressive for this class. Nonetheless, the Benz's binders feel imperturbable under all conditions — "autobahn brakes," as our track driver put it. Against EPA fuel-economy ratings of 14 mpg city/22 highway and 17 combined, we averaged just over 17 mpg — remarkable considering that the gas pedal was frequently pinned to the floor.

Comfort

The 2009 Mercedes SLK55 AMG greets you with up to 15 rapid-fire econocar-style beeps when you twist the key. We're surprised Mercedes hasn't taken a page out of BMW's book and gone with a mellifluous chime instead. Once you're under way, the hardtop provides superior insulation from the elements, but road noise can be objectionable. With the top down, there's little cowl shake to speak of, and wind buffeting at highway speeds is easily mitigated by raising the windows.
The SLK55's ride is notably taut, yet impact harshness is mostly absent, a trademark of German luxury cars. The seats are 911-like — they don't look like much, but somehow they manage to provide exemplary support and adequate long-distance comfort. You can forget about suavely hanging your arm over the windowsill, though, thanks to the SLK's prohibitively high beltline. Oddly, legroom is limited on the passenger side, but our lankier editors had no problem getting comfortable behind the wheel.

Function

The SLK55's primary gauges are clear and easily read at a glance. Climate controls are idiot-proof: two big rotary knobs control fan speed and airflow, and well-labeled buttons take care of the rest. On the downside, sound quality from the upgraded Harman Kardon Logic 7 stereo is abysmal — the only speakers aft of the seats are two tiny tweeters in the upper center storage bin, creating a forward-biased sound stage, and the sound itself is a weak and muddy mix of indistinct lows and tinny highs, especially with the top down.
The familiar COMAND interface — which controls audio, navigation and Bluetooth functions — employs a dash-mounted four-way keypad that can be a bear to operate. However, our test car's optional enhanced voice control system was a revelation. When you pull the dedicated stalk on the steering column, a list of possible voice commands pops up on the display screen; say one aloud and COMAND reliably complies. Virtually every common function is covered, so we mostly just told the Benz what to do rather than mess with the buttons and menus ourselves. Imagine telling the navigation system your destination on the fly, then canceling it once you're close by simply pulling the stalk and saying, "Cancel route guidance." It's a brilliant system, and we think it points to a brighter automotive future in which the maddening complexity of modern multimedia interfaces will be neutralized by well-executed voice-command functionality.
In our real-world usability tests, the SLK55's respectable 9.8-cubic-foot trunk proved adequate for a two-person weekend getaway, but not much more than that. While our standard suitcase fit fine, little else would have fit alongside it. We had to remove the woods from our golf bag in order to squeeze it in; owners may well decide to save themselves the hassle and let the clubs ride shotgun.

Design/Fit and Finish

The 2009 Mercedes-Benz SLK55 gets the AMG exterior treatment, and we like its aggressive yet restrained look. The hardtop is stylishly integrated, whether raised or lowered. Inside, the dashboard layout isn't very sporty, but materials quality is good save for the sun visors, which are made of hard plastic and inexplicably perforated. Our test car's only notable build issue was the failure of the tachometer's 2,250-rpm hash mark to illuminate.

Who Should Consider This Vehicle

Luxury roadster shoppers who want V8 vigor and a retractable hardtop in a pint-sized package — and don't mind settling for a slushbox.

2011 Honda Accord Road Test Review

Vehicle Tested:	2011 Honda Accord SE 4dr Sedan (2.4L 4cyl 5A)
Pros:	Ample passenger space; communicative steering; excellent visibility; class-leading fuel economy.
Cons:	Poor braking performance; intrusive road noise; unimpressive interior quality.

Describing the Honda Accord has sadly become a lot like describing a refrigerator: "It works, there is a lot of space inside, it doesn't use that much energy and it's likely to last a really long time."
Maybe some folks would like their fridge to have double freezer drawers or a motion-activated touchscreen that can tell you the proper drinking temperature of orange juice, but for most, all they need is simple, spacious, efficient and dependable. That certainly sums up the 2011 Honda Accord as well.
Now, there is obviously nothing wrong with these qualities and in fact, the Honda Accord has become an institution in America because of them, selling 290,056 examples last year to prove it. And yet the Accord used to leave a more lasting impression with us. It was once consistently the most enjoyable sedan to drive, its cabin was once consistently the finest in the class and it was once consistently pretty sharp-looking as well.
Through a combination of Honda's own doing and a number of thoroughly impressive new competitors, the 2011 Honda Accord now falls short in those areas that once made it as much a desirable choice as it was a sensible one.

Photos

View More Photos

• 
  Enlarge Photo
  For 2011, the Accord gets some slats in its grille and a reshaped lower fascia.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)
• 
  Enlarge Photo
  The interior is still plain and still has a lot of buttons.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)
• 
  Enlarge Photo
  As if the tacked-on trunk reflectors aren't enough, the bumper and body are two different shades of silver.
  (photo by: Scott Jacobs)

Performance

Thanks to myriad small changes made to its engines, aerodynamics, tires, transmission and other attributes, the 2011 Honda Accord achieves better fuel economy than last year's model and indeed all naturally aspirated four-cylinders in its class (the optional V6 is also now tops). With its 2.4-liter inline-4, the Accord returns an EPA-estimated 23 city/34 highway and 27 combined mpg. This isn't a big advantage over its rivals, but best is still best.
As before, how much power the 2011 Honda Accord's 2.4-liter produces depends on the trim level you choose. The new SE model gets the same lower output as the LX and LX-P trims, with 177 horsepower versus the 190 present in the EX. While this engine makes smoother, more pleasing noises than other four-cylinders (Honda hasn't lost its mojo in this regard), it just doesn't have the guts to get such a big, heavy sedan moving as quickly as do competitor vehicles with more power and/or less weight. It now takes 9.2 seconds to get this 3,290-pound 2011 Honda Accord SE to 60 mph from a standstill, a second longer than the Hyundai Sonata. It's honestly difficult to tell such a difference while puttering around town, but should you need to pass someone on the freeway or charge up a hill, the Accord is bound to feel a bit overwhelmed.
Overwhelmed is a pretty good word to describe the Dunlop tires affixed to the SE's 16-inch alloy wheels. Though they are designed to help fuel economy, grippy they are not, contributing to disappointing handling and below-average braking. In testing, the Accord came to a panic stop from 60 mph in a longish 136 feet, with subsequent test runs resulting in excessive fade and smoking brake pads. This is an unfortunately typical Honda attribute and one to be aware of should you live in hilly terrain.
On the tight roads associated with such hilly terrain (or even around town), the big Accord doesn't feel as big as you'd think, but it still lacks the agile feel of its predecessors, not to mention athletic rivals like the Mazda 6 and Suzuki Kizashi. The Honda's highly tactile steering is a saving grace, however. With its small-diameter wheel and quick ratio, the Accord imparts a communication with the driver that thankfully remains a hallmark.

Comfort

The Accord's lightweight doors close with a reassuring, well-damped thump. Once situated in the driver seat, your first action is likely to be reaching for the power-adjustable lumbar support. With a lowest lumbar setting similar to the highest of many other car seats, the Accord's chairs can feel like you're sitting against a rolled-up towel unless your spine is shaped to match. If it isn't, we've found you either sit against the Accord's seatback rather than in it, or are forced to sit in an absurdly upright position. One staffer dubbed it the "corrective posture chair." If it fits you, you'll love it, but if it doesn't, this is a deal-breaker.
No such problems exist in the backseat, which is mounted high for good thigh support, yet still provides an abundance of headroom. With legroom also in excess for those of tall stature, we've found the 2011 Honda Accord to have the most welcoming backseat in the midsize class. It is also the easiest in which to install a child seat, be it front-facing or rear-facing.
Visibility from behind the wheel is very good thanks to the cabin's thin pillars, so parking and lane changes are easy. All that glass doesn't help with the Accord's inability to insulate you from road noise, though. There is excessive tire thrum even at lower speeds, and it doesn't take a decibel meter to know that the Accord is louder than its rivals.

Function

While we've frequently criticized the Accord for the ugly and confusing array of buttons that appears on the dash when the Honda navigation system is on the equipment list, the Accord SE features a simplified layout that better differentiates between the climate and audio systems. Each button is enormous and clearly identified in large font — if you can't read these controls, you probably shouldn't be driving. That said, there are still far too many buttons. Some of these buttons (and the large tuning knob with selector button) would probably come in handy for an iPod interface, but you can only get one of those with the EX trim or higher. (This worthwhile feature is standard on the cheapest Hyundai Sonata, as is Bluetooth.)
On paper, the Accord's 14.7-cubic-foot trunk is on the small side for the class, but it has a large opening and is thoughtfully shaped, making it seem usefully larger than its measurement would indicate. A large suitcase and two golf bags fit easily, though especially large items placed at the outermost portions of the trunk may be impeded by the drop-down gooseneck hinges.

Design/Fit and Finish

For 2011, the Honda Accord's styling has been updated to address some of the criticism this latest generation has received. We actually didn't mind the 2010 look, and we'd argue that the Accord's reworked face and tail has actually made things worse. Worst of all are the new red reflectors on the trunk lid. Honda tells us that they are a response to criticism that the sedan's rear end looks plainer than the front. We say it looks as if some special safety regulations for Finland have accidentally been applied to the 2011 Accords.
Inside, the same cabin design continues for 2011. The double-deck dash design still looks half-hearted and unharmonious, while all those buttons create a cluttered appearance. The quality of materials remains worse than the last-generation Accord, and all those buttons not only look cheap but feel cheap when you use them. Even with the new SE trim's heated leather seats, a base-model Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima or Suzuki Kizashi quite simply looks and feels more special than this car.

Who Should Consider This Vehicle

Should you prioritize simple, spacious, fuel-efficient and long-lasting transportation, the 2011 Honda Accord will deliver just as it always has. The SE trim level is a nice way to score leather upholstery and heated seats at a lower price point.
The Accord's competition is now stiffer than it's ever been, however, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't check out some of this car's rivals. The Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima are more powerful, have fancier cabins and are better equipped. The Mazda 6 and Suzuki Kizashi offer more athletic handling, and the Ford Fusion boasts tighter cabin quality and more high-tech features.

2011 Ford Fiesta Road Test Review

Vehicle Tested:	2011 Ford Fiesta SES 4dr Hatchback (1.6L 4cyl 5M)
Pros:	Big-car ride; small-car handling; subcompact fuel economy.
Cons:	Price easily creeps over $20K; automatic transmission troubled in stop-and-go traffic; problematic audio interface and display.

The first thing you'll notice when driving the top-of-the-line $17,795, 2011 Ford Fiesta SES four-door hatchback is all the attention it earns.
This test car's Yellow Blaze Metallic paint ($300 extra) certainly is eye-catching, but that's not the only reason the Fiesta gets so much attention. With so-called "Kinetic" styling from Ford's international team — meant to play equally well in Milan, Italy, or Milan, Michigan — the Fiesta is sleek, cool and a little daring. It's not what you expect from a car this size.
The 2011 Ford Fiesta looks like nothing else on the road today, including its main competitors, the Honda Fit, Mazda 3, or even Mini Cooper Clubman. And it also wants to be a different kind of car, too.

Performance

The Fiesta also drives like nothing else on the road, and certainly differently from the cars listed above. The four-door hatchback technically is a subcompact according to government regulations, but you'd never know it from the large-car ride and hushed cabin we experienced while driving on every kind of road surface we could find in Los Angeles.
Powered by a 120-horsepower 1.6-liter inline-4 engine that requires just 87-octane fuel, the Fiesta's mission is clearly not breathtaking acceleration but instead awe-inspiring fuel economy. Equipped with the six-speed automated manual transmission (a $1,070 option), the Fiesta's EPA-rated fuel economy is 29 city/38 highway mpg and 33 combined mpg. Our average over 300 miles was 31 mpg, leaving a bit more than 2 gallons of fuel in the car's 12-gallon tank.
Racing to 60 mph in the automatic-equipped 2011 Ford Fiesta SES Hatchback takes 10.5 seconds, a performance that places it midpack with similar cars in its segment. It comes to a stop from 60 mph in 116 feet.

Comfort

Ford has introduced the 2011 Fiesta in hopes of capturing the attention of people who would never have considered a small car before, and it has made available a premium package with all the comfort and convenience items you'd expect in a larger car.
Part of this effort is an optional six-speed automated manual transmission instead of a conventional automatic with a torque converter. More manufacturers intend to adopt the automated manual in place of the conventional automatic because it delivers fuel economy nearly as good as that from a manual transmission. Compared to the Fiesta's five-speed manual, the six-speed automatic improves fuel economy by 1 mpg EPA city and loses only 1 mpg EPA highway, while its EPA combined fuel economy is just 1 mpg less.
Since it shifts automatically, you'll usually be unaware of what kind of transmission you have, as there's not much shift shock in a dual-clutch automated manual and it goes about the business of seamlessly selecting appropriate gear ratios at the appropriate time, enhancing fuel economy even as it delivers set-it-and-forget-it use.

At the same time, the electronic programming that triggers a shift might still be in its infancy at Ford, as stop-and-go traffic seemed to flummox this automatic. There were times when its judgment about the timing of a shift didn't match our own, and we couldn't anticipate the way it would respond to changes in traffic patterns. Computer-chosen judgment calls about holding a gear, properly timing a smooth upshift, and conversely, providing a prompt and positive downshift to accelerate are sometimes misguided, late or absent altogether.

The six-speed automated manual is exactly the right kind of transmission in a car like the 2011 Ford Fiesta because it offers convenience with almost no sacrifice in performance or fuel economy. And yet we think that this Ford PowerShift unit needs a bit more development. At the moment the Fiesta's automatic has a low-range position for the console-mounted shift lever as well as a hill-descent program button, but we think it still needs to offer the ability to change gears manually and perhaps even shift paddles on the steering wheel.

Function

The 2011 Ford Fiesta SES benefits from Ford's noteworthy Sync infotainment system that integrates wireless phone, music (from a wired storage device or streaming through Bluetooth) and now what Ford calls TDI (traffic, directions and information). TDI amounts to turn-by-turn voice navigation thanks to instructions that are downloaded through your mobile phone via a toll-free call to the car.
At the same time, the red LED display at the top of the center stack that indicates Sync's presence requires a trip or two to the owner's manual to discover the full extent of its capabilities. Ford says it has designed the keypad and other buttons that accompany the screen to be as intuitive as those of a mobile phone, but we're not sure it has met the standard.
In terms of driver and passenger access and accommodations, the Fiesta SES offers ample space for front-seat passengers, who can enjoy leather buckets thanks to the $715 L package. Meanwhile, rear-seat passengers will find plenty of headroom, and only slightly less legroom than in a midsize car at 31 inches. Luggage space with all seats occupied is small at 15 cubic feet, but the L option package features 60/40-split folding rear seats, so cargo capacity can be expanded to 26 cubic feet.

Design/Fit and Finish

Perhaps the most remarkable quality of the Ford Fiesta is the quality with which it seems to have been put together. All doors shut with a reassuring thud, body panels fit evenly and even the interior looks and feels as if it belongs in a more expensive car. This might be meant to be an affordable car, but the interior has been designed with more than durability in mind.
If small-car safety is a concern, you'll be happy to learn that standard equipment on all Fiesta models includes stability- and traction-control systems, antilock brakes and seven airbags (including a driver's knee airbag). Though the NHTSA crash tests have yet to be completed, the IIHS awarded the Fiesta Sedan and Hatchback its "Top Safety Pick": the first time a subcompact has ever earned the influential organization's highest recommendation.

Who Should Consider This Vehicle

While our well-equipped top-tier Fiesta SES Hatchback cleared the $20,000 bar, we've observed the same build qualities in a base $13,995 Fiesta S sedan as well. So if you're looking for a simple small car as well as a nicely equipped one, the alternative is here for you.

With the 2011 Fiesta, Ford has bet its future in the U.S. on small cars. It's a big challenge to make a small, affordable package deliver the same standard of everyday comfort as the larger cars to which Americans have grown accustomed, yet the Fiesta is very much the stylish, economical, safe and well-built car that Europeans have been endorsing. The 2011 Ford Fiesta is a big deal in the small-car world.

2011 Honda Odyssey Road Test Review

The Maximum MinivanVehicle

Tested:	2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite 4dr Minivan (3.5L 6cyl 6A)
Pros:	Plentiful V6 power; quiet and calm cabin; lots of useful features; nimble (for a minivan); impressive utility.
Cons:	Top trim levels are expensive; button-heavy dashboard layout.

The family minivan is a staple of the American road. Sure, SUVs have taken a big bite out of the market in the last couple of decades, but when it comes to shuttling multiple passengers and their personal effects, minivans are as purpose-built as it gets. After spending quite a bit of time with the redesigned 2011 Honda Odyssey, we confidently proclaim it the best minivan you can get today.
From tip to stern, the Odyssey delivers just what the carpool demands — convenience, comfort and confidence. Accessing any of the eight seats is easier than one could manage in any SUV, and once in place, passengers are treated to a smooth and quiet ride that can best be described as luxurious. The new Honda Odyssey also has enough power under the hood to get out of its own way and a suspension that helps it get out of the way of most everything else.
Just like the morning carpool, though, the 2011 Honda Odyssey isn't all smiles and sing-a-longs. The Odyssey is more expensive than the competition. Our range-topping Touring Elite model is as fully loaded as they come, and its $44,000 price tag is likely to frighten away a good portion of shoppers. Rest assured, the lower trim levels are comparably good, albeit with fewer bells and whistles.
The Toyota Sienna is a close second to the Odyssey, with similar features and power, but it lacks Honda's confidence in the curves. Most minivan shoppers might consider handling a nonissue, and for them the decision between the two will likely come down to personal preference. But we contend that a vehicle's handling prowess is key to avoiding life's little unpleasantries. For its all-around excellence, the 2011 Honda Odyssey takes the minivan crown, and it should definitely be on your short list of family haulers.

Performance

Powering the 2011 Honda Odyssey is a 3.5-liter V6 that produces 248 horsepower and 250 pound-feet of torque. Touring and Touring Elite models like our test vehicle are equipped with a six-speed automatic transmission that drives the front wheels — lower trims make due with a five-speed unit.
With a curb weight of 4,540 pounds, the Odyssey's powertrain has its work cut out for it. At our test track, the big Honda hustled from a standstill to 60 mph in a confident 8.1 seconds, an improvement of 0.7 second over the previous-generation Odyssey. Braking is also improved, and the Honda comes to a halt from the same speed in 129 feet with no sign of brake fade after repeated runs.
Out on the open road, this amounts to an assuring feel when you're behind the wheel. There's plenty of power to decisively merge onto highways and pass slower traffic. The suspension also contributes to the Honda Odyssey's solid ride, with very little body roll in curves and a carlike demeanor in parking lots.

Comfort

The 2011 Honda Odyssey is remarkably composed, even on the most derelict road surfaces. Potholes, bumps and ruts are smoothed to nearly undetectable levels and the cabin remains as calm and quiet as a luxury sedan at highway speeds. Honda's ingenious use of noise-cancelling technology, along with an abundance of sound insulation, receives the credit here, ensuring a peaceful environment to keep the littlest of passengers in a blissful state of slumber.
We found it easy for drivers of all sizes and shapes to settle in to a comfortable position, with ample seat adjustments, headroom and legroom. Adult-size second-row passengers will also find the seating accommodations to their liking, with a wide range of seat travel and recline angle. Even the third row of seats will provide ample space and comfort for the average adult on an extended road trip.

Function

Outward visibility is commendable for driver and passengers alike, with large expanses of glass that provide a commanding view of the road. Backing into tight parking spaces is a breeze in the Odyssey, aided by a conventional rearview monitor as well as a secondary elevated camera. The mirrors are well-placed and adequately sized, while a blind-spot monitoring system adds an extra level of assurance.
When it comes to day-to-day family needs, the Odyssey's capabilities really begin to shine. Features like a sliding second-row center seat with LATCH anchors make us realize that the Honda engineers really sweated the details. This allows a center-mounted baby seat to slide closer to the driver or front passenger while the outboard passengers enjoy their preferred amount of legroom. As with the previous Odyssey, the center seat can be removed and the right-hand seat can be positioned in its place, permitting easier access to the third row.
We do wish that the button-heavy dashboard would have been bred out of the new-generation Odyssey. This time around, the numerous controls are more logically placed and within easier reach, but the mere fact that we counted no fewer than 80 buttons and knobs at the driver's command has us longing for a more elegant solution.
In Honda's defense, our Touring Elite test vehicle represents the fully loaded trim level, with every bell and whistle you can cram into it, and all of those systems have to be controlled somehow. Still, the simple act of playing a DVD for the rear passengers seems needlessly complicated — even more so if you decide to play two DVDs simultaneously — and a consultation with the owner's manual is usually required. Fortunately for the 2011 Honda Odyssey, the added features outweigh their perplexing operation.
Some operations, on the other hand, are as simple as can be. If the generous 38.4 cubic feet of cargo space behind the third-row seats is not enough, those seats will quickly fold away with a quick tug of a strap, providing more than 93 cubes of cargo volume. Removing the second-row seats is more difficult, but it makes for a maximum capacity of 148.5 cubic feet. Audio and iPod functions are also easily operated, especially with the voice command system that offers helpful on-screen prompts. The sound quality itself is top-notch, rivaling the high-end branded systems found in luxury cars.

Design/Fit and Finish

Making a minivan appealing is no easy task, but the 2011 Honda Odyssey succeeds in making an otherwise boring shape interesting. Beveled body panel shapes make the large expanses of sheet metal seem slim and light, while the illusion of a continuous side window and the "lightning bolt" beltline add some visual flair. The interior takes a more utilitarian approach to design, looking more like a midcycle refresh than a full redesign of the last Odyssey.
The materials within the cabin are nothing special, with hard plastics making up the majority of surfaces. But these surfaces are easy to clean — a plus for a family hauler. Some of the removable elements (front center console, center second-row seat) had a detectable wobble, but generally remained silent, leaving the cabin mostly squeak- and creak-free.

Who Should Consider This Vehicle

Our 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite represents the most well-equipped minivan on the market. As such, it also represents the most expensive. When you consider that the base Odyssey model will cost you $15,000 less, you can choose from a wide range of trim levels with increasing levels of luxury.
The Honda Odyssey has been the top pick in this category for several years, and the new 2011 model keeps that standing intact. In a close second, the Toyota Sienna delivers much of the same, but with significantly less driver engagement. The Kia Sedona is worthy of consideration for those on tighter budgets, as is the Mazda 5 for those who don't need as much space. The Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan appear competitive at first glance, but poor construction and materials have us steering shoppers away from them.