The 2011 Jetta looks a bit conservative and restraint

The 2011 Jetta is bigger, cheaper, and less euro-sophisticated. Most autojournalists don’t like the changes and point to the cheap-er interior and dumbed down driving dynamics. I took a mid-level 2011 Jetta SE for a spin to see what the fuss is all about. And you know what? VW created a “betta Jetta”. But, I also like to show my discontent over the cheap seats and pricing policiy by punishing two particular VW employees. More on that later.

The Good: The Jetta still feels as it should, like a entry level German car. Driving arround town it’s fun even with that new low cost supension. It attacks corners with enthusiasm and eggs you on to do things a Corolla owner woudn’t. This isn’t a sports car, but it’s a fun car. And when you are done hooning arround it convinces with a quite and steady freeway ride. I friend of mine compared it to an affordable BMW. I say it’s an affordable way to appreciate german car engineering.

Although the 5 cylinder is critizised for it’s mediocre fuel economy it’s still my engine of choice. The Jetta SE engine breathes some fresh air into a class stale with whiny four cyclinders. Finally we have an engine that is cheap but does not feel cheap. Together with that new 6 speed auto its pleasant and responsive. 26mpg combined fuel economy might be at the bottom of its class but its a number I could live with. If you are into hypermilling get a Prius.

Auto journalists are right about the cheap-er looking interior, but only if you compare it to the previous Jetta. In the $20,000 class this is a good looking interior. None of the materials offend and the overalll impression is restrained classiness. The exterior design might be a bit conservative, but at least it does not follow the latest fashon trends (see Huyndai Elantra). We know what happens to those who are overly hip. They look funny a few years from now.

The Bad: Not all is rosy. The front seats are terrible. They look comfortable, but after 30 min diving you start fiddeling with the adjustments to relief you lower back strain. After 1 hour you want to pay VW purchasing a surprise visit, find the cost accountant responisble for shaving $1.92 off that seat cushin, and beat him with a roll of quarters. I know that cost cutting is part of the game, but this is just wrong. There are many excellent seats in the VW inventory, so whoever made that short-sighted decission has to be punished.

Forget about that $16,000 Jetta you see advertised. The entry-level Jetta S has a wimpy engine that could only attract clueless 16 year old high school girls. It is very dissapointing that VW still plays the bait-and-switch game by advertising an painfully decontented Jetta S, and then expects you to spend an extra 5,000 just to get an acceptable engine and option combo (Jetta SE with Convenient Package). Here again, I would like to personally beat some sense into the VW Pricing Strategy employee responsible for that decission.

Conclusion: Overall the 2011 Jetta became a car with more mass appeal. It offers enough space, fun, safety, and style to be a stand-out contender. It became a car that college kids and their grand-parents could love alike. In short it’s now a Volks-Wagen (a car for the masses).

What about the competition?

The Chevy Cruze is a tighter handler, but it has that whiny engine. And the brand new 2012 Civic is such a dissapointment that I would sell your Honda stock before finishing this story. Simply forget about getting a Toyota Corolla: it’s too old and incompetent to appeal. I’ve previously compared the Corolla engine sounds to torturing a small pet, in case you are interested … (see my Corolla review).

That leaves the Huyndai Elantra (the other good choice in this class). I get the Jetta SE over the Elantra GLS because I prefer driving fun over long warranties. But at least Hyundai does not play the bait-and-stitch game and offers a well equipped Elantra (with bluetooth and everything) for about $18,000.

Why you want it:

Enough space and comfort for a family (or 4 friends)

Still feels like a solid and fun to drive german car

5 cylinder in Jetta SE feels and sounds better than competition

Why you look elsewhere:

The front seats are uncomfortable on anything but short trips

You need to upgade to the Jetta SE with convenience package for $21,000

Attractive payment, revolting fine print. Both offers are a bad deal.

A brand new Boxster for only $449 per month? The ad looked enticing. Why not get a new Porsche for the same monthly payment as buying a Ford Taurus? Then I checked the fine print.  There is a $6,995 down payment (gulp…) and the extremely low miles of 5,000 per year. Do I smell a bad deal?

Yes, it’s bad. Advertisements like this give leasing a bad rep. Here is why:

First Red Flag: Very low miles. 5,000 miles per year is equal to 14 miles per day. If you have several cars in your garage and the Boxster will be your weekend fling, no problem. For everyone else the miles are so ridiculously low that you will admire your new Porsche parked 5 days out of the week.

Second Red Flag: Large Down Payment: Paying $6,995 upfront is like making 16 monthly payments in advance. That’s almost a year and a half worth of payments, upfront in cash, thank you very much. Without the large down payment your monthly payment would end up at $700. Not such a good deal after all.

Total cost of the Boxster lease is out of proportion of what you get. In total you will spend about  $20,000 (down payment, monthly payment, tax, DMV fees) for a $48,000 Porsche. This is equivalent to paying 40% of value of the car. But you can only drive it 5,000 miles per year (15,000 miles total). In other words, every mile costs you $1.4. Very expensive.

The better lease deal: BMW 335i coupe.
Compare this to a 335i coupe lease advertised on BMW’s web site. The 335i  lease is $549 per month ($100 per month more), but requires no down payment and has double the miles allowance (10,000 miles per year). Total cost of the BMW lease is $16,000 or $0.50 per mile. On a per mile basis the Boxster is almost 3 times more expensive than the BMW. And both cars are valued at the same $48,000 MSRP. Let’s not even include the free maintenance that BMW throws in on all new cars. As you can see the BMW is a much better lease deal. But if you are just looking at the low monthly payment you will be lead astray.

The objective of leasing is to minimize the costs of driving a new car. This is done through paying only a fraction of the new car. Porsche makes you pay 40% of the cost of a Boxster but only allows you to use it for 10% of its useful life. The BMW lease has much better terms. You pay 31% of the cost of the car while using it for 20% of its useful life. (I’m assuming a useful life of 150,000 miles).

So, don’t rely on a low monthly payment to judge a lease deal. You need to take into account the down payment (try to keep it to zero), mileage allowance (10 to 15K miles per year for most), and length of the lease (best is 24 to 36 month).

There is nothing wrong with getting a very low mileage lease (if you want a weekend car), but a low miles lease should be significantly cheaper. If you like the Boxster buy it instead. Or get a BMW lease, which is my recommendation.

For more on how to get a good lease deal check out this story.

Fool those who don't know cars: The Sonata looks snobby inside

The Sonata is a sales hit, the Impala is not (well, it’s a hit with rental fleets at least). To find out why, I took both for a spin.

One car is made in a foreign country (no, the Sonata is made in Alabama, it’s the Chevy that is made in Canada) and both have about the same space, horsepower, and cost.  Separating them is two decades of engineering and design.

Boy, have things changed in the last 20 years.

The impala is a flashback to 1992 with its simple and somewhat cheesy interior. It’s functional, but seems a few decades behind the times in terms of design and materials. The Sonata appears to be a Lexus circa 2006 (Lexus RX330 comes to mind), which is an achievement in a $20,000 car. On looks alone (inside and out) you would think that the Sonata is $10,000 more than the Impala. In reality the Impala lists for $5,000 more.

Craig’s Wish List after the jump

Chevy knows how to make Steel Rims look classy. Best fake alloys I have ever seen.

Aging V6 against a modern 4 cylinder
I usually prefer a six over a four because it’s smoother, punchier and sounds a lot more pleasant. But, in this case it’s different. I still don’t like the sonata four-banger sound, but the engine won me over as better choice for a family sedan. It’s responsive even at lower revs and does not feel as anemic as that the aging V6 in the Chevy. This V6 shows none of the usual advantages that come with more cylinders, except maybe the sound.

Although the sonata is slower on paper (8.0 vs. 7.7 seconds to 60 mph) it does not feel slower. In real word driving the Sonata has enough power and feels just as fast as the Impala. Blame the low-end grunt that is missing form the Chevy engine and that outdated highly geared 4-speed auto. I wonder how much better the Impala would be with a modern 6 speed automatic (just like the Sonata has).

As expected the 4 cylinder is better on gas. In my abusive testing and some highway cruising the sonata got 24 mpg while the impala came in at an also respectable 22 mpg  (which is a great for a 3.6 liter engine).  But the sonata achieved 41 mpg with cruise control set to 65 mph. Impressive, if you can believe that board computer.

Not Luxury cars yet
Both aren’t luxury cars and that becomes apparent on the freeway. There is noticeable tire and wind noise at speeds above 60 mph. It’s never too intrusive, but it would be nice to have more sound insulation.
Also, the Sonata engine becomes intrusive past 4,000 rpm.  It’s best to use the manual shift function and change gears before and you will have enough thrust without all the noise. Reving the Chevy engine doesn’t sound all that hot either. Keep it to casual cruising and the Chevy engine has the edge.

Sonata scores big with a beautiful Interior
The two tone interior in the sonata was classy and materials and design elements look like they came from a more expensive car. I can’t say much good about the Chevy interior, unless you like the classic look form the early 90’s.
Although short on thigh support, the seats in the sonata are better overall. The Chevy comes standard with power seats and multiple adjustments, but I still couldn’t get comfortable. A big omission in the Chevy is the steering wheel that does not adjust for reach. Makes finding a comfortable driving position a game of luck. Some fit, some don’t, I didn’t. Must I say that the sonata has it standard?

The Impala instrument panel ain't cool. Why buy a 2011 car if it looks like 1992?

Standard equipment
The Sonata GLS (that’s the base car) is well enough equipped for most. Standard are all the safety features you need (same goes for Impala) and Bluetooth. In a time of hands free laws Bluetooth should be standard on all cars. Impala does not have it, unless you get a much more expensive option package.
The impala scores with standard power seats and auto dimming mirrors. But overall the Sonata is one of the few cars under $20,000 that you can take home in “base” configuration and be happy with it.

Handling
The Chevy is best when you drive it leisurely. Around town it makes a good impression with a surprisingly precise steering and a comfortable ride. The engine and transmission are working unobtrusively. Even on the freeway it makes for a pleasurable Sunday morning cruise. It’s not a sports sedan as Chevy claims on their website. Getting the full 211 hp out of the engine is no pleasure and handling limits are easily reached. But, if you drive the Impala like you parents would (or grandparents) there is little to complain about.

The Sonata on the other hand feels tight and sporty form the get go. Responsive steering and suspension makes you think that you are driving a sports sedan – until you do drive it like a sports sedan. At that point the car falls apart quickly, showing even less traction than the Impala and the suspension that seemed tight becomes disconcertingly sloppy. It can however handle 90 mph securely and always feels tighter than impala. “Gripier” tires are badly needed, which I hear come with the more expensive SE version.

I found myself getting bored with the impala about half an hour into testing. The Sonata on the other hand provided more fun and that tells you all you need to know about the differing characters. In fact I started missing the Sonata an hour after I gave it back, I know I was surprised too.

Pick up your date after dark and the Hyundai is sure to impress. The night driving ambiance is better than some cars costing double.

The Impala is wider, the sonata longer
At least that’s how it feels. The interior space of both is good but neither one is excellent. A Honda Accord feels bigger inside. The Chevy offers noticeably more elbowroom and has excellent headroom in the back, The Sonata has less width but more legroom. It feels a bit too narrow, especially on the rear bench and headroom is very disappointing. If you have only short friends fine, but I don’t fit back there.

Who Benchmarked Who?
It seems that Hyundai benchmarked a front wheel drive Audi A4 for handling (with mixed results), an older Lexus for interior (almost there), and the blue interior lights from VW (looks great at night).

The Chevy benchmarked no one and aimed lower. It relies on size (elbow room and large V6) but didn’t quite complete the job. The back legroom is less than in the sonata and the engine is larger but not faster.  In the end Chevy can’t hide the fact that the Impala is based on an outdated everything: engine, automatic, platform, interior. The competition has moved on in the last 15 years, it’s time to shed this pre-bankruptcy design. Look no further than what Ford has done it with the Taurus.

Safety
Both come with the latest safety equipment (ABS, Stability Control, Head Airbags) and scored well in government and insurance crash tests. Finally safety is standard, even in base models. (If you are thinking about a 2009 impala or 2010 Sonata, don’t do it. They don’t offer the same level of protection either because of equipment (Impala) or design (Sonata).

Conclusion
I would spend $20,000 on a family sedan my choice is clear. The sonata feels like a modern sedan that offers a luxurious interior, comfort, enough space and an engine that gets good fuel economy. Add to that a class leading warranty (5 years/ 60,000 miles vs. 3 years/ 36,000 miles for the Chevy) and you got yourself a very attractive car. Hyundai also shows excellent reliably (as judged by Consumer Reports) while the Impala remains below average. Even a base Sonata GLS has enough standard equipment to not feel cheap. How I love progress.

Other cars to consider
I’ve always like the Honda Accord, but it’s getting a bit long in the tooth, especially after seeing and touching the 2011 Sonata. If you like large American sedans the Ford Taurus is a much better choice than the Impala. If you are thinking about the Chrysler 300, wait until January 2011 for the redesigned an improved version. Toyota Camry is also getting old. Wait for the re-design in the spring of 2011.

————————————-

Bonus 
Craig’s Wish List. Here I’m dishing out some advice for Chevy and Hyundai as if headquarters were listening. Hey, I’ll work for free if you let me.

Craig’s Wish List if Hyundai were listening:
Easy Stuff to fix:
1.    Re-design the driver door armrest to intrude less. Knee room is tight as it is (the center stack is intruding to the right) so every quarter inch of additional space would make a big difference
2.    Better tires. The handling limits are very low. It becomes embarrassing after a while to corner with complaining tires. 16 inch wheels on skinny 205 tires is just not enough for sportier driving (or short breaking distances). Guess I should step up the SE models with the 18 inch tires for $3,000 more. Damn you, I want a car under 20K.

Harder Stuff:
1.    Give me more headroom in the back. If I (or someone who is 6’2) would buy a Sonata I couldn’t sit in the back of my own car, which does not make me feel good. Why did I get a family sedan over a coupe? Because of the additional space it offers. Might as well sit in the back of my Audi A5 (which I refuse).
2.    The car needs to be wider. Adding two inches on each side would greatly increase the feeling of spaciousness. It would also lead to more confident handling. The sonata feels a bit too narrow and long. I know, officially it’s a full size sedan, but proportions matter.

Craig’s Wish List if Chevy were listening:
Easy Stuff to fix:
1.    There is no easy stuff. The car is outdated and needs to be completely re-designed inside and out. If you want to keep the retro interior, go cool retro this time. That means use design elements, not the exact design from two decades ago. Have you ever seen a woman who still wears 80’s hair? Not cool if she had that style since the 80’s.
2.    If you want to continue producing the current impala, go figure out a way to sell it for $16,000. You can always sell on price and at that price nobody can offer a full size sedan. I can see the marketing slogan already: “Old school car for old school price”.

Harder Stuff (Which is easy once you re-design the car):
1.    More Legroom in the back: the current car is big but does not have the wheelbase for enough knee room. A 1994 Dodge Intrepid has more space. A larger wheelbase will also fix that awkwardly long trunk. Total cubic footage might be grand, but have you tried to climb in to load it?
2.    Put that foot break in a place where it isn’t in the way each time I get out of the car. Why is it sticking up that much? Get more room in the foot well and place it further away from my legs. I’m sick of getting my jeans stuck in it. Or my new shoes scratched.
3.    Get a proper modern automatic. Six speeds are coming down in prices since virtually all luxury cars are now switching to 8 speeds. This is your chance to get in on the cheap. I know you are already working on this as we speak.

As you can see from the EPA web site, the 528i gets slightly better gas mileage than the Corolla. Sorry for the unclear screen shot.

The new 2011 528i is getting some stellar EPA fuel efficiency numbers. In fact, the 22 city/ 32 highway rating is so good that it’s beating the 2010 Toyota Corolla (2.4l 4 cylinder), which gets the same 22 mpg in the city but only 30 mpg on the highway. A luxury car has better fuel efficiency than an economy car? Talk about progress. (2011 Corolla EPA numbers are not yet available, but should stay the same)

The numbers become more impressive if you keep in mind that the 528i is much bigger, weights about 1200 lb more, has a 240 horsepower 6 cylinder, can accelerate in 6.5 seconds to 60, and tops out at 150 mhp. The Corolla is an entry-level compact car with 158 horsepower 4 cylinder designed for cheap operation. Yet the BMW is better on gas. Love it!

I suspect that the new (and excellent) BMW 8 speed automatic combined with the re-worked engine that is now making more power and torque are leading to the stellar numbers. BMW is employing various other technologies to bring fuel consumption down, but I don’t want to sound like a BMW commercial.
If you don’t like my Corolla example (because of the 2.4l engine) consider that the 528i gets the same gas mileage as a 2010 VW Jetta (25 mpg combined) and is better than a 2011 Dodge Calliber (24 mpg), or an 2011 Audi A3 2.0T (24 mpg).

Although I not a big fan of the 2011 5 series (it has lost it’s fun and sporty character), I must admit that the EPA numbers are very impressive. It easily beats the entire BMW lineup, including the much smaller 128i and Z4. Only the 335d diesel is better, but not by much (26 mpg combined vs. 25mpg for the 528i).

Looking forward for this new engine and 8 speed automatic to show up in the rest of the BMW lineup. Nice job BMW.

update: It looks like the 2012 528i will be even more fuel efficient with a turbo 4 cylinder probably coming soon. I’ll try to get my hands on one for a test …

The Audi Q5 is attractive and borrows some of the swooping lines from the A5 coupe. Check out the lines on the door.

The Q5 is generally considered to be one of the best small luxury SUVs. It’s also viewed as a “chick” car. So, can the Audi Q5 impress a guy? On a three day test drive I put the car though the ringer and a wet gravel parking lot (not what the Q5 liked). A small luxury SUV should be comfortable, competent, and fun. I found it to be competent, but not as comfortable as it should and not as much fun as it could.

For enthusiast drivers the Q5 has limited appeal. The 2.0T engine lacks consistency. Off the line it hesitates, at 4,000 rpm you get a kick in the head, and past 5,000 rpm it runs out of steam. Talk about inconsistent power delivery. Plus, under full acceleration the automatic keeps the engine above 5,000 rpm, which creates a lot of noise but not much thrust. The automatic routinely shifted before the 6,800 redline even with the gas pedal pinned to the floor. Why even have such a high redline?

The Handling is great on curvy roads. The stiff suspension delivers well-balanced and sporty handling. I raced up on a wet and slippery Highway 9 near Los Gatos, CA with utter confidence (I had the optional lager 19 inch wheels, but not a sports package). An Audi A4 (the basis for the Q5) will under steer more than this heavier Q5. The precise steering and well-sorted suspension almost makes you forget that this is an SUV. Almost. On fast bumpy curves the top-heaviness becomes apparent. Other than that it’s fun to drive, even with the lower grip all season tires.

For mall duty the engine feels strong. Let’s be honest. Most buyers will dive it to the mall, not race up mountain passes like I did. It’s a pleasant run-about that has the typical buttoned down German sports sedan feeling. The engine pulls nicely – if you are slowly easing into the gas. Depressing it ¼ of the way produces good acceleration and makes the car feel faster than it really is. Once you adjust to the delayed engine response it has enough passing power to handle any situation.

But, the ride is too harsh for a luxury vehicle. Cruising on anything but smooth roads creates harsh impacts and even small road undulations register with a low frequency thumping. It seems that the structure of the Q5 resonates too much. Some more sound-engineering is needed. If feels unfinished. Not premium. Disappointing.

The engine sounds like a downgrade. Driving the Q5 2.0T there is always this nagging feeling that you have a lesser engine. It might pull strongly, but it also vibrates and sounds like a 4 cylinder (or a modern diesel for that matter). The engine is quieter than what I remembered from an A4, but it will never be confused with much smoother BMW or Mercedes 6 cylinders. At this price level I expect strong AND smooth engines. Audi, if you need to offer a 4 cylinder, then sell them at a nice discount. Charging the same for a lesser engine feels like margin improvement on the back of consumers. Think about upgrading to the V6 (for $3,100 more) if you want a better, faster, smoother engine.

The Q5 looks bigger on pictures. In reality it's not that big, four fit well but not five.

The Font Seats need improvement and the rear bench is adjustable in the wrong direction. I didn’t like the front seats. They don’t offer enough lateral support for faster driving or enough thigh support. Was the Q5 designed for short female drivers? I need sports seats in a sporty SUV. The back row is adjustable, which is a great idea. Unfortunately, it is already tight in the furthest back setting, so who would want to move it up closer? It’s pretty much a useless feature. Same goes for the back recliner. But it looks good in the marketing materials.

The buttons around the shifter look good on pictures but the placement is ergonomically challenged

Ergonomics are upsetting. Who decided to put the radio volume button next to the shift lever over on the passenger side? Why sprinkle the buttons form the MMI around the shift lever and force drivers to look down while driving? The ergonomics are infuriating. The buttons should be on the dash, but Audi decided to waste this valuable real estate with an expanse of nothingness and two tiny SIM card slots. WTF? A first year Human Factors student could design a better layout. This isn’t the only Audi that uses this senseless design (mostly when you order the navigation system).  What are you thinking Audi? Are you?

The Q5 is a small but classy. The overall packaging is just right sized for four adults. Adding one more isn’t recommended unless you want to start a fight between your friends.
The general ambiance is classy luxury car, which is what we come to expect from Audi.  The trunk offers good space for shopping trips but forget taking 3 to the airport with an average amount of luggage. Then again all small SUV’s have a small trunk, so that’s what you get for picking a small SUV.

The new 8-speed automatic and 2011 engine are getting better. The new for 2011 8-speed automatic is very good and should have been standard in my 2010 A5. It doesn’t feel as smooth as the new BMW 8-speed, but it shifts quick and crisp.

Gas mileage. That’s one area where the 4 cylinder should shine. In my testing the Q5 averaged 17mpg. My old 2002 745i also averaged 17mpg but had a 325 hp V8 and much more space. So, the gas mileage is SUV typical bad even with a 4 cylinder. Why do you want an SUV’s again? Oh, yeah it’s the higher up seating position, I guess.

Women love it. My lady passenger was smitten with the Q5. She loved the high but not too high seating that makes for easy entry and exit, the classy interior, and the overall quality feel. After a test drive she deemed the Q5 comfortable and spacious enough for a family road trip (I didn’t agree). She also didn’t object to the engine sound as I did … and she hates her Nissan Altima 4 cylinder whine. So there you have it. Women love it. And that is a problem for most guys.

The Q5 is a chick car. When is the last time you saw a guy driving one? For the same reasons women love it, guys don’t want to be seen in it. I was glad that “Audi Courtesy Car” was plastered all over the back.

The Q5 from the back

Conclusion
The precise steering and sporty suspension make this a very well handling SUV. It is fun to drive and offers enough space for four. Unfortunately the unsupportive seats and inconsistent power delivery take some of that driving fun right back. For cruising around town the engine is swell, but the ride is too harsh. What you are left with is an SUV that is not as comfortable as it should and not as sporty as it could.
It is still a compelling package and a fun little car. It grows on you over time, I miss it. If you can live with the steep pricing there is nothing seriously wrong with the Q5. My tester came in at $45,000 with a few luxury options (Premium Plus, Multimedia Package) which gets you navigation, xenon lights, Bluetooth, sunroof, etc., … all the things you need.

Alternatives
If you have sticker shock cross shop a Toyota RAV4 V6. It’s $10,000 to 15,000 cheaper, is faster, and also a chick car. Avoid the 2010 X3 at all costs. It will be replaced with a much better design in December 2010. The Mercedes GLK looks more butch and appears to be a good alternative if you like things more comfortable and less sporty. I wonder how many female Subaru Outback drivers will trade for a GLK.

Or, for the same price as a Audi Q5 you can get the brand new and excellent 2011 Grand Cherokee. Fully loaded with “trail rated” batch, V8 and leather it’s about 45K, just like my Q5 tester. That would be my choice of SUV: big, luxurious, and masculine.

Audi Q5 2.0T in short:
Great handling and steering even without a sports package
Smart packaging and space for four adults
Engine is strong, but lacks refinement
Difficult to understand ergonomics take a step back in time
Pricy with popular luxury options
Seats are unsupportive. Audi, we need sport seats
Stiff ride, annoying resonance noises from the structure
“Chick car”, if you are concerned about that

————————————————————————————-

Bonus Feature

“Craig’s Wish List” for the Audi Q5 2.0T. If Audi were listening here is what I would change:

Easy Stuff to fix:
1.    Install sports seats. You probably think that only short-legged timid woman are buying the Q5. Then why would you set up the suspension like it’s an S4? Make it a complete package by springing for better seats. You have plenty good ones in the existing Audi/ VW inventory to choose from.

2. Fire the guy who made the button placement decisions. And get back to the ergonomics that make sense, not the ones that look good in pictures.

Harder Stuff to fix:
1.    Audi, you need to get rid of the annoying resonance noises. Don’t skimp on insulation and sound engineering. The Q5 does not feel premium yet. Didn’t think I noticed? Yes I did.
2.    Fix that turbo lag in your 2.0T engines. And make it pleasurable to rev past 5,000 rpm. I’ve heard Hyundai nailed it with their new 2.0 turbo engine in the Sonata. And as always BMW figured it out a while back.  But I’m sure you already know that.
3.    What’s up with that sliding rear bench? Why does it only slide forward? I though the point was to get additional knee room, not take it away. Audi, you need to figure out a way to increase rear legroom. I know the rear wheel wells are in the way, but you designed that not me. Find a way, I know you can.

This comparison seems ridiculous, after all the M3 is a small light coupe and the X6 M a heavy truck like vehicle. But hear me out. Last weekend I attended the BMW M-Power driving event in Half Moon Bay, CA and had a chance to test both vehicles back to back. Before I could drive BMW staff explained to us how the X6 M is a worthy “M” or Motorsport vehicle because:
a) it has the same performance level as the M3
b) it was developed on the Nuerburg Ring by BMW’s Motorsport division.

So, did BMW create a larger M3 or just another way to separate well heeled SUV lovers from their money?

On paper the M3 and X6 M have striking similarities.

Both go from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, both go 155 mph top speed, both wear the “M” badge, both seat only 4, and both have a small trunk. So, you still think you can’t compare them?

Meet the X6 M
The X6 M is big, heavy and you sit up high.  Not what you expect from a sports car. When you get inside it feels just right, not too small and not too big with a generous helping of luxury car interior. The back it surprisingly tight for such a large vehicle, but hey, we’re here to drive not to lounge in the back.

With 555 hp and all wheel dive the X6 should be fast. And it is. The engine pulls strongly right way, well, there is a bit of turbo lag. The engine revs to only 6,400 or so, it’s not a high strung race car engine, like a M3 is. But it has near instant power and torque, and plenty of it.

As I turn on Highway 1 while flooring the gas the X6 M shows perfect traction, even in the wet on somewhat worn out tires. Wow, this will be fun.

On the mountainous section of the road course I took no prisoners and pushed the car to its limits. Traction and stability control barely intervened even on wet roads. Usually all wheel dive goes hand in hand with under steer.  But not in this X6 M. It’s neutral in corners and under steers just as much (or as little) as the M3. The all wheel dive allows you to power out of corners, where the M3 would slide and slow down. All wheel drive without under steer is is awesome! I’m glad it was raining that day. Exploring  the limits is much safer on slippery roads – you need less speed to play.

Body motions are very well controlled and overall the X6 M makes the impression that chassis engineers sweated all the details. It allows for secure and very fast driving.

But, there are some problems with the X6 M

One disappointment is the engine. Yes it’s strong at 555 hp and 500 lb of torque, but  it’s missing the aural excitement. It just doesn’t make the right noises. What’s missing is the race car soundtrack and power delivery. It’s not reving high enough, it’s not in tune with a race car experience. It feels like somebody bolted two turbos to a regular engine to bump up the power and then called it a day.

And yes, there is turbo lag if you are looking for it. Disappointing was also a droning noise around 2,000 rpm. This is a $90,000 car and droning is for economy cars. That’s not sporty, that’s just a lack of refinement. Also, the X6 M is much smaller inside than you expect with terrible rear visibility. Why not just get the X5 M? It’s pretty much the same car with much more useful packaging.

Meet the M3

The M3 by comparison feels small, thin, and spartan. The 3 series interior is noticeably aging and my tester (without iDrive) looked like a stripped down race car with minimalist approach to material and options. It also had a very unfortunate interior color combination of light blue leather and brushed aluminum that was visually jarring.

The interior of the M3 is a bit plain. It's tough to tell on this pic but the blue leather and brushed aloy look is not a pretty combo

Did you say race car? The M3 feels like a one. From the moment you start it, the moment you carefully set off (while the BMW staff is still in sight) and the moment you shift the excellent DSG and hear the addictive sounds of rev matching on downshifts.

The M3 launches not as hard as the X6 M, but once you get past 6,000 it becomes frantic and powerful. It’s addictive, just like all other race-bred engines. First, it’s slower than you think, then it’s faster than you can shift. 

The M3 has much less grip than the X6 M. You learn not to floor the gas immediately, especially in corners or wet roads. Even in a straight line or on slighly uneven pavement you got to be careful. Once the engine is on full blast at about 6,000 rpm you will looses traction. Thank god for traction control. Anyways, the X6 M has superior grip, no question. You have to drive the M3 with more finesse and foresight.

There is nothing wrong with the X6 M  – if you never drive the M3. But if you do, you will understand why every race car strives to be lower and lighter. The M3 reflexes are immediate, the car seems springy and responsive. Reminds me of a young and energetic dog that is always up to play. The X6 M can also play, but it just does not come as natural.

Why less mass is better becomes apparent in fast corners. Where the X6 M feels good at 50 mph the M3 takes the same corner with 70 mph and begs for more. Even at the limits of traction the M3 is begging for more. How can a car “beg” for more? It just seems that your could add more speed to any driving situation and it would never upset the M3 character.

The mission of the M3 is to be a race car while retaining practicality and some luxury. And it succeeds. It’s exiting to drive, it’s capable, and you can still commute with it. In fact the suspension on the M3 was more forgiving on bad roads than the X6 M stiff legs.

But the M3 isn’t perfect…

M3 does not have the refinement and luxury feel that the X6 M has. The X6 cabin is quieter and noises intrude less. And as I mentioned at the beginning, the interior of the M3 is aging badly.  It becomes apparent that the M3 uses a lesser and older donor platform. Also,  after experiencing the ultimate grip with no under steer in the X6 M, you start to wonder how good an M3 with all wheel drive would be.

Both are fast but have entirely different characters
The X6 M is a luxury SUV that was made to go fast. You can confidently drive it very fast. But it’s not a race car, it’s not as exiting as a M3.

The M3 feels like a race car that’s street legal. It puts a grin on your face when you dive it slow and makes you laugh out loud when you push it hard.

The X6 M proves that you can make a heavy car dance if you throw the right engineers at it. BMW did an excellent job of making you forget that it’s over 5,300 lb with a high center of gravity. Congratulations, your engineering team is world class. But then please remind me again why I want to make an SUV handle like a sports car?

Conclusion
For me the choice is clear. The M3 is an amazing car, even though it’s based on an aging 3 series platform (a new 3 series will be launched fall of 2011). The M3 will be a great car to drive even a few years from now. I just don’t see a big following developing for the X6. Once lighter and faster sports SUVs hit the market this one will probably be forgotten.

If you want an SUV because of the higher driving position (what other reason is there?), but you are pissed off that sports cars rip you off at the traffic light, then get the X6 M. Or if your neighbor happens to have a Cayenne Turbo S, but you have only $90,000 to spend opt for the X6 M (or better yet X5 M).

For the rest of us, for those that enjoy driving fast and enjoy cars in general, there is no substitute. Oh, wait … that’s the tag line of another German car company with fast cars. Get the M3 if you are an enthusiast driver, get the X6 M if you are hell-bent of getting an fast SUV coupe.

The Dodge Charger feels large, sloppy, and bit lazy. It’s not sophisticated in build quality or handling and never pretends to be. There was a very noticeable gap mismatch on the trunk lid. One side was very tight fitting, the other I could almost stick my pinky finger in it. Well, I guess as long as the trunk opens and closes we are in business.

What you get is a big car with lots of sheet metal and an engine that is good, but not great.
Past 5,000 rpm the engine is coarse and you end up lifting off the gas before it gets there. A four speed automatic in a 2009 (and in 2010 models) is an embarrassment and just shows that Dodge does not give a damn. The Charger would be faster, more responsive, and get better gas mileage with a 6 speed automatic. But Dodge needed to save $200 per car. I wonder where else they saved money.

I tried the 178hp V6 base engine previously but the 250 hp 3.5l engine in my tester is the best engine combo for the Charger. The 368 hp V8 is better still, but makes the car too pricey. Checking CarsDirect.com shows that a Charger SXT goes for about 22K, which is a reasonable attractive price. Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, and Hyundai all only offer 4 cylinders in that price range. And I rather have an unsophisticated V6 than a cheap sounding 4-cylinder.

Having said all that the Charger has attractive qualities.
It has that hard to define American brawn to it.  It’s almost feels like a family pickup truck. It does the job and never pretends to be anything more than a workhorse that just gets stuff done.

I liked the higher up driving position and the spaciousness of the cabin. It was reasonably quite on the freeway and around town. Comfortable, but not very sporty, it still retains precise steering.

If you are into driving a bit sportier you definitely need to upgrade the stock tires and rims. They are skinny and offer too little traction for cornering, accelerating, or braking. I had a hoot spinning out the rear end when late May rain made the northern California roads slippery.
Low traction tires + rear wheel drive + enough torque from the V6 = fun over-steer in corners.

There is one thing that prevents me from recommending the car.
No, it’s not reliability, which is about average with this engine (according to Consumer Reports) it’s the disappointing crash test results that make this a deal breaker for me. This is a family car and you want maximum safety for your family, right? According to the IIHS side impact crash protection is only marginal, the second lowest score, and therefore unacceptable in my book. There are many other family sedans at the same price point that protect you better.

The Verdict
I was surprised how much I liked the Charger, regardless of the miss-fitting panels and general sloppiness of the handling. If you are looking for a large family sedan that doesn’t look like one with a V6 when others are offering only a 4 cylinder, consider the Dodge Charger. But, since the crash test results are unacceptable I just can’t recommend it.

The Good
High driving position and spacious cabin
Attractive price for a V6 family sedan

The Bad
The engine is lacking refinement
The 4-speed automatic is a relict
Disappointing side impact crash test results
Sloppy build quality is noticeable in the details

A new and redesigned Charger is due for 2011 model year.

I expect this new Charger car to be much better. With a smoother and faster engine, a six speed automatic, and excellent crash protection. Wait for the new 2011 Dodge Charger before you buy, it will be at dealerships this month.

I didn’t really want to test dive the car, after all it’s just unattractive. And on top of that it’s expensive. Who wants to drive a cross between Minivan and station wagon for almost $70,000?

The BMW GT in all it's beauty ...

Then I took it for a spin. Yes, it’s still ugly and overpriced, but now it sort of makes sense … considering the BMW line up and pricing scheme.

The Good

The car is large inside, think 750i. Font and back offer plenty of room for well-fed adults. The driving position feels like a lowered X5 with great forward visibility. The handling is better than the X5 but still too top heavy for my taste. It doesn’t handle like a 5 series sedan. It’s more like a lowered X5 without a sports suspension.

Although the car is heavy (about 4800lb) the 3.0 turbo engine is all you need. The excellent engine pulls strong and stays smooth in any situation. I also tested the GT with the V8 and although it’s faster the 35i is the best fit for the GT. This isn’t a sports car (and never will be) but the 35i always delivers enough to not feel underpowered. And you’ll save a nice stash of cash over the V8. Plus I do not like the turbo lag in the twin turbo V8 anyways (see my 550i review).

The GT is all about is traveling in comfort. If I could have my pick for a road trip car sitting in the back, I would choose the GT over the X5, 550i sedan and even the 750i.

The Bad

As good as the forward visibility is, the rear window is a joke. Think X6, with a tiny back window that is close to useless.

It would make a great airport shuttle that moves four executives in comfort. However, you need to ask politely to travel lightly – there isn’t much space in the trunk.  The limited trunk space makes it questionable as family vehicle. If you have kids try to fit two strollers before you buy. It looks awfully small back there for a vehicle this size. Why buy a big van when you can’t fit much in the back?

And as I mentioned before the rear end is just plain ugly. I suspect the GT is a slow seller because of the questionable looks. From the front you will confuse it with the 5 or 7 which isn’t a bad thing. All large BMWs seem to have the same corporate BMW face nowadays.

Conclusion

With a mix of Minivan and station wagon the GT ends up looking like an odd compromise. Add prices close to a 7 series but with none of the prestige, and you get a car that is a tough to understand. It’s unclear who would voluntarily spend close to $70,000 on a GT (well equipped).

Other than that I actually like it. It surprised me. It is clearly bigger and better than the X5 and offers 7 series like space and comfort. To sum it up: great engineering, bad styling.

If I was in the market for an SUV because of the great forward visibility I would get the GT over the X5. But, the GT is just plain ugly in the back, and I’m sorry, I just can’t do ugly.

The front isn't bad, but somehow the proportions are just not right

Allstate and the new "Mayhem" TV commercials

In my last auto insurance story I made fun of the annoying Progressive commercials and the fact that every Insurance company claims to have the lowest rates. But I did not really help you choose an honest and decent insurance company. You know, an insurance that does not hassle you when it comes time to pay your claim and does not jack up your rate at any opportunity.

So, what insurance companies are best? Luckily Consumer Reports has just answered my question in the October issue (web subscription or newsstand).

Of the big advertisers you see on TV only State Farm and AAA are above average.
Geico, Allstate, Progressive, and Farmers (not to be confused with State Farm) are in the bottom half. The good news is that none of the companies are truly bad. Even the lowest score of 81 (Commerce Insurance) still represents a “very satisfied” on average.

Here are the top 5 auto insurance companies (based on CR survey):

1.    NJM Insurance Group
2.    USAA Group
3.    Amica Mutural
4.    Auto Owners Insurance Group
5.    State Auto Insurance (NOT State Farm)

And the one to avoid that scored significantly lower than the rest:
22. Commerce Insurance

Bottom Line
Most Insurance companies rate pretty well and statistically speaking none of the big name companies scores much better (or worse) than the other. I have Liberty Mutural for years now and never had a problem with claims or outrageous premium increases (Liberty Mutural scored in the bottom half in the rating).

So, go out and get some new insurance quote. Pick at least four companies to get a quote from. Consumer reports found that most only get one or two quotes, which is just not enough to find the best deal.

How it works
Plug it into your cigarette lighter and it will read the rpm of your engine though the fluctuating current form the alternator. As the engine revs so does the alternator.  The V10 soundtrack will play though your stereo system. A neat technical solution but does it work in practice?

Before I ordered the device I read reviews on Amazon. Some liked it some hated it. So, that wasn’t exactly useful.  I decided to test it myself. Here is what I found.

Does it work?
In my research on Sound Engineering I came across the SoundRacer. This was MY IDEA a few years back and finally somebody overcame the tech challenges to made it a real product. I’ve contacted SoundRacer (a Swedish company) to get a sample for the review you are reading right now.

Once I figured out how to calibrate the system (it’s pretty easy) it became addictive. I started revving the engine everywhere, stayed in low gears and stomped on the gas as much as a could.
The V10 sounds the best just off idle (1000-1500 rpm), and develops into a scream anywhere past 3,000 rpm.

Word of caution. At the beginning you will get addicted to the sounds and rev you engine into stratosphere. After 15 minutes of testing my Audi A5 3.2 engine compartment emitted a wave of hot air and some funny rubber smells. Be careful with older cars as you might just push them to overheat.
As much fun as it was initially the novelty wore off. After one week I barely use it.

Here are the problems:

The sound quality is not good enough
It sounds realistic in idle and it sounds great just off idle (1000-1500 rpm) but once the rpm climbs it’s not good enough to fool anyone. To be host my V6 sounds better than the V10 from the speakers. And my stereo system is pretty good. I tested it in a 2009 Nissan Altima 4 cylinder and it sounded worse.  I also took a 6 year old on a test drive and he liked it, but did not love it. So there you have it. If kids love it you have a winner.

It can’t keep up if you are driving fast
And that was the real deal breaker. I want the sound to change as the rpm change. Driving fast it could not keep up and it took too long to realize when I was shifting.

The only time it tracked accurately was at medium speeds. If you let the engine rev slowly it delivers a V10 sound in sink with the engine speed. But that is an unnatural way to dive. Either you floor the gas and rev high or you take it easy and shift early. Who slowly revs the engine until 5,000 without going fast?

It think this is a great idea, but I’m looking forward to the improved version 2.0.
As it is right now I can’t recommend it because it has limited usefulness. The sound needs to be more realistic and it needs to track the rpm’s quicker especially at gear changes. Other than that, I still love the idea. Please fix it and I’ll be the first to buy one.

You can get the SoundRacer in two versions: V8 and V10. I tested the V10 but the V8 is cheaper and *might* sound more realistic.

Links to Amazon.com:

SoundRacerV10   $49.95
SoundRacerV8   $39.95