Auto Shows these days are a mix of really exciting debuts, and a lot of updates. Some of these updated models are interesting, but not really worth an entire article to themselves.  I’ve saved you the time of clicking a thousand links to consolidate the rest of the significant debuts at the NYIAS (New York International Auto Show) this year.

Revised Jaguar XK and XF Models

There’s nothing really wrong with the XK and XF models, which are some of Jag’s most competitive models to date.  But the breakneck pace of the market dictates that if it’s been out three years, it’s already looking old.  Enter the new XF (left) and the new XK (right.)  The revised styling on the XF is intended to mimic Jag’s new flagship XJ sedan, which has finally broken out of it’s ancient-car-with-aluminum-chassis model, ironically making the then-futuristic-looking XF midsize sedan and XK sports coupe look a bit outdated.

The XF gets new, narrowed and sexier headlights with a revised grille, and a redesigned rear end that is still quite obviously the work of Ian Callum.  I never thought the XF was a bad looking car (at all. Still stare in traffic), but frankly this new one makes the old one look a bit half-assed.  It is worth mentioning that the front intakes on the XF-R look exactly remarkably like those on the new Saab 9-5.

The XK gets a similar updating, with more angular headlights that almost remind one of the BMW Z4.  The grille is shorter and wider, the air intakes on the front fenders are horizontal now, and the rear end has received minor changes that honestly I’m having some trouble spotting.  But hey, it’s an XK – already a face-punchingly pretty car; how much work did it need?

2012 Mazda 3

Forget the horsepower wars, how about the MPG wars?  These days it seems 40mpg is the new 400bhp, and Mazda is throwing in their cards.  I’m of the opinion that the Mazda3 has always been far-and-away the most fun to drive of cars in this segment, but the problem was that the fuel economy was never especially impressive.  In current trim, the most efficient Mazda 3 (a 3i Sedan with a 5-speed manual) achieved EPA fuel economy ratings of 25 mpg city, 33mpg highway from it’s 2.0L 148-horsepower engine.  Again, even with the small engine (Mazda also offers a 2.5L Mazda3, at least here in the states) the 3 is a fun car, but 33mpg is nothing to write home about.

The 2012 model pulls off my favorite trick – more power and much better fuel economy.  The 3 is the first car in the US to receive Mazda’s SkyActiv engine technology, and that means to us that the new model with have more power (155bhp) and better efficiency – 40mpg highway with a 6-speed automatic, 39 with a manual.

Also, they’ve given the 3 it’s necessary psychotropic medication, and the front grille no longer looks like that creepy doll from the Saw movies, smiling at you, imagining what your limbs taste like.  So I can sleep at night again.  Thanks, Mazda!

Scion FR-S Concept.

Thanks, Toyota.  ANOTHER concept version of the FT-86.  Looks great!  Stop teasing, just build it.

2013 Ford Taurus/SHO Facelift

Ford’s top of the line US offering, the Taurus, is getting revamped for 2012.  Most of the big news is under the hood, although the styling itself has been refreshed, turning a sharp-looking car into.. a still sharp-looking car.

The headlights are new – narrower and a little more angular, while around back there’s a very Audi-like loop of LED lights integrated into the block tail lights.  The twin-turbo SHO is losing a little bit of it’s sleeper factor for 2012, getting an SHO-specific front grille that’s black mesh with a blue Ford Oval.  The restyled front end lightly mimics the 2011+ Mustangs, giving the Taurus a little more brand continuity while still remaining classy.  Sadly, the rumors of the SHO model receiving a power bump to 400bhp aren’t true, at least for now, as the SHO remains a still-fast 365bhp AWD Q-ship.

The rest of the Taurus lineup gets powertrain updates, as well.  The standard 3.5L 24v V6 gets Ford’s Ti-VCT (Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing) system seen on the Mustang, Fiesta, etc, which boosts power from 263bhp to 290bhp, with better emissions and fuel efficiency.  Ford hasn’t announced EPA numbers for the new V6, but expect it to be improved on the old model.

Bigger news is the introduction of a 2.0L EcoBoost I4 to the Taurus lineup.  This direct-injected, turbocharged four-cylinder will also be found under the hood of the new Explorer (as well as the hot-rod Focus ST), and makes an estimated 237bhp and 250lb-ft of torque – as much as many naturally-aspirated V6′s were making a few years ago – while delivering at least 31mpg on the highway.  All Taurus powertrains (2.0T, 3.5V6, SHO 3.5 Twin Turbo V6) will continue to spin a 6-speed automatic transmission, with optional AWD.

2013 Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu ECO

Another comprehensive update after a relatively short lifespan, the 2013 Malibu may look largely like the old one, but it’s actually migrated to GM’s Epsilon II chassis, which is shorter than the Epsilon chassis the 08+ Malibu was on.  This is because the new Malibu is intended as a worldwide product (rather than a US-specific product, which the current Malibu is).  As such, it was introduced simultaneously at the NYIAS as well as the Shanghai show in China-specific form.

Length is shorter overall, but the new Malibu boasts larger trunk space, and increased interior width.  The styling is evolutionary – although the rear end is noteworthy for looking exactly like the back of a new Camaro.  It’s a little strange, but I like it – gives the somewhat mundane Malibu a lot more character from the rear, even it it looks a little grafted on.

The Malibu for 2013 will debut with a new standard powertrain – a 2.5L derivative of GM’s corporate EcoTec I4, fitted with direct fuel injection.  Power output is 190bhp and 180 lb-ft of torque – a bit off the mark of Hyundai’s 2.4L GDI I4 with 200bhp in the Sonata/Optima, but still competitive.  No fuel efficiency figures have been released yet (estimated at “over 30 highway”, but what isn’t?) but paired with a standard 6-speed automatic and this model’s reduced footprint, they should be more impressive.

Even more impressive will be the EPA figures of the Malibu Eco – the blue one at the top of this heading.  It has the same powertrain as the 2012 Buick Lacross e-Assist, meaning a 2.4L EcoTec mated to a small electric motor.  This will provide power comparable to the regular 2.5L Malibu, while delivering 26 city and 38 highway mpg – one of the highest figures for a reasonably-sized family sedan like this.

Other cool tricks include a navigation/entertainment screen that swings up to allow storage behind it – apparently an industry first – and again, those Camaro tail lights.  So cool!

2012 Nissan Versa/Tiida

There’s a new Nissan Versa out.  It’s more round and organic looking.  It’ll be sold as the Tiida elsewhere, like it has before.  A four-door sedan or 5-door hatchback will continue to be available.  The 1.6L engine (HR16DE) now has twin fuel injectors per cylinder (why?), and delivers 106 horsepower through a 5-speed manual (base model only) or a redesigned CVT.  It’ll deliver 33mpg combined with the CVT (30/37 EPA) and the base price is set at $10,990.  What else is there to say?  It’s sort of strange-looking, but that’s not a break from tradition.  Despite being painfully boring and sort of cheap-feeling, the Versa’s utilitarian nature allows it to outsell all it’s competitors in the US by a huge amount – it’s one of the few segment-leading cars Nissan has.  The low base price, wide dealer network, and reasonably fuel efficiency are probably why.  I personally would rather take the bus.

2012 Kia Soul Updates

Not all inexpensive economy cars are depressing, like the Tiida/Versa.  Witnesses Kia’s rapping-hamster approved Soul, a box full of coolness wrapped around reliable, pedestrian underpinnings.  If I needed a high-roof econobox, I’d just get one of these and skip the cross shopping.  For 2012, Kia is making the Soul a little more… soul-ful. Sigh.

The Soul is still the cute little art-box it’s always been, but now it’s got projector-beam headlights framed by LED running lights (another carryover from Kia stylist Peter Schreyer, who used to make Audi’s pretty), new wheels (very cool, I might add), LED taillights, and some new colors.

Bigger changes are underneath, with the introduction of direct gasoline injection to the Soul lineup.  The base engine – a 1.6L 16v I4 – gains GDI for a bump to 135bhp and 121lb-ft, gains of 11% on both fronts.  Mated to a new six-speed manual, the 1.6L Soul posts EPA numbers of 28/34 – 3mpg average higher than the previous port-injected 1.6 while offering more power.  The optional engine, a 2.0L 16v, also gets GDI, improving power to 160bhp and 143lb-ft, a gain of 13%.  Fuel economy is hardly worse than the 1.6L, at 27/33 with either a 6-speed manual or automatic.

Other changes include a new Infinity audio system, the availability of Kia’s Microsoft-based UVO connectivity system, an available navigation system for the first time, an an available premium package with heated leather seats, automatic climate control, push-button start, and other niceties that 10 years ago people would laugh if you told them you’d be able to get in a Kia.  I have to love this brand – they’re doing basically everything right these days.

We’ll continue the roundup in a second part, to save your internet connection a brain-melt.

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.

If you’re a car guy, chances are one of your past times is Craigslist. The free online classified ad website that has been running since 1996 is the perfect place to find everything from a sitter, to a new dog, to furniture, to your soul mate, to… a car!  Heck, my last car came from craigslist – friendly, knowledgeable seller, cool car, good price.  And while most stuff on craigslist is a bit normal (“2003 Camry, Grey, 86k, call Jeff…”) occasionally you’ll find something cool.  Here’s what turned up with a quick perusal of my local CL.

Don’t tell me you’re not tempted.  What is this heap?  Why, it’s an Alfa Romeo Milano!  And what the hell is that?  Well, it was Alfa’s competitor to the (E21/E30) 3-series BMW back in the 80′s!  You want mechanical ingenuity, Italian flair, boxy 80′s looks, and a singing Alfa V6?  Why, here’s your car!  The Milano was front-engined and RWD, but had a torque tube and a rear-mounted transaxle for better weight distribution.  Oh, and inboard disc brakes in the rear.  Fun!  This would have Alfa’s 2.5L fuel-injected 24v V6 under the hood, shared with the GTV6.  Would be nice if it was a runner!  Ronan Glon from Ran When Parked is a huge Milano/75 fan, and let me know via facebook there were only 4,000 of these, give or take, imported to the US during the 80′s.  So, not exactly common, then!

Of course, the seller is not exactly forthcoming with details on this masterpiece.  “A Project car!  5 speed, V6, needs work as you can see!  Not running.  Make an offer!”  Do you think he’ll take $100?  Find it on Raleigh NC Craigslist here.  Or if the link’s dead, here.

Ahh, this one’s more up my alley.  It’s a 1996 Volvo 850R, a car I’m quite fond of, as you already know.  This one’s had some extra love, though.  My big problem with US-spec 850 T-5/Turbos?  They’re automatic only.  This seller has rectified the situation by fitting a 5-speed manual gearbox – presumably the Getrag M56 used in manual 850′s – which was how these cars came for sale in Europe, so it’s not like a lot of cutting and hacking was needed.  In fact, it’s probably pretty straightforward as far as a trans swap goes, because US-spec 850 non-turbos came with this transmission.

On top of the expense of a 5-speed swap, this 850R – which had the 250bhp T-5 Turbo engine – has benefited from additional go-faster parts.  There’s a 15psi pump-gas tune from RICA, a (presumably larger) front-mounted intercooler, a 3″ mandrel-bent turbo back exhaust with high-flow cat and a cut-out (man that has gotta sound good!), lowering springs, new wheels, HID’s, etc etc.  The price?  With 125k on the body and 80k on the motor, the seller is asking $7,000.  For a hot-rod Volvo the way the factory should have sold it here, do you think that’s a reasonable price?  I do, but more level-headed people may disagree.  You can find the car on Raleigh CL here, or here if the link is dead.

How’s this for odd? To be honest, I had to dig through a LOT of Wikipedia to figure out what this car started life as.  It’s advertised on Raleigh Craigslist as “1941 Renault Hot Rod.”  It started life as a 1941 Renault Juvaquatre – also called a Dauphinoise or a Juva 4, it was the car that came before the 4CV, which came before the Dauphine.  So, old.  Now, a Chevy 305 and a TH400 3-speed auto isn’t the greatest powertrain in the world, but when it’s in place of a 747, 845, or 1003cc straight four, I’d say it’s an upgrade.  This ’41 RenaultRod (as I’ve now christened it) also sports a Chrysler 411 rear (differential?) with coilover suspension, and Opel front suspension.  This weird backyard Frankenstein of parts can be yours for only $26,500.  I think I’ll pass.  If the ad’s down, check here.

Chalk this one up under the “overly ambitious” category.  It’s a 1997 Eagle Talon TSi AWD, which is the same thing as the Eclipse GSX.  So it has the turbo 4G63 200bhp motor along with the rare all-wheel-drive option.  Two problems: the guy is asking $4500 for it (FIRM!), and it’s got problems.  Mainly, the driveshaft joint is shot, which would be an expensive repair.  Oh, and the starter.  And the intercooler is leaking.  And the hatch struts are blown, and the front splitter is cracked.  Look, I know AWD DSM’s are rare, but no one’s going to pay this much.  “11 second car with bolt-ons!”  Yes, if it doesn’t blow up?  Find it here, or here if the link is down.

You like Grand Nationals and T-Types.  I like them too.  So when a super-clean T-Type with only 44,000 miles shows up on Craigslist, you should be interested.  But I’d go ahead and say don’t buy this one.  Why?  Because the seller sounds like a serious jerk.  And it’s got Monte Carlo wheels, which is just wrong. “this car is no joke “it will run” Mid 6′s in the 1/8 mile and NO i have not run it thru the 1/4 so dont ask.” Uhh, ok.  I won’t ask, dude.  Not that I’d be curious about what the quarter mile time of a drag car like a modified T-Type was, or anything.  I’ll just leave it be. “Please dont waste my time or yours.” Alright, I won’t.  Jeez, why you gotta be such a jerk?  Also, what the hell is this supposed to be a picture of?

Is that a drag-strip time slip that doesn’t exist? since it “will run” 6′s in the 8th, and it’s never been down the quarter?  Or is it a receipt from Wal-Mart?  Anyway, if you’re interested in this Regal T-Type with a real jerk of a seller, you can find the link here.

Fancy a Porsche Turbo, but don’t have $120,000 sitting around for a new 911 Turbo?  How about this maintained and modified 1986 944 Turbo for only $6500?  This could potentially be a really good buy; there’s a long list of recently completed maintenance as well as some choice upgrades.  This one sports new rear rotors, steering rack, oil pressure gauge, AC compressor bearing, hood supports, compressor coil, water pump, radiator, timing and balance belts and rollers, A/C compressor clutch, head gasket, plugs, vacuum lines, and rear CV joints – which could probably add up to this car’s current purchase price!  There are also thoughtful upgrades – Koni Yellow shocks, a limited-slip differential, Porsche Turbo Cup wheels, a DME KLR ECU chip (15psi), MSD ignition, K&N intake, aftermarket exhaust system, a Momo steering wheel (no airbag), and a full Alpine stereo.  With lots of money thrown at maintenance it reduces your chances of a surprise expenses, and the modifications are all stuff I’d do to a daily driver 944T.  Check the Raleigh Craigslist add here.

This could either be a lot of fun, or a massive rage-inducing headache.  It’s a 1995 BMW (E36) M3 with the 3.0L engine…  that’s been turbocharged.  Hmm.  The kit is a CES Stage II setup, which the owner says makes 400whp (wheel horsepower) at only 9psi of boost.  Thankfully this car’s a 1995, meaning it’s OBD-1, so it’ll be less of a pain in the ass to get it through inspections.  The CES turbo kit is quoted as being $9,500(!) with “more than $20k in parts” invested.  So the $15,000 asking price for a pretty nice E36 M3 actually seems pretty good.  It’s also got a Clutchmasters Stage 4 clutch and a 14lb flywheel, poly bushes on EVERYTHING, a 3.23:1 LSD, metal-impeller water pump, new Guibo, new Vanos unit, new valve cover gasket, new control arms/bushings, new serpentine belts…  Holy cow.  A rebuilt head at 88k, Tein coilovers (nice!) with RD front and rear ARB’s, AAW turbo-back exhaust, Fluidyne radiator, a redone interior, a wideband AFR and boost gauge, and a whole lot of other stuff.  The seller provides a link to a thread on a forum describing the build, which can be found here.  This car’s for sale on the Raleigh craigslist but located in Greenville, NC – home of East Carolina University, which means it’s probably some obnoxious frat boy selling this turbo M3.  Now, would this prove to be a well-built car that you can boost the pants off of for years of oversteering enjoyment, or will it just be you paying a lot of money to inherit someone else’s turboheadache?  Hard to tell.

Ahh, a real Taurus SHO.  Not some 4,300lb twin-turbo V6 Volvo S80 in drag, but an honest-to-god Gen2 Taurus with a howling 24v Yamaha-designed aluminum V6 under the hood.  These are consistently good LeMons racers, but to be honest this one’s too nice for a life of abuse like that.  A 1994 model, this sports the larger, torquier 3.2L 220bhp V6 mated to a 4-speed electronic automatic transmission.  Let’s see… grey leather in good shape, JBL stereo, working heat and A/C, only 142k – the guy only wants $1750 for it!  Someone please go buy it.

So, dear reader: got anything weird floating around your local Craigslist?  Please feel free to post it up in the comments section below!

(‘’)

Well we here at CarThrottle don’t subscribe to that happy, shiny version of things.  To be honest, a large number of the cars on our roads are complete, total junk.  This has always been obvious.  The world’s full of Chrysler Sebrings and Kia Amantis.  But there are even cars trying to pass as performance vehicles (which is a heavy focus of this site, if you’ve noticed) that really can’t cover the checks they write.  And despite a consumer market that continues to get pickier and pickier, it still seems that some makers think they can get away with putting a Monroney on a turd and trying to sell it.

So, yeah, it’s a top ten list!  But with a twist.  This list aims to point out the performance cars still sold in 2009 that fall below the mark, that leave a lot to be desired.  These are the bottom of the barrel.  Let us know what you think in the comments!

10th Place: Mitsubishi Eclipse

It’s almost 2010, and Mitsubishi still exists in America.  Which in and of itself is surprising.  What’s even funnier is that they’re still selling the Eclipse.  It’s awful in a way only Alfa GTV owners (of the ’90s variety) would appreciate.  The bulbous, grotesque styling looks like a melted Audi TT – or maybe a pregnant 350Z.  Your choice of engines is pretty dismal, too: you can either have an iron-block 2.4L buzzer that wheezes out 162 thundering horsepower to motivate 3260 lbs of Galant 2-door, or if you’re really stupid you can get the GT, which has an iron-block 3.8L 24v V6.  Which is, as you’d imagine, quite heavy.  And of course the Eclipse is FWD-only – has been since the third generation came out in 2000 – so that means a few things.  Mainly understeer, torque steer, wheelspin, and a number of other problems associated with trying to route 265bhp through the front wheels of what is, really, a Galant.

This wasn’t even an appealing car when it debuted a few years ago; today, you can pay roughly the same amount of money for a Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T, which is, you know, actually fun to drive in addition to  being actually, you know, good to look at.  So, yeah, Eclipse – you fail.

9th Place: Chevrolet Impala SS

I think everyone already knows how much I hate the Impala SS.  But, just to recap: What GM did was develop an absolutely fantastic motor (the LS4, a smaller-displacement version of the Corvette-derived LS series), and proceeded to stick it in a whole bunch of chassis’ that didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of coping with all the power.

303bhp and 323lb-ft of torque are respectable numbers these days, but the W-body GM midsize platform has roots dating back to the early eighties.  And back then, they pretty much stayed away from high-horsepower FWD cars with the technology of the day.  Do you wonder why?  Things like unequal-length high-angle half-shafts, loose and floppy steering, and useless brakes end up making the SS seem more like “Seriously Scary” than whatever it used to stand for.

8th Place: Dodge Caliber SRT-4

The original SRT-4 was a hoot: a big hunk of turbo four under the hood of the cheap, plastic Neon.  It was refreshingly performance-centric; it had chunky, grippy seats, a thick steering wheel, a great shifter and a nicely integrated boost gauge.  And almost nothing else; it even had roll-up windows in the back, which is still pretty funny.  But it was impossible to not have fun in an old SRT-4.  It spooled and ran like it got rear-ended by a dump truck, it would spin the tires clear through second on a wet day, and it was easy as pie to get 300whp out of it.

Then Dodge replaced the Neon with the Caliber, and what was a pretty bad car became a truly awful car.  I’m not sure Dodge ever really knew what the Caliber was supposed to be, but at the same time I’m pretty sure they got it wrong.  It’s got SUV proportions- all high and narrow and tippy – but sad little gravel-mixer engines.  Except the SRT-4, which packs a monsterous Mitsubishi-derived 2.4L Turbo motor, which cranks out 285bhp.

Which is fun!  It really is.  But in a Caliber, what that equates to is homicidal weapons-grade torque steer, turbo lag that 80′s Saab owners would find uncomfortably long and dramatic, about 300lb/ft of resistance in the clutch pedal, and a ride that only your chiropractor’s accountant could love.

Is it fast?  Yeah, in a straight line.  But hustling an SRT-4 Caliber feels strangely like work, which means that Dodge missed the point of the whole hot-hatch thing.

7th Place: Toyota Corolla XRS

Another fall from grace here.  The previous Corolla XRS may not have been a looker, but it did have the same engine as the Lotus Elise under it’s hood.  The Yamaha-designed 2ZZ-GE is one of my favorite engines, and even in detuned Corolla form it was a hoot.  Astronomical redline, banzai VVTL-i cam lift changeover, tight six-speed manual, four-wheel discs…  It wasn’t a land-based rocket, but it was real, genuine fun to drive.

But like most other things Toyota, it’s gone from boring to “please shoot me.”  The high-winding 2ZZ was replaced with the 2.4L 16v motor out of the Camry. Because nothing says exciting like a Camry motor!  Now, it’s got enough torque to buzz the tires through first gear with the five-speed, but with 158bhp, that’s about all it can do.  There’s the possibility of adapting the TRD blower from the Scion tC, but would you even want to bother?  If anything, the Corolla’s gotten less interesting and more plastic-feeling than the previous generation, and that’s saying quite a lot.  Big thumbs down to this regression step.

6th Place: Buick Lucerne Super

More GM drivel here – act surprised.  The Lucerne is the final demonic incantation of GM’s sub-par W-body, which should have died with the Grand Prix.  But instead of dying, GM continues to crank it out because stupid people continue to buy them.  And you can even get the hot-rod Lucerne Super, which is perhaps the most ironically named car I can think of.

What, exactly, is “Super” about a 4.6L 32v V8 that only puts down 292bhp?  Especially when GM’s got a lighter 3.6L 24v V6 that makes 304?  And, again, as we’ve discussed there’s no such thing as a good FWD transverse-V8 GM car.  But for the “honor” of having a 16-year old engine under the hood of your ancient Buick, GM would really like you to give them $39,000 and change.  And, as I’ve said a million times before, that kinda money could get you a real car.

5th Place: Ford Taurus SHO

I know, perhaps a dramatic decision.  After my recent SHO experience though, I’m ready to call this one a disappointment of a large caliber.  (No pun intended.)  The SHO has all the right ingredients on paper:  modern, attractive styling, tons of gizmos, Twin-Turbo DI 24v V6, Haldex 4WD, a paddle-shifted 6 speed automatic, tons of power and immense low end torque…

But as you learn, things that sound great on paper don’t always translate into the real world.  Especially when you’re getting into a car expecting it to be an SHO.  The old SHO was all about the howling Yamaha V6, it was a budget  BMW or Audi for those that wanted to be different.  The new SHO is just an EcoBoost motor (which is admittedly awesome) in a loaded Taurus.  It feels overweight and underexcited about the prospect of propulsion.  It’s quick, but it’s like a quarterback that would rather watch the game on TV.  One for the 300C crowd, then…

4th Place: Mazda 6

Mazda’s previous 6 (Atenza in Japan) might not’ve been the most dramatic-looking vehicle out there, but it was one of the most entertaining steers in the mainstream family sedan market.  There was also the elegant wagon and the nifty five-door hatch version.  But the appeal laid in the ability to get either the four or the bent-six with a 5-speed manual and tight suspension.  Sure, the new 6 might have way more power – it’s 3.7L 24v V6 has 272bhp, compared to the old 3.0L Duratec with 220 horses – but it’s also quite huge (think Impala) and rather unfortunate looking.

The problem is that Mazda tried to both push the 6 more into the mainstream (more space) and make it more individual (pregnant RX-8 styling.)  It just doesn’t work, really.  And the saddest bit is the demise of the MazdaSpeed6 – that old AWD, turbocharged, 6MT-equipped rally weapon they used to sell.  Sure, the V6 has almost as much power (272 vs. 280) but there’s no way that heavy-nosed V6 FWD automatic-only 6s can hold a candle to a lightweight 4WD sedan stuffed full of boost.  Very sad.

3rd Place: Volvo “R-Design” Cars

Remember the Volvo S60R?  It looked like this:

And, to back up the huge intakes and large wheels and brakes and all the other visual pizzaz, it had a 300bhp turbocharged straight-five that sounded like a pissed-off Audi Quattro.  Oh, and Haldex AWD.  And a 6-speed manual.  And an instantly variable three-mode chassis setup, and huge brakes, and twin intercoolers, and it went like stink…  you get the point.  Compared to most things, it was visibly subtle (c’mon!  It’s a Volvo!) but if Mustang GT drivers weren’t careful with the launch, all they’d be seeing were some Volvo tail-lights.  Very satisfying, and even moreso in the mechanically identical V70R wagon version.

Sadly, Volvo decided the S60/V70R were way too cool to exist, people didn’t want fast Volvos, blah blah blah.  So now they’ll sell you a Volvo that looks fast.  Like this V70 R-Design, which has the same boring engines as a regular new V70, only it’s got a totally sweet bodykit and wheels.  This is an improvement?

2nd Place: Porsche Cayenne

Beating a dead horse here, I know.  But I’m sorry: If it has a Porsche badge, it should be fast.  So why, then, is a V6 Cayenne slower to 60mph than a Honda Odyssey?  And also, why can you get a Porsche Cayenne with a 3.0L Diesel?  What is the world coming to?

1st Place: Ford Mustang V6

And we get to the ultimate performance poser!  While the Camaro boasted a nifty 3.6L 24v DI V6 this year, which cranked out a no-joke 304bhp, the Mustang continued to stay on course with it’s fabulous 4.0L V6.  Which manages to cough up 210bhp.  So despite the new, super-sexy bodywork, the 2010 V6 Mustang was still a three-legged pony.  Or, wretchedly slow and awful – it’s up to you!  And while the V6 Camaro managed to surprise and delight, the V6 Mustang gets beat up by… of all things, the Eclipse GT!  Oh dear, we’ve come full circle.

The good news is that Ford is answering your cries of pain next year.  As you may have heard, the ancient 4.0L is getting the heave-ho, and a new Mazda-derived 3.7L 24v V6 is taking it’s place, which promises 305bhp and something other than meatgrinder noises coming out of the tailpipe.  Hurray!

Take, for example, these two seemingly unrelated sedans: the 2009 Infiniti G37 6MT sedan, and the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO EcoBoost.  On paper,  about all they have in common are four wheels with pneumatic tires and a sticker price hovering somewhere around $36,000.  Experiencing both back-to-back just proved exactly how different of a sports sedan your $35k and change will get you these days.

This was my first experience with the new Taurus (as well as my first experience with Ford’s hype-tacular EcoBoost biturbo V6 engine), but not by far my first experience with FM-platform Nissans (having driven a 350Z Track and G35 6MT sedan.)  We’ll start off with the SHO first, since it’s the newer and fresher experience, rather than a evolved version of a known favorite.

The Taurus SHO is based on the Volvo-sourced D3 chassis, and it doesn’t really do a whole lot to hide it’s Volvo roots.  It’s a large car, stretching 202″ from stem to stern compared to the petite Infiniti’s 187″.  It shares some bits and pieces with the S80, and the general impression of the car isn’t really “mainstream domestic sedan.”  I still think it’s an extremely attractive car in the flesh, and if the design isn’t what you’d call “daring” (it’s really just a lame interpretation of Ford of Europe’s styling trends), at least it’s subdued and attractive.  The front end is a success, all mean and sculpted with hawk-eyed xenon beams and nifty LED parking lights, and clever detailing everywhere.

The back end isn’t quite as pleasing; looking sort of unfinished and blank, the high-butt trunk neverless could cover a whole pile of dead bodies.  It’s huge in there.  18″ wheels actually look a bit small in the SHO’s chubby fenders – but hey, this is a 4,200-odd pound vehicle.  19′s are optional with Ford’s performance package for the car, if you really want ‘em.

Inside, it’s quite charming.  The console sits unusually high up giving a solid seperation between driver and passenger, making the seating quarters feel less like a car and more like a cockpit.  The center console slopes down steeply and houses a high-res LCD touchscreen.  It’s an attractive and clean design, but boy is it littered with buttons!  Busy, busy, busy – like the Germans were before they realized it was annoying.

Now, I could go on for a day and a half about all the cool stuff the SHO has inside.  There’s the Microsoft-powered SYNC setup, which I’ve heard is pretty cool (what, you think I fussed around with it?), there are heated/cooled/massaging seats that are leather and suede (but lacking in lateral support) to keep your keister comfy, there’s a thundering Sony sound system…  But really, who cares?  Sports sedans are about performance, not the bells and whistles.  Did Ford lose the plot?

Now, as a self-professed fanboy of the SHO since it first broke cover, I hate to be the one to say this – but yeah, they did.  What the SHO is – and what Ford should sell it as – is a Taurus Limited EcoBoost.  The only real difference between a loaded AWD Taurus and an SHO is that engine.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s an epic engine.  A 3.5L DOHC 24v V6 with direct fuel injection and twin ball-bearing turbochargers, it cranks out 365 right-now horsepower and 350lb-ft of torque, seemingly at an instant.  There’s no lag, no turbo whistle or diverter-valve chatter, no drama of the turbo variety of any kind.  Planting your foot at 15mph results in your head thwacking the headrest pretty hard, and it’s just gone. But it’s not really any fun; the low 6200rpm redline with a soft limiter means there’s no point in winding it out, and the (mandatory) automatic transmission is about as much fun as drinking with a nun, even with fancy wheel-mounted paddle shifters.

Really though, the problem is that it feels like a Volvo.  Heavy understeer thanks to the D3 chassis’ nose-heavy nature takes the fun out of hard cornerning, the Haldex AWD system doesn’t react fast enough to throttle input, allowing the front wheels to slip before diverting torque to the rear, and you can feel every one of the SHO’s 4200 or so pounds at every minute.  Some big cars start to feel small when you push them (I’m looking at you, 5-series) – this one just starts to feel bigger.  It’s happiest being brake-torqued off a stoplight on it’s way to a low-five second 0-60 time.  Corners?  Yeah, it can do them, but again – no fun.

It ends up being a disappointment, not in that it’s a bad car – it’s quiet as a church on Friday night, it’s comfortable and has tons of toys, and you can spank Boxsters off the line with it – but because it doesn’t live up to the expectations that it’s badge burdens it with.  SHO used to mean a high-revving vocal Yamaha V6, a manual gearbox, and good value for money in the sports sedan arena.  This one just feels like a powerful Taurus.  Speaking of value for money, this SHO stickered out at just under $45,000 with all the pricey option boxes checked.  That’s a whole lot of money, and at that price point you’re looking at a 335i or a B8 S4 – which are far superior vehicles in pretty much every way.

Which dovetails us nicely into that G37 I was talking about earlier.  When you look at it on paper, it would seem the Infiniti would lag behind the badass Taurus in a lot of ways.  You’d expect the American Muscle sedan to offer visceral thrills that a Japanese luxo-sedan can’t hope to offer.  You’d be completely wrong.

The G37 is a lot tighter of a fit, feeling more like a glove than a sweatshirt when you slide in.  It’s not uncomfortable, but a bit more intimate.  Interior quality is roughly comparable (which says good things about Ford!) but the originality and beauty of the interior design is leagues above the blocky, button-littered SHO.  The exterior design is hardly worth mentioning; G37′s are everywhere, you’ve seen a million of them, and it’s an inoffensive modern Japanese design.  It’s a bit more fluid and organic looking than Japan’s wares used to be, but it doesn’t have any of the drama and thuggish presence of the SHO.

And as a base model, equipment isn’t lavish.  There are leather seats (not heated, cooled, or massaging!  God forbid!), a decent stereo, and…  well, not a lot worth mentioning.

But what the G37 does have that the SHO can never have, no matter what’s stuck on it, is – at it’s core – a correctly set up chassis.  The engine is facing north-to-south, driving the rear wheels.  It’s also behind the front axle for equal weight distribution, and suspension is independent in all corners – like God intended.

It’s a more basic, and basically right formula.  The G37 has a sense of balance and poise that the heavy, over-equipped SHO could never have.  It darts and weave like the 370Z it really is.  And then there’s the engine.

Nissan’s VQ isn’t a complicated motor.  It’s been around since the mid-90′s when it first appeared in the US in the otherwise boring Maxima.  And, oddly enough, it’s been on Ward’s 10Best Engines list ever since then.  Coincidence?  No, because the VQ is, hands down, one of the best engines out there.  There’s no fancy DI setup – port injection works fine, thanks – or cool low-inertia turbochargers, or really much other trickery.  Just a well-designed 3.7L 24v V6 that revs like it’s hungry, breathing through twin variable-length intakes.  Power output is an impressive 328bhp, and while torque is lower at 268 lb-ft, you’re not going to care.

The short throw six-speed gearbox allows less vibration through than previous G’s, but it’s still rifle-bolt precise and solid as a bank vault, and the clutch is a bit grabby but very positive.  And whoa, does this car move.  Remember, the G37 only has 3581 lbs of mass to haul around, about 700 less than the porky Taurus.  The needle flies around the tach, you snatch another gear, the V6 wails it’s war cry, and you are hauling ass. Again, on paper it’s not really at an advantage over the SHO off the line – but the visceral inner-ear appeal of the car is orders of magnitude greater than the SHO.

Of course, it gets more expensive as you pile on all the cool goodies, but everything does.  What’s important is that the basic car has what it takes to be a world-leading sports sedan, and in today’s slushbox-obsessed market, you can still get it with a slick manual trans.  Which car would I pick, if I magically had 40 grand or so to blow on a car?  The Infiniti, obviously.

But the truly great thing is that both exist.  What this article meant to show was that there’s a car for everyone.  Not everyone’s going to love the Infiniti’s boomy engine, flinty ride, sharp clutch, and lack of standard equipment.  Not everyone’s going to fall for the Taurus’s crazy pricetag or Volvo bits, either.  They’re not intended for the same buyer, so the opinion of fringe lunatics like myself are hardly relevant.  But the world is a better place with both of them here.

The products themselves are easily the best they’ve ever been.  Competition seems to grow stronger and stronger by the day, and that’s nothing but good news for the consumer.  Gone are the days where it was actually a possibility to buy a car that would immediately bite you in the ass.  There is no Yugo or Sterling or Merkur any more.  As much as I miss them, the era of the truly awful car (at least in the US market) is long gone.  Consumers won’t take it, so it doesn’t survive.  Oldsmobile cranked out exceedingly mediocre products for a decade or two, and even a grand-slam like the Aurora couldn’t plug the leak in the ship.  Plymouth had no real place in the market, and despite decades of history, they were kicked to the curb like week-old food.  Mercury’s next; Mitsubishi is feeling the pain of only offering really good cars for insane speed demons.

Things that used to be crap are now good, and good things that stopped existing are coming back into play.  Want some proof?  Here’s a bucket load.

Ford’s new Taurus.  The SHO in particular.

When gas prices started to skyrocket, there were a lot of people that believed Ford wouldn’t make it through intact, with their SUV and truck-heavy lineup and collection of out-of-date, unpleasant regular passenger vehicles.  They had put their money on the wrong number, and people thought they’d be getting what was long due to them.

I guess that won’t be the case, if the new SHO Taurus is anything to judge by.  When was the last time Ford made a mid-sized sedan that people who actually like to drive drooled over?  An argument can be made for the final SVT Contours, but you can’t argue that they were truly great cars.  The original SHO (1989-1995) inspired lust in the hearts of American drivers with it’s Yamaha-sourced screamer under the hood, and now the automotive sphere’s starting to get hot and bothered for the return of the Super High Output.

And with good reason.  5 years ago, would you have predicted that Ford would be putting a direct-injected, twin-turbocharged, twin-cam 24 valve V6 into something called a Taurus? No, because 5 years ago the Taurus was only being purchased by rental fleets.  Now they’re being purchased as daily’s for people who don’t want to put miles on the 911 during the week, and they’re running high 12′ s in the quarter with mild mods.  And with 365bhp and all-wheel-drive, it’s not like stock SHO’s have to make any excuses for themselves.  Although the  inevitable Mustang GT’s they’ll beat off lights when the ‘Stangs driver isn’t paying attention probably should start thinking up some.

And the best part?  There are no excuses to be made for THIS SHO.  It’s got all the tech goodies and luxuries of a 60k Euro sports sedan, more than enough pace to give them a headache, and it’s all-in for around 40 grand.  There’s even a track package. All this in 5 years?  Really?  And the great thing is, as far as comfy family sedans go, the regular Taurus is right up there with the Passats and Accords of the world.  Raise your hand if this makes you even a little proud to be an American.

The Cheap, Fun Sports Car is Coming Back!

It’s been a while since there was really any choice on the market for cheap, light, efficient, and fun-handling two-doors.  The Scion tC isn’t it, the last of the 7th gen Celicas left US dealers in 2005, and the Miata is getting ever more expensive and less fun to drive.  The Z4 is all grown up and pricey (of course), and while Nissan teased us with the 240SX-resurrection Azeal concept back in ’05, nothing ever came of it.

So I’m more than a bit shocked that Honda and Toyota, two of the most boring companies on earth, seem to get it.  When was the last time you got excited about a new Toyota?  I can’t even remember, but the FT-86 concept has got me quite interested.  Based on a bespoke front-mid engine rear-drive chassis, the FT-86 borrows a 2.0L 16v flat-four from Subaru for perfect weight distribution and a low center of gravity/moment of polar inertia, which all equals tidy, responsive handling.  One Toyota brass went so far as to apologize to enthusiasts for not making any remotely desirable cars for a few years, and I’d say this is a good step in the right direction.  An even better step would be an FT-86 with the WRX’s 265bhp 2.5L turbo H4, and how hard would that really be?

And if the FT-86 is a resurrection of the old AE-86 Corolla Sprinter/Trueno’s (which it is), then at least Honda’s not missing out with their modern-day CR-X.  It even looks like a CRX (which I obviously think is a good thing), will hopefully handle like a CRX, and will get great fuel mileage like the CR-X.  Sadly, to make that happen these days Honda had to also add in an electric motor (and you all know how I feel about hybrids) but it’ll be a hybrid with a six speed manual.  It’s about time.  There are also rumors that Honda will offer a CR-Z Type R with the wonderful K20 (found in the Civic Si), which would be an absolute hoot.

With the base models of both of these fun-to-drive lightweight coupes pegged somewhere around 20k, I predict they’ll sell like Evian in the Sahara.  And it’s about time!

GM Actually Seems To Care What People Want?!?

Face it, some of the best driver’s cars these days have been coming out of Government Motors.  The CTS-V is so epic that even uber-Brit slow driver James May liked it.  The ZR-1 Corvette is a genuine world-class supercar.  According to C&D (who’s obviously the be-all-end-all benchmark, right?), the Cobalt SS is quicker arond VIR than an Evo X.  The G8 GXP may be dead by January, but it’s absolutely awesome now.

And not just that, but they seem to actually have their ear to the market.  It might be too late, but they’ve created enough press hype for the Volt that it’ll surely be in marketing textbooks for decades to come.  It’s leading-edge technology, catering to the hyper-green movement sweeping the world, and the General’s got a bragging point.

And more and more products are changing to conform to what consumers want, not what GM thinks they want.  The SRX downsized to where there was a market for it, apparently the Cruze won’t be another completely dreadful compact GM, the Malibu fills the boring family sedan roll quite well, you get the picture.

It remains to be seen if this is real change, but it’s a great sign.

McLaren’s Building A New Car…  That’s Not A Mercedes.

Enough said.

Diesel is Coming Back In A Big Way.

Again, five years ago, who was offering a diesel in the US?  VW and Jeep, and only in extremely limited numbers for Jeep.  Besides that, there were lots of diesel commercial vehicles and HD trucks, but that’s hardly relevant.  Now, you can buy a diesel from VW, Audi, Mercedes, Jeep, BMW, and apparently soon Nissan, Honda, and who knows who else.  If you like good fuel economy but would prefer a fistful of meaty torque to a bunch of stupid batteries, this is good news for you.

BMW’s 335d is massively awesome; it’s got 265bhp (enough) and 428lb-ft of torque (almost too much) from a twin-turbo 3.0L diesel.  It’s got more torque than the howling V8 M3, despite posting mid-thirties on the highway.  It’ll probably do a mile-long burnout, although I know most 3-series driver’s aren’t really about that.  The Grand Cherokee diesel is what it should’ve been all along.  Ditto Audi’s Q7 3.0TDI.  You get the point.

What do you think is the greatest thing about the auto market today?  Leave your comments below!

For me, this is simply a list of cars that I plan to own at some point in the future.  There aren’t any Pagani Zonda’s or Ford GT’s or $100k V12 Benzes.  These are all attainable, entertaining cars.  I suppose everyone’s realistic fantasy garage would be different, so let me know yours in the comments.

Saab 9000 Aero (1993-1997)

Duh, a Saab.  Of course.  But despite it’s ancient roots (Lancia Thema? Alfa 164?  Wow…), the Saab 9000 Aero still has some pretty modern numbers.  For instance, under the hood beats Saab’s tweaked and boosted 2.3L twin-cam 16v straight-four.  Puffing through a big Mitsu TD04 turbocharger (in place of the smaller Garrett T25), the Aero pumps out 225bhp at 5,000 rpm, and a hefty 350nM (258lb-ft) at an “are you serious?” 1900 rpm.  So despite having an engine that shares roots with the Triumph Dolomite, the 9000 Aero was a serious piece of performance hardware when it came out back in ’93.  That huge fat band of mid-range torque gave the 9000 Aero some crazy passing power: independent testing confirmed the 9000 Aero was faster from 50-75 than a 911 Carrera 4 or Ferrari Testarossa.

And then there was the interior.  Perhaps the most comfortable seats ever fitted to a production vehicle reside within the 9000′s comfy interior.  8-way power adjustable units courtesy of Recaro are not only great on the back, but look like leather-clad combat armor.  And when you slipped the clutch out and the turbo Saab rocketed it’s way to 100km/h in 6.5 seconds, you hardly even notice there’s enough room in the back for just about anything you’ll really need to carry with the seats folded.  The 9000′s all-around appeal as a fast, innocuous, useful, luxurious and interesting daily driver has really yet to be matched for me -- although the not-for-America Audi S5 Sportback comes close.

The best part?  9000 Aero’s aren’t really worth much of anything.  Case in point: this ’96 9000 CSE (5-door) Aero 5-speed.  Great condition (from the looks of it), 111k on the clock, 5 grand.  What else you can buy for 5 grand will be this nice?  And let’s not even get into things like BSR software, 3″ downpipes, ported TD04 housings, or… well…

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I feel that a 9000 Aero would corrupt me rather quickly…

Ford SHO Taurus (89-95)

As you read further down this list, you’ll realize I have a thing for Yamaha-powered cars.  There’s a reason for this -- Yamaha knows how to throw together a motor.  Ford knew this in the eighties.  They were planning a mid-engine RWD 2-seater to compete with the Fiero, but midway through development the project was canned in favor of irons in other fires.  Ford had contracted Yamaha to build twin-cam V6′s for the stillborn sports car, and were on the hook for the motors.  Where to put them, then?

Why, the Taurus, of course!  It didn’t make much sense to put a high-winding performance engine in Ford’s middle-of-the-road family sedan, but who isn’t glad they did anyway?  They called it the SHO, which stood for Super High Output.  The 3.0L 24v V6 cranked out 220bhp at a peaky (for the times) 6000rpm, and 200lb-ft of torque at 4800.  The SHO’s motor wasn’t just about the numbers, though.  For one thing, in testing the Yamaha bent-six was proven to run safely and smoothly at speeds up to 8500 rpm; Ford capped the rev-limited to 7000rpm to avoid having the Ford-supplied ancilliaries self-destructing because they couldn’t keep up.  It was a marvelous engine, and was also quite a sight to see -- and a sound to hear.

That tangle of snakes is the long-runner intake manifold, which is part of the reason the SHO had the upper-range lungs lacking in other Ford motors of the time.  By which I mean, the SHO was making peak power well past a 302′s redline.  Acceleration was good -- a 5-speed 3.0L SHO would do the 0-60 deed in under 7 seconds -- and the sound that eminated from the SHO’s rear was entirely un-Taurus.  As you’ll see, Yamaha has a way with engine notes.

Volvo 850 T-5R (1995)

Perhaps I’m too picky in specifying one year, one body style, one trim level, and one color of a car for my fantasy garage.  But when that combination renders you this:

Sometimes it pays to sweat the details.  I mean, even if you hate Volvos (and I know some of you do), you have to admit that this is one badass-looking wagon.  The 850 T-5R was an experiment on Volvo’s part, a litmus test to see if there was really a market for a hot-rod Volvo.  A total of 5,500 T5-R’s were produced for worldwide consumption in 1995.  2,500 in cream yellow (with only 185 going to the US market), 2,500 in black (1,850 to the US market) and 500 Emerald Green R’s -- none of which ever saw US roads.  This  makes a cream yellow T-5R wagon about as rare as a democrat in Alabama.

As you’d expect with such a long name, the 850 T-5R is the top of the performance range for the 850 series.  It added a few modifications to increase the performance of the Turbo, along with some aesthetic touches to differentiate the T-5R from standard 850′s.  On the performance side of things, the regular Turbo’s 2.3L 20v I5 received a bump from 222bhp to 240bhp (250 in the Euro market) via software changes that increase the turbo-boost threshold by 3psi in 3rd and 4th gear.  Considering that the normal 850 Turbo had enough trouble not lighting up it’s inside tire when you turned and steered at the same time, that’s perhaps for the best.

Result?  The 0-60 time is about the same as the regular 850 Turbo (just under 7 seconds), but the top speed of this crazy banana-yellow kid hauler moved up to 153mph. That’s right, a yellow 153mph Volvo Wagon. And that’s not even taking into consideration exactly how awesome an uncorked Volvo Turbo I5 sounds when you get on it -- which, by the way, is faintly ridiculous.

On the looks and luxury side of things, the 850 T-5R received a redesigned front fascia with an incorporated chin spoiler and foglights, lower body cladding and a new rear bumper that integrates the exhaust pipe.  The T-5R also rolls on what are perhaps my favorite OEM wheels ever, 17x7″ anthracite-grey alloys called Titan’s.  Inside, there are leather-and-alcantara seats, wood trim, seat heaters, a CD changer, and all the other luxury accoutrement you’d expect in a mid-ninties euro hotrod.

Underneath the tons of turbo torque steer and howling 5-banger, though, it’s still a Volvo 850 wagon, which means there’s comfortable space for 5 passengers, and if you fold the rear seats flat, you can fit a shifter cart in the back.  What other 153mph sports cars can you say that about?

It gets even more tempting when you think about adding aftermarket goodies and software.  iPd’s software for the B5235T5 cranks up the boost (from max 12psi in the T-5R to 14.5) and fueling levels, and power jumps to 275, while torque increases from 236lb-ft up to 280.  iPd claims their software will lop nearly a second off the T-5R’s 0-60 time (from 7.0 to 6.2) with negligible effects on fuel consumption.  Then there are aquamist methanol injection kits, upgraded intercoolers, bigger injectors, cams… you get the point.

The problem with the T-5R is that it’s easier to simply make one than find one.  Regular 850 Turbo’s aren’t really hard to find; but with only about 50 cream yellow wagons in the US (and who knows how many are left!), you might be searching for months.  Whereas you can buy the R bodykit from Volvo, get your regular T-5 or Turbo ECU chipped by iPd to deliver the same power, and get some wheels.  Still, the Volvo gods were smiling upon me when I found this ’95 yellow T-5R wagon online here.  $4,950 is a lot for a 14 year old Volvo with 200k on the clock, but I’d say it’s worth it.

2000-2005 Toyota Celica GT-S

The image of the Celica in the US market is sort of a girlier version of the Honda Prelude.  It’s always been a (with few exceptions) relatively attractive 2-door four seater sports coupe, usually offered with uninspiring drivetrains and so-so handling but great fuel economy and typical Toyota dependability.

Thankfully, Toyota decided not to let the Celica go out with a whimper, but rather with a most impressive bang.  When the seventh-generation Celica debuted for the 2000 model year, it was vastly different than the car it replaced.  Gone was the bulbous, rounded jelly-bean styling and pokey Camry-sourced engines; the new Celica was lithe and slick-looking, almost like it was distorted from being fired out of a cannon.  Of course, there was the pokey base model for the secretarys who wanted something cute, but when specs came out for the GT-S model, enthusiasts took notice.

There was a 1.8L 16v straight-four under the hood (the same size as the GT’s motor), but rather than 138bhp, it offered 180bhp at a lofty 7600rpm.  Torque output was modest at 133lb-ft, but the engine had an astronomical 8400rpm redline.  It wasn’t very Toyota; most of their performance engines were low-revvers with big turbos.  In reality, the 2ZZ-GE was mostly Yamaha.  Toyota contracted the build of a higher-performance motor to the firm, and they delivered.  It was a silky-smooth revver, and when it hit the hot cam (thanks, variable valve timing) it howled like it was hungry and sprinted to the rev limiter with amazing speed.

Thanks to the low 2,400lb curb weight, the GT-S was quite rapid, with sub-7 second 0-60 times being easily acheived.  It wasn’t just a straight-line car, though: the 7th-generation Celica is blessed with one of the best handling FWD chassis the world has yet seen.  With simple suspension modifications and sticky tires, Celicas have no trouble pulling more than 1.0g of lateral acceleration, and they have very balanced and neutral handling characteristics.

My personal experience with a Celica GT-S was with a mildly modified early-build model, and it was eye-opening.  Onramps I could take at 45mph at the limit of adhesion in my 900 (admittedly not the best handling car, but certainly pretty agile) were dispatched at 70mph without so much as a hint of tire slip.  The sound and rev-happy nature of the Yamaha motor is world-class, and acceleration feels very impressive.

Combine all this with a bountiful aftermarket, great fuel economy, a delightful short-throw 6-speed shifter, and rock-solid reliability, and you’ve got a serious winner.  The GT-S is a lot easier to find than most of the other weird stuff on this list, and I found a clean 2000 GT-S 6-speed pretty close to me in great condition for $8,900.  It’s a little pricier than some of the other things here, but it’s also newer and most certainly more dependable.  You can check out the ad here.

Dodge Dakota

Ok, I know this a bit left field -- even for me.  But here me out here.  Everyone needs a truck in their “fantasy garage” -- after all, even in your fantasy, you need something to tow your toys to the track, right?  And while my full-on fantasy garage truck would most likely be a Banks-tuned Cummins Diesel Ram of some sort (there’s something about 1000 lb-ft of torque that I find appealing), in real life, you don’t need that much size or power.

And I figure, if you’re going to have a truck, it should be fun and useful.  So what I’d look for would be a late-90′s Dakota, single cab, short bed, 2WD, with the optional 318ci V8 and a 5-speed manual.  It’s just about the most fun you can have in a small truck short of a Lightning.  The 5.2L pushrod V8 may be anvil-simple, but it’s reliable as death and taxes, and produces a whole bucket-load of torque.  In a light chassis (there’s not all that much to a single cab/short bed Dakota), it’s actually a reasonably entertaining powertrain.  Plus, there’s nothing quite like the sound of a Mopar small-block with headers, 3″ pipes and Flowmasters.  And if it got boring, there’s always a Paxton supercharger.

How much should you pay for a Dakota?  Well, with today’s depressed market -- and the fact that no one wants a 17mpg compact pickup -- I’d say paying any more than 4 grand for one in great condition would be a sign of mental retardation.  Just because it’s unpopular doesn’t mean it’s entirely without merit.  It’s got impressive payload (about 3/4 ton depending on configuration), it can tow well above it’s weight, and it’ll do a wicked burnout.  What more do you want?

If you all like the general idea of this article, I might make it a series that continues in the future.  Please leave your $0.02 in the comments section below!

To really show the differences in V-8 vs. twin-turbocharged V-6, Ford has offered up this new comparison video of the Taurus SHO EcoBoost against the Audi A6 4.2 FSI V-8. While the result was predetermined -- 0.60 numbers don’t lie, it’s still pretty interesting seeing it happen live. It’s all about creating good press, and I think appearing unafraid to make direct comparisons with the competition is a bold thing to do. GM is doing this in new advertisements as well.

Getting down to actual numbers, the $37,995 base-price of the Taurus SHO checks in at $20,000 cheaper than the $60,950 (ouch!) Audi A6 4.2 FSI V-8. The Audi has an engine that is 0.7-liter larger in displacement than the SHO’s, and has 350 horsepower, 15 less than the SHO. The two are different types of vehicles, but the performance chops of the EcoBoost engine are hard to deny.

Sponsored: Find best autoanything coupons and save money on auto parts!

Today is the launch event for Ford’s Taurus SHO, a model that car enthusiasts everywhere are drooling over. Driving impressions of the model are still under embargo, but Ford thought it was fitting to release some new pictures of the car to coincide with the event.

Wow! Is that good looking or what? The more I’ve seen of the new Taurus, the more I like it. This car is nothing like the recent cars that have worn this storied name. “Superman” Taurus indeed! I think it was smart to keep the name for the new model given all the press attention that it has received. Initial reactions have been fantastic, with Esquire naming the Taurus it’s first-ever car of the year.

It’s odd that a normally ho-hum family car like the Taurus would be so wanted. The SHO really is becoming an object of desire with people! While a good deal, at $45,175 it will be out of the reach of most though, so this could be a great aspirational vehicle for Ford.

As for the standard Taurus, is the revival of the Ford family car in the American marketplace upon us? Could we really the SHO catching on as a rival to performance luxury brands like BMW?

We’ll have to wait for the answer to that question, but the fact that Ford (and a Taurus!) is even being mentioned in the same sentence as those brands shows that something has changed. Drastically. Welcome back, Ford!

From the look of things, A) Christina knows how to throw a car around, and B) the Taurus doesn’t mind being thrown around a bit!  I have to say, this is one devastatingly handsome car, which isn’t something that could be said about any previous Taurus, SHO’s included.  With tons of turbo V6 power, four-wheel-drive grip, and chiselled James Bond lines, I think the SHO’s going to be a hit.

And what a magnificent picture!  There’s a reason they pay professional photographers the big bucks.  It’s hard to catch a car in action like this in such clear detail.  Very nice work.