True to its Tokyo breeding, Nissan cube is ideally sized and packaged for congested streets in urban America. Mechanical details and even the styling of “box cars” like the cube, Kia Soul, and Scion xB are secondary to how well they fit into crowded urban and beachside neighborhoods, and how simple they are, how minimalist they are. Box cars are the automobile stripped to 21st century essentials, with a bit of anime character folded in. By these measures, cube is a fantastic urban scooter.

Prime Numbers

• Price: $13,990. As tested: $20,120.
• Engine: 1.8-liter DOHC transversely mounted inline four
• Horsepower: 122 hp @ 5,200
• Torque: 127 lb ft @ 4,800
• Drivetrain: Front-wheel-drive with six-speed CVT
• Suspension, F/R: MacPherson struts/Torsion beam with built-in stabilizer bar
• Length: 157.5-in.
• Width: 66.7-in.
• Height: 65.0-in.
• Wheelbase: 104.7-in.
• Weight: 2,904 lbs

Who’s The Buyer

This car is for you if:

• You loved the original Scion xB and want a similarly boxy car with a small, thrifty engine.
• You want to carry four friends to dinner or the movies in your over-populated urban neighborhood: maximum space in a minimalist package, and it’s easy to park.
• You’ve got funk, and can laugh at yourself and the world.

This car is not for you if:

• You want strong acceleration and excellent handling dynamics.
• You prefer a strongly male and reserved public image.
• You want the boxy cargo space to carry your pack of hounds to the “dog beach” in your area, in which case you might be better off with the aged Honda Element because of its urethane floors and water-repellent seat fabric.

Alternatives To Consider

• Honda Element. Originally designed to attract Gen X and Gen Y surfers, Element instead sold well to typical Honda Baby Boomer customers. Honda missed the target, but Element developed a cult Boomer following. To attract younger buyers, Honda launched the Element SC, which still misses the point due to its price. Element is an excellent vehicle, but is also more expensive, larger, thirstier, more powerful, and more sophisticated than cube.
• Honda Fit. Not quite a “box car.” Fit’s small 1.5-liter engine was recalibrated to deliver a peaky 117 hp, putting the Fit within spitting distance of the cube’s power ratings. Fit has the Magic Seat, an amazingly versatile rear seat that flips and folds into a wide range of positions to enhance cargo space. Fit Sport is the one to buy, out the door for about $17,000. Fit possesses Honda levels of refinement in most respects, though Honda is guilty of thrifting its cars in recent years, with more suspension noise and cheaper materials than you would have expected in the past.
• Kia Soul. A breakthrough vehicle for Kia, the first Kia I’d recommend without caveat. Women seem to find the hamster ads appealing, but I’m not sure a male child would want to drive around in a Soul after seeing those ads. Soul captures the essence of the original, smaller Scion xB, but with a fresh and distinctly Kia style—and whoever thought we’d use the term “Kia style”? Soul’s bottom trim level is stripped-down with an old engine and manual transmission, meant only to provide a very low MSRP for dealer ads. Better to look at the three higher trim levels, which offer considerable value. The top-spec Soul Sport is comparable to the Nissan cube krom tested here, and is about $1,000 less in price. Like Scion xB and cube, Kia Soul is an IIHS Top Safety Pick. Who knew? The Koreans have learned to build a proper body structure. That’s a long haul from the Hyundai Excel trash bins of the Eighties and the Kia-built Ford Festivas of the early Nineties, which were rolling heaps.
• Scion xB. Second-generation grew bigger and heavier, and it’s designed for the US market, so the current xB does not stand out the same way the first-gen “narrow-gauge” Japan Domestic Market xB did. But the current xB meets the desires of many first-gen xB owners and delivers a very high level of features for the money, plus an excellent selection of accessories and audio systems which, by the way, Nissan, Kia and others have copied. The rear seat offers ample legroom. Cargo and seating versatility is high, build quality is excellent, xB is an IIHS Top Safety Pick, and the Scion brand ranks at the top of most measures of customer satisfaction. Soul, cube, and xB cover the spectrum in size.

WHILE LIVING IN HIROSHIMA, JAPAN, IN 1999, working on a product development and marketing study, I experienced first-hand the Kei-jidosha Suzuki-built “box cars” that young Japanese males were turning into their own version of 1970s American disco vans. During my stint in Japan, I saw these boxes running around every night. The kids were typical Japanese tuners, with a few “coconut head” surfers also driving them, no doubt because surf boards fit so perfectly in back. If you’ve never spent time threading the narrow back streets and alleys of urban Japan, or parts of Europe, you won’t understand how useful a tiny van can be.

When the original Scion xB turned up in the US, I understood, and knew it would be popular in my over-populated beach neighborhood. The stumpy MINI Cooper S I had at the time was also popular in my neighborhood– MINIs are easy to park in crowded neighborhoods, though their low ride height doesn’t mesh well with tall city curbing. The Scion xB went much farther than the MINI, with four doors, ample room for four or even five people, a tall seating position that made it easy to get in and out of the car, plus huge cargo space and a lower price– small on the outside and big on the inside.

Though more radically styled than the original xB, which was an anime version of the Chevy Astro van, Nissan cube is close to the 2003 xB concept, with slightly more power, making freeway entry ramps less intimidating.

Engine, Transmission, Drivetrain

Based on the conservative Nissan Versa, cube is first cousin to the Renault Megane sold in Europe. Versa’s 1.8-liter four-cylinder is partnered with either a manual transmission or a continuously variable transmission, or CVT, which is an efficient form of automatic transmission. Our cube krom test car had the CVT, which best fits cube’s character. I wouldn’t bother with the manual transmission.

cube’s double overhead cam engine is sophisticated and smooth, delivering a nice balance between fuel mileage and power. It has about five horsepower more than the recently tweaked Honda Fit. More importantly, cube has much more torque than the Honda Fit, so it performs better in urban driving. Kia Soul’s 2.0-liter engine has 142 HP.

CVTs have unique characteristics making them an excellent choice for a small-engined city car. Nissan has spent enough man-years developing this transmission that powertrain sound is unobtrusive under a wide range of conditions, and the CVT makes the most of the torque and horsepower available. Unless you’re running up a steep hill, or full-throttle to enter a highway, engine sound is subdued in the cube.

There’s no real “kick-down” as with a conventional automatic. You press hard on the accelerator pedal and the transmission seamlessly raises revs to the engine’s most powerful point. If you stay on the throttle hard, the engine will smoothly and steadily climb in revs and stay there until you are up to highway speed: ease off the throttle and revs drop dramatically. Above 4500-5000 rpm at full throttle when you’re pushing the car up to highway speed, the engine is boomy, but I doubt most owners will encounter it often or care. cube is not, by any stretch, a performance car. Again, the CVT is the best transmission for cube as the involvement demanded by a manual transmission doesn’t fit the transportation module character of the car.

Suspension, Steering, Brakes

Short, with surprising outward visibility, an extremely tight turning radius, and very light electric steering, cube can thread nearly any parking lot situation imaginable, and parallel park into unbelievably tight spots. Bred in the crowded streets of Tokyo, cube can ably cope with US traffic conditions.

Steering is extremely light with little feel, thanks to electric power assist. cube is not a performance car, so light steering is acceptable. If this were an Infiniti G37S, MINI Cooper S or Mustang GT, I’d complain about the lack of steering feel. I complained about it in the Ford Fiesta review, but Fiesta has sporting pretensions (and latent capabilities) that seem to warrant more evolved steering. cube has rheostat steering, perfectly suited to an urban bumper car.

Braking is adequate for a car happiest at speeds below 50-60 mph. Honda Element, Scion xB and Kia Soul all have four-wheel discs, but cube’s rear drums are not a significant fault in context of its mission as urban scooter. cube also includes a full suite of braking technologies, from ABS and Brake Assist to traction and stability control. Nissan may eventually be forced to adopt four-wheel discs if only for marketing reasons and safety imagery.

cube’s ride is soft and comfortable enough without wallowing on patchy road surfaces. You won’t mistake cube for a Cooper S and I don’t recommend pushing it too hard through corners. A Cooper S drives like the front-drive BMW it is, but performance is NOT part of the cube equation. Relax, take your time, enjoy the drive, enjoy the view beyond the billboard-size windshield, and all’s well. cube will force you to set aside Type A driving and relax. If you can’t do that, don’t buy the car.

Body, Design, Quality

cube, Soul, and xB are the US-scaled versions of those kei-jidosha “box cars” I found so amusing on the narrow streets of Hiroshima, Japan. They’re also built to a far higher standard : kei cars are pretty cheap and not suited to life outside East Asia. cube has six airbags, a well-engineered body structure and standard stability control. Just like the Kia Soul and Scion xB, Cube was rated a Top Safety Pick by the IIHS.

cube has a tall, airy cabin. The windshield sits far ahead of the driver, conjuring images of an anime big rig. Though six three, I had about four inches of head room. True to the box car genre, cube is roomy and comfortable. Because of the distant placement of the windshield and the extreme headroom, plus its kitschy exterior design, cube reminded me a bit of the VW New Beetle which, thanks to its high roof and huge windshield, has a similar “glass bubble” ambiance. cube’s tall, upright windshield brings one problem: wind ruffle at highway speeds. By 60-65 mph, you get a noticeable amount of wind noise at the A pillars. Solution? Turn up the radio. This is an issue Nissan engineers might resolve when the cube is refreshed in a couple years.

As a genre, “box cars” are among the easiest to live with in urban neighborhoods. You either laugh and smile when you walk up to the cube, or you think, “What the heck am I doing in this thing?” There’s really no in-between. cube is even more polarizing than the original Scion xB. For me, it’s a Flintstones telephone booth, or an anime car. Like a childhood toy, it can spark your imagination. As with our comments on cube’s relative lack of performance, here too if you’re Type A aggressive and can’t laugh at yourself or drive at a moderate pace, don’t buy a cube.

cube’s asymmetrical design may be off-putting for some, but proves brilliant once you’re INSIDE the car, as you can see cars and motorcycles lurking in your blind spot, thanks to an ample glass area at the right rear corner of the car. No need for a blind spot camera and warning system as on out-sized SUVs and über-sedans.

The body engineering team delivered the typically good work one expects from the Japanese. Panel gaps are even and panels sharply aligned. Japanese build quality. The door openings are big, the lower door sill is limited, and the doors swing open wide. In short, it’s easy to get in and out.

That also applies to the rear hatch, which swings open like a refrigerator door to the left, putting the door between you and traffic when loading cargo curbside.

A slave to fashion? Perhaps, but from the inside-out the cube’s tall, glassy greenhouse is highly functional, a sign of intelligent industrial design.

Ergonomics, Interior

cube’s interior is a great place to spend time when shuttling around urban and suburban streets. cube’s primary gauge pack is excellent, rendered in cool blue electroluminescent light. All sightlines for gauges and controls are clear. Anyone can get in the cube and within a few minutes have most of the important gauges and controls figured out. cube is the exact opposite of more expensive, feature-laden cars that demand an investment of time and instruction before all controls and gauges are understood. cube is minimalist, like a scooter.

Heating and air-conditioning controls on the center stack are concentrated in a circular cluster. Buttons and knobs are large and easy to work, with a positive if delicate touch. The audio system has the only major set of controls. In the cube krom the audio system has a Rockford-Fosgate subwoofer and enhanced speaker system. From the cube S up, there is Bluetooth connectivity. Like the car, the dash and center stack are clean and minimalist, with a humorous style.

Certain shapes are repeated throughout the vehicle. The steering wheel-mounted toggles to operate cruise control and audio have a dog-bone shape, which is repeated in the layout of the speedo and tach, and shape of the dashboard. Another repeated shape is the water drop of concentric radiating circles of the roof liner, and the matte black exterior panel behind the left-rear passenger window.

Interior materials are oddly conventional, but well executed. The door panels and dash are made of hard plastics, typical of cars priced in the teens. Seats in the krom edition are faced in a silver and black checked pattern with dark cloth for the seat base and sides. The fabric has a soft hand. cube krom offers a rearview monitor and intelligent key.

Because cube is, well, a cube, interior space and particularly cargo space are good. The rear seat reclines, and slides forward and back to maximize cargo or rear legroom, depending on your needs. The front seats can recline very nearly flat, so when you’re parked at the beach or you’re tailgating with your parentals at a college football game, you can recline the front seats, then push back and recline the rear seat to set up a space to lounge and relax. cube could use a few more inches of rear-seat leg room.

Oddly enough, compare cube’s wheelbase with Versa’s and you see exactly where that legroom went: Versa’s wheelbase is about 3 inches longer with commensurate increase in rear legroom. Hmmmm. A product planning compromise in favor of abbreviated overall dimensions of the car.

As with the Ford Fiesta we drove a few months ago, there’s a deep cargo well, then a large step up to the folded rear seatbacks. As in the Fiesta, this is to maximize cargo volume. I have a personal preference for raised flat cargo floors that provide a wide, flat surface when the rear seats are folded. That said, cube can haul plenty of cargo. The base cube is available with a rear-seat delete option, clearly aimed at local shopkeepers who want a cool delivery van, competing with the boxier and more utilitarian if flawed Ford Transit Connect.

Conclusion

Some time ago, an English friend who manufactures race vehicles asked me about the original Scion xB. Being a member of the English gentry, raised on an estate, he couldn’t understand why a young man would want a refrigerator box with a puny engine. Why not a used Lotus Elise or used BMW? Why not a restored vintage sports car that would attract all the coeds? Well, cost. Cost of maintenance and insurance, plus initial purchase price. If dad’s paying for the car, does he really want to turn his kid loose in a car that might kill him, or at the least end up wadded into a very expensive ball? Probably not. And Junior has the advantage of a car that can haul his belongings home for summer, or from dorm room to cool senior-year apartment.

Which leads to another question: cube marketing painfully copies the marketing of the original Scion xB, with accessories, ties to art schools, and the like. But who is buying the car? In my neighborhood, I see them driven by very much the same folks who bought the VW New Beetle: baby boomers who want to remember the Summer of Love. Under current economic conditions, any sale is a good sale. But is the cube an alternative for the older folks who favor Nissan Versa (average age in the fifties), or enticement for younger buyers heading off to Blue Mountain State or photography school in Santa Barbara?

cube was the natural competitor in Japan for the Toyota bB that became the original 2003 Scion xB. cube has finally arrived in the US. If you’re a Type A, aggressive male, you want to move on. This car is not for you, just as the other “box cars” are not. If you need a well-built, inexpensive car with excellent safety engineering, a high level of features and plenty of cargo space for shuttling around a crowded neighborhood, cube is an excellent choice.

What are the prospects for electric vehicles, known in the auto industry as EVs? Even though every major automaker has an EV either on the drawing board or nearing production, for the foreseeable future, the vast majority of new vehicles will continue to use a gas or diesel combustion engine for propulsion. The number of hybrids will increase as car companies add this technology in a bid to increase fleet fuel economy, and vehicles that use a combustion engine as a generator to recharge on-board batteries, like Chevy’s Volt, will become more commonplace. Short of government mandate, it’s unlikely that battery-powered vehicles will become the dominant powertrain in the foreseeable future.

According to the Boston Consulting Group’s study entitled Batteries for Electric Cars: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Outlook to 2020, EVs and other battery-powered vehicles have a litany of hurdles to overcome before they are accepted as a mainstream option. Not only are battery prices still above the level at which a consumer could hope to break even on his EV purchase within a reasonable time (1-3 years), a robust charging infrastructure is non-existent and will take years to establish, charging times are many times longer than buyers are used to (a typical stop at a gas station takes maybe 10 minutes versus perhaps hours to recharge a battery), and so on. Though technologies may change rapidly and greatly reduce the cost of batteries while increasing their capacity and life, that day is not here yet. It may never arrive.

According to the Boston Consulting Group:

• It’s estimated automakers pay $1,000-$1,200/kWh for a lithium-ion battery pack today.
• Car companies are targeting a cost of $250 per kilowatt-hour by 2020 for future battery packs. Reaching this goal will take a cost-neutral breakthrough in battery chemistry that also increases energy density.
• In 2020, automakers should expect lithium-ion batteries to cost $360-$440/kWh.
• Assuming the cost/kWh falls by the expected 65% between 2009 and 2020, today’s $16,000 battery pack will cost $6,000 in 2020.
• Means of reusing EV batteries under consideration include: storage capacity for powerplants and wind or solar energy farms, reuse in smaller EVs, emergency power, grid stabilization, and home power storage.
• These uses either have a small theoretical market size or their needs are currently met by less expensive technologies.
• If EV sales reach projected volumes, it will require $20 billion in local, state and national spending by 2020 to create a proper recharging infrastructure.
• Estimates say EVs should drive the increase in electricity demand by less than 1% by 2020. This should not require additional power-generation capacity.
• At 3% to 5% of overall market share, however, EVs by themselves would increase electricity demand by up to 1% per year, and require additional capacity and upgrades to the aging electrical grid.
• Even with the expected rise in the cost of advanced gasoline engine technologies, battery pack prices will have to drop dramatically for automakers to sell EVs at a cost comparable to combustion-engined vehicles.

So much for the technical aspects of EVs. What can the average car buyer expect? According to the Boston Consulting Group’s study:

• Using a standard 120-volt home outlet it takes almost 10 hours to charge a 15-kWh battery. Upping the output to 240 volts reduces this time to two hours. A commercial three-phase charging station drops charging time to 20 minutes.
• Within three years or less of purchase, buyers expect to break even on their EV acquisition.
• At an inflation-adjusted oil price of $100/barrel in 2020, that break even point is 15 years.
• U.S. diesel buyers and hybrid owners would break even in about 8 years under the same assumptions.
• At a higher-than-expected sales rate of 5% for EVs, the 2020 U.S. vehicle fleet will be 52% gasoline-powered, 32% hybrid, 5% diesel. The remiaing 6% would be flex-fuel vehicles.

Bringing the break even for EVs down to three years would require one of the following to happen:

• Battery costs drop from $400/kWh to $215/kWh.
• Energy density increases from 150 Watt hours per kilogram to 290 Wh/kg.
• Inflation-adjusted government incentives of $7,700 per vehicle are made permanent.
• Annual vehicle miles traveled rise from 13,673 miles to +40,000.
• Oil prices jump to the equivalent of $375/barrel.
• The federal gasoline tax increases 210%.

Though the Boston Consulting Group didn’t mention it:

• Lithium is currently extracted from the soil via a water-intensive process or from brine dried from salt pools.
• China is one of the largest producers of inexpensive lithium while another large producer, Bolivia, has suggested “political use” of its natural resources.
• Batteries are made from toxic materials and would require an expensive recycling system to prevent environmental contamination.
• The vast majority of electricity in the United States is produced using coal.
• The only viable high-volume clean alternative on the horizon is nuclear.
• The US electrical grid already is overtaxed.
• Cold weather can cut EV range nearly in half.
• Extreme heat also adversely affects range.
• Replacing one-third of the approximately 300 million vehicles in the U.S. fleet at 5% per year would take more than 100 years based on an annual sales rate of 15 million vehicles per year.

As you can see, electric vehicles are not a silver bullet solution. It’s not even clear what problem they are a solution for. Yet every car buyer will pay the price for this folly.

Coda — Mark Ewing

On the recent Infiniti M launch, held in San Diego, we asked the Nissan folks about the Boston Consulting Group’s report covered above. They shrugged. Their argument is that electric utilities in southwestern and western states have offered considerable help. Also, they point to the incredible reception the Nissan Leaf has received with consumers in their targeted markets, meaning “Greater California,” Seattle, Portland, Arizona, Las Vegas, and Texas. If Nissan has identified a “demand-pull” market for electric cars, they may achieve success in warm, dry markets. In short, niche marketing.

Below I’ve updated the original white paper covering Ford Racing and Ford high-performance road cars to reflect Ford’s current corporate structure and product development process, expanding the argument with more detailed examples.

Simply put, the current mess must be wiped clean, and a new system instituted that is global, presents a unified message, yet incorporates the finest nuggets of Ford’s racing and high-performance heritage. For the sake of argument, I think Ford Racing should produce Ford R cars, which builds on the three Mustang Cobra R cars of the Nineties, and also links to the muscle car past of the Sixties. The same badging will work just as effectively in Europe, Australia and elsewhere. The heritage of US, European and Australian Ford performance can be incorporated through powertrain nomenclature.

I expect a few highly vocal members of the SVTOA, SHO Registry and other owner organizations to take exception and send more than a few nastygrams. For you vocal owners, bear in mind that I joined SVT at the close of the 1993 model year (first year), worked with them through the 2000 model year, and saw much of my work used and reused for the remaining years of SVT. With Mullaly having crushed the many fiefdoms within Ford and brought a measure of coherence to product development—his job is not done—there is a rare opportunity to bring rationality to the development and marketing of Ford high-performance and race cars, a rationality that will help ensure a steady flow of products to be prized, driven hard, and collected. To reach that level of coherence and stability, a few minor deities in the Ford Performance Pantheon are gonna have to die.

This piece runs long, for a reason. Based on experience, I know more than one marketing manager in Dearborn who would want to project his over-inflated ego by inventing new nomenclature, and pointing to it to support his next promotion. The goal here is to close off most perceived avenues for such careerist self-promotion, and present a complete argument. Much as you might want to scream, “Oh, Jeez, enough already,” there’s reason for the depth and detail.

The Current Mess

None of the following Ford performance model designations has enough depth to carry the freight with race cars, homologation specials or true high-performance cars. Some of these can be recycled to serve on cars with somewhat enhanced performance. Some of the following must die to bring clarity to the message.

• ST is not strong enough for high-performance. Sport Touring? Super Turismo? ST as a model designation was launched when a manager in Europe stole much of the drivetrain engineering of the late Nineties SVT Contour (and a good bit of the marketing materials) to create the Mondeo ST200 on the cheap. Not exactly a great achievement. ST is at best valid for warmed-over Ford of Europe products comparable to the US-market Bullitt Mustang. ST might make a nice naming convention for cars like the current Taurus SHO, and the upcoming Fiesta with EcoBoost engine. Except for one thing: say it out loud, guys. Fiesta ST. Focus ST. It’s wimpy. Don’t hang the pride of your company on such a puny term, created by people who later nearly killed Ford Motor Company. When you create a nomenclature, say it out loud, in various dialects, to see if it works.
• Cosworth’s brand image with Ford road cars peaked in Europe in the Eighties and early Nineties, with Sierra Cosworth and subsequently Escort Cosworth homologation rally cars built on cobbled together platforms. With floor pans cut to pieces and rewelded to accept all-wheel drive, these cars had little or nothing to do with the real Sierra and Escort platforms. In fact, the Escort Cosworth was an evolution of the Sierra Cossie. As a company, Cosworth has been traded around for more than a decade, though they appear to be stabilizing, once again playing the role of customer engine supplier to lesser teams in Formula One. However, is there any meaning left in this brand when associated with Ford if there is not a Ford team in Grand Prix racing? Even if Cosworth helps create rally motors and the like, the name should only appear on cam covers. This is a cult name to be exploited in Europe, and it does hold some potential for the three global sedan platforms (Fiesta, Focus, Mondeo).
• RS brings conflict with GM in the US market, and Audi has effectively developed RS in an alpha-numeric system for global sales of high-performance variants. RS would work as well as R, but some of this comes down to the lawyers, doesn’t it? I could flip a coin and pick R or RS. But it should be one or the other. R brings a clean slate, and it sounds strong when you say it out loud. Focus RS only sounds good with a low-end Cockney accent. It sounds weak in an American accent. Think it through, guys.
• Special Vehicle Team (SVT) was raped and destroyed by a group of executives who hated it, and doesn’t really exist anymore; certainly not in the sense it had in its zenith 10 years ago. For the sake of clarity, SVT must disappear as a designation. For the narrative, SVT is absorbed into a new entity, Ford Racing and Ford R. With former SVT engineer Andy Slankard at Ford Racing, there’s truth to the storyline.
• Also, SVT was explored as a global brand, and rejected in the mid-Nineties when the various fiefdoms within Ford fought against it.
• FPV is like Australia: lost at the bottom of the world. Time to integrate.
• FART, Ford Advanced Racing Technology is not a good acronym. Why this was ever allowed to exist, I don’t know. It’s horrendous.

Ford R cars will be the center of gravity for both Ford high-performance road cars and Ford race cars. All other detritus like ST, RS, Cosworth and FPV can be used on lesser models, or preferably dropped. SVT must be absorbed into Ford Racing as the ghost in the machine. Considering how many Ford SVT dealers hated the name—I was architect of SVT annual dealer meetings for many years, and I heard plenty of dealers argue that “Cobra” should be the brand name—this shouldn’t be a problem.

Own The Space

Some might object to R because the letter is used by others. But it has not been effectively used by them, whereas Ford could step in and own the image very easily. The territory is open.

First example? Honda.

• Honda has used Type-R to little effect, and is too timid and incompetent to make proper use of the name in the US market.
• The current Civic Si is in most ways a US-market equivalent to the Civic Type-R (with comparable peaky horsepower), but Honda believed Si had more brand image in the US.
• Honda back home in Tochigi is too wishy-washy to create a proper global sub-brand, even if Type-R was and is understood by the young males who would accept the brand in the US.
• Honda should have moved to a global performance image when the US-engineered Si was introduced. But then again, they never had the brains to evolve the Acura NSX and resolve its multiple marketing and performance problems, did they? Honda could have evolved the NSX into a rival of Porsche and Ferrari, but instead they let the car languish, growing increasingly frumpy. Honda never moved to either turbos or a V8/V10 in the height of the performance market of the past 15 years. Honda flubbed it, then brought out the interesting but equally ill-conceived S2000.
• Now Honda is further cluttering the US market with Mugen. Honda is repeating all the mistakes Ford has made. Instead of boldly stating what Honda stands for, they are playing around, seeing if Mugen will work. And if Mugen fails, they can kill it and feel smug about their decision not to risk Type-R. They may ultimately sacrifice Mugen after it has helped establish a new pricing plateau, then step in with Type-R to extend further. Remember, fortune favors the bold.

Next, Volkswagen.

• VW uses R in an alpha-numeric scheme with Golfs (e.g., R32) and on the Scirocco, but the cars are not well known in the US, and have made little headway in Europe.
• With Audi just above VW, there’s limited room for VW to produce a Germanic and therefore expensive high-performance car without crowding deeply into Audi territory at a price point few Americans will accept.
• VW is an irrelevancy in the US car market. Thus, its performance derivatives are even more irrelevant. If their Tennessee venture works out and VW volumes grow, they might be in a better position to use R. Better that Ford claims the ground now.

Volvo?

• Volvo R made little sense for what is the automotive equivalent of Birkenstock shoes. Who goes to Volvo for a performance car?
• Volvo is safety, reliability, sensible packaging, a bit of utility tossed in, and hopefully under Horbury a return to sensible design. Volvo is a great haus frau.
• Volvo has stopped making R cars. They never sold particularly well, even if the resulting cars had merit. Nice effort, but it didn’t work in the market.
• Volvo has debased R by turning it into a bundle of cosmetic accessories.

Jaguar?

• XFR, XJR. So what?
• In addition, R is part of the main model designation and not a separate term.
• Jaguars sell in small numbers, and XKRs sell in even smaller numbers.
• Jaguar bungled this sub-brand. Unless Tata is willing to drop millions to take Jaguar back to Le Mans and start winning again, who cares? It’s a trim level.
• Jaguar would be better advised developing mainstream products that cut more deeply into Mercedes and BMW sales volumes, and keep their XKR and XFR as boutique adjuncts that polish the image.

Ford R Marketing Imagery And Narrative

To repeat, for the sake of our argument, Ford R of Ford Racing.

Under this plan, Ford R cars are delivered to market through Ford Racing and Ford dealers who have paid for the right to sell Ford Racing products. No more Ford Racing Technology, please. Henceforth, Ford Racing.

Though the cars will be engineered partially within the context of mainstream engineering—something Ford was NOT capable of doing when I worked at Ford SVT a dozen years ago—to the public there will be Ford Racing and Ford R for engineering, racing, design and marketing of Ford R cars for both road and track. All marketing efforts will be built around Ford R to reinforce this singular global image of Ford Racing and Ford high-performance.

Imagery projected to the public is simple, clean and global: Ford R cars are produced in collaboration between the product planners and racing managers of Ford Racing (the ninjas, who will be described below) and the vehicle-line engineers of the Ford Motor Company. Because Ford engineers are capable and engaged, delivering excellent cars and trucks for customers around the world, at any time a ford engineer might be called upon to serve in the development of a Ford R car. Example? For the Ford Focus R, the vehicle-line body engineers might be tasked to manage development of specialty body panels for a British Touring Car Championship homologation Focus R.

This portion of the Ford R narrative has basis in reality: Dan Demitrioff of Ford Powertrain developed his “magic cams” that gave the SVT Contour both 30 more horsepower and a nearly equal jump in torque without making the engine peaky. Dan was mainstream, but a smart thinker, and his contribution carried the program past go/no-go. (However, to ensure against mainstream-engineered fiascoes like the 1999 Mustang Cobra, the R ninjas will have access to engineering resource and a proper development budget per car.)

Here marketing narrative and product planning meet. Ford Racing will provide direction and product planning, coordinating the efforts of Ford vehicle-line engineers as well as the specialty engineering firms that are inevitably involved in the development of homologation and dedicated road-going high-performance cars. This small group of engineers, marketers and planners will be the “ninjas” of Ford Racing.

The “ninjas” are an evolution of the structure used for SVT, adapting to the better-integrated product development approach under One Ford. The ninjas are the component of the narrative that allows SVT to become the ghost in the machine. For those people who bristle at any term that isn’t served up hot from a deep fryer, think of the “ninjas” simply as Ford Racing engineering managers, planners and marketers.

Ford Racing’s ninjas are an adjunct to Derrick Kuzak, ensuring that no R car goes off-target, as did the original 1993-95 SVT Lightning, which was developed without any marketing concept behind it, shoved into production and foisted upon the embryonic SVT. The ninjas must ensure that such a vehicle is completely thought-out, as was the highly successful second-generation Lightning of 1999-2002.

With the number of Ford SVT alumni now heading vehicles lines and major programs, there should NOT be the passive-aggressive and territorial resistance SVT faced. I would hope Mullaly and Kuzak have beaten that out of the system. Examples of vehicle-line managers or ranking engineers who once worked within SVT: Steve Pintar (Ford Fiesta), Kerry Baldori (Volvo, then Fusion and Raptor), Andy Slankard (Ford Racing), Dave Dempster (Advanced Product Creation). Again, SVT as the ghost in the machine.

Marketing will not only highlight the design, engineering, and performance of the R cars, but also the innate goodness of the Ford engineering on which they are based, a premise taken from the successful Ford SVT program of the 1990s. In the wake of One Ford, that imagery is reinforced to a greater extent because mainstream vehicle-line engineers will be tapped to step up and help develop these cars on an as-needed basis.

To repeat, the message to the general public will be that engineers at Ford are enthusiasts who truly loves automobiles, and the R cars are the ultimate evolution of Ford road cars that are innately good.

Though Ford Racing may rely on a wide array of engineering and fabrication suppliers, Ford vehicle-line engineers, Ford Racing “ninjas,” and the R cars will be the primary imagery presented to the public, along with their design, which is covered below.

Presentation of the R cars alone is not adequate. Buyers and collectors want to identify with the people who created the cars. That’s part of the enduring appeal with Baby Boomers of Carroll Shelby, who made his name more than four decades ago. This attachment to names and people transcends generations. The promotion of personalities cannot move to the level of cult of personality, a narrative some SVT marketing managers tried to insert into that program. But the people behind each R car remain an important component of the R narrative and the marketing message needs to include them.

Clear linkage must be made between road and race cars. Examples:

• Fiesta R rally car for WRC will be based on Fiesta R “homologation” road car.
• The many Mustang R variants (single-make, Nationwide, Grand Am, etc.) will be based in some way, shape, or form on the Mustang R road cars.

Ford Racing Product Development Standards And Benchmarks

What qualifies as an R car? What is the line of demarcation between a profane marketing exercise like a Bullitt Mustang and a Mustang R?

Mainstream Mustangs need special editions to keep sales up. This is usually focused on wheels, special paint, interior gimmickry, perhaps an engine stolen from a high-performance vehicle (e.g., the Harley trucks used a version of the SVT Lightning engine, running a different pulley to lower output, immediately making them “special,” more so than all the badges, stickers and paint would do on their own).

The most likely R car candidates are the three primary One Ford global sedans:

• Fiesta (WRC)
• Focus
• Mondeo (replacing Fusion in the NA market in the next product cycle)

Add to that the North American performance icons:

• F-150 (Lightning, Raptor)
• Mustang (Cobra, GT500, SVT, etc)

Plus, whatever the crazy Aussies want to hot rod. Also, there may be specialty coupes based on Fiesta, Focus or Mondeo components that provide extension of the R brand. Think about the Yamaha-engined Puma of the Nineties for reference. A Ford Ka would only work if made a global product, and it would sell far better in Europe than in the US. However, Ka has been dubbed too niche and too small for global sale (meaning US sale), so let’s not waste time on it.

A Fiesta R is a “homologation” car for WRC with a turbo 1.6 and all-wheel drive. This is the all-out batch-built low-volume car to make a link between rally and road.

Focus R or Mondeo R might be the car linked to British Touring Car or to a series here in the US or perhaps Australia.

How and why the cars are developed is part of the narrative. High-performance derivatives are rarely a major profit center because the engineering investment is high and sales numbers are low.

The main marketing goal of Ford R cars is to cast a bright halo around the mainstream products, showcasing the innate goodness of all Ford engineering. This is made easier because mainstream vehicle-line engineers working in the One Ford system are tapped to lead development of systems and components on each R car.

Please reference the Ford Racing “ninjas” mentioned above.

Therefore:

• Major investment made in suspension development/tuning, braking componentry, and powertrain.
• Depending on potential MSRP and also homologation considerations, investment in body panels, interior differentiation, special bodywork and interior badging.
• Thanks to engineering advancements since the zenith of SVT 10 years ago, unique fenders can be cost-effective.
• Cars developed for homologation and specifically for racing will have dramatically different engineering and cost parameters, measured individually to suit needs of the race series.
• Road-going Ford R cars are required only to break even. They cannot be a drag on vehicle-line or Company profits.
• Ford R cars cannot be thrifted in a risky manner that can stain the entire enterprise (e.g., the 1999 mainstream-engineered Mustang Cobra V8, which had a disastrous engine power deficiency, which is why the Mustang Cobra engineering was returned to SVT proper).
• True “homologation” cars can be exempted from the break-even stricture, but will be reviewed for value of exposure gained through the chosen race series. Value of the cars to the overall enterprise will be measured.

Additionally, and as a primary nod to the lucrative North American market, there are two types of R cars: black letter and red letter.

• Red letter R cars are the true “homologation” cars and the most radical of high-performance cars. These cars are heroes to the fan boys of various car magazines. They are all-out, with just enough civility to make them tolerable.
• Black letter R cars are equivalents to the Mustang Cobras of the Nineties: cars you can live with most days, but still high-performance variants.  Exploration of black letter opportunities in Europe is worthwhile, but this two-step is primarily aimed at North America, where a Mustang R black letter could sell in volumes of 5,000-6,000 and give a broader range of enthusiasts access to R.
• The red letter Mustang would be more expensive, and very highly prized by collectors. These cars will have exceptional specialized engineering.
• Black letter example number two would be the current FWD Focus RS. This is not a rally-inspired car, but instead a classic European “hot hatch.”

At this point, it’s clear to point out that the current Taurus SHO is NOT a red letter R car. This is a sport-touring sedan for a gentleman. It is too big, too heavy, and not outrageous enough to merit a red letter. With better thinking from ninjas, SHO MIGHT have worked as a black letter R car, with SHO only applied to the cam covers. Dredging up the SHO name and placing it on the fender muddied the waters. The original SHO was an intriguing vehicle, with a fine engine, but the over-stressed Mazda gearbox was prone to explosive moments. The second-generation SHO had an over-priced, under-developed Yamaha V8 that delivered no substantial performance gain–it has worked better as a Volvo V8, punched out to provide usable torque. And I know, because we built a few SVT SHO V8 prototypes, and they were dogs, utter and complete dogs that were shown to a small number of SVT dealers and quickly scrapped. Inclusion of the current SHO in the lexicon of R cars is a tricky point on the line of demarcation. No doubt some SHO Club members will send nastygrams for these comments, but the second-gen cars were disastrous, and measured within the Ford high-performance universe the first-gen car is a minor cult success.

R Badging, Heritage Badging

All road and race cars engineered, designed, and produced under the banner of Ford Racing will be known as R cars. Every high-performance road and race car engineered and produced by Ford will have a bold letter “R” integrated into the model badging. The model badging front, rear, and side for any vehicle will incorporate the highly graphic letter “R.” The issue of regional tastes and heritage is readily integrated into Ford R cars. The color of the letter and the mix of heritage names will build the secret handshake of the R fraternity over the years.

Lesser “performance” cars can be designated in whatever manner the regional market calls for. But these will NOT in any way equal the supreme performance of R cars, or conflict with them in the market or in the Ford narrative.

Three markets have unique heritage and needs:

• Europe (road racing and rally heritage, the ancient past of Formula One);
• North America (muscle cars, road racing, Indy car, Baja, drag racing); and,
• Australia (muscle cars and touring car).

Particularly in the North American market, Ford has a rich and complex high-performance heritage, something not faced by the likes of VW, Audi, Mercedes, or even BMW, and certainly not faced by the Asian manufacturers. This brings with it obligations that past Ford marketing managers did not understand or did not have the political capital to confront. A need exists to incorporate that heritage into a new, cleaner, and more sensible framework.

Under the umbrella of R, Ford heritage can be captured and employed through designation of the engine. A Mustang R might have an engine badged Cobra Jet, Cobra, Boss, Talladega, or Drag Pack, to give a few examples. This is most important in the US/NA market. However, similar variations can be applied in Australia and Europe.

The R cars will ONLY incorporate the heritage nomenclature that truly has meaning. R cars will not become a clearinghouse for every pathetic trim level that was ever foisted upon the public by some miscreant marketing guy. R ninjas will pick only the components that truly have depth of meaning, and whose meaning can be extended through incorporation in an R car.

Marketing-driven designations that have cropped up in recent years (e.g., Bullitt, California Special, Harley) can be left to mainstream exploitation. These names do NOT have valid high-performance credentials and are far closer to the stripes-and-stickers brand of marketing loved by the lightweights of the marketing profession. There can be no crossover between nonsense special editions and the serious high-performance road and race cars of Ford R, no matter the color of the letter.

Ford performance nomenclature of the glorious past can be incorporated in both series-produced and batch-built versions of R road cars and R race cars. The heritage can be fully exploited across multiple three- to four-year cycles of product development (e.g. Mustang R with Cobra Jet engine, Boss, Drag Pack, Cobra, Lightning V8s, Talladega V8, etc.).

Example: the red letter Mustang R car for the Nationwide Series, perhaps built with an engine badged “Talladega.” The more livable version of the Mustang R car range will have a black R badge and perhaps a Cobra Jet engine. See above for further detail.

Performance products unique to North America will be the Mustang R cars and F-150 R. The “black letter” Mustang R cars will be refreshed every few years with a new powertrain. For example, the powertrain might first be a Cobra Jet engine with natural aspiration. In the next development phase of the R cadence, the engine might have a supercharged V8 or a massaged twin turbo EcoBoost V6 that has the name “Boss” on the cam covers.

An F-150R might have a Lightning engine, denoting the roadgoing performance variant. Or, it might have a Raptor suspension system called out, for an off-roading vehicle. Evolutions of those two names will carry the F-150R for decades. You’re either going to have a road-going truck, or an off-roader. Other derivatives, like the Harley truck that stole the Lightning engine, can be handled as mainstream marketing ventures so long as they do not conflict with R imagery.

What of the global R products? Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo? Clearly, Europe can exploit rally designations for the black letter cars, with the R letter reserved for the all-out and most likely all-wheel drive versions that are linked to a racing series. If there is legitimate engineering development tie to Cosworth or another such firm, that firm’s name can be incorporated into the cam covers. Or an engine can be christened with the name of a great rally victory. (Sad to say that WRC is now a castrated version of its former self. Acropolis, Safari, these are gone. A sport needs great names and great fields of battle.)

Every Ford R car produced under the banner of Ford Racing can be fitted with cam covers and/or upper intake that wear the following badging:

• Ford Racing in bold, clear type;
• A blue oval; and,
• A black, red or green letter R: Black letter for pure road cars, red letter for race cars and homologation cars that are street-legal but much more radical, and maybe even a green letter for specialty high-performance cars developed with alt fuels like CNG, or ethanol.

The color of the letter and the heritage name associated with the powertrain become part of the secret handshake for people who own these cars. The guy who shows up with the red letter car at an event gets a special salute from others in the R fraternity, but everyone in the fraternity owns a car with special engineering and design, and each has that link to Ford Racing. Over the years, discussion of which engine you have adds to the value and lore of the R cars. Example: “You gotta red letter car.” And the reply, “Yup, Talladega motor.” In Europe, this need not be so lacking in subtlety. The red letter Fiesta will be recognized as the WRC car. The next section will also address the visual cues that would make the red letter Fiesta stand out.

Ford Racing Design

Design must be a component of the Ford R narrative.

• Design of Ford R cars will reside with Freeman Thomas and his Advanced Design Studios.
• A flexible but cohesive Ford R vocabulary of design will be developed.
• Ford Advanced Design Studio’s marketing imagery will be made a part of the Ford R narrative, adding to the aura of exclusivity.
• To the public, any designer working on Ford R cars will be presented as a member of the Ford Advanced Design Studio, whether permanent or on an R car rotation.
• The R design process will be fully integrated into the marketing materials and marketing message.
• The origins of Ford R design add to the cachet of these specialized vehicles.

Ford Racing Dealer Network

Ford R cars will be sold through a distinct subset of the Ford dealer body worldwide.

Ford SVT dealers in the US will be given first opportunity to buy into the program.

Dealers get a one-time chance to opt-in to the program. After that, R is closed to additional dealers. The best number would be perhaps 400-600 dealers in North America. Numbers for Europe can be determined readily.

Limiting dealer numbers is dictated by the need to limit sales volumes to make the cars special, while also giving the participating dealers enough “units” to make the program a worthwhile business venture. This lesson was learned with SVT, but a marketing manager threw it out the window to placate all dealers with the launch of the SVT Focus. It was one of the killer blows applied to the head of SVT. Not every Ford dealer knows how to handle such cars.

Dealers will pay an annual fee to participate in the Ford R program. The collective dealer fee will be matched by Ford Marketing to serve as the annual PR, marketing, and strategic planning budget for the Ford R cars. This is a direct carry-over of SVT.

Please note that engineering development costs are funded solely by the Ford Motor Company.

Dealer funds and matching Ford Marketing funds are devoted entirely to services that benefit the dealers and promote sales and reputation of R cars.

Why does this approach rate consideration? Because most Ford dealers WON’T make the necessary effort to use Ford R and Ford Racing to build the image of their dealership. SVT proved that only a small percentage of Ford dealers are true enthusiasts who are willing to make the considerable effort to bring success for Ford R. Maybe a big firm like Galpin can make it work, but many other large dealers simply don’t care about this specialized bit of business. Better to have a small or mid-size dealer who cares, and who builds a business around performance.

Conclusion

Ford has adopted many of these line items, but is still working out the nomenclature. As Editor Sawyer discovered, SVT, FPV and ST apparently may remain for regional performance vehicles. Global models will get a new global branding. This is a significant mistake, perpetuating the current mess, and making it difficult to engage in a global dialogue with customers around a common set of principles and ideas.

Further, promoting the global reach as well as the regional focus of Ford Racing will enhance Ford’s image by bringing regional vehicles into the line of sight of a global market. In much the same was as Nissan’s Skyline GT-R enticed generations of potential buyers before they could buy it, promoting the extent of the R program’s reach will entice enthusiasts everywhere and further enhance Ford’s global reputation.

To paraphrase, “Ford R: there can be only one.”

Let’s assume for the moment that the ethanol lobby is telling the truth. According to its claims, by 2030:

• Cellulosic ethanol (produced from corn cobs, wood chips, wood waste, straw, grasses, and other waste) will produce 80-100 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. using commercial technology.
• Average corn yields will increase from today’s +150 bushels per acre to 210-300 bushels per acre.
• There will be an ample corn supply to meet the demands for both food and fuel.
• As a result, ethanol will be capable of displacing about 90% of the oil used for transportation fuel today.

There are also these benefits:

• Ethanol production produces fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline production, with the promise of zero GHGs from future ethanol production facilities.
• Ethanol creation currently takes 38.5 fewer gallons of water per gallon of fuel than gasoline, and this number is expected to continue to drop.

Given these claims, why haven’t we pursued ethanol as a short-term solution to weaning ourselves off foreign oil, or as a long-term answer to fueling our vehicles?

One reason is that most of the vehicles on the road can’t run more than a 10% ethanol blend without modifications to their fueling system. Ethanol is hydroscopic; it absorbs water. This leads to corrosion of the fuel lines in a vehicle, as well as within pipelines that ship it across the country. Another reason is that the average vehicle gets 30% lower fuel economy with ethanol compared to straight gasoline, even if it was designed to run on an ethanol/gasoline blend.  Obviously, ethanol is a non-starter. Or is it?

According to Rod Beazley, Product Group Director, Spark-Ignited Engines at Ricardo Engineering, “To get the best out of ethanol blends, you have to optimize the engine for both ethanol and gasoline.” Until recently, engineers have chased engines with variable compression ratios to take advantage of ethanol’s higher octane and the greater energy released during combustion. These concepts run compression ratios of 16:1 or higher on high ethanol blends, and as low as 10:1 on regular gasoline. However, changing the compression ratio on the fly required adding sophisticated devices that changed the stroke of the piston, and this made the engine even heavier and more complex.

With its EBDI (Ethanol Boost Direct Injection) design, the engineers at Ricardo use the same technology found in direct injection gasoline engines like Ford’s EcoBoost, but evolved it for ethanol use. They add more boost when the ethanol percentage is high, and take it away when it isn’t. The engine is able to run on any mixture from 0% to 85% ethanol; onboard sensors determine the mixture and adjust the turbocharger boost accordingly. “That not only solves the flex-fuel dilemma,” says Beazley, “it reduces ethanol’s fuel economy penalty and allows the customer to use the most economical blend for his circumstances.”

To prove the concept, Ricardo took an all-aluminum 3.2-liter GM “high feature” gasoline V6, and optimized it for ethanol. That meant using twin fuel pumps, exhaust gas recirculation, twin intercoolers, a stronger bottom end, high-voltage ignition capable of lighting off high percentage ethanol mixtures, twin turbochargers with variable boost and more. But this engine wasn’t built to replace a gasoline motor. It will replace the cast-iron 6.6-liter Duramax turbo diesel in a GM heavy-duty pickup.

“The diesel weighs twice as much as the EBDI engine,” says Beazley, “so by being lighter our motor adds 450 lbs to the test truck’s towing capacity, and that’s extra income for those who use this type of truck professionally.” The EBDI engine is cheaper, too, costing $3,500 less than the diesel. However, it’s a cool $4,500 more than the standard gasoline engine. Though this may seem scandalously high, an engine designer at one of the domestic automakers said most of the increase in new car prices would come from new engine technologies designed to meet fuel economy and emission mandates. “When fully implemented in 2016,” he said, “the current $4,500 cost for EBDI won’t seem quite so exorbitant. Much of the technology it relies on will be used on high-volume production engines.”

There are other advantages for EBDI:

• Compared to diesel, ethanol costs less per gallon and its emissions controls are much less complex (no urea-injection systems needed).
• When compared to a gasoline engine with a similar power output, the EBDI motor running straight gasoline gets better fuel economy. In the heavy-duty truck example, the 3.2-liter EBDI V6 returns 16 mpg on gasoline versus 13 mpg for the standard 6.0-liter gasoline V8.
• On E85 fuel, the 3.2-liter V6 test engine produces 664 lb-ft of peak torque with more than 516 lb-ft available over most of the engine’s rev range.
• GM’s Duramax diesel is comparable in terms of peak torque, but lacks the EBDI’s broader and deeper torque curve.
• The V6 also produces more horsepower than the Duramax, giving it greater ability at highway speeds.

Where this technology could get really interesting is on the car side of the ledger. Midsize family sedans currently powered by four-cylinder engines of up to 2.5 liters could substitute a smaller 1.4-liter EBDI inline motor producing 180-190 horsepower. Performance would be similar, but economy would increase, especially on blends in the E30-E50 (30% to 50% ethanol) range. Downsizing the vehicle along with the engine would bring even greater gains without sacrificing passenger space or safety. That’s because swapping today’s larger fours and V6s for 1.4- to 2.0-liter inline fours would give engineers more underhood space for controlling the crash pulse without resorting to ultra-high strength steels or composites. However, since those materials are now in use in many new vehicle platforms, car makers have the opportunity to shift this space to the passenger compartment without compromising safety. A concurrent drop in weight would increase fuel economy about 10%. Compact cars in the 1.6-liter range (e.g., Chevy Aveo, Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris) would be powered by 1.0-liter EBDI triples.

As stated earlier, this can happen if the dream year of 2030 brings with it all of the promises the ethanol lobby expects. It also would require a stable national energy policy, and a focus on consumer choice and energy independence instead of ultimate fuel economy. You can see why, no matter how good the ethanol lobby’s argument appears, I’m not holding my breath for this to happen.

Twelve online writers faced off against more than 50,000 website visitors to pick the winning vehicles. As expected, the two groups didn’t agree on everything. However, Chevy’s Equinox took top honors with both, suggesting that GM’s attempts to rise out of bankruptcy may yet bear fruit.

Internet-based automotive writers:

• 2010 Car of the Year: Mazda3
• 2010 truck of the Year: Chevrolet Equinox

ICTY website voters:

• 2010 Car of the Year: Chevrolet Camaro
• 2010 Truck of the Year: Chevrolet Equinox

Forty-seven percent of the website voters were between the ages of 40 and 55, with 79% of the total male. Women made up just 21% of the voters, though this number is expected to rise as the award gains recognition. Of the 50,000 Internet voters:

• College graduates comprised 39% of the total.
• Approximately 30% had a graduate degree.
• Approximately 30% had household incomes between $100,000 and $149,000.
• Those making $80,000 to $99,999 comprised 20% of the total.

In addition, John Neff, editor-in-chief of Autoblog.com was selected as the Internet Automotive Journalist of the Year for his stewardship of the Internet’s largest automotive news site and support for automotive journalism on the web.

GM relaunched Cadillac with a focus on producing vehicles fully competitive with the best Europe has to offer. At the time, that meant rear-drive and at least a V8 engine option. With the introduction of the second-generation SRX, it’s apparent that Cadillac has begun to rethink its strategy, yet again. Gone are rear-drive and V8 power, replaced by a front-drive platform with a V6, a typical mass-market layout. All-wheel-drive is still an option, and the performance engine is now a 2.8-liter turbocharged V6.

Prime Numbers:

• Price: $47,540. As Tested: $49,910
• Engine: Aluminum 3.0-liter dual overhead cam direct-injection V6 with VVT
• Horsepower: 265 @ 6,950 rpm
• Torque: 223 lb-ft @ 5,100 rpm
• Drivetrain: Transverse-mounted engine and transaxle with Haldex electronic limited slip rear differential.
• Suspension F/R: independent struts with tuned coil springs, direct-acting hollow anti-roll bar, hydraulic ride bushings/linked H-arm, hollow anti-roll bar.
• Length: 190.3-in.
• Width: 75.2-in.
• Height: 65.7-in.
• Wheelbase: 110.5-in.
• Weight: 4,307 lbs.

Who’s The Buyer

This vehicle is for you if:

1. You need slightly more interior room and hauling capacity than can be found in Cadillac’s CTS Wagon (more a 2+2 than a true wagon due to its low roof), and prefer to sit up higher.
2. An Escalade doesn’t fit either your garage or self-image.
3. Audi’s Q5 and Volvo’s XC60 are the right size, but much too common in your neighborhood.

This vehicle is NOT for you if:

1. Even though GM claims it’s a new “premium” platform, you can’t help but notice similarities between the SRX and its less expensive and more prosaic Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain cousins.
2. You have tall children, who would have more head- and a bit more leg room in the squarer, longer wheelbase Equinox.
3. You expect even sporty Cadillacs to have a firm, yet comfortable, ride.

Alternatives To Consider

Audi Q5: Impressively built, chock full of technology, and blessed with an interior that defines the term “attention to detail.” To extend their profit, the Germans can’t leave well enough alone, and offer a wide range of expensive option packages on the Q5. Do you really need the ability to create personal settings for the suspension, steering, transmission and throttle? Audi thinks you do. Not only does this “tunability” add cost, it feels out of place in a crossover that will never run the German Touring Car Championship or the Dakar Rally in standard form.

Lexus RX350: For many, the very definition of the affordable luxury crossover. The RX’s appeal to women made it the best-selling Lexus for years, helped along by a cosseting interior with plenty of room for rug rats and their gear. High-quality appointments, available premium audio systems and special editions keep it fresh and competitive.

Land Rover LR2: Clean industrial design inside and out coupled with a capable chassis. Like all Landies, it is quite capable off-road, though you wouldn’t take it on a rock-hopping drive along the Rubicon Trail. Those planning to wait for the next generation might want to reconsider. New owner Tata may not prove as proficient as Ford in engineering a capable platform.

Volvo XC60: The Land Rover’s kissing cousin, it shares the same Ford-sourced platform, but puts a Swedish twist on design, inside and out. A bit more practical and less overtly luxurious in its design and appointments, the XC60 appeals to those for whom Ikea’s coolly minimalist design ethic makes them an interior furnishings leader.

THE FIRST-GENERATION SRX was built on a modified version of the rear-drive CTS sedan’s platform, and engine choices included a 3.6-liter V6 and 4.6-liter V8. In concept, it mimicked BMW’s X3 and X5, but the design was neither a readily understood and conventional crossover or a more nimble sport wagon. Fish nor foul. From some angles, it was striking and daring, from other it was an ungainly mess. With the introduction of the CTS wagon, GM has decided to swap the SRX badge over to a front-drive platform, downsize the engine choices, and focus its attention more on mechanically similar crossovers from Audi, Lexus and Volvo. Adapting to shifts in the market is wise, and there will be mistakes along the way to rebuilding a nearly dead brand, but Cadillac needs to decide what it stands for. Cadillac needs to be a unique alternative to the German and Asian competition, as well as from Buick.

Engine, Transmission, Drivetrain

The SRX buyer has a choice of two V6s. First up is a naturally aspirated 3.0-liter V6 based on GM’s 3.6-liter Premium V6 engine. Rated at 17 mpg city/23 mpg highway, it handled everyday chores with quiet speed and reasonable fuel economy, returned an average of 20 mpg in combined city/highway driving, and proved more than capable of getting the 4,307-lb. SRX up to speed quickly.

Cadillac also offers a smaller but more powerful optional 2.8-liter turbocharged V6 that produces 300 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, but is only available with all-wheel-drive. Though an extra 35 hp and, more importantly, 72 extra lb-ft of torque should make the SRX appreciably quicker with the optional engine, it comes at a price. Both city and highway estimated fuel economy drop by two miles per gallon, and premium unleaded gasoline is required.

If the federal government’s CAFE regulations were evenly applied to US- and foreign-engineered vehicles, the engine options might be considerably different. The CAFE regs are decidedly punitive for the US carmakers, as Ford and GM are NOT allowed to count their very thrifty cars sold in Europe and Asia, whereas foreign companies are allowed to do so, making it easier for them to export extremely powerful and thirsty vehicles to the US. If the CAFE regs were applied more fairly, the gap from Cadillac to BMW, Mercedes, and Audi might close very quickly.

The 3.0-liter is mated to GM’s 6T70 Hydra-Matic six-speed automatic transmission (the 2.8 V6 uses an Aisin Warner six-speed) that offers the option of choosing your own gear. The shifts, whether chosen by the driver or initiated by the transmission itself, are smooth, crisp and well spaced. Not only are the gear ratios far enough apart for fuel economy, they are not so far from each other that power drops off as you work through the range.

Despite Cadillac’s move to a rear-drive strategy with the introduction of the first-generation CTS in 2002, the latest SRX is built around a front-drive architecture. That means the engine is transversely mounted up front, and drives the front wheels under most situations. An active transfer case sends power to the rear wheels as needed, and an electronic limited-slip differential transfers power front-to-rear and from side-to-side to maintain grip. As best we can tell, this is a precursor of the next-generation Chevy Equinox, or some evolution of the current platform. That said, it has the necessary enhancements to structure and sound deadening to make it an acceptable luxury vehicle. In short, SRX is directly comparable to the Lexus RX, which shares fundamentals with Camry and Highlander, yet delivers a premium experience.

Suspension, Steering, Brakes

The steering is not overly light or exceedingly direct. Though there isn’t an excess of feel through the tiller, you can tell what’s happening at the front wheels at all times. On the other hand, the suspension has to work against the large (20-in.) wheels and tires, which means you feel their weight out at the corners over bumps, and hear road resonance through them more than you feel it. It’s one of the side effects of the drive to increase sidewall stiffness and reduce rolling resistance in modern tires as automakers try to combine good handling with increased fuel economy. If the SRX suffered from poorly designed suspension bushings, this reverberation from the huge tires would make itself known as a vibration through the floorpan or even squeaks and rattles. The fact that there is no such problem says GM engineers worked hard to successfully isolate the unwanted harmonics. As stated above, no matter the origins of the platform, Cadillac engineers have delivered a solid body structure.

Where they need to do a bit more work is in the ultimate tuning of the suspension. Under some conditions, the SRX was a bit abrupt in its reactions, not damping out the bulk of the disturbance but letting it through to the passenger cabin. Though fitted with all-wheel-drive and continuously variable real-time damping, our test vehicle was not able to combine suppleness and sportiness in equal measures. That’s because the two-stage valving of the shocks doesn’t have enough bandwidth to handle the combination of sportiness and comfort. Perhaps Cadillac should consider offering the Delphi-sourced magneto-rheological shocks it offered on the first-gen SRX. These units use iron shavings suspended in liquid as the damping medium, and have an electronically controlled magnet around the outer shock body. Applying a current turns the fluid near solid, but by quickly switching the current on and off, they are able to continuously control ride motions. This would be a real plus considering that the stiffer FE3 sport suspension is part of the package with all-wheel-drive. The magneto-rheological dampers come with a premium price tag but then again, Cadillac is a premium brand, or at least aspires to be once again with people in the prime of life. To re-establish its credentials, Cadillac may be forced to deliver far more car at a noticeably lower price, a deal luxury buyers will embrace. It worked for Lexus 20 years ago, and seems to be working for Hyundai with its Genesis sedan. It might work for Cadillac.

The brake pedal is firm, and the effort to actuate the four-wheel vented disc brakes is consistent with the rest of the SRX’s controls, a clear sign that the engineers had a defined plan and stuck to it. ABS, electronic stability control and dual-mode traction control are all standard.

Body, Design, Quality

SRX uses a new premium front-drive crossover architecture instead of GM’s recently upgraded Theta platform (a.k.a. the Chevy Equinox, see review here), though we’re not entirely sure about the origins of the SRX platform. It may have some Theta in it. That said the claimed reason for this change is to produce a chassis designed to provide strong driving dynamics while also isolating passengers from road noise. However, by switching to a front-drive architecture, GM also was able to increase interior space efficiency, reduce costs by borrowing pieces from GM’s broad front-drive portfolio, and produce a crossover more in line with the bulk of luxury crossover offerings. In short, Cadillac decided to follow the market and give the people what they want. The downside to modifying the Equinox/Terrain architecture is that for some odd reason the Cadillac engineers decided to SHORTEN the wheelbase by two inches (all in the back seat area), and the rear seats are fixed in place. Rear seats in both the Theta-based Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain are mounted on a slider that moves fore-aft approximately eight inches, and allows rear passengers to enjoy leg room greater than that found in a Mercedes S-Class when the seat is moved to full extension. That said, at least the product planners turned their back on the temptation to add a useless third-row seat.

These choices are very odd at best. It seems the CTS sport wagon is the better choice for those with a more aggressive self-image, who want a more engaging driving experience, and who will look on that vehicle’s tight rear cabin as a place for occasional use by passengers. Would not a crossover buyer want more package efficiency (greater passenger room) and seating/cargo versatility? Would it not have been wiser to ADD an inch to the wheelbase compared to the Chevy even if that made it slightly less maneuverable? Don’t premium crossover buyers deserve the same highly versatile seating Equinox buyers get, like rear seats that slide back and forth depending on cargo needs? Perhaps GM needs a better way to engage customers on a more intelligent level and not just copy.

The pictures tell most of the styling story, but the SRX is another example of a design that could use a deft hand to remove some of the excesses. It’s unclear why designers found it necessary to emboss the Cadillac crest inside the housings for the adaptive xenon headlights. This reminds of the etching done inside crystal trophies and awards given out at the annual sales convention. Neither is it clear why the side vent is a large, obviously plastic chromed piece whose only reason for being seems to be to provide a continuation for the rising character line found on the front bumper. Though we like the sharp edges derived from Stealth fighter design, we’d also appreciate a more thoughtful approach.

Cadillac lost its way starting in the mid-Fifties, when the cars headed down an egocentric path, becoming ever larger and more garish. By the late Sixties, the fine quality was dimming, too. Perhaps Cadillac should return to the qualities and themes that made it the finest car in the world both before World War II and in the 15 years following: bold but elegant design, clean, tidy detailing, and beautifully thought out packaging that simply fits the lives of upper-middle-class Americans.

Interior, Ergonomics

Interior design is crisply modern, combining bright work with a brushed steel finish and hand-stitched instrument panel accents. The driver faces three main gauges, with the speedometer containing a small LED screen that can display a variety of information, including speed, fuel economy, miles to empty and many others. But its most interesting trick is the ability to display the speed limit on the road you are traveling. This feature is very handy in ex-urban and rural areas where the speed limit changes dramatically (“speed traps” in layman’s terms).

Rear-seat passengers can set the temperature for their portion of the cabin, but they don’t have control over the child locks on the rear doors. Unlike most cars that have their child lock switches (it prevents kids from opening the door from the inside) on the rear doors themselves, the SRX has a pushbutton located in the center stack of the instrument panel. It allows the driver or front-seat passenger to set or override that function electronically. This makes it possible to haul the kids to and from school during the day, and take another couple to dinner at night without having to remember to reset door-mounted child locks.

Then again, on a clear day or starry night, each will probably be engaged in gazing out of the oddly named “Ultraview” panoramic sunroof overhead, and completely forget about the need to exit the vehicle.

This level of detail also extends to the cargo area where a U-shaped aluminum extrusion is set into the floor and provides a tie-down to secure your luggage or other bulky items. Smaller items can be placed in the rigid Styrofoam carrier directly beneath the load floor. There’s no spare wheel and tire under the cargo floor, however. In its place is a tire sealant and inflator kit. Considering the lack of a spare tire, we would have hoped for more rear-seat legroom. Here again, we have to wonder if Cadillac’s marketing people really thought about who buys a crossover because the rear seat should be far roomier than it is.

Another neat feature is a power rear hatch that can be programmed to open only partially so that you can raise it in your garage without having it crash into the ceiling, or so that it doesn’t open so high that shorter drivers can’t reach it. Also, the window shade blind that hides items from prying eyes fits into graduated slots on the rear pillars. This feature allows it to neatly rise just above the level of bulky items while still offering protection. Topping off the list of “surprise and delight” features is a depth-adjustable front cup holder that can be switched to hold taller drinks at the press of a button.

Audio, Video, Navigation

As if this wasn’t trick enough, the 8.0-in. navigation screen rises up from the instrument panel when in use. When the SRX’s transmission is placed into reverse, the screen provides a full-color look at what is behind the vehicle. The navigation screen can be set to show things like highway exits as well as the direction of travel, traffic, shorter routes in traffic in turn-by-turn mode. As you approach an exit, it overlays this information on the same side of the screen as the exit itself. (Not all are on the right.) And this information disappears when it’s no longer relevant. Unfortunately, Cadillac’s web site falls short in that it doesn’t have any informational videos that would show the potential customer how the technology works (and how cool it can be) better than mere words can convey.

If you want to know about more than just traffic, you can access real-time weather data on the same screen or pull up a long-range forecast. Both of these items depend on the expanded XM satellite radio service. The first 90 days of the subscription to this service are on GM, after that it’s up to you.

As expected, you get AM and FM along with the XM, as well as a CD/DVD player, 40 gigabyte hard drive, a USB port for iPod integration and charging, and an auxiliary jack, Bluetooth connection and Bose 5.1 digital surround sound with 10 speakers. In addition, our tester was fitted with the $1,295 rear-seat entertainment system that features a video screen on each of the front seatbacks, wireless headphones and a remote control.

THE SRX IS A CAPABLE MID-SIZE CROSSOVER with plenty of nice features, and the amenities you expect from Cadillac. It is, however, a product of me-too thinking, as Cadillac assembles a nice selection of front-drive components into an analog of the vehicle that defined luxury crossover, the Lexus RX. It is based on a front-drive platform that borrows heavily from the GM bin of components when the current and future Cadillac line is predominantly rear-drive. While this makes it roomier than a like-sized rear-drive crossover, the SRX lacks the rear-seat capacity and adjustability found in its lesser GM brethren (Chevy Equinox). Fold in fussy detailing and a suspension that could use more development to more evenly balance sportiness and softness, and you begin to see that GM is still unsure of what exactly Cadillac stands for.

Buick suffered from neglect while GM attempted to put its Cadillac franchise in order, and tried to support more brands than it could handle. However, by moving Cadillac up and giving it a more sporting edge, product planners gave Buick a niche closer to the lower reaches of Lexus. This placement is much closer to Buick’s traditional market as the low-profile luxury alternative to flashier Cadillacs of GM’s glory days of the 1920s to 1960s.

Prime Numbers

• Price: $33,015. As Tested: $35,760
• Engine: 3.6-liter V6 with four valves per cylinder and variable valve timing on the intake camshaft only
• Horsepower: 280 @ 6,300 rpm
• Torque: 259 lb.-ft. @ 4,800 rpm
• Drivetrain: Transverse front-drive with six-speed automatic transmission.
• Suspension, F/R: MacPherson struts, twin-tube gas-charged shocks, anti-roll bar/four-link independent with twin-tube gas-charged shocks, anti-roll bar
• Length: 197-in.
• Width: 73.1-in.
• Height: 59.2-in.
• Wheelbase: 111.7-in.
• Weight: 4,065-lbs.

Who’s The Buyer

This car is for you if:

1. You find sleek, handsome styling with an American flair appealing.
2. Overall capability is more important than outright performance.
3. “Peace and Quiet” not only describes interior sound levels, but the character you look for in a car.

This car is NOT for you if:

1. You still associate the name Buick with “Social Security.”
2. The brand’s misguided and conflicting forays into motorsports and performance cars like the GNX while turning its profit from cars like the Century, the favorite rolling sofa of old Aunt Bessie, turn you off.
3. You are afraid your purchase comes with free AARP membership and coupons for Metamucil—and that your children will say a Buick makes you look older than you really are.

Alternatives To Consider

Lincoln MKZ: This is the entry-level Lincoln. Stuck in a no-man’s land between what Mercury ought to be and what Lincoln should be, the MKZ is based on Ford’s current and excellent Fusion platform, but given just enough leather, wood and technology to make you think it’s more than it really is. All-wheel-drive is optional.

Toyota Avalon: For many, this car epitomized what would happen if a Japanese company built a Buick. Larger, heavier and roomier than the Camry, it offers a silky ride, and a generous, quiet interior like Buicks of old. Priced similarly to the LaCrosse, it is slightly smaller in most dimensions. All-wheel-drive is not available.

Acura TL: Built off Honda’s Accord, the TL is the middle child in the Acura lineup. The last generation car was smoothly sexy and luxurious, but tried to put too much power through the front wheels. The latest generation ditches the Alfa-like bodywork for a more Japanese design, finishes it off with a large chrome “can-opener” grille and adds Honda’s amazing Super Handling All-Wheel-Drive. Like that person you took to the junior prom in high school, the TL has a “nice personality.”

THE “NEW GM” HAS TWO LUXURY BRANDS, CADILLAC AND BUICK. Distinguishing them from each other, however, was only part of the problem GM faced. For decades Buick had bounced from being the poster car for the AARP to providing race engines for the Indy 500 and building bizarre performance cars like the GNX. Buick needed a coherent image and character, and found it as a competitor for vehicles at the top of the Toyota lineup and the bottom of the Lexus family tree.

Engine, Transmission, Drivetrain

The LaCrosse powertrain is a strong point. Not only do you have more than adequate horsepower and torque available, this energy is sent through a smooth six-speed automatic transmission that drives the front wheels. Oddly, only the mid-range CXL offers all-wheel-drive as an option, and its 255 hp and 217 lb-ft should be enough to do the trick. However, the top of the line 3.6-liter V6 would be better suited to driving an all-wheel-drive LaCrosse with the confidence and sophistication expected of a Buick, and be more in line with the premium image Buick aspires to.

The 3.6-liter is GM’s premium V6. Like all of the other engines in the LaCrosse range (a 2.4-liter inline four and 3.0-liter V6), it uses direct fuel injection for greater efficiency. The 3.6 also has variable valve timing (VVT), but only on the intake valves and not the exhaust. Though most of the performance benefit of VVT comes on the intake side, adding it to the exhaust cam increases the ability to squeeze even greater efficiency out of the engine in terms of power, and in particular better fuel economy and lower emissions. Still, the engine produces a stout 280 hp and 259 lb-ft of torque, numbers that not too many years ago were hailed as impressive for V8s.

And while some manufacturers have moved to seven- and eight-speed automatic transmission, the LaCrosse uses its six-speed quite effectively. It could be argued that with the LaCrosse powertrain’s ability to smoothly move up and down the range, coupled with decent fuel economy (17 city/27 highway/21 combined mpg), there’s little to be gained by adding more gears, especially when the transmission is hooked to a relatively large-displacement and torquey engine.

The four cylinder? With just 182 hp and 172 lb-ft of torque powering a 4,000-lb car, it might be a bit tough to run the power through all four wheels with the unstrained gusto one should expect from a Buick. Thus it’s available only in front-drive form. Though we’d argue that the four-cylinder doesn’t belong in the lineup at all, it probably appeals to the ladies at Sun City for its frugal nature, and you don’t need all-wheel drive to putter around Florida or Phoenix.

Suspension, Steering, Brakes

The spec sheet reads like a favorite recipe: MacPherson strut front suspension, multi-link independent rear suspension, magnetic variable-assist power steering, electronic stability control, traction control, anti-lock brakes and brake assist. However, it is in how you add the ingredients and in what quantities that determines whether the dish is palatable or not. For the most part, the Buick engineers got it right. The LaCrosse stops just short of the dreaded “float” that was so common in the luxury cars Detroit built in the 1960s and 1970s, yet it retains the composure to ignore rough pavement. You’ll never mistake it for a sports car, but that’s not to say that the LaCrosse won’t go around corners quickly. It will, and with a serving of understeer to remind you that dignity demands a slightly slower speed and a more graceful arc through the turns.

The steering is light and direct, but somewhat lacking in feel. It has none of the “light as air” feel found in Buicks of old, and doesn’t twirl from right to left wheel lock with little effort. Thankfully, it has a weight appropriate to the vehicle. What it doesn’t have, however, is consistency. Enter a freeway on-ramp at speed, catch a slight bump that takes a bit of weight off the front wheels and you suddenly find yourself wondering if the car is connected to the earth at all. Granted, this is an infrequent situation, but one that will send a quick chill up your spine when you encounter it.

The brakes, on the other hand, worked well in all real-world situations. They may not stop the car without fading and smoking if asked to bring the LaCrosse down from top speed on a desert highway, but who in their right mind is ever going to ask that of a Buick?

Body, Design, Quality

The LaCrosse is based on an upgraded version of GM’s Epsilon platform found under the Chevy Malibu. And it’s a testament to that Malibu donor car that the LaCrosse showed no structure-induced squeaks, rattles or groans. In fact, the body proved impressively tight, and provides a strong base on which the rest of the vehicle is built. This ensures that the suspension, steering and brakes can do their jobs without having to also adapt to the inconsistent ride motions a less rigid base might introduce.

As for exterior design, the pictures speak for themselves. Though it looks long and narrow, almost dachshund-like from some angles, the LaCrosse is a handsome vehicle with Lexus-like overtones. The body side character line that dips and rises is reminiscent of the “side sweep” found on Buicks of the 1960s and 1970s, but without the overtly retro look favored by cars like the Chevy Camaro, Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger. Nicely done.

Close examination shows tight panel gaps, especially in the hard to control sections between the plastic front and rear fascias and the steel fenders they mate with. All of the body creases line up (no mean feat considering they often traversed both horizontal and vertical planes), and the trim fits snugly to the body.

Interior, Ergonomics

You just had to know there would be a problem somewhere: the interior design lacks cohesion, especially in lighter colors. It has an instrument panel that sweeps from door-to-door, and is tilted away from the passengers. This necessitates use of a gauge cluster that awkwardly sits in front of the panel and looks like an afterthought. The upper panel sweeps below the windshield and is bisected by a trim piece that includes a light on its upper edge. This casts a faint ice-blue light at night that complements the lighting used for the instruments. However, this ribbon of light does not carry over into the door panels and tie the interior together. Chevy did exactly opposite on the Camaro with its red accent lighting. Was money so tight when these cars were designed that GM couldn’t afford the extra cost, or was someone worried that customers would notice that both cars used wrap-around accent lighting? Either way, it doesn’t make much sense.

After driving a few new GM cars back-to-back, I can say that the interior designers ran out of ideas when it came to the center stack. You can almost draw the unit in your sleep: tall, slender air vents on either side of a navigation/audio screen sitting atop a mass of buttons. Oh yeah, and a large selection knob dead-center among the buttons. How confusing is it? It took me two days before I could remember the general area where the switch for the heated steering wheel was located, or accurately find the seat heaters on the first try. And friends who own recent GM offerings say they still have trouble finding the right buttons after months of daily use.

There’s plenty of room for five in the cabin, but it nevertheless seemed a bit tight. Why? The A-pillars sweep aggressively toward the front seats, promoting feelings of unease and claustrophobia among taller drivers because the windshield header seems too close. Then there’s a high window line, plus overstuffed seats, and shapes that compete against each other. A darker interior color (the test car was a dark titanium/light titanium mix, not the darker two-tone shown in the GM-supplied photos) would help, as would a “less is more” design ethic.

Audio, Video, Navigation

The navigation system adds $1,995 to the list price, but comes with an indispensible feature: a backup camera. Without it, and the lines superimposed on the screen to show you where the car is headed, maneuvering the LaCrosse in reverse would be an interesting pursuit. The sonar units imbedded in the rear bumper aren’t enough because they only provide an audible warning that you are close to another object or vehicle. The screen lets you see that potential impediment, and determine the best course of action. But this is the price that we pay for the low nose/high tail shapes that improve a vehicle’s ability to cut through the air, and most contemporary sedans have this same problem.

The 384-Watt audio system is from Harmon-Kardon, and drives sound from the AM/FM/XM/CD/MP3 sound system through 11 speakers. A USB port is located in the center console, and there are redundant controls for the audio system located on the steering wheel.

Conclusion

ALONG WITH THE ENCLAVE, the LaCrosse is a true “new Buick.” Forget the Lucerne and other stopgaps that have come before. This is the car that sets the stage for what is to follow, and redefines the brand’s image. Which is all the more reason to question the lack of all-wheel-drive on the top model, availability of a four-cylinder that probably only appeals to skin flints that drive 0.5 miles a day for the Denny Early Bird Special, and an interior that isn’t in tune with the very handsome exterior. As proven by the steering and some minor details, it needs a once-over with a fine tooth comb before it can claim perfection.

Then Los Angeles moved its date to late November/early December and drew a number of introductions and new concept reveals its way. Or before Chicago—in early February in the very snowy and cold Windy City—moved into its plush new two-million-square-foot digs. And well before the world economy pulled a hamstring. All these events drew prestige and money away from Detroit, money that couldn’t be replaced by homegrown companies of which two are wards of the Treasury Department. Fold in a bitter battle between the previous Detroit city council and suburban leaders over management of Cobo Center, its dilapidated condition and the natural reticence of an industry in the midst of a recession, and you have a recipe for decline.

The 2010 North American Auto Show in Detroit (to use its full and official name) has not been so low-key or quiet since the early 1990s. Though some of the excesses of the past—cars crashing through windows, dropping from ceilings or being introduced by executives in lame skits—with luck will never be repeated, the “show” this week was a shell of its former glory. Adding insult to injury, members of Congress, led by “Barbie Botox” herself, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, came by to “look in on their investments” (Chrysler and GM) and try to shore up the Democrat party’s chances in Michigan. Their appearances didn’t go over well. Even union members working the floor to get displays ready had little time for the politicians. Maybe they are smart enough to know they’re being screwed.

This transparent pandering was about as successful as a display dubbed “Electric Avenue,” which bisected one corner of the hall and placed everything from narrow tandem-seat electric “cars” and neighborhood electric vehicles on the main floor. It was quite a shock (so to speak) for a show that two years ago was straining at the seams to provide premium space to an increasing number of automakers. One 40-year show veteran was overheard saying: “I never thought I’d live long enough to see glorified golf carts on the main floor of Cobo, and not in the basement.” But the basement had been turned into a green “park” where you could drive electric vehicles and hybrids around a small course lined by tall pines and fragrant lavender. Or look at the various charging options for your future electric vehicle while every time she opened her mouth to speak Michigan’s governor, Jennifer Granholm, kept touting Michigan as the epicenter of the “green revolution” in transportation due to the fact that the domestic automakers and their suppliers are increasing their investment in electric vehicles. Then again, they have to. Fuel economy and CO₂ legislation (one and the same thing, actually) effectively mandates electric vehicles be built at volumes the market and existing infrastructure are unwilling to accept.

Just one week before the show opened to the press, analysts from the Boston Consulting Group had been in town to discuss the state of the electric vehicle. They claimed it was unlikely that automakers would reach their frequently quoted target of batteries that cost $250/kWh by 2020 without a major cost-neutral breakthrough in battery chemistry that brought with it increased energy densities. Further, western governments would have to continue their 2009 tax incentives in perpetuity for EVs to break even compared with cars powered by internal combustion engines in terms of total cost of ownership. This while consumers expect a full payback within three years or less for a vehicle to be considered a safe purchase.

All of which explained the drumbeat for higher oil and gas prices by automakers and politicians alike. EV’s will die without significantly higher gasoline and diesel prices: the Boston Consulting Group claimed that, with no other intervention like a continuation of tax breaks, gasoline and diesel taxes would have to rise 210% to raise the cost of ownership of internal combustion powered vehicles to equal that of electrics. With the large investment taking place in the power generation and automobile industries to design, develop and support electric vehicles, costs will have to rise to protect their investments in technologies the broader market cares little about—and all based on questionable CO₂ “science.”

And to think that the vast majority of electric power in the U.S. comes from coal-fired plants, and the only true viable large-scale “green” replacement is nuclear. That said, it’s time to lay off the politics and gloom and take a look at a few of the vehicles that made their debut in Detroit.

Ford Focus

Shown as both a four-door hatchback and sedan, the 2012 Focus was among the shining stars of the show. Focus replaces its ancient namesake with a fully modern design that proves compact family cars don’t have to be boring or austere. The interior is a bit busy, but features Ford’s latest riff on Sync connectivity technology, and is available with a premium Sony sound system. A new 2.0-liter four-cylinder with dual variable camshaft timing is standard—an EcoBoost turbocharged version is in the works—joined to your choice of a six-speed manual or six-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. Just don’t expect the new Focus to be priced like the old one. Though pricing won’t be set until production starts this fall, you can expect Focus pricing to rise. With a loaded Ford Fiesta able to crack the $20,000 barrier, a loaded 2012 Focus undoubtedly will be knocking on the door of its larger Fusion brother. It appears Ford is rapidly adopting the pattern of its Japanese rivals, moving established nameplates upwards and slotting a new nameplate below.

Cadillac XTS Platinum

Cadillac personnel were careful to point out that the Escalade is the division’s flagship, and the XTS is merely a concept. A sad state of affairs, if true. The XTS’s transverse 3.6-liter direct-injection V6 is mated to an electric motor and this powertrain drives all four wheels. Yes, it’s a hybrid, and therefore somewhat in line with the hybridized offerings planned by BMW and Mercedes for their range toppers. In the estimation of Cars In Context, the transverse engine layout and all-wheel-drive make the XTS a Buick, not a Cadillac. Why? Even though most Americans don’t know which wheels are driven and prefer all-wheel-drive to two-wheel-drive simply because four is greater than two, consumer studies consistently show that a true premium vehicle is built on a rear-drive platform. Apparently, some within GM agreed as more than one suggested that the original concept for the XTS was based around a rear-drive platform with styling that owed more to Cadillac’s Sixteen concept of a few years ago than the current Audi A8 or BMW 7 Series. Then again, tighter fuel economy regulations (domestic automakers have to reach a 35 mpg corporate average by 2016 while German and Japanese automakers are judged on their global sales, not just what they manage to sell in North America) make it tough to hit this target with a large rear-drive platform. Having said that, at the other end of the hall BMW introduced the 740 in both standard and long-wheelbase forms. It reintroduces BMW’s inline six-cylinder engine to its flagship, cutting both cost and fuel consumption.

If the drivetrain disappointed, at least the XTS interior was up to snuff, mixing creamy laser-etched leathers with handsome wood accents and an instrument panel that made use of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) gauge cluster. Plus, the rear-seat passengers get video screens that rise out of the backs of the front seats. Unfortunately, the designers just couldn’t help but festoon the XTS with reminders that this is a Cadillac. Really, if you have to put the Cadillac script on the inside of the headlight trim to remind buyers of the brand, you’ve probably not done your job very well.

Honda CR-Z

At the risk of never being invited to a Honda event again, let me say that the CR-Z is definitive proof that Honda is having a difficult time deciding what it wants to be. This is a cut-down Insight, thus it is powered by a 1.5-liter VTEC inline four with an Integrated Motor Assist electric motor. Combined, the gas engine and electric motor pump out 122 hp, 128 lb-ft of torque and anticipated fuel economy of 36 mpg city/38 mpg highway when fitted with a CVT transmission. (Manual-equipped models return 31 city/37 highway.) MacPherson struts up front and a torsion beam axle in the back, CR-Z is comparable to the original CR-X, which also was not the most powerful car on the block. The CR-X, however, was extremely light and flingable, making it the automotive equivalent of a lightweight running shoe for young drivers. Unfortunately, the bulbous nose and fat rear bumper—the latter makes it look like it has a full diaper and perhaps elephantitis—suck the life out of the CR-Z’s shape.

Take a look inside, and you are confronted with a Tokyo By Night instrument panel. In fact, the CR-Z can best be described as the successor to the original two-seat Honda Insight, which Editor Ewing says reminds him of George Jetson’s Speedster. That car also aped the CR-X’s shape and replaced sporty fun with frugal sobriety. Honda would have been better off ditching the CR-X overtones altogether and selling this as “Insight Lite” or pursuing a clean-sheet approach aimed at recapturing all those buyers it has lost to Scion.

GMC Granite, Chevy Aveo RS

Speaking of Scion, who’d have thought that GMC would take an Opel Meriva MPV and reskin it in bodywork aimed at Gen Y? The tough stance, suicide rear doors, and large cockpit hit the nail on the head for an American Scion xB, but the overwrought grille, fussy detailing and GMC badge had me scratching my head. GMC has never, ever been a youth brand, even if the youth were, to use the division’s slogan, “Professional Grade.” GMC was always a brand for construction professionals, from foremen up to hands-on architects and civil engineers.

Then again, the Chevy Aveo RS concept made me wonder as well. Though the Aveo concept looks like it could be a credible hot hatch, especially with a 1.4-liter turbocharged sourced from the Chevy Cruze sedan, the Aveo name has been associated with a tinny, tiny, built-to-a-price subcompact until now. Would it not have been better to call this car the Cruze Hatchback, or sell it under a different name entirely rather than hinder it with the Aveo badge?

VW New Compact Coupe

Usually, you don’t give out the dimensions (178.5-in. long, 70.1-in. wide, 55.6-in tall) and detailed information about its powertrain (a 1.4-liter turbocharged and intercooled direct-injection gasoline engine with an electric motor integrated between it and the 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox) and performance (45 mpg, 141 mph top speed, 0-60 mph in 8.1 seconds) if a concept car is just a concept. The hybrid system is similar to that used by Porsche on its Cayenne Hybrid prototype, except for the use of lithium-ion batteries in place of the nickel-metal hydride units in the Porsche. The interior—despite, I kid you not, having seats covered in light “Berry White” leather—is production-ready, and the exterior is the new shape of VW.

Many surmised the car, if stretched and given two more doors, would approximate the new sedan to come out of VW’s Chattanooga, Tennessee, assembly plant. Others said the NCC, as the concept is called, is a harbinger of the next Jetta sedan and Coupe. Apparently, both are right. The Tennessee sedan will borrow the NCC’s shoulder line, grille/headlight arrangement and rounded rear, though each will be toned down a bit. The Jetta, on the other hand, will follow the NCC’s design more closely as it is repositioned in Europe where it will take on less of a small family sedan role, much as the American car will. The addition of the coupe model will drive home this change, and target buyers for whom BMW’s 1 Series is too heavy, too expensive and too close to the 3 Series.

Chrysler Delta Concept

Take one new-style Lancia Delta, add a Chrysler grille and badges, place it next to a stunning blonde model wearing a dress made from individual metal squares sewn together with black thread. What you have is a dress that matches the car and a car not as beautiful as the model, though the vehicle’s interior is both sumptuous and stunning. Fiat is going to have to do more than badge-engineer its current GM-derived lineup and sell it under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands. That much is apparent.

Though many complained that Chrysler’s stand—a large and quite handsome raised platform with hefty white open frames that divided the Fiat family by brand—made no sense, actually it was a branding masterstroke. Fiat, Maserati and Ferrari were grouped in the center, surrounded by Chrysler and Dodge on one end, and Jeep and Ram on the other. The display was at once modern, clean, and stylish, and unequivocally told where the center of gravity of this union lies. Now if only Fiat and Chrysler had something interesting to put on it, other than the new Dodge Ram and Fiat’s diminutive 500, skeptics might start to believe that Chrysler and Fiat had a future.

Toyota FT-CH

Another Toyota concept with a weird name, but one that should strike fear into the hearts of rival automakers as they ramp up to compete with what will become a family of Prius-branded hybrids from Toyota. The “CH” part of the name stands for “Compact Hybrid” and is an indication that Toyota is readying a smaller hybrid for folks for whom the mid-size Prius is too big, too conservative, too expensive and too bland. The exterior shape retains the overall flow found on the second-and third-generation Prius, but couples it with a flair they can’t match. That’s because it was designed in Toyota’s European Design and Development center in Nice, France. Twenty-two inches shorter and one inch narrower than the Prius, the FT-CH was designed to be cozy yet comfortable for four. A line of Prius vehicles makes more sense than having a Prius, plus hybrid version of gas-powered vehicles (Camry Hybrid, Highlander Hybrid).

Despite the expected over-the-top interior treatment, the FT-CH carries over many of the basic shapes and control layouts of its larger brother. The mesh seats and some of the other more adventurous design elements won’t make it to production, but you can expect the instrument panel shape and gauge layout, individualized seating arrangement, connectivity options and minimalist interior architecture to make the leap. The hood-mounted headlights probably won’t follow, however, as they would make powertrain installation and access difficult.

Say the name “Suzuki” and the first thought for most people will be motorcycles. Quick, agile and sporting, the bikes have been everything the company’s cars have not. The Kizashi is a concerted effort to bring the cars closer to Suzuki’s motorcycles, and extend their appeal to riders who often look elsewhere when they need to ditch the helmet in favor of a roof and four doors.

Prime Numbers

• Price: $22,499. As Tested: $22,499
• Engine: 2.4-liter inline four with four valves per cylinder and variable valve timing on the intake valves.
• Horsepower: 185 @ 6,500 rpm
• Torque: 170 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
• Drivetrain: Transverse front-drive with six-speed manual transmission
• Suspension, F/R: MacPherson struts with coil springs and anti-roll bar/Independent multi-link with anti-roll bar
• Length: 183.1-in.
• Width: 71.7-in.
• Height: 58.3-in.
• Wheelbase: 106.3-in.
• Weight: 3,241 lbs.

This is the car for you if:

1. The idea of a handsome, economical sport sedan for less that $25,000 is appealing.
2. Value for the money is high on your list of imperatives.
3. You don’t mind correcting people when they mispronounce the car’s name (“Kee Zah-Shee”) or what it means (“something great is coming”).

This car is NOT for you if:

1. The term “sport sedan” conjures up driving dynamics equal to Audi and BMW, and not available features.
2. You are constantly reminded of Superman every time you see the oversize “S” on the grille and steering wheel.
3. Suzuki automobiles are irretrievably associated in your mind with sub-prime car buyers stuck between buying a used or new vehicle.

Alternatives to Consider

Nissan Altima: Somewhat sportier than either the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, the Altima has yet to break into the upper echelon of the mid-size sedan segment for most buyers. It is the third Asian choice in a field of two.

Mazda6: How do you translate “Zoom-Zoom” to the family sedan segment? You don’t if you are the new Mazda6. Less overtly sporty than its predecessor, the Mazda6 is softer, more serene and has a Japanese elegance still at odds with this conservative segment of the market, which makes it an appealing choice for someone not satisfied with the status quo.

Ford Fusion: Dynamically superior to most if not all of the competition, the Fusion is the only car other than the Kizashi to offer the option of all-wheel-drive. It has an engine lineup the Suzuki can’t match — a four-cylinder and two V6s — the option of a hybrid powertrain (Kizashi won’t have one until the 2011 models arrive), but only wishes it could offer so much for so little.

SUZUKI IS BEST KNOWN FOR ITS MOTORCYCLES, but its car and truck offerings have erred on the side of economy and stealthy blandness. This, in turn, has attracted sub-prime buyers stretching to get a new car. With the Kizashi, Suzuki hopes to set a new direction for the company, without totally abandoning its current customer base. Thus it has created a sport sedan with premium features at a very affordable price.

Engine, Transmission, Drivetrain

Suzuki builds its own engines and transmissions for its motorcycles and with the exception of the available CVT automatic gearbox, it does the same for the Kizashi. The manual transmission works well with the engine, there never being a large gap between gears. If the gearbox has one failing, it’s the cable-operated gear selector mechanism, which could be quieter. Though reasonably notchy, you hear the gear changes more than feel them.

The remarkable quiet of the Kizashi interior is pierced only when holding a higher gear at lower speeds. That’s because, unlike a motorcycle engine that operates in a narrow power band, the Kizashi’s 2.4-liter engine can be lugged to low revs in higher gears with little protest, making it easy to bring it into the lower end of the power band. So while this broad torque band makes the powertrain very flexible by reducing the need to downshift in order to get decent acceleration, it comes at a price. While increased sound deadening might help, at the cost of increased weight, the best answer is to treat the Kizashi’s flexible four cylinder more like a motorcycle engine and rev it.

An all-wheel-drive version of the Kizashi is available, but only with the automatic transmission as Suzuki says the cost of certifying the manual transmission/all-wheel-drive powertrain isn’t justified for such a low-volume powertrain combination. That thinking, though financially prudent, does nothing to make the Kizashi stand out from its more prosaic competitors or burnish Suzuki’s image.

Suspension, Steering, Brakes

If you are going to claim to have a sport sedan, you have to get the suspension, steering and brakes perfect. While Suzuki has done a nice job with the Kizashi, it’s apparent that the company could use the steady hand of an experienced automotive ride-and-handling engineer to help it move from claiming sport sedan status to reaching it. Since it hasn’t built cars of this caliber before, and is best known for designing and engineering motorcycles, this isn’t an indictment as much as an observation of some of the talents the car side of the company currently lacks.

Suzuki engineers tuned the Kizashi on European and American roads, and took the car to Germany’s famed Nurburgring race track. Thankfully, they didn’t return with a car whose suspension is too stiff or lacking the compliance to handle day-to-day driving. Neither did they return with a car absolutely certain of its mission. At times the Kizashi is unsure of what its reaction should be, and defaults to a more “family sedan” response. The engineers have the spring rates right, but left too much of the shock absorber damping for the middle of the suspension stroke. This leaves the car feeling a tad light on its feet when a more solid feel is needed. On the other hand, my test car had 18-in. wheels and tires (lesser Kizashis ride on 16- and 17-in wheels and tires), and while they didn’t always feel as planted as I would have liked, they also didn’t ruin the ride. Still, the car falls short of the magical balance between ride and sport sedan handling.

The engineers also must do some more work on the steering, especially just off-center. Initial response from the electric power steering makes it feel like the front tires are traveling across a micro-sized ice patch no matter whether the roads are wet or dry. Tuning an electric power steering system isn’t easy, especially as there is no hydraulic fluid in the system to provide a level of both damping and feel. These characteristics have to be provided by the engineer programming the system. And in this one, a few ones and zeroes feel like they have slipped out of position.

The four-wheel disc brakes had a light but firm pedal feel, and pulled the car down from highway speeds (and above) without problem. Akebono, the company that makes the brakes for Japan’s bullet train, supplies the pieces, and the system includes electronic brake-force distribution (it sends the optimum pressure to each wheel), anti-lock, brake assist (this increases braking pressure in emergency brake applications), and standard electronic stability control. One pleasant surprise was the Kizashi’s brake and accelerator pedals, which make heel-and-toe downshifts easy. It’s one hallmark of a sport sedan the engineers got right.

Body, Design, Quality

Another hallmark is a strong body structure. Again, there are compliments for the engineers. Not only is the Kizashi’s body stiff and therefore free of squeaks and rattles, it meets proposed 2014 side-impact standards, as well as European pedestrian crash standards. Foam is placed in the A-pillars to reduce noise, and there are covers on the underfloor and in front of the rear bumper to reduce both aerodynamic drag and noise intrusion. As noted earlier, the Kizashi is quiet.

Though a lower hood line might have given the car sleeker styling, by keeping the nose a bit higher they were able to protect those pesky European pedestrians who seem intent on throwing themselves in front of cars. This also gives the Kizashi a higher beltline that, when combined with the roof shape and trim front and rear overhangs, makes the Kizashi look substantial.

There were a couple of niggling quality items, the most annoying being a slight rattle emanating from the headliner near the leading edge of the sunroof. However, as this was an early production car that had gone straight from the vehicle’s launch in North Carolina to the test fleet, I’m willing to consider it an anomaly.

Interior, Ergonomics

Once you open the door, any misgivings about Suzuki’s ability to design and engineer world-class interiors disappears. Not only is the Kizashi blessed with a full complement of standard features, the materials, design and functionality of the interior are on par with much more expensive vehicles.

The instrument panel features a hard upper surface and a soft vertical surface, but it is impossible to tell which is which without rapping your fingers on them. Not only is the grain match nearly perfect, but they separated the two with a broad V-shape swath of metallic trim. Nice. The designers even placed a sliding cover over the USB port so crumbs and other junk wouldn’t get inside. That’s attention to detail! In addition, the controls for the dual-zone climate control have knurled edges, which feel great and looks expensive.

The tallest drivers will find the standard sunroof impinging slightly on headroom, and some will wish that they could bring the tilt/telescope steering wheel just a bit closer. Those are the only real faults I could find with the Kizashi’s ergonomics. The back seat is reasonably roomy, and rear seat passengers have good sightlines forward, which helps reduce motion sickness.

The rear seats are split 60/40 and fold to increase the already generous cargo capacity, plus there is a center pass-through that can accommodate skis. As with any vehicle today, there are multiple cup and bottle holders (4 each), a sunglass holder in the overhead console, a two-tier center console, and a 12-volt outlet.

Audio, Video, Navigation

The GTS has a standard 425-watt, 10-speaker Rockford-Fosgate premium AM/FM/CD/XM audio system with MP3 playback. It is easy to program, has logically arrayed controls, and is supported by redundant controls on the steering wheel. Though not fitted to the test vehicle, navigation is an option on the GTS, and is of the touchscreen variety.

Conclusion

DESPITE SUZUKI’S CLAIMS THAT the Kizashi compares favorably to vehicles from Acura, Audi and other automakers farther down the alphabet, it’s no match in terms of either vehicle dynamics or image. With an experienced hand tuning the suspension and steering, the Kizashi could become a strong contender in the affordable sport sedan market by offering athletic styling, great value, quietness and comfort paired with sporty dynamics. When it does so, there will be any number of larger, more established automakers looking over their shoulders.