“What is making that noise??”  I certainly wasn’t the only one asking that question the first time I heard a driver behind the wheel of the new Fiat 500 Abarth revving its heavily-boosted 1.4 liter four cylinder engine with low-restriction exhaust.  Literally, in a parking lot full of amazing cars – most of which put the Fiat’s 160 horsepower/170 lb-ft ratings to shame – the car whose exhaust note drew the most attention was this little Fiat.

The formula for the Fiat 500 Abarth (which is pronounced “eh-BART,” by the way, you silly most-likely-American reader) is simple.  Take the 500 – the good and the bad – and add noise, power, and better handling, then find a place to hoon the car.  The faults of the 500 – an interior the prioritizes form over function, a driving position that is too upright, a cabin that is too narrow – mostly carry over intact for the high-performance version.  But you aren’t likely to find much to criticize in the Abarth’s power output considering its approximate 2,512-pound curb weight, and handling is much more surefooted thanks to firmer suspension and better tires.

The delivery of that power is not exactly linear.  Turbo lag is an issue; not surprising considering that the car’s tacked-on boost gauge shows the turbo adding 18 psi of boost at full boil, which may be the highest boost number I’ve seen in a production car (the more calmly-tuned Ford Flex EcoBoost, for instance, has 12 psi of boost at its peak).  It takes a moment for the little Garrett turbo to spool up to its power peak, which occurs at 5,500 RPM (the torque peaks between 2,500 and 4,000 RPM).  What’s not an issue, though, is torque steer.  Thanks to a three-mode stability control program and active locking differential, you can drop the clutch in your 500 Abarth and not hop over into oncoming traffic.  Sounds like a selling point to me!

As I was waiting for this test car’s previous driver to exit the car so I could take my turn with it, he very ungracefully exited the car (which he parked far too closely to the car on its left, despite this being nearly the easiest car int he world to park due to its large windows and minimal width) and complained about leg cramps.  “Fun car, but you have to be a damn chimpanzee to drive it.  The most uncomfortable car in the world.  Be sure you put it in Sport mode.”

Thus admonished, I climbed into the car.  Having spent two weeks in other Fiat 500s, I wasn’t too worried about leg cramps, despite my 6’4″ frame.  I even managed to cram my family into both of my previous Fiat 500 test cars, so not having to worry about a rear-seat passenger’s comfort, I had plenty of space for my legs.  Yes, you still sit bolt upright, but the Abarth has completely different front seats from the normal 500.  How can I tell?  They were more supportive, and they had integrated head restraints rather than the adjustable circular ones in the pedestrian Fiats. 

Aside from the seats, and a totally different gearshift knob (the Abarth has a more traditionally-shaped one, wrapped in leather, versus the 500 Sport’s plastic/chrome ball), and a few other minor interior details (like faux leather across the top of the gauge cluster, complete with red contrasting stitching) and a bit more meat on the Abarth-specific flat-bottom steering wheel, it felt like any other Fiat 500 behind the wheel until I started the engine.

Once I did that, though, it’s almost impossible not to cause a scene with this car, just because of its sound.  Backing out of your garage on a Tuesday morning in this car, you will most likely wake up sleeping neighbors.  Take off down the road, and you’ll wake up your neighbors’ neighbors.  It’s loud, yet it’s a fun, playful sound.  Attention-grabbing, but not annoying.  I’ve heard four cylinders without mufflers and four cylinders with coffee can pipes, and those sound like a barfing dog compared to the 500 Abarth’s hoots, pops, and snarls.

When I was a kid (OK, between ages 20 and 23), I drove an Oldsmobile Achieva SCX.  It was an “under Achieva” in many ways, including a blown head gasket at just 60,000 miles, but I had a similar waking-up-the-neighbors problem with that car’s low-restriction exhaust.  My friend’s mother insisted that there was something wrong with its exhaust system (there wasn’t) and when I would come home to my parents’ house just a bit after my 2:00 a.m. weekend curfew at age 20, I’d have to shut off the engine down the street and coast a bit until I got to the front of their house.  You won’t be sneaking up on anybody in this car either.

Well, to make a long review brief, I suffered no cramps, endured no stalls, and generally had a blast in my 20-minute jaunt at Bear Mountain, NY in the Fiat 500 Abarth.  Because the car is so small, the 205/40R17 Pirelli PZero Nero tires look much bigger than their 17 inches, and they offer serious grip.  The clutch is easy to modulate and to get used to, and the Abarth-exclusive 5 speed manual seemed to offer slightly more direct shift action than the standard car’s standard 5 speed manual.  It may have just been my imagination, though.

There is a shift light in the middle of the boost gauge (which itself falls to the left of the main instrument cluster), but apparently, having the car in Sport mode deactivates it.  Though I despise old-school vacuum-actuated shift lights that tell one when to shift for economy reasons, it’s a shame that the Abarth engineers couldn’t leverage the upshift light in Sport mode as well, but in a way similar to the gauge tracers in the Cadillac CTS-V, so you know when you’re approaching the redline.

Pricing for the Fiat 500 Abarth starts at $22,000.  My tester had the $1,00 performance leather trimmed high-back bucket seats, $750 safety and convenience package (automatic climate control, satellite radio, alarm), $350 red mirror caps/body side stripes, $400 TomTom navigation unit by Mopar, and $1,000 17 x 7 inch forged aluminum hyper black wheels.  Tack on $700 in destination charges to get the car from Italy Mexico to your local dealer, and the total MSRP is $26,200.  Certainly not cheap, but not bad compared to a Mini Cooper S.

If you like the Fiat 500′s style and just want a bit more – and want to stand out against the more mainstream choices like the Volkswagen GTI and Mini Cooper S – take an Abarth for a spin.  It’s far from a perfect car, but it will most likely put a smile on your face.  Isn’t that what driving a sporty car is all about?

Fiat provided the vehicle, insurance, and a few ounces of gas for this review.

I’m long overdue for an update on the Long Term Flex Limited EcoBoost. Purchased in September 2011, the first update happened after 3 months and 3000 miles had elapsed. In the last update I talked about wanting to add better all-weather interior mats and a roof rack to facilitate carrying bikes and other loads. I addressed mats in the cargo area by purchasing a$70 Husky Liner for the well under/behind the third row seats. As we tend to travel with the third row seats deployed, that well is where our cargo ends up a majority of the time. When the third row is stowed for carrying larger loads that might be dirty or damage the carpeting, we use an auto blanket to protect the interior to avoid the nuisance of needing to remove a rigid cargo protector. The low-pile carpeting Ford specced for that cargo area grows fuzzy with vigorous vacuuming, so preventing it from getting dirty is important.

We’ve now owned the Flex for about eight months and have covered almost 7000 miles. In that time, the Flex hasn’t had any maintenance or repairs needed, though we did just receive a “Customer Service Campaign” notice from Ford in the mail, to address a potential problem which could cause the engine’s cooling fans to stop working, leading to an overheating condition.

The Flex has an oil life monitor which dictates when the oil should be changed, and even 8 months later we still have 30% of our oil life remaining. Instinct (driven by a decade-and-a-half of turbocharged Saab and Volvo ownership) tells me that I should have had the oil changed already, but Ford’s maintenance guide says there’s no need. All of Ford’s marketing materials state that the twin-turbocharged V6 is tested for 150,000 miles of service and beyond, which should be supported by that maintenance schedule.

Oil change interval rationalization aside, I am planning to purchase a comprehensive aftermarket warranty. Besides the expensive drivetrain parts, there are plenty of electrical and electronic parts like power-folding third row seats and the Ford SYNC navigation system which would be very expensive to repair. The fact that we tend to keep cars for eight years (or longer) without putting a ton of mileage on it points me toward a longish-term, lower mileage extended warranty with generous equipment coverage. (As an example, our family’s other car is a 2001 Saab 9-5 which we bought new, that now has 96,000 miles on it- and is on its third turbocharger).

During the last update on the Flex I reported an average fuel economy of 15.7 MPG, and unfortunately it hasn’t improved much; it’s hovering at 15.8 MPG right now. With an EPA city/highway/combined of 16/21/18 MPG, our average is less than the published EPA city number, though admittedly that number reflects my wife’s daily commute of 6 miles across our stoplight-ridden suburb. The highest single-tank mileage recorded was on a trip from Seattle to Walla Walla in Washington’s southwest corner which included crossing two mountain passes in wintery conditions; we saw 19.8 MPG. Hopefully our next report will show at least one tank breaking the 20 MPG mark as we head out on some summertime road trips. That fuel economy figure has been achieved using regular unleaded fuel. You can track our Flex’s consumption here on Fuelly.com.

While the Flex has been mechanically reliable, both my wife and I have experienced poor connectivity between our iPhones and the Flex’s SYNC system. The Flex will start Bluetooth audio playback from our phones even if a different audio source is selected on the entertainment system, and when the vehicle is powered off and we leave the car our phones will still be playing music (streaming it to the not-connected SYNC), wasting battery life. A SYNC update is available but must be dealer-installed. We have put off scheduling a service visit for that minor problem since service wasn’t needed, however with the aforementioned “Customer Service Campaign,” we will have the SYNC update performed at the same time.

After researching rooftop carriers as mentioned during the last update, I decided that I didn’t actually want to carry bikes on the top of the Flex (because it would be too tough to get them on and off of the rack), and that a hitch-mounted bike carrier would be easier for my wife and I to use. Because our Flex was not factory-equipped with the towing package, I ordered the factory hitch online for a little more than $250. Although very clear installation instructions were provided, the process was more complicated than I wanted to attempt (it involves removing the bumper cover and the structural bumper bar as well as the exhaust hangers on each side of the vehicle to bolt the new hitch in place), so I paid $200 plus tax for a shop to install the hitch for me. It is a Class IV hitch when installed on EcoBoost Flex vehicles (because they have the requisite transmission cooler), though I haven’t installed hitch wiring because I don’t intend to tow anything behind the Flex at this point. I’ve got my eye on a Thue four-bike, hitch-mounted rack for carrying our family’s bikes. That still doesn’t solve the problems of transporting skis, though I know that hitch-mounted ski carriers are also available (even though space in my garage to store all of these carriers isn’t as readily available.)

Though we’ve been generally happy with the Flex, there is always room for improvement. For example, the shape of the bottom edge of the passenger doors is such that in the wintertime, significant slush and ice accumulations form inside of the door. In wet weather, muddy water collects there. I do end up washing this area inside of the doors with each car wash; although the part is painted, the metal is rough, leading to a poorly-finished feel/impression.

With the first winter season behind us, in early April I pulled off the winter wheels shod with Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V1 tires, which proved unstoppable during Seattle’s week of winter in February, when schools were closed and our town’s one snowplow struggled to clear the two main thoroughfares through town. While they are a very capable and confidence-inspiring winter tire, it was nice to get back to the stock 20” Goodyear Eagle RS-A all-season rubber, which offers better grip on dry pavement for better roadholding and steering.

One of the things that attracted our family to the Flex was its unique appearance. Although the updated 2013 Flex has recently gone on sale, our 2011 Kona Blue Metallic Flex Limited with Ingot Silver roof still has a very distinctive appearance, and we get strangers asking commenting on the “cool” or “beautiful” car on a regular basis, as well as getting nods of approval and thumbs-up from other Flex drivers. That said, when we tell people it is Ford Flex, too often they ask “Oh, does that mean it runs on Flex Fuel?” Ironically, while Ford does make Flex Fuel vehicles, the Flex is not one of them.

Other than lackluster fuel economy, we have no big complaints about the Flex after nine months of ownership. It continues to be comfortable, reliable, and easy to live with. In our next update, watch for feedback on whatever bike carrier we choose, the service campaign, first oil change, and SYNC update. Before then, you can leave comments or ask any questions in the Comments section below, by tweeting to @autosavantkrm, or emailing me at kmiller@autosavant.com.

When the original Mazda MX-5 Miata made its debut some 23 years ago, a number of British sports cars such as the MG MGB, Austin-Healey Sprite, and Lotus Elan were cited as the car’s inspiration.  Few mentioned the Alfa Romeo Spyder at the time as another inspiration, and perhaps it was not.  However, the Spyder was very much cut from the same cloth as the Miata, and in fact, the two competed against one another until Alfa withdrew the car from the US after the 1993 model year.

Against that background, when news came across the ticker last night that Fiat and Mazda would jointly develop a new roadster, which would become the next-generation Miata and next-generation Alfa Romeo Spyder, it almost makes so much sense that it should have happened years ago.

Mazda has proven itself quite adept at using its limited resources to build the best small roadster probably ever – it has just enough power, it rides and handles well, it’s not overly expensive, and it is incredibly reliable.  But despite the Miata being the best-selling two seat convertible sports car in history (with over 900,000 units sold, according to the Guinness Book of World Records), it’s hard for a carmaker like Mazda, reeling from four straight years of losses thanks to the strong Yen and a very Japan-heavy production base and small global scale, to justify going it alone on the next-generation Miata.

Sharing development costs with Fiat should allow the fourth-generation Miata to arrive a little earlier than it would have otherwise (if even at all), and with both the Alfa and Mazda being produced in Mazda’s Hiroshima, Japan facility, that factory’s utilization is improved and unit costs should decline.

Neither company seems to be finished in their respective hunts for alliance partners.  At this stage, Fiat may be interested in some of Mazda’s lightweight technologies and its fuel-saving SkyActiv engines and transmissions.  Mazda could certainly use the money and could stand to do a better job of getting a return on its R&D spending by licensing some of its technology to partners.  As another example of Mazda’s alliance strategy going forward, it and Toyota will be sharing hybrid technology in the future.

For folks waiting in line outside their non-existent Alfa Romeo dealers in the US for a new Spyder, take heart: the car will come to the US.  The high-dollar 8C Competizione was sold at Maserati dealerships, and the company’s 4C sports car, though more reasonably priced than the 8C, will still be quite a bit more pricey than the Spyder.  The 4C and Spyder will join a future Alfa Romeo Giulia and yet-unnamed Alfa SUV in the US.  Actually, the Alfas will be sold at Fiat dealers starting in 2013, so there will be Alfa Romeo dealers in the US in 2013 after a few signage tweaks.  Don’t expect to see the Spyder before calendar year 2014.  It will have unique sheetmetal, unlike the Subaru-Toyota sports car twins.

Surely, this is good news all around.  We can’t wait to see the next generation of these iconic roadsters, and the Miata-based Spyder may be the most reliable Alfa Romeo ever built.

GM has a big problem with the Chevrolet Equinox.  They just can’t make enough of the things to satisfy consistently strong demand.  (I never said it was a bad problem).  But not making enough vehicles for the customers who want to buy them frustrates those customers and can send them to your competitors’ products, can frustrate your dealer body, and leave a lot of money on the table that otherwise GM might be able to book as revenue.  So, how does a vehicle that traces its lineage to the Geo Tracker consistently do so well for GM?  We borrowed one for a week in order to answer this very question.

The Geo Tracker comment may have been a bit unfair, but the fact of the matter is, the Geo Tracker was GM’s first modern cute-ute.  It became the Chevrolet Tracker after the Geo sub-brand shuffled off this mortal coil.  The replacement for the Suzuki built-and-engineered Tracker was the first-generation Equinox (because, you know, GM had this attention-deficit problem whereby it tried to cause buyers of its re-engineered vehicles to forget about their forgettable differently-named predecessors.  Pay no attention to the Nova/Vega/Monza/Cavalier/Cobalt behind the curtain.

The first-generation Equinox did reasonably well in the marketplace, despite having a much-derided Chinese-built 3.4 liter pushrod V6 under its hood.  The interior in the first Equinox was not up to snuff, either, but it had a more spacious interior than did many of its cute-ute competitors like the RAV4 and CR-V.  Eventually, the Equinox enjoyed some powertrain upgrades which didn’t help fuel economy, but did help its performance quite a bit.

With the launch of the second-generation Equinox for the 2010 model year, GM finally seems to have stumbled upon the formula for success in the compact crossover marketplace.  Compared to the original Equinox, the current model has improved powertrains, striking good looks, much better fuel economy, and a far better interior.

It’s unlikely that the Equinox will win a beauty contest, with its attractively conservative shape, but at least it doesn’t push the line too far as its kissing cousin, the excessively-boxy GMC Terrain.  Both cute-utes are identical under the skin, but have different interiors and completely different exteriors.  The Equinox’s shape works much, much better for me.  It has the global Chevrolet face, with a color-matched, chrome-trimmed horizontal bar bisecting upper and lower halves.  There’s also chrome around the foglamps in up-rated models like our LTZ-spec tester, but it’s quite obviously chrome-plated plastic.

The profile shot looks a bit like a Mercedes ML (not a bad shape to mimic, if that’s what they did) in the C- and D-pillars, and perhaps goes a bit overboard with over-spec’ed fender flares and under-spec’ed wheels.  The chrome-clad 18 inch alloys look a little lost, and lesser Equinoxes have smaller wheels.  Also, as in several other vehicles, “chrome clad” means more chrome-plated plastic, covering real aluminum underneath.  What is the point of that, aside from hiding the fact that the wheels are actually constructed of aluminum?

At the rear, the three-dimensional tail lamp design seems to fit in with the rest of the ‘Nox’s shape, and LTZs boast a chrome-ish diffuser underneath the bumper to add a bit more visual interest to the rear of the car.  The deep-tinted rear windows in our tester keep up the illusion of this being a serious vehicle.

Inside the Mocha Steel Metallic (which, as you can see from the photos, is a grayish/tan hue) tester, there was an almost shocking level of color.  Chevy calls the combination Jet Black/Brownstone.  I call it black and maroon.  It actually works all right with this particular exterior color, but not with every one.  Don’t order your Equinox irresponsibly, or you may regret a tacky interior scheme when trade-in time eventually comes.

In a segment that is quickly stepping up its game in terms of interior materials and in-car technology, the Equinox is better than some (i.e., Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4) but behind the newest, such as the 2013 Ford Escape.  For instance, the Equinox’s navigation system and dash-mounted touchscreen is reasonably easy-to-use (and far more advanced than the system installed in the $80,000 Cadillac Escalade – go figure!) but still not up to par with Ford’s latest offering.  It doesn’t have Bluetooth streaming audio capability, which has been a fairly common feature in upper trim levels of nearly all vehicles for the past several years.  There’s a fairly rudimentary trip computer between the speedometer and tachometer, but rather than using a large high-resolution color TFT display like Ford does, Chevy slaps in a green monochrome LCD with pixels only slightly smaller than the ones in my childhood Apple IIe.

In addition to the technology deficit against the Escape, it’s hard not to notice that nearly everything in the upper dash of the Escape is soft to the touch, while the Chevy has hard plastic on nearly every surface but the steering wheel and armrest.  The Equinox is well-put-together, but the quantity of interior plastics was a little off-putting at its $32,730 price point.

Just as Chrysler seems to have gotten some serious volume discounts on steering wheels, fitting the same wheel to every car in its lineup, from Dart to Durango, from Charger to Challenger, GM seems to have made a similar deal for steering wheels in its cars and in its trucks.  I can’t think of a GM car that I’ve driven over the past three years that does not have a derivative of the steering wheel in the Equinox other than the Corvette.  Sonic, Camaro, Regal, Volt, Malibu, Cruze – they all have the same one with different trim applied to it.  It’s an OK steering wheel, but could be a bit thicker, and the rocker movement of the front-facing switches is a little annoying.  In this Equinox LTZ tester, there’s an additional button crammed onto the same button footprint as in the wheel’s relatives for lane departure warning.  Every GM truck, from the Traverse to the Escalade, has the same steering wheel as well, but it’s different from the car one.

Under the Equinox’s hood, buyers have the choice of two direct-injected units: either a 2.4 liter four or a 3.0 liter V6.  The 2.4 liter is the volume seller, and it gets stellar highway fuel economy (22 MPG city/32 MPG highway in FWD spec).  The 3.0 liter DOHC V6 has been rightfully criticized as being excessively thirsty (17/24, or a full 6 fewer combined MPG vs. the four) and light on torque.  How thirsty?  The size-and-a-half larger Traverse FWD has identical 17/24 ratings.  How torque-weak?  The 3.0 liter produces 264 horsepower and just 222 lb-ft of torque.  The power deficit is being addressed for 2013 by replacing the 3.0 liter V6 with a 3.6 liter unit.  The new engine will produce 301 horsepower and 272 lb-ft of torque – all for the same EPA fuel economy numbers as the weaker V6.

Despite matching the Traverse’s fuel-economy numbers on paper, I found it much easier to get mileage in the mid-20s in the Equinox than I could manage in the Traverse’s cousins, the GMC Acadia Denali and Buick Enclave.  In the real world (though obviously not a perfect comparison), my observed mileage was five or six miles per gallon better in the Equniox than in the Acadia/Enclave.  Though I’m always happy to have more horsepower on tap, the 3.0 liter V6 felt like it motivated the Equinox sufficiently well.  Despite its 222-pound(-feet) weakling torque rating, I was actually able to spin the front tires upon flooring the accelerator while rolling at around 20 miles per hour.  That may be an indictment of cold all-season tires and an open differential, but it may also be a sign that it’s not quite as timid as many would have you believe.

First-generation Chevy Equinoxes and Saturn Vues (which shared a platform) were not known for their handling prowess.  In fact, Vues had a propensity to break their rear suspension arms during hard cornering, prompting a recall campaign.  Don’t expect to win any autocross events in an Equinox, but its relatively compact size makes it much more maneuverable than larger crossovers, and – at least with the four cylinder – much more fuel efficient than full-size models.  Braking performance and lane-change maneuvers both inspired more confidence than does piloting a bigger vehicle.  Steering feel is a bit numb, thanks to its fuel-saving electric assist in place of the traditional (and increasingly rare) hydraulic setup.

Pricing for the base Equinox is fairly aggressive – starting at $24,355 including destination – but rises quickly.  The FWD LTZ model like my tester starts at $29,140.  Tack on $1,500 for the 3.0 liter V6, $1,000 for the 18 inch chrome-clad aluminum wheels (plastic chrome clad, I might add), $795 for the 7″ color touchscreen navigation radio, $295 for forward collision alert/lane departure warning, and $810 for destination charge, and you have a final MSRP of $32,730.  That is roughly in line with a CR-V’s pricing at invoice, when accounting for equipment differences, according to our pals at TrueDelta.com.

My wife loves driving a minivan and the convenience that it offers to our family of four, but she’s uncomfortable with its size.  I have seriously considered trading down to something like an Equinox from time to time to make parking and manueverability easier on her.  For folks who don’t need a full-size SUV or crossover (or minivan) or just like the style and size of the Equinox, in its too-big-to-be-called-a-cute-ute size, it might be pushing all of the right buttons for them.

Chevrolet provided the vehicle, insurance, and a tank of gas for this review.

Being a car guy, my automotive interests are actually mostly focused on two very different ends of the spectrum.  I love high-performing, high-horsepower cars.  Cars like the Audi R8 and Corvette ZR1 bring a huge, stupid grin to my face.  On the other end, however, I’m a student of vehicles that are small on the outside but fairly spacious inside.  In other words, I can appreciate a good packaging job more than the next guy.  I’ve been following the excruciatingly long gestation period of the Scion iQ for years, and was delighted to have the chance to drive a very different, but almost similar, Volkswagen Up! at a recent media event.

The Up! is Volkswagen’s city car, and it’s not sold in the US.  Ah yes, the forbidden fruit of non-US market vehicles rears its head again!  Unlike some cars in that category that actually do make it to these shores, don’t hold your breath on ever seeing this car at your local VW dealer in the US.  After all, VW doesn’t even offer the B-segment Polo in the US, and that’s a full size class larger than this pip-squeak is.  (As an aside, I can’t see any reason other than perhaps a weak dollar or high costs that the Polo is not sold here.  Plenty of that car’s direct competitors are doing fine, such as the Fiesta, Sonic, Fit, Yaris, Accent, Rio, Mazda2, and others).  At any rate, without the Polo bridging the gap between the Golf and Up!, forget about getting an Up! here.

When the Up! was first shown on the auto-show circuit as a concept, it was rear engine/rear wheel drive.  Does that sound like any other Volkswagen model in particular?  One that perhaps was designed by Dr. Porsche and sold in fundamentally the same form for several decades?  But when the Up! was translated into a production car, it changed to a more conventional front engine/front drive layout.

The particular tester I drove must have been, quite literally, right off the boat from Europe.  It still had its Euro-spec Wolfsburg front license plate (but a Michigan plate bolted to the back so it could be driven on US roads), a speedometer that displayed only km/h, and a navigation system that pushed the limits of my high school German studies some two decades ago.  One thing that is decidedly non-Continental about the Up! is that its small engine is powered by petrol, not diesel.  Right now, European buyers can’t even get a diesel Up!.  There might be one in the future, but how about a turbocharged Up! GTI with firmer suspension and plaid seats?  Now we’re talking.

I mentioned my fascination with packaging earlier, and just look at this car.  Very few front wheel drive cars have their wheels pushed to the corners to the degree that the Up!’s are; the Mini Cooper and Scion iQ come to mind.  Compared to, say, a Ford Fiesta, the Up! has almost nothing hanging over its front wheels.  (Its wheelbase is 95.3 inches while its length is just 139.4 inches.)  This makes the car’s profile look more upscale while maximizing interior and cargo volume – and helps weight distribution and handling.  In the driver’s seat, the Up! felt very much like a normally-sized car and not like a cartoonishly-small car like the Smart ForTwo.  In fact, even though I’m tall (6’4″), if I’m willing to sacrifice some of my own legroom, I could probably convince someone to sit behind me.  Cargo volume with the back seat still a seat (and not folded) is a respectable 9 cubic feet.

The Up! feels solid and well-assembled.  Not surprisingly, interior materials are a few grades below those in more-expensive VWs like the Golf, or even the Jetta.  Yet the hard plastic parts, though prevalent, aren’t shiny, and everything fit together well.  Switchgear was better than that in the $79,000 Cadillac Escalade I spent the past week driving.  The upper door panels are body colored (so red in this particular car), and everything was screwed together tightly.

There’s a 5 speed manual gearbox in this particular car, and it’s quite easy to use.  The clutch was easy to get used to and requires minimal effort to engage.  Though apparently I wasn’t bright enough to find the hood release to snap a photo of the engine bay, I was also completely ignorant to the fact that I was driving a car powered by a three cylinder engine.  To be sure, it felt down on power (the Up! is available in the Old World with a 60-horsepower three or a 75-horsepower variant; I’m fairly confident that this one had the more powerful engine), but still moved the Up! well enough.  In city environments where maneuverability is at a premium over outright power (and two-lane passing never happens), 75 horsepower is sufficient in this car.  Car and Driver estimates the Up!’s curb weight at just 2,150 pounds.

It’s not the most agile car in the world, with a somewhat light steering effort and a bit of body roll.  The little engine feels somewhat out of breath from the middle of its power band forward.  Yet there’s something charming about driving a Volkswagen that is perhaps more true to its roots than other models that share a name and shape with their iconic air-cooled, rear-engined predecessor.  I still don’t think Volkswagen would be bold enough to bring the Up! to North America, and even if it did, I suspect that after the early adopters’ demand is satisfied, it will start piling on dealer lots and slink back to its homeland.

Volkswagen may or may not be bold enough to sell this car in the US, but it was fun to get the opportunity to be perhaps the only person in the US who was driving an Up! at that given moment.  The sport-bike rider taking a break from his ride to ask me about the Up! also seemed to find it interesting.

Volkswagen provided the vehicle, insurance, and a few drops of gas for this review.

Following recent spy photographs of the upcoming 918 Spyder hybrid, Porsche decided to not only reveal official photographs of the 918 Spyder prototype, but also key details that help shed light on Porsche’s latest hyper car effort.

The first detail that Porsche revealed was the 918′s unique camouflage scheme. In lieu of traditional automotive camouflage materials such as the wrappings and obscuring lines seen on most test vehicles, Porsche engineers decided to give the 918 testers a special race themed camouflage. Porsche claims that this livery serves the dual purpose of hiding the vehicle sufficiently as well as serving as a tribute to the company’s successful 917 race car.

Underneath the camouflage, the basic shape of the production version 918 Spyder has changed little from the concept version, but Porsche engineers have made a few tweaks to help make the car more production-ready. These changes include a slight lengthening of the body which helps make the cabin of the 918 Spyder a more spacious place to spend time in, as well as slight alterations to the rear spoiler to simplify production. The concept’s trick upward venting “top pipes” exhaust system layout  however,will make the transition to the production 918 Spyder unchanged from what was first seen on the concept car.

Providing the power for this ultra exclusive hybrid is a specially engineered 4.0 liter V8 which is good for 770 horsepower and is mated to two electric motors which work together to help the 918 Spyder complete the 0 to 60 dash in a scant 3.1 seconds and reach a top speed of 199 mph. Porsche claims that this engine setup “makes possible a unique combination of minimal fuel consumption and maximum performance.”  The German sports car maker was also quick to point out that the 918 Spyder is capable of reaching speeds up to 94 mph using electric power only. Not only is this an impressive figure in its own right, but this feature also helps the 918 Spyder achieve an estimated 78 miles per gallon in the EU test cycle.

Production of the 918 Spyder is expected to begin sometime next year, and the company claims that buyers who are willing to pay the lofty $845,000 admission fee will be able to get their hands on the first production examples of the 918 Spyder when it enters Porsche showrooms before the end of 2013.

It’s safe to say there’s some baggage with Nissan’s attempts at mainstream minivans.  The first and second-generation Quests, widely considered underpowered also-rans among people carriers, rode on a platform shared with the Mercury Villager. After a two-year hiatus, the nameplate returned on a bulbous, Nissan-specific van known for its otherworldly interior with center-mounted instruments and jarring exterior lines. For its idiosyncrasies, however, the Quest never rose to the top of the segment.For 2011, the fourth-generation Quest returned with striking styling, a significant punch under the hood, and the motivation to push toward the head of the class.

The Quest’s exterior employs flat, square panels to give it a unique look not to be confused with its ilk. From some angles, it’s cleverly stunning; it exudes a brick-like profile that belies its coefficient of drag (0.32 Cd), and its decidedly modern wraparound rear glass smartly reduces visual mass. There is something inherently debonair about slab-sided minivans, such as the departed Chevy Astro, that is hard to describe yet easy to ogle.

If its exterior is revolutionary, the Quest’s interior is a careful, if not derivative, evolution that panders to function over form. A sea of similarly shaped buttons and knobs, indecipherable by touch, clutter the two-tiered center stack. My SV tester was equipped with the standard radio and a small screen that includes a smartly integrated reversing camera. Models equipped with a navigation system receive an ultrawide screen replete with the center control knob nicked from Infiniti. Even on the mid-range SV, the interior featured high-end surfaces, textures and colors that hinted at luxury.

The Quest’s sole engine choice is a 3.5-liter V-6 that makes 260 horsepower, attached to Nissan’s excellent continuously variable transmission. The CVT accelerates with exigency, devoid of the frenetic, vacuum-cleaner moan associated with lesser transmissions. With overdrive disabled, it becomes quite easy to chirp the tires off the line, and downshifts are much more pronounced. Fuel economy (19/24, according to the EPA) is respectable, and a 20-gallon tank allows for long highway slogs.

The ride is composed and compliant for a van with a powertrain so surprisingly willing. The suspension made quick work of rough surfaces in Manhattan, allowing for a comfortable ride in any of the Quest’s three rows of seats. The highway ride is similarly tuned for comfort and soaks up imperfections in road surfaces. Along my coastal Rhode Island handling loop, the chassis was more than competent and exhibited no signs of slop or lag over undulating surfaces and quick corners. It does not seek to be a canyon carver, but neither is it slow to respond and adapt.

As its size implies, the expansive Quest is also a serious hauler. The second row folds flush with the third row to produce an enormous, squared-off cargo area. With the third row up, a deep cargo well accommodates both grocery bags and suitcase. Not as useful is a fragile, removable cover for the well that separates the underfloor storage but fails to hide taller items.

There are few nits to pick, as far as minivans go. The Quest’s most significant fault is its flat, unsupportive cloth seats, which proved to be rather uncomfortable over a six-hour, stop-and-go escape from Manhattan. (Leather seats, available in higher-level models, might make all the difference.) The initial ergonomic challenge of the instruments and gauges is a peccadillo by comparison, as they become intuitive with regular use.

The Quest is a competent performer in an ever-expanding class of minivans. Its  price, which starts at $25,990 and stretches to nearly $45,000 fully optioned, is competitive with the Honda Odyssey and the Toyota Sienna. It offers prospective buyers a stylish, confident and powerful alternative to slightly more anonymous and reserved competitors. And while the Quest might not be a game changer, it’s now a true competitor, and easily swallows the baggage once associated with its predecessors.

The 2012 Volkswagen Tiguan is a refreshed model for this year. For 2012 the Tiguan has received a revised exterior and upgraded transmission bits that help it look more like the rest of its family and remain competitive in the pile of little SUVs. In a word, the little VW is adorable. The Tiguan wins the award for the car that I have driven that garnered the most approving looks from the women that it encountered. The Tiguan is easily likable, but like a lot of things little and adorable, it can do things that make you want to scold it and put it in a corner.

The Tiguan we sampled was the two wheel drive SE model with a sunroof and navigation. It comes with a sticker price of $30,525 plus $820 in destination charges. This makes it one of the more pricey entries into the compact SUV market. To give you an idea, these are just some of the models it competes against: Chevrolet Equinox, Honda CR-V, Subaru Forester, Hyundai Tuscon, KIA Sportage, Toyota RAV4 and the Nissan Rogue. The factor that would get you sign for the VW is its refinement and perceived build quality. (Noticed I said perceived there; more on that later) The interior of the VW is finished with high quality materials. Everywhere you touch, you are met with something upscale. The dashboard is covered in a rubberized material that just feels good. The steering wheel is just the right diameter and all of the buttons pressed meet your fingers with just the right amount of resistance.

For my six foot frame, the seating position was more compact than ideal, but I would imaging that shorter drivers would find themselves quite comfortable. The oddest piece of the interior ergonomics was a large disparity between the height of the door arm rest compared to the height of the center console lid. Also, the drivers seat is unnaturally far away from the door. As I noted in the video, this may be due to striving for the highest crash rating possible, but it was surprising in something so small. Rear seat room is as good as can be expected given its compact exterior dimensions, and details like adjustable rear seats do a good job of using all of the space available.

The little VW also drives quite nicely. Much of the quality of its locomotion is thanks to the robust little 2.0 liter turbocharged four cylinder under the hood. The little engine provides such powerful and elastic motivation that it is clearly understandable why small naturally aspirated V6s are following to dodo to extinction. The updated six speed automatic transmission also does a nice job. As I also noted in the video, I found the normal drive setting to be a bit to quick to search for fuel economy, but in sport mode it is as good as an automatic box gets in this segment. The other list of things that are pluses are suspension tuning, steering feel, and braking. All fall into the range of very good for a compact SUV. The only competitor that could be considered more sporty is the RAV4 with its beast of a V6, but when it comes to ride quality, the Tiguan is years ahead.

All good then? That is what I was thinking until the end of my time with the Tiguan. You’ll notice that other than the seating issue the video review is full of positive feedback. Such is the reason it is important to spend more than just a day with a car. The EPA rates the two wheel drive Tiguan at 22 MPG in the city and 27 MPG on the highway. We finished our week with an on-board computer calculated average of 24.1 miles per gallon. I put a little over 45o miles on the Tiguan and at the end of my stint the VW needed some more fuel. This is when I discovered that the Tiguan “recommends” premium fuel. Why? Why would something that makes 200 horsepower and 206 ft/lbs of torque require premium gas? I understand that 100hp per liter is quite a bit of power for the size of the engine, and a few years ago I might have found it acceptable, but here is the problem. Hyundai makes the same size engine with 74/63 more horsepower/torque and it does it on regular fuel. I think I know what you may be thinking, they do it to ensure reliability.

I thought the same thing until the little ute decided to go into “limp” mode during a merge onto a busy highway and could only be motivated to gain speed very gradually. I did manage to make it to the next highway exit, shut down the engine and do some searching on my phone. On the dash, the “EPC” light was lit, and after a brief search I discovered that EPC stands for Electronic Powertrain Control. What was actually wrong with the car could have still been more than a dozen things. I rechecked the gas cap, checked the oil and restarted the car. On restart the light went away and everything seemed to be fine, then about an hour later it happened again. The Tiguan never left me stranded, but it did tarnish what would have been a very nice week.

I’m not saying that the Tiguan is unreliable or that the limp-home mode phenomenon was more than just a fluke, but perhaps there is at least a modicum of truth behind VW’s reputation for building engaging, desirable vehicles that just seem to have more than their share of reliability issues.  The company seems to have turned a corner over the past few years, but it might be that all is not yet perfect on that front.

For more insights into our experience with the Tiguan, take a look at our video reviews:

On road:

In car navigation and electronics (infotainment):

Volkswagen provided the vehicle, insurance, and a tank of gas for this review.

The same friend who first introduced me into the thrills of high-school hoonage—in a late 1970s Chevy Monza—recently bought this 1996 Volkswagen Golf Harlequin, and I was lucky enough to get some time behind the wheel. For those who haven’t read the head Savant’s own piece on the car, from 2009, the Golf Harlequin actually came that way right from the factory.

Based on what I’ve been able to glean online, Volkswagen built a multicolored show car for the 1996 season, using body panels from separate and differently colored Golfs, then displayed it at “the Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, New York and Toronto Auto Shows.” The concept behind this concept—“a harlequin Golf as it were”—was to solve the “minor domestic crisis” that could ensue if he and she preferred different-colored Golfs. That’s all from an ad from the February 1996 issue of the U.K.’s VW Driver Magazine, posted at the RossVW.com Harlequin Registry, where I also discovered that the base price for these beauties was $13,510, with a $150 premium for the “Special Harlequin Multi-Color Paint.” That compares to today’s five-door Golf, now starting at $19,795.

Other matchups between the two Golfs:

*Adusted; original EPA ratings: 22/28/24. From FuelEconomy.gov.

Want to compare the 1996 VW to its contemporaries? The 1996 Ford Escort five-door opened at $11,345, and the Toyota Corolla at $12,728. (Specs here, and elsewhere, are from Consumers Guide, Edmunds.com and Cars.com.)

And while not literally unique, they certainly are rare. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Volkswagen built a mere 264 Golf Harlequins and sold all of them in the North American markets, in two separate waves. (The particular one under discussion here is No. 8 of the second run of 200.) Plus, the four colors were used in different patterns, which means the number of Harlequins in each body-panel scheme is even lower than that. It’s tempting to believe there were 66 units in each pattern, but I can’t confirm that’s the case. There’s not much of an online auction history with these cars, either; I found two examples, a recent one from March on eBay that went at $3,650, and, then I found anecdotal evidence of a sale in 2006 for $10,000.

The colors: You’re looking at Ginster Yellow, Tornado Red, Chagall Blue and Pistachio Green, which is considered the “base color” of this one: It’s the color of the donor car, so to speak; the one to which all the other body panels were added.

As you can see, the seats were Harlequin-ized as well, all in the same pattern, and that silver-faced gauge plate also is an upgrade over the regular Golf GL, the model on which the Harlequin is based. The interior dimensions of the latter are very close to those of the modern-day Golf, with all typical measures being within about an inch of each other, and the older model offering more front headroom and rear shoulder-room.  Well, there is one exception, and that’s in the back row. This is where the Harlequin’s somewhat smaller dimensions show up, as it has four fewer inches of rear seat legroom: 31.5 inches vs. the 2012 model’s 35.5 inches.

This particular one rocked VW’s 2.0-liter inline I4, worth about 115 hp and 122 lb.-ft. of torque, along with a four-speed automatic; going by the seat of my pants here, I’d say it could go from 0-60 in … a very strong tailwind. The car feels fairly well planted, too, although I imagine it would be hard to really put that to a test because of its powertrain. The driving experience was a lot like that of the Ford Fiesta, but with much heavier steering and a less confining cabin.

But I suppose performance wasn’t meant to be the Harlequin’s strong suit. What it is good at is attracting attention. I first started taking pictures at the dealership where my friend works, but I encountered competition and I decided to finish up while I was out on my drive. It no doubt helps that the car is in very nice condition, with only 15,226 miles on the odometer and surprisingly few rattles and squeaks for a car that’s 20 years old. The all-original interior has held up very well, and the car, overall, still exhibited the kind of fit and finish that would put some of today’s new-style Jettas to shame.

And of course, you’re not likely to see one of those get the Harlequin treatment, either. But, in a timely coincidence, I just saw a Jetta GL from the same generation as the Harlequin, so I posted that pic, too. 

“Wouldn’t you really rather drive a Buick?”

For years, the answer to the question posed by this decades-old tagline for most people younger than 70 would have probably been “no thank you.”  When my wife and I were shopping over four years ago for a new family hauler, I had my eye on the then-new Enclave, and she was less-than-eager to be seen as a Buick driver.  After all, her Grandma was still driving a late-80s A-body Century at the time.  We didn’t end up buying the Enclave, not because of its image, but because it was more expensive than the minivan that we settled on.

The Enclave did begin turning around Buick’s image with buyers, and subsequent products like the second-generation LaCrosse, the reborn Regal, and compact Verano served to further improve Buick’s image among the younger crowd.  The funny thing is, from my point of view, after launching products like the LaCrosse, Regal, and Verano after the Enclave, the Enclave seems to cater more to the “traditional” Buick buyer than any of the others, aside from the LaCrosse.  I think Buick is still working on defining its identity; it can’t go through life aspiring to be the “American Lexus.”

The Enclave is one of three very similar large crossovers built by GM on its so-called Lambda platform.  No other GM vehicles share this platform, though there is plenty of parts-sharing evident both below the surface and in plain sight between the Enclave and other GM vehicles.  Off the top of my head, the drivetrain, steering wheel, switchgear, navigation system are all found elsewhere in the GM lineup.  There once was a fourth Lambda, the Saturn Outlook, but we all know what happened to Saturn.  The Outlook’s stampings live on, however, in the updated 2013 GMC Acadia.  The revised Acadia will use the Saturn’s rear body stampings for a slightly different shape than the original Acadia featured.  The third member of the family is the Chevrolet Traverse, which we’ve covered several times before.

Of note, the 2013 Traverse and Enclave will also be heavily revised (particularly their interiors), but powertrains won’t change, and driving impressions will probably be similar between this 2012 and the new 2013s.

Not only is the Enclave the best looking among its corporate cousins, but it also has the nicest interior.  Where the Acadia and Traverse have hard plastic on their dashboards, the Enclave has soft-touch materials.  I hadn’t spent time in an Enclave in years prior to testing this 2012 model, but my earlier recollection that older Enclaves had a hard plastic dash may or may not be correct.  At any rate, it’s not in the 2012, and will be covered in imitation leather in the revised 2013 models.  The fake wood on the dash and door panels looks almost realistic, and there is for the most part a cohesive curve-heavy design across the dash and the rest of the interior.

Sadly, the Enclave is seriously lacking in the latest in-car technology.  It does have Bluetooth connectivity for handsfree phone use, but the notion of Bluetooth streaming audio from your iPhone is a pipe dream.  There is a USB port that you can use to connect your iPod, iPhone, or other media player, but it’s connected to a 2005-vintage double-DIN head unit with a low-resolution display, slow control responses, and a frustrating user interface.  Don’t get me started on the navigation system, either – it’s slow, lacks detail, and generally one of the poorest examples of in-car navigation out there.  I love in-car navigation systems, but I’d probably go with an aftermarket Garmin installation if I were buying a 2008-2012 Enclave rather than the factory unit.

As in the Acadia, seating comfort decreases drastically as you move from front to rear.  The front thrones are wide and comfy with high backs and reasonable support (a little too cushy for my liking, but not awful).  The second row has good room, and with captain’s chairs, but the seats are low to the floor (and the Enclave loses the legroom battle against the Lincoln MKT).  In the third row, you can put kids back there, but adults who have fully-formed legs will hate you for asking them to sit there.  This isn’t a minivan, you know.

Cargo volume – one of the primary reasons people supposedly buy crossovers and SUVs – is in short supply behind the third row when that seat is in use.  However, the second and third rows fold flat to the floor, and it’s cavernous back there when you start folding seats.  After all, these are very large vehicles.  Though not as space-efficient as a minivan, the Enclave is lighter and has a better ratio of inside room to outside footprint than do its larger brethren like the Suburban or Yukon XL.

For a big crossover, the Enclave can move fairly well.  Its suspension is tuned more toward comfort than is the Acadia’s.  Since few folks will be autocrossing one of these big boys, that might be OK, even for someone like me who prefers firmer suspension.  My wife complained of her head being tossed side to side when riding in the Acadia Denali at a rapid clip on a back road, but remained silent on the same road at similar speeds in the Enclave.  A more isolated ride coupled with a more isolated interior (extra sound-deadening, called “QuietTuning,” for instance) may make happier passengers, both of the spousal and child varieties.

I thought that the brake pedal felt somewhat mushy in the Enclave – something I noticed as well in the Acadia.  Braking performance overall was adequate; I’m not expecting a $2,500 set of track-ready Brembos in a family-hauling crossover, after all.  For my right foot, though, I would have felt a little more confident in the big Buick’s braking abilities had the pedal feel been a bit more firm.

There were rumors during the Enclave’s earlier years about a future V8 option, or perhaps a twin turbo V6 (kind of sounds like Ford’s EcoBoost V6), but those rumors either were never true, or the winds changed due to GM’s financial troubles and eventual bankruptcy.  It’s a shame, because the Enclave is no lightweight, and it would be a significantly more engaging drive with another 50 or so horsepower.  It’s hard to imagine that such powertrain upgrades (particularly a boosted V6) would harm fuel economy significantly, since it was pretty sub-par in my time behind the wheel.  During a week of mixed driving – mostly commuting solo – I saw a combined 16.5 miles per gallon, or just above the EPA city rating of 16 MPG.  The EPA rates the Enclave at 22 MPG on the highway.  The latter seems to be theoretically possible, but it burns quite a bit of fuel getting up to highway speed.

The as-tested price of our test Enclave was $50,950 (including $810 destination charge).  The only options in this Premium Group-equipped tester were the $3,185 audio system with navigation and DVD entertainment, $1,400 power sunroof with second row skylight, $300 chrome-clad 20″ aluminum wheels, and gorgeous $195 Carbon Black Metallic paint.

You’ll find similar passenger room in the larger and more expensive Yukon XL or Suburban, and the Buick’s pre-refresh (2008-2012 model year) interior bests that of its full-size body on frame cousins, including offering similar usable passenger space.  The Enclave also enjoys the benefit of being more politically correct than driving a Suburban, if that sort of thing is important to you.  But the Suburban and Yukon XL can top the Enclave in towing and in straight-line performance (though at a mileage penalty).  Lincoln’s MKT, while ungainly looking, offers a nicer interior and better powertrain options.  As always, your choice will depend on your priorities.  If you’re looking for good looks and comfort, and put less of a priority on performance and economy, the Enclave might be the semi-luxury crossover for you.

Buick provided the vehicle, insurance, and a tank of gas for this review.