Currently browsing

January 2012

2012 Mitsubishi i-MIEV

Vehicle: 2012 Mitsubishi i-MIEV Premium
Price as tested: CDN$35998

Performance: Like most EV, i-MIEV’s batteries are mounted at the back of this microcar. With 16kWh of lithium-ion batteries, Mitsubishi claims its able to travel 130km on one single charge for 6 hours using 240V outlet. If you are using lesser 120V, however, the amount of time on charging has to be more than doubled. If you are running out of juice and need a quickie, an half hour charge is able to charge up to 80% of the batteries. Because it doesn’t have a small gasoline engine as an assistance, one has to fully calcuate on how far the distance one has to travel on each trip through the center screen. While its able to go up to top speed of 130 km/h, its highly recommended to stay at around 100km/h or less to conserve the batteries. By pressing the “engine start” button, it doesn’t have internal combustion engine note. However, its all about EV quietness. If you thought your Lexus LS460 is quietest car in the world, you obviously haven’t driven an EV before. With 66hp and 196NM carrying through 2400lb, i’s performance is quite respectable. That’s despite the fact that you shouldn’t compared to Tesla.

Handling: When you consider the fact that i shares the same architecture as Smart For2, you pretty much get the picture. Combined with narrow tires, short wheelbase, a high center-of-gravity and soft suspension; its best to leave the i-MIEV as a city car. For what its worth, i-MIEV has done a pretty remarkable job judging by its underpinnings. Once again, you shouldn’t compared with Tesla roadster when it comes to road manners. It has done a decent enough jobs on controlling body motions, eliminate understeer while providing better than expected steering feel and feedback when pushed i-MIEV through the corners. Because of the manners it handles, you surely won’t go too far away in city center. Along with the surprisingly civilized suspension which absorb expansion joints and washboard pavements, which usually happens within city driving. That means you aren’t likely to run out of juice in downtown Vancouver or Toronto. That’s except you are getting really poor at calculating the range between downtown office and your home in the suburb.

Brakes: The regenerative braking system in i-MIEV is another surprise. It actually has some lives to it. Both the stopping distance and pedal feel are decent, without feeling spongy and numb. On the other hand, ABS has acted reasonably.

Interior: Except for the digital instrumetation shown you all the information, regarding the driving range and % of batteries consumed; you are basically sitting inside the regular i. That said, the driving position is like sitting “on top” instead of “inside” a car. All the controls are logically layout without too much fuss.

The rear seats are enough for 2 persons while making a squeeze for the third. Consider its supermini status, the leg and headroom are more than surprising.

With the rear washer/wiper, a decently low liftover and narrow side sills; i-MIEV’s luggage space is more than acceptable given its physical dimensions. Fold down the rear seats, its luggage space is nearly doubled.

Conclusion: The i-MIEV finally joints in the ranks of Volt and Leaf as another choice in the EV world. If there is one major problem, its the price. With its supermini status, it has priced closely to Leaf and Volt (before calcualting the federal government reduction on EV). Both of the competitions are larger vehicles with more spacious interior and comfortable ride. That could spoken as a major pitfall to i-MIEV’s future success in this limited segment.

Competitions:
Chevrolet Volt
Nissan Leaf

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Mitsubishi i-MIEV
=====================================
Performance: 3/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 2/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 2.5/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 2.5/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 2/5
Value-for-money: 2/5

Overall rating: 2.5/5

Short test: 2012 Ford Focus SE sedan

Vehicle: 2012 Ford Focus SE sedan with Powershift and SE Winter Pkg
Price as tested: CDN$22063

Exactly how great is the new Focus? It had been finalists for both our Directshift and North American Car of the Year. :) One of the reasons why its so significant, is because we have been getting cheapened revised Focus across the pond, until Ford’s latest “one Ford” strategy takes place with the helm of Alan Mulalley.

Over the years, we had been getting the watered-down version of the Ford Focus. While the rest of the world had been getting the European Focus since 1998, our shore had to deal with the cheapened version of the original car. For 2012, we are getting the real deal. Alan Mulalley’s “one Ford” strategy has been working like charm. Both the Fiesta and Focus are smash hit in the subcompact and compact class. The incoming Kuga-derived Escape and Mondeo-derived Fusion will certainly be a grand slam duck hit in the marketplace.

Ford haven’t changed a single bit of what makes new Focus such a smashing hit around the globe. In fact, all the merits of what makes European Ford so special remains intact across the shore. Talking about European Ford, the first thing that comes to mind is the chassis dynamics. Although our sedan tester feels significantly softer than its hatchback counterparts, it continunes to shine through the black top twisties. The utilization of Torque Vectoring ensuring the inside wheel pushes the outside wheel into a corner, which eliminates unwanted understeer, is a welcome technical bit. A technological engineering tour-de-force which we usually seen in much more expensive AWD sports sedan. Ride quality continues to be impressive. The controlled handling and balanced ride quality are what make European Ford so appealing. Even in the softened Focus sedan, we continue to smitten by its appealing dynamic qualities. Steering feel and feedback are exceptional.

Inside, all the materials used are top-notch while workmanship are first-rate. The cloth seats in our SE tester are well-foamed and very well put together. While some of the controls feel a bit too complex at first glance, it tends to get used to over a short period of time.

We were impressed with Focus combined with manual gearbox. However, the Powershift which is an automated manual isn’t so. Ford engineers need to get the whole software refined. The reason is because it lacks the smoothness and crispness of many of its rival carmaker’s automated manual. Otherwise, its 160hp and 146 lb/ft of torque 2.0 liter motor continues to be a smooth operator.

Uninstrusive trunk hinges and low trunk liftover pretty much wrap up the Focus sedan. It is a world-class compact which is able to put smiles on every driver’s face without breaking the piggy bank. The handling is sweet and delicate, it rides like a much more expensive luxury car. And even in the somewhat basic trim level, Ford provides a reasonable array of standard features for the money.

The European Focus is definitely worthy of the wait. Ford better not tease us with the ST so long. :D

World class….all the way. :D

Likes:
Overall execution
Handling and ride compromise
Engine performance
Build quality

Dislikes:
Overcomplex center stark
Automated manual needs more refinement
Significantly softer handling of the sedan vs hatchback

Competitions:
Chevrolet Cruze
Mazda3
Hyundai Elantra
Kia Forte
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
VW Jetta

2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ Turbo

Vehicle: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ Turbo
Price as tested: CDN$21990

Performance: The Aveo has came across as one of the worse cars I have ever driven, its so nasty to drive which I can put it on the same list as original Kia Sportage and Dodge Nitro. GM has promised lots of good things about the Sonic, a subcompact which Chervolet has high hopes.

While the base 1.8 liter DOHC 16-valve motor has 135hp and 125 lb/ft of torque, which is more than enough for a subcompact. Its the 1.4 liter turbocharged 4-cylinder which is the engine of choice. It has 3 more horses and, more importantly, 23 lb/ft more torque than the 1.8 liter motor. Since both are based on the form of Ecotec engine architecture, the level of refinement and smoothness have been well-proven in Sonic’s bigger brother. The form of a small turbocharged engine provides desired result, when it comes to performance and economy. On the one hand, it doesn’t have the annoying turbo lag one associates with small 4-cylinder turbocharged engines. On the other hand, it delivers exceptional fuel economy even when pushed it to the max. During the day of our test drive, it averages 5 liters per 100km, which is nothing short of amazing. Along with an efficient powertrain comes a well-ratioed 6-speed manumatic gearbox. While the low 1st and 2nd gears are short enough for peppy acceleration, along with eliminating turbo lag. 3rd and 4th are always keeping the engine in its sweetspots. 5th and 6th have made for a comfortable highway cruising overdrive gears. That’s even if our loaded LT has to carry around 2800 lb.

Handling: If you still have distaste about how nasty the Aveo drove, you can completely forget about it. The Sonic is everything but when it comes to dynamic equation. It began with a stiff and rigid chassis, which serves as a great foundation for suspension components to hang its heads. The nasty chassis flex of the Aveo has gone for some rigid chassis refinement. When pushed the Sonic through the twisties, it exhibits terminal understeer while body rolls have been well-mannered. It all have done while providing some driving feel and feedback, which you won’t find in its predecessor. The amount of feel and feedback through the electric power steering has translated into driving fun. This translates into a dynamic package which is, finally, the equal of the Fiesta and Mazda2. Suspension is both sporty and comfortably compliant, while absorbing all the bumps and roughness with ease. On the other hand, GM’s excellent Stabiliztrak provides helping hands, when it comes to eliminating understeer, when pushed the Sonic to the max. Dynamically speaking, Sonic is able to put smiles on driver’s face which its something its predecessor can only be dreamed of. It has really shown how top notch engineering is able to translate a poorly executed car into an exceptional car. Sonic is the prime example.

Brakes: While Aveo’s brake pedal is infamous for being numb and spongy, Sonic’s braking performance continues to impress. While its still relying on front discs and rear drums, with standard ABS on our LT Turbo variant. The stopping distance is short while pedal always feels firm and solid. The pedal actually have some lives to its travel, which is something you have never heard of in the Aveo. ABS doesn’t step in unnecessarily is an added bonus.

Interior: Fold the rear seats completely flat, the Sonic has 30.7 cubin inch of luggage space. When they are in the upright position, it has 19 cubin inch. The hatch opening is wide and squared, which has made the luggage area rather spacious consider its physical dimensions. Add to the fact that it comes with a privacy cover and rear washer wiper, it pretty much wraps up the whole versatile equation. There are also some party tricks which have spoken for Chevrolet’s attention-to-details in Sonic’s interior refinement. You can extend the cargo space by flipping the cargo floor lowered into the bottom, as well as hiding the privacy cover behind the rear seats instead of removing it.

Both the use of materials, fit-and-finish and design have made a huge leap forward over its predecessor. The velour seats feel well-foamed and comfortable. All the HVAC and stereo are placed ergonomically on the center console. However, I am not fond of its digital instrumentation gauges. The row of warning lights surrounding the digital instrumentation gauges just look plain gaudy.

There are enough space for 2 adults at the back of the Sonic, however, just don’t try to put the 3rd one in the middle.

Conclusion: After driven the Sonic, its no wonder Chevrolet decided to ditch the Aveo nameplate. That’s because the Sonic is as far apart from the Aveo as possible. The Sonic not only has a competitive powertrain, it handles like a diggin with a sharp-looking exterior. It is finally a match for any top-tiers in the subcompact segment.

Competitions:
Mazda2
Ford Fiesta
Honda Fit
Hyundai Accent
Kia Rio
Toyota Yaris

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ Turbo
=====================================
Performance: 4/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 4/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 4/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 4/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 4/5
Value-for-money: 4/5

Overall rating: 4/5

Long-term introduction: 2012 VW Passat TDI Clean Diesel

Vehicle: 2012 VW Passat TDI Clean Diesel Highline with Sport Pkg
Price as tested: CDN$40612
Mileage since picked up: 60km
Regular maintenance: 0
Unscheduled repairs: 0

While its pretty much well-known that Directshift is a huge fan of VW Passat, the general audience certainly disagreed. The previous Passats simply were too quirky for their own good. It doesn’t provide as much mainstreamness to the consumers as what Camry, Accord, Malibu or even Altima deliver in the process.

VW has taken a playbook from Honda. This playbook has worked exceptionally well for Honda, as there are two different versions of Accord. While the European Accord nee Acura TSX, provides sharp handling and playful character, the North American Accord is all about comfortable highway cruising and value content. Unlike Honda, however, VW decided not to bring the European Passat across the Atlantic. The twist is to produce the new Passat in VW’s new Chattanooga Plant for North American consumption.

Our first impression with the new “mainstream” Passat has been extremely well, unlike Jetta with similar approach. In fact, its so good that Passat TDI was good enough to earn our “Green Car of the Year” beating Buick LaCrosse E-Assist and Chevy Cruze Eco.

How well will this made-in-America Passat fare, when it comes to ownership experience? Does it continue to deliver VW’s trademark fun-to-drive factor during the process of blending in the mainstreamers?

We will continue to update over the next few months. :D

2012 Mercedes C250 Coupe

Vehicle: 2012 Mercedes C250 Coupe with Bi-Xenon headlight Pkg, Sport Pkg and Premium Pkg
Price as tested: CDN$44100

Performance: If you were one of those who bought your original C-Coupe due to low lease rates, you are right because that was the only reason to purchase that craptacular hatchback. For 2012, Mercedes has tried it again.

The 2nd iteration of C-Coupe has 3 different type of engine configurations. Right from 451hp C63 AMG to the highlight of our tester. With the introduction of CGI BlueEfficiency technologies into Mercedes powertrains, it finally brings direct fuel injection + turbocharged into Stuggart’s bonnets. That’s despite the fact that Stuggart has been 6 years later than Ingolsdadter, who has pioneered this nifty tricks of putting high performance and efficiency all at one compelling package.

The subject of our tester comes in the form of a 1.8 liter DOHC 16-valve, with the above mentioned technologies along with driven-by-wire. Don’t be afraid cause we have seen the similar configuration from its neighbor. Our C-Coupe has 201 ponies, while more importantly, 229 lb/ft of torque, moving 1550kg of Mercedes sports coupe. The result is an engine which is far improved over any of Mercedes’s noisy 4-cylinder rackets in the past, both normally aspirated or supercharged variants combined. Its smooth-revving while refined enough to carry Mercedes nameplate on the bonnet, even the NVH control has done exceptionally well. Mesh the typical heavy Mercedes throttle, C-Coupe takes off with ease without any hestiation. If you find C63′s V8 is overkill, there is always a 3.5 liter V6 with 302hp and 273 lb/ft of torque. Mated with this turbo’ed Mercedes is its willing 7-Gronic manumatic with paddle shifters. One of the main reasons to opt for sports package is the paddle shifters on the steering wheel. It allows driver to better manage gears before entering a corner, or just drop a cone during highway passing. On another note, this 7-speed gearbox has provide decent enough ratios in order to eliminate turbo lag on the bottom 4 gears. While leaving the top 3 gears for comfortable Autobahn-like cruising.

Handling: Don’t be mistaken that C-Coupe is based on C-Class architecture while E-Coupe is on E-Class architecture. That’s because both the C and E-Coupes are based on C-Class architecture, for cost saving measure.

That pretty much has explained how good the fundamental on which W204 C-Class architecture has been over the years. We have been praised C-Class sedan for its nice bland of sporty handling and sublime ride over the years. That holds a good foundation for C-Coupe to begin with. However, C-Coupe’s dynamic equation is something of a mix blessings. While C-Coupe’s sports suspension is comfortable compliant enough to absorb all the bumps and roughness of what we can poorly paved Canadian roads, its also supple enough to provide somewhat sporty driving experience. Its overall sharpness and reflexes just don’t feel anything special for a sports coupe. That’s even after we press the “sport” button which, supposedly, sharpen things up significantly, when it comes to suspension and steering input. Yes, it rides on a world-renowed architecture while suspension is nicely damped for providing a decent bland of Mercedes-esque ride quality and sporty dynamics. It just doesn’t provide the amout of driving fun we have exhibited in any of its peers. While the steering has provide nice feel and feedback, without losing Mercedes’s traits of numb off-center responsiveness. The body rolls have been well-controlled and able to manage to set itself up nicely after pushed. ESP, on the other hand, continues Mercedes’s tradition of a rather instrusive type. Dynamically speaking, its leaps and abound ahead of its predecessor. But then again, how many cars aren’t. But it doesn’t provide enough sharp reflexes and driving fun one associate with driving such a vehicle, especially considering how high the bar has set by its stiff rivals.

In most occassions, we prefer coupe over sedan when it comes to dynamic capabilities. Funny thing is, we were very impressed with C-Class sedan’s abilities but got underwhelmed by coupe silibings. What a surprise.

Brakes: On the other hand, C-Coupe’s brakes continue Mercedes tradition on providing sure-footness feel and feedback. It doesn’t exhibit any sorts of brake fades after a couple of harsh stops, while pedal always feels crisp and easily modulated. The stopping distance is short while ABS doesn’t step in unnecessarily.

Interior: The backseat is rather cramped given C-Coupe’s physical dimensions. Thanks to its sloppy C-pillars, it doesn’t have much headroom neither.

As for the luggage space, its surprisingly spacious thanks to low liftover and minimal side sills. Its enough for 2 persons going on a weekend trip without worrying too much about what should or shouldn’t bring.

Along comes the C-Coupe, Mercedes has addressed the materials in C-Class cabin overall. That means better use of quality materials while the center stark, which feature a multimedia interface screen, look much more pleasing to the eyes. The tasteful use of aluminum trim has added sportiness to a somewhat bland interior, especially for a sports coupe.

Conclusion: Although I have been pretty much underwhelmed with Mercedes’s latest effort of resurging C-Coupe, its already leaps and abound ahead of their original attempt a decade ago. While styling is subjective, I have felt too much Accord Coupe’s styling clues in C-Coupe’s overall blandness especially comes to the back end. The interior appointment isn’t as special as its rivals or its platform silibing, E-Coupe.

Will I recommend a C-Coupe to anyone else? Sure, I will especially in C250 guise. That’s primarily because its a superbly engineered directly injected powerplant without having front-heaviness of its V6 silibing. Its handling and ride balance will appeal to those who are shopping for an entry-level Mercedes sports coupe.

Competitions:
Audi A5 Coupe
BMW 3-Series Coupe
Cadillac CTS Coupe
Mercedes E-Class Coupe
Infiniti G37 Coupe

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Mercedes C250 Coupe
=====================================
Performance: 4/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 3/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 4/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 4/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 3/5
Value-for-money: 3/5

Overall rating: 3.5/5

Short test: 2012 BMW X1 XDrive 28i

Vehicle: 2012 BMW X1 XDrive 28i with BMW Apps Pkg, Sport Pkg, Premium Pkg, Convenience Pkg, Lighting Pkg and Navigation Pkg
Price as tested: CDN$46690

Over the years, we have tried to learn to like the original X3. Just when the second attempt of the X3 is a huge improvement over the completely garbage predecessor. BMW has the uncanny abilities to fill that void, a void of producing a rubbish entry-level crossover appeals to those badge whore, by introducing the X1.

When we first drove an X1 with straight-6, at least it has some kind of refinement resemblence of a BMW. After driven a Canadian-only X1 with N20, with has a good 245hp and 258 lb/ft of torque underneath the infamous twin kidney grille. While its torque curve is flexible enough without losing the middle punch. Its a very noisy and rough racket. Its certainly noisier than the N20 of which we have driven in 528i and Z4 XDrive 28i. We only hope the new 320i and 328i won’t have to suffer from this kind of poor refinement. Given BMW’s history of producing terrible 4-cylinders right from the E36 era. Anyone remembered the dreadful 138hp 1.9 liter 4-cylinder in 318i? The rough, noisy and unrefined nature of this N20 certainly brought back the memory of that poor motor. The 8-speed Steptronic with right gear ratios and paddle shifters are only saving grave to the whole powertrain.

What’s next is the dynamic abilities. With our X1′s optional sports package, it makes the already dreadful ride quality even worse. But doesn’t justify with improved driving dynamics. There are aplentry of body rolls and understeer when pushed, even if X-Drive and DTC have combined to make it more forgiving. Then add the electric power steering which provide poor feel and feedback, with unrelentlessly heavy effort on low speed typical of BMW steering.

Inside, X1 continues its beancounting approach to quality. Cheap plastic abound. The leather seats don’t feel substantial and up to premium car standard. Both rear seat and luggage space are cramped.

Consider our loaded X1 comes in above 45 grand. The poor combination of noisy engine, poor ride quality, so-so handling and cheap interior are completely unacceptable in any price class. That’s except if you are douchebags who are begging for that blue and white propeller emblem on the hood, or with that low lease rates. Otherwise, consider the competitions at the bottom of our review before going into that BMW showroom.

Likes:
Comfortable front seats
Clean instrumentation gauges
Chassis which yields great potential

Dislikes:
Ugly styling
Cheap interior
Noisy engine
Rough ride
Poor steering feel
……………………how about the entire car?

Competitions:
Honda CR-V
Kia Sportage
Hyundai Tucson
Nissan Rouge
Mazda CX-5
Toyota RAV4
VW Tiguan

Long-term introduction: 2012 Hyundai Accent GLS 5-doors

Vehicle: 2012 Hyundai Accent GLS 5-doors Auto
Price as tested: CDN$18399
Mileage since picked up: 30km
Regular maintenance: 0
Unscheduled repairs: 0

Nothing is farther from the truth that Hyundai is the second coming of the industry lately. Along with sleek styling, packs with lots of standard features and lots of bang-for-the-buck. This South Korean automotive giant also provides everything for just about everybody, while delivering mostly everything as promised.

When Hyundai introduced the original Accent back in 1994, it was a vehicle which singlehandly changed consumer’s mind of Korea as nation of producing disposable cars. It was cheap but certainly up to the task for most purposes. In fact, I had a pleasure to drive one as my first girlfriend used to own home back in high school. The 2012 Accent is no longer cheap but it remains affordable. However, it continues to be cheerful while providing lots of fun-to-drive.

Is the latest version up the to stiff competitions in the fierce subcompact segment? We will put an Accent 5-doors hatchback through the paces in the next few months. :)

2012 Audi TT-RS Coupe

Vehicle: 2012 Audi TT-RS Coupe with Titanium Pkg and Sport Exhaust
Price as tested: CDN$73750

Performance: Horray for the return of Audi’s legendary 5-cylinder tubocharged engine. Here is their latest creation, the TT-RS. :D

As we have said, TT-RS is the first Audi returns to its 5-cylinder turbocharged roots. This return marks the great refinement and smoothness once associates with Audi 5-cylinders of yore, even with its weird cylinder firing orders. The result is a 5 banger that is as smooth as any 6 banger while return the same fuel economy as any 4 banger. Which means it has a good 335hp and 332 lb/ft of torque at driver’s disposal. All have done with any turbo lag one associates with lesser turbocharged motors. Then add the direct fuel injection and variable valve timing technologies, which makes this turbo-5 continues to breath through middle and upper rev ranges. When mated with 6-speed manual gearbox, which is the only transmissionn available in TT-RS. The clutch is light and progressive, with decent feedback. On the other hand, those 6 gears provide excellent ratios for both cruising and peppy acceleration.

Handling: When TT-RS is mated with its Magnetic ride suspension, its able to dial out 99.99% of body rolls when pushed through corners. That makes the already fun roadster handles even sweeter than which already in TT-S. While the Haldex AWD has dialled some terminal understeer when pushed, it remains a very balanced dynamic package. Then add the steering which provides nice feel and feedback, on the other hand, provide sharp and precise through the process. Body rolls are minimal. As with all good ESP, it remains highly uninstrusive until driver rears its ugly heads.

Brakes: With 4-wheel discs and standard ABS, TT-RS has one of the best brakes we have ever tested. The stopping distance is short, while pedal always feels solid and easily modulated under pressure. ABS doesn’t have unnwanted intervention is an added bonus.

Interior: The beautifully put together interior has added the awesome sports seat to the mix in TT-RS. In a nutshell, you can hardly find any interior that is more artistically designed and made as TT interior.

Conclusion: Not only does Audi TT-RS represent the first major challenger to Porsche Cayman R, its engineering significance have brought back the halo memory of Audi’s traditional straight-5 turbocharged engine previously placed underneath all the performance 4-ringers of its glorious history. One can only imagine how those stallion put through the upcoming Coupe Quattro with significantly better engine layout.

Competition:
Porsche Cayman R

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Audi TT-RS Coupe
=====================================
Performance: 5/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 4.5/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 5/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 5/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 3/5
Value-for-money: 4/5

Overall rating: 4/5

Long-term wrap up: 2012 Volvo S60 T6

Vehicle: 2012 Volvo S60 T6 AWD with BSIS, Park Assist Camera, 4C Chassis and Navigation system
Price as tested: CDN$50625
Mileage since picked up: 7300km
Regular maintenance: 0
Unscheduled repairs: 0

The last Volvo which truly put the smiles on my face was the 1995 850 T5-R. Since then, Volvo started to become boring when it comes to driving experience while styling is getting bold. That’s ironic because Volvo’s styling language has been getting impressive with right proportions without losing the boxiness used to stood for this Swedish brand.

This 2nd iteration of Volvo’s mainstay S60 has proven this Gotheberg-based carmaker starts to produce fun car all over again. While it doesn’t have the razor sharpness of its more aggressively-tuned German rivals, its merits are good enough to challenge them, on back-top twisties. Volvo 4C system is able to dial out 99% of the body rolls while keeping the handling checking at hands, its one of the better adjustable damping systems we have ever tested.

There are few things which annoyed out of me. The first thing is Volvo’s trademarked floating center console, which dated back to 2004 S40/V50. While it looks cool and cyber, with all the HVAC and stereo controls all placed on top with large knobs. The storage space behind the console is small yet inconvenience. Volvo’s blind-spot warning system has irriating warning sound. This kind of noise would encourage anyone to turn it off. If you are getting an S60, please go with the aluminum trim, for god’s sake. Its faux wood trim feels and looks so faux, it would give any faux item poor repuation. Lastly, as with all Volvo sedan’s trunk. Its both swallow with tall liftover and narrow side sills. It forced anyone who have seriously checked out the trunk to take its wagon silibing. But there is no V60 in sight for our shore.

However, 305hp with Haldex AWD certainly won’t annoyed out of me. Instead, its one entertaining powertrain combination. Its both refined and smooth cruiser, without feeling disconnected through its steering feel and feedback. When you are behind the wheel seating on one of the world’s best seats in the business, it keeps reminding me Volvo still has guts to produce some fun when it comes to luxury sports sedan.

The bottom line? I just wish Volvo will produce a performance variant of the S60, in the form of an S60R. Pretty damn sure S60R will be good enough as a reincarnation to the 850 T5-R. In yellow please. :D

Likes:
Swedish turbocharged personality
Nimble handling
Unique character
Ergonomic interior

Dislikes:
Faux wood trim
Lack of interior storage space
Swallow trunk
BSIS warning sound

Competitions:
Audi S4
BMW 335i X-Drive
Mercedes C350 4-Matic

2012 Scion iQ

Vehicle: 2012 Scion iQ
Price as tested: CDN$16760

Performance: High iQ or low iQ? That’s the question begs to be asked on this review, as Scion iQ has squarely aimed at the Smart For2. Has the iQ really upped-the-ante in the microcar segment? We will have the answer after this test drive.

While the 1.3 liter DOHC 16-valve 3-cylinder with dual VVT-i certainly won’t make anyone drag race iQ versus a sports car, its the first low displacement application appeared on any Toyota products on our shore. This 1ZR-FE has 94 horses and 89 lb/ft of torque, which mated to a relatively lightweight 996kg, which should be considered as the lightest 4-seater vehicle in the business. While we will be discussing about whether iQ is a “proper” 4-seater in the latter part, this iQ has enough grunt to move its metal around. While you won’t use us use the word “powerful” and “breathtaking” on describing the iQ, its certainly has done what its worth as a city commuter. While this little mill certainly feels busy on the mid and upper range of the speedometer, it has decent enough torque to move in the city. That’s exactly what this car is designed for. The engine sounds a bit rough and noisy when mesh with the light electronic throttle. Unlike For2′s annoying sequential shifter, Toyota has smartly incorporated a CVT into iQ’s powertrain combination. What CVT can do for a small displacement is amazing. As it doesn’t have torque converter to taken out power from the gearbox. Instead, its seamless delivery of power provides utmost efficiency by weighting in both throttle input and weight. That set, its always in the engine’s sweetspot once it reaches driver’s desired speed. In iQ’s application, it also has engine braking applied when driver pushed into “B” mode.

Handling: Because of iQ’s city car status, one shouldn’t considered it to drive like a sports car except you are a complete moron. For what iQ’s worth, it handles surprisingly well given its tall center-of-gravity and a softly sprung suspension. The suspension has taken a set once you push the iQ into a corner, exhibits terminal understeer and get back on its line properly. It feels far more confidence-inspiring in an iQ than an equivalent For2, on the same bit of twisties roads. However, iQ is not a driver’s car. Far from it. The electric power steering feels typical Toyota detached and numb, although its responsive and precise. There are quite amount of body rolls when slightly pushed. The VSC has performed of what it should be, when its time to control both understeer and oversteer. That’s very important given iQ is most driven by new drivers and city commuters.

Brakes: With front discs, rear drums and standard ABS. iQ has stopped decently. The stopping distance is short, while pedal feels firm and solid. Include the ABS which doesn’t have much unwanted intervention. iQ has performed much better than expected.

Interior: iQ’s luggage space and back seat is pretty much an either/or proposition. If you have the very cramped backseat in place, the amount of luggage space is nil. If you fold down the rear seats completely, but you have to remove headrests first, while completely into the flat floor. The iQ has better than expected luggage space for two persons.

As for the backseat, which can we say “dog seat”? We can only say iQ’s backseat is the result of marketers based on consumer clinic. When the engineers and designers said “We don’t need a backseat in a tiny car!”, those marketers say “We do because For2 doesn’t have it. We have a marketing advantage.” One say “We do”, another one say “We don’t”. Since we no longer live in an engineering-driven world. Instead, its a marketing-driven business controlled by beancounters. Beancounters agreed with marketers on iQ “needs” two more seats for better sales. Let me tell us. iQ DOESN’T NEED a backseat because its a plain tortune at the back.

On the front, its all simple instrumentation gauges of what we expect from Toyota. The use of materials and workmanship are certainly good given its city car status. The well-foamed cloth seats are relatively comfortable for a daily trip to Safeway.

Conclusion: Despite of my criticisms, I have to give credit to Toyota engineers for having the guts to better a For2 with the iQ. Its a more civilized and refined package than its most direct rival. The question remains to ask on whether you are low or high iQ when buying an iQ. If you are buying an iQ based on value, which its price suggests it has to compete with some much more refined and versatile competitions. Then your iQ might needs to be re-evaluate. If you are buying an iQ based on emotional value, then its a different story altogether.

Competitions:
Smart For2
Fiat 500
Mazda2
Ford Fiesta
Scion Xd

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Scion iQ
=====================================
Performance: 2/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 2.5/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 2.5/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 2/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 1/5
Value-for-money: 2/5

Overall rating: 2.25/5

Long-term wrap up: 2012 Honda Civic EX-L

Vehicle: 2012 Honda Civic EX-L sedan
Price as tested: CDN$24390
Mileage since picked up: 7500km
Regular maintenance: 0
Unscheduled repair(s): 1

Honda’s 9th generation Civic. A vehicle which this famed Japanese carmaker has delayed a year for some minor makeover, especially for its fuel economy. While we had a pretty good time with it during the whole 7500km of long-term driving, there are couple of aspects which its already fallen behind the crowd. Honda, just like BMW. Both companies used to known for producing fun cars with innovative technologies back in the 80s-90s, have been resting on its laurels, for as long as I can remember.

While it remains reliable, as should with all Honda products. We had plenty of dash rattles over the period we have driven the vehicle. The main reason is the dashboard has been filled with low-rent materials with poor fittings. Worse of all, it already felt and looked dated. In comparison to 8th generation Civic, which still has a dashboard which remains innovative and classy to the touch.

Civic used to stand for nimble, light-on-its-feet, agile and spirited performer. The current car stands for boredom. It doesn’t exactly provide sharp handling with class-leading ride quality, which was the hallmark of the Civic franchise. The ride feels choppy over all sorts of pavement, and the handling dynamics, just boredom the hell out of me. There are also plenty of road noises.

The i-MID multi information display and “Eco” buttons are just some of the gimmicks Honda tried to come out with the new Civic. To some extend, there are some features better not having standard instead of being redundant.

If you are looking for a bland-looking compact family sedan with the cachet of the Honda badge on the hood, Civic is reliable enough to put on your shopping list. Does it sound like a Toyota Corolla? Surely, it does. :( If you are looking for the best compact, Civic is no longer at the top of the chart. No wonder, by the time of our writing, Honda decided to go back to drawing board by pre-maturing revised the current Civic for 2013 after harsh complaints from dealers and consumers alike. We have seen the exact same story happened within Honda family not too long ago. Its called the 4th generation Acura TL.

Perhaps, for some arrogant car company, they have never learnt the mistakes and bound to repeat all over again.

As the old saying goes. Pay me now…pay me later.

In the meantime, we are waiting for what’s up in Honda’s sleeve with the premature revision in 2013 Civic.

Likes:
Comfortable interior
Reliable
Honda reputation
Fuel economy

Dislikes:
Bland styling
Cheap interior
Choppy ride
Unremarkable handling

Competitions:
Chevrolet Cruze
Mazda3
Ford Focus
Kia Forte
Hyundai Elantra

2012 Honda CR-V

Vehicle: 2012 Honda CR-V Touring
Price as tested: CDN$34990

Performance: Powering up the new CR-V is Honda’s familiar 2.4 liter DOHC 16-valve engine. Along with i-VTEC variable valve timing and electronic throttle, this engine has a good 185 ponies and 163 lb/ft of torque. What makes Honda different from other carmakers when redesigned their popular crossover is the lack of an uplevel turbocharged 4-cylinder or V6. Because as good as this 4-banger does, its truly has served CR-V’s purpose exceptionally well. That means the usual array of refinement, smoothness and NVH as we all expect from Honda’s engineering team. Although its only 163 lb/ft of torque, its low-end is peppy without feeling sluggish. When pushed the CR-V through the paces, 185hp has more than asking for in a crossover costing over 1608kg in our loaded Touring trim. As with most Honda engines, they are willing to rev through middle and upper rev ranges without breaking a sweat. Mated with this smooth powertrain is the equally compelling 5-speed automatic. Since Honda has said its customers don’t need manumatic mode, its surely good enough to leave it in “D” as it has perfectly fine gear ratios. The bottom 1st and 2nd are low enough for responsive acceleration while 4th and 5th are tall enough for superb cruising.

Like most Honda, new CR-V has an “Econ” button which helps fuel economy after press that “green” button. Honda has claimed its able to improve fuel economy by up to 15% with that button press, by using ECM to control the throttle response and gearbox mapping to achieve that desired economy. However, it tends to lost a bit of performance.

Handling: CR-V’s dynamic abilities have never been disappointed. In fact, Honda has found a sweetspot for combining confidence handling with superb ride quality which are near perfect compromise for its target audience. The result is a compact crossover which deliver a sure-footness handling sharpness with a sense of comfort dial through the equation. Although its RealTime 4WD is a “slip first before system steps in” reactive variety, it has served 99% of the consumers perfectly right. If you are looking for an advanced full-time AWD in Honda family, one has to upgrade to nearby Acura store for the RDX. In terms of driving feel, it continues Honda’s trend of deliver excellent stering feel and feedback. The electric power steering not only does help save fuel, Honda’s setting won’t be upsetting its responsiveness and feedback too much through the process. There are minimal body rolls, while terminal understeer is expected drama consider CR-V’s reactive system. However, all are able to solve with the advanced VSA which are able to save any drivers from rearing CR-V’s ugly heads when driven above the limits.

Brakes: With 4-wheel discs and standard ABS, CR-V delivers a brake pedal feel of what it should be. The stopping distance is short, while pedal always feels solid and reassurring. Unlike Honda in the past, ABS doesn’t step in unnecessarily while pedal remains fade-free after a couple of harsh stops.

Interior: In the past, one has to open the tailgate to fold down the rear seats in any cars. There is a new party trick with the new CR-V. There are pull levers on both side of the rear seats for folding them completely. With this design, its far more user-friendly when hauling lots of heavy stuffs. Just open the side door and do this little trick. Sometimes, its the smallest thing that makes the biggest difference. :)

In terms of luggage space, CR-V continues its versatile tradition. Along with a nice low floor and liftover, it has a huge 70.9 cubin feet with the seats down. When the seats are up for extra passengers, it has an already plenty 37.2 cubin feet of cargo space. A privacy cover comes standard to keep goods from thieves, on the other hand, everything has been nicely carpeted and finished. If there is one major flaw, however, its the rear glass doesn’t open independently.

Up front, CR-V’s user-friendliness continues. All the major controls are initutive and ergonomically correct. The auto climate control in our Touring provides effective heating during winter. The i-MID multi-information display has served everything else from Bluetooth incoming call to average fuel economy. The green light on the speedometer tells driver how “green” are they driving. Rest of the interior has completed with nice materials and quality workmanship.

Conclusion: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Honda is obviously getting the 4th generation of CR-V right from the start. As it combines an ideal blend of performance, handling, comfort and feature content with the usual Honda quality. While its not as technologically remarkable as some of its major rivals, its conservative approach would continue to help CR-V keep its compact crossover selling crown for years to come.

Competitions:
BMW X1
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Sportage
Mazda CX-5
Nissan Rogue
Toyota RAV4
VW Tiguan

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Honda CR-V
=====================================
Performance: 4/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 4/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 4/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 4/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 5/5
Value-for-money: 4/5

Overall rating: 4/5

2012 Ferrari FF

Vehicle: 2012 Ferrari FF
Price as tested: CDN$300000

Performance: Any driving enthuisasts would gone nuts when they heard the words “Ferrari” and “FF” altogether, in fact, they have a completely different meaning to what “FF” originally mean in the industry. Subject to this test drive, Ferrari’s first foray into the world of AWD sports cars. Is it a real Ferrari? Have those Italian delivered what they promised?

Given FF’s status as a grand tourer which intended to replace 456GT, it doesn’t come as any nasty surprises that its standard with a sweet V12 powertrain. Unlike many of those 12-cylinder powerplants we have driven in many upper luxury cars right from Mercedes to Bentley, this one is not only smooth as a mirror. It delivers with the usual Ferrari soul and song. In the automotive world, there aren’t any engine note which come as passionate and entertaining to any enthuisast’s ears as those from Maranello. This front-mounted 6.3 liter V12, along with all the advanced engineering sophistcation, produces a wealthy 651 stallion and, more importantly, 504 lb/ft of torque, at driver’s right boot. As one has expected, power has never been an issue. What its really an issue is how much FF weighting in on the scale. Its close to 2-tonnes curb weight doesn’t feel very much Ferrari-like, as I would expect something lighter from this Maranello fun factory. That said, FF’s acceleration remains breathtaking while launching this heavy beast is simply a-piece-of-cake. The icing-on-the-cake is Ferrari’s masterful F1 gearbox, which has both “sport”, “comfort”, “winter”, “wet” and “esc off”…it just has about every mods for everybody. Given FF’s status as a GT, its good enough to leave it in “comfort” as suspension is comfortably compliant enough for passengers, while firm enough when driver needs to attack corners. All of these mods also have changed the shifting characteristics of the gearbox. Different shifting geometry right from more aggressive on “sport” while launching on 2nd gear during “winter” mode. As for gear ratios, they are properly weighted while always willing to up and downshifts, regardless of which mods driver has set to.

Handling: What the “FF” means “Ferrari Four”, that means its the first Ferrari which comes with AWD. Unlike many of those AWDs on the market, FF is basically a rear-driver until driver dials in “comfort” or “snow” modes. Ferrari claimed 4RM, is 50% lighter than conventional AWD. Dynamically speaking, it provides RWD driving experience without losing any confidence when its time to hit the snow mountains. The real reasoning behind 4RM only activates during those 2 modes is primiarly because, during comfortable cruising and snowy weather, you don’t need to use the more aggressive rear-driving modes. Unlike so many of those pretentious rear-bias AWD, namely BMW X-Drive, 4RM actually works as advertised. During “sport” and “esc off”, it drives more sporty than any grand touring peers out there. Its ride quality is firmer than many of its competitions, without losing the usual Ferrari feel and feedback. When dialled in “comfort”, it rides as silky smooth as any luxury cars without losing any suspension suppleness which makes Ferrari so famous. Pushed the FF hard into corners, it exhibits minimal body rolls, while both understeer and oversteer are superbly tempted.

Brakes: With large 4-wheel discs and standard ABS, FF provides exceptional brake feel and feedback as one expects from a Ferrari. The stopping distance is short while pedal feels strong and solid. Even after a couple of hard stops, it remains fade-free. ABS doesn’t step in unnecessarily is an icing-on-the-cake.

Interior: The biggest highlight to the FF is the amount of luggage space. With the rear seats up, it has 450 liters. With the rear seats folding down, its able to eats up to 800 liters of luggage. All have done with minimal wheel instrusions and low liftover.

The rear compartment is surprisingly comfortable for a grand tourer. Its comfortable without feeling confining even if its a 4-seater configuration.

In front, its the same world-class material and fit-and-finish as one expects from a Ferrari. It is simple, mostly initutive in its controls and austere in a way of what an Italian sports car should be. Those leather sports seats should be judged as industry’s gold standards.

Conclusion: Ferrari has delivered an excellent grand tourer, which combines wonderful all-weather capability with amazing practicality. In engineering terms, its a real Ferrari when you look pass its controversially bulky exterior and SUV-esque curb weight. Have those Maranello engineers delivered what they have promised? They surely do. But I am remain unsure whether this is the Ferrari which I am lusting after.

Competition:
Bentley Continential GT Supersports

OVERALL VERDICT FOR 2012 Ferrari FF
=====================================
Performance: 5/5
Handling and ride/fun-to-drive: 5/5
Interior/ergonomics/user-friendliness: 5/5
Fit-and-finish/build quality: 5/5
Cargo/accessibility/layout: 5/5
Value-for-money: 4/5

Overall rating: 4/5