The most rapidly changing and growing segment in the US market is the C-segment. Cars like the Civic, Corolla, and Focus are becoming some of the biggest sellers on the market, passing the previously dominant mid-sized market as buyers realize they’d rather trade some space for increased fuel efficiency in these days of gas prices less predictable than Lucas electronics.

So it’s not shocking that every high-volume manufacturer is throwing a lot of money and research into their C-segment entries, because that’s where the buyers are.  The vast majority of the big selling C-segment cars are new for 2011 or 2012, including the Cruze (Chevrolet’s replacement for the Cobalt), the Jetta (now simplified, cheaper and larger), the Civic, and interesting upstarts like the Kia Forte.

Now, Ford has been selling a C-segment car here for ages – the Focus since 1999, and the Escort before that – but no one’s really cared in quite a while.  When the original Focus debuted in the US in 1999, it took a lot of people by surprise with it’s sharp styling, fun handling, availability of 4(!) different body styles, and bizarre interior.  It was pretty cool, honestly – or at least it was by the standards of the day.  But while competitors continued to actually update their models, Ford decided they’d rather focus their time and money on trucks and SUV’s, which were bigger sellers with considerably higher profit margins (at the time!)  So while the C170 (original) chassis Focus was replaced by a brand new one in 2005 in Europe and the rest of the world, America got… a facelifted version of the original, with a more boring, more plasticky interior.  And another facelift of the same thing in 2008, along with the elimination of the hatchback and wagon body styles, leaving only the sedan and a seriously awkward-looking Coupe.  And while the original Focus was pretty close in specifications to the European models, with each successive facelift, Ford continued to dumb down the car from a driver’s perspective – softer suspension, the elimination of the hot-rod SVT model after 2004, etc.

For 2012, though, the Focus makes a drastic leap from bottom-feeder rental special to a class-competitive (and class-dominating, in some ways) compact car.  If you’re skeptical, I don’t blame you – I was too.  So I rang up the local dealer – Capital Ford of Raleigh – and set up a test drive of the new Focus.

The new third-generation Focus replaces both the second-generation European model and the repeatedly-facelifted first generation US model as a true “global” vehicle.  While the rest of the world will get the option of a 5-door wagon (and at some point a 3-door hatchback), the US is limited to a four-door sedan or a 5-door hatchback model.  Like a lot of other C-segment cars, Ford has simplified the options on the Focus to streamline production – two body styles, one engine, two transmission (although only one’s available on upper level models), and four trim levels.  The most basic Focus – the S – is only available as a sedan.  The SE has more features and is available as either body, the SEL is another step up (with no manual option), and the Titanium is the new top of the line Focus.  My test vehicle was an SEL sedan, with a whole slew of options.

Let’s start with the styling.  If you’re familiar with Ford of Europe’s lineup, the new Focus is not a surprising-looking vehicle.  The Kinetic design language has been a great success on the latest Mondeo (Ford of Europe’s mid-sized sedan, comparable to a Fusion) and Fiesta, and it gives the new Focus a very distinct appearance among the sea of somewhat boring C-segment cars here in the US.  Unlike competitors like the Forte, Civic, and Jetta, the Focus eschews the origami school of design for an almost entirely fluid shape.  It’s certainly not as off-the-wall bizarre as the original Focus was compared to it’s competitors, but it does have a handsome maturity to it.  Some elements of the shape are odd – like those huge triangular intakes on the front bumper – but there’s nothing offensive to it.  Nor is there any of the rampant copycat-ism  you see in cars like the Forte (which looks like a Civic) or the Jetta (which tries to look like an A4.)  It’s certainly a more interesting design than the old Focus, which suffered from a lack of design in the first place.  Big credit to the wrap-around tail lights, which reduce the visual mass of the trunk, making this one of the few cars in this segment where the sedan doesn’t look awkward in comparison to the hatchback.

While the exterior styling is a pleasant surprise, it’s the interior that will really knock your preconceived notions of the Focus askew.  The old Focus interior was fairly dismal – large expanses of cheap gray plastic, buttons just sort of put wherever they’d fit, and some of the most uncomfortable seats I’ve ever had the displeasure of experiencing.  Hop into the new Focus, and you have to wonder if Ford’s been stealing notes from Audi.  It really is that nice inside.

The mixture of tan, black, and aluminum-look trim makes the interior of the new Focus an inviting place to be, and the quality of materials is astounding.  The entire dashboard is a chunk of soft-touch polymer, and the angled control panel – divided up into an upper and lower tier – is logical, concise, and easy to find controls at a glance.  And there are a lot of controls to find.  One of the focuses of the new Focus (pun intended) was integrating the kind of technology you’d previously only find in much larger, more expensive luxury cars.  Mission accomplished – the SEL tester, which wasn’t even a top of the line car, is so loaded with features that you’d probably need to spend a day reading the manual just to figure out all the stuff the car has.  First and foremost is the optional MyFord Touch system, which has received rave reviews from almost every tester.  And it’s all well-deserved.

All the primary controls can be accessed through the large 8″ touch screen in the center console, as well as redundant physical controls (for things like HVAC and stereo controls) elsewhere, including steering wheel hand controls.  There’s also a 4.2″ color LCD display situated between the speedometer and tachometer for other readouts.  The 8″ color panel has 4 primary tabs – one at each corner- that allow you to quickly flip to basic function categories.

The red tab on the bottom left provides access to audio, entertainment and media functions.  With the uplevel MyFord Touch, that means AM/FM radio, Satellite radio, CD’s, USB or auxiliary input, or Bluetooth audio (like, say, streaming Pandora via bluetooth from your smart phone.)

The top left (yellow) is wireless mobile phone functions…

The bottom right (blue) are climate controls…

And the top right (green) is SYNC and Navigation controls.  Everything’s logical, easy to find, and convenient.

The gauges are housed in deep bins that keep sunlight from washing them out, and the full-color display in between shows trip data, radio stations, etc – all controllable through the 5-way pads on the steering wheel.

The SEL model is pretty loaded; I’m not sure what else there is you’d want that you can’t get on this model.  In addition to the standard features, this SEL carried the Rapid Spec 303A package (which is the uplevel MyFord Touch system, Sony 10-speaker 355w stereo, rear parking sensors, automatic wipers, 17″ alloys, and power driver’s seat) as well as the winter package (heated seats and mirrors, approach lights on mirrors) and the Parking Technology Package(!) with the Automatic Parking System (no, I didn’t try it, these still creep me out) and a full-color rear view camera that pops up an image on the screen when you put it in reverse.  It also has guide lines that adjust with the steering angle to show you where the car’s gonna go, which is pretty damn spiffy.

So it’s nice to look at, incredibly nice to sit in, and packed to the gills with features. How does it drive?

Well, if you’re familiar with how the old Focus felt and drove, erase those thoughts, because it’s nothing at all like it.  For one thing, the Focus finally has a truly state-of-the-art engine.  The new 2.0L Duratec I4′s spec list reads like the who’s who of high technology.  The block and cylinder head are aluminum, and the Focus now has Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI), which uses a conventional in-tank pump (around 200psi) to supply fuel to a high-pressure fuel pump on the fuel rail, which delivers fuel at around 2150psi directly into the cylinder.  This allows for a higher compression ratio on regular gas for more low-end power, as well as more efficient operation.  There’s also Ford’s Ti-VCT (twin independent variable cam timing) system on both intake and exhaust cams, to optimize timing for any given situation.  Other interesting goodies on the new 2.0L include a smart alternator (which charges primarily when braking or decelerating), deceleration fuel shut-off (for efficiency), piston oil squirters, low-friction coatings on the piston skirts, and a composite intake manifold with equal-length runners for low weight and optimized torque output.  It’s remarkably high-tech stuff for an “economy” car, and maybe you’re starting to notice a pattern here.

Most surprising of the Focus’ high-tech features is the “automatic” transmission.  Available on all models (and standard on the SEL and Titanium), the 6-speed PowerShift (seriously?  What’s with the goofy name?) isn’t an automatic at all, it’s a twin-clutch automated manual.  It works the same as it does in the VW GTI, Evo MR, Nissan GT-R, etc – gears 1, 3, and 5 are on one clutch, and 2, 4, and 6 are on the other – so whichever gear you’re in, the one above it or below it is preselected, and it swaps instantly.  The benefits of this are obviously performance-related (almost no gearchange time) as well as efficiency.

Driving the new Focus is surprising for what you don’t notice: noise.  Almost at all.  It’s so quiet at idle that you have to check the tach just to see if it’s running.  The steering is electric power assisted, and it’s light and a touch numb, but still accurate and devoid of off-center slack.  The new Ti-VCT Duratec is a sweetheart of a motor: smooth, with a linear powerband and an absence of thrashiness at high rpm.  Whereas the motor was what really let the new Fiesta down, in the Focus it’s one of the best parts of the driving experience.  With 160bhp(@6500rpm) and 146lb-ft of torque(@4450rpm), the Focus stacks up quite well power-wise with it’s competitors, easily outpacing it’s largest domestic competitor (the Cruze, with a 138bhp turbo 1.4L) as well as the Civic (140bhp).  The Jetta with the optional 2.5L I5 has more power and torque (170bhp and 177bhp) but also gets considerably worse fuel economy – the Focus with the PowerShift DCT is EPA rated at 27/37, while the 5-cylinder VW is down 4 on both cycles, at 23/33.

While the concept of a twin-clutch automated manual in a civilian Focus had me all excited, I really shouldn’t have been.  It’s clear from the first application of the gas pedal that this transmission was programmed first and foremost to maximize fuel economy.  Pull out onto the road at half throttle, and this thing’ll grab the highest gear it can without stalling the engine – we’re talking 4th gear by 20mph aggressive. In normal driving, the PowerShift really doesn’t feel any different from a conventional torque-converter automatic – there’s no “bump” during gear changes, but you do notice that damn, this thing swaps cogs quick. It’s a touch clunky engaging first gear from a dead stop or a very slow roll, probably to conserve the life of the clutch.  Most people will never tell the difference though, and that’s probably what Ford was going for with this transmission.  It’s more efficient without alienating traditional customers – but those looking for something sporty will have to wait.

Thankfully, there’s a “Sport” mode below Drive on the selector, which holds part-throttle upshifts longer, and downshifts to provide engine braking as you come to a stop, but much like the same mode in some Audi’s, it’s really aggressive about holding gears.  Another oddity: even though it’s a DCT, there are no steering wheel mounted paddle shifters – just a rocker switch on the driver’s side of the shift lever.  And it doesn’t do anything in “D” – it will only change ratios when the shifter’s pulled into S.  To Ford’s credit, unlike most other rocker switch gear selectors, this one actually changes gears when you tell it to, which is usually a major annoyance with these systems.  So if you’re not concerned with fuel economy and want to enjoy the benefits of this high tech transmission, here’s my tip: pull it into S, and shift with the rocker switch.  Otherwise, the engine’s going to be bogging down like crazy, shifting into fourth gear at 15mph – or it’ll be holding 5,000rpm as you slowly brake for a red light.  Two oddities, both likely programming related-rather than mechanical related: the Focus makes an odd shake for about a half-second when you fire it up, and it’s really slow to engage reverse gear, making three-point turns a bit awkward.

Rolling down the highway at a 70mph cruise, the Focus just doesn’t feel like an economy car.  Like it’s little brother the Fiesta, it’s traded some of the fun corner-carving abilities for a smooth highway ride, which is probably what most customers want.  Mind you, it’s not a doorhandle-scraper in corners – but the Mazda 3 is a much more exciting drive for similar money.  But for buyers looking to step down in the size of their car, without losing comfort or features of a mid-size or full-size automobile, the Focus is just what the doctor ordered.

If this doesn’t sound super-exciting to you, it’s because you’re reading CarThrottle- and you probably care more about second-gear wheelspin than voice controls, bluetooth, and NVH characteristics.  But judging the Focus on what it’s intended to do – provide luxury and refinement in the C-segment – it gets an A+.  And if you do want second-gear wheelspin, wait until next year when Ford starts selling the Focus ST here.  That will use the EcoBoost version of the 2.0L Duratec, equipped with a turbocharger and intercooler to boost power to 247bhp, as well as typical performance car trappings – aggressive bodywork, stiffer suspension and stickier tires, etc.

For the daily commute, though, the Focus takes most of the pain out of it.  The seats are supportive, the interior’s amazing, the fuel economy is beyond reproach (37mpg highway on normal models, although Ford has a high-efficiency version of the SE that gets an EPA rating of 40 on the highway), and it’s got all the gadgets and gizmos you could ever want.  They don’t come cheap, though.  A fully-loaded Focus (a Titanium hatchback) can actually ring up north of $30k with every box ticked, at which point you start to wonder about either getting something larger, or a really nice one year old Volvo S40.  Still, the fully loaded versions of small cars never make a whole lot of sense (tick every box on the Audi A3 option chart and your MSRP is almost $42,00, and let’s be honest, the A3 is just a Golf), so choose wisely.

What Ford’s done here is remarkable.  The outgoing car didn’t have a lot going for it, but the new Focus delivers all the stuff this class of buyers wants, with unexpected refinement and luxury too.  And man, I can’t wait to get behind the wheel of the turbocharged ST model – all the good things about this car, plus another 87bhp?  Where do I sign up for some of that?

Bangle.  Chris Bangle. That’s all I can think of when I look at a BMW Z4.  I can see his trademark styling all over these cars, and when Bangle’s Bungles first started hitting the road, all it made me want to do was punch babies and scream.  ”How can he do this to us?  Our cherished BMWs!  He’s ruining them!”

But you know, the Z4 has been on US roads now since 2002.  That’s 9 years to soak up the Z4′s unusual styling, and to be honest it’s rather grown on me.  Not to mention the fact that the Z4 wasn’t actually styled by Bangle, the styling was directed by Bangle.  So if you want to punch someone, look up Anders Warming.

Really though, the (E85-chassis) Z4 Roadster is a combination of classic proportions swirled together with über-modern detailing, and compared to some stuff on the market today, it’s rather graceful and restrained.  The classic super-long-hood, no-trunk sizing, and the dipped doors make the Z4 look more like a modern Triumph TR4 than it does a nuovo Z3.  And resting on these old-school dimensions, the Z4′s styling makes some more sense.

The 2006 styling update certainly helped, cleaning up some of the iffy details that came on the original Z4.  The tail-lights made the biggest difference, ditching the multi-colored weirdness for simple red and white.  New headlights, bumpers, and wheels make the facelifted E85 still look up to date, and (at least in this author’s humble opinion), clean and restrained next to the new (E89) Z4.  The Z4 is the anti-Miata: it’s seemingly been fired on with the “weird styling details” shotgun, and somehow it manages to work.  Compared to BMW’s relatively staid sedan models, the Z4 is a festival of oddness.

Check out those front-fender turn signals, with the trademark BMW roundel in them.  They don’t look like a turn signal, but flip the stalk and the sides of this round protrusion glow, which reflects off the concave surface it’s mounted in, giving an eery “floating” turn signal from the side.  Or how about the sagging swage line that runs from the front to the rear fender through the door to the rear fender, giving the car the appearance of melting?  Or the strangely humped-up trunk, or the two-shapes in one tail lights, or the random switch from a positive to a negative surface on the front fenders, or the symphony of origami lines crossing the body…

But like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s continued ability to get hired for “acting” roles (did you see him in Fast 5? He was hilarious), it somehows works out to… a strangely beautiful car.  It’s no E-Type Jaguar, or Lamborghini Miura, or split-window ’63 Corvette, but I do imagine that history will look back on the Z4 kindly.  Or at least moreso than they do the Z3.  Fresh off driving one of the Z4′s competitors (or at least the Z4 M Coupe’s), the Cayman S, let’s dive into how a Z4 drives, and what it’s like to live with.

This particular model is a 3.0Si.  When the original Z4 came out, there was a 2.5i and a 3.0i, which made sense as the base model had a smaller engine.  When the facelift occured in 2006, BMW ditched that (at least for the US) and both engines available in the Z4 were the N52 3.0L 24v I6.  BOth of these motors have blocks made out of magnesium (isn’t that flammable?) with aluminum cylinder liners.  The 3.0i makes 218bhp and 180lb-ft of torque, comparable to the old M54-powered 3.0i’s 231bhp.  The 3.0Si, which was the uplevel performance model (but below the wicked Z4 M’s 330bhp) used the same motor, but with a variable-length intake manifold, and a more aggressive ECU tune.  Output in the 3.0Si is 255bhp and 220lb-ft of torque, compared to the 3.0i’s 215bhp and 185lb-ft.

With a 3.0Si weighing in just over 3,000lbs, that’s a decent (but not insane) amount of poke for the pork.  Mated to a six-speed manual transmission, BMW claims the 3.0Si is good for a 5.7s 0-60mph time, which is comparable to the smaller-engined Porsche Boxster as well as the Mercedes SLK350.  Like all good German cars, the Z4 has an electronic leash that cuts off the fun at 155mph.

What’s it like to drive?  Well, some things are great.  Others, not so much.  The biggest issue, and one that’s hard to avoid, is that the Z4 is surprisingly hard to fit in for someone large of frame like myself.  At 6’2″, ingress and egress on the Z4 – even with the convertible top stowed – is a challenge, and the cockpit is surprisingly tight.  the tall door sills and low steering wheel mean some interesting contortions are necessary to slide behind the wheel, perhaps not fitting with the “luxury sport roadster” theme.  Just for reference, it’s not nearly this hard to get in and out of a Cayman, and that car’s roof doesn’t move.  Once inside, the wheel crowds your lap if you’ve got it adjusted in a such a way as to be able to see the gauges, which is useful.  Of course, being a high-end BMW, the interior quality and design is beyond reproach – the Z4′s non-M seats are supremely comfortable, and this car’s white leather with light-colored wood trim and black dashboard makes it cheerier than the all-black interior you’d expect.

I’m a sucker for good gauges, and the Z4′s are awesome – nice deep bins to keep the sun out, and a radiant orange glow that looks like an epic sunset.  They’re easily visible at dusk, too, which is a strange weak spot on some cars with LED-lit gauges.  The E85 Z4′s are blissfully unencumbered by BMW’s infernal iDrive device, and the navigation screen folds out of the way when not in use.  It’s clearly legible even in bright sunlight when it’s on, and the touch-screen operating is accurate enough to get the job done without a bunch of punching and swearing.

How you like driving the Z4 depends on what sort of driving you’re doing, and whether or not the sport mode is engaged.  If you just want to lay the top back and take a pretty lady (or dude, I don’t judge) out for a relaxing drive in the country side, the revised Z4 is pretty damn awesome at that.  The early Z4′s were criticized for their kidney-punching stiff ride, but 06+ models aren’t bad at all.  In normal mode, ride motions are well controlled, throttle response isn’t hyperactive, and the light clutch and BMW stick shift require approximately 5 minutes of learning curve before you stop even thinking about it.  BMW did their homework with this convertible; even cruising at 70 with the top down, wind disturbance is minimal, and you can easily carry on a conversation with a passenger without resorting to shouting.  This is where all those luxury features come in handy: the heated seats are powerful, the built-in nav will direct you to the nearest winery, etc.

If you’re in this mood and you punch the sport mode, you’ll drive along for a few minutes, then promptly turn it back off.  The suspension gets remarkably stiff, transmitting tiny ripples through the steering column, and it seems more apt to bounce over bumps than actually suppress them.  The throttle response goes from normal to Oh God Do A Burnout! and the steering weight increases to forearm-building levels.  If you’re hammering down a back road in the Z4, you’ll want to engage this mode, but you’ll wish you could control the shock damping levels separately from the rest of the sport mode like you can in the Cayman.  Like the Cayman, Sport is too damn stiff to actually help you make fast progress on a real country road – you spend more time making tiny steering corrections and wondering how that much bump steer can come out of normal-sized tires than you will enjoying the smooth engine.  Also a thumbs down to the clutch-release delay valve that BMW installs in their stick-shifts, which makes driving a manual easier for beginners, and jerky and slow for people that know how to drive.

And boy, is the 3.0Si’s motor a peach.  Like all BMW sixes, it sounds like silk ripping as the revs climb, and there aren’t any of the unpleasant vibrations associated with, say, Nissan’s VQ37HR motor in the 370Z.  Unfortunately, there’s also not the unbelievable grunt that the VQ possess either.  It’s still only a 3.0L, but with Valvetronic (BMW’s version of variable valve lift) and double VANOS (variable cam timing on both cams), you’d expect there to be more low end torque, or more top-end scream, or both.  The Si never pins you in your seat like the Cayman S’s motor, but that’s not especially surprising considering the power difference.  Driveability issues?  Of course not.  It’s as smooth as a bottle of $500 cognac, and you find yourself holding gears longer than normal both for the sound, and to have some torque pulling out of corners.  Would this car be a total monster with the Z4 M’s S54 straight-six?  Probably so; the S52B34 may also be short on low-end torque, but the additional revs and power would have to sound and feel magnificent in a 2-seater like this.

What’s odd about the whole Z4 experience is the weight balance.  BMW claims the 3.0Si has exactly 50/50 weight distribution front to rear with the manual transmission (49/51 with auto), but in the Z4 you feel like you’re sitting directly above the rear axle.  The car is more prone to understeer than oversteer, thanks to the staggered tire sizing, but you’d have to be going fairly idiotic speeds on the road to find that out.  But sitting that far back, with that much hood up front, makes the Z4 a surprisingly difficult car to place in turns.  It just feels odd, and takes some getting used to compared to the Cayman.

It’s hard to really get comfortable driving a Z4 hard on a back road.  In the normal mode, the suspension is too soft and the steering’s too light.  In Sport mode, the steering and throttle are fantastic, but again the suspension is too stiff to be useful.  It’s an odd compromise for a BMW, a company that’s long prided itself on it’s ride/handling compromise.  Surely some of the blame can be attributed to the standard-fitment runflat tires, which have ridiculously stiff sidwalls to support the load of the car with no air in them which wreck the ride on basically any car so equipped.  On the up-side, the brakes are unusually good for a BMW, and there’s almost no chassis shake at all.  You can tell that a lot of effort went into the design of the Z4 as regards chassis bracing – crawling under and around the Si reveals a plethora of braces tied in at multiple locations, and as a result the car feels all of one piece on the road.

So the Z4 isn’t really a hard-core sports car, but honestly, that’s ok.  Most of the joy of owning a svelte two-seat drop top like the Z4 comes from relaxing drives in the countryside, the (quite good, I must add) stereo playing your favorite album, and the sounds of that classic straight six tickling your ears.  If you were looking for something more brutal, well – BMW did sell the Z4M.  Or comparable money will get you behind the wheel of a good condition (AP2) S2000, which is a loud, bouncy bucket of VTEC that’s not all that great for commuting, but hard to touch when it comes to thrashing it.  For posing and cruising potential, an SLK350 has the Z4′s card pulled; that folding metal hard-top might be heavy, but it’s quiet as a coupe inside with the top up, the ride’s better, and the extra engine size gives it more low end torque.  For a car that’s designed to split the balance then, the Z4 3.0Si does well.  But if you were expecting a Grand Am race car, you’ll be sorely disappointed.

If you’re in the market for an interesting, cheap car, your choices are pretty limited. Most everything with an MSRP below $20k these days is about as much fun as kissing your sister.  Sober.  So what’s the budget-limited car guy to do?  Buy a ragged-out Mustang GT?  Sure, that’s one option.  But if you’re a delightful nonconformist with a taste for the bizarre, perhaps you should steer your rear to a Nissan dealer.

First, let’s make one thing clear.  The Juke has styling that you either love or hate. Not much middle ground, for sure.  Personally, I think the styling is a little bizarre and derivative all at the same time, but it’s better than every rolling Ambien out there for preventing boredom.  The front end looks like a tugboat, the back end looks like a Volvo V50, and viewed in profile from the side it’s like a pregnant GT-R.  Personally I think it’s a design that’s a lot more cohesive looking in person than it is in photos; the interplay of all the angles and concave surfaces make it a vehicle that really draws your eyes.

How could it look better?  Easy.  Drop it 2″ and give it some good wheels.  Damnjdm did a photoshop rendering of a Juke slammed on some puke-green TE37′s, and it looks boss as hell.

A black Juke with deep-dish TE37′s, a good drop, and some yellow covers over the headlights, and you’ve got a mean looking car.  So aesthetically, the Juke has got some serious potential.  Thankfully, Nissan didn’t cheap out and all versions of the Juke have attractive 17″ alloy wheels. What’s really weird?  Those plastic slivers on the top of the fenders aren’t headlights; the giant round lights in the bumper are.  Still, neat styling details abound: like the lower front valence with three random round holes punched in it, the hidden rear door handles (an idea probably jacked from the Alfa Romeo 156 wagon, but Nissan will probably swear it’s from the old-school Pathfinder), the organic-looking taillights (which look like Volvo), the bulbous front fenders (Mazda RX-8?) – the list goes on and on.  Nissan even says the side-glass is supposed to resemble the visor of a race helmet – I don’t really see it, though.

But styling is a pretty clear-cut issue; you probably like it or you don’t, and me telling you about it isn’t going to change your mind.  So let’s move on.  What’s it like inside, and what’s it like to drive?

The Juke’s interior is a mixture of great success and disappointing failure.  Still, for the price point this car sells at, it’s pretty darn nice.  On the plus side:  It’s an interesting design.  The center console is styled to remind of a motorcycle’s gas tank and center section, and those deep cupholders will take a large cup of coffee like a champ.  The “motorcycle fairing” (I don’t get it; Nissan doesn’t even make bikes) cover over the gauge pod does a good job of protecting the instruments from sun wash-out, which is always a pet peeve of mine.  The steering wheel looks like the same one they put in the 370Z, without the leather.

On the other hand, there are some downsides.  The Juke is mostly Versa (aka Renault Clio/Modus) underneath, which means it’s not an especially large car inside.  Now, I”m a big dude, but this car strikes me as remarkably tiny.  There’s not much spare room for things like elbows and knees in the Juke – it’s all very snug.  Especially the back seat; which could induced a claustraphobia-based panic attack in a matter of minutes for large people.  The quality of minor switchgear (like the map light switches, mirror switches, that sort of thing) feels very lowest-bidder, and some controls are pretty tiny.

Yours truly, wondering where you keep your head at if you’re a back-seat passenger.  “Sitting behind myself” planted my knees pretty firmly in the back of the front seats.  However, much like a New Beetle (a vehicle this car has a lot of characteristics in common with, as I’ll discuss later) the roofline gives the Juke a huge amount of front headroom and almost none in the back.  There’s a hatchback, but not a lot of space unless you fold the rear seats down.

Being a vehicle aimed at 20-somethings, it’s got a lot of tech goodies standard and available.  There’s an aux-in port on the front of the head unit,  Bluetooth phone pairing, available navigation, a 6-speaker Rockford Fosgate stereo with a built-in subwoofer, a USB port for iPod integration as well as other devices, satellite radio, etc.  Even base models get an aux and USB port, which is nice.  Upper level SL’s get heated leather seats, among other goodies.  Base-model interiors (like the S I drove) can be a bit gray and drab, but the uplevel SL gets a little funky, especially if you get a red one.  You also get a nifty “drive selector) control on upper levels than changes engine and transmission characteristics as well as electronic climate control.

What’s more interesting than the styling, though, is the drivetrain.  The Juke is a fairly unconventional car.

The Juke has a brand-new motor not yet in any other Nissans or Renaults, and it’s probably the best part about the Juke.  Displacing only 1.6L, the MR16DDT is packed full of cool technology.  All aluminum, gasoline direct injection with a single small turbocharger and air-to-air intercooler, there’s also twin independent variable cam timing, sodium-filled exhaust valves, and a relatively high 9.5:1 compression ratio.  It spools out 188 horsepower and 177 lb-ft of torque, and the power delivery is remarkably punchy on the low-end.  Turbo lag is there, but just enough so you know it’s got a compressor, then the torque kicks in and the Juke scoots off a lot faster than you’d expect.  The performance claim is a 6.8 second 0-60 time for a CVT FWD model – I didn’t bring a stopwatch, but it’s certainly not slow.  And consider what kind of engines other manufacturers give you in this price range: Scion’s 2.5L Camry 4, VW’s 2.0L 8v and 2.5L 20v, Honda’s 1.8L and 1.5L R motors – again, surprising technology for the price range.

What’s really weird is the transmission and drivetrain choices.  You have a choice between a six-speed manual or a CVT, and front-wheel drive or electronic torque-vectoring AWD.  However, before you ask, no you cannot get it with a manual and AWD. Have a minute to cry to yourself.  Want a stick?  FWD only.  Want AWD?  CVT only.  Hey, at least the turbo motor is standard.  Also, if you get a FWD Juke, it’s got a solid rear axle.  If it’s AWD, it’s 5-link independent.  I’d imagine the Juke factory is a bit of a mess, than – considering in other countries there are three other engine choices!

Still, the model I drove (A FWD CVT) seems like the worst of the powertrain choices.  You don’t get to row your own, and it won’t do donuts in the snow.  But it’s not without merit – Exhibit A, merging onto the highway.  Plant the gas down an onramp and the motor snaps up to about 3,000 rpm, the turbo spools and there’s enough power to bring out a bit of torque steer.  The motor continues to hold around 4,000 rpm as the gearing compensates, and all of a sudden you’re up to 80.  Passing power is this car’s forte; it’ll squirt past slower traffic with surprising quickness.  It’s no Mazda 2.3 DISI-Turbo (Speed3) motor, but for the size of the car it’s spot-on.  It reminds me quite a bit of the twin-scroll turbo Cooper S motor, which is pretty heavy praise.

Downsides to the powertrain?  Well, it’s noisy.  1.6L is a pretty small motor, and pulling out makes the CVT shift it up to pretty high rpm’s and stay there for a while.  Road noise is quiet, but there’s a lot of buzzing coming from the engine.  The CVT has “gears”, basically 6 preset ratios, which is slightly less useful than having an extra elbow.  It won’t take off in second, or downshift more than it feels is prudent, or upshift into top gear at low speeds, and there’s not much engine braking to speak of.  The Juke is actually a lot faster if you just leave it in “D” and floor it, chugging up to peak power RPM and staying there.  Forcing a CVT to act like a planetary-gear automatic is silly.  Why include a gearbox that’s supposed to be more efficient than having gear ratios… then give it gear ratios?  Still, I would imagine this engine with a larger turbocharger and a good tune would be quite wicked.  It makes me hope for a 6MT FWD Versa SE-R with this engine.

The ride is pretty good, too.  17″ wheels and tires mean it doesn’t really soak up irregularities like a Cadillac, but it’s well controlled and there’s a lot less roll than you’d expect.  It’s closer to hot hatch than mini SUV, but it can be a bit harsh as a result.  Brakes are strong, but I wasn’t driving the car on the track, and I doubt many will anyhow.

So, the Juke is not perfect, but it’s kinda fun.  It’s cramped, strange looking, a bit cheap, and perhaps searching for a purpose.  On the other hand, it’s unique, fun to drive, relatively efficient, packed with cool tech, and reasonably priced.

What I see it as, really, is the replacement for the New Beetle.  That sounds pretty odd, but it’s trying to do now what the new Beetle tried to do in 1998.  Back then, retro was the cool thing – so it provided something delightfully retro, based on pedestrian underpinnings, with not a whole lot of practicality or logical reason to buy it besides “it was cool.”  It was a runaway success for a few years.  Nissan is going after young people that are tired of driving Corollas and used Buicks and Scions and all that – giving people a little taste of everything that’s hot today (CUV’s, hot hatches, high-tech gadgets, rally reps, sport bikes) at a reasonable price.  At that, it succeeds.  From more objective measures, I’m not so sure.

Still, besides the “divisive” styling, it’s hard to see why the Juke won’t sell well.  Nissan dealers seem to be having trouble keeping them in stock, so maybe I’m looking for real depth in a market that people don’t really even care.  If you like it, by all means get one.  If you don’t, then by all means get something else.  Like a Cube!

2010 Nissan Juke CVT FWD Specifications

Base price: $18,960
Price as tested: $19,860
Options: Floor mats, $170; Destination, $750

Body: 5-door SUV-type device
Drivetrain: Front-transverse, front-wheel-drive
Accomodations: 5 people, the rearmost 3 of which are hopefully quite small.

Engine: I4, aluminum block and head
Displacement: 1.6L
Aspiration: Turbocharged, intercooled
Fuel delivery: High-pressure direct injection
Valvetrain: Dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, independent variable cam timing on Intake/Exhaust
Compression ratio: 9.5:1
Horsepower: 188bhp@5,600rpm
Torque: 177@5,200rpm
Rev limit: 6,500rpm
Transmission: 6-speed manual (FWD models), Continuously Variable Electronic with 6 preset ratios (opt on FWD, std on AWD)

0-60mph: 6.8s
Top speed: 125mph (Drag-Limited)
1/4 Mile@ET: 15.2@91.9mph

EPA fuel mileage estimate: 27c/32h (CVT) 24c/31h (6MT) 25c/30h (CVT AWD)
Recommended fuel: not listed
Fuel Tank Capacity: 13.2 (FWD) 11.8 (AWD)
Theoretical Range: 422mi (CVT FWD), 409 (6MT FWD), 354 (CVT AWD)

Wheelbase: 99.6″
Length: 162.4″
Track (F/R): 60″/60″ (FWD), 60″/59.3″ (AWD)
Width: 69.5″
Height: 61.8″
Curb weight: 2,912-3,210lbs

Main Competitors: Kia Soul, Nissan Cube, Nissan Rogue, Mini Cooper Clubman/Countryman, Scion xB, Mazda 3, Volvo C30, a Salvador Dali painting
Pros: Interesting appearance, slick turbo-rocket powertrain, available AWD and 6MT, lots of tech goodies, actually fun to drive and be seen in, reasonable pricetag and great fuel economy, fighting the status quo!
Cons: Interesting appearance, cramped inside, some seriously cheap materials, CVT and tiny engine makes merging noisy if fast, lack of AWD-6MT combo, not sure what it’s supposed to be or do, question of DI+Turbo+CVT reliability long-term, will scare your friends.
Conclusion: Don’t have a huge budget but want something different?  This is worth a try.  Can’t wait to see these slammed with big turbos and front-mounts.

Thanks to Andrew Khoune for the photos! (except floating engine shot, trucktrends.com, and the red Juke SL from Nissan PR.)

Hey, you have to know by now if you’ve been reading this website that I’m a bit of a weirdo.  But I’ve had a thing for the Volvo 850 T-5R/ 850R since I knew how to drive a car.  This relates to the fact that my first car was an 850.  Embarrassing photo of me standing next to it below:

Absurdly tacky picture asides (I’m SO cool! Hello Myspace!), I loved that Volvo.  It was a ’97 base model 850 sedan, non-turbocharged, cloth seats and automatic trans.  It was in immaculate condition, perfectly maintained, and wonderful to drive.  A model of solidity, it was one of the only cars I’ve ever felt invincible driving in bad weather.  It’s where I derived my illogical love of Swedish cars which has stuck with me to this day.  I’ve always said that if that car had one of two things, I’d have kept it: a clutch pedal, or a turbocharger.  After driving it for about 2 years and loving it to death, it got sold to my sister and replaced by a shiny new Jetta.  Mistake.

I’d always really wanted one of the 850 Turbos.  More specifically, an 850R or 850 T-5R.  I read all the stories about the 850 T-5R Wagons racing in the BTCC; heard the tales about how they’d lay 100′ of rubber out of a roundabout if you weren’t careful with the throttle, and dreamed about having a T-5R with a smattering of iPd racing parts and more horsepower than it knew what to do with.  But up until today, I’d never gotten behind the wheel of one.

So, while browsing Craigslist for interesting turbocharged things the other day, I stumbled across an ad.  “1997 Volvo 850 R-series.  Call for price.”  You don’t have to ask me twice.  I called up the dealer -- a local private seller to the south of Raleigh -- and arranged to look at the car.  It was a 1997 850R, and it’s the real deal -- besides the incorrect wheels, it’s the genuine article, not converted.  148k on the clock, clearly lovingly maintained.  A few pieces of paperwork later, I found myself behind the wheel of a car I’ve wanted since I was 16.

Getting behind the wheel of an 850 again was like coming home.  It’s a car you sit down in and are immediately comfortable with.  Everything falls easily to hand, it’s in a logical place (no A/C switch hidden behind the turn signal stalk, 900!), and the seats are typical Volvo -- supportive in all the right places, but not annoying Mercedes-Benz stiff.  I can’t say I’m a big fan of the bright orangey wood trim, but that’s fixable, right?  It had a lot more equipment than my 850 did -- leather/alcantara seats, auto climate control, power seats, trip computer, sunroof, etc -- but mostly it felt just like my car, only a little nicer.  All the things I liked about the 850′s interior were just as nice as I remember them.

The gauges are clear, concise, easy to read and well marked.  There are some wacky things -- like the hidden door handles and the cup holders that pull out of the arm rest -- but mostly it’s more conventional than I’m used to.  And man, those seats are comfortable.  Mmm, Alcantara.

Anyway, enough about how much the 850′s interior rocks -- which it does.  How does the infamous Volvo hot-rod hooligan-mobile drive?  Well, there are two ways to look at it.  For a hooligan, it’s a bit of a Volvo.  But for a Volvo, it’s a bit of a hooligan.  It’s a strange combination of rock-like solidity and Volvo-ness, and a motor that feels like it’s sucking down gallons of JP8 and spitting out flaming baby skulls.

Like most small turbo motors (the T-5 is sleeved down from a 2.4 in non-turbo form to a 2.3 for turbo duty), the 850R’s a bit soft off the line.  It’s about a 3400lb car in loaded R trim, so before boost hits it feels pretty much like a normal 850.  But once the turbo spools up to full song (only 10.6 psi), and all five cylinders and 20 valves are singing in harmony, the 850R punches down the road with real authority.  In R trim, the engine is rated at 240bhp and 221lb-ft of torque, up from 222bhp in regular 850 turbo form -- which only allows 9.7psi of boost.  It’s no VQ37HR, but for a 13 year old Volvo it has the ability -- stock -- to really surprise some people.  The sound it makes it pretty tasty, too.  I didn’t take any footage, but this video will probably help you get the point.

What’s sad is that all turbocharged 850′s in the States were saddled with 4-speed automatic transmissions.  What’s good is that it’s a pretty clever one for the standards of the time.  It has two modes -- “Econ” and “Sport” plus a dedicated winter mode.  “Sport” basically holds part-thottle upshifts till higher rpm and downshifts faster when you put your foot down.  Winter mode starts off in 3rd gear to limit wheelspin, which I remember working pretty well.  On a curvy road, toeing into the throttle in sport mode brings the next lowest gear with a snap, boost kicks in, and you take off in a wave of turbo torque.  It’s that same smooth pull that’s why I love Saabs, only… a bit lower down and less intense, but still impressive.

The suspension on the R is pretty admirable.  The rear is independent, front is MacPherson struts with sway bars at both ends.  It’s got a lot less float and dive than my 900, but the steering’s a bit heavier and number -- you more trust the car than feel the car.  The thwack of boost makes it a little unpredictable, but the brakes are strong and linear.  Basically, the 850R does a reasonable impression of a sports sedan -- the first Volvo to really do so in more than a straight line.

Overall, the 850R isn’t as hard-core as the low riding body kit and BBS wheels would suggest, but it’s a remarkably competent sports sedan in a most unsuspecting package.  Did it live up to my expectations of the automotive bucket list?  Most certainly.  Now if only they had sold these with stick shifts here in the ‘States…

]]> http://www.carthrottle.com/test-drive-1997-volvo-850r/feed/ 9 http://www.carthrottle.com/2006-ford-gt-road-test/ http://www.carthrottle.com/2006-ford-gt-road-test/#comments Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:34:12 +0000 Tim http://www.carthrottle.com/?p=7429 Test Vehicle: 2006 Ford GT 5.4L V8 with 6-speed Manual Gearbox

I was born in the (cough) mid to late 1960′s, and this car was originally conceived around about the same time. The original was called the GT40 because it was 40 inches tall. This new one is a full 5% taller…

Most exotic cars are low to the ground. This one is almost wing like. I didn’t think I was going to fit to be honest. I can’t imagine losing that extra 5%.

The design itself hasn’t changed too much other than a little bit of modernizing from the Ford design team. The old GT40 was iconic and this one really sets the right tone from the start, from the white and blue paint job, to the swing out doors that meet in the middle of the roof. I’m not as much of a fan of it as the more modern looking exotics, but it certainly has presence, and I really love the look of the back of the car for reasons that I can’t really explain.

Getting in was, as expected, interesting. I had to basically duck to close the door for fear of losing my scalp, but when the door is closed, there’s an indent in the roof that gives you enough room. If Jeremy Clarkson can fit in it, I should be able to as he’s about 4 inches taller than me (and several pounds heavier as well I might add).

In my mind, this is not meant to be a competitor to any of the modern super cars really, it’s just a reimagining of the original, to give the old GT40 fans something to drive now as the older ones are all snapped up in collections.

The interior itself is a little claustraphobic with the rollbar basically in my forehead, but the dash is pretty cool. The speedo is way over to the right. You don’t need to look at that. The rev counter is in front of you, and the steering wheel is pretty much under your chin. The toggle switches on the dash are very cool too, but the most interesting thing about the interior is the gear lever which protrudes out of the enormous center tunnel almost sideways at you.

As for the seats, well, I’ve sat on more comfortable park benches than these. I couldn’t find my position in them at all, and they were covered in some kind of vinyl and micron thin padding. Seats. Fail.

There’s no fancy e-gear or tiptronic or traction control for that matter in this. It reminded me of the old TVR Tuscan with its level of sophistication, but the metal ball gear level fits perfectly in your hand and the three pedal layout lets you know that this car needs to be driven.

A prod of the start button let the V8 behind my head rumble into life. Its a totally different noise than the Italian sports cars. It’s letting you know, loud and clear, that its got more torque than you’ll ever need, and if you hit the gas, regardless of the gear you are in, its got plenty in reserve. There’s no replacement for displacement as the saying goes, and there’s 5.4 liters of good old American iron ready to move this thing.

It was surprisingly easy to drive. The clutch wasn’t heavy once I discovered the bite point, which was about 2mm from the top of the pedal, and the brakes were as good as you would expect. Mash middle pedal and hold on to teeth. Pretty good.

The gear change was pretty nice. You had to push the lever into the gear you want with some force, but it wasn’t as agricultural as the TVR’s, and after spending too much time with twin clutch, semi auto, paddle flapping boxes, this was a very pleasant change to get back to physically driving a car with a ton of oomph behind you.

But this is bare bones motoring when compared to the euro stars. Made from girders and welded together by men in tattoos smoking cigarettes by the packet, with no real feeling of delicacy about it. Press the throttle and the rumble of the V8 was solidly behind your head held into place by huge bolts I’m sure. The car had gobs of torque and no roll or anything going through corners, and brakes that worked like steam ship anchors.

It was a nice way to look at how things used to be. A step into the way back machine when brute force and not a lot else was used to propel these things round Le Mans. I honestly can’t even imagine trying to drive this for a 2 hour stint at speeds of up to 180mph. It would wear me out beyond belief, but if the original GT40 felt anything like as solid as this, it’s no wonder it got around Le Mans for 24 hours. The Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the world feel fragile compared to this. Even more ironic as Lamborghini makes tractors…

Unfortunately, the heavens opened, and the fun on the GT was rationed due to the lack of traction control, but it was good to drive it and find out what the fuss was about.

2006 Ford GT Specifications

Base Price: $149,995

Body: 2-door Coupe
Mechanical Orientation: Rear Wheel Drive

Engine: 5.4L Modular V8
Power: 550 bhp
Torque: 500 lb.ft
Transmission: 6-speed manual

Weight: 1500 kg (3400 lb)
Wheelbase: 2710 mm (106.7 in)
Length: 4640mm (182.8 in)
Width: 1950mm (76.9 in)
Luggage Capacity: ha, ha, good one….

0-62 mph (100 km/h): 3.4 seconds
Top Speed: 205 mph (330 km/h)

For: Nostalgia and brute force
Against: Not even close to the offerings from Italy or Germany
Conclusion: If you loved the old one, you will love the new one. I wasn’t a fan of the old one…

Sponsor: ford gt40 for sale

The hardest part of this review is knowing where to start. This car is as rare as hen’s teeth.

There are to be only 500 made of the Alfa Romeo 8C, and only about 50 to make it to the US, so the fact that I am about to drive this is not lost on me. Pictures have circulated on the web and their various tubes for a while of this car, but *sigh* good god, it is jaw dropping in the paint.

If there was a naked woman on the 8C’s bonnet, you’d want her to get off it. Honestly, it’s just ridiculous.

Curves everywhere. The body is carbon fiber and is draped over the chassis to create the most delicious shape on the road. Its like Christina Hendricks on wheels, and if you don’t know who that is, Google her (Note by Adnan: Megan Fox on wheels would do the trick too). Christina’s a red head too, so it’s fitting that the red metallic paint accentuates them all, and those wheels look tremendous. Giant circles reminiscent of the wheels on the VW GTi a little.

The way the front centers around the grill is a thing of beauty, with a little circle of white LEDs in the grill.

The rear end reminds me of the old racing Porsches, and the circular rear lights are the perfect touch. I am a little besotted by the looks of this thing as you can probably tell.

It is now my favorite looking car on the road, beating the Aston Martin DB9. I never thought that phrase would ever come out of my mouth…

The interior is also just breathtaking. The leatherwork in the seats alone is something to study, the aluminum on the wheel and the dash, and the long aluminum paddles behind the wheel are in just the right places. The twin cowls on the main gauges separated with a red screen with a number of other supplemental gauges set off the interior beautifully, and the carbon fiber center console just adds to the overall experience. Its a sense of occasion that can barely be explained.

It was the sexiest car I had ever clapped my eyes on…

…and then I started it up.

Holy mother of god, who tuned that exhaust note? That can’t be legal, surely.

A throttle blip rendered me speechless for about a minute. There are loud cars that are just too loud, and then there are cars that you could listen to all day. I’ve never heard a rumble like this outside of a pit lane. It is intoxicating. A low rumble, with the 8 cylinder 4.3 liter engine just bellowing down the exhaust pipes with no regard for public safety.

After some time to compose myself, I put this thing in sport mode, put it in gear, and released the little electric handbrake, and off I went.

It felt a little light to start with, but then I got used to it. Accelerating towards the first corner, the noise is off the charts, but its a beautiful noise. I let my foot off the accelerator for a moment, and the exhaust just cracked and popped in a way that reminded me of the Panoz race cars, crack, pop, rumble…what road car makes that noise?! Oh, this one. I don’t care how many miles to the gallon this thing was getting, that noise had me accelerating and lifting off more times than I should. I was probably waking the dead in nearby cemeteries and people within a 5 mile radius, but it was an orchestra. They probably woke, listened to it, and smiled. How can you not?

Aside from the the noise, the gearbox was great. Changes up and down were smooth, lots of power, great acceleration, not as tight around the corners as the Gallardo, but still a level above virtually all other cars on the road. Its a taller car, even though its still a small car, so there is lots of headroom and shoulder room. Good visibility out all round. Seats were comfortable and held you in place really well as it went over dips and through curves.

The brakes were good too, as you would expect on a car like this, but moving your foot from one pedal to the other caused the thunderclaps out of the exhaust, so I sort of forgot about the brakes to be honest with you. The aural rewards were far outweighing the driving experience.

The team at Centro Stile Alfa Romeo deserve a medal the size of a large dining table for getting this on the road. If this doesn’t get Alfa noticed, then nothing will. An incredible experience. Not the finest drivers car on the road, but if you want to make a statement, this is the one to get, and being one of only 500 will make it an even rarer proposition. I know its basically a Maserati under the skin, but its a totally different animal and improves (if that’s even possible) on the looks of the Gran Turismo.

If you ever get a chance to drive one, do it, but if there is one coming, you will hear it about 50 miles away. The next hardest part is wiping the smile off my face…

2008 Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione

Base Price: $265,000

Body: 2-door Coupe
Mechanical Orientation: Rear Wheel Drive

Engine: 32 valve 4.7L V8
Power: 450 bhp
Torque: 354 lb.ft
Transmission: 6-speed auto-clutch manual

Weight: 1591 kg (3500 lb)
Wheelbase: 2646 mm (104.2 in)
Length: 4379mm (172.4 in)
Width: 1892mm (74.5 in)
Luggage Capacity: an array of custom made luggage

0-62 mph (100 km/h): 4.2 seconds
Top Speed: 180 mph (290 km/h)

For: Looks, looks, noise, noise and looks
Against: Its not really quick or handles like the best, but it doesn’t matter
Conclusion: My new favorite car in the whole world because this car is a rolling work of art.

This car feels to me like its been around forever, and I don’t know why that is.  Maybe every magazine extolling its virtues has overloaded my brain with it so much, that it just feels like it.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen one in the paint, but it is still small.  Wow.  Its a great looking car from the front, and the back, but the side view looks awkward to me, in the same way that the Cayman looks awkward from the side.  I love the sideblades, and wish this one didn’t have them the same colour as the rest of the car.  The LEDs around the headlights make a real statement and when this is in your rear mirror, you aren’t going to miss it.  I’m a little sad that Audi has extended those across the whole range as I think it makes a great statement for this car, but BMW has the owl eyes, so they had to do something I guess.

Its also a wide car too.  It looks great on the road.  As long as I don’t see the side view, I’ll be fine.

The interior is another story though.  Audi interiors are always first rate.  This one is no exception.  The seats are firm but not back breaking, and can adjust 300 ways (ish).  The dash is really centered around the driver and they have really made it a great place to be.  This one was the tiptronic, so the wheel had the two small Audi paddles, but the gear stick was a great knurled lump of aluminum that sticks out of the middle of the center console.  Gotta love how that looks.

The 4.2 V8 out of the RS4 sits behind you, and you can’t really hear it when the window is down.  Its very civilised with a load of power on tap when you need it.  The thing that lets the car down is the gearbox.  Get a manual one if you are getting an R8.  Changes are pretty jerky, to the point where you feel that the driver is actually hitting the brakes between changes.  I didn’t like it at all, and when crawling up to a junction in first, the car was very jerky.  May have been this model, but I’ll take mine with the 6 speed manual please.  I know I can do better than that.

Steering was light and direct.  Really easy to put the car exactly where you want it, and the handling was stellar.  The car was planted.  You weren’t getting it out of line no matter what you did to it.  Once the window was up, you could hear the V8 working away behind your ears.  That engine is a masterpiece.  I’ve driven other Audi’s with that engine in it, and it really is a work of art.  I can only wonder what the V10 feels like.

This car is quick.  Its not fast, its quick.  Other cars, like the Lamborghini Gallardo are fast, but this just feels quick.  Maybe because its a little more refined (although not much more so) than the Lambo.  Its certainly got the power, the handling, the brakes and the feel.

In the end, it feels a lot like a TT on steroids.  There’s more room in here than in a TT, more power than a TT, just more of everything.

There would be no issue in driving this car every day.  I always wonder if there is an everyday exotic car, and I think this is one that fits the bill.  Is it better than the car it was built to compete with, the Porsche?  It’s different than that Porsche, lets just leave it at that.

My final verdict? I would buy one, but make sure you avoid the tiptronic. Nobody needs that.

2008 Audi R8

Base Price: $114,200

Body: 2-door Coupe
Mechanical Orientation: Four Wheel Drive

Engine: 4.2L V8 with DOHC and FSI
Power: 420 bhp
Torque: 317 lb.ft
Transmission: R Tronic automated manual gearbox (6sp)

Weight: 1638 kg (3605 lb)
Wheelbase: 26500 mm (104.3 in)
Length: 4431mm (174.5 in)
Width: 1904mm (75 in)
Luggage Capacity: 6.7 cu. ft

0-62 mph (100 km/h): 4.4 seconds
Top Speed: 187 mph (301 km/h)

For: Feel, handling, comfort, quality
Against: The gearbox and not loud enough
Conclusion: An incredible first attempt at a supercar that can be driven every day.

You are never quite prepared for how small these supercars are sometimes.  Low slung, painted in a beautiful pearl metalic color with a set of beautiful black wheels, the latest Gallardo out of Sant A’gata looked purposeful and amazing.

The Gallardo doesn’t have the sense of drama of the Murcielago with the regular opening doors, but it’s still a design that turns heads.  Totally different from the other Italians and their curves and swoops, I loved the angular look of the Gallardo. It was attracting a lot of attention, and camera phones were in full force wherever I went in this thing.  The redesigned front of the LP560-4 looks fantastic, with the scoops looking more dramatic than the previous version.

I adored the new look of the rear end on this compared with the first incarnation.  The black grill under the new little star lights creates a dramatic visual for the person behind as they head towards the horizon.

I think its one of the most contemporary designs on the road.  The white and black really fits the overall shape.  I love how compact it is.

Sliding into the tight seat, the alcantara covered steering wheel feels good in your hands.  I think it would have looked better without the silver flat bottom to it (cover that with alcantara as well), and the thin stalks for the egear box are barely visible behind the wheel, but fall in easy reach for me. The interior was black with yellow stitching, which I thought perfectly matched the character of the supercar.  The roof was obviously low, but not too low.   There is a sense of occasion and, having driven a number of Audis, a sense of Germanic functionality about the interior.

Looking left, the dash slopes away from you to the end of the windshield a long way in front of you, with a line of knurled switches breaking up the center console with the Audi satnav above and the Audi aircon switches below.  Amongst other switches, there is a very clever little button for raising the front up in case of speedbumps…that I didn’t have to use, but sitting in the car it was fun to press it a few times.  Guess I’ll never grow up will I!

The headliner was black alcantara giving a tight black outlined heavily sloped windshield to look through at the world.

I felt like my feet were sticking out past the front wheels as there is basically nothing in front of you, but the best part of the car is behind you.  The V10 sits right behind your shoulder and it idled nicely as I prepared myself to pull off.  This wasn’t going to suck.  Foot on the brake, pull on the right paddle, off with the handbrake and ease the accelerator down.  The V10 picked up its tone, and off we slowly go.  This really is a different world driving one of these than a normal car.

I initially had the windows down to hear the engine as I pulled off. The noise behind you is really tight.  I loved the journey through the box, with pulls on the right paddle being met with really smooth up changes when compared to the Audi R8, which I thought it would be very similar to.  How wrong I was.  This is a very different proposition.  Pulls on the left paddle were met with nice down changes, little throttle blips, and a very rewarding experience indeed.

The seats hold you in place really well, and the car hugs every curve the way you would expect a 4 wheel drive car that is 3 times as wide as it is tall to.  Zero body roll, and a very planted feel to the car.  The steering was pretty well weighted, and you could feel the road very well.

After about 5 minutes, I looked at the center console, and saw a little button marked Sport.  Seems like something you should press really.  One click changed the car altogether.  The exhaust note immediately changed to a deeper, more annoyed tone, and the changes were much quicker, and pulls on the left paddle were met with a beautiful orchestra of throttle blips and crackling exhausts.  I think I went from 6th to 4th and back several times just to hear the noise!

I then rolled the window up, and listening to the engine and transmission work together was even more fun sealed in.  The noise was addictive, as was the surge when you hit the pedal.

The brakes were also pretty good.  One stab on the left pedal and you scrubbed off the speed quickly with enough bite to test the seat belts and the work of your chiropractor.

The power is instantaneous, there as soon as you hit the pedal,and the sport mode had really changed the throttle response as well.  But when the engine got over 4500 rpm, it reached a different level and the surge down the road was amazing.  Throwing this thing into corners with throttle blips and surging from one corner to another was about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on.

This is a car you could drive every day really.  You wouldn’t want to drive it a long way, the seats were just a little bit hard for me (boo hoo, and my diamond studded shoes are too tight as well).  The fit and finish of the interior was very good, at least on par with the Audi R8 in my opinion.  I wish they had changed the digital display numbers to differentiate itself more from the Audi (as Audi owns the company now), but it is a far different proposition to the R8 (which I also drove and will post a review in a week).

What a car though.  Tons of power, ridiculous handling, and looks to stop traffic.  I’ll take one in the white.  A lot of fun.

2009 Lamborghini Gallardo LP560

Base Price: $198,000

Body: 2-door Coupe
Mechanical Orientation: Four Wheel Drive

Engine: All alloy quad overhead cam 40 valve 5204cc V10
Power: 553 bhp
Torque: 398 lb.ft
Transmission: Sequential e-gear transmission (6sp)

Weight: 1500 kg (3307 lb)
Wheelbase: 2560 mm (102.5 in)
Length: 4345mm (171.1 in)
Width: 1900mm (74.8 in)
Luggage Capacity: a small mint

0-62 mph (100 km/h): 3.7 seconds
Top Speed: 201 mph (325 km/h)

For: Looks, handling, fit & finish
Against: I would honestly be nitpicking
Conclusion: An amazing drive, glue-like handling, and making every commute an experience.