What is the Best 7 Seat Crossover? Again

I wrote a blog post about 7 seat crossover SUVs in July, 2008 and now I'm writing one again. In the last 11 months a whole new crop of crossovers have appeared, but are any of them better than the Mazda CX-9, the vehicle I chose as the best last time?

First of all I'd like to point out the worst of these crossovers. It's the Mercedes-Benz R-Class, a car that is completely pointless and if it weren't for the BlueTEC diesel version it would have no right to exist. The R-Class has a useless third row seat, not much cargo space, but there are some large parts of it, the length and price are two examples. The next worst of these is the Subaru Tribeca, a car I really wanted to like because I like Subaru's, but it just isn't good. What Subaru did to create this car is take the Outback give it a taller, more curvaceous body, a third row seat, a fancy looking interior, and a few other finishing touches. The problem is that in the process a grille with a giant hole through the middle of it and a rear end that looked like it had already been crashed into made their way onto the car, so Subaru gave the car some plastic surgery and a larger engine to fix these problems, but now it just looks boring and still isn't a match for even that last generation Honda Pilot.

Now that we're done with the truly awful cars we can get onto the good cars. The Volvo XC90 is a good crossover and the first one that was well designed, but after nearly 7 years and the only changes being new engines and a host of new safety features it needs a redesign. Another crossover that's aging now, but is still very good is the Cadillac SRX. The SRX is good to drive, luxurious, fast with the V8, and comfortable, but short on space and about to be replaced by a Saturn Vue based 5 seat crossover. Then there's the BMW X5, which is a very good vehicle that's now available with the best diesel engine sold in North America, but it needs more space to work well as a family vehicle. The Audi Q7 is another good SUV that now has a very good diesel, but the Q7 has less power and more weight which is okay, because diesels have so much torque and there's plenty of power anyway. The Q7 is a very good vehicle, but I'm afraid it's too expensive.

Now for the opposite end of the price scale we have the Suzuki XL-7, a mediocre vehicle, but at a very reasonable price, $25,000 for a base model and just over $30,000 fully loaded. The XL-7 isn't good enough to be the best value of these, but the Hyundai Veracruz isn't much more expensive and gives you a lot more features, quality, safety, performance, and luxury. The Veracruz is a good family vehicle, but not much of a driver's car.

The Ford Flex is one of the new crossovers, but it's essentially a more attractive version of the outgoing Taurus X. The Flex is a very roomy, safe, and comfortable family vehicle that comes loaded with cool technology sure to entertain children for years. Unfortunately there's almost nothing to entertain the driver, because it's too heavy, slow, and reacts too slowly to driver input for it to be fun. The upcoming Lincoln MKT hopes to improve on the Flex's problems. The MKT hopefully will have a slightly firmer suspension, better steering, and less weight, so that it will make the most of the 355hp EcoBoost 3.5L V6.

I still maintain that the Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverse/GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook are the roomiest and most practical, but I think the Enclave looks too feminine. These crossovers aren't great to drive, but they're more involving than the Ford Flex and have good engines as well as a pretty good suspension setup.

The Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-9, and Toyota Highlander are all great vehicles and the closest competitors of all the vehicles listed so far. Each one has it's own strengths, but the Highlander seems to have the least of these three. The Highlander is everything it should be, but to beat the CX-9 and Pilot it needs to be better to drive and more modern. The Mazda has lots of space and is good to drive, but I no longer think it's the best crossover. I was very wrong about the new Pilot in the July 08' post, because while I still think Honda should have gone for a lower, more car-like look rather than the boxy truck-like style it has, it's actually a very good vehicle. The Pilot is comfortable, safe, well built, good to drive, and has all the technology you will want. That means that the Honda Pilot is the best mainstream 7 seat crossover.

That still leaves the space of best 7 seat crossover still empty and the guiding question unanswered. The best 7 seat crossover is the Acura MDX. The MDX is the first SUV that drives like it's a sport sedan and without a back snapping suspension like the BMW X3 which doesn't even handle that well. The MDX instead achieves this with a all wheel drive system that distributes power, torque, and braking to each wheel independently and active dampers. The MDX therefore will make everybody in the family happy, the driver will enjoy driving it, the passenger will be comfortable and has lots of toys, and the kids have DVD, radio, and more to play with. The MDX has tons of luxury, safety, performance, and plenty of space. In fact the MDX could be the first car I can't find something on to criticize. Well done Honda!

The Government is Destroying the American Auto Industry

With GM and Chrysler both bankrupt and Ford headed for bankruptcy it looks like we could end up with a nationalized auto industry. Chrysler is being bought out by Fiat and the government will relinquish its control over Chrysler, but GM seems to be completely controlled by the government. History has shown that nationalized car companies don't work. British Leyland is known for being a failure and making horrible cars, but when they were founded in 1968 they made some very good cars. The problems began in 1975 when BL was nationalized. Some very good cars like the Jaguar XJ6 and Range Rover were ruined by the cost cutting that destroyed the car. Other cars that could have been good like the Rover SD1, Jaguar XJ-S, and 1980's versions of the Jaguar XJ were ruined because nationalization made the cars horribly built and unreliable.

With GM quality and reliability are already concerns, but governments always want to cut costs and they will with GM. GM will have much less money for engineering, design, parts, and other things important to making cars. The government doesn't know what people want and what they'll buy. I think that leaving much of our auto industry in the hands of the government is a recipe for disaster.

The government is going to horribly damage the auto industry in the U.S. for all companies by introducing the 39 mpg average across fleets by 2016. The idea behind this is to use less oil and pollute less, but that won't be the result of these rules, because our oil consumption is a result of how much we use cars and other machines. The effects of this fuel economy rule will be, much more expensive cars, smaller cars , less safe cars, no more supercars, very slow cars, worse quality, less comfort, and much less space. I think this is the stupidest thing our government has done in decades. Another effect of this will be higher fatality rates, because cars will have lighter weaker structures, less airbags, and less crash avoidance systems. Another problem is that these gas mileage standards will be measured using EPA ratings, which is a system that doesn't work. The EPA ratings give gas mileage rating for the stupid hybrids that are much higher than the cars can actually get and they give diesels the much lower rating than the cars actually get. The EPA ratings for a Volkswagen Jetta TDI are 30mpg city and 41 mpg highway, but the Jetta TDI easily gets 35-38mpg city and 47-50mpg highway. There are lots of people who have families or live and work in places where they need trucks and SUVs, but unless they get 30mpg they won't be allowed. You can't put 3 kids in the back seat of a Honda Insight with luggage for a 600 mile trip and you can't tow a 10,000 pound trailer with an economy car. Governments should quit trying to tell us what to drive, because people will drive what they want and live how they want.

Why Top Gear USA can't Happen

About a year ago SBC in Australia announced that it would be making an Australian version of the hugely successful and absolutely brilliant BBC Top Gear. A few months later NBC announced that it would be making an American version of Top Gear. Then, a couple months later they had chosen the shows presenters and the show was expected to be on TV earlier this year. Now there's a good chance that it won't even happen, but that doesn't really bother me. NBC has done a pretty terrible job of setting up the show.

Ezra Dyer of Automobile Magazine recently wrote a column in the magazine about what happened when he was invited to audition for the show. His first audition he said went terribly, but his second audition shows what is so terribly wrong with the show. In the second audition he was told that it was for the James May of the show. For those of you unfamiliar with BBC's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson is very tall, not terribly smart, and very very outspoken, but unbelievably funny and talented. Richard Hammond is very short, a talented driver and daredevil, and every woman in England seems to be in love with him. James May has the nickname Captain Slow, because he drives (slowly) a 60 hp Fiat Panda, is a musician by training, and has several TV shows about Wine, but he is also arguably the most funny and was the best addition to the show. The BBC wasn't looking for racing car drivers or anybody who is that obviously interested in cars. All three of the Top Gear presenters are self described petrolheads and that is the key to the show's success. The three of them have personalities that work together brilliantly. Two of the three people NBC chose are racing car drivers, the first choice Tanner Foust has a show on SPEED Channel, but was also in the 2008 Race Of Champions. The person who got the James May position has a home improvement show on HGTV and drives a Toyota Camry Hybrid, which means he isn't a petrolhead. A petrolhead would never buy such a terrible car and I know you'll be saying that James May bought a very slow minicar, but the Panda much more like a Mini, fun, fuel efficient, and not very fast.

They simply can't make a show that attempts to copy another show, it will be a huge disappointment. The people they chose aren't funny, I've seen their other shows before, they're not funny and not all that entertaining. In his column Ezra Dyer also brings up how few car shows there are here. As he says the car is something we use every day, but there are more TV shows about bass fishing and hunting than about cars, but only a few people hunt or go bass fishing regularly. Many of the car shows we have here are just stupid, shows like Pimp My Ride, Overhaulin', and all those silly custom car, tuner car, and drag racing show are crap. The only real car show here I can think of is MotorWeek, which can only be described as educational, it's less entertaining than Consumer Reports. Jay Leno was the perfect person for this show, but he refused to be on a show that will become a rather pathetic imitation of the real show.

The BBC Top Gear isn't afraid to be extreme and offensive, but an NBC version will be wimpy in comparison. NBC doesn't like to offend anybody, just watch the TODAY show, it's full of soft news and they don't criticize anybody that is popular. The NBC version of Top Gear won't be able to criticize cars like the Toyota Prius that are seen as socially responsible, even though it's terrible. Anything they want to do that is irresponsible, dangerous, or might anger some environmentalists won't happen. If they want to make an American version of Top Gear it needs to be extreme, entertaining, and hilarious, but if the show goes on the way it is it won't be any of those. What NBC should do is show BBC's Top Gear, but that would be too offensive and would definitely anger environmentalists and hippies. Maybe Fox would be able to make a good Top Gear USA, shows that they have like The Simpsons are more offensive.

Has Toyota Forgotten They Make Cars not Light Switches

Toyota has just released a new Prius and it’s just as boring as the last one. Based on all Toyota’s recent designs I’m worried that their designers have forgotten that they’re designing cars. Take the Camry for example, every time they redesign it, it just looks like an inflated version of the last one. The Yaris is easily their best-looking car, but next to its competitors it appears flimsy and plain. The Corolla is so plain and boring that in order to prevent drivers from falling asleep it should come with a lifetime supply of Red Bull. The Matrix is only slightly more interesting, but compared to its less expensive identical twin, the Pontiac Vibe, it’s about as interesting as one of those Discovery Channel documentaries about quilting. The Avalon, Toyota’s flagship is a very good car, but the styling reeks of Buick. Lexus had the same problem for a long time, but all their new cars are quite attractive. The Scions aren’t all that attractive, but they are interesting and very contemporary. Even Toyota’s legendary quality and reliability has almost disappeared. Their reliability ratings have slipped recently in the surveys and the quality in the new Camry is much worse than the Ford Fusion.

The only Toyotas that are interesting are the Land Cruiser, Tundra, Venza (Even though it’s pointless), and Rav4. That isn’t much and it only gets worse when you consider that Lexus still has its share of dangerously boring cars. The ES350 for example is not only very boring, but also a huge rip-off since it’s just a Camry XLE with a big sunroof, the SC430 is about as interesting as wallpaper, and the GX470 wins the award for luxury SUV most obviously just a fancy version of a much less expensive SUV, even the new LS is too boring for me. Toyota seems to have lost the ability to make an exciting car, they certainly have before, but now the only truly exciting Toyota is the Lexus IS-F. All of Toyota’s sporty cars have gone in the last five years. The Supra was the first to go. The Supra was never a great looking car, but it always had great performance and handling. The MR2 and Celica were the last of Toyota’s performance cars, but they are the most missed. The MR2 was a great car, it was good looking, handled very well, and in the early 1990’s had 200hp. The Celica was essentially just a Corolla coupe, but it was always much better looking, often had more power, and had better handling. The Celica would be an easy car for Toyota to make again, but if they want it to succeed it needs a fully independent rear suspension and at least 200hp.

Toyota also seems to be the only Japanese car company whose cars are almost all less interesting than your toaster. Honda’s cars may not be great looking, but they’re all very good to drive. Just look at what Honda has achieved, they’re the first and only company to make a large Minivan that’s enjoyable to drive. Honda also has the best manual transmissions and offers them on many of their cars. The reason for this is that Honda was started by a person, a person whose dream was to make great cars. That‘s the reason that brilliant cars like the S800, NSX, S2000, Civic Type-R (sold in Asia and Europe), and CRX existed. The S800, S2000, and NSX were all cars that didn’t have much chance of being profitable, but they were all absolutely brilliant, some of the best cars of all time. I think Honda also has best blend of ride and handling short of BMW or Audi, all their cars are smooth and comfortable, but also have class-leading handling. The Fit and Accord are perfect examples; they’re not only the best cars in their classes, but also the most fun. The only subcompact that is more fun than the Fit is the Mini, but that’s too small, too expensive, and too impractical. Nissan’s ride and handling may not be as good as Honda’s, but it’s by no means bad (except for the Sentra). Nissan’s strength is styling, as a whole they have the best-looking cars of all the mainstream brands. That is largely due to its Renault ownership, which you can tell if you compare their cars from this decade to their cars from the last decade. Nissan like Toyota was started to make money, but unlike Toyota they have a brand personality and make lots of interesting cars. They had to have known that they couldn’t make money off the GT-R, which cost a fortune to develop, but sells for half what cars with similar performance cost. The same is true of the Skyline GT-R’s that preceded it, but never came here. Mazda is very similar to Nissan, but they have exhibited more traits of a company run by petrolheads (gearhead in America or just car enthusiast). Mazda have two cars that really demonstrate this, the RX-8 and MX-5 Miata. The RX-8, RX-7, and all their other rotary engine ancestors are all cars only a petrolhead would build. The rotary engine was a great idea in the 1960’s, but traditional engines quickly caught up in power and refinement, but Mazda has stuck with it just like Porsche did with the rear engine in the 911 even though there was a more sensible alternative all along. Toyota has never really done that, but they have come quite close. They are capable of making beautiful cars, the 1967 2000GT proves that very well and they can make interesting cars, but they just don’t. The Land Cruiser is the exception though, it isn’t a vehicle they make money off here or in Europe, but they sell it here anyway and I’m very happy that they do. The Land Cruiser is like the Range Rover was for a long time, obviously outdated compared to the competition, but somehow much more lovable and endearing than most of the other SUVs. That isn’t to say that the new Range Rover isn’t endearing and loveable, the Range Rover isn’t outdated.

The new Honda Insight is the closest competitor to the new Prius and on paper the Prius is better in every respect except cost ($4000 more) and acceleration (.2 seconds slower to 60), but the Insight still won its first Motor Trend comparison. Many of the problems with the old Prius are resolved, it’s a lot faster, gets better gas mileage, and the car no longer shudders over bumps you don’t even know exist in a similar car. The reason that the Insight won is simple, the Insight combines a reasonable price, 50 mpg, and very little pollution with attractive styling and since it’s a Honda an enjoyable driving experience. The Prius may look a lot better than either of the old ones, but those were less interesting to look at than a light switch. The Insight on the other hand looks great with in every respect except the tiny 15-inch wheels. The interior of the Prius looks good in pictures, but in I’ve seen one in person and it just looks and feels like 50 acres of plastic that doesn’t fit very well. Hopefully the Lexus HS250h will have a better interior, but for now the Prius is a disappointment. Fortunately the Insight is well built, a good value, and as good to drive as the Fit automatic, but not as much fun Fit manual. As far as I’m concerned the only thing the new Prius does is proves just how badly Toyota needs to improve their designs, maybe they should give the designers more coffee and if that doesn’t work, Red Bull might work.

Is the new Saturn Vue Good Enough to Beat the Japanese Competition?

Every time you turn on the news there seems to be more bad news for the American auto industry. GM is the biggest of the American auto companies and while they're strong in Europe, they simply have too many companies here. Saab and Hummer need to be the first to go. Hummer only supplies overpriced, outdated, ugly gas-guzzlers and all Saab's cars are overpriced and outdated. The next of GM's companies to go will probably be GMC and Saturn. Both companies' lineup consists of re badged Chevy's and Pontiac's. 

Saturn's two unique cars are the Astra and Vue. The Astra is a very good car, but hasn't done well here. The new Saturn Vue however is a different story. The new Vue has sold fairly well. Over Christmas we rented a Saturn Vue XR AWD with a 252hp 3.6L V6. Our Vue had 29,000 miles on it and being a rental car, it was of course in worse condition than an average family car with 30,000. 

One of the things Saturn wanted from the Vue was a "European feel". That's term that's tossed around a lot, but the American car companies are very concerned about achieving. The reason for that is cars like the Buick Century (Or any Buick made since the 1980's), Cadillac Seville, Cadillac Deville, or something like the Ford Taurus all were terrible to drive. They had floaty ride quality and steering that did nothing to decide what direction the car went. The sales of those cars got worse as the European cars gained in popularity. So when GM was making the Vue they wanted the comfortable, but yet firm and responsive ride and steering that European cars have mastered. Overall the Vue is good at those. The ride certainly isn't soft, in fact it's almost too firm at times, but no where near as bad as the BMW X3, which feels like BMW simply forget to put a suspension in. The steering is responsive, but a little light. 

The front of the Vue is a nice place to be. The seats are extremely comfortable once you get them into the right position. Quality was usually a problem with Saturn's, but the Vue feels well made, despite the dashboard looking rather flimsy. The rental we drove did have 29,000 miles on it though and that's rental miles, so the car had held up well. Old Saturn's were made of plastic, which was cheap to make and repair, but was a big safety problem and forced all the cars to be boring looking boxes. With the new Vue the metal body allowed lots of curves and creases that make for a very good looking car. The metal also allowed it to be a Top Safety Pick in the IIHS crash tests. 

So far the Vue sounds pretty good, but it has a few huge problems. The biggest it weight, it practically ruins this car. The Vue weighs 4300 pounds, which means even the 252hp 3.6L V6 delivers underwhelming performance, 0-60 mph is nearly 8 seconds and with the smaller V6 and four cylinder versions it takes longer than almost any other small SUV. Fuel economy is another area ruined by weight, as well as the handling. The Vue's exterior dimensions are larger than the Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Subaru Forester and Toyota RAV4, but the cargo area is much smaller. The back seat is also too small and too hard. The Vue is also about $2,000 to expensive, but GM never sells a car for its list price, so that can be fixed easily.

I really wanted to like the Vue and give it a good review, but I was a bit disappointed. The Vue is a very good car, but compared to the Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Forester, or Toyota RAV4 it simply isn't good enough. It does however beat the Volkswagen Tiguan and Mitsubishi Outlander. There is a new Chevy Equinox coming out soon that's based off the Vue, so maybe that will work better.

My Least Favorite Car of all Time

On BBC's Top Gear Richard Hammond, one of the show presenters used a jet powered drag racing car to burn a 1980's Nissan Sunny (sold as the Sentra here). The Sunny was his least favorite car 0f all time, because it was a soulless collection of metal made only to bring in money for Nissan. They also said that the reason their least favorite car wasn't a terrible British Leyland car like the Morris Marina or Austin Allegro is that the awfulness of those cars give them an almost human like quality or personality of some sort. 

My least favorite car of all time is the Cadillac Cimarron. I think this car represents everything that was wrong with the American Auto industry in the 1980's and 1990's. It also represents one of the reasons GM is in such huge trouble now.

The Cimarron is the result of platform sharing, something that works now, but in the early 1980's when the U.S. car companies started using it created some terrible cars. The Ford Pinto and Mustang 2 were both the result of platform sharing and the Pinto as many people know exploded if it was rear ended. The Cimarron was just a Chevy Cavalier with some disgusting shiny plastic glued to it. I can't think of a more disgusting car. Some of them were even in vomit yellow with a fake gold grille on the front. At first Cadillac called it the Cimarron by Cadillac, which just emphasized how it was just a Cavalier with some tacky "premium" features added to it. This car was sold for 6 years and in that time pretty much destroyed the Cadillac name. 

Platform sharing did at least have some good results, the Chrysler K-Car was an awful car, but the Chrysler Town & Country/ Dodge Caravan did come from the K-Car and those saved Chrysler. Some companies like Volkswagen have made good cars from platform sharing ever since 1974 when they brought out the Scirocco. Volkswagen have always taken parts from more than one platform to create cars like the Scirocco and later the Corrado, that's why they're so much better. The problem with platform sharing for GM was that they made so many cars that were identical, Take the Chevy Venture/Pontiac Montana/Oldsmobile Silhouette as an example, every one of the had the same disastrous safety, quality, and engines.

The Cimarron is a car that really had no good points. It was a truly small car, there is no space inside, but despite that gas mileage is still wasn't good. The EPA ratings for the 2.8L V6 version are 17 city and 25 highway, worse than a new Corvette with a 430hp 6.2L V8. The Cimarron being based off a Cavalier is so terrible to drive that I would recommend it as a new form of torture for the government to use, it would be viewed as more humane than water boarding, but just as effective. The original price was $13,000, or about $30,000 in today's money, but in 1988 it was nearly $17,000, more than a Saab 900 cost in 1988. Safety was another problem, the Cavalier always got terrible crash test ratings even in 2005 when it was replaced, so crashing one of these was guaranteed death, so it's a good thing they were slow. The most outrageous thing is the used values of these. I found two of them on Autotrader for $15,000. I can't think of any reason somebody would spend $15,000 on a 22 year old Cimarron. The Cimarron is a car that I truly hate. I can't imagine why anybody would decide to buy one of these, let anlone decide to build this car. For lots of reasons the Cadillac Cimarron is the worst car of all time. 

Al Gore Says We Need To Save Our Planet, Here's How

Al Gore has done lots of things in his life, he's been Vice-President, lost in a Presidential election, and now he lectures people on how we're murdering our planet. He was on Oprah recently giving another version of his big lecture from his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He always likes to use charts and statistics, but I have a problem with that. Statistics can be used to prove anything, so I could probably use those to argue that this climate change is being caused by people having to many goldfish or something. He talks about towns in Alaska that are going to fall into the middle of the Baring Sea, of course you feel bad for the people who will lose their homes if this happens. I can't help but think that the people who started those towns should have realised that weather conditions would be terrible on these stormy little islands. It's the same thing with New Orleans, I felt bad for all these people losing their homes, but I can't imagine somebody thinking it was a good idea to make a huge city in a coastal area that's below sea level and on one of the most hurricane-prone bodies of water in the world. Mr. Gore blames industry and machines like cars for this global warming. Mr. Gore also says its important not to be frightened by this, but when he shows you Greenland melting and flooding New York City I find it hard not to be frightened. I think Mr. Gore should talk more about what we can do and now that everybody knows there's a problem he should do something to help clean up the Earth. In Mr. Gore's movie he flies pretty much alone in his very polluting private jet and drives a 6,000 pound, 5.4L V8 powered, Lincoln Navigator. Mr. Gore also has large houses that all use up more energy in a year than several average American families would use. I have nothing against what Mr. Gore says, but I wish he would practice what he preaches a little more.

There are some cars that we can buy to do our part for the environment. The first car most people think of is the Toyota Prius, but I really don't recommend it. The Prius has very high EPA gas mileage ratings, but if you want to get that mileage you have to drive slowly and carefully, which is boring and isn't the point of driving. I've never driven a Prius (I have been a passenger in one), because of a fear I'd fall asleep from boredom, although the ride is so bad that you'd be woken up by a small pebble in the road, and when you crash it cooks you with very very hot battery acid. There is a Touring version of the Prius with real car tyres, but if you really want a hybrid the new Honda Insight is coming soon. Personally I would get a Volkswagen Jetta TDI, because it gets great gas mileage and is great to drive. There are some electric cars, but most of them are extremely slow, unreasonably expensive, and deadly. The only one I like is the Tesla, but it has some huge drawbacks as well. The first is its cost, $110,000. Also, I don't really like the idea of a larger, much more expensive Lotus Elise that makes no noise. I'd just get a Lotus Elise and save the environment (it can easily get 30 mpg) while I drive one of the most fun cars in the world. The only alternative fuel cars I really think might work are hydrogen powered, but we can't get those now.  Solar is another of these alternative energy car idea, but it really isn't well suited to something that moves or needs sudden busts of power.  Oh did I mention that they explode catastrophically in a crash. 

I recommend that people get an efficient car they like and wait for hydrogen cars to become available if they really want to help the environment. I would rather get something fast and fun to drive that can easily beat its EPA ratings, the Audi A8, VW Jetta TDI, or BMW 335d. Oh, just in case I'm on to something with my goldfish theory I got rid of my goldfish a couple years ago.

Car Thoughts Car Of The Year Awards 2008

Every Year Motor Trend magazine chooses their car, truck, and SUV of the year and so do all the other car magazines, but I prefer Motor Trend's format. So I decided to use it, but in a little different way. It works more like Formula 1 qualifying. Here's how it works.

Q1: These are all mediocre. Most are good, but need improvement.

Q2: Good cars that do well, but lose to the competition.

Q3: These cars are almost winners, but were edged out by the competition.

Podium: These are the top 3 cars.

Winner: The best of these new 2009 cars.

Q1

Volkswagen Routan: This rebadged Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan could have worked, but it's let down by two things. First, it costs more than its almost identical American variants and the Honda Odyssey. Second it has no significant differences from the Chrysler. Therefore the only reason to buy this American minivan disguised as a German is to be different, but it's not worth it.

Mini Clubman: This is really just a silly and pointless design exercise as far as I'm concerned. It claims to have more space, but the back seat is still only for small children, you lose the low cargo floor of the Cooper, and the twin rear doors are unintuitive. The Clubman's only real good points are gas mileage, handling, and performance in the Clubman S.

Dodge Journey: This midsize crossover delivers on some of its promises. It's full of little storage cubbies and practical features, it also isn't boring like a minivan, but doesn't give up minivan practicality. The Journey is let down by poor quality and it isn't very good to drive. This is a good idea in need of improvement.

Smart Fortwo: This microcar promises great gas mileage, the ability to park anywhere, and safety. It is safe and can park in tiny spots, but not as much as the original Fortwo. The Gas mileage also isn't as good as it needs to be to sell well, but the biggest problem is how slow the car is. It's good, but isn't impressive or good enough to do well here.

Lexus IS-F: This performance Lexus targets the BMW M3, but it misses the mark. The Lexus has an 8-speed automatic transmission, which makes it heavier and slower than the 7-speed dual clutch M3. The Lexus has too many parts that let it down, the engine also isn't as good as the M3's. Lexus gave this car too many parts from the LS instead of the performance parts it needed.

Lincoln MKS: This big Lincoln is based off the new Ford Taurus, but has an improved rear suspension and a slightly larger V6. It has lots of new technology in a smart, easy to use package. This Lincoln is a very good car, but with more power and a sportier suspension setup would go a long way to making this car better.

Q2

Acura TSX: This is Acura's new small sport sedan, it has a 205hp 2.4L I4 and front wheel drive. The old TSX was a fun and comfortable premium sedan, and the new one is that, but with lots of new technology. The problem here is that they've made an interesting, fun car slightly

boring against its competition and it's slower too.

Dodge Challenger: This new retro muscle car, especially the 425hp SRT-8 manages to combine modern performance and classic looks. The SRT-8 is extremely fast and has good handling, but the quality needs to be improved. The only reason this car didn't do better is the upcoming Chevy Comaro which will have better performance and handling.

Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: This 451hp 6.2L V8 variant of the great looking new C-class is Mercedes' answer to the new M3. It's bigger and heavier than the M3, but with an extra 31hp it's almost as fast, but it isn't as good of a performance car as the BMW. The C63 is a good value and nicer than the M3, but not as complete a car.

Honda Fit: This new subcompact Honda is larger than the first Fit, but it hasn't lost the original car's fun, but frugal appeal. The new Fit is larger and more powerful, but it still gets better gas mileage than the old one. This new Fit is the best mainstream subcompact car, the only problem I can think of is that prices are up.

BMW 1-Series: BMW's 1-Series Coupe goes back to some of the 1970's BMW 2002 recipe, a small, fast 4 seat coupe. The 135i however is much more like the E46 M3 in performance and size. The 135i is fast and fun, but the 335i is this car's biggest problem, the 335i is more practical and not much more expensive.

Volkswagen CC: For 2009 the Volkswagen Passat is getting a "four-door coupe" body, new styling, and a four seat interior. The new design is good looking, but impractical and expensive. The Passat's strengths like handling and acceleration are still there, but it cost much more.

Q3

Nissan Maxima: Nissan is trying to return to the original four door sports car, but this time they're using the four door coupe styling and handsome interior for that. The 290hp V6 provides plenty of power and refinement. The new Maxima is a very good premium sport sedan, that should do well.

Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen/TDI: This summer gas prices rose to over $4.00 a gallon and I have said that diesel is the best solution currently available, so Volkswagen's new Jetta TDI gets great gas mileage and in Sportwagen form is also very practical. The only drawbacks are it costs $24,000 and we can't get the 170hp version of the 2.0L I4 that we get 140hp from.

Hyundai Genesis: Hyundai is attempting to make a luxury sedan for 2009. They have all the right parts, a sound system from the Rolls-Royce Phantom, a 375hp 4.6L V8, and a very nicely finished interior. As you'd expect from a Hyundai it's an amazing value, at over $20,000 less than the Lexus LS460. It isn't exciting like a BMW, but the LS460 is even more boring in many ways. This Hyundai is a very good car.

Mazda 6: This new Mazda 6 brings a more interesting option to a market dominated by the dreary Toyota Camry. The new 170hp 2.5L 4-cylinder and 272hp 3.7L V6 are both powerful and refined, unlike the old car's engines. The handling is also a huge improvement, making this car just as good, if not better than the class leading Honda Accord.

Cadillac CTS-V: For 2009 Cadillac has a new CTS-V with an unbelievable 556hp from a supercharged 6.2L V8 shared with the Corvette ZR1. This car is priced near the BMW M3, but competes with the M5. I personally think this is much better than the M5, it has more power, a much less confusing, but still better technology control system than the i-Drive, and the CTS it started as is better than the 5-Series the M5 started as.

BMW M3: This new BMW M3 is a complete engineering masterpiece, like the Nissan GT-R, but more manageable. It has some tough competition, but easily beats it, so well I would buy one over a BMW M5 any day. The M3 sedan is practical and comfortable enough to be a family car, but still fast enough to beat a lot of much more expensive cars.

Podium

Acura TL: It's taken 3 tries, but Honda has finally created the best midsized sport sedan you can buy today. The old TL's were great, but by moving away from the Honda Accord this new one is so much better. The SH-AWD and technology pack version makes Acura's more expensive RL just pointless. This is one of the most advanced and nice new cars.

Pontiac G8: This rebadged Holden Commodore was designed to target the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, but it's so good it has beat the BMW 550i. This car has great handling, ride quality, and thanks to a 361hp 6.0L V8 is also very fast. For $35,000 you can have a fully loaded G8 GT, that as far as I'm concerned is a brilliant luxury sport sedan.

Jaguar XF: This new midsized luxury sedan from Jaguar has a 4.2L V8 with 300hp or 420 in Supercharged form. This car is the best car in its class by a long way. The only car that comes close to the XF is the Infiniti M45, but it needs more power, something the Jag has plenty of. The only thing that kept this car from winning was its base price of $50,000 and $62,000 for the Supercharged version.

Winner

Infiniti G37: I have always liked this Infiniti. It has always been larger, less expensive, and faster than the closest BMW 3-Series to it. Now with 328hp this car can be just about every car you will ever really need. It has a luxury car badge on the front, lot`s of comfort, and it's an amazing sport sedan. This car wasn't redesigned for 2009, but upgraded, a lot. It now has a 7-speed automatic transmission and you can have an all wheel drive version of the G37 Sport too. it really is brilliant.