2011 Porsche Cayenne Hybrid: First Drive

By Thom Blackett for Cars.com

For most every task in life, there are at least two methods of approach. Ask Donald Trump to build you a new home, for example, and the result will be something drastically different than what you’d get from one of Habitat for Humanity’s volunteer squads. Not necessarily better, but different, and designed for clients on opposite ends of the spectrum. The same holds true in regards to hybrid vehicles, a fact documented by the $19,800 Honda Insight and $106,035 Lexus LS 600h L.

The 2011 Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid would also fall in that latter category. Just like the original Cayenne SUV stirred the ire of Porsche purists, the development of a questionably eco-friendly SUV might shake things up again. We’ve driven it, and have some specifications that should help quell fears.

Classified as a full hybrid, the 2011 Cayenne S Hybrid uses the same supercharged V-6 engine as the 2010 Audi S4, but it’s paired with a 38-kilowatt electric motor, a nickel-metal-hydride battery located under the cargo floor (with no corresponding loss in cargo volume) and an eight-speed automatic transmission. Put it all together and you have a powertrain boasting 374 horsepower, 406 pounds-feet of torque, a tow rating comparable to other Cayenne models, and a zero to 60 mph time of about 6.5 seconds. Oh, and fuel economy that Porsche suggests will reach a combined 27 mpg. By comparison, the V-8-powered Cayenne S delivers slightly more horsepower but much less torque and a combined fuel economy of 15 mpg.

As luck would have it, Porsche invited us to experience this supercharged hybrid during a brief drive around some swanky parts of Los Angeles. The surplus of torque made for quick, easy acceleration, and thankfully, this particular hybrid didn’t actually feel like a hybrid. Most hybrids use continuously variable automatic transmissions that are sometimes slow to react as you nail the gas pedal at a green light; the Cayenne’s eight-speed gearbox gets things moving quickly without all of the CVT’s linear-revving fuss.

Another hybrid annoyance — regenerative brakes that cause a dragging sensation every time you lift off the accelerator and press the left pedal — has been fine-tuned. You don’t feel all of the hybrid components working, but you can keep apprised of what’s going on by checking out displays in the gauge cluster and instrument panel.

In terms of driving feel, a new electrohydraulic power-steering system actually delivers better feedback in the hybrid than the traditional unit found in the Cayenne Diesel we also tested on the same route. Our loop didn’t allow us to test Porsche’s claims of traveling up to 32 mph on electric power alone or coasting up to 86 mph without any assistance from the gas engine.

Porsche expects the S Hybrid to comprise about 5 percent to 10 percent of all Cayenne sales when it goes on sale in 2010. Pricing has not been announced, but expect the Hybrid to slot above the $60,000 Cayenne S. Finally, company officials have confirmed that the Cayenne S Hybrid’s technology will also power an upcoming Porsche Panamera Hybrid model.

After our brief encounter, we’re not sure the world really needs a hybrid Porsche SUV, especially given the availability of rides like the diesel-powered BMW X5. Then again, we didn’t think there was much need for a Porsche SUV to begin with, and sales figures have clearly proven us wrong.

Specifications

• Base Price: Estimated to be in excess of $60,000
• Engine: Supercharged 3.0-liter V-6 paired with a 38-kilowatt electric motor and nickel-metal-hydride battery
• Horsepower: 374 hp
• Torque: 406 lbs.-ft.
• Transmission: Eight-speed automatic
• Fuel Economy: 27 mpg combined (Porsche estimate)
• 0-60 mph: 6.5 seconds (Porsche estimate)
• Top Speed: 149 mph (Porsche estimate)
• Competitors: BMW X5 xDrive35d, Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, Lexus RX 450h, Volkswagen Touareg 2 TDI

2010 Honda Insight: She Said, She Said

The new Honda Insight has gotten a lot of negative buzz lately despite being a capable hybrid. Part of the problem is comparisons to the Toyota Prius. Here are two more voices weighing in on the little hybrid from Honda and whether or not it holds up to life in the big city.

Beth: The best way to describe the Honda Insight’s looks is to say it’s a mini-Prius, which is also a pretty apt description of the car itself. It’s like the Prius, just less so — less efficient, less refined, less money (it costs about $2,000 less than Toyota’s signature hybrid). I averaged about 44 mpg in my time with the Insight, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it felt hard-earned to me.

Amanda: The acceleration was a bit sluggish and the interior was pretty stripped down, but if your primary interest when buying a new car is to find one that gets incredible gas mileage, then I’d say the Insight fits the bill. And whether it’s in the Insight or the Prius, I just can’t get used to the split rear window — I always feel like I’m missing a big chunk of road right behind me.

Beth: Visibility was definitely one of the Insight’s major drawbacks. The split rear view is obnoxious, and something about the placement of the B-pillar and the position of my seat made checking my blind spot a lot more difficult than it needed to be. The bigger deal to me, though, was how long it took to get going again once I’d stopped. I’m obviously talking about less than a second here, but those moments seem quite long when you’re turning left in front of traffic. I found myself rethinking my timing on those turns rather quickly after getting behind the wheel of the Insight. I had no such hesitation in the Prius.

Amanda: I think I was primarily disappointed by some of the interior features. For all the indicator lights and special screens you could scroll through to get information on your mileage and hybrid function, I thought a tiny bit more could’ve gone into a few select bells and whistles. I wasn’t looking for luxurious leather interior or seat warmers or anything, but a backup camera (especially given the limited view out the back) would’ve been nice.

Beth: Definitely. And as much as I love the USB input, the system was painstakingly slow to switch between playlists or other menus when I plugged in my iPod. That said, the cargo space felt plentiful for such a small car, and other than the hesitation when accelerating from a stop, the driving experience really wasn’t bad. At the end of the day, if you’re looking to save gas, this is still one of the best choices out there; I’d just have a hard time recommending it over a Prius. If you’re set on a hybrid and the drop-dead MSRP your budget will allow is $19,800, I don’t think you’d regret buying an Insight. If you can manage to stretch things just a bit further, though, a new Prius would probably be worth the effort.

2010 GMC Terrain: First Drive

Yesterday, we took our first spin in a few versions of the 2010 GMC Terrain five-seat crossover, which goes on sale this week. The Terrain is GMC's version of the Chevrolet Equinox. General Motors gets a little twitchy if you point out that one model is a version of another. No one wants to pay a premium for a model "based on" one from a more modest brand, right? It's a reasonable argument, but the economic reality of auto manufacturing in 2009 requires all companies to do more platform- and parts-sharing than ever, and when it's done properly, there's really nothing wrong with it.

Two things should make GM and potential buyers more comfortable about the fact that this GMC is related to a Chevy: First, its sibling is the Equinox, which in its 2010 redesigned form is a strong contender in the world of compact SUVs. Second, there's a lot to distinguish the Terrain from its sibling where it counts most: on the outside, where only the windshield and the roof are shared.

All of the things that make the Equinox attractive are here, not the least of which is its EPA-estimated 32 mpg highway when equipped with the four-cylinder. It has a comfortable ride, and it handles reasonably well for its type. I rode in the backseat with a driver who measures a towering 6 feet 6 inches tall, and he had a bit of headroom to spare even with an optional moonroof, a feature that tends to rob at least a little interior space.

Thanks to a rear bench seat that slides back, I had a few inches of knee clearance, even with the front seat moved fully rearward. I'm a mere 6 feet tall, and my knees were raised a few inches higher than the bottom cushion level, so my thighs weren't fully supported. The 60/40-split backrest angle adjusts to three positions, the rear two of which are comfortable. You'd best adjust it from outside of the car because the release handle is atop the backrest and not easily reached once seated. It felt to me that the head restraint should be inched up a bit, but despite its use of real posts, the Terrain's didn't move.

Overall, I found the backseat ride quality more than livable with 18-inch wheels on some rough roads. Seventeen-inchers are standard, and 19-inchers are optional on higher trim levels. GMC says it hasn't given the Terrain different suspension tuning or steering calibration than the Equinox has, and it's a smart move. Too often a manufacturer thinks it has to vary suspension tuning to distinguish its brands. When you make things different just to make them different, you run the risk of making one or the other inferior — maybe even both.

Terrain's SLE and SLT trim levels — subdivided into 1 and 2 versions — come with your choice of four-cylinder or V-6 engine and front- or all-wheel drive. Coupled with all-wheel drive and hauling a few people, the four-cylinder was adequate, though it was clearly working harder. The V-6 obviously brings more power, but it's in a stealthy manner: The electronic throttle and transmission schedule are so conservative that the Terrain ambles off the line and upshifts promptly. The power's there when you kick it, but the acceleration is oddly similar between the two.

The best reason to choose one of these trucks over the other is aesthetics. The interiors are a little different in design but equally high in quality. The cloth-upholstered model I checked out had nice-looking fabric, though I'm not sold on the industry's move toward rough textures. As for the exterior, most of us were unimpressed with the styling at the Terrain's auto-show introduction. Although it looks a little better out in the wild in a variety of colors, it still doesn't ring my bell. It looks tougher than the Equinox, mainly because of a huge grille and Hummer H3-style fender flares — complete with gaping space above the wheels. From the rear, the Terrain has the misfortune of resembling the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna, which wouldn't be a bad thing if they weren't minivans. That's just my opinion, which is worth no more than yours. You like, you buy.

So what justifies the $24,250 Terrain's base-price premium over the $22,440 Equinox? Simply, its standard equipment list, which contains roughly 10 more of the features found optional on the Chevy, including a backup camera (displayed in the rearview mirror if you forego the navigation system offered on most trim levels). The higher you climb on the trim-level ladder, the closer these two models get in features and price. When packed to the gills with features, the Equinox actually costs more — $37,735 — than the Terrain at $37,080, both including a destination charge.

We're often asked if the GMC division should exist, and it's a legitimate question. It's a profitable brand — something GM needs — and the company claims it attracts a significant percentage of buyers who don't cross-shop Chevys. Regardless of your feelings about one brand or the other, keeping the most impressive aspects consistent and significantly distinguishing the aesthetic character seems the right way to share platforms.

More 2010 GMC Terrain Images

More 2010 GMC Terrain Images

Source: cars.com

2010 Honda Accord Crosstour: First Look

• Competes with: Toyota Venza, Subaru Outback, Nissan Murano
• Looks like: Acura’s penchant for ugly grilles has infected Honda
• Drivetrain: Likely the same 3.5-liter V-6 as the Accord sedan
• Hits dealerships: Fall 2009

We knew Honda was bringing a new crossover — based on the Accord — to market relatively soon. The company even teased an up-close image of its grille. Today, we get to see the full monty, and it could have stood some shrinkage.

There’s just no discussing this car without tackling its huge schnoz. Not only is it oddly shaped, but it doesn’t fit the natural flow of the car’s front end. Follow the lines of the headlights and notice how they smash right into the grille. It’s disjointed to say the least and unfortunate in an extreme sense since the rest of the car looks fairly decent. We have images of the Crosstour grille and the standard Accord sedan grille below.

Full specs haven’t been revealed yet. A special web page for the Crosstour hints at more in 34 days; we’re not sure if that’s for more information or the on-sale date. Honda is known for putting an all-new model on sale the same day they release full details to the press, and it’s possible that the Crosstour will go on sale on Oct. 2.

How else does it differ from a typical Accord sedan? Honda says it will ride higher, like an SUV, to give a commanding view of the road. Obviously, the rear hatch will offer more utility than a sedan trunk; Honda calls it a “unique” cargo area, but doesn’t offer any specific details about it.

If you want to follow the Crosstour on Facebook, maybe you’ll learn more along the way. Check out the new page here. For the rear — and much better-looking — angle of the Crosstour, click below.

Source: cars.com

2009 Subaru Tribeca Limited, an AutoWeek Drivers Log

EXECUTIVE EDITOR WES RAYNAL: After the Tribeca's 2008 restyle, it looks like it comes from Chrysler, which is a huge improvement over the old one that was Pontiac Aztekian in its ugliness.

The Tribeca drives well. It's quiet and it feels much lighter than its 4,250 pounds. That's nearly 1,000 pounds less than General Motors' crossovers and the Subaru is a more fun, more flingable ride as a result.

The power is decent and the transmission is mated well to this engine. For the most part, the interior is good though a few materials could use an upgrade for the price.

That price is quite ambitious, and I'm trying to be nice here. GM's crossovers start at roughly the same price, and the Toyota 4Runner, the Honda Pilot, the Hyundai Veracruz, the Jeep Commander, the Mazda CX-9, and the Toyota Highlander all start at less.

SENIOR EDITOR FOR NEWS BOB GRITZINGER: I agree that the styling redo helped the Tribeca immensely--it's not quite the odd duck it used to be--but there are still some things that just seem out of proportion. For me, it starts with the steering wheel, which seems oddly undersized for the task at hand. It works fine, but just seems like it ought to be larger in diameter and beefier to go along with the bigger SUV. That may also contribute to the steering feel, which isn't terribly linear at some speeds, but seems kind of clunky.

I also think this is pricey, but that may be tainted by the value Subaru seems to represent in its other models. I'm just not sure Subie needs to play in this segment; rather, it should focus on the great smaller stuff it does best.

MANAGING EDITOR ROGER HART: The Tribeca does seem an odd vehicle choice for Subaru. While I think most of Subie's offerings are of good value, especially the new Forester, I'm not sure I'd agree here. Yes, it has a third row, but the second and third rows are nearly useless for adults. There just isn't that much room in the thing. That's why the Tribeca weighs 1,000 pounds less than the GM crossovers--because it's smaller.

I like the engine but the transmission was having some issues finding the right gear. It would hold a gear a long time before deciding to upshift, and a couple of times, it hesitated on downshifts when I needed to pass.

Another annoyance was the steering wheel. It's too small for such a vehicle (but I just came out of the 300C SRT8 and that has a BIG wheel) and there is no telescoping column, so I couldn't get into a comfortable driving position. With the seat, which was supportive and comfortable, in the right position for my legs, the wheel was too close to the dash.

Yes, this edition of the Tribeca looks better than the old one. But all things considered, I'd take the Forester in the hopes that I didn't need to haul six little kids around.

MOTORSPORTS EDITOR MAC MORRISON: I'm in the minority, clearly, but I never minded the Tribeca's looks, including the original with its gaping snout of a front grille. So I certainly don't have a problem with the improved redesign.

I do have a problem with the nontelescoping steering wheel, which made it difficult for me to find an ideal seating position. I did not have a problem with the wheel's actual size, however.

The interior design is nice, especially the wraparound center stack on the dash. The Tribeca offers a smooth and comfortable ride, and the drivetrain provides performance on par with others in this class. But the lack of room compared with some of its competitors is difficult to look past. For my money, I may as well simply buy a Forester.

2009 Subaru Tribeca Limited

In Fleet: Jan. 19-Feb. 6

As-Tested Price: $37,081

Drivetrain: 3.6-liter H6; AWD, five-speed automatic

Output: 256 hp @ 6,000 rpm, 247 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

Curb Weight: 4,250 lb

Fuel Economy: (EPA/AW) 18/17.1 mpg

Options: Convenience group including puddle lights, rear dome/reading lights ($314); floor mats ($60); cargo net ($47)

Source: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091002/CARREVIEWS/910029998#ixzz0TiR70zBK