Ford S-Max (2006) review

Most MPVs, multi-purpose vehicles, big, medium or small by their very nature are not the most stylish of vehicles, Renault’s Grand Espace being the exception.

The designers concentrate on getting the maximum amount of seats and load space in a given length. The vehicles tend to be tall, unsporting in looks, barges to drive as well making them difficult to get into height restricted car parks and typical modern house garages.
Most are very well equipped to meet the needs of up to seven passengers but the driveability of them is ‘efficiency’ rather than ‘sporting’. The other option for customers has been to buy a seven seat 4x4 instead of an MPV, or even a large estate, but there again the driveability is always compromised.

The Mercedes R-Class six-seater launched earlier was the first example of a totally new type of multi-seat sports vehicle which really looks ‘the business’ and drives as well as any passenger car. But it is very expensive and unlikely to be a volume seller in the mass market.
Ford’s clever answer was to launch a month ago the S-Max and to create the all-new and much larger Galaxy MPV. The new Galaxy will in the main continue to be used by companies and hotels, as executive business transport and by the hire and reward industry. Until the Galaxy comes back onto the market as a used vehicle in a few years time this vehicle is too expensive and still probably too large to be considered for family transport.

Roll out the five-door Ford S-Max. This is a slightly smaller version of the Galaxy with a lower roof, sleeker design with sporty front and rear ends. It can be ordered in five or seven seat configuration. It sits neatly in the much improved Ford range between the Mondeo and Galaxy and it is an optional choice MPV model from the smaller Focus based C-Max.
For its UK sales launch I wrote numerous amounts of news stories about the S-Max because it is being used by Ford to improve the overall image of their brand. It now suggests Ford can really make stylish vehicles rather than just functional mass production models.

I do not usually re-visit a new model so soon after its launch but the S-Max intrigued me. Is it really as good and desirable as my brief initial test drive suggested it was? In short it is.

Many people, even those without the need for seven seat vehicles, find an MPV a useful vehicle, it’s all about transporting what you need to carry whether at work or play. It is fair to say that many people are put off by owning an MPV, they want something more stylish and trendy and that is where the S-Max fits the bill. Although the main selling models have seven seats most people will only need to use five of them leaving the two smaller rear seats folded into the floor so creating a large load area. The good thing about the S-Max, unlike many other large MPVs, is that the middle and rear rows of seats can be folded away, they do not need to be taken out and stored in the garage. They are there with you all the time just in case you need them. Not so well thought out is the carpet covering to the rear seat backs that needs to be unclipped and folded out in panels to create a flat load floor. Not clever or very neat.

In addition the S-Max is stylish and no potential owner would be put off having one of them sitting on their driveway. It looks a much more classy and expensive vehicle that the £16,995 to £21,495 price tags suggest. True not all models are that well equipped and some will need the extra costs options to bring them up to luxury levels but overall it looks a smart user-friendly vehicle rather than a luxury van with windows.

The range is available with a choice of two petrol and three turbocharged diesel engines. For petrol buyers you can chose the 2.0-litre, 145PS unit or the 2.5-litre, turbocharged 220PS engine. Diesel customers have the choice of a 1.8-litre 125PS unit, 2.0-litre 130PS and the 2.0-litre 140PS. The latter is the choice unit for me as it gives performance to go with the sporting looks. Transmissions are either five or six speed manual units depending on the model chosen
Each engine option is available with LX, Zetec or Titanium trim and specification levels and probably the mid Zetec level will be the most popular. All models have air conditioning. The LX has electric front windows, Zetec and Titanium have rear electric windows as well together with alloy road wheels. Titanium models add a CD changer, automatic lights and wipers and the all important front and rear parking sensors. All models are well equipped with numerous airbags.
My test model was the S-Max 2.0 TDCi, 140PS variant with top of the range Titanium specification and a six-speed gearbox. Price, £21,495 which is pretty competitive. You can pay that for a well equipped saloon or estate that doesn’t have the style or versatility of the S-Max. It is the same price as the similarly ‘specced’ VW Touran and Toyota Verso MPVs but it is much bigger. However my vehicle had numerous extra cost options including the excellent and user friendly Ford navigation system and the panoramic glass sunroof so the total price package of the test car was £25,895, a bit steep.

The S-Max is an MPV for people who enjoy driving. It offers good feedback from the precise steering and it gives good grip during cornering. With only one or two passengers on-board, or all the family and luggage the suspension performs very well, not too hard, not too soft.
The driving position or though slightly elevated is not as high as in other MPVs. You feel part of the vehicle. Visibility is generally good although the front pillars do compromise vision at the front quarters. With the sloping front bonnet and overall length of the vehicle, parking sensors are a must.

The all important load space ranges from 285-litres with three rows of seats in place, 854- litres of space with the rear seats folded and five seats still useable up to 2,000-litres with the second and third rows folded down. Just as important is the fact that the load length with just the front two seats being used is two metres, long enough to sleep in if you so wish.
The 2.0-litre, direct injection turbodiesel engine is well known as a strong and flexible performer and it gives the right blend of relaxed high speed driving, good acceleration when needed, its responsive and flexible around town and its pretty frugal, 38.5mpg during my extended test period with the car.

MILESTONES:

Ford S-Max 2.0 TDCi Titanium.

Engine: 2.0-litre, four-cylinders, direct injection turbodiesel, 140bhp, 320Nm of torque from 2,000rpm

Performance: Top speed 120mph, 0-62mph 10.2 seconds, 42.8mpg (actual 38.5mpg)

CO2: 169g/km

For: Non MPV sporty styling, sharp handling, flexible roomy interior, refined, generally well priced.
Against: Third row of seats are cramped for adults and the clumsy fold out carpeting arrangement needed to create a flat and protected floor for the load area.

--

src: www.askaprice.com

Toyota RAV4 (2006)

There's big news for the new RAV4, headed to dealerships soon: V-6 power and third-row seats.

V-6 power in the RAV is a long time coming, but third row seats? Really?

That's what we thought when we first heard the news. How could they cram in that third row? But the RAV4 is a lot bigger. While the proportions have stayed roughly the same, truth is, the "little" RAV4 sport-utility is no longer that compact. The upsizing of the RAV4 stretches it by 14 inches overall and puts it at only about 3.5 inches shorter overall than the Highlander, with a wheelbase about two inches shorter than the Highlander. In terms of height and width, the differences are too close to call; even curb weight is comparable.

This translates to an interior that's very roomy for four adult occupants, with space for cargo, too. Toyota claims a 20-percent improvement in overall interior space, with improved head-and-shoulder room in the second row especially, but we also noticed significant improvements in front seating and the driving position. The gauge cluster and steering column are no longer angled up as much, allowing a more natural driving position for those who are of average height or taller.

If you opt for that two-position third row: beware, it's still tiny. To me the arrangement seemed like a bunch of pointless extra weight to carry around - as none of the adults present at the RAV4 preview would have been able to actually fit back there - but Toyota reps pointed out that many shoppers would be interested in having a third row for occasional, short use by parental carpools to school or soccer practice. When they're not in use, the third-row seats stow nicely in a recessed area of the cargo floor, so when they're folded down they don't actually take up a lot of space.

With its sleek, wedgy shape, the new RAV4 is considerably more handsome than the vehicle it replaces, continuing the classier feel that was started with the introduction of the second generation for 2001. The bubble-like fenders, patterned cloth, and stick shift of the first-generation RAV were long ago abandoned for a more conventional appearance (as was the stubby little two-door RAV). Much of the cosmetics and switchgear in the new RAV are borrowed from (or inspired by) the larger 4Runner and Land Cruiser sport-utilities - such dial/button climate controls, similar to what's used in the 4Runner, and the gauge faces, which look like those used across the board on Toyota's truck side.

While the RAV4 takes many of its styling cues from the larger, truck-based Toyota utes, it also promises a more carlike driving experience than ever. The front suspension remains a strut-based arrangement, while in back there's a new trailing-double-wishbone setup, which helps keep the cargo floor as deep as possible. Helping to create a more communicative driving experience is Toyota 's Electronic Power Steering (EPS) system, which gives more road feel at all speeds.

But let's get back to the big news: the V-6 option. The RAV4 has always had enough power with the standard four-cylinder engine, but a portion of RAV4 shoppers - and of course the motoring press - have always asked for more power. It's finally here, and it's no puny V-6. The optional, engine is straight from the Avalon, basically in the same tune, and due to recalculation of SAE power figures it's now rated at 269 horsepower and 246 lb-ft of torque. The engine incorporates Toyota 's VVT-i variable valve timing system, along with a new roller-rocker concave cam profile for faster opening and closing of the valves. The six also allows some real towing ability for the first time: an optional Tow Package brings a 3500-pound capacity.

The standard engine on all RAV4s is the latest version of Toyota's ubiquitous 2.4-liter four-cylinder - available in a similar state of tune on a vast array of vehicles ranging from the Scion tC sport coupe to the bread-and-butter Camry sedan to the Highlander crossover ute.

All U.S.-bound RAV4 models have an automatic transmission, with no manual option, but they're very frugal. The front-wheel-drive 2.4-liter returns EPA fuel economy figures of 24 mpg city, 29 mpg highway, which is the highest in its class, not counting hybrids. And with a highway rating of 28 mpg, the V-6 RAV4 ties with the V-6 Saturn VUE for the best fuel economy among V-6 utes. Both engines will be certified for California 's ULEV II standards and are designed to run on 87-octane.

The standard four is economical, reliable, and surprisingly peppy throughout the rev range, thanks to the VVT-i variable valve timing system. Torque is decent from a standstill, provided you're not carrying a heavy load, and most of the time passing power is adequate as long as you really put the pedal to the metal. And most buyers will be happy with it. Toyota is planning on making 70 percent of RAV4s with the four-cylinder, at least initially.

That V-6 is a nice step up for hotfoots, or those who live in hilly terrain and plan to haul a full load of people and cargo on a regular basis. In truth though, it doesn't feel as overwhelmingly powerful as it seems when shopping power and torque figures. But with that much power, it's definitely a point-and-shoot affair; the RAV4 just isn't tuned for the twisties. It's not a vehicle that you'd want to drive too enthusiastically. If you try to, VSC stability control is standard, and it might help keep you on the road. Though we should add, there is a new Sport Grade model, offering firmer suspension settings and 18-inch wheels, which we didn't get a chance to sample.

The RAV4 takes VSC a step further by interfacing the system with the Electronic Power Steering system, allowing the system to provide more or less assist as needed for a particular situation. The interface goes the other way as well, with data from the steering system aiding VSC's ability to anticipate a lack of vehicle control. In addition to VSC, anti-lock brakes are standard, along with Brake Assist and Electronic Brakeforce Distribution.

As before, the RAV4 will be available in both front- and four-wheel-drive versions, though a part-time on-demand 4WD system replaces the former full-time viscous-clutch all-wheel-drive system. 4WD versions now have a system that reverts to front-wheel-drive when there are no outstanding traction demands, for the most economical operation, though the system uses an electronic-controlled viscous coupling that sends torque (up to 45 percent) to the back wheels as needed. There's also a 4WD Lock setting that allows a set amount of torque (55/45 front/back) to be sent to all four wheels, up to 25 mph, where the Auto setting overrides it. The RAV4 has never been a serious off-roader, and the 4WD will still offer off-road performance good enough to get owners to most remote campsites and trailheads. Front-wheel-drive models come with a limited-slip differential to help aid grip in limited-traction situations.

Another electronic aid, Hill Start Assist Control (HAC), helps keep the vehicle from rolling backward when facing uphill, holding the vehicle for two to three seconds after the driver engages it with the brake pedal. Downhill Assist Control (DAC) is controlled by an in-dash switch and helps moderate speed on steep descents. Though HAC and DAC are mainly designed for off-road situations, they're standard on all V-6 models, and, oddly, on four-cylinder models with third-row seating.

The four-cylinder will still be the most popular engine choice, though; Toyota anticipates that about 70 percent of RAV4s will have the four and 55 percent of all RAVs will be the base "Standard Grade" trim. Initially, 56 percent will be 4WD.

But now that the RAV4 has sized up so much, there's a pretty big jump from Toyota 's Matrix hatchback to the RAV4. Almost ten years ago when the RAV4 was first introduced, its curb weight was under 2500 pounds. The V-6 Limited that we spent the most time in weighed in at a chunky 3675 lb.

Visibility isn't as good as the previous RAV4, due to a thick rear pillar and a perceived higher beltline overall. We're also curious why, considering all the standard electronic safety aids, side airbags remain an option on the RAV4, while for many of the competitors they're standard.

There are three trim levels available: Base, Sport, and Limited, with each available with the I-4 or V-6 and FWD or AWD. Even base models get a generous level of standard equipment, like an MP3-compatible CD player and a miniplug input jack for iPods or other personal audio.

The four-cylinder model will go on sale this month, while V-6 RAV4s will reach dealerships by late January. For the first two model years, RAV4s will be sourced from Japan , but beginning in 2008 Toyota will bring production online at its new Woodstock , Ontario , plant, which will eventually make the model exclusively for North America . Toyota hopes to sell 135,000 RAV4s annually in the U.S. - that's about double what the current-generation vehicle has sold yearly. Price hikes for the four-cylinder remain modest, at $20,300 for the Base Grade four, ranging up to $25,870 for the V-6 Limited.

Late next year, the RAV4's "bigger" sibling, the Highlander, will be replaced by a larger, sleeker model. But in the meantime, unless you're considering the Highlander Hybrid model, the almost-as-big RAV4 may represent a better value to many shoppers.

To sum it up, the RAV4 just feels a lot more grown-up and is set up to be less of a quirky little ute and more the Camry of crossovers. The ride is settled; it's quieter and more comfortable inside; it's easier to get in and out; it's still economical; it's more carlike behind the wheel. What this means to shoppers is that the RAV4 will likely fit families that once considered it too small, and that it's a better deal than ever…with a third-row seat. Soccer moms, are you listening?


2006 Toyota RAV4
Base price: $20,300-$25,870
Engine: 2.4-liter in-line four, 166 hp/165 lb-ft; 3.5-liter V-6, 269 hp/246 lb-ft
Drivetrain: Four- or five-speed automatic transmission, front- or all-wheel drive
Length x width x height: 181.1 x 73.0 x 66.5 in
Wheelbase: 104.7 in
Curb weight: 3300-3677 lb
Fuel economy (EPA city/hwy): 20/27-24/29 mpg
Safety equipment: Dual front airbags, Vehicle Stability Control, anti-lock brakes with Electronic Brakeforce Distribution and Brake Assist, direct tire-pressure monitor; optional driver and front passenger seat-mounted side airbags, optional first and second row side curtain airbags
Major standard equipment: Air conditioning, limited-slip differential or all-wheel drive, keyless entry, power windows/locks, tilt/telescoping steering wheel, cruise control, sunroof, illuminated cupholders, dual glovebox, AM/FM/CD/MP3 sound system with miniplug input
Warranty: Three years/36,000 miles

--
src: thecarconnection.com

Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2006) Road Test

Control Freak!
Who's the best race driver? Jeff Gordon? NASCAR fans might agree, but not F1 fans - they'd choose Michael Schumacher or Fernando Alonso. IRL groupies would point to Sam Hornish Jr. who just won the coveted Indy 500, while it's hard to argue against Sebastian Bourdais who regularly cleans up in one of the most competitive series anywhere - Champ Car. But if you ask those same top drivers who the best person behind the wheel of a car is, they'd more than likely point to any one participant on the WRC circuit, because keeping a hurling rally car together while drifting sideways at 150 mph on a 10-foot wide snow covered road while hanging the tail end out over a cliff takes driving to otherworldly levels.

One of these drivers, young Chris Atkinson, currently 12th of the 22 currently running in the World Rally Championship, took time out of his hectic schedule to help us mere mortals understand what is possible behind the wheel of a four-door economy car... ahem... OK, Subaru's WRX STi is hardly an econobox, what with 300 enthusiastic horsepower peaking at 6,000 rpm and an equally outrageous 300 lb-ft of torque ripping into four corners of asphalt simultaneously via the Japanese automaker's now legendary symmetrical all-wheel drive, there's plenty to differentiate it from a $23,495 Impreza 2.5i. No, there's only one rally replica that rivals the WRX STi, Mitsubishi's sensational EVO IX, but we can't get that in Canada so bring it up further is a moot point.

Chris wasn't around for the first half of the day, when we snaked through circuitous highways and side roads that network the numerous farming homesteads and getaway cottages that make up the area surrounding St. Jovite and Mont-Tremblant, Quebec. Wicked hairpins adorned with ten different patches of mismatched pavement are just finger food to the STi, gobbled up without concern or even a passing thought. Where there weren't myriads of varyingly sized potholes, frost heaves raised upward to wave hello, followed by blind high-speed corners lovingly finished with loose gravel exactly where the road dipped into an off-camber curve - the roads in rural Quebec are anything but well cared for. No worries, mind you, I'm behind the wheel of a WRX STi, what some will attest is the most agile four-door on the planet.

Who am I to argue? I've just been saved, literally, by a car that reacts so intuitively, with grip so riveting that I'm lost for words to describe. I've been fooling around with its exclusive Driver Controlled Center Differential (DCCD), biasing power to the rear wheels to induce oversteer, too much fun, or dialing it to achieve a perfect 50:50 setting in order to make four identical black 225/45R17 tire patches on the pavement. Ooh, this car could bring the bad boy out in a Tibetan monk.

Subaru has had its track marshals set up a shortened version of Le Circuit Mont-Tremblant, which basically cuts off the two longest straights so that we don't allow ourselves to get overzealous and transform our little sedans into all-wheel drive lawnmowers. This is a disappointment, as I know this course extremely well and now I've got to learn something new, all the while wondering how fabulous it would be to keep going past turn five, hold to the left past six and hardly let off as I nudge turn seven, dropping downward, hugging the left curb as turn eight approaches, and then drift it sideways around its wacky hairpin, climb up the hump past nine and then down into my favourite right and left sweepers anywhere, ten and eleven. Ah, it'll forever remain a mystery, as we're forced to the right at six, a sharp turn that can tax the STi's undercarriage if taken too quickly, leave seven, eight, nine and ten for naught, and then rejoin the track with an entirely unique take on ten, dip into the Gulch as the course curves to the left at eleven, up the hill with breathtaking acceleration, and then under the rather uncooperative Bridge Turn, twelve, take the Kink at thirteen at high-speed before diving downward and up again for fourteen, or Namerow. Whew! The course dips and undulates before sweeping past Paddock Bend down one of the shorter straights, right past the tower and then on to a fabulous lift, right hand corner, steep dive and series of esses comprising turns one through five. Yes, this is still pretty exhilarating stuff, but to know what I could have experienced has me a bit miffed.

What has me feeling good, however, is the way this car turns a slightly better than average driver into a weekend hero. OK, I've driven this circuit a great deal and have spent some time on many more, such as Willow Springs, Road Atlanta, Portland International and a dozen others that aren't quite in the same league, so I suppose I'm a little more advanced than stated, but then again, sitting shotgun next to Chris Atkinson, my own "advanced" abilities seem ridiculously feeble in comparison. I inform Chris, one of three Subaru WRC drivers hand picked by one of the most celebrated rally teams in existence, that I'm scared of nothing, which, in a car piloted by a top-tier driver, is true, and he responds with an impish grin before burying the throttle into the floorboards, snapping the six-speed manual into second and mashing at the go pedal once again; third, fourth, yikes! The last time I was on this track with a driver of Atkinson's caliber I was in a Saleen Mustang with Alex Tagliani at the wheel, and while a ruddy blast (we drifted all the way 'round turn eight), it was nothing like this. Chris made the STi dance like in ways the live axle Mustang couldn't dream of, and just when I was feeling comfortable, he purposely headed for the grassland to see how much dirt he could spew from behind, twirling around in circles until I was giggling like a 13-year old school girl who'd just fallen in love with her eighth grade French teacher. Only my teacher wasn't French, but Australian, and I wasn't in love, I was awestruck!



It's settled. Rally drivers are the best there is. I've witnessed it first hand, and wouldn't even think to contest it. And the WRX STi? It's easily one of the best road cars on the planet, no matter the money you want to spend. It's not particularly pretty, although its purposeful stance and oddly shaped nose give it an air of distinction - definitely a car that commands deep respect by those in the know. Its interior is great for an Impreza, adequate for a compact car and hardly impressive for something costing close to $50K, but who gives a rip? The seats are absolutely perfect, steering wheel ideal, shifter precisely where I wanted and needed it, and handbrake within reach when that urge to spin arises. The gauges are large and easy to read, switchgear up to the job at hand, front, side-thorax and curtain-type airbags reassuring, automatic climate control a nice touch, audio system good and six-disc in-dash CD changer appreciated, plus overall build quality is seemingly capable of being tortured for years without complaint.
At the end of the day I've got it entered into my mental notebook... cars that I have to own: McLaren F1, 1969 Ferrari 365 GTC, early BMW 3.0 CS coupe, Ford RS200 Evolution Group B rally car, Lotus Elise, 300C SRT8, Maserati Quattroporte, Mitsubishi Lancer EVO X (when it comes to Canada), and Subaru Impreza WRX STi. Oh, and to answer that question that everyone keeps asking me, the Subie is no better or worse than the EVO, it's just different. Some character traits, like its torquey engine, I like more, others, like the Mitsu's lighter curb weight, are obvious. Can't say whether I like the STi's multi-adjustable centre diff better than the EVO's disengaging centre diff, which is why I need to own both. I'm sure you understand, no?

Specifications (WRX STi):

• Price Range (MSRP): $48,995 (no options)
• Body Type: 4-door sedan
• Layout: front engine, AWD
• Engine: 300-hp, 300 lb-ft, 2.5L, turbocharged, intercooled, 16-valve, SOHC H-4
• Transmission: 6-spd manual
• Brakes (front/rear): disc/disc, ABS and EBD
• Cargo Volume (trunk): 311 L (11.0 cu ft)
• Curb Weight: 1,520 kg (3,351 lbs)
• Fuel Economy (city/hwy): 13.4 / 9.1 L /100 km
• Warranty (mo/km): 36/60,000 comprehensive - 60/100,000 powertrain

--

src: carpages.ca
Copyright © Canadian Auto Press
Photo: Trevor Hofmann

Best Cars 2007 - Consumer Reports (by CNNMoney)

Budget Car, subcompact
Honda Fit
Cost: $14,000 to $16,000


Consumer Reports calls the Fit the "best overall in a new class of fuel-efficient cars."
Fuel economy, as measured in Consumer Reports' controlled tests, was 32 mpg with an automatic transmission and 34 mpg with a manual.

"Not only is it fun to drive, but its compact dimensions pack an impressive amount of interior room and versatility," the magazine said.
The Fit got top scores in "Reliability," "Crash protection" and "Satisfaction." Its road test score was good, but not the best.

This has become a crowded market segment with a number of good entries, said David Champion, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports.

"The Nissan Versa we thought was very good," he said. "The Kia Rio and Hyundai Accent were very good."



Sedan, less than $20,000
Honda Civic
Cost: $17,000 to $23,000

Cosumer Reports praises the Civic for its "relatively roomy interior, comfortable ride, smooth powertrain and good handling."

It also helps that the Civic has good reliability, crash test results and fuel economy.

In Consumer Reports' tests, it got 31 mpg with a manual transmission and 28 with an automatic. The hybrid version got 37 mpg.

Sedan, $20,000 to $30,000
Honda Accord
Cost: $20,000 to $33,000

Like the Civic, the Accord is availaible in a hybrid version, which offers only slightly better fuel economy, however.

In Consumer Reports' testing, the Accord Hybrid got 25 mpg, while a V6 Accord got 23 mpg and the 4-cylinder version got 24.

"The Accord provides an excellent balance of comfort, roominess, ride and handling," the magazine says.

Sedan, $30,000 to $40,000
Infiniti G35
Cost: $35,000 to $39,000

The G35 is available in rear-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive.

The G35 "really blows the BMW 3-series away at its own game," said David Champion, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports.

"It's extremely fast - 306 horsepower, zero-to-60 in 5.4 seconds - really agile handling, great steering, reasonable amount of room inside and really easy to live with on a day-to-day basis."

Its reliability has also been excellent, Champion said, although the record for parent company Nissan has been spotty.

Luxury Sedan
Infiniti M35
Cost: $42,000 to $45,000

The M35 earned the highest score of any sedan in Consumer Reports' testing, according to the magazine.

"Well equipped and comfortable, it's just as capable on a twisty two-lane road as it is cruising down the highway."

Like the smaller G35 - also a Top Pick - it's available with either rear- or all-wheel-drive. The V8-power M45 costs about $55,000.

In the same class, the BMW 530i and Audi A6 are also worth considering, the magazine said.

SUV, less than $30,000
Toyota Rav4
Cost: $23,000 to $27,000

The Rav4 was redesigned for 2006, adding more room and an optional third row of seats. An optional V6 engine gives smooth performance and good power while provided just 1 mpg lower fuel economy in Consumer Reports' testing.

The Rav4 also got top marks for reliability and crash protection.

The newly redesigned Honda CR-V is another good choice, the magazine said.

SUV, more than $30,000
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Cost: 35,000 to $40,000

Although the Highlander Hybrid is a Top Pick, even Consumer Reports wouldn't advise you to buy it now. That's because the redesigned 2008 version will be available very soon.

The 2007 Highlander offers a comfortable, quiet ride and excellent quality, according to Consumer Reports. The new version will have a movable second row, to allow for more space in the third row, according to Toyota.

The Hybrid offers all the benefits of the non-hybrid Highlander with better acceleration but only slightly better fuel economy (22 mpg) in Consumer Reports' testing. The redesigned will be the same, in terms of the drivetrain, as the current version.

Minivan
Toyota Sienna
Cost: $26,000 to $28,000

When Consumer Reports first started releasing "Top Picks" in 1997, the minivan chosen was the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager.

The Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey have traded the top spot ever since. With the addition of a more powerful engine, the Sienna takes it back after two years of going to the Odyssey.

"It's a little bit quieter, a little bit more refined, little bit more comfortable than the Odyssey," said David Champion, head of Consumer Reports' auto testing.

Champion also said that, for his personal use, he would go for the Honda.
"I'm a bit more of a driver," he said. "I prefer the Odyssey. It's got a bit more of a sports car performance in a minivan."

Green car
Toyota Prius
Cost: $23,000

The Prius got 44 mpg overall in Consumer Reports' testing, the best the magazine has ever measured for a 5-passenger vehicle.

The interior is also roomy enough, for both occupants and luggage, to make the Prius a viable alternative to an ordinary family sedan.

A rearview camera is available and, the magazine says, "highly recommended."

Fun to drive
Mazda MX-5 Miata
Cost: $21,000 to $27,000

The Miata offers balanced handling, pinpoint-precise steering and a crisp six-speed manual transmission.

Its cloth top can be raised and lowered with one hand without leaving the seat. A new power-folding hard-top is available for 2007.

Reliability is fair, but that's good enough to earn a recommendation.

The Miata competes against the Pontiac Solstice and the closely-related Saturn Sky. So far, the Solstice has been outselling the Miata.

"I think [the Solstice] is going to do very well for the first couple of years," said David Champion, head of Consumer Reports' auto testing, "but I think, over the long term, this is the better sports car."

---

src: http://money.cnn.com/

Mazda 2 (2003)

To professional cynics it comes as an appalling shock to find a car company slogan that serves as a fair guide to its products. And it's not Audi's austere "vorschsprung durch technik", or even BMW's "ultimate driving machine". It's Mazda's "zoom-zoom".

The rationale behind that annoying zoom-zooming jingle is that all Mazdas have the soul of a sportscar. We can't speak for the Bravo ute or E-series van but the Mazda 2 - despite being an entry-level urban runabout lives up to the claim. The way its 1.5-litre engine turns raspy and urgent as you rev it to join a motorway, the way its automatic transmission batters against the rev limiter in manual mode rather than give up by changing up, the way it sniffs into corners like a puppy - or a Mini Cooper. Yeah, that's soul - not in James Brown quantities but more than you'd expect to find in a high-bodied $20,000 hatchback.

The Mazda 2 first appeared in 2002, and was revised this year with bigger headlamps, a sports manual mode on automatic models and minor engineering changes including an electrically driven power steering pump.

From the outside it now looks a little like a Ford Fiesta - which would be fitting because it shares its mechanical platform with that car. But perhaps the most significant change is a neat and appealing flick-knife style key, of the type used by Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Holden in the Astra. Each key probably costs about $10 wholesale, if that, but it gives the feeling of a much more luxurious and expensive car - and it doesn't wear out your pocket lining.

The 1.5-litre engine remains unchanged apart from now complying with next year's Euro 3 pollution controls. It keeps its pleasingly rorty feel, delivering its 82kW of power and 141Nm of torque, high in the range but never feels strained while puttering around at lower revs. Mazda says an electronic throttle, replacing the throttle cable of the previous model, increases torque between 1500 and 3000rpm.

The four-speed automatic is one of the better examples of its kind. As mentioned, it delegates full control to the driver when the lever is pushed across to make it a four-speed manual - just like a sportscar. It's also calibrated to allow a lively launch for a small car, although a dash-mounted gear indicator shows it gets quickly into top gear if you're not in a hurry. Where many small autos feel wheezy and lethargic, the 2 is willing.

Fuel use on test was a not particularly good 8.1 litres per 100km, making the point that if you want automatic in a small car you'll pay twice ? at the dealership and at the pumps.

Safety is another hard sell on small cars with their price-conscious buyers. But to Mazda's credit safety equipment remains an affordable option across the Mazda 2 range with a package of side airbags, curtain airbags and ABS brakes available on all models for a modest $1150.

In a refreshing change from the usual cynical practice of specifying media cars with as much optional equipment as they can stand, the test car had no ABS brakes or extra airbags. The screech that accompanied our routine 40km/h brake feel test almost made us nostalgic for the bad old days, but not something we'd tolerate when the alternative is so cheap. For what its worth, the brakes have a nice firm yet progressive pedal feel.

Cabin decor lies in Siberia - halfway between Europe and Japan, in other words. Expanses of grey plastic and velour recall some dreary Mazdas from the company's lean years in the 1990s but the instrument display has a funky Italianate look, there's plenty of storage space and the controls feel substantial in use. What's more they are fully aligned for right-hand drive, a rare concession in these days of global manufacturing.

The stereo looks classy and is easy to use - what more could you ask for? Actually a bit of peace and quiet to listen to it would be nice. At highway speeds the cabin of a Mazda 2 can be a lively place with the engine spinning at 3000rpm at 110km/h, a fair amount of tyre noise and the whole lot amplified by its van-like back seat and boot.

That back seat can be moved fore and aft, depending on whether your priority is to transport passengers or luggage. Set fully back, the rear seat has room for adult heads and feet but is only wide enough for two full-sized people. With plenty of room around the front seats as well, the 2 is a genuine four-adult car. As well as having good space inside there's easy access through wide-opening doors.

The boot is a little narrow but a serious drawback are the childseat mounting points - just inside the rear bumper. The top strap of the restraint cuts through the luggage compartment, making it useless for bulky loads - such as a pram. That pulls the pin for parents.

But singletons looking for a practical yet perky little car are in luck. The 2's agility belies its wardrobe-like appearance. The steering has an immediate feel, with no ill-effects from the change from a belt-driven to an electric hydraulic pump.

Handling exceeds expectations, with a flat cornering stance, impressive grip and no dramas over rough surfaces. It has something of the feel of the original Mini, which for those with long memories, is high praise indeed.

It's matched with a ride which avoids the extremes of crashing and pitching that small cars are prone to. Controlled rather than cushy sums it up. Noise is more of a problem than bumping in the 2, but at least suspension doesn't contribute to the racket.

If you're in the market for a small car check out this Mazda. You've nothing 2 lose.

---

src: http://carsguide.news.com.au/

Ford Focus (2005)

For sport compact buyers who prioritize handling over acceleration, the SVT Focus was hard to beat. Unfortunately, Ford has decided that SVT will only sell expensive, high-horsepower vehicles in the future, and the $20,000 170-horsepower SVT Focus didn’t fit. The 2004 will be the last model year, and it has already come to an end.

But all is not lost. For 2005 Ford has mildly freshened the Focus. The largest change is a new instrument panel. To fill the SVT’s shoes a new ST trim will be offered. Initially at least the ST will only be available in four-door sedan form, perhaps to prevent buyer’s remorse on the part of those who bought an SVT, which was only available as a hatch with three or five doors.

Why is there risk of remorse? Well, the ST adopts the SVT’s suspension tuning, includes similar well-bolstered seats, adds a torqier (though lower horsepower) engine, and, best of all, carries a lower price tag.

This seems like a winning formula. But the ST faces some tough competition from the Mazda3, Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, and (perhaps) the soon to appear Toyota Corolla XRS. I haven’t driven the Toyota yet, but to get an idea of how the ST compares to the other two I took one for a test drive.


Styling

For 2005 the Focus’ front end has been mildly restyled. The new lamps and grille are a bit squarer and more upright. The old front end’s greater rake didn’t mesh well with the styling of the sedan or wagon, so for those bodystyles this is an especially welcome change.

With either front end, the sedan is a much less interesting, much less special design than the hatches. It’s not a bad looking car, but with its slab sides and blocky rear looks much more suited to a rental car fleet. The ST comes with 16-inch alloys that do not look as good on the car as even the 16s in previous years, much less the very nice thin-spoked 17s standard on the SVT. People who bought an SVT based substantially on its looks will feel no remorse in this department.

Among competitors, the Lancer has an even stronger econobox appearance, while the 3 looks considerably more upscale even with its overly abrupt trunk.

Inside the Ford Focus ST, nice touches include red-stitched black leather on the steering wheel and shift knob. The standard seats resemble those in the SVT, with red dots on charcoal in their inserts and in the door panels. Unlike the SVT, the bolsters are upholstered in cloth, not leather. These seats are tastefully sporty, unlike the garish orange units in the first-year Sentra SE. The car I drove had the optional charcoal leather with gray suede in place of the red-dotted cloth. Very nice.

If only the new instrument panel measured up to the seats and steering wheel. It will please those for whom the old asymmetrical design was too weird. But most people will find its extremely plain design boring. Hard plastics are used both on the instrument panel and doors. Though the Mazda3’s interior also makes extensive use of hard plastic, it looks much more upscale. The Lancer fares a bit better than the Focus in the interior materials department, but not by enough to count.


Accommodations

No matter how many times I test drive a Focus its driving position seems unusual. You sit a few inches higher than average in this car. While this affords an excellent view over the instrument panel, it detracts from the sportiness of the car. The driving positions in the other two cars are more conventional--the top of their instrument panels is much nearer the driver's line of sight--with the 3’s the sportiest of the bunch.

Many reviewers have found the Ford Focus’ seats uncomfortable. I’ve never had a problem with them though. The ST’s feel firmer than I recall from the last SVT I sat in (though they might be unchanged--the owner of that SVT was on the heavy side). As in the Lancer, firm side bolsters provide very good lateral support. The 3’s seats do less well here, though better than those in the Protegй that preceded it.

The Focus ST like every 2005 Focus has a single, difficult to reach manual control on the front face of the cushion that simultaneously changes the seat's height and tilt (rearward tilt is greatest with the seat in its lowest position). I prefer the separate controls for front and rear height in my Protege5, which allow tilt and height to be separately adjusted. But the Protйgй is no longer available. The 3 has only a single control for height. I cannot recall if the Lancer’s height adjustment used one knob or two. A Hyundai Accent provides separate controls, though, so it's clearly not a budget-busting feature.

The Focus’ front seat has limited rearward travel, such that I positioned it all the way back despite being only 5-9. I do like to drive with the seat further back than most people my height, but those over six feet might wish for more rearward travel.

The Ford Focus’ rear seat remains very comfortable for a compact. Knee room is a bit tight with the front seat all the way back, but the cushion is well off the floor, providing very good thigh support and minimizing the need for said knee room.

The sedan’s trunk is tall and deep, but on the narrow side, especially with the Audiophile package's subwoofer filling considerable space on the left. The seatbacks fold in two sections. Sadly, the cushion tilts as a single piece, so if you want a flat load floor you cannot carry even one person in the rear seat.

Interior storage is decent. The compartment in the insufficiently padded center armrest is small, but it is supplemented by another in the dash to the left of the steering column that can hold a dozen or so CDs.


On the Road

I’ve been impressed by the smoothness of the 160-horsepower 2.3-liter in Mazda’s cars, but not with its verve. Oddly, the 145-horsepower version in the Ford Ford ST feels punchier at lower revs despite lacking the Mazdas’ variable valve timing. The specs back up my impressions. The Mazda version produces its peak torque of 150 foot-pounds at 4500 RPM, while the Ford version produces 149 at 4250. Horsepower peaks are even more telling: 5750 vs. 6500 RPM.

The exhaust is louder in the Ford, which lends the engine a sportier character and make it feel spunkier than it is. Thankfully it’s not loud enough to be obnoxious, unlike that in the turbo Neon, but some might find its droning while cruising down the road a bit unwelcome. I didn't mind it. All in all I actually prefer Ford’s less powerful version of the 2.3, though I like the 2.4 in the Lancer better than either.

As for the SVT’s 2.0, I didn’t miss its extra 25 horses. Produced at 7000 RPM, they’d come in handy in ten-tenths driving, but for anything less the torquier 2.3 (149 foot-pounds at 4250 RPM vs. 145 at 5500) works better.

In one area the 2.3 is clearly superior to the SVT powerplant: premium fuel is not necessary.

The Ford Focus ST is available only with a five-speed manual. The SVT’s complicated, dual final drive six-speed no doubt cost much more, and in all honesty the extra ratio is not much needed with the torquier 2.3. Shifters have never been a Focus strong point, and this hasn’t changed for 2005. Shifts are easy enough, with a mild notchiness going into gear that I like but others might not. But shift throws are far too long and feel in the vicinity of neutral too sloppy (we’re clearly working through cables here), especially compared to the excellent short-throw shifter in the Ralliart. The 3’s shifter feels better than the Focus’, and those who find shift effort in the Lancer too high (I don’t) will find it the best of the three.

Traction control is standard on the ST, amazing since it’s not even available on the 3 and Lancer and was included in the seat heater package on the SVT. Although the engine is hardly torquey enough to make this feature of much use on dry roads, it could come in handy on slick surfaces.

In contrast to the shifter, handling has always been a Focus strong point, especially with the SVT, and the ST does not disappoint in this area. Although the steering wheel’s rim is a hair too thick, the system’s feel and weighting are very good both on center and in hard turns. The car goes precisely where you point it, with less understeer than the typical front-driver. The 3 and Lancer also handle very well, though, and lean less in turns. The Lancer’s steering, with a very direct feel on center, is in my opinion the best of the three. Between the Focus and 3 it’s hard to say which is the better handler. The Ford Focus has a more playful feel, and its steering is more communicative, while the 3 feels more taut and controlled. My Protege5 feels more nimble than any of them, with an almost go-kart feel. But that’s a relic of the past. Just about every compact strives to feel larger than it is these days.

The payoff for the ST’s extra lean in turns is the best ride quality of the bunch. In my first drive of the SVT, with similar suspension tuning, I found the ride overly harsh. Maybe it was the particular road I traveled, or that car's tires were overinflated, or the ST’s slightly higher profile (50- vs. 45-series) Pirelli P6 tires absorb the small stuff better. Whatever the reason, I found the ST’s ride almost cushy compared to that of the 3 and Lancer (though neither of those seemed harsh to me).

Wind noise levels are subdued, but even at moderate speeds exhaust and tire noises intrude somewhat. Thankfully even with five rather than the SVT’s six speeds the engine turns only about 2450 RPM at 60, which bodes well for both fuel economy and comfort on the highway.

I liked driving the Focus ST very much, yet find myself writing a mixed review. Just a sign of how tough the competition is in this segment.


Ford Focus ST Price Comparisons and Pricing

The Focus ST starts at $18,250. The car I drove included every option except the $350 side airbags: the $695 leather/suede seats, $115 heaters for said seats (a very low price), $455 Audiophile system with in-dash CD changer and subwoofer, $625 moonroof, and $125 alarm system. The total: $20,265.

How much cheaper is this than the 2004 SVT? The base price of the SVT is $900 higher. With sunroof and Audiophile package it lists for $21,145, or $1,435 more than the above ST. (Add heated seats to both and the gap widens by another $280 because traction control is standard on the ST but not on the SVT. On the other hand, the SVT has standard cloth/leather seats, so arguably the suede/leather option should be included in the ST's price.) Sticker to sticker the ST is the better deal.


Last Words

In most aspects the ST really is an SVT for about $1,500 less. It’s just about as much fun to drive, and as a bonus runs on regular. On the downside it is only available in relatively boring sedan form and between this and the smaller wheels doesn't look as sharp or special.

I found many things to like about the ST, most notably its engine, seats, and handling. But while the Mazda3’s engine doesn’t seem as energetic, it handles corners with less lean and looks much more upscale. For most people the Mazda is the one to buy.

For some, though, the Mitsubishi will be the surprising favorite. It has the most enjoyable engine and its steering and shifter feel fantastic. Shame about the styling, even more rental-car-like than the Focus sedan’s, but those who prioritize the driving experience will often prefer it to the others.

The Ford Focus ST’s best bet, as good as it is, is a larger rebate down the road. Making the ST available in hatch form with the SVT’s wheels also wouldn’t hurt, but it might upset SVT owners.

---

src: http://www.epinions.com/