The Scion is available in a single trim level. The BRZ is available in two, with even the lower one more heavily equipped than the $24,930 Scion. So we essentially have three trim levels to choose from. The $26,265 BRZ Premium adds a navigation system and automatic xenon headlights. The $28,265 BRZ Limited further adds heated leather seats, dual zone automatic climate control, proximity key, fog lights, and a rear spoiler.

Which is the best value? TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool includes default feature values that members can modify. Using these default values, the BRZ Premium is actually around $500 less than the Scion after adjusting for feature differences. The BRZ Limited is another $200 lower. So if you want nav and/or leather, Subaru has priced both trim levels to be good values.

But there’s another variable: Scion dealers have to charge everyone the same price (usually the sticker price) while Subura dealers can adjust the price from deal to deal as they please. In the short term, with the cars in high demand, many Subaru dealers will be demanding more than MSRP. Down the road, they’ll likely be discounting the cars. So the Scion could be the better value well into 2013, after which the Suburu might become the smart way to go.

If you’re okay with (or perhaps even want) an additional 16 inches of length and an additional quarter-ton of curb weight in your sports coupe, Hyundai has revised its Genesis Coupe for 2013. The 2012 Genesis Coupe in performance “R-Spec” trim was priced about $400 higher than the FR-S, and adjusting for feature differences cut this to less than $100. But Hyundai has raised prices a substantial $2,000 for 2013. The base Genesis Coupe is now priced close to the FR-S, but without the R-Specs performance tires, sport suspension, and limited-slip differential it doesn’t handle as well.

So Gayla has been able to shift her focus to the fun stuff, adding new features and improving existing ones. One of her ideas: a new comment system on the reliability and repair history pages (and perhaps others as well in the future). See something interesting? You can now share your insights.

Gayla has also reworked the menus on the pricing pages, so it’s now much easier to run multiple related configurations and comparisons.

We’ve also started posting the most commonly wishlisted cars on the vehicle specifications home page. Have a car you’re interested in, and would like to easily look up information about? Add it to your wish list.

Have an improvement you’d like to see? Let us know!

I’ll spare you the suspense: despite 60 more horsepower, all-wheel-drive, and 700 additional pounds, the BMW bests the Buick. The EPA ratings suggest the slimmest of victories, 22 city and 32 highway for the BMW, 21 and 32 for the Buick. In my suburban driving, though, the trip computer in the BMW often reported about 25 mpg, while that in the Buick tended to be in the low 20s. With a very light foot you’ll manage high 20s in either car. A marginal result for the Buick, and a surprisingly good one for the BMW.

How did BMW manage this? To begin with the new 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine seems to be very efficient, while also accelerating the heavy sedan energetically when called upon to do so (a heavy foot will sink gas mileage into the high teens). It’s paired with an eight-speed automatic, vs. the much more typical six-speed in the Buick, and often automatically shuts off when the car is waiting at a light. Finally, recent BMWs have an “Eco Pro” mode which is essentially the opposite of the “Sport” mode. Select it, and throttle responses become quite Prius-like. So hobbled, the car doesn’t so much seem sluggish as pleasantly relaxed. Well, at least not from the driver’s seat. Moving languidly away from one light I had an actual Prius tailgate then pass me!

What does this mean? In this and other cases, it’s clear that after years of stagnation the average car’s gas mileage is increasing. If a heavy all-wheel-drive BMW can manage mid-to-high 20s in suburban driving, then a mainstream midsize sedan should be capable of mid-30s. And the Buick, which is a very nice car in other ways? It’s engine has some catching up to do.

The problem with the V6 engine in the Q5 and other Audis: it had a plastic water pump that was prone to leaking. Stress the “had”: most of the failures occurred over a year ago, and those that didn’t fail have since been recalled and replaced. So this specific problem won’t be happening again.

These failures are no longer reflected in TrueDelta’s stats because they occurred back in 2010, and our current reliability stats cover the year that ended on December 31, 2011. The Q5 hasn’t required many repairs aside from the water pump. The other source also covers a year, but in their case the year ended when their most recent survey was conducted, back in April 2011. Go back three quarters in our results, to those released in May 2010 (sorry, this page hasn’t yet been fully converted to the new design), and you’ll find similarly poor reliability scores for the 2009 and 2010 Q5.

The difference: we’ve updated our stats three times since last April. The other source won’t update theirs until October. When a model’s reliability significantly improves (or worsens) you’ll find this reflected in our scores much sooner.

To a certain extent, the Audi Q5’s improvement was predictable. If a poor score is the result of a single very common problem, and the new part is different than the old part, then there’s a good chance that the car model’s repair frequency will improve once this common problem is behind it. We try to note cases like this in the comments. For the Q5 we had, “Very common problem with failing water pumps. Original is plastic, replacement is metal.”

I’ll have more comments over the next week or so.

For now I’ll note that the Nissan LEAF electric car and the FIAT 500 have both been extremely reliable so far. The sample size for the latter is small, 20 cars, but only a single repair has been reported for the bunch. While that one repair did involve the engine, it was early on, nearly a year ago.

Not looking good: the new Volkswagen Passat. Our sample size is also small for this one–again 20 cars–but the stat is so high that it’ll likely remain worse than average, even much worse, in future updates with larger sample sizes.

To view the latest stats:

Car Reliability Survey results

The first: superior service. Jim Farley, Ford’s marketing chief, argued that Lincoln’s relatively low sales are actually an advantage, as they will enable more personal customer service than others can provide. The suggested analogy: a boutique hotel. But does this mean that Lincoln isn’t selling many cars by choice? Hardly.

The second: a distinctive product. Lincoln’s volume models (relatively speaking), the MKX and MKZ, too strongly resemble the Fords on which they’re based. At NAIAS this year Lincoln introduced the 2013 MKZ as a “concept.” While its not as similar to the new Fusion as the current MKZ is to the current one, the relationship between the two remains obvious. Especially since the rakes of the windshield and backlight are so extreme. The Lincoln does steal cues from Lexus rather than from Aston Martin, but is this enough? And is it attractive?

Beyond the exterior styling, Lincoln hopes to distinguish the new MKZ by offering a truly panoramic sunroof with panels the cover nearly the entire roof. Inside, the car differs a little more from the Ford, with the concept employing Lincoln’s traditional creamy white. The new MKZ might also drive differently. We’ll find out after they start rolling off the line.

Retained: alphanumeric model names that do a lot to confuse potential buyers, and little else.

The first reveal, of a redesigned RDX compact crossover. It’s definitely improved, with a 3.5-liter V6 replacing the turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine in the interest of fuel economy. More power as well. Aren’t sales of turbocharged four cylinders currently surging because of their superior fuel economy compared to V6 engines? Apparently this potential wasn’t remotelly realized in the RDX’s case. The new interior is also wider than the old one. But will the new RDX feel as agile and be as much fun to drive? No way to know. Immediaely obvioius, though: the exterior styling is acceptable at best. They weren’t feeling this one. Few journalists gathered around this one after the presentation.

I had very low expectations for Acura’s upcoming Civic-sized car, the ILX. The name is certainly…illing. Why not just bring back “Integra”? And it’s just so easy to botch a premium car based on a mainstream compact. But, even with the latest version of Acura’s trademark grille, the ILX looks surprisingly good. A Scion tC-like rear pillar and short rear deck (though with a trunk, not a hatch) lend it aggressive proportions. An interesting character lines esses up to form a haunch over the rear wheel.

Then there’s the NSX. If NSX had resurrected its icon, the first serious Japanese challenger to the Italian exotics, and mucked it up, then enthusiasts might never have forgiven then. But the new NSX looks just about perfect, if perhaps a touch short on character and originality. Unlike with the original, the wheels appear large enough for the body and the rear quarters aren’t overly long. Keep looking at he car, and it starts to appear less generic, with some dynamic, well-integrated arcs in the bodyside. Power will come, as with the original, from a mid-mounted V6. But, because one of Acura’s core values is sustainability, there will also be a an elecric motor driving the front wheels. The attending enthusiast press, jaded and nearing the end of a long day, roared in applause. Not because the new NSX will be a hybrid, but because all fears that Honda would mess the car up could be cast aside.

The biggest surprise of the show thus far: the new NSX will be engineered by Honda’s U.S. group and manufactured in Ohio.

Suddenly I’m looking forward to the next TSX and TL. Let’s hope Acura doesn’t relapse into its coma in the interim.

The speech did accompany a concept of a sports car that’s likely to see production in some form, but in the usual Toyota way it was overdone. They badly wanted to make the car look exciting, but didn’t really feel it themselves. So, well, they’re not where they know they need to be yet.

Since then, the Internet has come into being, and more recently all sorts of social media. The desire for community is increasingly recognized.

Well, Chevrolet claims to have more intensively studied Gen Y than anyone else. They learned that Gen Y wants a company that understands them and involves them. Chevrolet seems to be really trying to do both.

The first fruits of this effort: a pair of concepts. Supposedly Gen Y likes the look of coupes, but wants the ability to carry three of their freinds. So both concepts are two-door coupes. Why not three as in the Hyundai Veloster or even four? I suspect because GM has traditionally loved coupes even more than Gen Y, and might be projecting a little, or more than a little.

The first concept, the TRU 140S, aspires to be an “affordable exotic.” But it’s been seen before, with a strong resemblance to the recently deceased Mitsubishi Eclipse. The Hyundai Veloster, with the same goal, is a much more innovative and intriguing design.

On the other hand, the second concept, the CODE 130R, IS new, in that it’s old. With a theme of “pure functional muscle,” it seeks to capture the flavor of a 1960s muscle car in a compact coupe. Perhaps because it had the same goal, there’s a resemblance to the Aussie Falcon coupes from the original Mad Max movie. The size and proportions appear similar to the BMW 1-Series. To top it off, this concept is rear-wheel-drive: so it wouldn’t be all show. It’s performance could fulfill the promise made by its look.

The CODE 130R’s styling isn’t for everyone. Our photographer, Eric Merrill, found it ugly. And he’s much closer in age to Gen Y than I am. So if this car were produced, it could end up appealing most to buyers in their 40s and 50s–much like many past efforts to target Gen Y.

Just one request: add two more doors (rear-opening would be okay), and perhaps a hatch as well. I’ve been requesting a compact, light, affordable rear-wheel-drive hatch for a decade. Chevrolet: I might be over 40, but strongly suspect that such a car would appeal to Gen Y as well. Remember, they told you they want functionalty.

So, which concept do you prefer? And are you Gen Y?

P.S.: Chevrolet also publicly revealed the 2013 Sonic RS. Appealing upgrades to the exterior, seats, and suspension, but no power bump. I enjoyed the LTS with the 1.4T and six-speed manual for a week recently, and the RS should drive even better, if not as much better as it would be with more power.

The 2013 Dodge Dart is the first Chrysler product based on a FIAT model, specifically the Alfa Giuletta. Enthusiasts are bemoaning that, compared to the Alfa, the Dart is a sedan rather than a hatch and that it’s styling is relatively generic, if clean and conventionally attractive. There’s some second-gen Neon in the mid-section, and the overall shape recalls the Ford Focus, just with larger radius curves and less complicated surfacing–which recall the last Dodge Avenger. Especially the full-figured rear end. It’s attractive in a way that won’t generally be noticed.

The Dart’s interior is more interesting than the exterior, with extensive red piping, red stiching (even on the instrument panel), and red perforations in the black leather in the car I sat in. Unexpectedly upscale details in a sub-$25k car.

Some of the plastics could look and feel nicer, and some aspects of the interior such as the lower part of the center stack appear a little bulbous and thus dated–but not the large 8.4″ touch screen.

The view forward is more open than in the Focus, with a less imposing instrument panel.

The seats provide good lateral support and are VERY cushy–you’re clearly not sitting in a German product. Yet another unexpectedly upscale feature (though VW offers it): four-way power lumbar.

In back there’s more room than in the average competitor. As there should be, since the Dodge Dart is very long for a compact at 183.9 inches (about five more than the Focus and ten more than the Neon).

Overall, no clear minuses (with the possible exception of dated interior and exterior styling) and a number of unexpected plusses. If it also handles and rides as well as promised–and if it proves reliable in our Car Reliability Survey–we’ll be happy Chrysler was able to stick around.

For additional details on the Dart, see my earlier post.