There weren’t too many automakers celebrating the U.S. sales results for August, with Chrysler being the only high-volume automaker to see a year-over-year sales increase for the month. Even Hyundai and Kia fell on hard times, with the former seeing a sales drop for the first time since May of 2009 and the latter earning its first decline since June of last year.

But even when the South Korean brands appear to be losing, they’re still winning. Keeping in mind that Hyundai owns a controlling stake in Kia, the two combined to move 86,068 units in August, while Nissan (plus Infiniti) sold 76,827. Add those results to the South Korean’s very strong sales numbers from the first seven months of the year and, at this stage in the game, the Hyundai-Kia group has displaced Nissan North America from sixth place on the list of top-selling automakers here in the U.S.

The current score: 601,445 sales for Hyundai-Kia and 599,496 for Nissan-Infiniti.

It’s an amazing testament to how far both Hyundai and Kia have come in recent years: The “Big Six” (GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan) has ruled the U.S. sales roost for decades, and as companies like Volkswagen have found out, breaking into this exclusive club is no easy task. And even now, there’s no guarantee that things will stay as they are through December, when the year’s sales standings become final.

It’s true that Hyundai and Kia are continuing to churn out exciting new products like the remade Kia Sportage and soon-to-debut 2011 Kia Optima family, along with the upcoming all-new Hyundai Elantra and Hyundai Veloster/Tiburon.

But on the other hand, I’ve long been thinking the story here verges on too good to be true. Yes, sales and profits have been at record levels for Hyundai and Kia, but their ability to keep pumping out extensively revised all-new products while still keeping MSRPs well below those of the competition makes me think something is out of whack somewhere along the line. That’s why I’ve had my eye on the ol’ recall lists lately.

For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently opened investigations into serious steering issues on both the 2011 Hyundai Sonata and 2010 Kia Soul. The Soul, along with the current Kia Sorento, have also been recalled for defective wiring. And the 2010 Hyundai Tucson was recalled earlier this year for a problem with its safety belts.

Note, too, that these aren’t old-school Hyundai and Kia models, but all products that have gone through the brands’ extreme makeover machine.

I’m not ready to say Hyundai and Kia have been skimping on quality engineering in order to put their focus on growth, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time something like that’s happened in the auto industry.

The Chevrolet Cruze compact has been on the market in the rest of the world for over a year, and has done reasonably well for GM in markets like Australia and South Korea.  US production in Lordstown, Ohio began in July, and it’s slated to hit dealer lots this month.  The car is sold as a Chevrolet Cruze in Europe, a Holden Cruze in Australia, and a Daewoo Lacetti Premiere in South Korea, but the only visual differences are powertrain choices, design details like grilles and bumpers.  All sheetmetal is identical among the variants.  Overall, GM currently sells the Cruze in 70 countries worldwide.

The problem is, vehicle-configuration preferences in most of the rest of the world are very different from those in the US.  In the US, most buyers equate five-door hatchbacks with the economy cars of the 1970s and 80s, and as a result, tend to avoid them.  The rest of the world finds fault with the limited utility and more upright style of a traditional American four-door sedan.  So the fact that the current Cruze is only available as a four-door sedan somewhat limits the car’s prospects in the rest of the world.  Enter the whiz-kids at Holden, GM’s Australian subsidiary.

The guys who did most of the heavy lifting on the Zeta platform that underpinned the lamented Pontiac G8 and the current Chevrolet Camaro have done a bit of minor surgery to the Chevrolet Cruze in advance of the 2010 Paris Motor Show.  By adding a rear hatch, they have transformed the car from a conservative sedan – whose styling I felt fell flat on its face against the more modern-looking 2012 Ford Focus – to a comely, sleek hatchback.  The best part of the Cruze hatchback is that it ditches the Cruze sedan’s Chrysler Sebring-like black sail panels in front of the car’s C-pillars; that seemingly simple change cleans up the car’s profile dramatically.

Are you ready for the bad news?  In spite of its good looks, the Cruze hatchback will not be sold in the US.  It will be produced in Australia for local consumption and some exports, and the company’s plant in South Korea will continue exporting the car to continental Europe.  The Cruze is also built in Russia, China, Thailand, and India.  Expect the production version of this car – which should be identical to what you see here, with the exception of the front LED lighting and perhaps the large wheels – to go on sale across Europe in mid-2011 at a price to be announced.

GM’s Press release follows below.  If you want GM to reconsider its decision to not offer the Cruze hatchback in the US, start the badgering and petitions now.

New hatchback is next chapter in Cruze success story
Cargo capacity for the Cruze hatchback is close to 400 liters and will feature 60/40 split rear seating.

• Hatchback show car to be unveiled at Paris Motor Show
• New model will build on Cruze sedan’s global appeal
• Cruze hatchback cements Chevrolet’s mainstream credentials in Europe
• One of four Chevrolet premieres in Paris

The story of the Chevrolet Cruze goes from strength to strength with the latest chapter heralding the launch of a new 5-door hatchback model, further evidence of Chevrolet’s intention to bring value for money to all mainstream segments in Europe.

A show car version of Chevrolet’s compact contender will be seen for the first time at the Paris Motor Show, on September 30. It will be one of four world Chevrolet premieres at the show.

With the introduction of the new Cruze hatchback, customers have an alternative body style to the traditional sedan and Chevrolet has raised the bar again with a vehicle that brings new levels of value against some of the more established competition.

According to Wayne Brannon, president and managing director of Chevrolet Europe, the potential for meeting further customer demand is significant. “Cruze is turning out to be a real success story. We are selling it in 70 countries around the world and it has recently surpassed the Aveo as our top selling passenger car nameplate globally.

“Hatchbacks play a critical role in many markets. The total compact segment in Europe represents around 4.8 million units which is over a quarter of the total market, with hatchbacks representing around 65% of that volume. We therefore expect to see increased business in a number of regions, while sending out a signal that Chevrolet is now a serious mainstream player in Europe.”

Since its launch in the spring 2009, the Cruze sedan has been warmly welcomed by markets all over the world, greeted as a step change for the brand with customers attracted to its coupe style, build quality, 5-star NCAP rating and driving dynamics. It was also elected the AUTOBEST car of 2010 by a jury of leading auto writers in Central and Eastern Europe.

The Chevrolet Cruze is a car particularly well suited to European driver tastes, a fact borne out by sales success across many of markets. So far in 2010, Cruze tops the compact sedan sales charts in many of the larger European markets including Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the U.K., where it is exceeding forecasted sales.

Outside of Europe, Cruze’s sales momentum is equally evident. In China alone, Chevrolet has sold nearly 90,000 Cruze since the start of the year, while the sedan is also selling well in Russia, parts of South America, and in India and other emerging markets.

The new Chevrolet Cruze 5-door hatchback will go on sale across Europe mid 2011 with prices announced nearer the launch date.

With its attractive sweeping coupe roofline and short overhangs at both the front and rear, the new Cruze hatchback has the same dynamic ’stance’ as the sedan and will be instantly recognizable. It will benefit too from the same taut body ‘feel’ on the road, being built using the new body-frame integral system (BFI) which is complemented by the final tuning to chassis components. The BFI system results in high levels of stability and solidity.

Remember when the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) was passed back in 2007? Me neither. But it turns out that EISA calls for the EPA to come up with revised window stickers for the 2012 model year, with the goal being to make it easier for customers to sort out the fuel-efficiency and emissions performance of new vehicles.

The redesigned stickers will still provide the traditional EPA fuel-economy ratings as well as information about greenhouse gas emissions, other air pollutants and annual fuel costs, and, again, the goal is to end up with a sticker that can “help consumers make easy and well-informed comparisons between vehicles.”

Well, we’re now at the stage where the agency has come up with two draft labels, and it’s looking for public input: “Specifically, which design, or design features, would best help you compare the fuel economy, fuel costs, and environmental impacts of different vehicles.”

The biggest difference between the two, of course, is that one has a big ol’ letter grade front and center, while the other gives relatively similar weight to a slew of different measures, with the EPA combined fuel-efficiency number and annual fuel cost getting the primary focus. The latter also gives you the familiar horizontal scales that show how a specific vehicle fares in terms of fuel efficiency, etc., as compared to the pool of all other vehicles in its segment.

It seems pretty clear to me that letter grades would be the easiest—although perhaps not the most accurate—tool for consumers to use. Among the reasons for this is a particularly notable one: It allows people to easily compare vehicles across segments as well as within segments.

This is important, because I can’t help but feel people are getting taken in by claims about “best-in-class” fuel efficiency and the like. Take the Ford F-150 as a random example. Ford likes to boast about how its full-size pickup offers the best fuel efficiency in its class, and that sounds pretty good. And if you were to look at one of those horizontal scales that shows how the F-150 does against its rivals, it would look pretty good. But there’s no getting away from an EPA line of 15 mpg city/21 mpg highway/17 mpg combined. In the grand scheme of things, those are just not very good marks—which is why, on the list of sample grades provided for current models, the EPA only gives the least-thirsty F-150 a C+.

Now, I understand that for someone who “needs” a full-size pickup for its capabilities, knowing which truck is the most fuel efficient—regardless of its actual EPA ratings—is important. But for the casual buyer who would be using an F-150 as a bulked-up family hauler, the C+ letter grade gives a clearer picture of where the Ford stands in the marketplace as a whole.

Here’s the bottom line: Like it or not, the government has made improved fuel-efficiency its number one priority in terms of what it expects from the auto industry. Thus, it would be helpful if there were some kind of gauge that buyers could use to evaluate how cars ranked in their ability to achieve that goal, and that’s what the letter grade system provides.

The problem is that people, especially gearheads and luxury automakers, are going to have to wrap their heads around the idea that cars like a Cadillac CTS-V simply aren’t going to get good grades on the new EPA report card. Just keep in mind that the appropriate comparison here would be giving the Mazda MX-5 Miata a failing grade in cargo space.

The Chrysler Sebring is not the most modern, most spacious, best-equipped, or best-handling sedan in the mid-sized class. If anything, it is the most under-rated sedan. Slightly revised for 2010, the Sebring lost the odd hood strakes that were eye-catching (though not pretty). Even in Limited trim with chromed aluminum wheels, the Sebring has a particularly anonymous look. With Chrysler’s ongoing financial troubles and and an uninspired design, sales have been slow (despite picking up in August 2010, which is surely heavy with fleet sales). The Sebring sedan has become a rental fleet queen as a result.

Nevertheless, the Sebring is the Chrysler brand’s entry in the crowded mainstream sedan segment, and the company is pressing on with production and sales.  The good news, however, is that Chrysler has acknowledged this car’s shortcomings and is planning to sell a revised Sebring with an improved interior and more refined exterior design later this year until a new sedan can be put in to production (perhaps the 200c we recently wrote about).  Many Sebrings spend the early part of their lives in daily rental fleets, but those Sebrings aren’t the top-spec Limited model that Chrysler provided for a weeklong evaluation.  Perhaps this under-rated and under-appreciated car is slightly more desirable with all of the option boxes checked off.

The current Sebring’s anonymous looks include hints of previous-generation Mercedes-Benz C-Class in the headlamps and front grille, and maybe a bit of Infiniti G37 sedan in the tail lamps. For 2010, Chrysler made the decision to crowd the entire name of the car onto the relatively narrow trunk lid’s vertical surface, as well as the Chrysler “wings” logo- the result is a cluttered-looking bootlid. Another mis-step on the otherwise forgettable exterior are the large decorative black plastic “sails” behind the rear door which attempt to visually elongate the Sebring’s greenhouse.

Climbing in to the Sebring, the steering wheel is leather-wrapped, though its top third is made from the same shiny-wood-look plastic used on the dash, which is not at all pleasant to hold for driving. To help get comfortable, the steering wheel adjusts for rake and reach; redundant audio controls are on the back of the steering wheel spokes. The instrument cluster displays three clear, straightforward analog displays.

The center stack features an infotainment/navigation head unit whose display has fairly high resolution. The touchscreen head unit does a good job of controlling the entertainment and navigation systems, though it is lacking on telephone features (there is no way to directly dial a phone number, and voice recognition of my phone’s contacts was hit-and-miss, compared to Ford’s SYNC system). The head unit does have some confusing screen menus, and it only has a single disc CD/DVD, but music (or photos) can transferred onto the system’s 30 GB internal hard drive (from disc or USB). Sirius satellite radio is also included, as well as ports for Aux in and USB. Unfortunately the USB port will not play a connected iPod. Sound quality wasn’t the best, but there was plenty of volume.

Surrounding the optional infotainment head unit and the climate controls are silver-painted plastic materials not unlike those that adorn the center stack in the Cadillac CTS. Too, there is a trip computer using a monochromatic electronic display at the bottom of the instrument panel and controlled through convoluted, symbol-marked buttons, as in the CTS. The oddly-shaped upper dashboard is constructed of soft-touch plastic, while the lower dash, door interiors, and center console are in a very hard plastic with a dimpled pattern- way behind other players in this class. Strips of silver-painted plastic and tortoiseshell-looking very-fake wood trim also adorn the door interiors and the dash in front of the passenger. An arc-shaped groove sculpted across the dash top intersects circular speaker grills and leaves a gap into which a finger can be poked to remove the speaker grill, making it seem as though the interior parts weren’t all designed to be assembled together.

LED reading lamps are present for front and rear seat, and the dome light is also an LED. Because of the directional quality of LEDs used for illumination, this results in very bright lighting where the LEDs are shining, and deep shadows in the rest of the all-black interior.

Seats in the Sebring Limited are upholstered with leather on the seating surfaces; Dark Slate Gray colored (i.e. black) in the case of my car. The seats are relatively comfortable, and feature eight-way power adjustment plus manual lumbar for the driver, as well as two-stage warming for the front seats. Despite the leather upholstery, the Sebring’s interior smells of petrochemicals rather than cow hides.

The back seat also gets leather upholstery on the outboard seating positions, with black vinyl making up the rest of the rear seat including the folding armrest with two cup holders. While the seat is equipped with lower LATCH attachment points for the two outboard seating positions (and upper LATCH points for all three positions), the lower LATCH points were extremely difficult to use with my Britax Marathon convertible car seat, because they are pressed against the bottom edge of the seatback cushion frame , and the Britax LATCH connectors need about 3/8 of an inch of space above the LATCH. I spent about 15 minutes before finally getting the lower anchors attached, swearing the whole time and coming to the conclusion that people who buy the Sebring sedan probably don’t buy fancy carseats like the Britax Marathon. The fixed head restraints also kept the convertible carseat and my older daughter’s booster seat from sitting snugly against the seatback. The poor lower LATCH placement and the shape of the headrests lead me to rate the Sebring’s back seat as not “family friendly.”

The trunk benefits from space-saving external pivot type hinges, but unfortunately loses space due to intrusive upholstery in the top-back of the trunk and on the inside of the decklid. My family of four took the Sebring on a weekend trip, and had a difficult time fitting a standard-sized cooler, portable crib, and plastic storage bin in addition to our luggage. I ended up scraping my hand on something sharp on the top inside of the trunk. I could see that there were small pockets of space still available in the trunk, but the uneven trunk upholstery kept me from being able to fill them up. Unlike in most modern sedans, the trunk latch sticks up into the trunk opening (rather than being recessed in the sill), so it was easy to have items catch on the latch as they were being loaded in to the trunk.

Turning the key (no keyless entry or start is available) brings the 3.5 liter V6 to life. While Hyundai has proclaimed that the V6 is dead for mid-sized sedans (and Chevrolet rumored to be following suit), the DOA Sebring continues to offer this not-so-refined six-cylinder, and its relatively meager 235 HP output. The engine sounds incredibly coarse at cold start, and poor insulation between the engine room and the cabin means that noises from the engine are readily transmitted in to the cabin. The engine is at its best below about 4500 RPM- between there and the 6000 RPM redline produces unpleasant mechanical sounds that are not well-enough isolated from the passenger cabin.  Relief from this 3.5 liter V6 is reportedly on the way, with Chrysler’s new 3.6 liter Pentastar V6 slated to arrive in the Sebring at a future date.

The engine is mated to a six-speed automatic, which does its job just fine. It is equipped with Chrysler’s AutoStick functionality. Shifts (whether automatically or manually commanded) are certainly felt, but not intrusively so. Cruising the suburban stoplight crawl on a 40 MPH road, the Sebring would shift from first to second, third, fourth and fifth gears in the course of about five seconds… producing an unnerving sensation of constant transmission activity.

Underway, the most noticeable trait from the helm is very light-effort for the steering wheel; it is nearly of the steer-with-your-pinky variety, and quite a change from that of most vehicles on the road. Very little feedback comes through the overboosted wheel.

The chassis “tuning” is such that the Sebring suffers from nearly comical levels of understeer. While not as bad as in its convertible sibling, it is very easy to come into a corner with too much speed (at speeds that wouldn’t be considered ”too much” in most vehicles), and plow wide of your intended path of travel. This is partially moderated with the Sebring’s standard stability control,and can also be partially modulated by applying more power and trying to wheelspin your way to traction. Of course, most buyers of new Sebrings probably won’t be driving quickly enough to experience or worry about that.

The body is relatively solid, with very little noticeable flex or wiggle. As the flaccid Sebring convertible is the only Sebring I had previously driven, I was actually surprised by the sedan’s rigidity. The suspension, however, is another matter- it wallows over freeway undulations, judders over expansion joints, and generally is very busy trying to make the Sebring ride like a stereotypical American car. If you like a car that gives you feedback while you’re driving, the Sebring isn’t the car for you… but you already knew that.

The Sebring’s handling adds absolutely no joy to driving it, but is not the worst part of the driving experience; that distinction goes to the absolute lack of respect other drivers give Sebring on the road. I’ve never been cut off so frequently and raced to merge points as much in any car as in the Sebring- it seems that nobody wants to drive behind one. Perhaps this is because of Sebring’s ubiquity in the rental fleet (drivers of rental cars don’t know where they are going), or perhaps it is because the cars tend to be chosen by hapless retirees cruising along below the speed limit.

I managed to cover about 450 miles over the course of seven days in the Sebring. The EPA rates the Sebring 16/27 MPG, 20 combined; that isn’t near the top of ratings for mid-sized sedans. I managed to get 24.4 MPG according to the car’s trip computer, with about 75% of my driving at speed on the freeway.

The Sebring Limited sedan has a base price of $22,115. The one I tested was equipped with plenty of options- $245 Deep Water Blue Pearl Coat Exterior Paint; $1010 Customer Preferred Package 26B (Automatic Single-Zone Climate Control, Fog Lamps, Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror, Remote start, Security Alarm, Temperature and Compass Gauge, TPMS, Trip Computer, Universal Garage Door Opener); $1695 Navigation and Sound Group I (6.5” Touchscreen Display, SIRIUS Satellite Radio/Traffic, Media Center 730N CD/DVD/HDD/NAV Radio with 30 GB Hard Drive, 6-Speaker Boston Acoustics, GPS Navigation, Uconnect Phone with Voice Command); $425 Electronic Stability Control; $200 Six-Speed Automatic Transmission; $2050 3.5 Liter High Output V6 Engine (includes 18” Aluminum Wheels with All Season Touring Tires, AutoStick Automatic Transmission, Dual Exhaust Tips); $845 Power Sunroof with Open/Close Express, and $700 18” Chrome-Clad Aluminum Wheels. Including the Destination Charge of $750, the total MSRP is $30,035. That seems like far too much money to pay for a Sebring sedan given the available competition, and it is doubtful that many trade at such a transaction price.

Perhaps my expectations of the Sebring were too low. I had expected to be horrified by the ride and interior treatments. While nothing about the car is class-leading, the Sebring was not an uncomfortable car in which to spend a week and 450 miles. But with so many attractive players in the mid-sized sedan class there are few good reasons to choose the Sebring; Chrysler dealers must be hoping that this car is soon replaced by a competent, competitive car, and very soon.

We’ve previously seen line drawings from the patent application for the upcoming Dodge Durango’s design, and we’ve seen a few spy photos of Dodge’s resurrected SUV people hauler.  But today, Chrysler released the first official photos of the all-new 2011 Dodge Durango.

Sharing nothing but its name with the previous Durango, this third-generation model actually shares its platform with the brand new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee, a vehicle with serious off-roading chops that has been receiving some of the most favorable press reviews on new Chrysler vehicles in several years.  Like the Grand Cherokee, the Durango features unibody construction and the buyer’s choice of either the new 3.6 liter Pentastar V6 or the more powerful (and thirsty) 5.7 liter HEMI overhead valve V8.  However, the Durango adds third-row seating absent in the Grand Cherokee, but subtracts the Grand Cherokee’s sophisticated (and expensive) off-road hardware in its transition to family hauler.

This newest Durango’s name was rumored to possibly be Magnum, and it’s easy to see why; in ride height and shape it more or less falls somewhere between the Magnum wagon and the Durango body on frame SUV.  It’s certainly a clean design, and shows the evolution of Dodge’s design direction away from the  over-wrought, over-muscled shapes such as the Avenger and Caliber.  This Durango is unlikely to win any design awards, but it’s also not likely to be poked fun of as some daring designs have been through the years.  It has nice proportions and is arguably more handsome than some of its front wheel drive-based crossover competition is.

It’s interesting to also see the de-coupling of the Dodge and Ram brands’ identies in this vehicle, which is the first Dodge vehicle since the creation of Chrysler Group’s Ram trucks brand.  It still holds the crosshair grille – which is supposed to go to Ram in the divorce proceedings – but the steering wheel (the only interior photo that was released) has Dodge’s new logo.  Curiously, the new logo for Dodge is a - wait for it – crosshair.  It looks like the logo was shaped to be a ram’s head, only to be changed to the crosshair logo at the last minute.  Perhaps they’re still sorting these issues out; we noticed when we reviewed the 2010 Ram 2500 HD that the word ‘Dodge’ still appeared throughout the truck a number of times as well.

A gallery of the Durango’s images follows below, with the official press release below the gallery.  The Durango goes on sale in the fourth quarter of this year.

September 2, 2010 , Auburn Hills, Mich. –

Buckle in and hold tight. Dodge is jumping back into the sport utility (SUV) segment with the 2011 Dodge Durango, a three-row vehicle spacious enough to carry the entire crew and performance-tuned to thrill anyone who truly loves to drive. Durango will lead the Dodge brand’s new product onslaught for 2011.

From its sleek exterior design to its modern, spacious interior, and intelligent, fuel-efficient and powerful powertrain options, the 2011 Dodge Durango is all-new from the inside out. And the changes are more than skin deep. The Durango’s stiffened unibody structure is engineered with the driving enthusiast in mind. The end result is a vehicle that delivers premium driving performance combined with SUV capability and crossover versatility.

The all-new Durango features two engine options: the standard fuel-efficient 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 engine and the available 5.7-liter HEMI engine with fuel-saving, Multi-displacement system (MDS) four-cylinder mode. Both engines feature variable-valve timing (VVT) and are available with all-wheel drive. In addition to great efficiency, the engines provide exceptional V-6 and V-8 towing capability with standard trailer sway control (V-8 – 7,400 lbs. and Best-in-class V-6 – 6,200 lbs.). When equipped with the HEMI® V-8, the all-new Durango can tow more weight than a 24-foot boat and trailer.

The Durango’s all-new interior is a surprise owners always deserved but never expected. Created by the same interior design studio that designed the much-lauded interior in the Ram trucks and the all-new Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Durango’s luxurious interior materials and thoughtful touches will make owners and their crews want to jump in, hunker down and thoroughly enjoy even the longest drive. Everywhere they touch, Durango passengers will feel materials that are refined and soft to the touch. Not only is it a pleasure to behold, it is extremely functional and gives owners a first-class experience, regardless of the trim level. Durango’s interior is also extremely comfortable for all three rows of passengers, and there’s a surprising amount of interior flexibility. With 22 different seating configurations, there’s plenty of room to store and move plenty of people and their gear.

The all-new 2011 Dodge Durango also offers consumers 45 safety and security features, including standard front seat-mounted side air bags and standard side-curtain air bags that cover passengers in all three rows, as well as all-new standard active head restraints. Electronic Stability Control also is standard. Other available safety and security technologies include Blind-spot Monitoring, Rear Cross Path detection, Forward Collision Warning, Adaptive Cruise Control and Keyless Enter-n’ Go.

The best part is, consumers will get all of the all-new Durango’s capability, functionality and flexibility and still get excellent fuel efficiency. In fact, drivers can go more than 500 miles, that’s the distance from San Diego to San Francisco or from Detroit to New York City, without having to stop for fuel.

Built at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit, Mich., the new 2011 Dodge Durango arrives in showrooms in the fourth quarter of 2010.

How deep does the 2011 Mustang GT Convertible’s beauty go? Hopefully it’s more than just skin deep, but we set out on a week’s worth of using the car for everything from commuting to the office, to running errands, to hours-long drives off the beaten path to definitively find the answer to that question.

Surely, it’s an attractive car. The design improvements made to the 2010 Mustang, which carry over nearly intact in the 2011 model, improved the breed by adding additional contours to the car’s flanks, plus chamfered corners that lend a sleek look to the original pony car, as well as helping the car’s aerodynamics. It retains all of the classic Mustang styling cues, yet manages to look trim and modern as well.

But under the 2011 Mustang GT’s hood lies the most beautiful engine installed in a Ford Motor Company product since the original 3.0 liter Yamaha-sourced DOHC V6 in the original 1989 Taurus SHO. We don’t like to generalize here at Autosavant, but generally, the underhood areas of most Ford vehicles are either just a disorganized-looking series of hoses and wires, or a disorganized-looking series of hoses and wires covered by giant plastic engine shrouds. Even the 2011 Mustang V6 has a similar affliction.

But not the new “Coyote” 5.0 liter V8 in the 2011 Mustang GT. It’s a work of art, from the large 5.0 graphic on its semi-covering engine cover/intake box, to the snake pit of interconnected pipes on the intake plenum that is reminiscent of the previously-mentioned SHO V6 (and that’s probably not a coincidence). And remember, we’re only talking about the way this engine looks on the outside. Fire up the big V8, and its inner beauty almost brings a tear to the eye. It sounds like a V8 is supposed tosound, with perhaps slightly more bass than the 2010 GT’s 4.6 liter V8, but pulls way more strongly. In fact, this engine feels and sounds very much like the excellent 5.0 liter V8 that Lexus installs in the IS-F sedan.

Last year’s 315-horsepower 4.6 liter Mustang GT held its own against the 426-horsepower Camaro SS, in spite of being down more than 100 horsepower and having just five forward speeds in its gearbox, thanks to the Mustang’s lighter weight and, frequently, better gearing. Add another 97 horsepower to the mix, and it’s hard not to giggle like a schoolgirl when in second gear and you stomp on the go-pedal and hear the glorious V8 soundtrack piped into the cabin and feel the car throw you deeper into your seatback. Braaappp-brrrrrraaaaaap-braap. You get the idea, in spite of our terrible onomatopoeia. You’d think that with a soft top on this test car that the V8’s sound effects would be even more pronounced with the roof open, but you’d be wrong. Likely credit goes to the sound induction tube included with the Mustang GT that pipes just the right amount of induction noise into the cabin; some of that escapes before hitting your ears when the roof is open. As a consequence, we found ourselves enjoying top-up motoring as much as top-down motoring, but for different reasons entirely.

We had the opportunity to spend a sunny day away from the keyboard in in the Mustang GT convertible, and during the course of an over 100-mile drive, traversing mainly secondary roads with long sweepers, wide lanes, and plenty of passing zones. Thanks to that last point, plus 412 horsepower and 390 lb-ft of torque, we set a personal record for the number of two-lane road passes in a single day at more than 25. And why not? Drop the short-throw six-speed gearbox down a gear or two (if you want to have fun) – or not, if you’re lazy – and the Mustang just blasts past the car in front of you, completely drama-free. We’ve often believed that the safest way to pass a car is as quickly as possible, to minimize the amount of time that the car is facing oncoming traffic. If that’s to be believed, then the Mustang GT 5.0 is one of the safest cars on the market.

Inside, the Mustang GT with the Premium package adds some nice touches, like real metal trim on the dashboard, better door panel materials, and leather seating surfaces. Switchgear and material quality are far, far better than those used in the previous (2005-2009) Mustang, and in fact are better than those found in the Mustang’s most direct competitors – the Camaro, Challenger, and Genesis Coupe. The front seats are reasonably well-bolstered, and the cashmere stripe down their center helps break the monotony of a nearly completely-dark cabin. If the charcoal interior isn’t your thing, Ford offers some pretty cool alternatives like saddle leather or stone leather to brighten the place up. When the cloth top is closed, the car has a surprisingly nice headliner; it’s not going to be confused with what’s above your head in an Audi convertible, but it’s also not just the underside of the roof’s canvas. And don’t forget, if you want a convertible pony car, the Mustang is the only game in town until next year when the Camaro convertible hits the streets.

Not all is roses with the interior. The steering wheel, while suitably thick and grippy, is a bit large in diameter to allow the driver to see the tach and speedometer within its rim. There’s more hard plastic – for instance, on the door panels and nearly the entire center console – than is found in more expensive cars. There isn’t much room in the two-person back seat, unless the passengers there are children, or the front-seat passenger is short enough to move the seat forward further than normal.

It seems as if most buyers of a 2011 Mustang with the six-speed manual would not need to consider a short-throw shift kit for their ride. The stock shifter – with its attractive polished metal knob on top – stays close to the console and has a very positive shift action. We occasionally found third gear engagement to be a bit tricky, particularly when hurried, but the odd-even shifts (1-2, 3-4, etc.) all clicked into place nicely, and let the Coyote V8 sing its tune in a lower register until revs built back up.

We put a four year old in the back seat (on his booster seat) with the top down for a trip to the mall to pick up a new dehumidifier, and though he was afraid that the wind would blow the cap off his head and it was a little noisy at highway speeds, he was able to have a conversation with the driver. Once we purchased the appliance, it didn’t fit into the Mustang’s small trunk opening, so we took advantage of the convertible’s unlimited headroom and just chucked the box on the back seat next to the child. With SYNC streaming Dora the Explorer songs from the driver’s iPhone via Bluetooth into the Shaker audio system, the brief trip to the mall was quite the thrill for the little guy’s first convertible ride.

Opening the convertible top is simple, but requires old-fashioned manual unlatching at the tops of the A-pillars before it can electrically fold into its well. After just a few seconds, it’s stowed. Ford provides a tonneau cover (which you can see folded in the trunk in the photo above) that we never bothered to install. If you plan on keeping the top down for an extended period, we suppose that it might smooth airflow, or at least the car’s profile, but found it unnecessary in daily use, even at extralegal speeds. At those speeds, however, wind noise grows substantially. Wind noise is not a factor below 60, makes its presence known between 65 and 75, and above 75, sounds like you’re in the middle of a hurricane. Having never been in an actual hurricane, we’re just guessing what one might sound like.

This test car was equipped with the $1,695 Brembo Brake Package, and it’s one we would highlyrecommend for any Mustang GT buyer. The package actually only includes Brembo frontbrakes, but with the engine and tire capabilities present in this car, it’s important that the brakes’ capabilities can more or less keep up with the rest of the performance hardware. This car also had the gray-painted Dark Stainless wheels, which come with the Brembo Brake Package. They’re great for two reasons – they look menacing, and they do a great job of hiding brake dust.

We didn’t encounter any brake fade during our time with this Mustang, and in reality, it’s likely that only track driving would overwhelm the Brembo package’s ability to stop the car quickly. If you plan on doing that, you would probably want to consider further upgrading the brakes, but we’re glad to see that Ford has taken critical assessments of its vehicles’ braking systems to heart and begun to significantly upgrade the hardware. As you can see from the photo above, there’s still more room for even bigger brakes within those 19 inch wheels, so the choice of a “stage 2″ brake upgrade would be nice for those who want it. The big 14 inch Brembos did modulate easily, with a nice, firm pedal, and were capable of stopping the fun rapidly when needed.

Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires, sized P255/40R19, are the tires of choice with the 19 inch wheels and the Brembo Brake package. These tires made a good showing of themselves by offering great grip, high limits, and very little howling during seven-tenths corner carving on back roads. When asked to tackle downpour conditions, they also handled that very well. Summer tires like these are not capable of driving in the snow, and in fact, their compound loses much of its grip below 45 degrees fahrenheit, so budget for a set of all-seasons or winter tires if you live in colder climates and plan on driving your Brembo-equipped Mustang more than just a few months out of the year.

On our top-secret handling-test roads, the Mustang GT showed excellent steering feedback, with good weighting and a suitably quick ratio. That is still somewhat surprising, since for 2011 Ford went to electric power steering in the Mustang for fuel economy reasons. In essence, Ford has backed up its claims that it has figured out how to tune a good EPAS system to match up with a good hydraulic system, but with better efficiency. Mid-corner direction changes are but a press (or lift) of the gas pedal away, and the car feels well-balanced. The long hood makes it easy to see what’s in front of you and to precisely position your tires. The ride is firm, but not harsh – just the way we like our cars to be dialed-in.

Of course, Mustangs come only with an old fashioned solid rear axle. This setup has some major advantages that make it a good choice in a low-buck performance car: cost and weight. It costs less to make, allowing Ford to sell the Mustang for a competitive price (or to divert that money into the expensive engine or nice interior) and it doesn’t weigh as much as an independent suspension setup would. In several hundred miles with the Mustang, the only time we encountered an issue with the solid axle was during standing-start acceleration on an uneven road surface; in that situation, the Mustang had a little trouble hooking up and getting its power to the pavement. In 99 percent of real-world situations, the solid axle is not an issue whatsoever. Frankly, we prefer the lighter weight and lower cost of this setup to the obese sedan-based chassis found in the Challenger and Camaro.

Part of the feel-good story with the 2011 Mustang is that in spite of significant horsepower gains over the 2010 model, it achieves class-leading fuel-economy figures, at least when equipped with the tall standard gearing. The EPA says that a 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 with the six-speed manual will achieve 17 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway. An automatic 5.0 gets 18/25, and all 5.0s will run happily on regular gas, but will make 402 instead of 412 horsepower. In our time with the car, a heavy foot kept the overall average in the 20 mpg neighborhood, but a highway jaunt that kept the car in sixth with the cruise control engaged returned 25 miles per gallon. This particular car was equipped with the standard 3.31:1 rear axle, but the GT can be had with either a 3.55:1 or a 3.73:1 differential instead, both of which would cost some fuel savings but enhance all but top-speed performance.

The pricing story for the 2011 Mustang is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s possible to get a GT Coupe with the 5.0 for about $30,000, but this car rang up at $44,115 (including destination). Blame the Premium Convertible’s $37,845 base price, plus the $2,340 Electronics Package (navigation, HD radio, and dual-zone climate control), $1,695 Brembo Brake Package, $595 Comfort Group, $395 Security Package, and $395 Rapid Spec 401A Premier Trim Package. This car also had the no-cost Spoiler Delete option, which we’d probably pick on a convertible as well for its cleaner looks. Since the competition doesn’t offer a convertible, we can’t compare prices of the convertible model to other manufacturers’ offerings, but the Mustang GT Coupe is about $500 less expensive than a comparably-equipped Camaro SS, according to TrueDelta.

We love the fact that the Camaro has been resurrected and that Dodge still makes the Challenger; surely, those two cars offering 400-plus horsepower large-displacement V8s had to have influenced Ford’s product planners when they conjured up the 2011 Mustang GT. This car runs like a thoroughbred – not like a roughshod feral horse of Mustangs past. It’s a horse that loves to run, and doesn’t mind being ridden hard and put away wet. The smell of hot Brembos and the ticking cooling of the engine as we landed in our driveway proves that. It really is a heck of a car no matter the price, and given its price, it’s an outstanding performance value.

Back in March of 2009, Kia execs announced plans for the automaker’s future green-focused products, and that included a tried-but-true industry tactic: Kia would differentiate its most fuel-efficient products, and those featuring new fuel-saving technologies, by sticking a new badge on them. The badging wouldn’t represent the birth of a new automotive brand—at least not in the standard sense of the term—but be more of a separate trim level.

At least that was my take.

But a recent news report from Wards.com puts a whole different spin on things, and it’s one that shows a surprising disconnect between Kia and U.S. buyers.

The bottom line is that Kia has decided not to use the EcoDynamics label—which is already showing up on its hybrids in Europe—here in the American market. The reasoning, as explained to Ward’s by Orth Hedrick, Kia Motor America’s director for product planning, is that “The issue is it’s yet another brand. And given the fact we’re trying to allocate our resources to other areas that make the most sense, does it make sense to introduce another brand out there?”

Now, as anyone who’s tried shopping for an Oldsmobile, Saturn, HUMMER, Pontiac, Plymouth or Mercury lately could tell you, this isn’t really a good time for an automaker to try adding new brands to its stable. But that’s not at all what the EcoDynamics business would have been about.

It would have been more akin to the way companies use unique designations to highlight their high-performance products. Add on a few magic letters—like SVT, M, V, AMG, SS, Si, STi, etc., etc.—and enough go-fast goodies to match, and voila!, you’ve got a marketing hook on which to hang more customers. As I hinted above, this is standard operating procedure in the industry, and that’s because, generally speaking, it works.

It costs nowhere near the amount of money it would take to truly launch a new brand of vehicles, it attracts that certain kind of customer who enjoys the caché of a designer label and it can provide a halo effect for an automaker’s entire lineup. And we’ve already seen a few tentative steps toward using this tactic on high-efficiency vehicles instead of just high-performance ones. Just to give a few more whacks to the deceased equine known as Saturn, that GM division had the “Green Line” label on its mild hybrids, and Chevrolet has been attaching the “XFE” designation to its high-mileage Cobalt for a few years now.

There’s also the new Ford Fiesta, which wears an “SFE” badge in its most fuel-efficient trim, and even BMW’s “ActiveHybrid” versions of its 7 Series and X6.

It’s true that none of these designators have caught on with the public to the same extent as Chevrolet’s “SS” or BMW’s “M,” but I say that primarily has to do with the mindset of the automakers. It’s something I’ve whined about in the past: If you want to get people to pay as much attention to mpg as they do to mph, you have to make the latter as “cool” as the former. That means you don’t hide your green vehicles under the same banner as the rest of your products, you make them stand out with exclusive badges and the like. You can call that cynicism, I call it marketing.

Just consider this: Years before Ford launched its EcoBoost engines, GM was using the same technology on the hi-po I4 engines in cars like the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn SKY Red Line. But one company leveraged that tech into a brand name, and the other didn’t—and you can see how that turned out.

The ancestor to this 2010 Nissan 370Z, the company’s1969 Fairlady 240Z (then branded in the U.S. as a Datsun), launched more than four decades ago, still holds a soft spot in the hearts of Nissan devotees. These enthusiasts wanted a sixth-generation Z car which was closer in spirit and form to the original 240Z, rather than what they got from the previous 350Z.  Many Z car fans claimed the 350Z car was all about go and not enough about show, lacking the true refinement and style that permits entry into the non-exotic two-seat sports car pantheon. Autosavant recently had the opportunity to spend a week with the 2010 370Z to evaluate whether the current-generation 370Z finally answers the devotees’ prayers.

When the L-shaped headlamps and tail-lamps first appeared on the new Maxima sedan in late 2008, many wondered what Nissan was thinking. With the 370Z, those tapered-back eyes provide a visual effect of elongating the hood.  The tapered rear blinkers along with an integrated rear spoiler make the rump seem far less squat and rotund than it should. Even “Godzilla,” the Nissan GT-R, donates an exterior styling cue in the form of the sculpted valley which runs the length of the center of the roof. Combined with a “shark’s grimace” air intake as well as a more cohesive integrated rear spoiler, the net styling effect is definitely more 240Z than its predecessor was.

The 2010 Solid Red Sport Package model we sampled makes better equipped versions of the 370Z, including the Anniversary Model, seem superfluous. For a total MSRP just under $35,000 the car’s interior is outfitted as well as any “pure” sporting two-seater has a right to be. You’ll find contrasting stitching throughout the cabin, from the seats and shifter boot, to the dash pad and center console. The cloth seats are made from a seemingly indestructible material, with webbed inserts that enhance grip and emit an attractive diamond sparkle. And those seats, by way of simple manual dials, offer a good complement of thigh lift, posterior lift, and lumbar adjustments. Whether in extended city rush-hour traffic or hour long freeway steeplechases, the seats in the 370Z should minimize the need for trips to the chiropractor. As with other true sport coupes, chubbier driers may find the driver’s seat side bolstering too constrictive. With the chassis brace now moved well forward of the rear strut towers, just behind the seats, a single 26-inch suitcase and a couple of carry-ons will not feel as constricted as the driver might.  Fit and finish seemed quite good for a car in this segment at its price point.

The main instrument binnacle, which adjusts for rake together with the well sized and hefted steering wheel, contains tachometer, speedometer and intuitive multi-display, each contained in traditional Z-style tunnel pods. The 9000 rpm tachometer is the most prominent gauge, staring right back at the driver.  To the right, atop the dash cover, are the separately hooded engine coolant temp, voltage and digital clock gauges- the illumination on these instruments can be distracting at night. Thankfully, the 370Z has not adopted white and blue illumination; instead, it uses orange to communicate its sporting intentions.  In the 370Z we tested, orange even illuminates the “Z” emblems on the rocker panels. Further nice touches include gauges whose needles sweep across the gauges on start-up. These same gauge needles also briefly remain illuminated upon shut-down. The success of the instrumentation and primary controls make the hard-to-read LED, rather than needle, fuel gauge that much more an aberration.

At a time when dual clutch transmissions have become all the rage in sports cars, Nissan has stayed with the tried, true and less costly pedal-operated hydraulic clutch mated to a six-speed fully synchronized transmission. The clutch is mated to dual-mass flywheel designed to keep clutch effort low, although pedal take-up is on the long side. Pedal position is perfectly suited to quick heel and toe action, yet pedal placement may now be all but academic thanks to Nissan’s patented Synchro-Rev rev-matching system. As the clutch pedal is depressed and the transmission shift selector is being moved to a particular gear, engine speed is modulated based on rear wheel speed for smoothly matching transmission input and output shaft speed. The system is so sensitive to shifter movement that engine revs will jump when the clutch is disengaged and the shifter is merely being wagged a bit side to side as when creeping to a stop in traffic. One side-effect of the Synchro-Rev technology is the moderately high effort needed to move the shifter, though the system can be switched off. With fewer drivers in the US learning to drive vehicles with manual transmissions, Nissan may have incorporated Synchro-Rev to reduce instances of expensive transmission synchro damage that can occur when inexperienced drivers shift improperly. Nissan offers its seven-speed manually-controlled automatic transmission as a no-cost option on the 370Z.

Unlike some European competitors whose alphanumeric model names no longer correlate to underhood displacement, the name ‘370Z’ actually means 3700 cc of displacement (or more precisely, 3,696) thanks to an increase in stroke over the VQ series engine that powered the 350Z. The over-square VQ37 V-6 engine, which also sees service in Infiniti’s G and M series, features VVEL throttle-less valve timing and lift control meant to improve engine airflow all the way to the lofty 7600 rpm redline.  One week of fairly heavy handed urban/suburban driving in Metro Chicago yielded an impressive 22 MPG. Speaking of engine specs, Nissan claims 332 HP (SAE) at 7000 rpm with 269 lb-ft of torque at 5200 RPM. Gone is the constant exhaust drone and overly- sensitive throttle tip-in of the older VQ engines. Lugging around in suburbia at 40 mph in fifth ear occurs at a comfortable 2000 rpm. Even at such pedestrian engine speeds there is ample torque on tap to pass without downshifting. Bring the revs up to 4000 rpm, which can seemingly be accomplished in a microsecond, and the motor sounds not unlike the inline-six engines which used to occupy the engine bays of BMW’s U.S. market M3s’. The engine pulls like crazy right up to its redline. Reported performance for the 370Z with manual transmission includes 0-60 times of 4.7-4.9 seconds, and elapsed quarter mile times of 13.5 seconds at 106 mph have been reported. Top speed is electronically limited to just under 160 mph, and gear ratios are such that one could estimate an ungoverned top speed some 15 mph greater. Numbers like this might at least raise the eyebrows of Porsche Cayman S and BMW Z4 35 drivers.

Nissan increased suspension spring rates to cope with heavier larger wheel and brake assemblies that are part of the new-for-2010 370Z Sports Package we sampled. The Sport Pack’s razor-spoked 19” forged Ray alloy wheels and 245/40 – 275/35 series Bridgestone RE050 dedicated performance shoes conspire with the higher spring and damping rates and mere 4.8” of ground clearance to offer a surprisingly composed ride, free of jounce, over broken Midwestern pavement.  A better-than-expected ride should mean duller handling and responses to driver inputs, but in the 370Z, the exact opposite is the case.  Double wishbone front suspension better controls steering camber, offering point and shoot capability.  Imprecise understeer is noticeably absent when making high speed lane changes in the 370Z. The staggered tire sizes limit any tendency to oversteer. With VDC de-activated, thanks partly to the limited slip differential, we had a hard time breaking traction in the hardest or most upsetting of turns.

The 370Z Sport Package gets big brakes courtesy of Akebono. Four-piston fixed calipers front / twin-piston rears clamp down onto 14” front / 13.8 “ rear diameter rotors.  Our Sports Pack model was equipped with optional $500 “Track Pads” meant to allay concerns about over-boiled brake fluid in the Akebono set up. The stopping power of this set up is reason enough to be buckled in. Pedal feel is quite linear and hardly grabby. In our driving, no brake fade was discernable.

Niggles and compromises can be found in the 370Z Sport Pack. Pulling out into moving traffic, the 370Z demands extra neck-craning because of the obtrusively thick A-pillars and baseball mitt-sized mirrors. The interior lacks cubbies that could conveniently hold a sunglass case or CD case. While the included intelligent key[less] system is a pseudo-convenience, Bluetooth for hands-free phone operation is found only in the more expensive Touring model. Too, the transmission shift knob reverberates excessively whether in gear or in neutral at idle in a way unbecoming a car in the class in which the 370Z competes. Finally, during interstate cruising and beyond, road noise from the wide rear tires intrudes into an otherwise quiet cabin. While the noise may be largely tire-related, one has to wonder about Nissan’s claims that more acoustic insulation was introduced in the 370Z.  Fortunately, the simple-to-use standard  four-speaker stereo in the 370Z offers quite good audio fidelity at volume to overcome the din.

In today’s competitive auto market, being true to a vehicle’s heritage can mean the difference between product success and failure. At Nissan, the Z is the company’s singular heritage product. In the sense of executing a more honest and mature successor to the original 1969 version, the 370Z can be considered a success. At a price nearly a third to a half less, it measures up well against Teutonic standards such as the BMW Z4 and the Porsche Cayman, at least in terms of outright performance if not civility and prestige. It is an undeniably enticing package. Our test car’s Solid Red hue with the huge Ray wheels meant we never lacked for stares from passers-by even in Chicago’s upscale Lincoln Park neighborhood. Arguably few two-seat sports cars see service in day-to-day commuting or long cross-country trips. Yet an additional dosage of refinement in the areas of noise and vibration would go a long way towards making the 370Z a truly “Fair Lady” for the open road.

In 2003, Volvo delighted members of their enthusiast community when they launched the 2004 S60R sedan and V70R wagon. Equipped with a high-output powertrain and all-wheel drive, the R vehicles had blue-faced instruments, more aggressive styling details, and sporting aspirations. The R brand never expanded beyond the initial two products and was quietly discontinued in 2007 as Volvo chose to focus on safety rather than performance, but the aggressive styling cues from those cars lives on visually in the R-Design trim packages, which are available on most new Volvo vehicles. The XC60 luxury CUV is the latest Volvo to get the R-Design treatment.

A vivid Passion Red XC60 T6 AWD R-Design recently spent a week in the Autosavant garage. While the base XC60 has a curvy, sensuous shape, the R-Design package adds 20” wheels, side sill extensions and a rear diffuser in silver which enhance the XC60’s sporting pretensions. My logbook notes that the XC60 has “lovely, shapely bodyside curves that accentuate the sexy/sporty look of the XC60.” That being said, I wish that the tail lamps extended down to the rear bumper. Too, the sill extensions collect water in bad weather, threatening to get pant legs dirty just like in Volvo’s XC70. The XC60 immediately followed an equally-bright red Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 CUV in my test vehicle schedule, so I had a good opportunity to see what works in this segment and what doesn’t.

Throughout the cabin, the interior of the XC60 is tastefully designed, with matching textures on plastic dash and door parts. Volvo has implemented interesting shapes on the dashboard and the door panels which look both artful and stylish.

The XC60’s steering wheel is essentially a three-spoke design, though the bottom spoke is split. In the space between the two lower spokes and the steering wheel is a solid, real metal part that I loved- it looks great and feels great (though the plastic “R-Design” logo glued on to it does neither). The leather-wrapped wheel is perfect in both thickness and diameter.

The instrument panel has two analog instruments, a tachometer and a speedometer. They are finished in anodized blue metal (an R-Design exclusive feature that is descended from Volvo’s hallowed S60R and V70R). The centers of each of those instruments has a monochromatic electronic display for information like fuel level, trip computer, cruise control status, gear selected, and cruise control status. Those displays are fairly low-resolution; a higher pixel count would make these displays look more high-end. Even with the low resolution, though, there is plenty of information displayed. The instrumentation was subdued and legible at night, when the XC60’s Active Bending Light xenon headlamps did a great job illuminating the road ahead.

The XC60 I tested was equipped with a navigation system, whose color screen sits in a prominent position in the dash. There is an additional small monochromatic display in an odd pod atop the dash, which displays audio system, phone, and HVAC information. The reason for the dash-top pod is that the navigation screen is not integrated with any functions other than the backup camera; that is, the large navigation screen is not connected to the XC60’s infotainment system, meaning that there are no other functions displayed on the navigation screen. The navigation display is not a touchscreen; instead you interface with the screen with a joystick-type control mounted to the back of the steering wheel, or with a remote control the same approximate size and shape as a TV remote. Neither the wheel-mounted control nor the remote can be used to enter destination information when the vehicle is underway. I was incredibly underwhelmed by the rudimentary integration of the XC60’s navigation system. Rumor has it that MY11 vehicles will be receiving an infotainment system transplant, getting the same touchscreen controller that has recently debuted in the new S60; this will see removal of the XC60’s dash pod.

The remainder of the center stack in R-Design XC60s consists of a diagonally-striped metal which surrounds the audio, HVAC and other secondary controls. Lesser trim levels of XC60 have wood in this spot, and the wood lends a warmer look to the interior. The center stack is ringed by a silver trim piece that felt like real metal; its top tended to reflect in the windshield under certain lighting conditions. Behind the gear lever, a retractable cover conceals two nice-sized cupholders which can hold drinks ranging from the size of a soda can to a commuter mug. Farther back, the (too-low) elbow rest between the front seats flips open to reveal a deep-but-not-broad lidded compartment containing USB and AUX jacks. Unfortunately, an iPod connected to the USB input was not readable by the Volvo’s audio system. (Another minor complaint about the audio system is that Sirius satellite reception would drop out regularly, even driving under overpasses at freeway speeds). Front door pockets have fairly large storage bins with interior shapes to hold water bottles in place; the rear doors each have a water bottle holder as well.

Climbing in to the XC60’s driver’s seat, I found my body instantly relaxing into the Volvo’s seat. Volvo seats are among the best in the business, and the comfort on the XC60’s thrones does not disappoint. The R-Design model has two-tone leather seats with ivory-colored inserts and some ivory stitching to accentuate the mostly-charcoal-colored leather. The front seats additionally have “R-Design” embossed into the backrests. That is a lot going on for the seats and they tend to look a little busy, but the visual overload doesn’t detract from the seat comfort.

When I first climbed in, I was adjusting the seat to a comfortable position and I was initially disappointed by the fact that the seat adjustment didn’t allow the seat position to be as close to the floor as I would have liked. It took several days of living with the XC60 before the seating position felt comfortable rather than unnaturally high. Still, the tall seating position ensured good visibility out of the XC60’s large windows (large exterior mirrors also helped with that), so perhaps that was Volvo’s reason for not allowing the seat position to go any lower.

The XC60 is is a two-row crossover, and the back seats have more knee room than the Mercedes GLK. In my tester, the rear seats were heated. Installing a forward-facing convertible carseat as well as a booster seat for my 18-month and five-year-old kids was not a chore; while my toddler was able to kick the driver’s seat (adjusted for my 6’4” frame to pilot the Volvo), neither of the girls was in constant contact with the seatback in front of her. Volvo does offer integrated rear booster seats on the XC60, though the car I tested was not equipped with them. The center section of the back seat has a fold-down armrest containing two cupholders and a small storage compartment.

Out back, the cargo area is a good size- significantly deeper than the cargo area in the Mercedes-Benz GLK, though probably not quite as deep as Volvo’s XC70. There is a shallow well under the cargo floor for small items. There are just four meager cargo hooks for securing cargo, but nothing else for keeping items like grocery bags or a briefcase in place. On a quick run to the store, I ended up putting my grocery bag and gallon of milk on the floor in the backseat rather than letting them roll around in the trunk. The back seat in the XC60 is 40/20/40 split folding to increase cargo space, and folding the seat forward creates a flat load floor. The manually-operated cargo door opens tall enough for somebody taller than 6’5” to stand under when it is open.

On the road, the interior of the XC60 is quiet. The Volvo’s chassis does a good job transmitting what’s going on with the road, and it rides fairly smoothly, although the ride can get choppy on rough city streets.  That could be partly attributed to the 20” wheels and relatively low-profile tires. When pushed in corners, the XC60 exhibits moderate, predictable understeer as would be expected from the front-wheel-drive based platform.

The T6 engine in the XC60 is rated 281 HP. While that sounds like plenty of power for a two-row crossover, it has a lot of weight to contend with. The XC60 has a stated curb weight of 4225 lbs- which is more than Volvo’s larger XC70. Volvo’s six-speed Geartronic automatic transmission is the only transmission choice in the XC60, and it shifts smoothly and predictably, if not particularly quickly. The unit actually seemed to shift more quickly in automatic mode than when the shifts were commanded using the manual shift gates on the console-mounted shifter. While the XC60 wasn’t breathtakingly quick, power was more than adequate, and calibration was such that off-the-line performance felt impressive.

The XC60 has an electronic parking brake, which is actuated by a push/pull controller below the light switch, on the dash to the left of the steering wheel. My instinct was to step on a pedal to set the brake, but instead it is set just by pushing on the actuator. The parking brake is released by pulling gently on the actuator while the driver’s foot depresses the brake pedal.

The XC60 I tested was equipped with Volvo’s Technology Package, which includes Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Warning with Auto Brake, and Distance Alert Driver Alert Control. While I found the Distance Alert to be somewhat irritating (flashing a red light in the windshield if it felt I was too close or approaching the car in front too quickly), I quickly came to love the Adaptive Cruise Control, which could be set to freeway speeds but would slow the car as low as 15 MPH in heavy traffic and accelerate again when traffic eased, all without any driver interaction or operation of the brake/gas pedals. I found to system to be quite effective. The Lane Departure Warning system, on the other hand, was not universally effective at monitoring my lane position, though disclaimers state that the system only works well when lanes are properly striped in such a way that they can be processed by the system’s camera.

During my week with the XC60, I drove nearly 300 miles, with an average speed of 31 MPH and average fuel consumption of 19.7 MPG, according to the Volvo’s trip computer. The XC60 has a 16/21 MPG (18 MPG combined) fuel economy rating using premium unleaded fuel. That seems like a poor fuel economy rating for a vehicle of the XC60’s size, but the similar-sized Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 has slightly less interior room and slightly less power with the same EPA rating.

The least expensive front-wheel drive XC60 available starts at $32,400, but the XC60 T6 AWD R-Design has a base MSRP of $41,550, which includes the powertrain described above and features such as Hill Descent Control, Volvo City Safety, Laminated Panoramic Roof with Power Sunshade, Eight-way Power Front Seats with Three-Position Memory for the driver, 40/20/40 split folding rear seat Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror, Bluetooth Handsfree Telephone Interface, Dual Xenon Headlamps with Active Bending Lights, R-Design Elements including 20” 5-spoke wheels with all-season tires, Sport Chassis, Dual Chromed Tailpipes, Color-Matched Lower Body Moldings, Blue Watch-Dial Instruments, R-Design Seats with Accent Inserts; High Performance Audio System (4×40 W Amplifier with 8 speakers, in-dash single-disc CD player, HD Radio, USB and AUX inputs with illuminated steering wheel controls). It was also equipped with the $2700 Multimedia Package (Dynaudio Premium Sound System, Navigation System with Real-Time Traffic, Remote Control, and DVD Map, Rear Park Assist Camera); and $2700 Climate and Technology Package (Heated Front and Rear Seats, Heated Windshield Washer Nozzles, High-Pressure Headlamp Cleaners, Rain Sensor, Interior Air Quality System, Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Warning with Auto Brake, and Distance Alert Driver Alert Control). Including the $850 Destination Fee, MSRP of the XC60 T6 AWD R-Design is a substantial $47,800.

While dynamically it is not a successor to the S60R and V70R, the XC60 T6 R-Design looks the part both inside and out; it is an aggressively sporty-looking vehicle, especially when ordered in Passion Red as my tester was. I enjoyed driving the XC60 and found it both comfortable and entertaining. During my week with the XC60, several strangers came up to me to ask me questions about the car. I preferred its style, both inside and out, over that of the Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 I drove immediately before the XC60. Truthfully both seem expensive and thirsty for their size, and TrueDelta.com shows the Volvo XC60 to be nearly $2500 less expensive than the Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 when the two vehicles are similarly equipped. Of the two luxury crossover vehicles, I preferred the Volvo XC60’s blend of style, comfort, safety technology, and driving characteristics.

This column is dedicated to Autosavant reader Mark in AZ.

Have you ever seen a truck like the one in the accompanying picture? Because if so, you can be pretty sure it’s seen you—a lot of you.

What looks like a mild-mannered Mercedes-Benz Sprinter is actually an AS&E Z Backscatter Van. Or, as the cool kids call it, a ZBV. It’s essentially one of those airport x-ray imaging things on wheels. Neat, huh?

American Science & Engineering, the company that builds the ZBV, describes it as “a low-cost, extremely maneuverable screening system built into a commercially available delivery van.” I didn’t see a spec sheet on the AS&E website, but it appears that standard content includes, “patented Z Backscatter technology, which reveals contraband that transmission X-rays miss—such as explosives and plastic weapons—and provides photo-like imaging for rapid analysis. The ZBV is also capable of identifying low levels of radioactivity from both gamma rays and neutrons with optional Radioactive Threat Detection (RTD) technology.” In other words, “The ZBV is ideal for counterterrorism applications, as it can detect dirty bombs and nuclear WMD, in addition to conventional explosives.”

Of course, the most important question about this vehicle’s capabilities is this: Can it be used to see people naked? That’s an interesting question that Forbes.com’s Andy Greenberg discussed in his blog, which is where I first found out about the ZBV. Greenberg interviewed AS&E’s vice president of marketing, Joe Reiss, and turned up some interesting factoids. For example, when it comes to personal privacy, Greenberg writes that, “Reiss counters privacy critics by pointing out that the ZBV scans don’t capture nearly as much detail of human bodies as their airport counterparts.”

That’s not exactly reassuring, and this, directly from the AS&E site, doesn’t help: “In Stationary Scan Mode, ZBV operators may elect to scan the occupants of the subject vehicle. For this application, AS&E offers a Personnel Scanning option that may better enable the customer to meet any applicable country-specific regulatory requirements.” To me, this says the ZBV operators can probably get a nice eye-full.

After all, when it comes to this technology, AS&E’s Reiss explicitly told Greenberg: “We do what our customers need.” And just to be clear here—so to speak—Greenberg also writes that Reiss told him “law enforcement agencies have also deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs in the U.S.”

And here’s the real beauty part. Although Greenberg just wrote about the ZBV a few days ago, it’s obvious from a spin around the web that these things have been around since (at least) 2007.

I’m just glad this technology is safely in the hands of our government.