Friday, March 18, 2011

Auto Review: 2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE is naughty by nature

Land Rovers have always gone their own way – often literally. While off-roading demands a low center of gravity and muddy trails would seem to warrant hose-out interiors and body-on-frame-construction, the British automaker has long contented itself building tippy-looking unibody boxes with tall greenhouses and opulent cabins – the anti-Humvee, as it were. Further, in recent iterations, they’ve packed their products with immense electronic systems, air suspensions, dial-a-topography Terrain Response controller, and so on… the very sort of complexity that ought to be enough to send English sports car enthusiasts running back to their therapists’ offices.
And yet, the formula has always worked – vehicles like the Range Rover and Discovery (now LR3) have somehow managed to earn both Kalahari-traversing credentials and valet stand privileges. Other companies have attempted the leather-lined off-roader thing before (Lamborghini, Lexus, Hummer, Porsche, and LaForza come to mind), but while some have added the trappings of luxury to their SUVs, exactly no one has been as successful in marrying their vehicles to the notion of aristocracy – the sort of “Lord and Master of All That I Survey” quality that has remained Solihull’s historic preserve. In short, Land Rovers have always been a gloriously and uniquely British contradiction on wheels – a fact that goes some way toward explaining why your author remains more than a little conflicted when it comes to this LR2.
2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE
A Contrarian SpiritAdmittedly, with more and more buyers flocking to the softroader pool, it made a good degree of sense for Land Rover to take a second crack at the market – even after the lackluster Freelander failed to find Stateside homes. Still, despite the solid concept of bringing a dose of the company’s values, styling and heritage to bear on the segment, there’s no getting around that the genre’s developing conventions are at odds with traditional Land Rover tenets – most of which the LR2 doggedly seeks to uphold. Allow us to explain.
These days, more and more such vehicles are coming to market with a lower ride height, minimal off-road ability, and wider, more voluptuous bodies that have the occupants sit lower in the chassis to subconsciously reinforce feelings of security and safety. Perhaps predictably, the LR2 hasn’t even waited for the crossover handbook’s ink to dry before throwing it out the window and into the mud.
On the styling front, our tester deployed a raft of premium touches – complex-element bi-Xenon adaptive headlamps (part of the $1,050 Lighting Package), clamshell hood, side vents, massive 19-inch alloys (in a new pattern for 2009), and in the case of our tester, impressively lustrous Rimini Red paint. Ultimately, however, the LR2′s rectilinear stance and slab sides strike at least some of us as gussied-up paint-by-numbers SUV bodyshell – not a unique form. This author would argue that the LR2 looks smallish and a bit like a lux variant of a more prosaic vehicle (say, Ford Escape?), and its jutting Leno-like mandible of a front bumper does it no favors. Somehow, the LR2 ultimately fails to cash-in on the Sub-Zero minimalist aesthetic advanced by the Green Oval’s other models. However, it does offer more traditionally rugged, upright SUV looks than its increasingly wagon-like foes – and that strikes us as a valuable (if niche) position worth saving.
Despite its somewhat gangly appearance, the LR2 is actually wider than its chief competitors (think: BMW X3, Audi Q5, Mercedes-Benz GLK, and Volvo XC60), yet it is also taller, has the shortest overall length and employs a markedly shorter wheelbase – all of which conspire to give it a comparatively tippy-toes look. This sensation is reinforced inside by the vehicle’s dining room chair seating and low beltline. That “on, not in” feeling is pure Land Rover, though, and it’s done for a reason – the formal driving position allows for a markedly better view of the vehicle’s corners and immediate surroundings than any of its competitors – an important factor when tiptoeing around boulders and threading down narrow two-tracks. Sadly, unlike many Range Rover and Discovery owners we know, we have trouble envisioning the average LR2 driver subjecting their vehicle to much more than the occasional curb hop or gravel road, so this strategy may be of limited merit, – even if it is necessary to stay on [brand] message.
Bright, But Boring
With the exception of the annoyingly contrived starting process (insert oversized fob into hidden slot below gauge binnacle, push in until it clicks, then reach up to push the separate engine start/stop button), just about everything in the interior is on the up-and-up ergonomically, with large buttons, simple layouts, and good switchgear feel. Better yet, the low, elbow-on-the-sills beltline and matching décolleté instrument panel combine with the standard twin-element sunroof to flood the interior with sunlight, lending it an open and airy sensation. Despite the abbreviated overall length and the titchy wheelbase, there’s plenty of room inside, again, thanks to the upright seating. And yet… the LR2′s interior has a bit too much starch in its collar for our tastes.
The dashboard itself is a style-free zone, some plastics are substandard, and worse still, the center stack is badly dated, with a too-small yestertech navigation touchscreen (part of the $3,500 Technology Package) set distractingly low in the dash, to say nothing of the separate 320-watt Alpine audio controls that lurk even further down (and whose old-fashioned display is prone to washing out in the aforementioned floods of sunlight). Still, points must be awarded for the beautiful and aromatic almond leather/nutmeg carpet combination (also new for 2009), easy-to-read instruments, and heated windscreen (part of the $700 Cold Climate Package). And although we chide Land Rover for its aging in-dash technologies, we’re quite pleased that they have yet to adopt an overly complex all-in-one GUI controller like their rivals at Audi, BMW and Benz.
Road Scholar? Well…
Despite casting the smallest shadow among its peers, the unibody LR2 is actually the heftiest customer of the compact premium class, toting around some 4,250 pounds (competitors generally ring up in the 4,000-4,200 pound range), a number that doesn’t bode well for the 3.2-liter inline-six, which only brings 230 horsepower (@ 6,300 rpm) to the party. That’s substantially fewer ponies than the LR2′s aforementioned adversaries, most of which corral upwards of 260 hp.
At least the Volvo-sourced 24-valver’s 234 pound-feet of torque (@ 3200 rpm) is in the hunt, albeit a bit higher up in the revband, though we wish the kickdowns from the Aisin-Warner six-speed transmissions happened a bit more smoothly and quickly. The latter’s sport mode helps somewhat, but blistering progress just isn’t on the menu – our rear-end accelerometers peg 60 mph as well north of 9 seconds (LR claims 8.4 seconds, but we’re not buying), while many of the LR2′s tarmac-oriented classmates will do the deed in under 7 clicks (and most will make more attractive noises while doing so). Because drivers will often find themselves dipping deep into the 3.2′s meager reserves, fuel economy fails to excite as well, with EPA figures of 15 mpg city and 22 highway (17 mpg combined), though we could only muster 15.2 per gallon of premium fuel in mostly highway driving.
Speaking of highway driving, you can expect lots of minor course-corrections on the superslab, especially when it’s windy. The quick steering rack (2.6-turns lock-to-lock) feels at odds with the rest of the LR2′s abilities, so as a consequence, it feels a bit wayward and unsettled – a sensation that’s magnified by the tallish seating position. There’s a good amount of pitch and yaw from the long-travel suspension as well, although confidence-inspiring, linear braking performance help assuage any dynamic fears.
The Dirty Iconoclast’s Payoff
But hang on – things can’t be all bad, can they? Hardly. While we didn’t take our HSE off-roading during its week with us in Michigan, we must confess to having prior knowledge of the LR2′s extensive off-road capabilities, having tested the model’s pluck at Biltmore Estate’s Land Rover Experience last year in Asheville, North Carolina. After traversing a muddy and slick forest and field course that included log bridges, side tilts, and teeth-gnashing, root strewn descents in the LR3 and big daddy Range Rover, we went back and did much of the course over again in the LR2, finding that it was more than up to the task.
In fact, things were much more exciting while off-roading in the baby Brit, largely because one didn’t feel as invincible. Lacking a proper low-range, momentum conservation became of paramount concern, making judicious two-footed juggling of the brake and throttle pedals increasingly important. With 8.3 inches of ground clearance (markedly less than the other air-suspended LRs, yet greater than any of its competitors), we had to pay close attention, but the LR2′s nippy best-in-class turning circle helped us negotiate narrow trails and tight tree stands that would hang-up larger vehicles, and the vehicle’s unusually erect driving position and excellent sightlines paid big dividends here, as did the long-travel suspension, which helped minimize head-toss and general skittishness that firmer road-oriented setups generally bring. Even the tight wheelbase helps with breakover angle.
With its Terrain Response Control (Driver-selectable modes: General/Snow/Sand/Mud & Ruts) and Hill Descent Control keeping an eye on everything from the four-wheel ventilated disc brakes (12.5-inch units in front, 12.0-inch out back) to our throttle position and the Haldex all-wheel drive system’s machinations, our LR2 scrambled up, over, and down obstacles that would’ve left its contemporaries quite literally gutted. Along the way, we heard lots of skid-plate scraping and some distressingly loud noises emanating from the HDC, but the LR2 prevailed unscathed in enough tough situations that its rivals look terrified of drizzle by comparison. If you live in a particularly hostile climate, this performance alone may be all the justification you need to pay a visit your local Land Rover Center.
A Question of Value(s)
To be fair, the LR2 isn’t exactly a new vehicle. While it has only been on the U.S. market since 2007, it went on sale earlier in Europe, and the GLK, Q5, are all more recent efforts, not to mention larger, more overtly road-focused outliers like the Lexus RX350 and Infiniti EX35. Critically, at a base price of $36,100 ($35,375 MSRP + $775 in destination charges), the LR2 undercuts many of its rivals, particularly when one visits the frankly extortionate option lists on some of its German rivals. Our full-house tester was $41,400 all-in, and a comparable X3 would run upwards of $48,000, although the Bimmer’s superior maintenance program and resale value blunt the value disparity.
For its part, Land Rover has just unveiled its massively updated 2010 Range Rover, Range Rover Sport, and LR3 lines, all models that have, to one extent or another, historically shared some of the LR2′s deficiencies (elderly interiors, underwhelming power). While we have yet to drive these new models, what we have seen suggests that Land Rover is serious about rectifying the bald spots in their product line. We hope that the LR2 is afforded the same treatment – and soon.
But enough with the conditionalizing. In the end, the LR2 is a willfully different product, and it is likely to stay that way, if only because it must. In order to stay true to Land Rover’s core values and brand essence, the LR2 had to prioritize off-road ability, segment expectations be damned. Call our tester a tenuous balancing act, call it inherently conflicted, call it a singularly unique constellation of skills, call it what you will – the ramifications of this vehicle’s design brief, both positive and negative, are felt in virtually every aspect of its being. Whether Land Rover’s engineers have made the right decisions in shaping the LR2 is a question of the buyer’s priorities. But one thing is for sure: If we ever had any doubts that the LR2 is a proper Range Rover, well, those days are gone.
2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE 2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE 2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE 2009 Land Rover LR2 HSE

Officially Official: BMW drops the details on its 2010 5 Series Gran Turismo

Despite the departure of controversial lead designer Chris Bangle, BMW is showing no signs of returning to the “One sausage, three-sizes” styling brief that it once adhered to. The latest proof of this is the announcement of the production 5 Series Gran Turismo, which, as expected, looks little changed from the concept that set tongues wagging in Geneva, save for a few details like smaller wheels, more conventional interior fabrics and real-world-sized side mirrors.
The genre-blurring BMW 5 Series GT is, in the words of BMW, meant to combine “the characteristic features of a prestige saloon, a modern, highly versatile Sports Activity Vehicle, and a classic Gran Turismo” – outwardly, at least, we’d say that they’ve succeeded in meeting that goal, although the final judgment on whether this amalgam of characteristics is a even a direction worth pursuing will ultimately be made by consumers.
In the meantime, we can focus not only on the five-door hatchback’s design, but also its internals, as BMW has released specifications and pricing for its European market models.
2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo
In the main, BMW has disclosed that Europe’s gasoline model range will be composed of the 306 horsepower, 3.0-liter 535i Gran Turismo (a derivative of the fabulous dual-turbo inline-six seen in the engine bays of the 1, 3, and 5 Series) and the 550i Gran Turismo, which relies on a stonking dual-turbo 4.4-liter V8 good for 407 horsepower, an engine that promises to be just the thing when you’re running late for your squash court appointment. Finally, there’s the 530d Gran Turismo, which offers a 3.0-liter, 245 horsepower I6 diesel powerplant and a tidy C02 rating of 173 grams per kilometer. Regardless of which engine the buyer chooses, the sole gearbox offering will be the eight-speed automatic gearbox borrowed from the 760i luxury sedan. The cog-happy unit should not only help with overall fuel economy, but it makes any model in the range a sprightly performer, with BMW quoting 0-62 mph times of 6.3 seconds for the 535i GT, 5.5 seconds for the 550i GT, and a thoroughly respectable 6.9 seconds for the 530d GT (which also achieves 43.5 miles per imperial gallon, or around 36 mpg US).
It isn’t yet clear what models will come to the States, but we’re hearing that the 550i will be the first to make the journey, and it is likely to arrive carrying a price tag of around $70,000, which would represent around a $10,000 premium over the less-powerful 550i sedan. Check out the official video and complete press release after the jump, as well as the massive high-res gallery below. Thanks to everyone for the tips!
[Source: BMW]
2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo 2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo 2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo 2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo 2010 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo

First Drive: 2010 Buick Regal

How’s this for culture shock? I’m driving a German-designed Buick alongside a Korean-designed Chevy through the streets of a Chinese city. Welcome to the future of General Motors. GM plans to double its sales in China over the next five years, to two million units. “China remains the centerpiece of our global growth strategy,” GM Asia-Pacific boss Nick Reilly said at the Shanghai show, where the GM stand featured 37 models, including the German-designed Buick and Korean-designed Chevy.
The Buick is the 2010 Regal. It’s an old American nameplate for a brand-new car — a rebadged version of the Opel Insignia, a stylish Fusion-size sedan that’s selling to critical acclaim in Europe, having recently been voted 2009 Car of the Year there by a jury of 59 European auto writers. The Opel-based 2010 Regal replaces the old W-body model that has been sold in China since 2003. Like its predecessor, it’s built in China by Shanghai-GM, the joint venture company operated by General Motors and Chinese automaker SAIC. GM is currently selling 5000 new Regals a month in China. (Here’s a startling contrast: Buick hasn’t sold 5000 a month of anything in the U.S. for some time.)
2010 Buick Regal
GM originally planned to make and sell this car here in the U.S. as the next-generation Saturn Aura. Saturn was to share Opel’s design language as part of GM’s global product realignment, but as Todd Lassa reported last year, the company subsequently decided Opel design was to be shared with Buick instead, and the Aura plan was axed. But could the Insignia still make it to America badged as a Buick?That depends. First, GM must get through what will almost certainly be a long and complex bankruptcy to emerge as a much smaller, leaner company with just four brands: Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. Second, it needs to figure where this Regal would fit in the American Buick lineup.
Like the 2010 LaCrosse, the 2010 Regal is built using GM’s Epsilon II architecture. However, the Regal sedan rolls on a 4.0-in.-shorter wheelbase and is shorter overall, with a much less roomy rear seat. While the LaCrosse will be powered by 3.0L and 3.6L V-6 engines, the Regal comes only with four-cylinder engines.
Base engine is a naturally aspirated 144-hp, 2.0L, while upscale Regals get a 167-hp 2.4L Ecotec. One of GM’s Shanghai show debuts was the Regal 2.0T, which is powered by a 217-hp, 2.0L direct-injection turbo four. The Insignia versions of the car in Europe are available with 1.8L gas and 2.0L turbodiesel fours, a 2.8L V-6 turbo, and all-wheel drive.
The Regal could therefore be positioned just below the LaCrosse as a slightly smaller, sportier model. Reports in the Canadian media have suggested the Regal could be built at GM’s Oshawa, Ontario, plant. However, there’s no reason why a post-bankruptcy GM, freed from pesky UAW constraints on what it can and cannot bring into America from its overseas factories, couldn’t simply import the Regal from China to keep the price low.
And before you start about harping about Chinese quality, a quick walk around our Regal revealed consistent panel gaps and glossy paint on the outside, with quality plastics and tight component fits on the inside. It’s a terrific-looking car: modern, characterful, sporty, with great stance and artfully sculpted sheetmetal. Though designed in Russelsheim, Germany, under the direction of Brit Mark Adams as an Opel, it works beautifully as a Buick – if anything, the toothy Buick waterfall grille, mounted in a new front fascia that includes reshaped lower intakes, gives it a stronger, more upscale presence than the Opel and Vauxhall warpaint it wears in Europe.
Designer Adams admits he pushed hard to get GM management to sign off on the car’s rakish roofline and tucked-in C-pillars. In profile, the Regal is almost a fastback, and rear seat headroom has suffered a little as a result. Rear-seat legroom is not class-leading, either, but if you want your new Buick a little more baggy fit, you’ll buy the LaCrosse. There’s a ton of room up front, as the Regal is fitted with long runners that allow the front seats to slide waaaaay back. Shaquille O’Neal could drive this thing.
The interior design is dynamic, attractive, and upscale. Our 2.4L tester was fitted with sat-nav, a harmon kardon sound system, cruise control, power seats with memory, auto headlights, and a sunroof. Were it not for the Chinese script on the trunk – it says “Shanghai-GM,” by the way – there’d no reason to suspect this car wasn’t made in Germany. Until you drive it.
Chinese roads are rough. Older streets are full of holes and broken tarmac, and even the new freeways and arterial roads that are being built at such a frantic pace the sat nav systems can’t keep up frequently have gut-wrenching heaves and humps. As a result, many automakers increase the ride height of their Chinese-spec cars to reduce the likelihood of having oil pans or transmissions torn out. Chinese drivers also tend to like their cars softly sprung. It’s not a happy combination.
The Regal floats along the freeway like a scaled down Roadmaster. The wheels pit-patter over the bumps, and rapid changes in direction result in hesitant transitions and plenty of body roll. Once it takes a set, however, the Regal’s demeanor remains relatively consistent, revealing some basic goodness in the chassis. My colleagues at Britain’s Autocar magazine, who have racked up hundreds of miles in Euro-spec Insignias, report that, with firmer springs, shocks, and bars, the car shows impressive stability at freeway speeds and is second only to Ford’s Mondeo – beating Honda’s Euro Accord and Mazda’s Euro 6 – in terms of driving dynamics. Memo, GM: If you bring the Regal to America, the European suspension tune is a must.
The powertrain strategy will also need a major rethink for America. The 2.4L Ecotec four is lazy and unresponsive. The poorly calibrated six speed auto is part of the problem, with widely space ratios and a torque converter that locks up very early – presumably in the interest of saving gas. Shanghai-GM claims it takes a leisurely 9.8 sec for the Regal to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. This thing would get its ass handed to it by a briskly driven Nissan Cube. American drivers, who like a solid shove between the shoulder blades away from the lights, would hate it.
The 256-hp turbocharged 2.8L V-6 available in Europe, which slashes the 0-to-60 time to 6.7 sec, might seem the obvious powertrain choice for the American market Regal. But I think the new Regal 2.0T might be a smarter play. With 217 hp at 5300 rpm, and a useful 259-lb-ft of torque from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm, it would deliver the performance feel American buyers want – Euro-spec 2.0Ts with six speed manuals will hit 60 mph in 7.2 sec, says GM, while the Chinese-spec version with the six speed automatic is good for 0-to-60 mph in 7.7sec – with the added benefits of better fuel economy and lower cost. What’s more, offering the Regal with a four-cylinder engine would clearly differentiate it from the from the V-6-powered LaCrosse range.
With the right engineering tweaks – the turbo powertrain and European suspension tuning – the Regal would definitely work in America. It’s physically smaller than the new Lacrosse and could be priced and positioned below it, giving GM a car to compete in a segment where the Asian automakers do solid business with smart, well-equipped cars like the Acura TSX, four-cylinder Mazda6, and Nissan Altima.
Crucially, the Regal 2.0T could be brought to America with minimal investment. With the aging Lucerne due to go away in 2010 and cash-strapped GM contemplating tough new fuel-consumption targets, plans to develop a large rear-drive Buick sedan positioned above the LaCrosse (it would be based on a stretched Zeta-derived platform that would also underpin a Cadillac STS/DTS replacement) are on hold. The Regal would give Buick – supposedly one of GM’s four core brands, remember – a modern, stylish sedan that would perfectly complement the new LaCrosse and the solid-selling Enclave.
[source:MotorTrend]
2010 Buick Regal 2010 Buick Regal 2010 Buick Regal 2010 Buick Regal 2010 Buick Regal

First Drive: 2010 Lexus IS C

This just in: Lexus is serious about claiming more of BMW‘s turf. When introduced nearly a decade ago, the Lexus IS 300 was a single-focus effort: one body style, one engine, take it or buy the BMW. The second-gen IS, launched in 2005, widened the view: two engines plus an all-wheel-drive version, but still served only in four-door-sedan form. Last year came the roaring, rumbling IS-F, Japan’s take on the BMW M3. And now, the IS C, the first IS with two doors instead of four, plus a retractable folding hardtop — a lot like BMW’s.
You’ll recognize the C as a member of the IS family, yet every body panel save the hood is new. Besides the obvious — doors, fenders, folding top — the fascias, light clusters, and detailing are C specific. Overall length is increased 2.2 inches over the sedan. Otherwise, says Lexus, the trunk would have looked too high and too short. The chassis architecture remains the same, but a considerable amount of work was done to regain the structural rigidity lost by going topless. There are numerous trusses and triangulation braces underneath, in the rocker panel areas, and behind the front seats.
2010 Lexus IS C
The top was designed, developed, and constructed in-house. It goes up and down quicker than any other in this category. Inside, the headliner covers everything. There’s not a brace or strut visible inside, and the effect is almost coupelike. Other aspects of the car are reengineered for top-down duty. For example, the audio system volume adjustments are reprogrammed when the top is down, and the HVAC system knows to deliver more air. The IS C has more trunk volume than do many retractables. There’s a handy button to power the passenger seat forward and aft, easing rear-seat access. There’s even a neatly engineered, removable windblocker — too bad that Lexus has the nerve to charge extra for it after doing so much work to make the IS C a complete convertible package. The top system makes use of steel, aluminum, and plastic panels. On average, an IS C is 360-380 pounds heavier than a comparably equipped sedan.Powertrain offerings are the same as in IS sedans. The IS 250C runs Lexus’ 2.5L V-6, good for 204 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque. Take your choice between six-speed automatic and manual transmissions. The IS 350C is powered by a 3.5L V-6, cranking out 306 hp, and 277 lb-ft. Your only choice here is a six-speed automatic. Why can’t you get the 3.5 with a manual trans? North America is the only market that sells the IS with the 3.5-liter engine; all others have the 2.5 gas or a 2.2 turbo diesel. The manual transmission was developed for those smaller engines and sells in reasonable volume. A different (stronger) transmission would be needed for the 3.5 along, and the modest sales potential for that combo doesn’t justify the development cost and certification. Given the car’s less ardent nature, it’s the right call.
There is a long list of standard features, as well as plenty of optional gear. As you’d expect, rear-seat room is so-so, but if the front passengers share their seat travel, it’s possible to pack a pair of adults in back for moderate jaunts.
We sampled all IS C variants: 2.5L and 3.5L engines; stick and automatic transmissions; standard 17-in. wheels and tires, and cars fitted with the optional 18-in. rolling stock. With that came a surprise. Like you, we normally head straight for the biggest engine, stiffest suspension, and largest boots on the order blank. Although that combination proved the most capable, it wasn’t the most pleasant. In order to appreciate the IS-C’s mission in life — stylish, luxurious, top-down transport — you have to get comfy with the fact that it’s a cruiser, not a racer.
The 3.5L’s 306 horses shake off the convertible’s extra 360-380 lb pretty easily. Lexus claims 0-60 in 5.8 sec, which feels right. The 2.5 works hard to deliver the same in 8.4 sec, but the difference isn’t as gaping as it sounds. Driven casually — as a near-lux convertible along California’s Pacific Coast Highway at sunset — it does just fine (make sure to set the ECT button on Power). These are typical Lexus engines: turbine smooth with a flat power curve, if a bit lifeless, slow to rev, and devoid of a tasty exhaust note. But they move the car nicely in cruise or commuter mode.
Lexus admits that, even with all the additional chassis rigidity measures undertaken, the IS C loses about 15% of its torsional stiffness compared with the sedan. This takes form as minor cowl shake and body tremors when the pavement is anything other than super smooth. It’s more noticeable with the top down and further accentuated in an example equipped with 18-in. wheels. Less is more in this case, since the 17s’ taller sidewalls absorb road impacts that would otherwise set the body a-wiggle.
No complaints on ride quality. The IS C is supple without being mushy. It’s quiet too. With the top up, there’s nary a squeak or creak from the top – impressive — and minimal windnoise. Top down, wind buffeting feels about the same as in other cars in this category. Pop for the wind-blocker, as it is very effective at reducing noise and buffeting and is easy for one person to install and remove.
As much as we love manual transmissions, we just don’t get it in this application. Although Lexus feels certifying and offering this model is necessary to keep cred against BMW, Infiniti, and others that do likewise, it feels out of place in the IS C, especially since it can be had only with the smaller engine. Believe it or not, the car feels zippier with the automatic, as opposed to the tall-geared stick.
Our pick of this litter is the IS 250C with the automatic transmission and standard 17-in. wheels and tires. It is the least expensive offering and has the best EPA mileage ratings. The standard rolling stock preserves ride quality and minimizes body wiggles. And the 2.5L/auto-trans combo is in keeping with the car’s character. If you’re less about speed than style, desire maximum creature features and entertainment options, and want to save around $6000 over a comparably equipped 3 Series, the IS C is a classy way to roll.
[source:MotorTrend]
2010 Lexus IS C 2010 Lexus IS C 2010 Lexus IS C 2010 Lexus IS C 2010 Lexus IS C 2010 Lexus IS C

Monday, March 7, 2011

honda civic 2011 picture

honda civic 2011 picture
honda civic 2011 picture
honda civic 2011 picture
honda civic 2011 picture
honda civic 2011 picture
honda civic 2011 picture

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

B-Segment Surprise: 2011 Chevrolet Viva

General Motors said Friday morning, 10 days after President Obama announced new fuel mileage standards and three days before the automaker declares bankruptcy, that it will build a new small car in an idled U.S. plant.
Thursday afternoon, retiring GM Vice Chairman/Product Chief Bob Lutz showed the Automotive Press Association a chart with recently produced and near-future product names in tiny letters. Most were known to the automotive press. One was not: Chevrolet Viva.
And on Friday, Forbes columnist Jerry Flint wrote of how the United Auto Workers has destroyed Detroit. Factories here are closing, even as import manufacturers open non-union shops, mostly in the South.
2011 Chevrolet Aveo
The reopened plant will be a UAW shop, of course. GM says in its release that the retooled plant will have capacity of 160,000 per year, building a combo of small and compact vehicles. GM will determine the sight selection in the future. Lake Orion, Michigan, Wilmington, Delaware or Shreveport, Louisiana, all have potential.
What about the small car? It’s not the Chevrolet Spark. That car, a four-door hatchback version of the Beat two-door hatch concept (which used a name Honda still owns), is on an old Daewoo platform. It cost GM some cash to beef up the body structure after it had been designed to meet U.S. and European crash standards.
The new b-segment small car and c-segment compact to be built in the U.S. must be on new, flexible platforms that could be assembled at any GM plant in the world that builds on those same platforms.
The next-generation Chevy Aveo is set for the 2011 model year. If the new car has the kind of design excellence Lutz claims GM has rediscovered, it should be a serious competitor for Ford’s 2011 Fiesta. In that case, the Aveo name will do it no favors, so “Viva” seems likely (the moniker dates back to a 1960s Vauxhall and has recently been used on compact GMs in Russia and Australia), if too directly influenced by the Ford’s Spanish name.
Building a Chevy Viva in a UAW plant will cost more than building the Aveo in South Korea. It should be much more stylish and upmarket compared with the current Aveo. Chevy would have the advantage over Ford of a more ready supply of its competitor if the b-segment, fueled also by the coming Fiat 500 and a small Dodge, takes off in the next few years.
GM says about 67-percent of GM cars and trucks sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S. (remember, this doesn’t include Canadian or Mexican NAFTA production) and that the number will rise to about 70 percent with the addition of the 160,000-unit b-/c-segment plant. An important fact as GM goes into Chapter 11 with help from the federal government, which wants to preserve U.S. jobs.
And addition of a relatively high-volume b-segment car won’t hurt when the 2012-16 Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations kick in.
What about the c-segment car to be built in the same factory? GM already has committed its Chevy Vega/Cavalier/Cobalt factory in Lordstown, Ohio, to production of the 2011 Chevy Cruze. And Volt is slated for Hamtramck, Michigan. That leaves the 2012 Chevy Orlando MPV and a 2012 Buick compact (go ahead, call it “Skylark”), both to be built on the same platform as the Cruze. Either is likely, although side-by-side production with the Cruze in Lordstown would make more sense for the Buick.



Audi reportedly shoots down electric R8 rumor for Frankfurt

Rumors in the European press that Audi would bring an all-electric Audi R8 supercar (or an extended range EV that uses a diesel range extender) to the upcoming Frankfurt Motor Show in September have been denied by an Audi spokesperson. The anonymous Audi representative told Edmund’s Inside Line that the stories in Auto Motor und Sport in Germany and L’Automobile in France were “not true.”
Instead, Audi will stick to the liquid fuel path and show off the R8 Spyder with gas engines. While we certainly don’t fault Audi for sticking with what it knows, the possibility of a limited edition R8 EV challenging Tesla made for a good night’s dream, anyway.
Audi R8 V12 TDI