With a base price of $61,845, the ActiveHybrid 5 will cost 17.8 percent more than the $52,500 535i when it arrives at U.S. dealers in late March. For comparison’s sake, the ActiveHybrid 750i costs 15.1 percent more than the 750i and the recently discontinued ActiveHybrid X6 ran a whopping 26.8 percent more than the X6 xDrive50i.

Source: AutoBlog

For the 2013 model year, the CC is receiving a mid-life updo in the form of several small but important touches. The unfortunate news is that many of the premium upgrades happening in this freshened CC for the European market will not come out to play in North America. But enough of them will, making a First Drive the proper thing to do. Besides, it’s the least we could do when VW has finally changed the name of the car worldwide from the European “Passat CC” to the simpler “CC” moniker favored Stateside.

Whereas the 2.0-liter inline TSI four-cylinder in Europe yields up to 208 horsepower (SAE rated), the United States version in the CC still rates 200 hp. As to the desirable 3.6-liter V6 engine, Europeans get 295 hp, while the U.S. remains 280 hp strong. The new exterior paint seen here, Black Oak Brown Metallic, is really a handsome shade, but sadly it won’t be crossing the ocean either. Likewise, these very slick optional 18×8-inch Lakeville alloys on our VR6 4Motion will stay in Europe, the U.S. car holding onto the standard Interlagos design. And no 19×8-inch optional Lugano alloys available either. Poop.

While this is beginning to sound like VW’s Grinch stole Christmas, all of the major aesthetic changes in the exterior and interior look will indeed come over on the boat from the Emden factory in northern Germany. These include an all-new front fascia, more pronounced skirts between axles, all-new bi-xenon headlights and LED taillights, a hood sans power bulge, and greater chrome accents outside and inside. Still, ’tis a shame we don’t get the added beef in the engines, several Phaeton-like optional safety technologies, very upmarket optional adjustable front seats with heat and massage functions, or the wider range of exterior and interior color schemes.

Two range changes specific to the North America CC are the temporary substitution of a Sport Plus trim for the current R-Line trim and the creation of a front-wheel-drive Lux model available with the 3.6-liter V6. The racier R-Line look will make more of a splash this time around as a special edition later on. The explanation for the availability of the VR6 engine in a standard chassis with spinning front tires is that there is a temporary capacity challenge for VR6 4Motion production due to higher-than-expected demand worldwide. This new model offering should do a nice job of filling the wide price gap between the top 2.0T Lux Limited trim and 3.6 4Motion Executive trim.

For now, the freshened CC is the only Volkswagen model with the vertical chrome slats in the grille, but this will change as other models in the lineup reach their refreshening dates. The new satin-finish chromed plastic accents on the inside lend the CC a certain elegance, though the plastic is fairly common to the touch.

Source: AutoBlog

That’s not entirely a criticism, as in this class of cars some style is needed, if for no other reason than to distract you from some of the corners that get cut in the interest of affordability. Indeed, the Sonic has a few interior shortcomings, most notably the coarse headliner, which seems less like a finished product than the substrate for one. While the dash is a broad expanse of grey plastics, just as you’d expect, that didn’t bother us at all. The “leatherette” seating did, as it’s got a rubbery taxicab texture that should either be upgraded to real hide, or just be banished altogether. The cloth seats we’ve enjoyed in other Chevys are much preferred.

Speaking of which, under the hood of our Sonic was the same 1.8-liter, four-cylinder that serves as the budget engine option in the Cruze, making the same 138 horsepower and 125 lb-ft of torque as in its bigger brother. The 1.8-liter Ecotec provides ample motivation, but we’d be lying if we didn’t say we were disappointed our Sonic was not equipped with the available 1.4-liter turbo, also shared with the Cruze. Doubling down on that disappointment was the transmission, as our Sonic was saddled with a six-speed automatic. Sonics with the 1.8-liter can be had with a five-speed manual transmission, while the tranny in the 1.4-liter has an extra gear. The automatic will probably serve the interests of the commuter crowd well enough, but we found it annoying – and not just because we would have preferred to do the shifting ourselves. The automatic transmission in our Sonic shifted rather slowly and wasn’t particularly smooth either. Even the Sonic auto-box’s manual shift mode is GM’s standard button-on-the-shifter design that requires moving the shifter to the manual detent before using the shift buttons, and the whole thing is too much of a pain to bother with.

We would be more willing to issue a pass on the automatic transmission if we felt like it were set up for maximum fuel economy, but here is where insult piled atop injury. We only saw 29 miles per gallon overall during our week in the Sonic, in which we traveled some 600 miles, the majority on the highway. Yet this wasn’t unusually low, as it’s right in line with the EPA combined estimate of 28. It’s the 1.4-liter Sonic manual that posts the impressive fuel economy numbers, hitting 40 mpg on the highway and still returning 29 in town. Our 1.8-liter Sonic’s official numbers are just 25 city and 35 highway, which just doesn’t seem good enough when the plain-Jane Ford Fiesta automatic is rated at 29/39 and the three-year-old Honda Fit even gets an EPA combined rating of 31.

Source: AutoBlog

The only A4 2.0 TFSI sedan available for testing carried the standard six-speed manual and was gifted with Quattro all-wheel drive. The on-road behavior of this most popular North American A4 engine trim frankly hasn’t changed a whole lot, but that’s not a criticism. There is still 208 horsepower on tap and torque stands at an eminently usable 258 pound-feet between 1,500 and 4,200 rpm. Bear in mind that’s for a car that weighs in at 3,550 pounds as tested (we’re estimating it’ll ring up at 3,640 pounds with the U.S.’ optional eight-speed Tiptronic gearbox). That’s a net weight loss of over 50 pounds if we are to believe 2011 and 2012 spec sheets from both sides of the pond placed side-by-side.

Leading the tally of changes is a revamped thermal management system that heats everything more quickly at start-up in order to avoid wasting energy, a modification that Audi says aids in increasing fuel efficiency by around 10 percent. Helping this newfound fuel saving along is reduced friction between the moving parts through re-engineering of various tolerances. All the same, the smoothness and efficiency that comes with it, along with the turbocharging and high-pressure direct injection, is translated into a slightly slicker powertrain. Having said that, the factory’s 6.3-second acceleration number to 60 miles per hour remains, as does the A4′s 130-mph limited top speed. EPA fuel economy figures for the pre-facelift 2012 A4 Quattro automatic came in at 21 miles per gallon in the city and 29 on the freeway using premium fuel, but revised figures for the 2013 model haven’t been released yet.

The major change aboard for the entire A4 lineup is the adoption of electric power steering. Seeing as mid-range Audi Quattro models have never been singled out for having exceptionally precise steering response or feedback, we were only minimally concerned. The new electro-mechanical rack neither improves nor worsens this situation, as the onus with Quattro has more to do with the way torque is managed front to rear. In this case, the steering feel is fine relative to expectations, but it still trails both the 3 Series and C-Class for fidelity and communicativeness, though not as much as it did when Quattro was biased towards front-wheel drive. Tires for our drive were top-option 18-inch Bridgestone Potenzas from the Sport Package – base U.S. cars will receive 17-inch shoes. While the 18s fill the wheel wells nicely, the taller sidewalls of the base 17s will doubtlessly be the best bet for those whose day-to-day drudgery includes rougher road surfaces.

Source: Autblog

From a sales perspective, the first-generation GS 450h was a disappointment. While we liked it quite a bit when we test-drove it a couple years ago, Lexus just hasn’t been able to move the metal. Introduced to much fanfare in 2006 as a 2007 model, the GS was Lexus’ second hybrid and the first rear-wheel-drive hybrid on the market. Lexus touted it as a performance sedan, even as Toyota was heavily marketing its hybrids as fuel sippers. Whether consumers were confused or not, they never took to the hybrid GS. Sales peaked at just below 1,800 in that first year and have gone down in each successive year. In 2010, Lexus sold barely 300 GS hybrids, roughly four percent of total GS sales, which were about 7,000.

The cognitive dissonance presented by Lexus hybrids has been an issue since the brand launched its first, the 2006 RX 400h SUV. Only marginally more powerful than the standard RX, its improvement in fuel economy was similarly slight at launch. The LS 600hL – the brand’s halo car before the LFA sports car came along – is a six-figure, 20-mile-per-gallon hybrid marketed as having V12 performance with V8 fuel economy, the rough equivalent of ordering a Diet Coke with your Super Size Big Mac Extra Value Meal. The “Lexus Prius” HS 250h, with neither particularly good fuel economy (35 mpg combined) nor any sporting aspirations, has been a critical and sales disaster and is rumored to be on the chopping block. While Toyota’s simple, “better mileage” definition of its hybrids is clear, Lexus has combined green machine and muscle car in varying doses, such that you never quite know what you’ll be getting with a gas-electric Lexus.

While the new GS 450h continues to pay homage to two different masters, Lexus has, from the outset, done a better job at splitting the difference. With an entirely new V6 engine and revised hybrid system, the 2013 model has remarkably improved fuel economy, while sacrificing just a bit on the raw performance side. According to Lexus, the new model will be rated at 31 mpg combined (29/34 city/highway), an improvement of eight miles per gallon over the old 2011 model. Do the math and that’s a 35-percent improvement, which seems like a pretty good tradeoff for less than half a second in 0-60 time. By Lexus’ stopwatch, the 2013 GS 450h does 0-60 miles per hour in 5.6 seconds, compared to 5.2 seconds for the old GS hybrid.

Source: AutoBlog

Our Dark Blue Pearl Metallic tester in Limited trim carried a base price tag of $34,915 that rises to $35,910 by ticking the EcoBoost option box. Ford doesn’t mess around when it comes to the Limited trim: Standard accoutrements include leather-trimmed and heated seats up front, a 10-way power driver’s seat, dual-zone climate control, SYNC infotainment, a 390-watt Sony sound system, back-up sensors and a rear view camera.

Our Edge was also packed with some of Ford’s top options, including the 2.0-liter EcoBoost upgrade, Ford’s excellent navigation system ($795), and BLIS blind-spot detection ($485). This Edge Limited also included the Drivers Entry Package ($895), which adds remote start, push-button start and a power rear lift gate. Also making the scene was Ford’s much-maligned MyFord Touch system – in this guise, it includes a pair of 4.2-inch LED screens in the gauge cluster and five-way steering wheel controls. With all options present and accounted for, our tester came in at $38,910.

The draw for this Edge Limited is the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine, which is a $995 option compared to the capable and relatively efficient 3.5-liter V6. The extra coin will deliver 240 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque mated to a smooth-shifting six-speed automatic transmission. That isn’t as much punch as the 285 horsepower 3.5-liter V6, but the real story comes with a twist – the turbo 2.0 boasts 17 more lb-ft than its bigger, naturally aspirated brother, and it arrives in full force at 3,000 rpm (the V6′s torque doesn’t max out until 4,000 revs).

That extra pull is evident from behind the leather-wrapped steering wheel. The EcoBoost four provides good straight-line acceleration, with a 0-60 time that we estimate to be just over seven seconds. The EcoBoost also weighs a bit less, tipping the scales at 3,998 pounds – 58 fewer pounds than a front-drive V6 model. With torque that comes on early in the revband, the EcoBoost feels even quicker than any instrumented testing might suggest – at least until hitting the freeway. When we tested the V6-equipped Edge about a year ago, passing acceleration felt a bit stronger at highway speeds. The boosted four-cylinder also doesn’t sound quite as pleasant as the V6, but noise levels aren’t obtrusive.

Impressively, we were even more pleased with our real-world mileage. We averaged a surprising 25.1 miles per gallon during our week of driving. For comparison’s sake, we averaged 21.9 mpg in the 3.5-liter-equipped Edge, itself a reasonable number. Assuming our 3.2 mpg difference is representative of real-world fuel economy, is the EcoBoost’s efficiency increase worth $995? If we assume 12,000 miles per year and 87 octane gas sits at $3.50/gallon, the EcoBoost owner can expect to pay $1,673 for fuel each year. The equivalent 3.5-liter V6 owner faces a $1,917 tab – $245 more than the EcoBoost model. That means the $995 price tag of the EcoBoost model should pay for itself in about four years or about 50,000 miles. That’s far from an immediate return on investment, but it’s not bad and the equation could get more favorable if fuel prices spike.

Source: AutoBlog

We’ll get into an analysis of the tricks that makes the Cruze Eco special, but first let’s emphasize what GM didn’t do to punch up the Eco’s mileage. This is a car without any hybrid technology, not even a mild hybrid system like the eAssist system GM deployed on the Buick LaCrosse and has planned for the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco. There’s no start-stop system to aid Cruze Eco’s 28 miles per gallon city fuel economy rating. In fact, the Cruze Eco’s turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder doesn’t even use direct injection to make its 138 horsepower and 148 lb-ft of torque.

Source: AutoBlog

The FR-S is offered with a choice of six-speed transmissions, both built by Aisin. The manual gearbox is a short-throw unit with Reverse to the left of first gear, accessed only after lifting a collar on the shift lever. The automatic transmission is a modified version of the eight-speed gearbox used on the Lexus IS F, minus two cogs. It is a traditional wet torque converter design, but its software has been engineered to mimic the response of a dual-clutch gearbox. Its three electronic modes (Normal, Sport and Snow) are controlled via a switch on the center console. For improved manual control, there are also F1-patterned paddles mounted on the steering wheel, while a limited-slip differential is standard on the rear-wheel drive coupe, regardless of transmission choice.

Source: AutoBlog

Hyperbole aside, at 178.7 inches long, 65.7 inches tall and 72.4 inches wide, the CX-5 is nearly identical in size to the redesigned 2012 Honda CR-V, but because of its more aggressive design, the Mazda looks decidedly more compact. To further that point, know that the CX-5 rides on a wheelbase that is a full three inches longer than the CR-V. Just by looking at the two CUVs, it’s not immediately noticeable. Sport (read: Base) and Touring models come standard with 17-inch wheels, while Grand Touring models (what you see in the pics) ride on handsome 19-inch alloys that fill out the large wheel wells nicely.

The CX-5 uses the full suite of Mazda’s Skyactiv technologies, and while most people think that just refers to the 2.0-liter inline-four underhood, it’s actually much more involved than that. While the powerplant in the CX-5 is the Skyactiv-G gasoline engine, it’s mated to the buyer’s choice of a pair of new Skyactiv-branded transmissions – a six-speed manual or six-speed automatic – and the whole package is wrapped in a lightweight Skyactiv chassis. Speaking of lightness, Mazda has vowed that each new model will weigh roughly 220 pounds lighter than its predecessor. We could compare the CX-5 to the Tribute, but honestly, the larger CX-7 crossover is a more direct competitor. Depending on equipment levels, the CX-5 can weigh as much as 575 pounds less than its older, ever-so-slightly larger sibling.

But back to the Skyactiv-G engine. Here, it’s good for 155 horsepower and 150 pound-feet of torque – not breathtaking numbers by any means, and actually one of the least-powerful powerplants in its class. But thanks to an impressive 14:1 compression ratio, Mazda doesn’t need to rely on turbocharging or downsizing in order to get decent performance. Fuel economy is also a huge win for the Skyactiv powertrain, too, with manual-equipped CX-5 models expected to deliver a best-in-class 33 miles per gallon on the highway and 26 mpg in the city. Adding the automatic transmission drops the highway number to 32 mpg, and equipping the CX-5 with all-wheel drive reduces overall economy to 25/30 mpg.

Source: AutoBlog

Certainly, Lexus has loaded up the GS with a whole bag of new tricks, but its core is largely carryover. The optional V8 engine is gone – nobody bought them, apparently. So the 3.5-liter V6 remains, improved to make it a bit more powerful. It’s now rated at 306 horsepower and 277 lb-ft of torque, an increase of just three horses and three lb-ft. However, Lexus estimates a fuel economy improvement of two miles per gallon on the highway and one combined when compared to the 2011 GS. The new car’s 0-60 mile-per-hour time remains at 5.7 seconds. The 2013 GS uses the same six-speed, sequential-shift automatic, but with paddle shifters in addition to a standard shift lever. Shifting with the paddles is fast and satisfying, and we like that they are small and well positioned unobtrusively behind the wheel.