TrueDelta

When the Infiniti G35 was introduced as an early 2003, its 3.5-liter V6 was a major selling point. At the time competitors were selling more expensive cars with smaller engines. Then for the 2008 model year (2009 for the sedan) they enlarged the engine to 3.7 liters, perhaps to stay a step ahead of competitors that had come out with their own 3.5s.

But the market has shifted, and people are seeking fuel economy that the big six cannot provide. So, for 2011 Infiniti will offer a G25 powered by a 218-horsepower 2.5-liter V6, which will be among the smallest sixes offered in the U.S.

I fear that with this engine they have gone too far in the other direction. Since 2006 the competing Lexus IS has been offered with two sixes, one a 2.5 and the other a 3.5. After driving both, I concluded that for most people the 3.0 they have failed to offer in the IS, but have offered in other products, would hit a sweet spot.

The same is likely for the G, as it’s larger and a little heavier than the Lexus. Nissan’s V6 was sweetest in its old 3.0 form. And, in a roughly 3,500-pound car, a 3.0 would get fuel economy at least as good as an overworked 2.5.

For 2011 Infiniti will also launch a new “performance line” by offering the G37 coupe with a 348-horsepower V6. Good to hear–I suggested that this engine would have been welcome in last spring’s Anniversary Edition–but the regular 3.7 already offered far more power than most buyers need.

So how about a G30, Infiniti?

Okay, I’ve been busy, and my NAIAS overage has been the most drawn out on the entire Internet.

I’ve made it to F.

Ford announced that the 2011 Mustang will be offered with two new DOHC engines that promise to cause major headaches for the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger, a 305-horsepower 3.7-liter V6 and a 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V8. Yes, the 5.0 badges will be back. By nearly all accounts the 2010 Mustang already outhandles its primary competitors. Add nearly 100 horsepower to both of its volume engines, and it’ll run away from them in a straight line as well.

Oddly, I’m more interested in driving Ford’s main auto show debut, the 2012 Focus. The Focus was popular with enthusiasts in SVT form from 2002 through 2004. Then Ford steadily drained all fun from the car with the 2005 refresh and the roundly panned 2008 redesign.

For 2012, we’ll once again be getting the same Focus Europe gets. The exterior design is a little busy, but much more stylish than Chevrolet’s upcoming Cruze and better proportioned than the smaller 2011 Ford Fiesta. Inside, you’ll find a very European interior with comfortable, supportive seats front and rear. Ford knows how to make a car handle well when they want to. The main question in my mind: will the new 155-horsepower 2.0-liter direct-injected four-cylinder engine be as good as the rest of the car? A sport model with a more powerful engine is likely.

Even before GM killed Pontiac it was focusing the brand more tightly on performance cars like the Solstice and G8. So the Pontiac Torrent was replaced by the GMC Terrain and the Vibe was rumored to be in its final generation.

With Pontiac winding down, the Vibe is now definitely in its final model year. But while the Terrain fits the GMC (Truck) brand better than the Torrent ever fit in with Pontiac, can a compact crossover possibly make sense as a GMC–which is supposed to be about “professional grade” trucks?

At the 2010 NAIAS GMC provided an answer, or at least the beginning of one, with the introduction of the Granite concept. This concept, based on the Delta II compact car platform like the upcoming Chevrolet Cruze sedan and Orlando crossover, seems fairly certain for production, given the need to replace the Vibe.

Of course, GM could have opted to create a Buick for this segment. But they’ve apparently glanced about and noted the popularity of compact boxes like the Scion xB, Nissan cube, and Kia Soul. Buicks are curvy. A box is clearly a better fit with GMC.

The Granite is an attractive box as boxes go. There’s some similarity to the Jeep Compass and Patriot. If anything, Granite is more car-like and style-driven than either. The Patriot has only been accepted as a Jeep by some of the brand’s fans, and the Compass by hardly anyone. Will car buyers be any more open to a GMC that’s much more car than truck?

In this case, it might help that GMC lacks Jeep’s fanatical base. People think less about what a GMC is, and so might be more open to something that stretches the brand’s identity.

Back in the early 2000s Cadillac excited driving enthusiasts by pledging to become a world-class luxury car manufacturer by spending billions to develop all-new rear wheel-drive cars that shared little with other General Motors product. Problem was, aside from the CTS these new models sold poorly, and GM ran out of money.

So, for at least the next five years, and probably longer, Cadillac will be redirecting its focus to the more traditional luxury car buyers that have historically purchased its cars. Though a rear-wheel-drive “Alpha” platform compact sedan is reportedly still on the way, other Cadillacs will be based on front-wheel-drive platforms. The 2010 SRX was the first of these products. The 2012 XTS, introduced in concept form at the 2010 NAIAS, will be the next.

For the past few years Cadillac has wavered among a number of different ways to replace the slow-selling STS rear-wheel-drive sedan and outmoded DTS front-wheel-drive sedan. When the money ran out, a rear-drive replacement was shelved, and the XTS received the green light.

Early word was that the XTS would be based, like most other recent GM mid-size and up sedans, on the Epsilon platform. In some iterations this platform doesn’t translate to a roomy interior, but GM pledged that the Cadillac variant would be larger.

How much larger? Well, while the XTS shares its 101.7-inch wheelbase with the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, the largest Epsilon-based sedan offered to date, it’s over half a foot longer (203.5 inches) and nearly two inches wider (74.8 inches). And to the eye the difference between the two cars appears even larger, courtesy of the Cadillac’s squarer lines. Compared to the DTS, the XTS is four inches shorter in both wheelbase and length but just as wide. Add in more upright side windows and an interior designed to maximize perceived room, and the XTS should feel roomy inside.

I wanted to check this out at the show, but when I asked if I could sit in it the Cadillac designer said, “We’d prefer not.” This was a one-off prototype, and potentially fragile.

Clearly, the XTS is much more a direct replacement for the DTS than for the STS. Cadillac clearly intends it as a luxury sedan, and not a sport sedan. Aside from the platform, the styling is much more conservative than the CTS and STS. The most radical element: headlights that extend nearly halfway to the A-pillar.

In fact, my first thought upon seeing the XTS was “Cadillac Avalon.” Like the XTS, Toyota’s Avalon is based on a modest midsize family car platform that has been expanded as much as possible and given more upscale, more conservative styling. Both cars are aimed at traditional luxury buyers, though the Avalon isn’t nearly as fancy inside–or as pricey. Perhaps because the targets are similar, and both seek to maximize interior room, the car’s basic shapes are similar.

In a departure from both the STS and the DTS, no V8 will be offered in the XTS. The concept car had a 3.6-liter hybrid powertrain, and a non-hybrid 3.6 as used in the CTS and LaCrosse is virtually a given. Perhaps there will be a turbo V6 to go up against Lincoln’s MKS EcoBoost. But, as with the Lincoln, handling won’t be much of a priority.

The 2012 Cadillac XTS will probably strongly appeal to traditional luxury sedan buyers–reaction was positive at the show–so in this sense it will probably be a success. It’s just not nearly as dramatic as the hardcore “art and science” Cadillacs, and as a driving enthusiast I’m saddened by Cadillac’s current direction.

At NAIAS this year, General Motors introduced a redesigned Chevrolet Aveo. With the even smaller Spark on the way, the Aveo is growing a bit. The car was introduced in concept RS form, with large brakes, even larger wheels, upholstered instrument panel, and centrally-mounted dual exhaust tips. The concept is powered by a 138-horsepower turbocharged four. This engine seems much more likely for production than the brakes.

We’ve seen the overall shape before in the Toyota Matrix, Pontiac Vibe, Mazda3, and so forth. But the proportions and detailing of this exterior are very nicely done–and better than in the cars just listed. That said, will anyone notice? Inside, even though the upholstered IP is unlikely to make it to production, the new Aveo is clearly much more stylish than the current one.

Continuing with the Aveo name could be risky, as Aveos to date have been relentlessly panned by the automotive press. Chevrolet has, after all,, decided to create a new name, Cruze, for the Cobalt’s replacement. And “Cobalt” was itself a replacement for “Cavalier.” Well, I never liked the idea of junking a model name and starting over. At some point you’ve got to stop pretending you can just ball up the old one and start fresh, and instead dig in your heels and fight. Perhaps Chevrolet is finally doing this.

Will the new Aveo be good enough that we’ll forget the current one? That they’re even bothering to display a sport version is a good sign. I’ll gladly reserve judgment until I can drive one. The production version should arrive at dealers this summer.

Continuing my brand by brand coverage of NAIAS…

BMW introduced the ActiveE, an all-electric 1-Series coupe. It looks much like a 1-Series coupe with bizarre graphics. BMW claims 0-60 will be under 9 seconds and range will be 100 miles. I’ll be more excited when one’s available for purchase and I can drive one. Which won’t be this car, but some future production vehicle based on insight gained from this concept.

Buick introduced a likely high-performance GS variant of the upcoming new Regal. The GS was rumored to share a 335-horsepower turbo V6 with the top Opel Insignia. Though allegedly this engine was in the car shown, we’ll instead get a 255-horsepower version of GM’s 2.0-liter turbo four. More impressive: 295 foot-pounds of torque and, to handle it, all-wheel-drive. The 220-horsepower version of this engine already slated for the Regal is paired with front-wheel-drive. In either case a manual transmission will be offered in addition to the automatic dealers will actually stock.

I’ve seen the Regal before in Chinese trim. In U.S. spec it’s at least as attractive, both inside and out, with a flavor that’s more German than American. The key question in my mind: will the manual shift and steering have the direct feel I like in a performance car? I also hope the gearing is better than on the related Saab 9-3 Turbo X I had for a week last year.

The front seats in the regular Regal, the one we could sit in, don’t have much in the way of lateral support. The back seat barely fits an average-sized adult. For more room you’ll want the LaCrosse. As in the LaCrosse, the trunk is very narrow.

I found one nit to pick with this car: cheap-looking plastic caps over the lug nuts. I mentioned this to a GM engineer. His response: exposed chrome lug nuts like those on the LaCrosse tend to rust, and become difficult to remove. But is there no more attractive solution?

I attended the 1.5 press days of the North American International (i.e. Detroit) Auto Show earlier this week. You’ll find detailed coverage on many other sites. Here I’ll just post a few of my personal impressions, covering the makes in alphabetical order.

First, a general comment. Like last year, but perhaps to an even greater degree, the auto show had fewer car makers participating and fewer journalists in attendance–perhaps half 2007. There were no fancy presentations. Only the Germans seemed to be serving fancy food. And the single major post-show party, hosted by Hyundai, was a far cry from Chrysler’s Firehouse party of past years.

Acura gave no presentation. I checked out the ZDX for the first time. Car & Driver quipped that ZDX should stand for “zero demand expected.” After all, how many people are looking for a vehicle that combines the size and mass of an SUV with the practicality of a sports car? The interior is perhaps Acura’s nicest yet, with a leather upholstered IP lower and console. But it was literally a pain for me to get into and out of the back seat–the rear roofline is very low.

Audi showed a TT-sized electric sports car. The world hardly needs another expensive electric sports car, so I ignored it.

I paid much more attention to the new Audi A8. I personally find the new sheetmetal unattractive, or at least boring, and certainly far less distinctive and attractive than the current A8. The front end is too massive, the wheel openings cut too high into the body (for overly large wheels?), and the beltline (base of the side windows) and the character line below it are too horizontal. At best it’s boring.

So I was shocked when a group of distinguished designers voted the new Audi A8 the best production design introduced at the show. With few new designs introduced, they didn’t have many to select from. But still, this one? I’d have gone with the 2012 Ford Focus. Clearly these designers know nothing about design!

Or perhaps they were focusing on the interior, which is among the best. But then so is the current A8’s. The new interior isn’t significantly different than the current one, with one notable exception that I’ll discuss in a separate post.

The first-generation Kia Sorento was an oddity: a conventional body-on-frame SUV that was positioned to compete with car-based crossovers. As such, it was not competitive. While it had a nice interior and major advantages in towing and off-roading, the first Sorento could not match the car-based competition in terms of ride, handling, or fuel economy.

A second-generation Sorento is now arriving at Kia dealers. Now closely-related to the car-based Hyundai Santa Fe, it should prove much more competitive. The new engines appear to be very competitive in terms of performance and fuel economy–a 276-horsepower 3.5-liter V6 earns EPA ratings of 20/26 (19/25 with all-wheel-drive). Which borders on incredible.

I haven’t had the chance to drive the new Sorento yet, but was able to closely look one over. Though the same size as the Santa Fe, more rectilinear styling makes it appear larger and more expensive. The interior ambiance isn’t far off a premium brand’s. A third row is available, but as in the Santa Fe it’s tight back there.

So how much will all of this goodness cost you? The base model (that hardly anyone will buy) lists for $20,790, and a fully-loaded EX V6 lists for $34,805. Seems a bit pricey at first glace…but a similarly equipped 2009 Hyundai Santa Fe (no pricing for the 2010 yet) runs $550 higher. And TrueDelta’s Car Price Comparison Tool indicates that the Kia includes $2,300 in features that simply weren’t available on the 2009 Santa Fe: keyless access and ignition, a rearview monitor, interior ambient lighting, and so forth. Adjust for these, and the new Kia Sorento costs about $2,800 less than the Santa Fe.

A similarly equipped Chevrolet Equinox LT lists for $270 less, but the Kia has about $1,700 in additional features, including a third-row seat that’s not offered in the Chevy. Not included in these calculations: the Kia’s superior power AND fuel economy.

A Toyota RAV4 does cost less than the new Sorento–$3,445 less before adjusting for feature differences, about $800 less afterwards–but it’s also smaller and not nearly as nice inside. The new Sorento is more of a match for the Highlander–which lists for $4,554 more before adjusting for feature differences, about about $4,000 more afterwards.

The new Kia Sorento clearly offers a lot for the money, and should prove far more competitive for those who didn’t need the first-generation’s towing or off-roading capabilities.

To run your own price comparisons:

Car Price Comparisons

Ford has been successfully building a lot of buzz for the upcoming Fiesta subcompact, and recently released prices. Eager to see how they compare, I rushed pricing and features for the Fiesta into the database for TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool. The Fiesta is our first 2011.

The Fiesta’s closest competitor is probably the Honda Fit. Compare minimally-equipped manual hatches, and the Fit starts $185 lower. But based on the information Ford has provided (the features list might not be complete) the Fiesta has at least $1,400 in additional features. Adjust for these, and it’s about $1,200 less.

Step up to loaded cars, and the Fiesta SE with Sport Appearance Package is $800 less than a Fit Sport. Adjusting for feature differences adds another $150 to the gap. Ford also offers a more expensive Fiesta SES, but it’s higher price is almost entirely canceled out by $1,800 in additional features. Some people have been noting that the SES costs more than a Fit Sport, but they haven’t been taking its much higher level of content into account.

More interested in the sedan? Then Nissan’s Versa might be the closest competitor. Nissan offers an ultra-stripped Versa 1.6 that starts for $9,990. Add A/C, ABS, and floormats and the Versa is still $1,880 less than a Fiesta S. Adjusting for the Fiesta’s additional content cuts the gap to $800.

Switch to the Versa 1.8 and load up the cars, and the picturer changes. While a Fiesta SEL is $700 more than a Versa 1.8SL, the Fiesta SE is $790 less than the Nissan. And even the SE has about $500 in additional features. So, compared to the Versa 1.8 the Fiesta is aggressively priced.

To run your own comparisons (remember to select 2011 for the model year):

Car price comparisons

Hyundai recently released the pricing and specs for the redesigned 2010 Tucson compact SUV. And it looks like a major advancement over the first-generation Tucson. The exterior and interior both look great in photos. The wheels are now 17s and 18s rather than 16s. Unlike many recently redesigned models, the curb weight is relatively low. The new four is more powerful than the old V6 (which has been dropped), while being much more fuel efficient than the old four, largely thanks to a six-speed automatic instead of a four-speed.

But how much more do these improvements cost? I rushed the pricing and stats into TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool to find out.

When both the 2009 and 2010 Tucson are equipped with automatic transmissions, and a cargo tray is added to the former because it’s standard on the 2010, the sticker price is exactly the same. Surely not a coincidence.

But this isn’t the end of the story. Hyundai has slightly decontented the 2010 to offer the above improvements without a bump in the base price. Features that appear to have been dropped (it’s possible that the features list Hyundai has released is incomplete): cruise control, separately opening liftglass, roof rails, privacy glass, manual tilt and lumbar for the driver, manual recline for the second row, and alloy wheels.

On the other hand, the 2010 adds a few things, such as iPod integration, a trip computer, and a rear spoiler.

Adjust for these differences, and the 2010 is about $400 more expensive. Not bad at all considering the improvements.

Load up the 2009 Limited V6 AWD and 2010 Limited AWD, and the 2010 is actually $125 less. Adjusting for remaining feature differences bumps this to about $250. Without the V6, the 2009 would be about $1,000 less, but also much slower than the 2010. Again, the 2010’s pricing looks good.

How about versus the segment leader, Honda’s CR-V? Comparing lightly equipped vehicles, the 2010 Tucson is bout $1,700 less after a $190 adjustment in its favor for feature differences. Load them both up, and the Tucson is about $600 less before adjusting for feature differences, and about $1,500 less afterwards.

Car price comparisons