Car and Driver recently compared eight small 2010 SUVs in a comparison test dubbed “The (Just) O.K. Coral”. As this description indicates, the testers were not especially impressed with any of the vehicles put to battle. The specific models being scrutinized were the Suzuki Grand Vitara, the Volkswagen Tiguan, the Mitsubishi Outlander, the Subaru Forester, the GMC Terrain, the Toyota Rav4, the Mercury Mariner, and finally the Honda CR-V. With the exception of the Terrain and the Tiguan, which were only available in front-wheel drive versions, Car and Driver tested versions of these little SUVs that featured automatic transmissions, the highest output engines available, and all wheel drive. Here is how the vehicles were ranked.

• 1st Place – 2010 Toyota RAV4 Limited 4×4
• 2nd Place – 2010 Volkswagen Tiguan SE
• 3rd Place – 2010 Honda CR-V EX-L 4WD
• 4th Place – 2010 Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited
• 5th Place – 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander GT S-AWC
• 6th Place – 2010 GMC Terrain SLE
• 7th Place – 2010 Suzuki Grand Vitara V-6 Limited 4WD
• 8th Place – 2010 Mercury Mariner V-6 AWD

Read about this small SUV Comparison in full on CarandDriver.com

www.roadandtrack.com

BMW vs. Audi AGAIN.

This time it’s the 2009 Audi TTS vs. the 2009 BMW 135i. The fact that the 135i didn’t win is a shocker. That it received a thorough thrashing, at the hands of Audi’s TTS, is a news event unto itself. Going into this test, the 135i was the odds-on favorite to take the top spot. After all, a smooth, twin-turbocharged inline-6 packing 300 bhp mated to a slick 6-speed manual driving the rear wheels of a lively short-wheelbase coupe should be the ingredients for some serious driving excitement. Plus, the Audi TT has always been more of a sports tourer than a sports car, and we figured the TTS would be more of the same.

Techno-geeks will very much enjoy playing with Audi’s latest generation of MMI. It’s an improvement thanks to the joystick-like action of the main knob that allows computer mouse-like cursor control. But which interior is better? Let’s face it, both the Audi and BMW provide great environments for driving fast. The difference is that the BMW is classic, while the Audi emanates technology and flair. It’s a personal choice.

www.roadandtrack.com

For all the cool, hip and youthful excitement these two cars exude, we didn’t find true driving nirvana in either one. The TTS was the hands-down winner, but the 135i has many strong points as well. We couldn’t help feeling that if BMW stiffened up the 135i’s suspension a bit, it would be right there with the Audi. While the BMW seems simple, yet powerful, in its design and execution, the Audi is much more complex and fully optimized, if not quite as involving.

Photo Credit: CARandDRIVER.com

Audi’s old S4 sedan, last seen in 2008, started at $51,085 and chased BMW’s somewhat pricier M3—indeed, caught and passed the E46 iteration in C and D’s May 2003 comparo—with a 340-hp, 4.2-liter V-8 and a suspension that loved to sprint. “A big V-8 changes everything,” we wrote in 2003. Audi’s eight-cylinder was indeed a rumbling, tach-twisting revelation in its size class. Reviewers loved it and will miss it now that Audi has rebooted the S4 with a smaller engine.

A 3.0-liter V-6 is now underhood, pumped to 333 horsepower with a mini version of the Roots-type Eaton Twin Vortices supercharger that bulges a Corvette ZR1’s hood. From its 2008 base price, the S4 has dropped $4360, to $46,725, and Audi expects 50 percent of S4 sales to fall between the base price and $50,000, landing it right in the market range of the BMW 335i, a benchmark for this price range.

Photo Credit: CARandDRIVER.com

Turbocharging usually means lag and lumpiness, but not with the BMW 335i. BMW’s blown six streams its power in a silky, sateen torrent that cleaves through 60 mph in 4.9 seconds, a dead heat with the more powerful Audi. The six-speed slips into its gates extremely fast and the steering is fantastic. The forearm effort is light, but the response is immediate and the feedback no fainter than if your palms were dragging on the road.

You could drive this BMW for the entirety of a quiet commuting life and never be dissatisfied, even with the firm ride. No question, BMW crafts a smooth engine, but real power lives only in the higher registers, above 4000 rpm. Where the cocksure Audi blitzes hills in third and fourth, the BMW’s cooker demands frequent visits back to second to keep its sauce boiling.

Photo Credit: CARandDRIVER.com

This is a comparison test between a German supercar with an Italian heart against an Italian icon. Competing in this battle is the Audi R8 5.2 FSI and the Ferrari 430 Scuderia. Ferrari has won every Car and Driver comparison tests it has contested but one, (Ford GT one upped a 360 Challenge Stradale.). Does the Audi R8 Have what it takes?

In the end, the Ferrari won again and its obsession is justified.

The Audi still scored very well as testers reported comfort and usability of a two-seat A4, an angry V-10, and quality design details and shape. However the brakes grabbed, the controls are slightly numb. They also believed it was dull for a 525-hp supercar, possibly too contrived.

Testers loved the Ferrari’s V-8 engine that was without rival, perfectly matched control feel, art everywhere, never a dull moment. However the Ferrari had a total lack of features and amenities, will eventually find another owner after your death. Overall it of course is a pricey car, but its goal of perfecting the driving experience is noble and perhaps achieved.

Photo Credit: CARandDRIVER.com

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

This is a comparison test between the ultimate modern American muscle cars. Competing in this battle are the Mustang GT, Challenger R/T, and Camaro SS. Basically a long road test following the old Pony Express trail across the West, this was an exciting comparison test to see which modern American muscle car came out on top.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

First, let’s take a look at the 2010 Mustang GT. Powered by a 315-hp 4.6-liter V-8, it has the smallest engine and least horsepower of the group. However, it is also the lightest of the group, weighing 290 lb. lighter than the Camaro and 550 lb. lighter than the Challenger. The Mustang feels quick, responsive and fun to drive. It also has a nice exhaust note.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

Next is the 2009 Challenger R/T. A surprisingly comfortable ride, it feels tight, smooth, and refined. With a 376-hp 5.7-liter V-8 and 410 lb.-ft. of torque, the engine makes true muscle car noises. Throttle response is perfect at any RPM. In addition, the appearance is designed just like the classic.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

Finally, there’s the 2010 Camaro SS. It has the most impressive engine with a 6.2-liter V-8 that produces 426 hp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque. The Camaro has tons of grip and good suspension with what seems like limitless horsepower, making it great fun to drive. Also, its aggressive and beautiful styling is enough to turn heads.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

In the end, the Mustang emerged victorious. The lightest, smallest and most agile of the group, it is also the most balanced, has the most grip, and enjoys the best fuel economy. Second place went to the Camaro SS. With its incredible looks, and most importantly its magnificent engine that seems to provide never-ending power, the Camaro is sure to be the favorite among the younger demographic. Although the Challenger R/T came in last, it is solid, refined, and comfortable. With the most room, softest handling, and great engine, the Challenger is a great all-around muscle car. However, obviously people have different perceptions and preferences. So which one would you pick?

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

How does the diesel-powered BMW 335d compare with the state-of-the-art direct-injected gasoline-powered Audi A4 3.2 Quattro? Well, each has its advantages and disadvantages, but only one comes out on top after testing across all categories. First, let’s take a look at what the Audi offers.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

Audi’s smooth V-6, which doesn’t top out at 4600 rpm like BMW’s diesel, makes it a fun car to drive. Its 6-speed Tiptronic automatic transmission and optional Audi Drive Select, which allows you to adjust engine mapping, steering feel/response, and the suspension settings to Comfort, Dynamic, or Auto with the touch of a button are also advantages. In addition, the Audi’s all-wheel drive enhances performance and is good for rain and snow. All this, combined with a roomy and elegant interior make the Audi A4 3.2 Quattro an excellent sedan.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

On the other hand, there’s the performance-tuned 3.0-liter sequential twin-turbo diesel BMW 335d. With 265 bhp at 4200 rpm and 425 lb.-ft of torque at 1750 rpm, the inline-6 accelerates the car from 0-60 mph in just 5.3 seconds and reaches a quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds. That’s 0.6 seconds quicker than the A4 3.2 in each category. Equipped with a stiffer suspension, summer performance tires, and sports seats, the BMW is an incredible sports sedan. Finally, another big advantage for the 335d is an EPA rating of 23/36 mpg, compared to the A4 3.2’s rating of 17/26 mpg.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

So overall, beating the Audi in every performance category while also being more environmentally friendly, the BMW 335d is definitely the winner of this comparison test.

Photo Credit: CarandDriver.com

Photo Credit: CarandDriver.com

This is the ultimate battle of luxury sedans. BMW plans to give the 2010 760Li a new direct-injected, twin-turbocharged and inter-cooled DOHC 48-valve V-12. With 536 bhp and 553 lb.-ft of torque, the luxury missile will launch from 0-60 mph in just 4.3 seconds while reaching a ¼ mile in 12.5 seconds. If not for the top speed governor which is set at 155 mph, the 760Li would probably be capable of reaching 190 mph. It is also the first BMW to be equipped with the new ZF eight-speed automatic.

On the other hand, Mercedes has made the 2010 S600 as good as ever. Although not much has changed in the physical appearance, the new S-class is jam-packed with state-of-the-art technology including adaptive high-beams, pedestrian detection for night-view assist, a lane-keeping system, and an attention-assist system among many other features. It also comes standard with active body control adaptive suspension and hydraulically boosted steering. Powered by a 512-hp, 612 lb.-ft 12-cylinder engine, the ultra luxury sedan accelerates to 60 in 4.2 seconds and reaches a ¼ mile in 12.6.

Photo Credit: CarandDriver.com

Photo Credit: CarandDriver.com

With the BMW 7-series now on par with the Mercedes S-class in terms of engine, this comparison seems just too close. Although the BMW may be a bit more modern, the edge still goes to the Mercedes and its unparalleled overall driving experience.

For news about exciting new cars, click here. Also, check out this site for concept cars.

Photo Credit: RoadandTrack.com

Both with supercharged V-8 engines producing over 500 horsepower, stiffened and electronically adjustable suspension systems, big brakes, and sporty interiors, it’s hard to distinguish a clear-cut winner of these two leading sports sedans. The Cadillac CTS-V’s 6.2-liter V-8 producing 556 bhp and 551 lb.-ft of torque allows it to beat the Jaguar XFR and its 5.0-liter V-8 producing 510 bhp and 461 lb.-ft of torque in every speed comparison. More surprisingly, the Cadillac’s superb handling combines to give it the edge across all performance categories. However, the Jaguar does seem to have the advantage of a smoother, more comfortable ride, as well as a superior interior in terms of quality and presentation. Still, from a mostly performance standpoint, the CTS-V is the super sedan king, especially considering the $21,230 less it would lighten your wallet. For more on this comparison, click the following link: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2010 Jaguar XFR

Click here to check out more Cadillac news.

Car and Driver is planning a site re-launch. Its new and improved site promises to be much more interactive and user-friendly. With increased functionality, it will be even easier to navigate. Here is a screen-shot comparison of the old (top) and new (bottom) sites:

Although you may not be able to tell from these screen-shots, there is much more information and links on the new homepage, allowing for quicker, more efficient search. In addition, one of the best features of the new site is the increased functionality of the buyer’s guide, which allows you to more easily search for vehicles specifically tailored to your needs. For example, if you choose a make such as BMW, the new site instantly provides you with several links to the latest reviews, comparison tests, news, and advice on different BMW models. Below are views of this buyer’s guide search using both the old (top) and new (bottom) sites.

Then, selecting a model, such as the M3 allows you to view all of its top competitors in that class. With the ability to drill down on specifications and view tons of interior and exterior images, the new Car and Driver site is definitely more interactive and user-friendly.

The debate over diesel engines versus gas engines has raged on for quite a while. To clear any confusion, here are the facts on both engine types.

Diesel Engine

Gasoline Engine

Compression Ignition: A four-stroke gasoline engine uses Spark Ignition, since it requires a spark to burn fuel. A diesel engine uses a Compression Ignition, fuel is directly injected into the engine’s cylinder and filled with hot compressed air that fires straight away.

Turbo Charge: Turbo charging a gasoline engine can reduce fuel efficiency. For gasoline engines, the air-fuel mixture is concentrated to 1/10th of its actual volume. If the pressure is too high during intake, the mixture will start burning too soon, resulting in excessive fuel consumption.
Diesel engines, however, carry only air inside the cylinder, and no fuel. Turbo can be used to increase the pressure as much as required, without causing any problem.

Emission: Gasoline engines consume a large amount of fuel when starting, especially in cold weather. Since emissions are equally proportional to fuel consumed, gasoline engines will ultimately cause more pollution than diesel alternatives.

Longevity: Diesel engines enjoy greater longevity – gasoline causes damage to an engine by gradually reducing its lubricating properties. On the flip side, per unit diesel produces less power than an equal quantity of gasoline. – you’ll have turbo charge with diesel for that extra thrust.

Price: Gasoline engines tend to be priced well below their diesel counterparts.

Conclusion: A quick look at the facts, and one can reasonably conclude that diesel engines are superior. However, if a diesel engine is out of your price range, or not available, gas engines are the defacto winner.