Dodge’s Dart subcompact was just revealed a few weeks ago, but we’ve already got two pieces of future speculation on where the lineup could expand.  First, Mopar will be bringing a concept Dart to the Chicago Auto Show, called the Dart GTS 210 Tribute.  It previews the two “stages” of Mopar upgrades for the new sedan.  Stage 1 will be aesthetic goodies, like the carbon fiber hood with Viper-esque scoop, and matte black side skirts, front diffuser, and other trim -- along with those good looking 18″ alloys.  Stage 2 will bump power output from 184bhp (assuming that’s the 2.4L) to 210bhp, probably through intake/exhaust/tuning.  The other piece of speculation comes from Motor Trend, who brought up the question: what will be under the hood of the next SRT-4?  Remember the original tire-smoking Neon SRT-4 packed 230 horsepower, and the ungainly but fast Caliber packed 285, so MT is guessing the Dart SRT-4 will have at least 300 under the hood.  It’s all guesses, but the smart money’s on a boosted variant of the 2.0L or 2.4L “Tigershark” I4′s, cranking out around the magic 300 mark through the twin-clutch automated manual.  Here’s hoping.

Audi’s just released details on a new engine offering for the A6 and A7 in Europe, and it’s a belter.  Called the 3.0 BiTDi, it’s a twin-turbocharged higher output version of their existing 3.0L diesel V6 engine.  The turbos are set up in a sequential arrangement, and the engine also has regenerative braking and a start/stop system.  This version cranks out a healthy 309bhp between 3,900-4,500rpm, and an even stronger 480lb-ft torque from 1,450-2,800rpm.  All models (A6, A6 Avant, A7) will come with an 8-speed automatic hooked to Quattro AWD, and it’ll be fast: the A6 3.0 BiTDI will do 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds (the A6 Avant and A7 in 5.3.)  Average fuel mileage is 44.1mpg Imperial for all.  Prices range from £43,810 for the A6 SE Saloon 3.0 BiTDI to £53,436 for the A7 S-Line.  It’s still nowhere near BMW’s new M Performance triple-turbo diesel craziness, but it’s a start.

Dodge is reviving the iconic Viper sports car for model year 2013, and they’ve just released the first teaser image of the car (which is schedule to debut at the New York Auto Show in April).  From this image, we can tell the 2013 (SRT, not Dodge) Viper will have… headlights.  And a hood scoop, and a roof of some sort.  Not very helpful, but this is much better strip tease than the Buick Encore at least.  Supposedly the new Viper will have stability control, and a new version of the gargantuan 8.4L V10 fitted with Fiat’s MultiAir system -- we’ll see.

The Super Bowl is apparently happening soon -- I don’t really do the NFL thing, so I don’t care -- but that does mean there are some great car ads on the way.  There’s also this Honda ad, which reincarnates Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller.  Only he’s actually Matthew Broderick, and instead of his friend’s dad’s Ferrari, he’s driving a Honda CR-V on his “day off.”  I’m sorry, I’m pretty sure Ferris Bueller would be more interested in joyriding in an Aventador.

There are some other funny ads coming out, but Audi’s always a strong contender for best Super Bowl ad.  I think they’ve got this year in the bag, with their minute-long “Vampire Party” spot.  The premise is that Audi’s new LED headlights are so bright, they cause vampires to explode.  I think they’re just poking fun at Volvo, who has gotten on board promoting for the silly “Twilight” tween sparkly vampire franchise.  Still hilarious.

Under the “What are intellectual property rights?” heading, we have the upcoming JAC 43R, made in (you guessed it) China.  Hmm.  It does look a little bit like a Ford F-150.  Surely consumers won’t get them confused, it’s not like it has a blue oval in the front grille… Wait, yes it does.  The continued theft of designs from China is one of the many reasons why they’ve made almost no headway into real automotive markets.  Wonder what’s under the hood?  A Mitsubishi 4G63?

Another terrible teaser image, this one from American electric-car maker Tesla.  This is the silhouette of the upcoming Model X crossover, which has me so excited I can’t stay conscious.  Just kidding, electric pseude SUV’s aren’t my thing -- although the company claims it’s “faster than a Porsche 911 and more spacious than an Audi Q7,” so that’s something.  The Model X will be revealed on February 9th in a live webcast as well as at Tesla’s design studio in Hawthorne, CA.

And finally, I’m curious: how do you stall a car that has an automated manual transmission?  Does this guy just suck at driving, or does Aston Martin have some more programming work to do on the transmission of the One-77, their nearly 2 million dollar bespoke hypercar?  Either way, it’s a mixture of “The sound, oh the glorious sound” and laughter at this dude failing to make a right turn in city traffic.

The automotive world is filled with rivalries.  STI owners think EVO drivers are mentally handicapped, Mustang owners laugh at Camaros, Prius drivers have those “pissing on Insight” stickers, and Holden owners like to pull Ford drivers out of their cars at stoplights and beat them to death with pipe wrenches.  Another to add to the list: Cobalt SS and Neon SRT-4 owners.  On the surface, both cars are pretty similar: high performance versions of domestic economy cars, with drastically more power and braking abilities and not a lot of interior luxuries.  I love both; I love the Cobalt SS Turbo more.

One way to settle the whole argument is to quit the bullshitting and bench racing, assemble some teams, slap them on a dyno (or rolling road), and see who actually makes more power.

Spoiler alert: It’s the Cobalts.

Stock-turbo Cobalts can put down impressive power numbers: this is Rick Ramos’s SS Turbo, with a tune and bolt-ons.  It put down 325whp and 402ft-lbs torque at the wheels.

His car has shown up in a few articles here before; most recently at the Eurowise meet.  Nice to see a car that rubs tires on the dyno still putting down LS1 torque levels.

Ernie Romano’s Cobalt SS Turbo used to rock the stock K04, but after a minor thermal incident (the polite way of saying “the motor blew up”), it was rebuilt with a stronger bottom end and a Bullseye 252 turbo.  On pump gas, the car put down 376 horsepower and 352 torque at 25.5psi.  Normally this setup runs 31psi, so there’s still a good bit of power on the table.  The sound of the open-dump wastegate is unbelievable.

Red, yellow, red, yellow, awww, the black car ruined it.  The Audi looks a bit out of place.  Matt Welliver’s S4 has seen a few addition since I featured it; a custom 3″ stainless exhaust, an intake, and a Unitronic Stage 2 tune.

With the modifications, power has risen from 253whp and 264wtq to 284whp and 282wtq.  Not bad for around $1500 in modifications.

Thomas Gidden’s Cobalt was originally supercharged, but now sports a ZZP Turbo conversion and runs off of E85 Ethanol.  You’ve seen this car before in my coverage of Rockingham drag racing events, and now we have some solid dyno numbers.

411 wheel horsepower, and 382 wheel torque.  The funny thing?  This is a relatively conservative tune, due to “winterized” Ethanol.  Winterized Ethanol has a lower effective octane rating than normal E85, so Thomas had to pull out 7 pounds of boost and 6 degrees of timing advance to avoid detonation.  This car should make more than 450whp in the summer.  More impressive: this is still on stock LSJ internals.

This new-style STI hatch had a big turbo setup, and put down 409 horsepower and 381 torque -- to all four wheels.  Sadly the microphone on my camera isn’t as good as the lens itself is; it tends to get overwhelmed at really loud noises, but you can still tell it’s pretty wicked.

The Cobalts ended up winning again -- mostly due to higher overall torque numbers, but it was still fairly close, with all of the SRT-4′s that dyno’d putting down more than 300whp.  Stock for stock, the SRT-4 Neon’s put down around 225whp and 240wtq, with most stock turbo Cobalts making closer to 250 and 260- so despite the Cobalt’s 400cc displacement disadvantage and smaller turbo, the LNF’s use their direct injection for a huge advantage when modified.  Class dismissed.

This is the final scoreboard at the end of -- the day -- the first number is power, the second is torque, and the squared entries are best in class.  There are two more dyno videos -- this one of a Yellow turbo Cobalt making 332whp, and this one of a bolt-on 350Z making 249 -- and there’s a gallery of images below.  Enjoy!

The Detroit Auto Show actually starts Monday.  But in this business, all the news arrives before its due date.  That’s the case with the Dodge Dart, which they’ve been teasing for a little while now.  We’ve had some preview posts on the Dart before, which you can find here and a snarky editorial on the Dart’s EPA-pleasing 9-speed gearbox here.

The full press release on the Dart will likely drop Monday (or before), but they’ve released a batch of images showing the R/T (Red) and Limited (White.)  Finally seeing the whole car for the first time, I’m pleasantly surprised.  Mainly because they’ve ditched the goofy pseudo-SUV look of the Caliber, which never really worked, but it’s a decent looking little car on it’s own.  The Dart is based on the Alfa Romeo Guilietta (as mentioned in the preview post), and with the whole thing in view you can see a decent amount of the euro hatch in the car’s lines.  If you don’t remember what the Guilietta looks like, here’s a high res gallery for reference.

The Dart has a surprisingly low belt line for a modern car, especially the side windows that dip down towards the front to create maximum glass surface area.  The front end drops dramatically towards the nose, something we couldn’t really see in the preview pictures.  To me, it looks good from some angles (like the one below) and awkward from others -- like directly side-on.  The “race track” LED tail lights are adapted from the new Charger surprisingly well; I was thinking they would look out of proportion on the much smaller Dart, but they work -- giving the rear end a bit of Fisker/Aston Martin if you squint.

The interior is a pleasant surprise.  Chrysler have been known for distinctly low-rent interiors in their compact cars since the beginning of time, but in these press photos it looks… really rather nice.  Also, I’m pleased to see a manual transmission in the press photos- even if it’s got 3 less gears than that new one. The red accents all over the place (R/T model) seem a bit brash, but it brings some light into an otherwise totally black/grey interior.

The large center-mounted touch screen takes up a lot of dash real estate, but with the focus on compact cars shifting ever more towards technology and creature comforts these days, I doubt that will be a bad thing to any potential buyers.

Update:  Most of the hard specs on the Dart have rolled in with it’s official debut today, if you’re curious.  This is a fairly large car, despite it’s Alfa underpinnings -- The 106.4″ wheelbase is surprisingly roomy, with an OAL of 189.3″.  It’s 72″ wide, and 57.7″ tall.  To put it into perspective, compared to the current 3rd-generation Focus Hatchback, the Dart has a 2″ longer wheelbase, 12″ longer overall length, with about the same width and height.

There will be three four cylinder engines, and three tranmissions. The base engine is a 2.0L “Tigershark” I4, the only one of the three that doesn’t employ Fiat’s MultiAir technology.  It makes 160 bhp@6,400rpm, and 145lb-ft@4,800rpm.  This one will be available with a 6-speed manual or conventional automatic.  Upper level models (probably standard on the R/T, optional in the Limited, although no info on the engine to trim level relationship is out yet) will get a revised version of Mopar’s 2.4L I4, now with Fiat’s MultiAir.  This is the most powerful, making 184bhp@6,250rpm and 171lb-ft@4,800rpm -- again, available with the 6-speed manual or automatic.  The most interesting is the 1.4L MultiAir Turbo, presumably “borrowed” from the Fiat 500 Abarth.  This tiny motor is turbocharged and intercooled, matching the 2.0L for power (160bhp@5,500rpm) and beating both engines for torque (184lb-ft from 2,550-4,000rpm), with a wider torque spread than either.  This too can be had with a six-speed manual transmission, or interestingly a 6-speed DDCT (Dual Dry Clutch Transmission) like VW’s DSG.  I would expect the 1.4L Turbo to be the most efficient, and near the 2.4L for overall performance.  The crazy ZF 9-speed auto will come along at a later date.

For tech, the Dart does not disappoint.  In fact, of all the makers to challenge the Focus for sheer toys, who would expect Dodge?  But hell, it’s all there.  There’s an optional 7″ TFT gauge cluster that can be configured any number of ways: digital and analogue gauges, turn-by-turn display for the navigation, fuel economy data, and audio/phone/compass/temp readouts.  Then there’s the optional 8.4″ color screen in the center dash, ringed by the lit red groovy tube (I’m trademarking that name.)  That does Radio, Navigation, iPod control, climate controls, voice-activated blue tooth, SiriusXM Travel Link, weather updates and points of interest.  More toys?  Sure!  You can also get a heated steering wheel(!), a 506w stereo, a storage compartment in the passenger seat, keyless entry/ignition, HID headlights, Dual-Zone Climate, a rear view camera, heated seats, etc etc.

The Dart will be available in 5 trim levels, from poverty (relative these days) to posh.  From base to top: SE, SXT, Rallye, Limited and R/T.  There will be 12 color choices and 14 different interior combinations, plus a bunch of accessories from Mopar.  Production of the Dart will begin Q2 of this year at Chrysler’s Belvidere Ill. plant, with a base price of $15,995.

An attractive, high tech, feature-laden and desirable Chrysler Compact?  Be still, my beating heart.

In order to keep you, our reader, more abreast with current news without taking up an inordinate amount of your time, I’m introducing this column – “News Bites.”  One paragraph and picture per topic of today’s automotive news.  One article.  If we were a paper publication, we’d say we were going green.  Let us know what you think!

Fiat has dropped a load of new photos of the 3rd-generation Panda supermini today.  This pint-sized product (which I still believe Fiat should be selling in the US pitched against the Fit, etc) debuted at the Frankfurt show in September, and is going on sale next year.  Engines are all tiny, ranging from an 800cc TwinAir 2cyl up to a 1.3L diesel.  Full high-res gallery here.

Dodge’s replacement for the Caliber, the Dart, is less than a month away from it’s official reveal.  Dodge has been playing the teaser game the best they can with a fuel-sipping compact car, and now we’ve got a full CGI teaser shot of… the dashboard.  You can’t see the shifter, which will surely display “P-R-N-D-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1″  – right?  Anyway, we can see a push-button start, a small display between the speedo/tach, the touch-screen HVAC/stereo display, and that odd glowing ring around the instrument panel.  It actually looks pretty nice – but I’ll wait for pictures of the real thing to judge it first.

Infiniti, Nissan’s luxury brand, apparently wants to add a smaller hatchback to their lineup.  This is likely in response to cars like the Lexus CT200h, Audi A3, and BMW 1-series hatch – and perhaps the upcoming Acura ILX (see below.)  Styling will likely be based on the Etherea hatchback from the Geneva show this year (above), but the underpinnings will be from… the front-drive Mercedes Benz A-class.  The world is indeed getting smaller.  Although, the A-class’s clever DI/Turbo four cylinder and 7-speed DCT with an Infiniti (read: attractive) body and interior doesn’t sound like a bad combo.  Apparently a design should be signed off on by January, and a fall debut is the target.

Acura is apparently planning a big booth at the Detroit show this year, and there’s a lot of news.  Sadly, being Acura, none of it’s interesting.  First of all, there will be blood: something with four doors in the Acura lineup is getting an axe to the neck.  One of the models Acura will be introducing at Detroit is called the ILX (about which I could launch an hour-long rant on the stupidity of acronyms.)  It will be an Acura-ized version of the 9th-generation Civic (much like the CSX, pictured above, strangely only sold in Canada) and will likely take the place of the TSX.  The ILX will widen the size/economy gap between the small (TSX) and medium (TL) Acura sedans – the TSX being a European Accord, the TL being an American Accord – and should come with 1.5L Hybrid, 2.0L 16v DI, and 2.4L engine options.  More Acura news?  A redesigned RL sedan, a facelift (likely a move to the new CR-V chassis) for the RDX mini-ute, and the debut of a 2nd-generation NSX Concept car.  Which will be a 4WD electric-hybrid with a twin clutch automatic.  Acura… sigh.

Mini has apparently realized that everything can benefit from more power.  When I reviewed the Countryman S a while back, I was impressed by it’s interior flexibility and capable chassis.  I was nonplussed by the odd styling, and disappointed by it’s lack of power – even in it’s fastest form, the FWD turbo Countryman S with a manual.  177bhp is enough for a regular Cooper hardtop, but it struggles a bit to move the Countryman’s additional 400lbs of mass.  Praise be to JCW!  No, not JC Whitney, the people that will almost always send you the wrong parts in the mail.  John Cooper Works.  Mini is rumored to be bringing a Cooper Works version of the Countryman to Detroit, likely with the same 208bhp turbo engine that graces the rest of the JCW range.  With AWD and a manual, the Countryman JCW should blast to sixty in less than seven seconds.  A proper AWD hot hatch, then?  We shall see.  You know how I love test driving Minis.

Ford Focus related news of two varieties today!  First up is the Focus ST-R pictured above, which Ford announced today will be priced at… wait for it… $98,995.  What?  The ST-R is a stripped-out, track-ready version of the Focus ST that is soon to arrive on our shores.  The ST-R is a turnkey, ready-to-go racecar that can run in Grand Am ST, SCCA World Challenge TC, and a number of other touring-car series.  It’s got a full roll cage, track suspension and brakes, a track-ready 2.0L turbo engine, and a bunch of other race goodies.  Less exciting Focus news?  The Focus Electric has been rated at 100 MPGe, which is a confusing electric mileage rating you can read more about here.  That makes it the highest MPGe-rated five-seater, which must be exciting to some people.  Apparently the main benefit of the Focus Electric is that it will take a full charge on 240v in about half the time needed for a Nissan Leaf.  I still don’t want an electric car, though.

And finally, via the Daily Mail UK, here’s a picture of actor Richard Dean Anderson peering under the hood of his (C5) Audi Allroad Quattro while he waits for roadside assistance.  Now, I’m not one for celebrity news – I don’t care what magazine Lindsay Lohan is posing as a Marilyn Monroe wannabe for.  And a broken-down Allroad is not surprising – what with the twin-turbo 5-valve V6, 5-speed automatic, torsen AWD, variable ride-height air suspension, and all the other various mechanical malarky Audi shoved into that car, it’s not reliable.  At all.  But Anderson is best known for his role as MacGyver.  The TV hero who was known for fixing things with a paper clip and a stick of gum?  Hell, MacGyver has become a verb these days – meaning “fix a complex problem with a simple solution.”  If any car needs MacGyver-ing, it’s an Allroad Quattro.  I am so disappointed.  To make this more relevant: Audi is going to be selling the current A4 Allroad Quattro here next year, with the 2.0T/8-speed auto/Quattro drivetrain.

If you like News Bites, let me know in the comments section below.  If you have ideas for how to improve it, I’d like to hear those too!  Till next time.

Pictured: ZF’s 8-speed Automatic for BMW’s, about to be “old hat.”

Luddite.  The term originated from England during the industrial revolution in the early 1800′s.  Luddites went out at night, destroying wide-frame fabric looms that were taking away the jobs of skilled textile workers.  It was a man-against-machine revolution that got to the point of military intervention.  Technology was minimizing their usefulness in society, so the solution was to destroy the technology.  A noble fight, but today the term Luddite has been boiled down to mean someone not fond of technological advances.

I am not a Luddite.  There’s plenty of technology I’m fond of.  I like fuel injection.  I even like direct injection in some forms, particularly Toyota’s D4S direct and port system.  Twin-clutch automated manuals are cool.  Of course turbocharging is.  I can even occasionally get along with traction control, flappy paddle gearboxes, heated seats, and satnav systems.  But sometimes it’s pretty clear that a line is being crossed, and that line is technology for the sake of the marketing department.

The 2013 Dodge Dart:  Grab Life By The 9-speed Auto.  More Gears Than You Can Handle!!11!!11oneeleventyone!!%$^^*

Two days ago, I showed you some CGI renderings and a few details about the upcoming 2013 Dodge Dart.  It turns out, there’s another detail that ol’ Sergio Marchionne left out.  While the Dart will likely ship with a Fiat 6-speed twin clutch when it launches, later on it will house a ZF 9-speed automatic transmission.  That will make it the first production car with 9 forward gears, and you have to wonder – what’s the point?

Well, the point is clear for Fiatsler:  as soon as the company can build a car that gets an unadjusted 40mpg combined, Fiat can buy the remaining 5% of Chrysler from the federal government, giving them a 58.5% share in the former-failing, now-selling company.  I don’t mind this at all.  Before Fiat came into the game, Chrysler’s vehicles were some of the least desirable, least efficient, most poorly-built automobiles in America.  (Well, except for the Chevy Aveo.  Thanks, GM-Daewoo!)  They’re quickly turning that around now, and I applaud them.

As long as they put the Caliber out of it’s friggin’ misery, I don’t care if it’s replacement has 14 gears.  Blech.

But really, how much of the decision to fit a 9-speed automatic to the Dart was driven by the engineering department, and how much of it was a result of the marketing department?  Dodge says the 9-speed automatic offers between 10-16% better efficiency than a conventional six-speed automatic, but I find that rather hard to believe.  Considering that the current Honda Civic HF has 138 horsepower, and gets 41mpg with an “old-school” 5-speed automatic, what are those other 4 gears doing?

“Honda is behind the times,” they say.  “Only 5 gears?  And port injection?”  Let’s look at the ends, not the means, guys.  Civic HF pictured.

I’ll tell you what they’ll be doing:  they’ll be swapping back and forth on a flat stretch of road.  They’ll be annoying.  9 gear is going to get on your nerves, in the same way that a bike with 3 chainrings and a 9-speed cassette has 27 gears, but you can never find the right one, because you’re always swapping between them.  Lexus apparently kept the 6-speed automatic in the brand-new GS350 because according to test drivers, prototypes fitted with the LS’s 8-speed auto spent too much time hunting for the right gear.  And the Lexus has a torquey, dual-injected 3.5L 306bhp V6.  The Dart is going to come with a variety of small displacement four-cylinder engines that will all be light on torque, with the possible exception of the 2.4L.  Less torque equals more sensitivity to gearing.  This is why a Bentley Turbo R can get away with a GM TH400 3-speed automatic: it’s got 500lb-ft of torque below 2,000 rpm, it doesn’t matter what gear you’re in.  This is also why they never made an S2000 with a 4-speed automatic: it would be terrible.  It’s why the 2.0L WRX with a 4-speed automatic is terrible, come to think of it.

“9 gears?  Old chap, I have 752lb-ft of torque at 1,800rpms.  I can get by with 2 gears.  Pfft.  Fish ‘n chips.”

The other issue is the law of diminishing returns for additional gears.  After all, you can keep adding on gears, but you can’t really keep making them deeper and deeper.  If Mopar is just stacking numerically lower and lower overdrive ratios on top of a 6-speed box, it won’t work.  A 1.4L engine is really going to struggle to keep a 3,200lb vehicle (just guessing) moving along comfortable at 1,300rpm’s.  This is why Honda’s Fit is geared so short – it has a small engine, if it had a long final drive ratio it wouldn’t be making enough power in top gear to comfortably stay at highway speed.  That’s why it buzzes along near 4,000 rpm while cruising.  So unless you have a 6.0L V8 under the hood, or something large and turbocharged, you can’t just get extra fuel economy from adding deeper gears, because the lack of power at that RPM will force the car to compensate with more throttle opening, more fuel, more timing: less economy.  So what they’re doing is stacking these ratios closer, keeping the top gear about the same as in transmissions with less gears, and making the gaps between the other gears smaller.  In theory, they should just bin the planetary automatic and make a CVT that doesn’t suck if that’s what they want to do.  CVT’s have infinite gears in a defined spread, but people rightfully (thanks Saturn!) don’t trust them.  With each additional gear you add, expense goes up but benefit decreases.  The difference in gearing peaks between a 4 and a 5-speed auto is noticeable.  The difference between 8 gears and 9?  Come on.  How many “average joe” consumers actually know how many gears are in their box anyway?  Ford doesn’t even bother to include choices on their automatics any more, giving you “P R N D L.”

What does the “L” stand for when you have 6 gears, by the way?

More likely, it was a small part “well, another gear will give us a few more MPG’s” and it was 90% “Hey, if we have a 9-speed automatic, that’s something we can brag about in our ads that none of our competitors can.  Yet.  Until Toyota comes up with a 5-speed auto with a 2-speed transfer case or something.  We’ll sell a bunch of these.  It’ll be great.”  After all, Marketing is the reason that most performance car ads focus on horsepower, instead of torque.  Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.  And tows trailers.  And does burnouts.  But that’s Marketing, and I’m not a marketing guy, and if it helps Chrysler sell more cars then great.

I’ll be honest, this is how I prefer to be marketed to.

But beyond the annoyance of the car switching between gears 7, 8, and 9 on a flat road, and the pointlessness of 9 gears on a small engine, and the law of diminishing returns, and the argument of engineering versus marketing we get to the real issue.  Would you want to own a Chrysler that has 9 freaking gears?  I think a bus pass would be a better guarantee of reliability than a Chrysler 9-speed transaxle.  I’m not a Luddite, but I am a professional cynic, and let’s be cynical: Chrysler does not have the best reputation for building reliable automatic transmissions.  How often do you see ChryCo minivans for sale with busted or slipping automatics?  Dakota/Durangos or Rams with a failed 3rd gear valve body?  But hey, this 9-speed is being made by ZF, right?  Well, in South Carolina.  Even if we put aside my prejudice against Chrysler’s automatics (which is admittedly difficult), look at it this way:  except for the engine, the transmission is the single most complicated and expensive component in a car.  If you have a car with 100k miles and the transmission goes out, that is usually the point at which it goes to auction or the junk yard.  (Or on craiglist with a note “might need trans work.”)  A new or rebuilt transmission can sometimes match or exceed the cost of a less than ten-year-old car.  It’s one of those “planned obsolescence” features that help manufacturers keep their profits up.  And the more stuff they cram into a compact transaxle (such as nine gears, or two clutches) generally speaking, the less reliable it is.

VW’s 7-speed DSG.  Look at all those tiny parts waiting to break!

So while some autojournos will continue to make fun of the Civic for only having a 5-speed auto, I’ll continue to point out that it gets 41mpg highway with one battery and 5 gears, and they don’t break.  I think the Dart will be a good product (considering it’s based on an Alfa Romeo, it’ll probably be fun to drive), but you can put me on the wary side of this equation.  More is more, but can we start making sure that the engineering companies do has a point before they spend the money doing it?

Manuals aren’t immune either, apparently.  Porsche is introducing the world’s first seven-speed manual in the new 911, sure to confuse many an old banker.  And let’s not forget Mitsubishi’s “Twin Stick” 4×2 manual in the 80′s Colt, a 4-speed manual with an electronic 2-speed transfer case, giving you eight gears.  Before they introduced the 6-speed manual to the Corvette, the C4 had a 4-speed manual with an electronic overdrive on gears 2-4 as well, which was a major reliability issue.  But once you get past 6 gears, being able to make a comprehensible gear pattern becomes an issue.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic.  Drop a comment in the box below.  Is more gears better?  Or would you prefer everything came with a bellhousing compatible with a 2-speed powerglide?

Charger, Challenger, Aspen, and now Dart.  It’s simple:  Chrysler has fired the person in charge of coming up with new names for their products.  Dodge released some CGI renderings today of the 2013 Dart, which will replace the awful Caliber.  Those who’ve been around a lot longer than me will remember the Dart as Dodge’s low-end offering that ran in various forms from 1960-1976.  Hey, if you’re going to resurrect a name, I’m glad it’s not Volare.

Unlike the original Dart, there will be no three-on-the-tree and indestructible Mopar straight-six.  The Dart is based on the platform of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta hatchback, enlarged for US tastes.  It’s both wider and has a longer wheelbase, and the platform is referred to as the CUSW (Compact US Wide) chassis – presumably because Fiatsler assumes all Americans have wide posteriors.  (We do.)

Like the Alfa on which it’s based, the Dart will have a transverse front-drive powertrain, with independent suspension at all four corners.  Dodge says 68% of the Dart’s structure will be high-strength steel, which helps to lower overall weight and create a more rigid, better-handling chassis.  Hopefully it’s center of gravity won’t be nine feet above the road like the Caliber, for better handling.

In fact, from the CGI renderings it looks like they’re abandoning the Caliber’s whole pseudo-SUV shape, which has never really been what compact buyers in the US wanted in the first place.  The look is somewhat baby-Charger, because Dodge knows what sells – and they sell a lot of the bold, in-your-face Chargers.  Where most cars in the compact segment have swoopy, streamlined Euro shapes, the Dart is a bit more… angry looking.  And surely some people want that.  Compared to an Elantra or Focus, it’s a lot more eye-catching from the details visible, with the canted headlights that melt into the crosshair grille, “circle track” taillights like the new Charger, dual exhausts, lip spoiler, etc.

Of course, if it’s as terrible to drive and inefficient as the Caliber (can you tell I don’t like the Caliber?) was, what’s the point?  Thankfully, Fiat is pretty good at making efficient FWD powertrains.  The Dart will come with three engine choices.  There’s a 2.0L 16v “Tigershark” four, the 1.4L MultiAir Turbo I4 (shared with the 500 Abarth), and a 2.4L 16v “Tigershark” MultiAir I4, likely as the top offering.  MultiAir is FIAT’s camless intake valve actuation system, that’s seriously cool stuff – you can read about it here.  Dodge hasn’t released any power or efficiency numbers for the Dart’s engines, or information about transmission offerings yet.

The Dart will debut at the 2012 Detroit Auto Show on January 9th.  The new compact will be built at Dodge’s plant in Belvedere, Illinois.  Stay tuned for more details on the first Mopar compact you’ll actually want since the 2005 Neon SRT-4!

The yearly SEMA (Special Equipment Manufacturers Association) show happens in Las Vegas.  That’s enough reason to want to go to it.  But more than the exotic locale (way better than, err, Detroit), SEMA is a hotbed of aftermarket parts.  If you’re inclined to think this is a no-big-deal sort of affair, that’s not the case.  The SEMA show attracts so much attention that manufacturers themselves have been getting into the SEMA game for a few years now, whether directly or through various 3rd party companies.

There are so many “new car” debuts prior to SEMA that I would literally flood your RSS feed with them.  I don’t want to do that.  Plus, I can’t write an entire article about a Chevy Sonic with a bodykit.  So here are some of the goods that are coming out at SEMA this year, split up into two convenient posts for your reading pleasure, by manufacturer.

Chevrolet is bringing a whole bunch of Sonics and Cruzes decked out with aftermarket goodies.  This is a definite change from the Sonic’s predecessor, the Aveo – to which the best modification would be the addition of plastic explosives.  Above is the Z-Spec #1, which has Torch Red paint, a mild bodykit, and a vinyl job.  There are also upgraded 4-piston front brakes, a new exhaust, and suspension bits – as well as a short shifter, flat-bottomed wheel, etc.  The Z-Spec #2 (white one) has all the same upgrades but with a more aggressive body kit.

Chevy will also be bringing two other Sonics to SEMA – the Z-Spec 4D (with the same modifications as the two 5-door concepts) and a Sonic Dusk, which is a dark blue with 18″ wheels, etc.  There will also be a Cruze Z-Spec and a Cruze Dusk concept to match the Sonic concepts – both of which get Z-Spec body kits, 18″ wheels, and interior modifications (like the shifter, flat-bottom wheel, and specific trim) as well.

Chevy is also showing a pair of concept Corvettes at SEMA – the Carlisle Blue Grand Sport, and the Ron Fellows Z06 Hall of Fame Tribute.  The Carlisle Blue concept (pictured) features a new paint color that will be available on the Corvette next year, as well as a set of staggered-size wheels (18″ front, 19″ rear) called Torque 2′s that will be available soon.  There are also six-piston brakes, a dry-sumped LS3 under the hood, Magnaride shocks, and a lot of aesthetic goodies.  The Ron Fellows edition Z06 is a Z07 package car built to honor the Corvette Racing driver’s induction into the Corvette Hall of Fame, and features a lot of cosmetic enhancements like a raised carbon hood, black headlight housings, and a custom interior.

Chevrolet will also bring no less than four Camaro concept cars to SEMA.  Two of them are just sticker, paint and alloys type of deals – the Red Zone and Synergy concepts – but the 1LE and ZL-1 Carbon concepts are more interesting.  The Carbon concept (pictured right) is a regular ZL-1 Camaro – all 580 supercharged horsepower of it – with a smattering of carbon fibre trim to liven it up.  Carbon fibre gills in the hood lump and a carbon rear spoiler along with a set of lightweight 20″ wheels (10″ front, 11″ rear) give the ZL1 a meaner appearance, and the massive two-piece front Brembo rotors with 6-piston calipers will probably help the heavy ZL-1 slow down.  There’s also a lot of suede and carbon-fibre (with a flat-bottom wheel, which Chevy is apparently fond of) inside.  The other interesting concept – the 1LE package – combines parts from the SS and ZL1 Camaro to make a more track-ready SS.  It adds a lot of things not normally available on the SS- Magnetic Ride Control, ZL1 rolling stock, the same two-piece front rotors with six-piston calipers, a ZL-1 style active dual exhaust in a diffuser, and some ZL1 interior pieces.  Chevrolet says the 1LE could become a production option, and I certainly don’t see why not – the SS could benefit from the ride and handling improvements that Magnaride offers.

Mopar is bringing a bevy of concept to SEMA as well.  Pictured above is the Challenger ACR concept, made to celebrate the defunct Viper ACR’s recent ‘Ring lap time record.  It has a pile of Mopar performance accessories to make it go, turn, and stop faster: a cat-back exhaust, long-tube headers, and a short throw shifter help with the accelerating, while a set of adjustable coilovers as well as front and rear strut braces help the big Dodge turn.  Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires provide the grip.  The black-on-white color scheme with a single red stripe and mirror caps is pretty menacing, as well.  Inside, the rear seats are gone, and front buckets with harness pass-throughs, a roll cage, and a flat-bottom wheel make it lighter and more focused.  Dodge:  build it!

Less interesting, but far more, umm, orange is the Durango Tow Hook concept.  (Tow Hook?  Why?)  It’s basically a Durango painted really freaking orange with a black roof, huge wheels, and 25mm lower ride height.  There’s apparently a custom orange interior, which I can’t wait to see, and the Hemi makes lovely noises through a Corsa cat-back exhaust.

Since Chrysler and Fiat are now linked at the hip, the Mopar boys are bringing a pair of tuned Fiat 500 concepts to SEMA as well, although they didn’t bother to release any pictures other than a close-up of a headlight.  The 500 Titanium will feature a matte Titanium paint finish, 16″ two-piece alloy wheels, a body kit, and lowered suspension and upgraded brakes.  the 500 Carbon will of course have a bunch of carbon-fibre components attached to it; stay tuned for pictures and info on these two.

In the “not too surprising” category is the Ram SRT 392 Quick Silver concept.  Dodge isn’t exactly unfamiliar with the fast-truck genre; they basically invented it with the late 70′s “L’il Red Express.”  And for a while they were scaring the bejeesus out of unsuspecting passengers with the Viper-powered Ram SRT-10, all 8.3L and 500bhp of it.  The SRT 392 Quicksilver is exactly what you’d guess- a single cab Ram R/T that’s had the SRT Group’s 392ci (6.4L) Hemi V8 shoved under the hood.  With 470 horsepower, plus a cold-air intake and a set of long tube headers with electronic cutouts added (mmm!), this concept truck seems like a no-brainer, considering Ford has abandoned the fast-truck market.  Turning and stopping are improved with custom suspension providing a 2″ drop, while 15″ rotors are pinched by Brembo 6-piston calipers up front.  The truck rides on 22″ alloy wheels with massive meats – 275/45/R22 front and 305/40/R22 rear.

Honda hasn’t exactly been on a roll lately with cars appealing to drivers, but that doesn’t mean the aftermarket is any less fond of them.  The new 2012 Civic Si is just rolling into dealerships now, and here’s a crazy widebody boosted one already.  The biggest change for the 2012 Si was the replacement of the high-revving torqueless 2.0L K20Z3 with the larger 2.4L K24Z7 that can be found under the hood of the Acura TSX.  On paper, I’m not a huge fan – it’s only got 4 more horsepower than the old one, and while the much higher torque output at low rpm’s is nice for a daily driver, I’d rather have my high-winding 8,000+ rpm Honda engine back.

Add in some boost though, and the story is different.  With more displacement and a lower compression ratio, the new K24 is a natural for some turbocharging, which is just what Fox Marketing did.  They claim their intercooled turbocharger setup is good for 450 horsepower (more than double the original amount) while retaining Honda civility and reliability.  I just want to experience how much torque steer a 2.4L, turbocharged Civic with a helical LSD has.

Being a SEMA show car, there is of course a wide-body kit, gigantic wheels and tires, custom paint and interior work, and stickers everywhere.  But I mostly am interested in that boosted K24.  Do want.

Hyundai will also have a pretty full stand.  The Genesis coupe has been with us for two years now, and it’s a great car, but like most other cars, it could use another hundred horsepower or so.  Hyundai (with the help of Magnuson, Rhys Millen Racing (RMR), Harman and Torvec) has just the thing: the Genesis Coupe Hurricane concept.

Beyond the badass matte-black paint and huge wheels, what’s important is under the hood.  The Genesis 3.8′s V6 engine, which normally makes 306 horsepower, is boosted by a Magnuson supercharger breathing through an air-to-liquid intercooler to the result of more than 450 horsepower.  Helping put all that supercharged grunt down is a new IsoTorque limited slip differential and 19″ Enkeis with sticky Hankooks.  (No Goodyears?  Hey, gotta keep it KDM, son!)  A new exhaust provides more growl, and six-piston Brembos with cross drilled rotors help with the stopping.  Finally, an RMR front clip and a Lexicon stereo amp up the pimpin’ factor.

The big news for the slanted H this year is the Veloster, though.  So Hyundai is bringing a few tuned Velosters to whet the appetite of the aftermarket.  First up is the turbocharged, wide-body ARK Veloster.  The engine gets a twin-scroll turbocharger and intercooler, oil cooler, custom turbo manifold, underdrive pulleys, and new exhaust from the turbo to the tips.  There’s also a six-piston braking system, a roll cage, and a pretty comprehensive suspension overhaul – including coilovers, sway bars, camber plates and adjustable control arms, and a strut tie bar.  ARK claims 210bhp for their turbocharged version of the Veloster’s 1.6 GDI motor, up from 138 stock.  Considering the factory Veloster Turbo will have 208bhp, this is right on point.  Then there are the cosmetic modifications, which basically replace everything but the roof.  Looks wicked.

The other Veloster that will be on Hyundai’s stand is a partnership between PM Design and UTI technical school.  This bright-blue on black Veloster was designed to showcase the kind of modifications people can do in their own garages.  To that point, it’s mostly a lot of bolt-on modifications.  Power comes from an AEM intake and a Magnaflow exhaust with high-flow cat, as well as a Nitrous Express giggle gas setup.  Preventing it from blowing up are an external oil cooler, Flex-A-Lite radiator and thermostat, and a SPEC clutch.  There’s also the usual chassis mods – big brake kit, KW coilover suspension, and 18″ Konig wheels.  PM Design claims 163 horsepower for their Veloster; presumably before the hit of nitrous.  On the outside, a custom BASF paint job mixes with some Seibon carbon-fibre goodies to increase the pimp factor.  Nicely done on this one.

Over at the Kia division, work continues (quite successfully, I might add) on ridding Kia of it’s barrell-scraper image.  To help with that, Kia is bringing two concepts to SEMA, a new Rio Hatchback (pictured left) and a Forte (below.)  The Rio is surf-themed, but to me it just looks like a stanced-out Rio Hatch with a roof-rack.  The paint is custom golden-brown, and there’s a wooden front splitter to match the surf board on the roof.  The Rio is obviously dropped to the ground on some sort of aftermarket suspension, with a set of gold-hued 3-piece 17″ wheels.  Is this the first stanced-out new gen Rio?  If so, the future is looking great for Kia’s smallest car, whose previous claim to fame was “cheapest, nastiest new car you can buy.”  Both of these concepts were made in conjuction with Antenna Magazine, who outfitted the trunk of the Rio concept with a custom “entertainment center” that can play 80′s arcade games and records.  Why?  Well, why not I suppose.

The Forte Concept is hockey-themed, which is also odd.  Built off of the newish Forte 5-door hatchback, the concept has the front clip from the Forte Koup SX grafted onto it, which is actually pretty good looking.  On the outside, there’s custom “Aviator Gray” paint and some very blue 18″ alloy wheels along with a custom body kit, a carbon fibre roof, lowered suspension, quad tailpipes (one for each cylinder?) and LED accents.  Inside, a miniature air-hockey table slides out of the hatch – maybe it’s the cargo cover when it’s inside? – and there is of course a hockey-stick holder in the interior.  The rear seats are individual buckets, and there are 7″ LCD screens in the back of the headrests hooked up to a PS3.  Pretty standard show car stuff, but I vote that Kia starts slapping Koup SX bumpers on 5-doors, pronto.

Mazda is bringing a pair of concepts to SEMA as well:  an ultralight-weight Miata concept like they’ve been teasing us with for years, and a turbocharged Mazda 2 hot hatch.  Mazda didn’t give a lot of details on either concept, so I’ll put on my conjecture hat.  The Miata Spyder has a much more aggressive looking front fascia grafted onto the current NC chassis Miata, with a grille opening that looks like it was borrowed directly from the RX-8.  There’s also a Boxster Spyder-style tent where the roof would normally be, presumably because it weighs less.  They say it has a “new, more aggressive look” – and that’s about it.

I’m more interested by the Mazda2 Turbo.  Mazda’s PR department says it combines “one of our most powerful, turbocharged engines in our lightest platform.”  (That’s no lie – the Mazda2′s curb weight is actually lower than that of the Miata, closer to 2,000 pounds than 2,500.)  What could that mean?  If I’m guessing (and I am!), I’d say there’s a 2.3 DISI-Turbo under the hood, the 2.3L direct-injected, turbocharged and intercooled I4 that powers the MazdaSpeed3 and the CX-7.  If the weight is kept around 2,200lbs, this 263bhp motor would make for an absolutely wicked little beast.  More details on this toy very soon.

I’ll cover the rest of the preview posts for SEMA in part II of this, so stay tuned!  SEMA opens it’s doors tomorrow, so there will likely be more cool stuff rolling out afterwards as well.

In a recent review of the Mustang GT 5.0, I alluded to it’s desirability over a Dodge Challenger for various reasons.  A friend of mine who works at a Dodge/Fiat dealer shot me and email basically saying “have you driven a 392 yet?  They’re awesome.”  Considering my limited experience the LX cars in general, and my overall fondness (on paper) for the new 392ci Hemi V8 (6.4L for you continental types), I figured I’d jump on it.  I mean, who would say no to driving a 470 horsepower sports car?

The primary difference between the 2011+ Challenger SRT-8′s and the previous (2008-2010) models is under the hood.  I’ve written plenty on the new 6.4L Hemi V8, but here are the basics: more displacement (6.4L vs 6.1L), more power (470bhp vs 425bhp), more torque and a wider torque curve (470lb-ft vs 420lb-ft), and better fuel economy.  Despite weighing 4100+lbs and sporting 470 horsepower with a 3.92 rear axle ratio, the SRT-8 392 is rated at 14/23 by the EPA.  Which is odd, because the automatic-transmission SRT8 – which features MDS (cylinder shutdown), which the 6-speed doesn’t have – is rated at 14/22.

And while the SRT-8 still doesn’t delivery fuel economy numbers like the GT 5.0 does (18/26), I have to doubt that people plunking down 44k and change (plus options) to get a 470 horsepower slice of rumbling Americana really give half a rat’s ass about fuel economy numbers.  Still, it’s nice that the engine went up in size and power and gained 1mpg on the highway cycle with a manual.

But saying that the Challenger SRT8 gets bad fuel economy is about as relevant as saying Heidi Klum struggles to understand biochemistry – who cares?  The power available underneath your right foot is intoxicating.  While the 5.0 in the Mustang likes to rev, and makes most of it’s power higher in the rev range, the 392ci Hemi presents instantaneous thrust, divisible by tiny fractions of an inch, with a flex of your toe.  It’s the kind of power that strains your neck muscles, makes your ribs hurt, and makes grown-ass men giggle like little kids.

It’s an impressively smooth and flexible engine, too.  GM isn’t the only company that can build big pushrod V8′s that are happy to thunder around near 6,000 rpm, but this 6.4L motor will also whisk you past a minivan clogging up the left lane at 40mph in 4th gear.  It’s reminiscent of the kind of anywhere power that AMG V8′s make – which isn’t surprising, considering the amount of Mercedes DNA still left over in these LX-chassis cars.  Of course, it offers something that still hasn’t even been an option in an AMG – a clutch pedal.

Sure, you could get an SRT8 with an automatic.  And it’d still run quarter mile times in the 12′s, it’d still send shivers up your spine when you plant your foot in the carpet, but you’re missing out on the intricacies, the little details that come with operating such a massively powerful motor with a traditional manual.  And this is a surprisingly good one: a heavy-duty Tremec TR6060 with a twin-disc Sachs clutch attached to a short-throw six speed linkage (with a pistol-grip shifter!), the manual in the SRT8 is an unobstructive, willing partner.  Shift quality is great, much smoother than the Getrag in the Ford, and for this meaty of a motor, the clutch is suprisingly light.  Plus, you don’t get that slightly scary wiggle of the rear end when you shove home 2nd gear near the top end of first with an automatic.  The fact that the shifter itself is slightly canted over towards the driver can either be viewed as A) a sign of just how damn big these cars are, or B) a small anachronism from the days of the original muscle cars.  The lever itself is taller than in Mustangs or Camaros, and the throws are a little longer, but it fits with the more relaxed, slack-fit nature of the Challenger compared with those cars.

Is it fast?  Sure.  It’s about on par with a 5.0 with 3.73 final drive gears, or a Camaro SS 6-speed.  It would have trouble keeping sight of a GT500 or ZL-1, but it’s down nearly 80 horsepower on both of those beasts, so that’s no surprise.  Would you sweat numbers like that when driving it?  Absolutely not.  You’d be having too much fun.

Where the Challenger differs the most from it’s competitors is the interior.  That is, there’s actually room for full-sized human beings in the front and back, and you can see out of it.  The rear seats on the Mustang and Camaro are best kept for small children or double amputees; a 6’1″ person sat comfortably in the back while I was driving.  You just don’t feel as crammed into the Challenger as you do the Camaro; although the Mustang is a tight fit as well, it’s not as bad due to having a reasonable ratio of glass to sheet metal (whereas the Camaro passes off gun slits for windows.)

Seats have always been a strong suit on Chrysler’s SRT products, and the Challenger is no exception – the suede back and butt inserts are soft and grippy, and those big leather torso and thigh bolsters are just as comfortable as they look.  Downside?  While the rest of the LX cars got new interiors with the update (300, Charger), the Challenger continues on with basic updates to the original interior.  It’s not quite as high-brow as the interior in the new Charger; but then again, I think I’d rather have a 6-speed manual (not available in any Charger or 300) than a new dashboard.  There’s a big touch-screen mounted in the center dash that does all the things you’d expect of a modern satnav/audio setup, there are heated seats, good gauges, so nothing of any real substance to complain about.  It’s not exactly an easy entry into the back seat of the Challenger, but this (along with the fuel economy) again falls under the “who cares?” heading.

Of course, you can’t go through an entire review of the Challenger without mentioning the looks.  And they’re hard to ignore when it’s slathered in “Toxic Orange Pearl.”  Of all the three muscle cars, the Challenger is the most unabashedly retro, and it’s truly a gorgeous thing.  While the Camaro looks contrived and slightly awkward from the get-go, and the Mustang is an odd mix of retro and modern styling cues, the Challenger is big, brash, and comfortable with it.  It does not try to blend in with the scenery.

There’s more to the Challenger 392 than just a huge engine.  Of course, that really would be enough, but Chrysler has thankfully left their “half-assed” stage of mechanical engineering in which it’s sufficient to stuff an 8.3L V10 and a Tremec into a Ram 1500, slap a spoiler and huge wheels on it, and call it a day.  Or stuff a blown PT Cruiser motor into a Neon with wind-up rear windows.  (Just kidding SRT-4 fans!)  The Challenger can also turn and stop.  Suspension is independent at all four corners in all Challengers, and the SRT8 has the stiffest, lowest suspension of all of them.  Unequal length control arms with coil springs and an anti-roll bar suspend the front, while an independent multi-link (are you listening, Ford?) with coil springs and an anti-roll bar holds up the rear.  The SRT8 gets big ventilated, slotted Brembo rotors and 4-piston calipers to haul it down from 60mph in 110 feet – suprisingly short for anything north of two tons.  There’s a standard limited-slip differential in the rear (thankfully they realized you can’t apply 470lb-ft of torque to the ground with a brake-lock diff) with short 3.92:1 gears for hard acceleration, and lightweight forged 20″ wheels mounting 245/45/ZR20 Goodyear Eagle RS-A’s.  I would personally like to see tires wider than a 245 on the back of a car with this huge of an engine; I think you’d have no trouble fitting a 285 or 295 in the Challenger’s rear fenders.

Then you get to EVIC, which smacks mildly of Nissan GT-R.  It’s integrated into the 6.5″ center stack and center gauge display, and on regular models it shows you things like average fuel economy (sigh), distance to empty, temperature etc.  On the SRT8, it also shows you 0-60 times, maximum lateral acceleration, braking distances, quarter and eighth mile times, and a digital speed indicator.  There are other niceties like keyless entry and ignition (keep the fob in your pocket; press a button the door handle to unlock, and the start button to crank the engine over), heated seats, aux and USB inputs, etc.

I’ll be the first to admit that I never held the Challenger in especially high regard; I realize now that it was because I was comparing it directly to the Mustang and Camaro, and that’s not quite right.  It’s aiming for a similar demographic, but different requirements.  It’s not as stiff, tight, cramped and low-slung: it’s more a cruiser, it just happens to have a massively impressive motor under the hood.  When I think of a Boss 302, the first scenario that pops into my head is heel-and-toe downshifting into 2nd as I approach the hairpin before the back straight on VIR, waiting to hear that small quad-cam V8 rev all the way out to 7500 in 3rd as I approach the bottom of the hill.  When I think of a ZL-1 Camaro, I envision lining up at the tree at Rockingham, supercharged V8 wailing as the second amber light pops on.

When I think of a Challenger SRT-8, I see myself driving down Capital Boulevard late at night, the windows down, my favorite album cranked up on the (admittedly impressive) stereo, the huge pushrod V8 just barely a whisper above idle in 5th gear, basking in the world around me, with a pretty girl in the passenger seat.  It’s a cruiser, and it’s a damn good one.  Einstein once said “Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on it’s ability to climb a tree, it will spend it’s whole life thinking it’s stupid.”  If you judge a Challenger 392 as a competitor to the hardcore Mustangs or Camaros (or even stuff like the M3), it falls short.  If you judge it as what it’s designed for, it’s absolutely superb.  I want one.  In Toxic Orange.  But hey, Mopar: make it louder!

2012 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 392

Base price: $43,780
Price as tested: $46,385
Options: Toxic Orange Pearl Paint ($295), Media Center 730N ($790; 6.5″ touch screen, CD/DVD/MP3/HDD/Nav/Radio with Voice command, 30GB HD, SiriusXM Satellite Radio, Sirius XM Traffic info, UConnect Voice Command, iPod integration, Aux Jack, USB port, Bluetooth connectivity), SRT Option Group II ($695, 13 speaker Kicker-SRT stereo, 200 watt Kicker Subwoofer, 322 watt Kicker Amplifier),

Body: Unit construction 2-door Coupe
Drivetrain: Front longitudinal-engine rear wheel drive, 6-speed Tremec manual transmission, limited slip rear differential with 3.92:1 FD ratio
Accomodations: 5 passengers

Engine: V8, iron block, aluminum cylinder heads
Displacement: 6410cc (6.4L, 392cid)
Aspiration: natural
Fuel delivery: Sequential Multi-Port Fuel Injection
Valvetrain: Cam-in-block, pushrod, 2 valves/cylinder (16v total) with variable cam timing
Compression ratio: 10.9:1
Horsepower: 470bhp@6,000rpm
Torque: 470lb-ft (637nM)@4,200rpm

Suspension (F): Unequal length double control arms, coil springs, gas shocks, anti-roll bar
Suspension (R): Independent Multi-link, coil springs, gas shocks, anti-roll bar
Steering: Rack & Pinion, power assist
Wheels/Tires: 20×9″ aluminum alloy, Goodyear Eagle RSA 245/45/ZR20
Brakes (F/R): 360mm ventilated and slotted discs, 4-piston Brembo Calipers (F), 350mm ventilated and slotted discs, 2-piston calipers (R), ABS

0-60mph: 4.8s
Top speed: 182 (claimed)
1/4 Mile@ET: 12.4@113mph (dragtimes.com)

EPA fuel mileage estimate: 14 city/ 23 highway/ 19 combined
Recommended fuel: 91 Octane (premium)
Fuel Tank Capacity: 19 gallons
Theoretical Range: 437 miles

Wheelbase: 116″
Length: 197.7″
Track (F/R): 63″/63.1″
Width: 75.7″
Height: 57.1″
Curb weight: 4160lbs

Main Competitors: Ford Mustang GT 5.0 and GT500, Chevrolet Camaro SS and ZL-1, Dodge Charger SRT8
Pros: Unmistakable presence, torque beyond belief, loaded with features, piston-grip Tremec tranny, fits 4 real adults, some of the most comfortable seats ever made, tons of fun to drive
Cons: Fuel economy still pretty bad, some people like a tighter fit, weighs 4100+lbs, 15k more than a Mustang GT
Conclusion: A very powerful cruiser, not a Boss 302.  Judge it for what it is, and you’ll love it too.

Thanks to Greg Eaton and all the nice folks at Hendrick Dodge/Fiat for letting me drive this monster!

We’ve already covered the new lineup of Chrysler’s SRT-8 vehicles here on CarThrottle. The new Chrysler 300C SRT-8, Dodge Charger SRT-8, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 all pack Mopar’s trick new 6.4L Hemi, which manages to make more power and torque overall, significantly more torque at low RPM’s, and much improved gas mileage over the old, smaller 6.1L Hemi.  We’ve gone over all the goodies they’ll come packed with, how fast they’ll be, all that – but how much will they cost?

Chrysler dumped information on pricing for the new SRT-8 models today, and it’s a surprisingly wide spread considering the mechanical similarity.

The cheapest will be the Challenger SRT-8 2-door, with a base price of $44,070, although that doesn’t include the gas guzzler tax in the US – $1,500 with an automatic, $1,000 with the six-speed manual transmission.  This 4000+lb coupe is still good for high 12-second quarter mile times, although some of the price difference is likely down to it retaining most of the first-generation LX chassis interior, putting it a cut below the other SRT-8 products on the refinement level.  Still cool.

Slightly more expensive is the Challenger’s 4-door brother, the Charger SRT-8.  This 470bhp piece of thundering Americana will set you back $46,660 including an $825 delivery and destination fee.  No gas guzzler tax for the Charger SRT-8, which is somewhat odd considering the Challenger with the same engine gets slapped with one.

The Chrysler twin to the Charger SRT-8, the 300C SRT-8, isn’t quite as angry looking – it’s more like Mike Tyson in a suit than Mike Tyson in the boxing ring.  That extra classiness (and a little more standard equipment) will set you back $47,995 including destination and delivery.  But it’s still not the most expensive SRT-8 model.

That honor goes to the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, with pricing starting at $55,295.  Why so much more?  Well, the Grand Cherokee also includes electronic all-wheel-drive (the other SRT-8′s are RWD), provisions for towing, active shocks, even larger brakes, a 19-speaker stereo, etc.  It’s a lot of money for a Grand Cherokee, but it’s cheap for all it can do: 0-60 in 4.8, the quarter mile in the low 13′s, 160mph top-out, 0.90g of lateral acceleration… and tow 5,000lbs.  The price is a little higher than I estimated originally, but still certainly worth it if you want a vehicle that can do anything (besides drive past a gas station).

The world’s filled with boring, mundane, unremarkable automobiles. For every SVO Mustang, there are 10,000 Camry LE’s.  For every Alfa Romeo Guilia Super sedan, there are an untold bazillion Honda Fits.  That’s just how it is: mainstream sells.  As it turns out, very few people actually want the diesel, all wheel drive, manual-transmission station wagon that internet car enthusiasts say would sell like hotcakes.

Sometimes, though, some of the most interesting cars out there are born out of some of the most dishwater-dull transportation appliances.  Here’s my top ten -- as always, feel free to leave a comment telling me what I left out at the bottom!  On we go.

10) Mitsubishi Galant VR-4

Mitsubishi’s Galant sedan is… hold on, let me go to Wikipedia, I can’t remember.  Seriously. Mitsubishi DOES make a mid-size family sedan, it’s just that no one cares or ever really has in the first place.  Hell, they’ve been making the Galant almost as long as the Mustang (1969 to present, can you believe?) and still not that many people care.

But the Galant (Gallant?) hasn’t always been an overweight boring pud of a car.  Witness this: the 6th-generation Galant VR-4.  While normal Galants got by with a wheezing 2.0L and front-wheel drive, the VR-4 packed the drivetrain of an Eclipse GS-X.  As in, the whole thing: Turbo 16v 2.0L 4G63T, all wheel drive, 5-speed manual, the works.  VR-4 stands for “Viscous Real-Time 4WD,” meaning the VR-4 used a viscous center coupling (differential) to distribute torque between the front and rear axles for ideal traction.  The engine was the same 4G63 found in Eclipse GS-T/GSX models -- an iron block/aluminum head 2.0L with dual overhead cams, 7.8:1 compression, and a Mitsubishi TD05H turbo huffing 11.1psi of boost into the manifold through an air-to-air intercooler.  Total power was 195 horsepower at 6,000rpm and 203lb-ft of torque at 3,000rpm.

Unlike the Evo’s that followed it, the VR-4 was more of a high-speed all-weather cruiser than an all-out performance car.  It came fairly loaded, with electric leather seats, power steering, ABS, power locks and windows, cruise and A/C -- only options were a CD player/equalizer and an electric sunroof.  Still, it was damn quick for 1992: 0-60 in 6.8, 0-100 in 21.9, and the quarter mile in 15.2 seconds at 89 miles an hour.  Of course, being a 4G63, the sky’s the limit for power.

The VR-4 was a very limited-run car here in the US, with 2,000 imported in 1991 and 1,000 in 1992.  I’ve only ever seen 2 in real life, and one was running -- a black 1991.  However, DR1665 over at GearBox Magazine currently has two of them -- one for RallyCross and the other as a fun daily driver.  And while 3,000 Japanese sedans sold here 20 years ago seems pretty unimportant, remember this: without the VR-4, it’s doubtful there would’ve been an Evo.  Food for thought.

9) Taurus SHO

Quite possibly Conan O’Brien’s SHO.

The original Ford Taurus of 1986 was a ground-breaking car in a lot of ways -- it basically brought about the modernization of the modern American family sedan at a time when that term usually referred to cars with wire wheel covers and vinyl roofs -- but it wasn’t an exciting one.  Precisely 0 people were enthralled by the 3.0L V6 and automatic combination that was top drawer on normal Taurii.

So the SHO Taurus, which debuted in 1989, was a bit unexpected.  It was actually the result of Ford’s bad contract-drafting skills.  They had commissioned Japanese firm Yamaha to design a 3.0L 24v V6 that could be mounted transversely in the back of a mid-engined 2-seat sports car to compete with the Pontiac Fiero.  When the Fiero turned out to be a flaming dud (pun intended), Ford cancelled the project when they figured not that many people wanted a low-cost mid-engine 2 seat sports car.  But they were still on the hook for those engines, and decided the best place to put them… was in the Taurus?

Well, ok.  The Mustang would’ve been the more obvious choice -- performance engine in a performance car -- but sales probably would’ve been dismal.  The Yamaha engine was way more expensive than the anvil-simple 302ci Windsor V8, which by then was making 225bhp with fuel injection, and the V6 was short on torque compared to the old-school V8.  Also, it was designed for side-to-side mounting -- so using the Taurus lowered development costs.  And it didn’t hurt that Ford had a sport sedan that could outrun BMW’s costing way more money.

The car itself wasn’t all that easily distinguished from a normal Taurus -- it had different bumpers, side skirts, wheels, and some fog lights -- but it was massively different under the hood.  Whereas a normal Taurus LX wheezed along with a 140bhp pushrod “Vulcan” 3.0L V6, the SHO’s fancy heads -- dual overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, long intake runners -- enabled an impressive 220bhp and 200lb-ft of torque.  The first generation of SHO’s (1989-1991) were only offered with a 5-speed manual borrowed from Mazda.  It’s long been rumored that Ford actually de-tuned the Yamaha V6 for SHO duty; apparently the engines would happily spin to 8,500rpm but Ford’s ancillaries tended to explode at those RPM’s, so the redline was limited to 7,300 for durability purposes.

These were righteously quick cars by the standard of the day -- 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, a quarter mile in 15-15.2 seconds, and a top speed of 143mph put it up there with the 3-series, Audi 200 20v, and other imported performance sedans of the day.  What was really special about the SHO, though, was the sound of that Yamaha V6 at high revs when the secondaries open up -- it’s just lovely, and seems totally out of place in the car it’s in.

The car got a minor revision for the ’92-’95 body style (referred to as the second-generation Taurus, even though it was more like a facelift.)  The front end was smoothed out with flush headlights (from the Sable), new wheels, and other minor trim.  An automatic became available for the first time in the SHO, and the engine in the automatic was enlarged to a 3.2L for extra torque -- 215lb-ft but the same 220 horsepower.

The new SHO that debuted in 1996 was cool -- 3.4L 32v Yamaha V8, new roundy-roundy styling -- but with not much more power, no more manual, and more weight it wasn’t exactly the enthusiast’s secret that the first and second generation SHO’s were.  Plus, Conan O’Brien has one.  Very cool.

8) Oldsmobile Achieva SCX W41

The Achieve was a spectacularly awful car.  That’s a fairly definitive statement, but it’s hard to point a finger at a car that more clearly demonstrates the “ahh, we’re GM, our customers will buy anything” attitude that infected GM during the late eighties through the 90′s than the “who cares?” Achieve.  It currently is a joint record-holder for most ironically named car (along with the Ford Aspire), prompting questions like “Achieve what?  Mediocrity?  Weird wheel openings?”

The Achieva was the weird-looking Oldsmobile version of the GM corporate N-Body chassis, which shared it’s underpinnings with winners like the Buick Skylark, Oldsmobile Cutlass, and Chevrolet Malibu.  Normal Achievas were available with powertrains like a 120 2.3L 8v I4 wheezing through a 3-speed automatic, or an optional 160bhp 3.3L 12v V6 wheezing through a 4-speed automatic.  Awesome.  The stuff rental-car dreams are made of.

The SCX was different, though -- particular with the W41 performance package.  Intended as the performance model of the Achieva lineup, the star was what was under the hood: Oldsmobile’s high-output Quad 4 2.3L Inline-four engine.  This twin-cam 16v screamer made 190 horsepower thanks to the addition of high-lift camshafts, free-flowing exhaust, and a reprogrammed ECU, 10bhp more than other “HO” Quad 4 motors.  Thanks to the new cams the redline was set 200rpm higher, at 7,000rpm.  This, you will note, was 50bhp more than the highly acclaimed Nissan SR20DE, and 20bhp more than the equally loved Honda B18C (Integra GS-R) motor.

Not gonna lie, it’s hard to find pictures of the Olds Achieva.

The W41 package included the higher-lift cams as well as a shorter final drive in the Getrag/NVG 282 5-speed manual transmission (a 3.94:1 compared to the regular 3.68:1 FDR in the 5-speed, along with a direct-drive fifth gear), and some other goodies.  Since Oldsmobile raced the Achieva in the IMSA Firehawk Endurance series (a racing series for near-production cars), the W41 homologated some chassis changes to make them legal on the race car.  The rear track was 34mm wider than the normal model, the wheels got wider and smaller (tires were 215/60/VR14 instead of the normal 205/55/16′s, as they were grippier and lighter), there was an external oil cooler, and a baffled gas tank to prevent fuel starvation, a stronger clutch, and an electronically adjustable suspension system.

The SCX W41 was a fairly quick car, with Motor Week testing one at 7.8 seconds to sixty and the quarter in 16.0s flat.  Not exactly scary-fast today, but reasonably quick for a compact non-turbo four cylinder back in 1992, and the raw nature of the car was surprising considering it was a GM product of the early 90′s, when everything was about cost-cutting and sound insulation.  The Quad 4 had it’s share of issues; primarily that it was noisy, vibrating bastard that Oldsmobile customers didn’t much appreciate despite it’s high specific output, high-rpm capabilities, and racing heritage.  It also had a nasty habit of blowing head gaskets all the time.  Here’s one in an Achieva IMSA GTU race car, which was of course a tube-frame RWD “silhoutte” racer.  Still used a Quad 4, though -- actually recognizable here despite the individual throttle trumpets and gorgeous tubular header.

7) Dodge Spirit R/T

Oh, man.  The Dodge Spirit.  Not exactly a car that cultivates lust in the hearts of red-blooded American males.  The Spirit was the replacement for the Dodge 600, which was a stretched K-car (Aries/Reliant/Snore), I’m falling asleep.  Typical Dodge Spirits were formal-looking three box sedans with an upright rear window, and your choice of a Chrysler 2.5 (rougher than a blender blending gravel, 100bhp) or a single-cam Mitsubishi GG72 V6 (141bhp, also awful.)  You could get a Spirit with a ChryCo 2.5 Turbo with 150bhp, but most people didn’t bother.

So the Spirit R/T was a little unusual.  It uses a variant of Chrysler’s 2.2L I4, with a 16v twin-cam head developed by Lotus, and a Garrett turbocharger huffing 11psi of boost through an air-to-air intercooler.  This was Chrysler’s first production car powered by a dual-overhead-cam engine, and it used other neat tricks unusual for an American I4 at the time, like individual intake runners, a central spark plug, distributorless ignition, and forged aluminum pistons.  Power was 224bhp@5,800rpm and 217lb-ft of torque with a 6,500rpm redline, which was enough to haul the Spirit R/T to sixty in 5.8 seconds, making it the fastest sedan made in America -- quicker than the SHO, and of comparable performance to the BMW M5, of which you could buy a few Spirit R/T’s for the price of the Bavarian wunder-machine.

I don’t think most Dodge Spirits can do this.

The only transmission choice was a heavy-duty A568 5-speed made by Chrysler’s New Process Gear company with a gearset from Getrag.  The R/T got heavy-duty four ventilated wheel discs brakes with optional ABS, a stiffer suspension, and color-keyed 15″ alloy wheels to differentiate it from the regular Spirit.  A 14.7 second quarter mile time meant this stodgy-looking Mopar sedan could show tail lights to some “real” performance cars of the time -- like Camaro Z/28′s, non-turbo Nissan 300ZX’s, BMW 325i’s, etc.

It wasn’t all peachy, of course.  Even though the new transmission was much improved over the older ChryCo K-shifters, it was still a ropey, notchey affair.  After Shelby’s issues with their “it’s still in Beta” VNT (Variable Nozzle Technology, also called VGT by some) turbo technology, the R/T went with a regular fixed-geometry turbo, which meant it had a lot of turbo lag.  It still used a live-axle rear suspension and MacPherson Struts up front, so it wasn’t exactly a corner carver.  And despite the A568 being developed to include a limited-slip differential (in Shelby vehicles that it never found it’s way into), the R/T rode with an open differential, meaning hilarious tire-smoke exiting low speed corners under boost.  There were issues with timing belts snapping way early, engines overheating causing that expensive aluminum Lotus head to warp (go figure; Lotus parts), PCV issues…  Still, it was a freaking Dodge Spirit that would hit sixty faster than your snooty neighbor’s 3-series BMW.  So uhh, that’s pretty damn cool.  There were only a total of 1,399 built in 1991 and 1992, with only 191 of those being 1992 models, so it was rare enough to see one back then -- you hardly ever see these turbo sleepers today.  The same engine was also used in the 1992-1993 Dodge Dayton IROC R/T, which was a K-car based sports coupe, but it’s somehow not as cool in a sports coupe as it is stuffed in a Dodge Spirit.  A proto-SRT4, if you will.

6) Lancia Thema 8.32

The Lancia Thema was one of the “Type 4″ cars, a common platform developed between Fiat and Saab in the 80′s.  It shared some underpinnings with the Alfa Romeo 164, Fiat Croma, and Saab 9000 -- although it was undoubtedly the most boring to look at of the bunch.  While it was a reasonably competent luxury sedan for the period -- and reasonably quick with the 2.0L 16v Turbocharged engine -- there wasn’t much to make it really stand out from the rest of the Type 4 cars -- especially the bonkers 2.3L Turbo Saab 9000 Aero.

Ferrari What?

So rather than huff more boost down the throat of the 2.0L 16v engine, Lancia went a decidedly less conventional route -- they borrowed an engine from Ferrari. The result was the Lancia Thema 8.32 -- which stood for 8 cylinder, 32 valve.  The engine was a reworked version of that found in the back of the Ferrari 308 QV (Quattrovalvole, or “four-valve”), with some major differences -- the crank was changed over to a cross-plane design (instead of the flat-plane used in the 308/Mondial/etc), the firing order was different, and it had smaller valves.  Still, it was a Ferrari-by-god-V8 stuffed sideways under the hood of a boring looking Lancia 4-door sedan.  So when you opened the hood, you were greeted by this:

Epic.  Performance was quite good, too.  The 8.32 was available with or without a catalytic converter depending on market -- the non-cat version put out 215 horsepower and 210 lb/ft, which was good for a 6.8s 0-100km/h time and a top speed of 240km/h (149mph.)  Catalyzed versions were slightly less powerful (205bhp/194lb-ft) and were only slightly slower -- 7.2 to sixty, 235km/h (146mph) flat out.

Sure, there were faster sedans out there during ’87-’92 -- like the E28 and E34 BMW M5′s, the Mercedes 500E, the Lotus Carlton -- but you will note, none of them had a Ferrari V8 under the hood.  Just wanted to stress that -- Ferrari V8.

5) Renault R5 Turbo

This one is hardly fair.  The R5 Turbo has about as much in common with a regular R5 as a NASCAR does with a Ford Taurus.  It doesn’t even have the engine in the same place.  But it’s still a Renault R5 body, so I’d say it counts.

The R5 turbo was engineered primarily by Alpine to compete in Group 4 Rallying -- the predecessor to Group B.  As such, the limitations for modifications were basically nothing.  So while a normal Renault 5 had it’s engine mounted in the front driving the front wheels, the R5 Turbo had it’s motor mounted in the back, driving the rear wheels.  The engine itself was a turbocharged version of the 1,397cc Cleon pushrod I4, tuned to produce an impressive 160bhp and 163lb/ft, which meant it was the most powerful French production car at the time.

What’s this doing here?

There were a total of 3,576 R5 Turbos put together between 1980-1984.  They were split up into two groups: the first 400 were the much rarer Turbo 1 model, that used many lightweight bespoke alloy components.  All of the competition-spec R5 Turbos were made out of these, the rest (designed Turbo 2) used more off-the-shelf R5 components to lower the cost.  All of them were produced at the Alpine plant in Dieppe, rather than the normal production line.

Just judging by the specs (mid-engine, rear drive, short wheelbase, lots of turbo power) the R5 Turbo was a lot more fun to drive than a regular 5.  While production versions made 160bhp, competition versions based on the Turbo 1 had escalating power outputs throughout their competition career, culminating in the 5 Turbo Maxi, which had an alarming 350bhp going to the rear wheels towards the end of Group 4 competition.

Today, R5 Turbos are not a frequent site -- they were rare when new, and you have to imagine a lot of them were stuffed into Armco’s, or overboosted to the point of catastrophic melt-down.  But this hardcore French Hatch was good enough to earn a Top 10 spot on Sports Car International’s Top Ten 80′s Sports Cars list, along with heavyweights like the Porsche 959 and Ferrari 288 GTO.

4)  Volkswagen Passat W8

Lookin’ all normal and stuff.

Unlike almost all the other cars on this list, the Passat W8 wasn’t based on a boring/unpleasant car itself.  The B5/B5.5 Passat was actually quite a nice car, which made sense considering it shared most of it’s mechanical bits with the B5-B7 Audi A4′s.  Pop the hood of a Passat next to an A4 (especially if they’ve both got a 1.8T, or a 2.8/3.0 V6) and the similarities are remarkable.  Motor mounts, battery tray, strut towers -- there are lots of common parts.  The Passat was a little more plain, a little less ornate, and not available with as many powertrain choices (good look finding a Passat 1.8T 4Motion with a stick!), but it was really good at making the A4 seem overpriced.

So this commonality with the A4 makes the Passat W8 all the more unusual.  While Audi went with a 4.2L V8 from the A6 and A8 for the performance S4 model, Volkswagen did something entirely different: a 4.0L W8.

Whoa.

The concept of a W8 is a little hard to wrap one’s head around.  If you’re familiar with VW’s VR6 motor, it’ll make more sense. The VR6 was a cross between a V6 and an Inline 6, in that the cylinders were staggered (by only 15°, but still staggered) but it only had one cylinder head, one intake manifold, and one exhaust manifold.  This made it a lot narrower than a usual V6 (normally set in a 60° or 90° V-angle), and also a lot shorter than a straight six.

Now, for a W8, imagine a VR6 with two cylinders lopped off.  Then take another of those, and attach it to the other one at the crank.  Does your head hurt yet?  The W8 was developed to fit inside the regular B5.5 engine bay without severe modifications, and the Passat was the only car that VW ever put this engine in.  It was pretty powerful for a smallish 4.0L: 275 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 273lb-ft of torque at 2,750rpm.  What’s interesting is that while the W8 offered a lot more power than the V6 (85 more; 190 vs 275), it was only 44lbs heavier than the Audi-sourced motor.

VW only sold the W8 in the facelifted B5.5 Passat (2001-2004) -- all W8′s came with 4Motion (think Torsen Quattro) standard, initially only with a 5-speed Tiptronic Automatic, but later with an extremely rare 6-speed manual as an option.  You could order a W8 in Sedan or Variant (wagon) versions, and I remember seeing a W8 Variant 6-speed new at a dealer around 2002 and not realizing at the time just how rare of a car it really was.  Of course, with a base MSRP of around $38,000 for a sedan in 2001 before options, it remained a rare car -- VW only sold about 5,000 of them a year in the US.

What the hell?

My interest in the W8 Passat is a personal thing -- a friend’s mother had one for a short while, and I got the opportunity to drive it.  It was very strange; felt just like a Passat only a good bit heavier (the W8 pushed 4,000lbs with the bigger engine, standard 4WD, and every conceivable option) and with the smoothest, strangest-sounding engine under the hood.  It wasn’t Lancer Evo fast, of course -- way too low of a power to weight ratio for that -- but the torque curve was flatter than Kansas, and the Tiptronic 5-speed auto would blur out manual shifts totally seamlessly.  You would find yourself speeding, sometimes by an alarming amount, without even realizing it.

Passat W8 Sport Variant.  Ever seen one?  They are real.

Of course, when the new Passat debuted for 2006, it moved from the A4 chassis (longitudinal engine) to a stretched MKV Golf chassis (transverse engine), so all the engineering work done on the W8 was thrown away.  The engine that replaced it -- the 3.6L VR6 -- made slightly more power, but I have to admit it’s not half as interesting as a 32v W8 under the hood.  Because among all production cars in the world, only one’s got a W8.

3) Pontiac Grand Prix ASC/MacLaren Turbo

I’m a creative guy, but I can’t find a lot of nice things to say about the ’88-’94 Pontiac (W-body) Grand Prix.  It’s a car.  It’s got seats, a steering wheel, an engine, and it’ll get you where you’re going most of the time.  It did manage to pull Pontiac up to the number 3 brand sales slot after 15 years of sinking sales, but then again there weren’t a lot of great cars for sale in 1988.  (900 Turbo excluded.)

So it’s a little hard to understand quite why GM felt the world needed a turbocharged, intercooled V6 Grand Prix.  And why they didn’t bother to build it themselves.  Still, it’s a pretty fascinating car by the standards of the time.

The TGP (as it’s called for short) was built by ASC/McLaren in limited numbers.  This was the same ASC/McLaren that turned “regular” Regal Grand Nationals into Regal GNX’s, so they know a thing or two about turbocharging GM engines.  Where the normal Grand Prix V6 used a 2.8L (and later 3.1L) 60° pushrod V6 that made 140 horsepower, the TGP was a bit more powerful.

You’d think that the conversion from N/A to turbo was relatively simple, but it was pretty in depth -- the whole motor was built to handle the extra 65 horsepower the Turbo gave.  The TGP used a unique block cast with higher nickel and tin content for robustness, forged steel rods topped with lower-compression dished Mahle pistons, a heavy-duty crank with a unique torque dampener, a higher flow oil and water pump, oil feed and return lines integrated into the sump, ported high-flow cylinder heads, an intake manifold with “3.1 Intercooled Turbo” cast into it, a Corvette fuel pump- oh, and a Garrett TB025 turbocharger blowing at 8psi, a rear turbo manifold with crossover pipe, true dual exhaust, a heavy duty 4T60 4-speed automatic, a reinforced differential, an air-to-air intercooler, and a million other small things.

Power output was 205 horsepower at 4,800 rpms, and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3,200rpm.  This allowed the 3,450lb Turbo Grand Prix to hit 60 in 7 seconds (more than 2s faster than an normal V6 Grand Prix), 100 in 20.6, and the quarter mile in 15.3 seconds at 90mph.  This put the Grand Prix Turbo on par with performance imports of the time like the BMW 325i, Audi 200 20v Turbo, and Nissan Maxima.

They also produced a 4-door version with the same powertrain called the STE Turbo for the 1990 model year only, before the W-body switched over to the 3.4L DOHC 24v V6 in 1991 for performance models.  While it offered more power (215bhp), the uniqueness factor and the turbo torque wasn’t there.  In all, Pontiac/ASC built a total of 5,465 Turbo Grand Prixs, with 1,000 of them being the STE Turbo sedan, which was the same powertrain but in the four-door Grand Prix body.

2) Nissan Sunny (Pulsar) GTi-R

Ahh, the Nissan Sunny.  Nissan’s small, Golf-sized hatchback from the early 90′s.  Once referred to as “the worst car in the world” on two seperate occasions by Top Gear presenters Jeremy Clarkson and later Richard Hammond.  Not much to like about a Sunny.  If you wanted a compact hatchback, you could get a Sunny -- or a million other more attractive options.

So when Nissan decided they wanted to enter WRC Group A rally, the car they chose was… the Nissan Sunny.  Go figure.  The homologation rules for Group A dictate that 5,000 road-going examples of the race car had to be made for public consumption, so Nissan did.  Built on the basic B14 Sentra/Sunny/Pulsar architecture, the GTi-R was about as opposite from a regular Sunny as you could get, without stuffing a turbo engine where the rear seats go and making it RWD (Renault!)

The engine was Nissan’s SR20DET, a 2.0L iron-block aluminum-head 16v I4 also found in the 180SX/Silvia.  In the Sunny, it’s turned sideways and was fitted with a larger Garrett T28 turbocharger (compared to the T25 that came on S13-chassis 180SX’s).  Chain-driven dual overhead cams spun 16 valves, and a top-mounted air-to-air intercooler allowed the GTi-R’s 2.0L to crank out an impressive 230bhp.

Nissan’s ATTESSA-ETS AWD system was employed to put all that power to the ground, with a viscous center differential and a limited-slip rear differential. There were a few variations of the GTi-R produced -RHD models were called the Pulsar GTi-R, and were produced in Japan from 1990-1994.  LHD models were far more rare; these were called the Sunny GTi-R, and less than 1,000 were built between 1992-1995 and retailed through German Nissan dealers.  Further breaking up the group, there were two variants of the basic car itself -- the GTi-RA and GTi-RB.

The GTi-RA was oriented for street driving.  It was more luxurious than the RB, featuring mod-cons like A/C, power windows and mirrors, anti-lock brakes, etc.  The RB was intended for competition purposes, and these were what the factory used to create their works race cars.  They didn’t have all the goodies (no A/C, PS, PW, or ABS) as well as featuring shorter gearing more suited for rallying purposes, and a limited-slip differential in the front, versus the RA’s open differential.

No matter which version of the GTi-R you were in, it was a seriously quick car.  Nissan quoted the GTi-R’s 0-60 time at 5.4 seconds to sixty, and 13.9 seconds in the quarter mile with a top speed of 144mph for the RA model.  The RB’s, with their shorter gearing, took 5.2 to sixty and would do low-to-mid 13′s in the quarter mile according to Best Motoring tests in the 90′s, although the top speed was shorter thanks the sprint gearing in the ‘box.

Externally, it wasn’t hard to tell a GTi-R from a normal Sunny/Pulsar.  For one thing, there was the big wing stuck to the top of the hatchback.  But most noticeable was the ventilated bulge in the hood that fed fresh air to the intercooler, sprouting like a tumor from the sheetmetal.  The GTi-R wasn’t crazy looking like the Escort Cosworths of the same time period, but it was certainly noticeable.  A total of somewhere south of 15,000 GTi-R’s were produced between 1990-1995 (some estimates say 11,500, some 13,800).  None were ever imported to the US, so don’t bother, but they are possible to find in mainland Europe as well as the UK.  From “world’s worst car” to turbo, AWD, rally homologation rocket -- I’d say this fits pretty well.

1) Vauxhall Lotus Carlton (Opel Lotus Omega)

This was bound to be the winner.  Never has so dull of a car birthed such an outrageous, unbelievable vehicle.  The Vauxhall Carlton (and it’s left-hand drive twin, the Opel Omega) were GM of Europe’s large sedan in the 80′s and early 90′s, a very traditional -- and traditionally styled -- 3 box sedan.  The underpinnings were classic large sedan stuff -- a choice of four cylinders (ranging 1.8L/ 82bhp to 2.4L/ 123bhp), some diesels, and some straight sixes (from 2.6L 150bhp to 3.0L 24v 201bhp) mounted up front, driven wheels at the rear, and room to seat five comfortably.  It looked like this:

Snore.

Now, to be fair, the 3.0L 24v Carlton GSI was a reasonably quick car; 0-60 in the mid 7′s with a five speed.  They were popular with police forces as they had plenty of room for gear, were cheap to fix, and more than quick enough to catch baddies trying to escape in a Corsa.  But still, blech.  Boring.  The Omega was the yin to the sorta crazy-looking Ford Sierra’s yang.

Now, during this same time period, General Motors had acquire the Lotus brand in whole.  They set Lotus to work making a sports version of the Carlton/Omega, with the intention of making a competitive sports saloon out of a sow’s ear, much as Lotus had done two decade and change prior with the Ford Lotus Cortina.  What they got back was more than competitive; it set the industry standard for exactly how bad-ass a sports sedan could be.

Lotus started with the top-range Carlton, the GSi.  The 3.0L C30SE 24v was stroked out considerably (85mm vs 69.8mm stroke) to yield a total displacement of 3615cc vs the GSi’s 2969cc.  However, an extra .6L was not enough, and on top of that Lotus added twin Garrett T25 turbochargers, and an air-to-water intercooler.  The compression ratio was dropped from 10.0:1 to 8.2:1 to sustain all the boost, the bottom end of the block itself was reinforced to not blow to bits, and additional oil and coolant passages were included to keep it from boiling over.  The Lotus engine utilized forged Mahle pistons, stronger connecting rods, and a new crankshaft with 12 counterweights to balance out the long-stroke six.  The LC made a lot of power, even by today’s jaded standards: 377bhp at 5,200rpm, and an “are you serious?” 419lb-ft of torque at 4,200rpm.  Also of note- over 300lb-ft of torque was on tap by only 2,000rpm, meaning this was not a peaky twin turbo six like Nissan’s RB26.  During testing, the only manual transmission capable of dealing with all that power was the Corvette ZR-1′s (also a Lotus project under GM ownership) 6-speed manual, sourced from the German ZF company.  The rear differential was from Holden, and a 3-piece propshaft sent power from the transmission to the reinforced differential.

Being a Lotus project, there was more to it than a massive engine upgrade.  The body received wildly flared arches to accommodate a huge wheel/tire package -- 17″ Ronal alloys all around, 8.5″ up front with specially designed 235/45 Goodyears, and 9.5″ at back with meaty 265/40′s.  Under the pretty alloys was one of the most impressive braking setups around -- AP Racing 4-piston calipers with 330mm ventilated discs up front, 300mm twin-piston vented discs in the rear.

The suspension was gone over as well, with a focus on minimizing camber change under load for stability.  Lotus redesigned the MacPherson struts up front, while the rear suspension got an extra link on the trailing arms and an automatic ride leveling function.

Performance was alarming.  The Lotus Carlton took 5.2 seconds of your time to hit 60 from a standstill (some publications saw as low as 4.8!) and 11.5 seconds to 100mph.  Lotus also claimed the LC would do 50-70 in 3rd gear (a standard test of engine flexibility) in 2.8 seconds as well.  But beyond the spirited acceleration, what really earned the Lotus Carlton a place in history books was the top speed.  At a time when even the Germans were saying “gee, guys, we probably ought to limit our cars to 155mph so less bankers kill themselves,” Lotus limited the Carlton’s top speed to… well, however fast the twin-turbo six could push it.  Which turned out to be 177mph.  The British press thought this was roughly the equivalent of kicking a hundred puppies in a row with steel-toed boots, and decried it as antisocial and dangerous.  Never mind that a Ferrari Testarossa or a Lamborghini Countach could do this (sort of); the thought of a 5-passenger luxury sedan travelling at those speeds seemed particularly egregious.

The Lotus Carlton wasn’t much of a sales success.  The plan was originally to make 1,100 of them split between LHD (Opel) and RHD (Vauxhall); the final number was only 950, 320 of which were Carltons and 630 were Omegas, all of them painted a color called “Imperial Green,” which really looked black in anything but direct sunlight.  What with the anti-social stigma surrounding the car, plus the £48,000 price tag in 1990 during the middle of a particularly nasty economic reception, not many people wanted a slice of Lotus’ twin-turbo hooligan pie.

Still, the Lotus Carlton served as the benchmark for exactly how badass a sedan could be for quite some time, holding the record for fastest production sedan for quite some time.  Talk about making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Note: after finishing this article, I realized it had stretched to more than 5,400 words, and there are still about a gajillion cars I’d love to include.  If this is a topic you’d like to read more on, drop a comment below!  And if there’s something that’s NOT on the list you think should be, make a case in the comments -- or shoot me an email at james@carthrottle.com.