One thing that’s immediately apparent about the Solstice roadster–it’s drop-dead gorgeous. From any angle, and inside and out, this is not only the most beautiful thing to come out of Pontiac, but probably GM itself, in thirty-plus years. And one thing that you won’t notice upon laying eyes on this machine–it’s dirt cheap. The starting price is under twenty grand; we tested a $21,995 model that seemed very well-equipped.

Pure sex. It’s so good-looking that the Solstice doesn’t even have to be good; people will buy this droptop based upon appearance alone–and for once, such shallow shopping is justified. (You can almost feel the much-needed enthusiasm humming along the hallowed halls of GM’s ‘excitement division.’) Almost catlike, the rear haunches are lithe and muscular, and look ready to pounce. The front end is curvaceous in the best Hollywood bombshell tradition. Shod in extra-wide 245/45 meats, even the four 18″ rims are powerful-looking.

Fortunately, even a short spin behind the wheel proves that it *is* good. It’s *darn* good. 177 horses is the output rating from the 2.4-liter Ecotec four, and while that sounds rather mild, it’s plenty of oomph for this lightweight (2860 lbs.). A 250-horse model is being quietly promised within a year (which will certainly be enough to beat the grandaddy of the segment, the Mazda Miata, with its 170 horsies underhood and 300 fewer pounds). Even the base model, though, boasts enough juice to hit 60 m.p.h. in about seven seconds, plastering a permagrin upon the driver’s face in the meantime. The standard five-speed stick adds to the fun–an automatic will follow in several months, for amputees only we hope–it’s smooth, precise, and “snick-snicky” in the best tradition.

Heck, you don’t even have to drive the Solstice to recognize that it’s a whole new kind of Pontiac. When Bob Lutz voiced his vision for Pontiac as sort of a bargain BMW, this is what he was talking about. Merely sitting inside, you realize that this is something special. Organic and curvy–like the exterior–the interior design is as good as any roadster in the “costs less than a house” segment. Seats are heavily bolstered, yet comfortable, and covered in some heavenly hides. Audiophiles will be pleased to note that the optional Monsoon stereo–shared with some of GM’s best new offerings–not only sounds great, it looks great, too.

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and daisies. A few laps around the track revealed some suspension issues; it can feel disconnected especially out back–this isn’t a pure sports car, really. Further, the top is manually operated, and although one person can put it up or down, it’s kind of an awkward process. Not to mention the fact that top takes up the entire trunk, save for maybe a couple square feet suitable only for a soft-sided duffel bag–this is also no everyday automobile.

All that aside, though, the Solstice is fun, attractive, and well-made. Behind the wheel is joy; comfort, style and convenience are just icing on the cake. It’s hard to imagine anyone being disappointed with one of these, short of a hard-core SCCA club racer, or maybe a soccer mom–it is a roadster, after all. But it’s the best damn roadster to come out of GM, or even America in…maybe ever. When’s the last time you heard that about a Pontiac, or even a GM product?

[View with PicLens]

Production delays seem to have been ironed out, finally. Customer deliveries–the first 1,000 at any rate–have begun, and dealers should be stocking the Solstice by the time you read this. If you’ve got an extra $20,000 lying around–or even if you don’t–go out, find that Buick-GMC-Pontiac dealership you’re always passing by, and get your name on that list. If you appreciate engaging drives, good looks, sunshine and sex, you’ll be glad you did.

We’ve been waiting for it a long time–certainly much longer than since last year’s “Year of the Car” as proclaimed by Ford. We didn’t get it with the 203-horsepower Five Hundred sedan (nor it’s upscale Montego twin). We certainly didn’t get it when the Taurus hit some nine years without a significant redesign. And boy, we sure missed it when we were watching all-new Explorers and Mustangs coming off the lines. But we might just have it now–Ford Motor Corp. might have finally given America a decent midsize sedan.

“Fusion” is its name–just as all the SUVs begin with ‘E,’ all new FoMoCo sedans will bear ‘F’ monikers from now on. And while we caught a glimpse in New York earlier this year, we still actually haven’t gotten a chance to drive the thing. Fortunately, though, our friends at Mercury were able to get us some seat time in the Milan–essentially the same car, with minor trim changes and a moderately more luxurious interior.

The truth is, in a way we have already driven the Fusion and the Milan, as well as the Lincoln Zephyr to follow. After all, the cars are all variants on the Mazda6 platform. Dimensions have changed, however–an inch or three was added to the length, the width, and the wheelbase–but the overall curb weight is actually lighter. Body panels and interior styling is all new, too. Enough has changed, in other words, for the Fusion/Milan to qualify as new cars–and for us worry that Ford might have dumbed down what we had thought of as one of the best midsizers.

Not to worry–the wait was worth it. From our first approach, we started to like these cars. Based upon the 427 concept, the lines are crisp and clean, angular in a moderately muscular way. Ford’s soon-to-be-ubiquitous three-bar grille graces the Fusion, while Mercury’s trademark waterfall grille sits at the Milan’s nose; both are attractive and modern. Taillights–both the Ford’s basic red units and Mercury’s clear-lens lamps–have a triangular, almost Lexus IS300 look to them. This isn’t a segment where extroverted styling or dare-to-be-different quirkiness is appreciated, and neither Ford nor Mercury’s designers have given us anything too outrageous here. Still, we like the way these cars look, and we think America will, too.

In this class, however, looks aren’t enough to earn the sales-king crown. At least not the outside; family sedan buyers crave a comfortable, attractive and functional interior. Short story: the Fusion & Milan deliver. Softly angular and supremely stylish, the FoMoCo designers seem to have been given more free reign on these than perhaps ever before. We liked the steering wheel, with all its audio and climate-control buttons. We also liked the spacious feeling the interior imparts, although by the numbers there’s actually a bit less space than in most Japanese competitors. (At 15.8 cubic feet, trunk space is adequate and shaped well, too). The Milan we drove had the optional leather seating, luxurious yet tough, with cool baseball-like stitching. Other materials that make up the interior–the aluminum-look plastic, for instance–seem of good quality, and likely to stand up to the years of abuse a growing family can place on a car.

[View with PicLens]

Of course, for most Roadfly readers, interior & trunk space is less of a consideration than outright performance. Fortunately, Ford didn’t drop the ball here, as they did with the Five Hundred. Full disclosure–we didn’t drive the base models, which come with a 160-hp four-banger–but at least you can get a stick-shift in those. We did, however, get behind the wheel of the 221-horse six-cylinder car (standard in the Mercury and Lincoln; a wise, $3,100 choice for Fusion buyers). Just as in the Mazda, we found this powerplant, mated to a *six*-speed automatic in this case, to be more than adequate. It revs well, although the shifter only offers Drive and Low options, which inhibits control somewhat. At 8 seconds flat to 60 m.p.h., this is no sports sedan, but respectable in its own right nonetheless. While Honda’s Accord–with an extra 20 horses under the hood and lighter to boot–is faster, the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr is neither underpowered nor strained in spirited driving.

Speaking of spirited driving, we subjected our test car to some–including a few laps around a NASCAR track and a road course. Where the bigger-brothers Five Hundred/Montego would have wallowed their way probably into the weeds, the CD3 cars (that’s the expanded Mazda6 platform’s in-house designation) represented themselves well. Body roll was certainly present, but only as much as you’d expect there to be in a car whose mission is more ferrying kids to school than ferrying helmet-clad racers around a track. The ride was one of the nicest in the class, and most impacts were barely felt–this was impressive when you consider the actually decent handling. All told, the suspension (short/long arm front and rear multilink)setup does its job well, without sucking all the fun out of driving, like many rivals do. The rack and pinion steering is appropriately accurate; again better than many competitors.

Ford has the capacity to build some 300,000 of these sedans, in the Hermosillo, Mexico plant. That figure would bring Ford right in line with Honda Accord and Toyota Camry sales–right where the Dearborn brand used to reside when the Taurus was new. If our time spent inside the Milan and outside the Fusion is any indication (and if Ford can manage build quality good enough to prevent them earning the dubious distinction of ‘most recalled car of the year’ that the Focus held when new), it just might happen. From those of us who are getting tired of bland-looking Accords and blander-performing Camrys clogging our asphalt automotive arteries, that’d be a blessing–just as it would be to Ford stakeholders.

The people at Mercedes Benz must be working overtime. In the last couple years alone, the boys in Stuttgart have brought to market several all-new vehicles–think CLS-class, B-class, the upcoming baby-ML-class, and this new R-Class. Mercedes calls it a “grand sports tourer” or “crossover,” based upon the unibody construction and driving dynamics. Other pundits have ventured that it resembles a conventional minivan, although it does lack the minivan’s requisite sliding rear doors.

For all intents and purposes, this R-Class is a people-hauler. There’s a hint of SUV in the styling, but in truth, the long, sleek body resembles a Bullet Train more than anything else. Inside, there’s more Town & Country than M-class in the layout. There’s room for seven inside, plus cargo and gear–the R-class has more space than any Mercedes Benz product in recent history. Clearly, this vehicle–whatever you want to call it–was designed with passenger and cargo space as a primary consideration. When you get in, walk back to front over the humpless floor, tap the electronic column shifter, and start to drive, you’ll figure that out for yourself. And quite certainly, this is the nicest, best-equipped people-hauler we’ve ever had the privilege of piloting.

As with any similar review, we’ll start with the interior. There seems to be twice as much room inside than in the G-class SUV, and it’s all useful. Even the third row is okay for adults, and the folding seats in both rear rows lend a versatility outmatched only by DCX’s own (conspicuously absent) Stow-N-Go system. Storage space is impressive; there’s almost 16 cubic feet just behind the third row, and 85 with all seats folded. There’s a huge moonroof up front, and the side windows in the middle are equally expansive–and roll all the way down! Seats are a tactile treasure, with leather and suede wrapping a supportive frame. Too bad the seating position up front is more akin to a bus driver’s than anything else. The requisite gadgets and luxury touches you’d expect are present, including park-assist, adjustable ride height, and even shocks with an on-the-soft-side Sport setting and a pillow-like Comfort setting. A neat optional DVD entertainment system features dual screens behind the front headrests, and each can depict a different input (movie & video game, for instance). Finally, further proof that this is the best people-hauler money can buy: the R500 has the most, and best, cupholders of any MB product we’ve tested.

Possibly the most (only?) disappointing feature in our $59,675 test vehicle was Mercedes’ deplorable navigation system. With no touch-screen, this system is outdated and difficult to use; even the Honda Civic is miles ahead here. Our advice: skip it and invest in a Thomas Guide.

[View with PicLens]

As far as the outside goes, well, close your eyes and imagine using that digital morphing video technology on an E- and M-class into a one-box shape, and you’ve got it. Actually based on the M-class, the R-class shares no body panels with other Mercedes. It is elegant like all Benzes, sleek like all Benzes, and has all the typical Benz styling touches you’d find on the other models–but the one-box shape is unmistakable. Actually, we do still like it, especially compared to the rest of the field in the soccer-mom crowd.

The R-Class we drove was the 302-horse V8 R500 model (a 268-hp R350 is available at $48,775). We admire this motor; it’s bulletproof and torquey, although the new 3.5-liter is by far the more advanced engine. In this application, mated to a 7-speed automatic, it pulls like a freight train; almost unstoppably powerful, although by no means zippy. It gathers its speed quickly, though–sixty miles per hour comes in six and a half seconds–which makes the somewhat inaccurate steering that much more noticeable. That imprecise steering is the biggest dynamic faux pas here; the R500 otherwise handles better than any minivan extant, and better than most SUVs, if with a rather soft ride.

One SUV-like trait: the R-class comes with standard all-wheel-drive. This is the same system from the M-class; it can distribute torque to any one wheel with traction. This should theoretically make for more secure handling, although we were unwilling to test its limits on a dry, sunny day. Enough that the security is there for rainy days.

Realistically, the closest thing to the new R-class already on the road is sister-corporation Chrylser’s Pacifica. Of course, that wannabe SUV is itself actually based upon a minivan platform. And while the Chrysler maybe pulls off the truck-like look better, the R-class doesn’t suffer from the underpowered, under-luxuried stigma of the Pacifica. If you need to haul six people and their gear in Mercedes-Benz luxury and style, there is no better vehicle out there.

The days of affordable gas are irrevocably over. Filling a 20+ gallon tank after every hundred miles has suddenly become a pain in the neck (and wallet). GM has taken some ferocious flak lately for spending scarce R&D dollars on their upcoming full-size SUV line’s revamp, in the face of mounting evidence of a gas price explosion. Luckily for them, a few product planners at GM must have seen the writing on the wall–single-digit mileage figures are as passe as Ryan Seacrest. Thus we present to you the smallest, lightest and most efficient truck yet from the paramilitary purveyor of SUVs–the 2006 Hummer H3.

If you’re wearing an eyepatch, or otherwise have problems with depth perception, you can be forgiven for mistaking the H3 for the old H2. Scale is by far the biggest difference between the two. The trademark styling cues are present by the proverbial truckload, from the gun-slit windows, seven-slot grille and bricklike profile down to the fake shock tower covers flanking the hood over the front shocks.

Inside, though, is all-new–and the H3 has the more desirable cockpit of the two. Despite a startling lack of content–our tester was missing heated seats, a moonroof, power and leather even for the driver, and even a trip computer–the H3 evinces a sturdy, solid look. Everything feels hefty; we especially appreciated the stainless steel console trim surrounding the smart-looking stereo and HVAC controls. The window and lock switches are the excellent new GM pieces, and everything that swings out, open, or up is well-damped. The standard stereo itself puts out good sound for a variety of musical genres, although we suspect many owners will add another subwoofer or two (there’s just no ‘bling’ in a stock system). We did miss having control buttons on the steering wheel, but the H3 is ergonomically comfortable, and nothing is really out of reach. We repeat–the H3’s cockpit is, all told, nicer than its bigger brothers’–thoroughly modern and in many ways every bit as good as many other upscale SUVs.

And ‘cockpit’ is definitely the right word for the H3’s innards; the driver and front passenger are ensconced almost as tightly as in the original H1, without that monster center console for an excuse. Space isn’t a problem per se–it’s a comfortable SUV, although a lot of the overall footprint’s space is wasted due to the thick doors and narrow body between the flared fenders.

Does it sound as if we’re fawning? Because we’re not. Besides the obvious argument against the dreadful gas mileage (we averaged 16.9 mpg in mixed driving), we were underwhelmed with the H3’s on-road performance. Powered by the 220-horsepower inline five from its progenitors (the Colorado/Canyon pickup twins), the 4700 lb. H3 can be sluggish in many typical situations. Uphill, for instance. Seriously, passing even on level ground requires mashing the throttle, causing an abrupt downshift from the 4-speed slushbox. Note here, though, that a 5-speed manual is available in the Hummer–joy! Although torque, at 225 lb-ft. is sufficient enough for around-town cruising, the H3 suffers from a serious lack of steam over about 60 m.p.h. (which it takes a leisurely ten seconds or so to reach).

The driving experience is also hindered by the weight and height of the H3. It’s tippy at speed (although no more than it ought to be), although it feels sure-footed when braking, despite the momentum factor. On the other hand, the ride is surprisingly supple. We napped in the passenger seat once for over an hour at 80 m.p.h. For a truck-based SUV, there’s remarkably little bounce and even severe suspension impacts are handled with aplomb. Steering and brakes are similarly linear, although road feel is numb.

While we’re by no means off-road experts, we did take the truck over some rather rough terrain (mainly for the photo shoot). In its element, the H3 performed most admirably here; confidently hopping rocks and climbing dirt hills without even breathing hard. Ground clearance of 9.1″ and approach/departure/breakover angles among the best in class don’t hurt, either. Mud-busting can be just as much fun as S-curves and switchbacks, and if serious off-roading is your cup of tea, the H3 delivers, without being totally unwieldy in day-to-day driving.

[View with PicLens]

Otherwise, there are few substantive complaints. Wind noise is about what you’d expect from a brick, with brick-shaped outside mirrors, on four wheels taller than most midgets. Map pockets are shallow and thin, and there’s no good place for even a cell phone–except the two cupholders, which are stationary, not adjustable, and probably not so suited for holding a lot of your bigger cups. Perhaps the biggest carp comes as a result of the H3’s smallest-of-anything-anywhere windows; visibility is a real problem here. Adjust your mirrors the right way (ask Click and Clack; they explain the procedure well), check to the side every time you change lanes, and hope for the best–it’s almost impossible to see over the cliff-high beltline to notice anything next to you, if it’s lower than, say, a Peterbilt.

Yes, it’s essentially a Chevy with a body kit and a custom interior–as we’ve hinted, it shares engine, transmission and platform with its lesser pickup siblings. But at least it’s better than the bad old days of GM platform sharing, when the only differences between the Chevy Cadavalier and Cadillac Similarron were a couple extra ounces of chrome on the grille and “leather” seats (that honestly had the exact same tactile feel as the cheaper car’s vinyl).

Will the H3 catch on with the rappers, off-road enthusiasts, and extroverts that constitute much of the brand’s core customers? We’re not sure, but the public sure seemed to like it. On the road, nearly every neck we passed turned to check us out, and when stopped in a public place, positive comments were plentiful (except for a couple folks asking if post-hurricane fuel costs had us looking for lease loopholes). In our own assessment, the H3 is a success on many levels–as long as you understand what it really is. It’s a decent off-road machine, and an SUV with “notice me” written all over it–”at a popular price,” as they used to say. Inside is a treat, and outside is all rugged good looks. It’s not much of a driver’s ride, but if you go too fast, you can’t be seen behind the wheel anyway. If nothing else, we like the H3 a lot more than the bloated H2 (or the ridiculous civilian H1, for that matter). In fact, we like it a lot within the $30,000 SUV category.

Chevrolet, and indeed all of GM, is visibly working hard lately to produce vehicles that are actually competitive and desirable–and with good reason; even GMAC and OnStar don’t make enough cash to support the General producing cars at a loss. Perhaps the most whimsical of the apple-pie-American brand’s new ventures (if not the most original) is the Heritage High Roof, or HHR.

Based on the new Cobalt small-car platform, the HHR is significantly smaller than the 1949 Suburban from which much of its design language was pilfered. It’s also a heck of a lot more modern; check those smooth alloys. Still, the retro theme here is so obvious it’s like an actual slap in the face. That’s not such a bad thing, though–previous ventures have shown the niche market’s affinity for such things.

Of course, media mavens and public pundits have knocked the HHR black and blue over the car’s similarity to the Chrysler PT Cruiser, now in its fifth year. And the truth is, it is darn similar–we suspect the least car-savvy folks out there won’t even be able to tell the difference, or care. Essentially, they’re both retro-styled ‘vanlets’ based on an economy car, with good roominess (especially up high), lots of cargo versatility, and hip/funky/gen-X-appropriate ad campaigns.

Speaking of that interior, we were surprised to find that the inside of the HHR is actually about as retro as the Cobalt-sourced running gear–which is to say not at all. The only real nod to the “good old days” is the 5-speed’s chromed cue-ball shifter (unfortunately marred by a lack of heft and authentic feel; if it’s not actually plastic it’s a darn good imitation). In the main, though, we found the accoutrements to be surprisingly upscale; the optional leather seats, for instance, were about as supple as the suspension proved to be in a couple of rounds on the track… more on that later. The chrome-(plastic-?) ringed gauges were another classy touch. Automatic models get a standard remote-start function added to the keyless entry, too. And also of note, GM’s switchgear this year is finally up to par with the rest of the industry, and as an ‘06 model, even the lowly HHR gets a dose of this tactile treasure.

Storage and cargo capacity are major themes here. From the dashtop cubby to the removable shelf with grocery-bag hooks underneath and cargo net in back, you can pack a lot in this diminutive machine. There’s also room for four friends to sit comfortably, or you can configure the folding seats to carry larger loads. It all makes for a surprising little vehicle that can carry a whole lot.

We spent time behind the LT-trim HHR’s leather-wrapped, multifunction steering wheel in a number of settings. All in all, we found it to be reasonably competent in accomplishing the likely missions any owner would undertake. The LT models were both equipped with the uplevel 2.4-liter, 170-horse four-banger, which moves the baby box smartly–although without the performance edge the PT Cruiser GT’s 215-horse turbo offers. It’s got a distinctive exhaust note, though, best described as growly (or just plain loud, if you push it hard). Still, it’s quick enough on the street, although it’s worth noting that the base model’s 140-horse 2.2-L four also actually gives up 10 to the base PT’s motor.

[View with PicLens]

In the five-speed manual car we drove, the shifter was surprisingly precise, although we’d hesitate to call it a “short-throw unit” (unlike GM’s product planners, who made it part of the sport option package). We tend to abhor automatics in economy cars like this–they wreak havoc on acceleration numbers as well as gas mileage–and the HHR’s 4-speed slushbox is no exception to this.

Under the Cobalt is a competent front strut/rear torsion beam with coil springs suspension setup, which was tweaked with heftier spring rates and shock valving (part of a sport suspension package) in the tested HHR. Honestly, the upgrades don’t entirely compensate for this body style’s increased weight (over a Cobalt) and higher center of gravity. On just a couple laps around Pocono International Raceway’s road course, the HHR brought to mind more the ‘rocker-panel-scrapers’ of the ’50s than any modern sports machine. Grip was plentiful, however, and the car never did actually lose it. Even if you’re particularly impervious to motion sickness, we don’t recommend racing this puppy, but that’s not the point here anyway. The HHR showed decent street credentials, with a soft ride and plenty of oomph for everyday driving.

It will be interesting to see if Chevy works to have the HHR classified as a truck, as Chrysler did with the PT (until this year, when the decision was finally made to tap into the high-volume small-car market by touting it as such). GM’s public relations flaks bristle if you even mention the DCX twin to their newest baby, but how could we ignore this part of the story? The designers didn’t do too much to differentiate it; and unless the marketers can find a way to separate the two in the market, the ripoff factor will still be part of the HHR’s buzz. Which is too bad. When it comes right down to it, there’s very little that’s original about this car/truck/thing. But what’s original about the Chevy Impala, much-anticipated Ford Fusion, Mercedes E350, or even the wildly successful new Mustang? We’re not sure it matters so much if a concept is original–what does matter is the HHR is a well-put-together machine, with visual flair and a practical, useful layout.

In the world of basic transportation, it’s ubiquitous. Honda’s Civic compact has been a perennially popular automotive appliance for over three decades now–the best-seller for the last nine years. The baby Honda has been a true green machine, pleasing gasoline misers and pollution-preventers alike with its above average mileage, below average emissions, and all-you-need-and-nothing-you-don’t design.

But it’s always had a little something extra, too–a touch of street cred, since the days of the pre-CVCC 1300cc motor that you could buy baby headers and ‘hot’ cams for out of the backs of black-and-white buff books. Yes, the Civic has always been a reasonable, respectable choice for frugal ‘point A to B’ driving–but it’s also always had just a hint of performance potential as well. All that, plus a helping of reliability and a dash of value, has made the Civic the standard in the compact class–the one the other guys tear apart, trying to sniff out the magic inside–for almost its entire run.

For the last two generations of Civic, Honda has expanded upon those core values; extrapolating the model line in two very different directions, first with the Si pocket-rocket and later with the Hybrid. Within the next few months, dealer lots will become home to all-new versions of every Civic model, from the fleet manager’s dream DX to the top-line, leather lined EX; and from the fuel-sipping Hybrid sedan to the corner-carving Si. We recently spent a day driving preproduction versions of all the new models, and we think the boys from Suzuka have hit not one but four home runs.

First off, the basics. This eighth-generation Civic is entirely new, based upon a new structure that’s 30% more resistant to bending, and improved by 106% torsionally. Honda calls the advanced unibody design Advanced Compatibility Engineering (ACE), meaning it was designed to manage collision energy well in impacts with any sort of vehicle, from compact to SUV. The exterior look is all-new, too–more organic, much sleeker, and totally modern. Both coupe and sedan have grown, partially in response to our uniquely American penchant for ever-larger rides and partially in expectation of a new subcompact (based upon the foreign-market Fit or Jazz) to arrive on US shores next year.

Two body styles are offered. Each boasts a slim headlight/grille structure in one solid sweep; it’s smooth and just a tad aggressive. The sedan is sort of stubby, but the steep windshield rake–more than the NSX–makes it look sleek. At the rear, the four-door evinces a clean, basic look; we find it appealing enough for the compact class. Coupes are far sportier; with a longer hood meeting a chopped greenhouse, and a back end that almost mimics Toyota’s Camry Solara coupe. Both configurations feature a tire-to-fender gap of only about an inch, which gives a tight, balanced look you’d expect in an upscale auto. Honda anticipated upcoming pedestrian safety guidelines in the new Civic, too; the hood and windshield in all models were designed to minimize injuries upon impact.

Inside, all Civics get a radical upgrade, too. There’s a two-tier instrument panel, with a central tachometer below a digital speedometer flanked by temperature and fuel gauges. The cockpit-style look is different, but it works–unless you require a steep angle to the tilt & telescoping steering wheel, in which case the speedo can be partially obstructed. That wheel, by the way, has a new, oviod shape–again, it takes some getting used to, but it’s supremely comfortable. The audio/climate panel is simple yet elegant; we found it to be ergonomical and visualy pleasing. The console’s centerpiece is the shifter; the automatic’s level sprouts from a rounded mound of aluminized plastic, while the manual is more conventional. The armrest hides a cubby designed to hold 20 CDs in jewel cases. Other storage solutions about as well; there’s space for several cell phones and such, and the cupholders feature spring-loaded clamps to securely grasp all sizes of beverage. Even in stripper models, the look is new–and has enough trick features to seem upscale.

The engine family is all-new to boot. Base models get a 1.8-liter SOHC mill, with i-VTEC. Horsepower is up 25to 140; torque is also improved by 18, to 128 lb.-ft. Mileage is expected to average 30 city, 40 highway. A good ways up the food chain resides the Si’s 2.0-L i-VTEC powerplant, making an impressive 197 horsepower and 139 lb.-ft. Like previous Si motors, the real power can be felt at above 6,000 r.p.m.–it’s quite a rush–although a mileage penalty, of 8 m.p.g. city and 9 highway, is extracted. And for the green crowd, the Hybrid’s new powertrain consists of a 1.3-liter gas engine mated to an regenerative battery pack and high-power electric motor, providing 110 horses and registering 123 on the torque meter (thanks to the qualities of electric power, the torque curve is almost flat at above 1,000 r.p.m.). Good for 50 miles per gallon in any driving condition, this represents a gain in power and torque (of 17 and 18) as well as higher mileage (by 2-3 m.p.g.).

From the above paragraph, you’ve probably guessed that we jumped in the Si first (although that car will only make up about 15% of sales…but did we mention the 197 horses?). What you can’t get from the above, though, is just how much of an improvement–over other cars in the segment, and indeed over more pedestrian Civics–this is. Track time, in an improvised gymkhana, proved how buttoned down and powered up the new Si really is–it virtually killed the Eclipse GS and Scion tC on hand for comparison purposes. Peppiness is part of the story; sixty m.p.h. comes up in just over seven seconds. Some suburban road time, as well as a blast down a few rural back roads, really makes the case for this baby muscle-car, though. Sway bars at both ends, plus a tight front strut/rear double wishbone suspension setup, give the car a planted feel even under significant g-forces. It’s tight, although perhaps a little punishing on poor urban roads–and the buzzy exhaust note could become an annoyance on long trips. Power is surprisingly plentiful at all points in the rev range, too; although it’s the last couple thousand r.p.m. (’til the 8,000 redline) that really pin you in your seat. Speaking of seats, the Si has deep buckets, covered in faux suede, with the best bolsters this side of the Lotus Elise–just part of an interior upgrade that also includes blue ambient lighting and a shift light on the tach.

Swapping the Si’s keys for an EX sedan, we found ourselves in a much more sedate vehicle–but every bit as competent. The larger layout seems as roomy as a last-gen Accord. Body lean is evident in all but the most mild manuevers. Acceleration seems to be about mid-pack with the tight 5-speed manual–Honda won’t release a 0-60 time; figure on just under 10 seconds–although the automatic lags somewhat. That tranny may, in fact, be the sole notable slip in the entire package; it’s by no means awful, but as a true slushbox, it sucks palpable power from the drivetrain, and has trouble holding the right gear in any sort of spirited driving. Our only other complaint is the engine noise under full-throttle acceleration–despite claims of noise-reduction measures, the power-sander sound was loud enough to bug the heck out of us. The beige interior scheme seems toned down as well, although it still ups the fun quotient on just about all the competition, save maybe the Mazda3.

[View with PicLens]

Base Civics wear the DX moniker, and in keeping with Honda’s ubiquitous “safety for everyone” campaign, carry copious standard safety features–including six airbags, ABS with Electronic Brake-force Distribution, active head restraints, and the ACE body structure, along with power windows. The LX adds A/C, cruise control, 16″ alloy rims, keyless entry, and power locks. Stepping up to the EX brings a moonroof, a remote trunk release, a 60/40 split-folding rear seat, rear disc brakes, and steering wheel controls for the XM-ready audio system (350 watts in the coupe and Si; 160 watts in the LX/EX, with mp3 and text capability). The Si also adds a limited slip differential and electric power steering, in addition to the 2L mill and interior spiffs. Hybrids feature all the EX goodies, minus the moonroof and 60/40 seats to minimize the weight gain.

We also got seat time in the new Hybrid, which is differentiated from lesser Hondas by a small decklid spoiler and more aerodynamic rims. Offered in sedan form only, with a new, more efficient CVT as the only tranny option, this AT-PZEV-rated car is said to be 10% more efficient altogether. Designed to be able to operate under electric power only at low-speed cruising (under 25 m.p.h. and at low load; the last-gen Civic Hybrid was what’s called a “mild hybrid,” which never moves under electric power only), the second iteration of Honda’s Integrated Motor Assist system is a “great leap” type of improvement and should help close the gap with Prius sales. However, despite a 12% reduction in battery weight, the Hybrid still feels hefty–add that to the low-rolling-resistance rubber and other tuned-for-efficiency features, and you get what’s likely the least fun-to-drive Civic out there (including the last Hybrid, which at least could be ordered with a stick). Still, it’s more engaging than the Prius, and Honda claims better mileage as well.

Also of note: EX, Si, and Hybrid Civics can now be had with a navigation system. It’s tied to a voice-recognition system that allows drivers to simply speak their destination aloud, or perform hands-free audio system tasks. It actually works half the time; which is up about 45% on other such systems we’ve tested. The screen flips forward to expose the CD lot, and also hides a data port for iPods and Blackberry-type devices. A touch-screen interface is also featured. Although testing time was minimal, we found this to be in the top echelon of nav systems.

Firm pricing has yet to be announced; although a range of $14,000 to $22,500 was given. Expect the DX–which will make up only two or three percent of sales–to occupy the value slot, with the midlevel LX at around $16,000. EX models should bring an additional $2,000 above that, snagging a predicted 38% of sales. The special Si should run about $20,000 and the Hybrid $22,000; each should make up about 15% of production. The nav system should add about $1,250 to those figures. DX, LX, and EX models–coupe and sedan–should be available by September 15th; the Hybrid is coming in early October while the Si is slated for a December 1st release.

We haven’t driven a bad Honda in years; even the disappointing Del Sol was at least a neat idea. The 2006 Civic line is no exception to the brand’s winning streak. Soichiro Honda’s namesake firm has cranked out yet another class-leader, sticking to the formula of top-notch engineering, innovative design, and bulletproof manufacturing. True, the 2006 Civic does eschew, to a point, the usual “everything you need, nothing you don’t” philosophy–but we like it. More importantly, we expect the American buying public to like it…and the competition, forced once again to their drawing boards, to hate it. <

September’s Frankfurt auto show will be the site of the unveiling of the first *two* automobiles to bear the new Fisker Coachbuild moniker. This preview sketch hints at a pure two-seater sports car to be called the Tramonto. With a promised 610 horses under its rarified hood, the Tramonto’s performance will likely be more in league with cars like Porsche’s Carerra GT than anything from the Aston Martin line. Production will be limited to 150 units. Details on the second Fisker are being kept under wraps (aside from assurances that it will share the sexy FA-22 Raptor fighter-jet-inspired grille design), but again, we’ve been promised more information in Germany. As the Coachbuild badge suggests, these will be true exotics; essentially built-to-order, with a high degree of customer customization likely. An emphasis on technology and safety engineering–often somewhat lacking in exclusive cars like these–is promised in these handbuilt autos.

Henrik Fisker, recently of Ford’s Global Advanced Design Studio fame, is the man responsible for Aston Martins such as the DB-9 and the AM-V8 Vantage, as well as BMW’s sleek Z8 roadster. His design philosophy, expressed in the low-slung lines of his previous work, is clearly evident in the new Tramonto’s sketch. The Roadfly team will be driving a preproduction Tramonto next week; look for our first impressions on the home page shortly. With 60 mph expected to arrive in 3.6 seconds, the drive should be thrilling indeed!

Pricing on the Tramonto is unreleased, but expect it to be quite dear; performance of this caliber does not come cheap. Our sources tell us the figure will be in the neighborhood of $200,000, depending on options. Orders will be taken beginning September 13th. Production is scheduled to begin shortly, likely from the Fisker headquarters in southern California, as the cars are supposed to be available to well-heeled consumers by early next spring. For more details, check the www.fiskercb.com website.