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.