In a Nutshell: More or less, but not exactly, a FWD cousin of the RWD Infiniti G35/G37 Coupes.

The Altima nameplate has been in production since the early 1990s, when Nissan introduced the all-new, mid-sized Altima sedan to replace the long-running but not particularly popular Stanza series. Nissan had tried numerous marketing and advertising tricks and incentives (I remember them well) to convince auto shoppers that the Stanza was a better buy than the Accord and Camry (even back then, the Accord, Camry, and Taurus dominated the mid-sized sedan market). Finally, Nissan management just gave up on the Stanza and decided to do an all-new car. The new car was much more rounded style-wise, had far better ergonomics and control layout inside, was well-designed and well-built (though the orange wood trim was rather cheesy), and in general, was one of my favorite sedans of the period, along with the also-new FWD/AWD Subaru Impreza and the 1990-95 generation Mazda Protege (I owned a 1990 Protege).

The new Altima went on to be a general sales success (more so than the Stanza had been), but, predictably, did not sell in Camry/Accord numbers...few cars, of course, did. It was, IMO, a pleasure to drive, with an aura of quality all around it, a nice interior, and a smooth drivetrain. In fact, I thought the first-generation Altima was clearly the best. The second and third-generation models clearly lost a lot of their original solidness, build quality, good reliability record, and pleasant interiors.......especially after Nissan got into financial trouble, was bought out by Renault, and Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn started the now-famous cost-cutting and El Cheapo interiors (and I DO mean CHEAP). The new Ghosn-era Altimas, with their somewhat wierd exterior styling and the insultingly cheesy-looking dash, may have helped Nissan back towards profitability but turned a lot of people off while doing so, though some sports-oriented customers liked the new clear-lens taillights with the red, amber, and clear bulbs inside. The cheapness of the new Altima was by no means limited to that car alone....it affected much of the Nissan-Infiniti lineup at that time.

Nissan, however, did have a long-standing reputation for one thing, though.....the well-designed 3.0L V6. That engine, later increased to 3.5L and 3.7L liter displacements, was on the list of auto enthusiasts' and auto magazine Best Engines for years. It was powerful, smooth, refined, and durable. Even Ghosn, with his cost-cutting, could see that, and wisely did not discontinue it.....the rest, of course, is history, and it had been the Nissan Bread-and-Butter engine ever since. Today, in modified form, it still powers a large percentage of the corporation's vehicles.

In 2001-2002, Infiniti introduced a more-expensive, RWD, more sport-oriented version of the basic Altima platform, known as the G35. A short time later, AWD versions, known as G35X, and two-door G35 coupes were also introduced. All three of them got rave reviews in the auto press (despite cheap interiors) and, among enthusiasts, were compared in many ways to the long-running BMW 3-series. Nissan introduced the long-awaited 350Z on a slightly shortened RWD version of the platform, but, of course, it was marketed as a pure, harder-edged sports car (especially the top-line 350Z Track version) rather than as a sport-sedan or sport-coupe like the G35. The G35 coupe shared the 350Z's basic platform and drivetrain, but had a different interior, dash, slightly longer wheelbase, front and rear styling, a small back seat, a slightly retuned engine, and generally sold to a different crowd and price range from the typical 350Z buyer. Recently the G35 series got the new larger-displacement 3.7L engine...hence the name change to G37.

So now, for 2008, the two-door Altima coupe has been added to this field. Despite the Altima name and FWD layout, It is much different from most Altima sedans to date, though it more or less shares some driving characteristics with the Altima V6 SE-R sport sedan. Its basic styling is roughly similiar to the G35/37 coupe and, a little less so, to the smaller 350Z's....the main differences being in the grille, headlights, and trunk lid. The new Altima coupe, for reasons I don't know (perhaps Renault/Nissan management can tell us), did not get the G37's new engine. My guess is for Infiniti marketing reasons. However, the Altima coupe, even with the CVT, is still no slouch.....it makes do with a plenty-powerful 270 HP version of the 3.5L with 258 ft-lbs. of torque. And Nissan engineers have done an excellent job of integrating this engine, transmission,chassis, FWD layout, and steering system to the point where it produces almost no torque steer, even under heavy throttle, and produces almost RWD-like handling.....at least at lower speeds. More FWD-like understeer sets in as you start to corner harder.....more on that below.

Four versions of the Altima coupe are offered; two four-cylinder 2.5 S models with either 6-speed manual or CVT, and two V6 3.5 SE models with either 6-speed or CVT. Both S and SE lines offer either transmission for the same price. The coupe's interior has been noticeably improved over the previous-generation Altima sedan.....Nissan has been promising better interiors lately, and, as with new Infinitis, apparantly is delivering. The car is not cheap by any means, but is somewhat lower-priced than its brother G37 coupe (perhaps one reason it didn't get the 3.7L).

So, let's take a better look at the car now, in more detail:

Model Reviewed: 2008 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE Coupe

Base price: $25,470

Major Options:
Floor Mats $175
Premium Package: $3200
Aluminum Kick Plates: $85

Destination: $625

List Price as Reviewed: $29,555*

*This particular car was marked up to $31,048 on a second sticker with pin stripes and "Adjusted Market Value"

Exterior Color: Azure Blue

Interior: Blonde Leather (No, I'm not kidding....that's what Nissan calls it)

Drivetrain: FWD, Transverse-mounted 3.5L VVT V6, 270 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 258 ft-lbs. @ 4400 RPM,
Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) with manual mode.


PLUSSES:

Plenty of torque......once the RPM's start building.

Choice of manual or CVT transmission for the same price ($25,470).

Relatively free of torque steer despite FWD layout and high torque.

Nicely done paint job.

Killer Bose stereo.

Extra trunk-lid carpeting helps absorb rear-end noise.

Superlative gauges, buttons, and controls.

Turn signals mounted on outside mirrors (SE only).

Good handling for a FWD chassis.

Well-done brakes.

CVT transmission transmits power nicely.

Easy-to-use, precise shifter.

Much better interior than previous Altima models.

Nice, matte-wood trim (Blonde interiors only).

Exterior trim well-done.

Clever push-button ignition system with battery-run-down reserve key.


MINUSES:

(Apparantly) no Limited-Slip-Differential listed in spec or option sheet.

More understeer than its sister Infiniti G35/G37 coupes.

Only 2 non-dull paint colors (out of 7 offered).

Smallish trunk space.

Cheesy silver steering-wheel trim.

Hood propped up manually with prop rod.

Flimsy outside mirrors.

Outside mirrors on 4-cylinder S version are fixed and do not swivel.

Dummy spare tire and wheel.

Limited front-seat headroom for tall people.

Munchkin-sized rear seat (this is, however, expected in a coupe this size).

V6 engine crammed in underhood much too tightly.

Relatively stiff ride (by my tastes)....again, this is more or less expected in a sporty coupe.

Torque curve somewhat peaky on the v6.


The first impression you get of this car as you walk up to it, not surprisingly considering the way I've described it, is its similarity to the G35/37 coupe and 350Z. It has the same general overall exterior shape, though the grille, headlights, taillights, and trunk lid of the Altima coupe are a little different. The Altima's trunk lid rides up a little higher, in kind of a mini-Chris Bangle sweep, though trunk room is not helped much...more on that in a minute. The grille and headlights are slightly modified versions of what we have seen on some other recent Nissan products, with their trapezoid and up-sweep shapes. But the car, overall, has quite a pleasing shape, and, IMO, is clearly one of the better-looking coupes on the market. The paint work is nicely done, with virtually no orange peel, and a smooth, even application, but was not not particularly shiny in most of the colors I saw there. And, once again, it was mostly funeral home and dentist-office paint colors, including two shades of gray...only the bright Azure Blue and Code Red tended to open your eyes. The doors opened and shut reasonably solidly...my car had the optional ($85) aluminum door kick-plates (they call it aluminum but it was hard to tell if it was real aluminum or plastic).

The exterior hardware and trim is pretty good except for the swiveling, rather flimsy-feeling twin outside mirrors with their built-in turn signal bulbs (base S-model cars get rigid-mounted mirrors with no turn signals). The outside sheet metal is OK...not quite VW/Audi-grade in solidness, but reasonably thick, and the hood and trunk, like the doors, close reasonably solidly.

Under the hood, though, things need some improvement. First, a car in this price range (29-30K) needs something more than a simple, swing-up prop rod to support the hood... the new $17,000 Subaru Impreza, an entry-level car, has twin gas struts. Second, the engineers managed to cram the 3.5 into the limited amount of space, but it is a nightmare (maybe another reason the car didn't get the 3.7). The 3.5 fits in there tighter than Dolly Parton wearing Twiggy's bra. There is virtually no space at all between the sides of the engine and the inner fenders/firewall....this could affect air circulation around the engine for cooling, although I'm sure the engineers have well-tested it in hot weather. What little is otherwise reachable inside the hood is covered up by numerous black plastic covers...only a few things like oil/dipstick and a few fluid reservoirs are exposed. I pity the mechanics, technicians, and some of the car's owners who will actually try and work on an engine like this... the engineers just don't deem to think much about them anymore.

Inside, the car is a noticeable step up from many recent Nissan products. The well-done seats (power for the driver, manual for the passenger) have nice, quality-feeling leather, are well-shaped for support even for wide people like me (though the seat-back cushion is a little short for my tastes) and have nice, convenient intuitive-shaped knobs for operation. Leather or cloth is offered depending on trim and option level. Nissan calls the beige versions of both the cloth and leather "Blonde"...quite unusual. As in many other vehicles, wood-trim goes with the beige, and metallic-trim with the dark interiors. The wood trim on the doors and console was just the way I like it....brown matte-finish, without a lot of gloss, and good-looking, though with perhaps just a little too much swirl to it. The interior hardware, chrome door handles, and controls were almost all well done...the only thing I didn't like, quality-wise, was the cheesy-looking silver paint/texture of the trim on the steering wheel spokes, surrounding the column-mounted buttons. The turn-signal lever could have worked a little more solidly, but was no big deal.

The gauges, in their design, were superb...just about as clear as clear can get, although I have never been a fan of the yellow-orange Nissan/Infiniti dash lighting or of the red-orange in BMW's, Audis and Pontiacs...I tend to like white or the blue shades that VW uses. The dash buttons and controls were clear, well-marked, easy to use, slick-feeling, and, on some of them, had nice chrome rings. The stereo was a killer Bose unit, with easy-to use buttons and controls in this non-Nav car....I mean this was some GOOD sound, almost to the Lexus Mark Levinson level.

Headroom in front, in this low-slung, sunroof-equipped coupe, was pretty much what you would expect... tight, though the wide range of the power controls for the driver's seat and the manual tilt-telescoping steering column allowed me to fit in OK under the low roof. I was not, however, able to fit in as well on the passenger's side because the more-limited manual seat controls did not allow as much freedom of seat motion (I'm 6'2"...more than that with my ubiquitous baseball cap). Legroom was no problem... the front seats go back fine for tall people, though I tend to sit up a little closer than most people my height.

Back-seat room? Forget it. The seat and roofline are clearly not fit for normal adults. Consider the back seat either a shelf to lay your packages, a seat for small children, or for very small adults at best. However, to be fair, one does not expect... or get.. a Suburban when you buy a relatively small or mid-sized coupe.

Back in the trunk, it is quite well-finished, with several pieces of nice gray carpeting on the floor, sides, and an extra one on the underside of the lid itself to help absorb road noise. Unlike the hatchback 350Z, the Altima Coupe has a separate trunk lid, and, in this particular design, it limits the trunk-height size somewhat. The trunk is fairly wide and long, but is shallow, and tall items don't fit in well. Pull up the carpet and spare-tire cover on the floor and you are greeted with an ubiquitous dummy-spare and wheel instead of a real wheel and tire....another shortcoming, IMO, in a $30,000 car.

OK, along with the SE-R sedan, this is the driver's Altima, so let's do that......drive. The Altima coupe is up-to-date in the ignition department......with the proximity key witihn 30 feet, put your foot on the brake, hit the dash-mounted button, and Old Faithful 3.5 fires right up after a couple of seconds and settles into a smooth but not particularly quiet idle...being a sport-oriented car, the engineers, of course, gave the exhaust line some noise. The "key" has an ingenious electronic feature that gives you an emergency start, without jumping, if the car's battery goes dead.....plug it into the computer-port under the dash, hit the button, and you get just enough power in the ignition system to crank the starter over and allow you to drive to the nearest repair shop. Nifty idea....jump starts, while they ususally work, can be hard (and risky) on modern car electronic systems. It's usually best to avoid them wherever possible.

The 3.5 engine is a real gem, and fully deserving of the accolades it has gotten through the years, although the torque curve in the tuning of this particular version was a little peaky for my tastes. There's plenty of power (accompanied by the sporty exhaust drone) to shove you well back in your seat, but you have to get to about 3000-3500 RPM to start to feel it....roughly like turbocharging. Even when the power comes on, though, there is little if any torque steer...certainly not the levels seen in previous high-powered FWD Nissans. There is plenty of reserve power at higher road speeds, and while this is not the fastest coupe out there, it is far from embarrassing...it will definitely get out of its own way.

The CVT transmission in my test car was smooth, quiet, unobtrusive, and efficient, although the typical rubber-banding, "motorboat" drivetrain effect common to many CVT's was not entirely absent. In the automatic-Drive position, the RPMs would climb first, then the car's speed would pick up....sometimes quite rapidly. But, in the manual-shift-gate position, the engineers, like on some other CVT's, have programmed in several "gear" ranges that simulate a conventional automatic. Push of pull the lever back and forth with the (+) and (-) marks and the transmission feels like it is shifting gears as it goes up and down in drive ranges. I had some misgivings at first about the transmission's potential durability (Ford recently dropped its CVT's from the AWD V6 Five Hundred/Taurus and replaced it with a conventional 6-speed auto ), but Audi has used CVT's in high-powered V6's for awhile without a lot of problems.....so, only time will tell with this car. The transmission's shifter was smooth, precise, crisp, well-designed, and had a solid feel.

I did not see an LSD (Limited-Slip-Differential) listed anywhere on the spec or option sheet, but the car felt, for the most part, like it didn't need one. Cornering, with the low stance and low center of gravity, was flat, with a minimum of body roll, and I can't imagine raising an inside front wheel in this car in anything approaching sane driving. Steering feel was quite light and feathery at parking-lot speeds, but increased noticeably with road speed, though you would not mistake it for a BMW or Porsche. Steering response, for a front-driver, was quite good, especially at lower speeds, where the front end would respond almost instantly, but as speed increased, the differences between this car's FWD layout and the G35/37's RWD layout became more pronounced...even with the Sport Suspension standard on the V6 SE model, the Altima coupe started to show more understeer as cornering speeds got higher and you started to push it more. It was not severe or mushy by any means (in fact, it was quite good), but just a little more noticeable than on the RWD Infinitis.

The ride, as you would expect of a sport-oriented coupe, was rather stiff (for my tastes), but not quite sports-car stiff...it was noticeably less firm than its pure sports-car brother 350Z, especially the 350Z Track model. I would recommend avoiding rough roads with it, but on a smooth surface, there is no problem. And compared to some cars with rock-hard suspensions I've driven like the Mitsubishi Evo and early-generation Miatas, the ride was not bad at all. And the noise level, outside of the occasional bark of the sporty exhaust on hard acceleration, was not bad either....partly due to the extra insulation under the trunk lid helping to filter out road noise in back and the fairly well-sealed doors helping out with wind noise.

The brakes were pleasant to use, too......quick response, fairly firm pedal without much sponginess, good pedal spacing for big feet and shoes, evenness of feel/modulation, and the usual electronic baking aids common nowadays on higher-performance cars. However, in a panic stop (though I didn't actually try one), the more weight-balanced G35/37 and 350Z would probably stop in a shorter distance.....their RWD platforms let the rear wheels do a little more of their share of the braking loads as opposed to the nose-heaviness of a FWD layout, with the car even more nose-heavy as the weight transfers forward on hard braking. Still, for most normal, sane driving, the Altima coupe's brakes perform very well, especially for a FWD layout.

The Verdict?

Nissan, IMO, has done an outstanding job of producing what is essentially a more affordable alternative to the G37 coupe. Both are good-looking, have plenty of power, are reasonably well-built, and have sharp steering and handling....though the G37's slightly greater HP/torque and RWD layout (with the possibility of AWD to come), as described above, gives it a little less understeer and a little more response when you push it hard. (I base this on my experience with the G35 ad M35.....I have not actually driven a G37). Both have nice, tasteful, well-done interiors....much better, IMO, than that of the 350Z. And neither car, while not exactly Town-Car plush, rides quite as stiff as the 350Z either. Though the ride with the SE's sport-tuned suspension was still a little stiff for my tastes, overall I enjoyed driving the Altima coupe. The dead-battery function on the ignition key is a good and clever idea. Quality-wise, it is much better than most other recent Nissan products, though a few cheesy things like the hood prop-rod, the flimsy outside mirrors, and dummy spare tire-wheel still remain. And the way the V6 engine is crammed in and sealed off underhood could use a big improvement....a major target, perhaps, for the next redesign.

If you don't need the slightly more balanced handling at the limit that the RWD G37 gives, or the wet/snow traction that the AWD G37, soon to debut, will give, I highly recommend looking at this car before buying its more expensive cousins. Its power and handling is everything you could want short of track conditions, the price is not cheap, but very reasonable for what you get (though dealer price-gouging could be a problem while the car is still new), and parts and service is likely to be less than for the G37. Insurance, however, is a question mark (?)... both are high-powered coupes. Still, there are lots worse ways in the automotive world to spend $30,000.

In a Nutshell: Roadster fun, with easier entry/exit than Japanese competitors, but so-so overall build quality and several poorly-designed features.

It is no secret that the original 2-seat British sports cars of the late 1940's through the 1960's were quaint and fun to drive, but also quirky, almost defenseless against the elements, and notoriously unreliable as well. The main problem was the horrendous British Lucas electrical system, but other serious problems were present as well, such as poorly-designed gaskets that let engine and powertrain fluids leak out like a sieve, Munchkin-sized interiors that were unfit for the average American male....especially on the MG Midget, and ill-fitting side curtains that made even light rain seem like driving through Niagara Falls. Wheels, carburators, mirrors.....you never knew what was going to come apart or fly off these cars with little or no warning (yes, even wheels were known to fly off while driving).

Well, fun to drive or not, eventually most Americans simply stopped buying these vehicles because of the poor quality, and as the market for these cars dried up one by one, their parent British companies pulled out of the American market....all except for Lotus. The Triumph TR8, with its wedge shape and Buick-built aluminum V8 engine, was the last of the original ones sold here (1981-82). The equally unreliable and poorly-made Italian Fiat, Lancia, and Alfa Romeo roadsters (but also equally fun-to-drive) followed suit...their parent companies also either packed up and left or dropped these models from the American market.

However, by the late 1980s, nostalgia for these cars, and the increasing reliability of modern computer design and Japanese engineering, led to the hugely successful Mazda Miata....to date, the world's best-selling 2-seat roadster. There is no need for me to cover the Miata's success in detail.....most of you are already well aware of it. The Miata combined all the charm of the old British sports cars with the reliability of new Hondas and Toyotas (for years it has been one of Consumer Reports' Ten Best in reliability). The Miata also introduced a snap-to-use top so simple a monkey can do it.

Other competitors followed.....the mid-engine Toyota MR2 (which actually predated the Miata in 1985), and the Honda S2000, which introduced substantially more power but torque peakiness as well. The Mercury Capri, based on the old Mazda 323 platform, was the first domestic-badged attempt along these lines, but was unsuccessful primarily due to its production in a low-quality Australian plant.

Which, of course, now brings us to the latest (and more up-to-date) domestic attempt to compete with the Miata....the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky twins. They are marketed as twins, and are in fact based on a common platform and drivetrains, but the exterior styling of both is quite different (I personally prefer the Sky's styling to the Solstice's, but that is an individual choice). Actually, they can be considered triplets, if you include the Vauxhall VX Lightning, a strictly-European version of this platform... he Vauxhall's exterior styling is pretty close to the Saturn's.

The Solstice and Sky, to date, have been successful, but have not sold in the Miata's huge numbers yet. Like the Miata, when first introduced last year, high initial demand and low supply meant dealer price-gouging. A friend of mine, in September 2006, was extraordinarily fortunate to get a new Solstice with just the colors and options he wanted, at list.....it was even sitting in the showroom just a short distance away (he is a minister...I don't think that was a coincidence). I went along and checked the car out for him (see the associated story and mini-review I posted at the time).

The Sky Red Line was the specific request I got for this review...and the availability of them on dealer lots right now is more than I expected. The closest Saturn dealership to my house (only about 3 miles) had 3 turbos and 3 non-turbos in stock (but only one of them was actually on their inventory web site), so they are generally there for the taking. When I got there, they were not allowing ANY of the Skys in stock to be test-driven....turbo or non-turbo. When I told them I was a free-lance auto writer and was looking at the cars by specific request, though, it was another matter. First they asked me if I wanted to take the base, non-turbo model out (but still no turbo test-drives), so I said sure....and I did (after a through examination, of course).

Then, when I brought the non-turbo model back, the sales manager came out and asked if I wanted to sample the turbo. I said sure, but I had been told no earlier. He said "I'm the boss here, Mr. Marshall, not the guy you were with earlier". He tossed me the keys and a dealer license plate and said "Bring it back in a reasonable amount of time and don't damage it." So, out I went... again... and was careful to note both the similarities and differences of both versions.

So, how do the two versions compare with each other... and their competition? Read on.

Model Reviewed: 2008 Saturn Sky Redline (Turbo)

Base price: $29,175

Major Options:
18" chrome wheels: $545
Leather seats: $475
Monsoon Audio System: $395
Spoiler: $275

Destination: $620

List Price as Reviewed: $31,485*

*Suggested list. Saturn dealers can set their own list.

Exterior Color: Chili Pepper Red

Interior: Black Leather

Top Color: Black

Drivetrain: RWD, 2.0L turbo/intercooled, Direct Injection, VVT-i, in-line 4, 260 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 260 ft-lbs. @ 2500-5200 RPM,
5-speed manual transmission, Limited-slip differential.


Model Reviewed: 2008 Saturn Sky (Base)

Base Price: $25,040

Major Options:
Premium Trim Package (Includes Leather): $750
18-inch Chrome Wheels: $795
Monsoon Audio System: $395

Freight: $620

List Price as Reviewed: $27,600* (see above)

Exterior Color: Black Onyx

Interior: Black Leather

Top Color: Black

Drivetrain: RWD, 2.4L, VVT-i, in-line 4, 172 HP @ 5800 RPM, Torque 167 ft-lbs. @ 4500 RPM,
5-speed manual transmission.


PLUSSES:

Serious power and minimal turbo lag from the Red Line version.

Short-throw, easy-to shift manual transmission.

Flat cornering with good steering response in both versions.

Well-insulated, high-quality convertible top.

Better-than-average paint job for a GM product.

Relative ease of entry/exit for big and tall people.

Fluid reservoirs easy to reach underhood.

Well-done brakes.

Ultra-short turning radius.

Comfortable, well-supportive seats.

Nice paint color choice.

Well-designed interior control layout.

Nice 3-spoke steering wheel design and quality.

Good climate control and A/C.

Relatively quiet for a roadster with top up.

Not quite as cramped inside as Japanese competitors.

No noticeable cowl shake.


MINUSES:

Minimal (?) rollover protection.

Poorly designed and inconvienent top-folding mechanism.

Somewhat coarse and unrefined engines.

Primary gauge tunnels too deep.

Steering wheel rim hides upper gauges for tall people.

No standard locking gas cap...it is a separate option.

Poorly designed, awkward hood and hinges.

Flimsy, awkward exterior mirrors.

Bring back the Saturn plastic, dent/rust proof body panels.

Ridiculous extra cost for yellow paint.

Typical GM interior with El Cheapo plastic and surface glitz/chrome.

Small, flimsy glove box in the dash (a second one is between the seats).

Relatively stiff ride (for my tastes).

No analog temperature gauge, even on Red Line version.

High insurance premiums for 2-seaters....especially the turbo.


The first impression you get of this car, as you walk up to it, besides its obvious small size, is its more or less uniqueness in the styling department, despite being a corporate "twin" of the Pontiac Solstice. The rear end is not unlike that of the Solstice, but the front end is far different....and IMO far better-looking. The up-slanted headlights are somewhat reminiscent of a Corvette or Viper, but the upper/lower grilles and large cutouts for the fog lights are unique. The ultra-low front bodywork and side sills make it almost impossible to get a hose underneath the car far enough to flush off the underbody... but most people don't drive a car like this in snow or road salt conditions anyway. In fact, many people in snowy climates with rear-drive roadsters park them in garages and don't drive them at all during the winter...their re-emergence in March or April is one of the signs of spring.

Anyhow, IMO, the body lines are smartly done... I don't have many complaints with the car's overall looks. Paint-wise, there are the usual funeral-hearse shades and some nice bright colors as well... Sunburst Yellow, Bluestone, and Chili Pepper Red. The quality of the paint jobs I saw, especially the Chili Pepper Red, is better than average for a GM product. That color, especially, was smooth, even, glossy, and almost totally devoid of orange peel. The Black Onyx had some orange peel, but still not bad. But WHY does the Sunburst yellow have to cost extra? It probably doesn't cost any more to actually paint a car that color than it does any other, in contrast to European automakers' habit of charging extra for metallics, which DO cost more to paint with.

Exterior hardware is another matter. The twin outside mirrors are too small, use too flimsy a plastic (typical GM), and are quite difficult to easily snap back and forth on their swivel-stops. The general outside trim and door handles are acceptable in quality but nothing to write home about. The chrome bar on the front grille, though is not bad....it looks and feels classy. There is a reverse fender-scoop just behind each front wheel that is strongly reminiscent of classic Ford Mustangs... that, of course, doesn't hurt the looks any. The optional chrome wheels on both of my test cars looks nice and classy with their mag-style five spokes. The low-profile 45-series 18-inch tires, of course, contribute to the car's low stance, but are pretty much expected in a car of this type....especially on the Red Line version.

Up front, the design of the hood, IMO, is one of the car's major problems. The hood is hinged at the front, which is normally no big deal (many sports cars have that feature), but the WAY it is hinged is the problem. The two hinges are relatively close together at the center of the hood....mounted to a bracket in front of the engine. When you raise the hood from the back (you must remember to shut the door first, or it will bind), it wobbles back and forth slightly on the narrow hinges. Fully open, of course, it blocks access to front-mounted components. Then, when you lower the hood back down, you must, of course, again make sure the doors are shut.....then it wobbles back down again on the narrow hinges, and you have to carefully hold it in place as it closes to make sure it align correctly with the body panels and latches properly. In plain English, it's an unnecessary inconvenience and a pain in the a * *. Under the hood itself, though, the longitudinally-mounted in-line four, in both turbo and non-turbo form, actually fits in pretty good (the Solstice-Sky platform was specifically designed FOR this engine block, despite the attempts of aftermarket tuners to stuff in V6 and even V8 powerplants). The turbo version actually has a smaller displacement than the non-turbo....2.0 liters to 2.4. Most of the clear plastic engine fluid-level containers were readily accessible along the sides, but the engine-oil dipstick was buried low on the left-rear of the engine block. A gray plastic cover blocks some things on top of the engine, but it is becoming harder and harder to find engines without them nowadays.

The cloth convertible top, which comes in two colors (black or tan) was exceedingly well-made, and IMO was easily one of the car's best features. The cloth felt durable, thick, very well-lined and insulated (the test-drive proved this), and came with a heated glass rear window. Unfortunately, the poorly-designed, inconvienient, manual top-lowering mechanism and stowage compartment was another one of the car's major problems... here is one area where the Mazda Miata just CLOBBERS this car. In the current Miata, you just reach up, unsnap one lever above the windshield, flip the top up and over with your right arm without even getting out of the seat, and push the top back down behind you. Not in this car... no comparison. You take the key fob and press a button... that unlocks two catches behind the rear window. Then you unsnap two different levers under the roof with a pull-out-and-twist motion. Then you have to get out of the car, pull up the rear-hinged "trunk" cover, lift the roof up and over, carefully lower it into his housing, then flip the trunk cover back down again, cover the folded-up roof, and then flip both of the double-clip covers back down to complete the operation. Then, of course, when it is time to put the top back up, the whole operation is done in reverse. Perhaps that is why the Miata handily outsells this car... and its brother Solstice, which has more or less the same top-fold mechanism.

Which leads us to the car's third major problem....the lack, or apparent lack, of any real roll-over protection behind the seats. The car apparently met DOT standards for convertible rollover protection, but I don't know how. It has neither a roll-bar behind the seats, nor the G-force-induced pop-up bars that you find on more expensive convertibles, nor does it have a teapot-handle device like on the PT Cruiser convertible. It does have two small humps on the top-compartment cover behind the seats, but they are neither reinforced nor even as high as the tops of the seat headreats themselves. Of course, the flip side (no pun intended) to this is that ultra-low-slung cars like this, with their extremely low centers of gravity, are quite resistant to roll-overs to start with, so unless you are sliding sideways at a good clip and the tires hit a curb or hang up on something, chances are it won't happen.

Inside, I had mixed opinions. Open the doors and get in. Entry/exit is noticeably easier than in the Miata or MR2......GM apparently shaped the doorsills, rooflines, and seat mounting for taller people. The seats themselves have fairly nice leather, are quite well-shaped, and are well-supportive for big, tall guys...I was well-pleased with their comfort level. But the manual seat controls were awkward, the knobbly ratchet-wheel for seat rake was almost impossible to find and use (it was hidden behind the seat back in a small slot), and, like with most 2-seat roadsters, there really was no place for the seat back to recline without sliding the bottom cushion too far forward.

The interior, for the most part, on both models I reviewed, was just basic black, with some chrome and metallic trim on a few of the knobs and trim pieces. A two-tone black and red leather interior is shown in the brochure, but I didn't see it on Saturn's web site (perhaps I just missed it). Tan leather (or black cloth) is also available. Most of the interior hardware and controls/knobs are the typical GM budget-grade plastic, though with a few nice touches and a couple of chrome rings. The steering wheel is a step above the rest of the interior in quality and looks, but its top hides the fuel gauge when it is in the full-up position (adjusted manually). I couldn't find a telescope function, and it isn't listed.

I was also pleased with the layout of the stereo and climate controls, which were simple, well-designed, and easy to use. Like on the VW R32 I reviewed last week, you can see all the pre-set stations at once before you press the button for each one....they remain on continual display. The stereo itself, though......while it was not bad, I've heard better, especially considering that both cars I drove had the optional ($395) Monsoon system. Like I said, it is not necessarily a bad sound system, but I did miss the Lexus Mark Levinson units while in this car. This car, with the well-made soundproofing of its convertible top, could use a nice sound system....it doesn't get drowned out by road and wind noise like in many ragtops with the top up.

The primary gauges were clear and round, and generally well-designed, though I didn't care for their yellow-orange coloring at night, like on big-brother Saturn Aura. the numerals were easy to read, but both cars I reviewed lacked a temperature gauge...puzzling in a sports car. The non-turbo model had black-faced gauges with white numerals; the turbo model had lower-black-faced gauges with white upper-parts, and the same white numerals. Both models had the primary gauges set too deeply into circular tunnels...it was sometimes hard to see tham at an angle.....and, for tall people like me, the rim of the steering wheel obscured the fuel gauge at the top.

Headroom, with the top up, and legroom were also pretty good in this car, considering it is a small roadster. Both the Solstice and Sky noticeably outdo the current-generation Miata in both categories....and the current-generation Miata noticeably outdoes its own predecessors as well (the original Miata, like the MG Midget and the Lotus Elise, was basically a car for gremlins). In essence, (and not surprising, since it was designed by GM), the Solstice/Sky was built for full-size American adults.

But the Miata, once again, wins out in trunk space. The simple and clever top-down mechanism that Mazda installs in the Miata allows a lot more trunk space, with the top down, than in the Solstice/Sky. with the Miata, you can actually take along a small-to-reasonable amount of luggage with you on a sunny day. Not so with these cars. And, like the Miata, MR2, and most small 2-seaters, the Sky has a small, pull-down glove box behind you, between the seats....an equally awkward place to reach when you are siting down facing forward. A dual cup holder pops in and out just under the rear glove box.

Well, this is a roadster, and, of course, a roadster is built to DRIVE, so time to drive... let's do it.

Start it up with a conventional key and ignition switch (perhaps the next-generation Sky will have a button) and the rather coarse and unrefined GM Ecotec in-line Four catches with a noticeable jerk and settles into a less-than-perfectly-smooth idle. while a long way from a tractor engine (and better than some past GM 4-cylinders), this car is no Lexus in idle refinement. On the road, the two engines were also less than perfectly refined, but, again, more civilized than some of their predecessors. The non-turbo model has about the same power-to-weight ratio as a non-turbo Miata, and had roughly similar acceleration characteristics with the manual transmission, and a roughly similar torque curve as well. (I didn't drive an automatic). The turbo was a completely different animal when you really put that right foot down.... its much greater torque, much lower RPM torque peak, much flatter torque curve, and almost complete lack of turbo lag shot the car forward like a slingshot... you were pressed way back into your seat. Saturn quotes a 5.5 second 0-60 time in the literature... this car felt at least as fast as that, if not faster... and, of course, being a brand new car (and mindful of the sales manager's instructions not to tear it up), I wasn't even redlining it or pushing it to its maximum. Unrefined or not, GM has done an excellent job of integrating the turbo with this engine.....response was not only powerful, but almost without turbo lag as well...about half a second. This, in contrast to the also-powerful Honda S2000 that you have to rev the engine to almost-motorcycle-levels to get... HP and torque peaks are in the 7000-8000 PM range.

Outside of the engines, on the road, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the two models. Both had quick (but not extremely quick) steering response, quite flat cornering with virtually no body roll, an ultra-tight turning radius, a moderately stiff ride that was a little on the too-firm side for my tastes, and basically good steering feel that, naturally, fell a little short of BMW-feel (of course, what other car does, outside of Porsche, though the new Accord coupe came close). The turbo model was (maybe?...hard to tell) just a tiny bit stiffer and more responsive than the non-turbo, probably from suspension differences. Cowl/body flex, a traditional problem in older convertibles, was not noticeable enough in these two cars to have any discernible steering-wheel shake or frame twisting and its resulting squeaks and rattles.

Brakes, in both versions, were not the sponginess you often get from GM products...the pedal was reasonably firm (though not quite as firm as in many German cars), responsive, and quite effective. The brake and gas-pedal positions also had no problems accommodating my big feet moving either way with any hang-ups. Saturn, again, in its literature, quotes a Porsche-like 116 feet from 60-0. I, of course, didn't panic-stop the car, but the near 50/50 weight distribution undoubtedly helps somewhat by preventing the excessive nose-heaviness usually found in front-drivers. Rear and mid-engine cars like Porsches and the Toyota MR2 normally do better under heavy braking loads than even front engine, 50/50 cars like the Sky because, with the weight of the engine and transmission behind you, that weight transfers forward and the EFFECTIVE center of braking is in the middle of the car, forcing all four brakes and tires to do their equal share of the braking load. That's why few other cars can equal Porsche braking distances.

The clutches and 5-speed manual transmissions in both cars felt about the same, despite the fact that the one in the turbo model had, of course, a lot more torque to handle. The two clutches engaged about a third of the way up, the shift linkage was smooth and precise but a little notchy (I never missed a shift in either car), and the stubby shifters, in sports-car tradition, had a short throw... not quite as short as the Miata or MR2.

Road and wind noise isolation, with the top up, was quite good for a small roadster... as good or better than the soft-top Miata (the Miata, of course, also comes in a folding hard-top version). This seems to reflect on the quality of the material that GM uses for the soft top, which I have described earlier.....if only the quality of the top-folding mechanism matched the quality of the top itself. You did get some noticeable engine roar under heavy acceleration, but that is to be expected in a small sports car....you don't buy a car like this for Lincoln Town-Car quietness.

The Verdict:

Overall, a nice domestic alternative to the Mazda Miata and Honda S2000, but, outside of the Sky's good ragtop materials and the excellent turbo integration, a distinct quality notch below both of them. GM, noting the abundance of tall and oveweight potential buyers in their mid-life crises shopping for sports cars, has done a good job designing the car for ease of entry and exit and a reasonable amount of room inside for a roadster. The seats are quite comfortable for bigger people as well. The Red Line version goes like stink when you hammer the right foot down. The brakes, steering, climate control, turning radius, paint job, top-insulation, and interior control layout are all well-done.

But the car, sadly, IMO, has some major design faults as well. Much better rollover protection (apparently) needs to be installed behind the rear seats. The top-folding mechanism needs a complete redesign. So does the hood-latch mechanism. Better-quality materials need to be used on the dash and console.....a common problem with many GM vehicles. A locking gas cap should be standard....and a temperature gauge added. And yellow paint should not cost extra (that is a minor issue to fix, of course). And ALL Saturns, including the Sky, need to go back to the plastic body panels...that was one of the main features that made a Saturn a Saturn. The company, sadly, has almost completely forgotten that.

Still, for those who want to supprt GM or buy American, it is a credible, fun-to-drive roadster... but check out the Pontiac version as well. The Solstice can sometimes be had for a lower price if you find a dealer who won't price-gouge from supply/demand....but both turbo and non-turbo versions of the Solstice have less standard equipment than the Sky does....the Sky is considered slightly more upscale. And, of course, this is a personal opinion rather than an objective one, but I never liked the Solstice's Bucky-Beaver-tooth grille either. Others, however, may like it....so that, of course, is your choice.

In a Nutshell: The best small VW product in years....well-designed and built, fun but civil to drive, and space-efficient, but with questionable electronics.

The growth of so-called the "Pocket-Rocket" market in recent years has been enormous....small, compact and sub-compact cars outfitted at the factory with high-performance engines, drivetrains, suspension systems, and tires. These cars, of course, not only appeal to the primarily young, male, caps-on-backwards crowd (Yes, I know that is a stereotype, but nevertheless, there is a lot of truth to it), and offer numerous advantages over the shade-tree aftermarket tuning and revisions that some guys do. They come from the factory with systems and equipment designed tested, and certified by factory engineers...not just haphazardly bolted or grafted on in someone's driveway in an attempt to increase performance without any knowledge of how it will affect engine/vehicle life and safety. Many people, for example, seriously damage or ruin their engines with bolt-on turbos and superchargers that are not properly integrated into the engine's fuel and ignition systems, or alter the steering, wheels/tires, and suspension to the point where it was never designed to be. Serious problems often result.

With the R32 and its other small competitors, of course, this is not a factor, since the real development work and risk-taking has already been done at the factory....by engineers who are paid big bucks to do their job and get it right. These cars, driven with even an ounce of sense, are not likely to shredding tires, wheels, suspension pieces, or engine parts all over the road. That, of course, is one of the main reasons for their exploding popularity, and why demand for them often exceeds supply. It seems like the factories never produce enough of them, though...they are often limited to just a few thousand each year, as was the case with so many of them....the Dodge Neon SRT4, Ford Focus SVO, Subaru STi, Mitsubishi Evo, etc....

The STi and Evo have been especially popular, perhaps because of their AWD traction, Japanese reliability, and reputation as rally cars, though some of them had clutch and transmission problems in the early versions... not surprising, when you consider how they are typically driven. The Volkswagen GTI and the limited-production R32 have languished somewhat in the shadows of the STi and Evo, and have never really caught on with the American public, which is rather ironic, considering that back in 1982, Volkswagen practically invented the whole Pocket-Rocket market with the first American-market GTI... essentially a Rabbit/Golf with more power and stiffer springs. (yes, I can vaguely remember test-driving one with a rather arrogant VW salesman... I don't remember his name). The R32 never had turbo power, and the suspension was kept at a civilized level for bumpy roads, but the payoff, of course, was usually watching the STi and Evo taillights up ahead while they pulled ahead in the quarter-mile and outlapped the R32 on the track.

So, how does the new R32 compare with the previous version... and with its primary Subaru and Mitsubishi competition? Can't comment on the competition yet, as I have not driven the new versions, but I CAN compare the new R32 with the old one... and the new one, IMO, wins hands-down. It still doesn't have turbo power, but the VR-6... a Volkswagen classic... offers smooth right-now acceleration without annoying turbo lag. The suspension and tires are stiff enough for spirited driving, yet compliant enough to be only mildly uncomfortable on rough roads. And the DSG is truly superb. The interior, sheet metal, and interior/exterior hardware are all first-rate.

But I had a difficult time assembling some of the data for this review... brochures were not available at the dealership when I drove the car, and IMO, the VW website is annoying, unresponsive, devoid of a lot of data, and confusing in its layout. It is probably the worst manufacturer website I've come across (the second-worst one is Buick's). I had to get some of the data from other sources....I couldn't even find paint colors, engine specs, or a Build-your-own feature for the R32 on the VW site.

But, still, lousy web site or not, it is a NICE car, and I thoroughly enjoyed the review and test-drive. So... let's get on with it.


Model Reviewed: 2008 Volkswagen R32 Hatchback

Base price: $32,990

Major Options: None

Destination: $640

List Price as Reviewed: $33,630

Exterior Color: Candy White

Interior: Gray leather

Drivetrain: Transverse-mounted, 3.2L narrow-angle V6, 250 HP @ 6300, 236 ft-lbs. Torque @ 2500,

6-speed manual/automatic twin-clutch DSG (Direct-Shift_gearbox), full-time 4-Motion AWD


PLUSSES:

Great stereo with superlative, easy-to use controls (Non-NAV).

Good steering...but not as quick as that of some rivals.

Excellent paint job.

Good headroom, front and rear.

Right-now acceleration without turbo lag.

Excellent Brembo (?) brakes.

Good ride-handling balance.

Superlative exterior hardware.

Solid, high-quality body sheet metal.

DSG transmission one of the best on the market.

Classy interior trim.

Comfortable, super-supportive seats.

Clear, no-nonsense gauges, buttons, and controls.

Good-to-excellent interior hardware (with a couple of small exceptions).

Tilt and telescope steering wheel.

Better-than-average warranty (5/60 drivetrain, 4/50 entire vehicle).

Boxy body design gives generally good space efficiency.


MINUSES:

Questionable electronics.

High price for a compact VW...but not out of line with its competition.

Awful VW web site (not the car's fault, of course)

Odd, flimsy, front and rear wipers.

V6 engine crammed in too tightly.

Unpleasant leather on steering wheel with uncomfortable stiching.

Flimsy, cheap, combination turn-signal/cruise control stalk.

Dummy spare tire and wheel.

Non-power seat controls rather awkward to use.


There is nothing particularly extraordinary about the looks of this car as you first walk up to it. The exterior looks like exactly what it is......a Rabbit/Golf with lowered side skirts, custom wheels/tires, and a nice front end metallic grille assembly. The brake calipers are painted an unusual bright blue color, rather than the more common red or black. The VW people there said they were Brembos, but, as the name was not on them, I could not verify that, even on the lousy VW website. Anyhow, Brembo or not, they were excellent... more on that later.

The exterior is rather boxy in shape, though in my book, there's nothing wrong with that... boxiness, IMO, not only sometimes looks more handsome, but often means better interior space efficiency as well (though it can be carried to extremes, like the Honda Element and Scion xB...I'm definitely not a fan of the xB's looks). And the sea of white paint, without any trim lines or anything else to contrast with it, looked a little plain for my tastes. But, a close inspection of the exterior, however, reveals extremely high-quality hardware, paint, sheet metal, and trim. VW did NOT skimp on the exterior quality of this car. Doors, hood, and hatchback all open and shut like bank vaults. Door handles feel hefty and work with precision... as do the exterior mirrors and their swivel-mechanisms.... a source of cheapness on many vehicles, particularly American-designed ones. The liftback not only shuts like a bank vault, but is actuated by a real metal/chrome "VW" logo/handle on it... not just the usual chromed-plastic. A large, silver-metallic surround of the middle part of the front end also looks and feels classy... not just cheap trim. Only the odd, poorly-designed wiper arms that allow the rubber blades to hang out of the center sections, unsecured, spoil the otherwise high-quality of the exterior... I did not test the car in the rain, but wonder how well those will actually work in practice.

Open the hood, and the ubiquitous, transversely-mounted, Volkswagen narrow-angle VR-6 engine is crammed underneath tighter than Pamela Anderson Lee wearing one of Twiggy's bras. In R32 trim, it produces 250 HP and 236 ft-lbs. of torque, enough to get this car out of its own way and then some...more on that later. The extremely narrow (15 degree) bank of the cylinders gives it more or less the appearance of a straight-six, but even so, clearances around the whole engine are at an absolute minimum for reaching almost anything. The plastic fluid reservoir bottles are all crammed off to the sides, under the sheet metal, and the battery is also displaced (but here, primarily for weight distribution) Even the orange, T-handled oil dipstick had to be routed up the front side of the engine and around a narrow hole cut into the front radiator cross-support. I'm sure the engineers tested and certified it in hot weather (and, once underway, I did not notice any cooling problems on the gauge) , but still, a design like that may not bode well for long engine life ......you need some air flowing around the engine to help control heat, not just oil and coolant. And, speaking of oil, the filller cap is actually marked "Castrol"... hey, nothing wrong with that, IMO it is the best oil on the market; I use it myself. But again, the VW people there said that VW requires synthetic oil for this engine....and again, I could not verify that. The cap just said CASTROL; it did not say SYNTHETIC ONLY.

In back, I have already described the bank-vault solidness of the liftgate and "VW" handle. Inside, the cord-strung cargo cover that hooks onto two buttons at the top takes a little trip down memory lane...most wagons and hatchbacks today have the more common pull-roller spring covers. The cargo area itself is not bad at all....the high roofline and rather upright liftback give more room for cargo than more swept-back rooflines do. The cargo area is also well-finished in a quality grade of carpet, and the pull-up panel on the floor works easily to expose the spare tire and jack tools... too bad it is not a REAL spare and wheel but the more common dummy-spare.

Open the door and get in, and you will find that, in general, Volkswagen did not scrimp on the interior quality either. You settle immediately into a driver's-style sport seat with attractive, high-quality leather, with sharp but not overly-sharp side bolsters. Here is where my 21 lb. weight loss (so far) in retirement has paid off. Three months ago, I probably couldn't have fit my oversize butt into those side bolsters without at least some discomfort...today, I generally had no problem, though, of course, this car is a long way from the kiddy-car Lotus Elise seats that I reviewed in August. Anyhow, the seats are comfortable, supportive, and appear to be quite well-made, though I did not care for some of the manual seat controls. The fore-aft adjuster, for instance, is a small O-shaped ring on the right side under the cushion instead of the more common seat-wide bar: the big wheel for the rake adjustment requires you to lean forward and take pressure off of it for it to rotate, making adjustment mostly guesswork, and the seat-height adjustment is the traditional Volkswagen hand-pump lever. Only the lumbar support is full-electric.

Most of the rest of the interior, with a few exceptions, is superb. Most of you know that I like wood trim, but even though the R32 doesn't have it, I did not miss it a bit in this car. In its place is a superb, classy silvery carbon-fiber texture trim material that I had never seen before, around the console, dash, and door trim. I've seen carbon-fiber, of course... many times... but always in black or dark gray, never a light silver carbon-fiber like that. C-L-A-S-S-Y. The gauges are simple, clear, and easily read. All of the buttons are clear, marked, stand out, made of high-quality plastic, and are simple to use. The steering wheel manually tilts and telescopes, but I was not impressed with its cheap-feeling leather wrapping or the uncomfortable stitching. I was also not impressed with the cheap thin-plastic stalk on the stering column that doubles as the turn signal lever... the motion itself was silky and well-damped, but the plastic lever itself felt flimsy. I've noticed that same lever... and plastic... in other German-designed cars, even some upscale ones.

Honestly, though, there is little else inside to complain about. VW, in general, has done a superb job with the layout, execution, and materials. The slide-compartment on the arm rest is cleverly designed to slip back and upwards out of place and snap in place so you have room to reach the belt-buckle down into the lock... a source of agitation in many vehicles. There is plenty of headroom in front... and back... due to the high, boxy roofline. There is also plenty of legroom in front... much less in the rear, of course, as this is a two-door compact. The stereo sound is excellent... almost in the Mark Levinson class, which is somewhat unusual for a German car. The stereo buttons are some of the best and easiest-to-use I've seen in years... simple round BASS, TUNE, TREBLE, FADER, VOLUME, BALANCE, etc... that stick out and are simply turned left and right. A monkey could figure it out in five seconds. The radio-memory buttons have the associated station marked just above them with so that you know just what you are getting before you even push them. Why, oh, WHY, can't all cars be like this? (Chris Bangle, are you listening ? ). But, of course, this was a non-NAV version...the NAV-equipped car (just about the R32's only factory option) would probably have more complex controls.

Well, good as the interior is, this car was built to drive, not to gawk at knobs and switches, so let's do it. Start up the 3.2L V6 with a conventional ignition key in a side-column-mounted ignition switch... still no BMW-type push-buttons... and the engine settles into a smooth, refined idle but not quite Lexus-quiet. The exhaust, being a drivers' car, gives a slight burble even at idle. The v6, once warmed up with oil pressure and ready to go, has PLENTY of smooth, refined power... it is not quite as lightning-quick as the 280-300 HP turbo engines in the rival Subaru STi and Mitsubishi Evo, but instead offers instant, right-now power across a wider torque band, without annoying turbo lag. I did not redline it, of course, as I never do with a brand-new car, but even so, You will feel a substantial shove in your back when you put your right foot down. Like the STi and Evo, even the weight and drag of the 4Motion AWD did not rob the VR6 of much of its power... partly due to the efficiency of the superb DSG (Direct-Shift Gearbox).

Ah, yes... the DSG. If there is a better overall transmission in the world today for normal driving, I'd sure like to see it. This one was every bit as good as the one I tested last year in the Audi A3... smooth and unobtrusive (as opposed to the clunkiness of some other automatic-clutch manuals). This transmission, like other no-clutch manuals, combines the best of both worlds... manual efficiency with automatic convenience. It went through its six speeds as smooth as silk, whether manually shifted or left in pure auto-shift. Manual shifting is done either by bumping the lever up and down the right-hand slot or by (+) and (-) steering-wheel paddles. The lever itself is smooth, well-constructed of nice materials, has a good feel, and operates with precision. If this transmission has any drawbacks at all, it is in the complexity... the twin-clutches require very precise motion and computer work to get those silky shifts without a conventional torque converter. If it breaks or malfunctions after the warranty is up, repairs could be complex and expensive. But even so, the DSG has been well-received in the U.S... VW does not even bother to send us any conventional manual-shift R32's like it does in Europe.

Steering response, while OK, was noticeably slower than in some other sport sedans I've driven... but it was not sluggish by any means. This, of course, was originally a car that, like other Golfs/Rabbits, was designed on a nose-heavy, front-drive platform, and later adapted to AWD. Steering feel was generally good... close to but not quite to BMW standards... but I think the car could benefit from a slightly quicker ratio in the steering rack, especially if it is going to be marketed as a serious sports sedan (or rather, hatchback).

The ride/handling combination, especially compared to the rock-hard Mitsubishi Evo, IMO is excellent. Despite a slight slower-than-usual steering response for a car of this type, the general handling is excellent. The suspension allows a slight amount of body roll.....not enough to be really noticeable, yet holds on to the road well enough to generally bring a smile to a handling enthusiast. The low-profile tires and firm suspension settings make bumps noticeable but not really uncomfortable... only mildly so. The ride is a little stiffer than I myself would like in a daily driver, but I could easily live with this car long-term if I had to. Handling, at the moderately hard inputs I gave it, is a slight amount of initial understeer followed by a pretty fair amount of cornering grip....those used to driving last-generation Evos might find it a little wanting, but most drivers will be more than satisfied.

Brakes, likewise, were superb for a non-Porsche car of this type with a front-engine. I've already mentioned that the blue-painted calipers may or may not be Brembos, but nevertheless, they have a delightful pedal feel and response.....no sponginess at all, with right-now action. The response was smooth, instantaneous, linear, and well-modulated. And the pedal is well-placed for big shoes like mine... no hang-ups over or under the pedal going from gas to brakes, or vice-versa.

The Verdict?


Folks, I LIKED this car, even even though sports sedans and coupes are generally not my forte....you can see that from my rather short list of MINUSES. It is refined, well-built, relatively space efficient, uses surprisingly high-quality materials inside and out, is fun to drive, and, while the high-performance summer tires are not the best bet for winter traction, promises at least decent foul-weather performance if snow is not deep. Like its two main competitors, the Subaru STi and Mitsubishi Evo, it is somewhat pricey for a car its size, but that money buys a lot of equipment and performance.

I cannot compare it directly to the new WRX/STi or Evo, as I have not yet reviewed them, but the new R32 compares favorably to the old STi and Evo in several ways. It is not quite as fast as the smaller Subaru and Mitsubishi Turbo Fours, but does offer right-now, kick-in-the-pants acceleration without their turbo lag, and has peak torque (over a flatter curve) at lower RPM. Its ride/handling balance is more civilized as well....the Evo will beat the hell out of you on a bumpy road. The DSG gearbox is nothing short of superlative...a good candidate for display in the Automotive Hall of Fame. Its interior beats both the old STi and Evo, hands-down...no comparison at all.

But, like any car, it is not perfect. IMO, it needs more substantial wiper arms, better leather and stitching for the steering wheel, a turn signal stalk to match the rest of the high-quality interior, a real spare tire and wheel, power seat controls, maybe a slightly quicker steering ratio, a better reliability record for its electronics, and... (please, VW)... a MUCH better web site where you can actually FIND some information. Anyone seriously interested in this car definitely has my blessing... it is pricey for its size but offers a lot for the money, solid construction, and a lot of driving fun. But get your deposits in... VW will sell only 5000 of them this year in the American market.

In a Nutshell: The best drivers' Accord yet... and competitive with some BMWs.

This new Accord coupe, especially V6 models, seem, even brand-new, to have a lot of potential appeal... I received a number of requests, both publicly and privately, to review this car. And I apologize for the wait... I planned it for a couple of weeks ago, but just finding an available, untaken one has been a chore... even with the people in the sales business that I already know. In fact, most of the ones on order have already been pre-sold, in some cases sight unseen, before they are even shipped. Well, finally, an untaken EX-L V6 coupe came into a local Honda shop (automatic....we're still waiting for manuals) and I went up to see it. Well, when I got there, it had been moved to a local college campus for a big, multi-dealership auto show/credit union sale and was being used as a company demo. So I hopped back into in my Subaru, made the short 15-minute trip to the campus, found the Honda display and the gray coupe with ivory beige interior, and sat around chatting with the Honda people while a couple of young guys in front of me took it (with a salesperson aboard, of course) around the campus on a pre-determined route and came back about 10 minutes later.

Then it was my turn. Luck was with me... No one else, at the moment, was waiting. That gave me some time to examine the exterior, interior, and general assembly quality, take down the info from the price sticker, grab a brochure, and record some notes. The dealership had phoned ahead and told them I was coming, and when they found out I was a freelance auto writer and did CL write-ups, they immediately offered me a long enough test-drive for a good review... not just a couple of minutes of stop-and go, 20 MPH stuff around the campus. So I thanked them for their generosity, showed them my license (they didn't even Xerox it like they usually do..they trusted me, an almost complete stranger), took it out on the local highways, and gave it a thorough enough test-drive for a review... not getting carried away, of course, as I knew that others were waiting behind me, and I didn't want to take too much advantage of Honda's generosity.

The Accord's history is so well-known (since 1976) throughout the auto world that I'm not going to waste time and space here covering it in detail, like I do with most car reviews. There is no need to. Many, if not most of you, are aware of the car's enormous popularity (at least in sedan form), high theft rate, ubiquitous rental-car image, good reliability record, and the sedan, coupe, and wagon body styles of the past. That, friends, was the Accord.....the archtypical Japanese mid-sized car, in whatever flavor you wanted......even aftermarket-slammed and customized versions for the caps-on-backwards crowd.

Only the latest 2008 Accord is not quite so mid-sized any more, as we'll see in the review below. The latest model is suprisingly big.....not only the sedan, but even the roughly 4-inch shorter coupe. You will notice this car's bulk...you could take the original U.S. market 1976 Accord (I still remember it well) and just about stick it in this car's trunk. And this car has refinement, convienence features, and overall sophistication that would make the first-generation Accord seem like a roller skate in comparison.

So, enough of the story of how I found it. Let's get on with the review.










Model Reviewed: 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Automatic Coupe

Base price: $28,310

Major Options: None

Destination: $635


List Price as Reviewed: $28,945

Exterior Color: Polished Metal Metallic (in other words, medium gray)

Interior: Ivory Leather

Drivetrain: FWD, Transverse-mounted, 3.5L SOHC i-VTEC V6, 268 HP @ 6200 RPM, 248 ft-lbs. torque @ 5000 RPM (typical Honda peakiness),
5-speed automatic transmission.


PLUSSES:

Superlative, BMW-like power steering.

Butter-smooth, quiet, refined, powerful (but peaky) V6.

Smooth, refined transmission and shifter.

First-rate exterior fit/finish and hardware.

Near-perfect exterior mirror snap.

Well-designed brakes and brake pedal.

No-nonsense, no ziz-zag, well-designed, fore-and-aft transmission shifter.

Comfortable front seats.

Excellent paint job.

Typical Honda clarity of controls and switches.

Precise handling feel with lack of body roll.

Swiss-watch precision assembly quality.

Honda drivetrain warranty now 5 years/60,000 miles and competitive with other manufacturers.

Well-finished trunk.

Consistantly above average reliability record of previous Accords bodes well for this one.

Nice exterior paint colors (but too many restrictions).

Numerous standard safety features.

V6 engine runs on regular gas....and shuts down 3 cylinders at light loads for economy.


MINUSES:

Supply (as of this writing) grossly lags demand....possible price gouging.

Old-fashioned ignition key with no push-button or twist-knob start.

No apparant (?) Manumatic or Sport-Shift feature for the automatic.

Rear-seat headroom inadequate for tall adults....legroom marginal.

Too many paint color restrictions between coupe and sedan.

Design of V6 hides too many engine components.

Rather stiff ride over bumps.

Functional but (IMO) ugly steering wheel.

No wood trim for coupe.....available only in ivory-interior EX sedan.

Tinny hood.

Flimsy-feeling glove compartment and lock.

Some interior hardware and interior fit/finish not quite up to previous Accords.

Exterior sedan styling easily confused with current Hyundai Sonata ....coupe somewhat less so.

Awkward-looking outside door handles.

High theft rate of Accords.

Compact spare tire.

Poor visibility out rear side windows.


As I hinted at above, the first impression you get when you walk up to the new Accord, coupe or sedan, is that of its sheer size. It is not a Town Car or Maybach in length, but it is clearly larger than the car it replaces.....to the point where it is stretching it to call it a mid-sized car, by today's standards. Even the 4-inch shorter coupe gives a good impression of sheer size.

The next thing you clearly notice is the rather strong look-alike to the current-generation Hyundai Sonata in styling....front and rear in the Accord sedan, and, of course, front only in the coupe. The similarity in the grilles, headlights, hood tapering, and (in the sedan), deck lid and tailights, is striking. I hear a lot of complaints about Hyundai copying the styling of other manufacturers, especially Honda. This time it is clearly the other way around.

There are some differences, though. The Accord's headlight lenses bulge out a little more on the sides than the Sonata's, and the Accord sedan's C-Pillars are shaped more like those of an old Infiniti Q45. The coupe's C-pillars, roofline, trunk lid, and taillights are radically different from the sedan's, which is not the case with other coupe/sedan variations (like the Infiniti G35 cousins, for example). Overall, I like the look of both the sedan and coupe, which IMO is a big step forward from recent Accords, though I don't like the way that the coupe's rear beltline and roofline obstruct vision out the rear windows. I guess It is just a natural that, overall, I would like the new styling, as I like the similiar styling on the Sonata that it was taken from.

The paint job, as expected from Honda, is first-rate, with very little orange peel, smoothness of texture, and classy paint colors (I liked four or five of them) besides the usual shades from Harold's Mortuary, like the dull medium gray on my test car that Honda calls Polished Metal Metallic. But the restriction of the nice Belize Blue and San Marino Red to the coupe only, as is the restriction of the nice Mystic Green Metallic to the sedan only, is needless and annoying.

The exterior fit/finish, hardware, and chrome are ALL first-rate. Honda chose to use good-quality materials all over the outside but the strut-supported hood, which is tinny and made of too-thin sheet metal. But everything else outside is excellent quality, especially the swivel-snap mechanism and materials for the outside mirrors...they snap in and out with some of the best precision and feel I've ever seen. The exterior door handles are either chrome or body-colored depending on trim line, but have an odd shape.....as if they were installed upside-down. The doors themselves, however, shut and latch with Swiss-Watch precision, as if they were hung and adjusted with a laser beam and micrometer.

Up front, lift the too-thin, too-light hood, and the transversely-mounted VTEC V6 fits in neatly, without a jammed-in, too-tight look. There is a reasonable amount of room room around the sides and edges of the motor to reach some components and dipsticks. But what appears to be just another one of those big, painted-silver plastic engine covers on top is actually the metal top of the engine and manifold itself...the plastic parts are overhangs on the sides, and as a result, a number of components that could otherwise be reachable aren't.

In back is a rather well-finished trunk, with a lid that is, on the coupe, naturally a little smaller than the one on the sedan. The hinges are the old-fashioned type that don't scissors-articulate, but even so, the way they are designed and attached, they don't interfere with luggage like some designs do. Under the nice gray carpeting on the floor and sides lies the compact spare tire and jack tools. Trunk space, given the large size of the car itself, is not huge, but enough for most needs....and if trunk space is really an issue, there is always the sedan's larger trunk size (or you can get an Accord-based Odyssey minivan ).

Open up, get in, and the atmosphere inside becomes a little more mixed. The basic look is attractive, but here again, needless marketing restrictions apply....like no wood trim at all for the coupe and only in the beige-ivory interior EX sedan. All other Accords use the rather plain-looking painted-gray "metallic" trim that I can easily do without.....like Toyota, Honda, IMO, in general does not do a good job on painted metallic trim. But the dash itself is attractive enough, and has backlit, super-legible gauges, easy-to-use, no-nonsense controls and buttons in the Honda traditions, nicely damped knobs and switches, and generally good hardware, although some cheapening of interior parts quality is noticeable compared to the last-generation Accord....especially the bargain-basement steering wheel, nice solid steering-wheel buttons notwithstanding. The buttons in the center of the dash all look more or less alike, but are all clearly marked and labelled, so there will be a minimum of guessing and taking one's eyes off the road while driving. And most (not all) of them have that typical Honda-precision feel. The stereo has concert-quality sound, once it is set up correctly but can be difficult to adjust on the video-screen with the way the buttons are arranged...but, as mentioned, the buttons themselves work with precision. My test car did not have NAV.....Accords that have that option use an Acura-style dash knob for adjustments.....too much like BMW's I-Drive for me; I'll pass on that. The glove box was roomy but felt and latched rather flimsily.

Headroom is OK for tall people in front, even with the sunroof, if you lower the multi-power seat all the way, but, in the coupe tradition, is very tight in the rear. The seats themselves are well-designed, with comfort combined with a reasonable amount of support, and use what appears to be high-quality leather. Legroom, again, is fine up front, but varies quite a bit in back depending on where the front seats are set. If you have two very tall persons up front, consider the back seats suitable for just small children or packages.

OK, start her up. Surprisingly (I was expecting a push-button or a twist-knob/proximity key), you do it the old-fashioned way, with a regular transponder key. And Honda still has not gone to a more convienent, dash-mounted ignition switch; it is in the traditional spot on the right side of the steering column. The engine, though, when it starts up, is a jewel....almost perfectly balanced, smooth, quiet, and refined. Power on the road, though, is decidedly peaky...there is not a great deal of torque below about 3000 or so, and then it becomes more pronounced. And what torque IS available below about 3000 is not that noticeable because the engine is so smooth and refined....it is almost like driving a turbine. Because the car was brand new, with only 20 miles on it, and out of respect for the Honda people who let me borrow it, I did not push the engine into its true upper reaches where, typical of Honda products, most of the power is. But even at only 4000, there is plenty of torque for all normal driving, unless you want to drag-race Vipers and Corvettes on Friday night.

The automatic transmission was, likewise, smooth, silky, quiet, and refined....no more of those old head-lurching shifts of Accord automatics of years ago. I especially liked the fore-and-aft shifter...none of that silly zig-zag stuff that is so annoying, even in my own Subaru. But one glaring (?) omission, in a car that is supposedly designed for drivers... I couldn't find a manumatic or Sport-Shift mode on the shifter, nor could I find steering-wheel paddles for shifting. I won't say they aren't there, but I personally couldn't find them......and there is no mention of them in either the brochure or on Honda's web site. The shifter itself, though, was made of quality-feeling materials, shifted slickly and precisely, and otherwise was a pleasure to use.

Now we come to this car's REAL forte... BMW-type steering feel and chassis dynamics. What a difference from the feathery, grossly-overboosted steering of years-ago Accords. I am not exaggerating. If I was driving this car blindfolded, I'd think I was in a BMW 3 or 5-series, just from the steering feel alone...it's that good. IMO, this is the BEST power-assisted steering system I have ever run across in a mid-sized Japanese car... it even beats the one I had on my Lexus IS300, even more remarkable considering the Accord's FWD layout and chassis dynamics. If you can get past the ugliness of the steering wheel itself, you are rewarded with almost telepathic feel and response, with almost perfect weighting. You can feel and gauge exactly where the front tires are going. Handling is likewise quite good for a front-driver, with very little body roll, right-now response, and little understeer. Part of the quick response, of course, comes from the quick-ratio on the steering rack......only 2.48 turns lock-to-lock, up there in sports-car territory, and from the 18-inch, 45-series all-season tires.

Ride quality, as expected, while fine on glass-smooth surfaces, is a little on the firm side for my tastes over bumps and road irregularities. Those wide, low-profile tires that help do such a good job on the the steering are less than compliant when soaking up bumps, though the ride is not sports-car stiff. Here, the Accord coupe, with all of its brilliance in steering feel, is not quite BMW or Mercedes when it comes to sophistication in the suspension department... and the ability of premium German manufacturers to combine a smooth ride with good handling at the same time.

Brakes are also one of this car's better points...a well-designed pedal that does not catch big shoes on it, combined with a relatively firm braking feel with little sponginess. The car's FWD layout and nose-heaviness with the V6, of course, means that the front wheels will be doing more than their share of the braking loads, so while I did not do a panic stop in the review to test it, in general, don't expect Porsche-type braking distances.

As I got some requests for a manual-transmission EX-L V6 review, some of you are probably wondering what this car would be like with a manual. Obviously, I was not able to drive a manual (this car alone was difficult enough to find). But considering what previous Accord manuals were like, I can give you a pretty good estimate. Accords tend to have some of the best front-drive shift linkages on the market (Honda and Acura FWD manuals are known for the quality and precision of their shift linkages and smooth, easy clutch actions). Acceleration would probably be a little better, without the automatic's torque converter eating up as much of the engine's admittedly peaky torque at lower RPM. Gas mileage figures, oddly, are lower with the 6-speed manual... for the EX-L V6, Honda quotes 17/25 vs. 19/28 for the automatic, perhaps due to different fuel-injection settings or final-drive ratios.


The Verdict?

Recently Subaru has run ads depicting the new WRX as the car that German manufacturers wished they were producing (we have discussed those ads in CAR CHAT). In my honest opinion, here.......the new Accord Coupe... is the Japanese-designed car that the Germans really wished they were doing, not the WRX.....though the new WRX, of course, is more refined and less boy-racer-like than before. The Accord coupe is competitive with non-M BMW 3 and 5-series products in many ways, chiefly in its superlative new power-steering system that is light-years ahead of the old, overboosted ones. The new automatic is also superlative, and puts to rest the annoying, head-bobbing, jerk-shifts of some old Honda automatics. Handling, ride, and chassis dynamics are also quite BMW-like, but, as mentioned, don't combine ride and handling characteristics together quite as well. And the first-rate reliability record of previous Accords trumps that of often unreliable BMW electronics (though there were some Honda/Acura transmission issues about 5-6 years ago).

Honda, however, IMO, still needs to work on a few things. The rear side windows are too small for good visibility...perhaps a change in the design of the beltline and roofline is in order. The marketing restrictions of paint colors and trim features between sedan and coupe is needless and absurd. A car this pleasant and driver-friendly should have a clear manual sport-shift feature for the automatic. And the car with steering feel this good deserves better than a Wal-Mart steering wheel. An up-to-date push-button ignition system is not a necessity, but would be more in tune with the car's character. And the hood could use a little thicker sheet metal. And... please, Honda... build and ship enough coupes to meet demand.

Yet, all in all, this is an excellent car... one of the best Japanese coupes that I have seen in years. I myself like it more than the costlier Infiniti G35 coupe. Rumor has it that Honda is working on a new Prelude. IMO, with this car, a new Prelude is not needed... this car easily dismisses the need for one, and Honda would be wise to just dump the Prelude project and save its money and resources. The V6 EX-L coupe is an absolute steal at $29,000 (if you find an honest dealership without price gouging). Any of you who are interested in this car (and I know there are enough of you out there who are) have my blessing... there are far worse ways to spend $30,000.

In a Nutshell: Chump Change for More-Than-Chump traction and reliability.

As many of you know, every fall, about this time, I do a recommended list and short write-ups of inexpensive, AWD, snow-capable vehicles. While the Subaru Impreza, IMO, had been the reigning champ for years as the best-value, inexpensive AWD car for the money, particularly among those at $20,000 and below... last year, as you may remember, there a notable change as Suzuki introduced the all-new SX-4. The SX-4, value-wise, eclipsed the last-generation Impreza in several areas, not only starting as low as $15,000 for base versions, but, unlike Subaru, offering a 3-position switch on the dash to select from FWD/AWD/AWD lock. The SX-4 allowed the driver to electronically disconnect the AWD and run only on the two front wheels for slightly better acceleration and mileage when conditions allowed, or to use AWD Lock for tough conditions, though, of course, it is not a true off-roader.The new SX-4, last year, by a substantial margin, beat out the Impreza for the first time for what was, IMO, the best inexpensive AWD value in the American market. But the SX-4 did have 3 significant things going against it (see my SX-4 review for full details). First, though tall, it was quite short and narrow. Second, it had marginal power, especially in the AWD mode. Third, unlike bulletproof Subaru AWD designs, it was new and unproven....though the long, generous warranty helped address that problem.

I'm not going to do my usual, general write-up of inexpensive AWD cars this year, for several reasons. First, the SX-4, being all-new last year, has not substantially changed this year. Neither has the Subaru Forester. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe AWD models have been dropped and are no longer in production. The Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, and Mitsubishi Outlander have all been redesigned since then......I have not formally reviewed any of those three since they were redesigned, so I don't want to get into a long write-up about any of them without having done so first. And the RAV-4, in some versions, is certainly not on the inexpensive list any more, with a V6 and third-row seating like its big brother Highlander. The Suzuki AWD Aerio, still in showrooms, will not be around much longer....it will soon be dropped, so there is little sense wasting time on that car either.

So, that brings us, now, to the subject of this review... new 2008 Impreza; in effect, totally redesigned around the same old reliable 2.5L Subaru AWD systems (manuals, as before, get different center-differential systems than the automatics). The new 2008 Impreza, like its big-brother Subaru Tribeca, tosses out the odd, controversial, airplane-type grille and front end used on the last-generation model for a more conventional and IMO more classy one. As before, the base 2.5i sedan, wagon, Outback Sport, WRX, and STi models will be offered (I saw the new WRX briefly but did not review it, and the new STi has not come in yet). I won't get into the new WRX/STi in this write-up.....they are in a totally different price class/driving style than the base Impreza models.

There have been some complaints in the auto press (and here on CAR CHAT) about the new Impreza's styling. I myself don't have any problems with the front end, or with the sedan in general, but I agree that the rear end of the 5-door/wagon model, particularly the hour-glass-shaped D-pillar, looks a little awkward (I'll get into the exterior a little more below).

One prediction that I DID make, last year, when the Suzuki SX-4 came out, was that this new, hot competition for the Impreza might have an effect on the Impreza's price. Score one.....Subaru has quietly (and without an official explanation) dropped the price of the base model Impreza with manual transmission to just below $17,000, substantially less than where it was last year. It is still not in the Suzuki's ultra-low range, but it is a noticeable drop.........In a free society, never underestimate the power of competition in the marketplace to keep prices in check. Subaru has managed to do this, while, at the same time, making several improvements to the car such as better interior materials and a nice strut-supported hood (no more prop-rod), but the lack of a temperature gauge in the dash is an annoyance that seems directly traced to cost-cutting. I guess SOMETHING has to go, though, when you improve a car in several areas and then drop the price.

So, now let's take a look at the the new Impreza in closer detail. Read on.

Model Reviewed: 2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan



Base price: $16,995


Major Options: None


Destination: $645


List Price as Reviewed: $17,640

Exterior Color: Newport Blue Pearl

Interior: Ivory Tricot Cloth

Drivetrain: 2.5L horizontally-opposed flat-four, 170 HP @ 6000 RPM, 170 ft-lbs. torque at 4400 RPM,
5-speed manual transmission, Symetrical, viscous-type AWD.


PLUSSES:

Well-proven, reliable, Subaru AWD system

An excellent bargain.

Nice paint job.

Strut-supported hood unusual in this price class.

Traditionally strong, safe, crash-resistant Subaru unibody.

Solid-feeling doors.

Nice exterior hardware and trim.

Nice, clear gauges.

Solid-feeling, no-sponge brakes.

Good shift linkage and clutch action.

Roomy inside enough for tall people.

Comfortable, semi-supportive seats.

Classy interior and exterior trim.

Unusual, pleasant, ivory-colored steering wheel (most are black).

Standard steering-wheel buttons for cruise control.

Standard, limited-function trip computer.

Good interior hardware.

Power windows, mirrors, and door locks standard even on base models.

Active head restraints unusual in this price class.

Easy-to-tune radio knobs.

Simple and effective controls.

Good stereo for an entry-level car.

Relatively quiet ride with muted wind and tire noise.

Easy-to reach engine components for do-it-yourselfers.

No unnecessary plastic covers for the engine.


MINUSES:

No temperature gauge.

Rear drum brakes on base models without Premium Package.

Limited paint color choice.

No side strips for door-ding protection.

Mediocre suspension.

Fairly slow steering response with marked body roll.

Fairly stiff ride, especially concerning the soft body roll.

Low ground clearance limits use in deep snow (the Impreza Outback Sport is a little better).

Fairly slow acceleration even with manual transmission.

VW-style, hand-lever seat-height adjuster clumsy and unnecessary.

Trip computer accuracy questionable.

Engine noise noticeable above 3000 RPM.

Unpleasant surfaces on the headliner and sun visors.

Cheap-looking wheels and dull-plastic wheel covers on base version.

Dull, plain-looking seat cloth has little pattern to the fabric.

Small trunk opening (the 5-door wagon model, of course, solves that).

Old-fashioned ignition key with no push-button or twist-knob start.


Although the grille, with its classy, well-done chrome and multi-star Subaru oval, looks not unlike those of recent Outbacks and Legacys, in general, one would have a hard time, at first glance, recognizing this car as a Subaru product. The sedan especially, at several different angles, is more suggestive of a Corolla, Civic, or Mazda3 sedan.....and the 5-door wagon has, IMO, a rather ungainly rear-end appearance. I would not necessarily call either version an ugly car, but the sedan, IMO, definitely looks better from a styling point of view. The paint job is well-done for a car in this class......about the same as a Civic, and exceeded only by the near-perfect, benchmark Toyota/Scion small-car paint jobs. Though the color choice is limited, and the desirable two-tones are offered only on the Outback Sport version of the car, several colors are NICE, especially the Satin White Pearl, Lightning Red, Newport Blue Pearl (essentially the same color as the Atlantic Blue Pearl on my own Outback, just renamed), and the ultra-classy Dark Gray Metallic (with its lovely silverflake metallic particles mixed in, so much different from the usual funeral-home dark gray so many other automakers use).

The outside exterior chrome and hardware is all first-rate. I've already mentioned the chrome grille... a nice, well-done, classy chrome bar also adorns the trunk lid, even on the base car...and it doesn't look or feel like a GM or Chrysler-style piece of cheap plastic coated with even worse, uneven "chrome". The outside mirrors feel solid and snap in and out of their swivel-stops firmly and precisely... again, totally unlike many domestic cars... and even better than on its big brother Subaru Tribeca. The body trim, door handles, etc... all feel solid and securely attached. All four doors, unlike the last-generation Impreza, shut solidly and with a "thunk". The flat-black, stamped-steel wheels, however, look cheap, and the poorly-finished painted-silver plastic wheel covers just as bad. You don't expect high-dollar, classy, alloy wheels on an entry-level car in this price range (although Hyundai, Kia, and some other companies offer them at this price), but these wheels and covers look cheap even by economy-car standards. The low ground clearance under the chassis, unlike Foresters and Outbacks, limits the car's ability, despite AWD, to take on deep snow or mud.

Open the rather lightweight, aluminum hood (like on other Subarus), and Old Faithful, once again, resides underneath... the ubiquitous, horizontally-opposed, 2.5 liter flat-four that has been around for years, originally debuting in 1.8 and 2.2 liter versions (yes, the same engine that is in my Outback). This engine, in both turbo and non-turbo forms, powers most of the 4-cylinder vehicles that Subaru sells in the American market... some versions of the STi being an exception. This engine, like the 3.0L flat-six, is ideally suited for AWD, with its rearward-facing output shaft avoiding some of the complexity required of other AWD designs with transverse-mount in-line or V engines. In addition, the low center of gravity of the flat-cylinder design also helps the vehicle's handling (unfortunately, the base Impreza's suspension doesn't.... more on that later) and gives higher-stance Subarus the car-like handling they are famous for. And Subaru doesn't bolt on those big, nonsensical, unnecessary plastic engine covers on the 2.5 like so many other engines have that block access to everything. This engine, especially on the versions that don't have a cover panel underneath on the chassis, is a DIY'ers paradise for easy oil changes....both the filter and drain plug are right next to each other, right on the lower side of the engine under the front bumper. While it needs to be said that older versions of the 2.5 had notable head-gasket problems (mainly 1999-2002, known as Phase II engines), newer ones, due to a gasket redesign and better factory coolant, have been virtually bulletproof.

The trunk, on the sedan, is not nearly as accommodating, with its fairly small opening... a result of the highly raked rear windows so common to today's sedans. It is fairly well-finished inside, with a grade of carpet more or less appropriate for the price class, and has a removable, multi-compartment tray under the carpeted cover, and below that, the compact spare and jack.

The interior, despite the rather plain-looking Tricot/suede cloth and a few design annoyances inside (more on that in a second) , was, in general, a step up from the previous Impreza. The seats were generally comfortable and well-shaped, with somewhat flattish cushions (this is, of course, not a sports car with high-bolsters) and a nice, durable-feeling, though plain-looking ivory-beige cloth. The seat hardware felt durable as well, but I found the big, VW-style pump-lever for the seat cushion height to be intrusive, awkward, and unnecessary. Headroom, front and rear, in this non-sunroof car was fine for big people my size, as was a reasonable amount of legroom. The steering column tilts manually but does not telescope....appropriate for this class of car. The wheel itself, unlike many other vehicles, was a matching shade of ivory/beige, with nice solid-feeling silver trim on the spokes. Power windows, door locks, and mirrors are all standard, along with cruise control (yes, even on the bare-bones model), and the cruise-control buttons, for the first time on an Impreza, are wheel-mounted. The general interior decor is triple-tone, with a black upper dash, silver/gray trim, and the rest of the interior beige-ivory. It is head-and-shoulders, looks-wise, above the previous Impreza, and has not only pleasant-looking colors but pleasant-looking and feeling patterns as well. All of the buttons, controls, and switches have a nice, solid precise feel and operation, with good hardware. The better-than-average stereo (for an entry-level car) had a convenient tuning knob instead of the awkward rocker buttons in some other Subarus, and its other controls and functions were easy to use and figure out as well. The gauges on the dash for the speedometer, tach, and fuel level were simple, attractive, and clear.....but here is where Subaru designers made a BIG mistake, probably in the name of cost-cutting. Like on the Toyota Echo, there is no temperature gauge...only a big, oversized fuel gauge that could have easily been divided into fuel and temperature gauges. Also like on the Echo, the designers wired up a blue idiot light that goes on during a cold start and then goes off when the engine reaches a (?) temperature (presumably normal range ). Supposedly a red light warns of overheating........but I didn't notice if or where one was located. Come on, guys. I can understand cost-cutting, but NOT with something like coolant temperature ..........coolant is one of the engine's two life-bloods (although, to be fair, the majority of cars don't have oil-pressure gauges either).

Start it up with an old-style ignition key (no buttons, proximity devices, or twist-knobs here), and the flat-four settles into a fairly smooth idle. Subaru boxer-engine designs have never been known for Lexus-type smoothness and quietness (notwithstanding the Subaru ads that say otherwise), and the 2.5, while fairly quiet and refined compared to previous Subaru engines (I can remember the old Subaru engines from the 70s and 80s that would wake up the dead), is not exactly Lexus LS-460 like either....you can tell it is running. The power level is adequate for most normal driving, but, even with the more efficient manual transmission and clutch, is not a Friday night dragster machine either. We all know the benefits of AWD. Here is the downside to it...its weight and drag take a toll on gas mileage and acceleration, especially with smaller engines. The manual and automatic-transmission models both have the same mileage ratings (20/27), but that, of course, reflects the new EPA rating system that more closely approximates what you actually get. The engine, on the road, is fairly smooth and quiet at lower RPM's but gets a little less civilized as you get above 3000....I, of course, as usual, did not go over 4000 with this new engine.

The clutch and manual transmission, while not Honda Civic-precise, was definitely one of the better units I've tried. The clutch action, take-up, and engagement point were smooth and well-defined, and the shift linkage was smooth and well-defined but not notchy. I never missed or misjudged a shift in any normal kind of driving style. Even grabbing reverse was a cinch...click, click; right over and down.

Noise control, outside of the occasional engine and exhaust racket, was pretty good for an entry-level car. Wind, road, and tire noise was pretty well muted (Subaru, with its trademark frameless side-door windows, has to use other methods of accomplishing this than most other vehicles). Again, it was no Town car or LS460, but it was a LONG way from the Subarus I remember from many years ago. But the suspension still needs work, especially on this base model. Most cars, all other things equal, especially with conventional non-electronic or single-valve shocks, have a ride-handling compromise... in general, the firmer the ride, the better the handling, and vice-versa...the better the ride, the clumsier the handling. Not with this car, at least to the seat of my pants. Same with tires......in general, all other things equal, the lower the profile, the better the handling and the worse the ride. The higher the profile, the better the ride and the worse the handling. (I, myself, as most of you know, tend to prefer ride comfort over handling...within reason, of course. I do want SOME response). But the Impreza's base suspension manages to combine a rather mediocre ride with mediocre handling as well. Steering response was slow, with pronounced body roll, even with the low-center-of-gravity boxer engine. Yet the ride was not impressive either...bumps and road imperfections could be clearly heard and felt, even with the tires at a reasonable PSI. The Outback 2.5i is clearly superior in both counts... ride AND handling.

Brakes were one of the car's better points, despite the rear drums of the base model. (I actually like drums for two points.....they don't warp and shimmy like disc brake rotors can, and they make better parking brakes, but drums can be miserable when they get wet). The pedal feel was smooth, solid, well-proportioned and modulated, and had no sponginess at all...you got at least some reaction the moment you pushed it. The pedal was quite accommodating and forgiving of my size-15 clown shoes, and I did not get any of the shoe hang-up under the edge brake pedal that I do in some cars. 4-channel ABS and EBD is standard even on the base package brake.....an upgrade to 4-wheel discs, Brake Assist, and VDC stability system is optional with the Premium Package, which my car didn't have.


The Verdict?

By now, the question many of you, no doubt, are wondering is: does the new, lower-priced, base-model Impreza regain its title from the Suzuki SX-4 as what I consider the best inexpensive AWD value on the market? No, it does not.......but it is now in a very close second. The new Impreza, as mentioned above, has narrowed the price gap somewhat for its base models (still not to the SX-4's level), and the Impreza's new interior is pleasant, attractive, well-crafted, and functional. The Subaru AWD system remains well-proved and reliable, and with that new lower price, the Impreza 2.5i is now even more of a bargain than last year. But the Suzuki still undercuts the Impreza on price by about $1500 (depending on model and options), and Subaru has not yet copied Suzuki's 3-position FWD/AWD/Lock switch either....a big advantage for the SX-4. Nor has Subaru seen fit to offer Suzuki's much longer drivetrain warranty either. The Impreza has a new strut-supported hood, a nice touch, but the lack of a proper temperature gauge is annoying and unnecessary...idiot lights are no substitution for it. And, IMO, more work needs to be done in the base-model Impreza's ride/handling trade-off... the present base suspension compromises both too much.

But for those who don't live near a Suzuki dealership (they are not exactly on every corner, and even in my dealer-rich area the closest one is almost 25 miles), or for any reason don't care for the SX-4, the Impreza remains, far and away, the best alternative. Its price, for 2.5i models, is still extremely low for an AWD vehicle; its AWD system, though less flexible than the Suzuki's, is more proven, and Impreza's resale value, of course, is traditionally strong as well. Both remain great entry-level cars for a college student going off to school in a bad-weather area or just for daily bad-weather transportation, shopping, and commuting. (For you worried parents, the Impreza, with its super-strong, reinforced B-pillars, will likely be safer in a crash, especially a side-impact one).