As convertible weather gives way to snow tires in most part of the United States and Canada, the chances dwindle for seeing the newest cars in pristine condition. For reason of controlled environmental factors and the ability to better lure cold-snapped car enthusiasts, the indoor auto show season becomes a regular cure to the blahs that kick in during late fall.

From the late 1980s through to the beginning of the 2000s, the North American International Auto Show existed as the grand showcase for the United States automobile market. Mainly a showcase for General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Chrysler in their figurative backyard, strength of those companies magnetically drew Japanese as well as European manufacturers to the Detroit show.

At the same time as Detroit’s reign as an uncontested mega show, planners behind the Los Angeles Auto Show scheduled the exhibition a week ahead of the North American International Auto Show. This scheduling created a logistical nightmare for auto companies (in particularly the Detroit 3). Levelled with more criticism than Michael Bay from hardcore Transformers Generation 1 fans following the live-action trilogy adaptation, the Los Angeles Auto Show organizers finally bowed to pressure to reschedule their event in 2006. Instead of being the earliest North American major automobile exhibit on the yearly calendar, the Los Angeles Auto Show was moved to one of the latest in the year.

Following the weakened grip the Detroit auto manufacturers on the industry and the increased global focus in general, the Detroit North American International Auto Show is perceived to have lost some of its glamour. Adding the increased allure of an auto show in a generally warmer climate, the Los Angeles Auto Show has connected well in the car-centric California city. Some observers have also questioned lately if the LA car show could be overshadowing the Detroit display.

A question that must be asked when comparing the exhibit in Los Angeles and Detroit, is there a superior auto show?

Size of Exhibition

Both the North American International Auto Show and the Los Angeles Auto Show provides a chance for any visitor to lose themselves in the best of modern automotive culture. With the Detroit show housed in the Cobo Center next door to the Red Wing hockey team’s Joe Louis Arena, exhibition floor space is rated at 623,500 square feet. The Los Angeles Convention Center has 720,000 square feet of advertised space. Both auto shows boast additional floor space with some estimates quoting for the North American International Auto Show as utilizing almost a million square feet of room.

The past two edition of these annual auto shows were not dictated by the size of the convention centers. Since 2009, the auto industry presence at major auto shows is beginning to recuperate from the economic damage. While many had downsized their presentations, other automakers chose not to display at either the Los Angeles or Detroit shows. The biggest drop in auto brand participation at the 2009 North American International Auto Show involved luxury brands like Bentley, Rolls-Royce and Porsche deciding to sit out Detroit. Nissan and Mitsubishi had also been no-shows at the North American International Auto Show as a corporate entity. However, while some companies like Ferrari chose not to appear at Los Angeles as well, Porsche and Rolls-Royce found the auto show hosted inside the largest prestige car market of the United States impossible to miss.

Japanese brand Nissan was absent from the North American International Auto Show in 2010 and 2011 pledging to return for the upcoming 2012 edition.

Show Prices:

For both auto shows, general adult admission is $12 at the gate. For the 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Auto Show, individuals over 65 of age are given $8 show entrance while children under 12 are admitted free with an adult. From November 18 through to Thanksgiving Day, there is a $2 discount if entrants use the E-Ticket system to purchase show admission. The North American International Auto Show’s pricing scheme offers adults over 65 years with $6 admission while free admission for children only covers up to 6 years of age (7-12 year old children are admitted at $6).

In regards to any auto shows, local residents should scan regional newspapers and deal sites for coupons or discount offers on general admission.

Quality of Vehicles at Show:

The North American International Auto Show long had the ability to produce an impressive amount of global and United States automotive lovers with the first peak at the latest showroom vehicles. In the past edition of the Detroit-based auto show, the passion returned with 35 world car premieres bringing allure to the Motor City.

In recent editions of the Los Angeles Auto Show, new car debuts for the North American and world public has become more common. The debut of over 50 vehicles is taking place at the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show. During the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show, 21 world automotive debuts included the first presentation of the 2013 Ford Escape, 2013 Ford Shelby GT500, and the all-new Cadillac XTS.

With announcement still pending for the 2011 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, an early world premiere confirmation came from Toyota. The newest member of their hybrid gasoline/electric family, the Toyota Prius c, will work on outshining the domestic auto companies in their hometown. Detroit still remains a leading show for automotive design concepts. In 2011, an unfinished mock-up of the ninth-generation Honda Civic, Kia KV7, GMC Sierra All Terrain and the Ford Vertrek gave visitors of the North American International Auto Show is look into the future.

Event Attendance:

Thanks to a bullish auto industry recovery after the near ruins of 2008 and early 2009, auto show attendance in general has surged. With nine public days planned for the 2012 Detroit North American International Auto Show, the Los Angeles allows visitors an extra day. Through the 2011 edition of the North American International Auto Show, the organizers announced 735,370 spectators attended the exhibition. The Los Angeles Auto Show is more secretive on the event attendance at the past event (in 2010) but some estimates put visitor total at 900,000 people.

Los Angeles benefits include being held in one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the United States. The car culture of California is also a major draw pulling audiences to the Los Angeles Auto Show every year. Prestige auto brands like BMW, Porsche and Infiniti recognize how important it is for their niche products to appeal in a land where personal fashion

The North American International Auto Show could also benefit as a spectator draw to hockey fans through the course of the exhibition. For 2012, there will be three Detroit Red Wings home games at Joe Louis Arena coinciding on public exhibition days in the nearby Cobo Center. One scheduled event has the Red Wings hosting the Columbus Blue Jackets on a Saturday possibility presenting the perfect opportunity for families to make a full afternoon with hockey and automobiles.

The Conclusion:

I know the point of this article is to obtain an answer to determining the most superior auto show but there are some serious obstacles preventing me from making such a subjective call. Besides the competitive attributes both the North American International Auto Show and the Los Angeles Auto Show had through the categories, the car lover inside of me would happily attend any true celebration of automotive passion. For readers and auto show goers, the decision is left in your hands on where your motoring spirit is fostered.

Information source: Los Angeles Auto Show, North American International Auto Show
Photo source: Ford Motor Company, General Motors

Related posts:

1. 9th Generation Honda Civic Debuting at Detroit Auto Show
2. Mitsubishi Bails On Detroit Auto Show
3. New Car Debuts Awaiting at 2012 Detroit Auto Show

Before AMG was a performance package you could order for seemingly every model Benz that rolls of the line (and by the by, where’s my AMG Unimog?) they actually race cars for the great German firm. Not only that, they did race cars with some of the most unlikely of starting points. That all began 40 years ago when Aufrecht, Melcher and Großaspach, (Aufrecht’s birthplace), the founders of AMG had a go at race prepping a 1971 300 SEL 6.3 sedan and racing it at the 24 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps.

Yes, the 300 SEL 6.3 is the big, long four door sedan that bank presidents use to get from Munich to Hamburg, not something you’d expect to see on a race track, and certainly not on a track as serious as Spa, and certainly not for 24 hours.

But AMG was, and still is, damn serious about this performance stuff, so the then-four-year-old firm tore into Merc’s luxo-barge like Teutonic versions of Smokey Yunick. Sure, the 300 SEL 6.3 was Germany’s fastest production sedan, but it was also, shall we say, a bit portly and down on power. So AMG bumped the displacement to 6.8 liters and twisted the engine to crank out 428 horsepower and a stump-puling 448 pound-feet of torque. Weight was cut by using aluminum doors, which dropped the burden down to 3,637 pounds, versus the original 41,000 long tons … oh wait, that was the displacement of the Bismarck, my mistake. Let’s just say they cut it down by a bunch. Top speed: 164 mph. Not bad for something the weight of a panzer tank.

Bottom line from all those years ago in Belgium? The big Benz blew the doors off nearly everything else on the track and finished second, which immediately established AMG’s credibility as a tuner.

This coming weekend, Black Falcon racing along with AMG will pay tribute to the original racer when they compete again at Spa in a Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT3 wearing original matching livery to the old machine. Making things even more of a time warp is the fact that one of the three drivers will be Kenneth Heyer, son of Hans Heyer who was at the wheel of that legendary AMG sedan four decades ago. Cool, right?

“Forty years after our class victory and second overall place, I think it is a great idea to enter the Spa-Francorchamps race with the SLS AMG GT3 in the same look as ‘my’ 300 SEL. Naturally I wish the Black Falcon team and my son Kenneth every success – and will be delighted if he wins at least second place!” Hans Heyer said in a statement.

The AMG SLS, aka the new “Gullwing”, is a natural for racing, given its atrocious power and inspirational handling, if not it’s featherweight tipping of the scales. So you won’t be seeing just the Black Falcon SLS on the grid, it will also be joined seven other new Gullwings.

The original big AMG competed in a number of endurance races in 1971 and ‘72, even with its four doors, power steering, air suspension, carpet on the floors and wood on the dash, but was retired in 1973. A change in the rules cut displacement down to 5.0 liters, making the big sedan obsolete. AMG sold the car to French conglomerate Matra (of all people), which used it for high-speed tests of aircraft tires. After that, the 300 SEL 6.3 disappeared into the mists of time, and today, no one knows what became of the car. The racer shown here is a replica AMG built in 2006.

Source: Wired

Related posts:

1. 25 Years After Going Back to the Future; the DeLorean DMC-12
2. Panoz Back To ALMS Prototypes With Bio-Fuel?
3. The Back of the New Lamborghini

In the automotive world a battle has been raging since the early 1900′s on which one was better, the turbo or the supercharger. Like all epic battles- light beer or full flavor, regular or decaf, brunette or blond- some people just have an opinion and nothing will ever change that. The truth is turbos are members of the supercharger family, but they are worlds apart in the way they operate to deliver the extra horsepower we’re all looking for.

Superchargers are distinct from turbos in they are mechanically driven units, whereas turbos get their boosting powers from exhaust gasses. The supercharger can be belt, gear, or chain driven like other automotive accessories including the alternator and the power steering. While this allows for instant power availability, nearly 1/3 of the engines efficiency is eaten up by the unit, leading to the supercharger being labeled parasitic. However, if efficiency is a secondary concern and response and power are paramount, then the supercharger rules.

Supercharger

Turbo

The best set up according to Gale Banks in an interview he did with Jay Leno is to use two smaller turbos each injecting air into its own cylinder bank. While you still have the same draw backs as a single turbo, the lag is less significant and the power delivered is greater. But, superchargers won’t be left to the wayside in the attempt to deliver maximum horses with minimal draw. The future of supercharging is in electrically driven units. Controlled Power Technologies has a developed an electrical supercharger that provides 40% more torque at lower speeds as well as making available 90% of the units torque in less than 1 second, while also lowering emissions.

Like all great debates through time, the battle between supercharging and turbocharging may never be settled. As innovation drives science forward to create better, more efficient ways to achieve maximum power, the pros and cons will continually shift. All that will remain constant is our love affair with the spooling of the turbo, the whine of the supercharger, and a need for speed.

Related posts:

1. Forced Induction: Replacement for Displacement?
2. Porsche Takes Panamera Turbo into S Turn
3. SEMA 2008: Lamborghini Gallardo Twin-Turbo

I have this theory that any list, top ten, top five, top 100, whatever, are only there to start arguments, rather than be definitive statements. 99% of the time, I have no problem with Jalopnik. They are a rather funny and irreverent car site, and in addition to the standard fair of who’s releasing what ride or which car is getting yanked from production, they have a real penchant for top ten lists. Like I said, lists are there to start arguments, and this list leaves me with a big bone to pick with the boys at Los Jalops.

First off, let’s take a look at their list, then I’ll bitch a little bit, and then we can look at why their individual picks are cool.

Here they are:

10.) Jaguar D-Type
9.) Porsche 911 GT-1
8.) Jaguar XJR-9
7.) Chaparral 2F
6.) Ferrari 330 P3/4
5.) Toyota GT-One
4.) Audi R10 TDi
3.) Ford GT40
2.) Porsche 962
1.) Mazda 787B

Impressive list, no? Really, who can argue? All those cars were serious competitors, and most of them were winners. But do you notice anything missing? Any car that should be in there that’s not? Do the words “Watch out for the red Lola, the red Lola,” or “This isn’t just a thousand to one shot. This is a professional bloodsport. And it can happen to you. And then it can happen to you again,” or Steve McQueen knock anything lose?

Yup, for some reason, they didn’t include the Porsche 917 on their list.

The car that issued in a level of utter domination in Le Mans that anyone is yet to equal, (although Audi is starting to get close) and they didn’t include it in the list? Kind of strikes one as a mistake, doesn’t it?

Not only did the 917 win Le Mans over and over and over, but it is one of the most recognizable racing cars in the world, mainly thanks to the 1971 feature film starring Steve McQueen. Leaving it off the list seems like a major stumble to me.

But the rest of the list sure is worth noting.

Take for example number 10, the Jaguar D-Type.

The D-Type deserves to be on the list for a slew of reasons. The D was the first post war Le Mans car to issue into being the ongoing tradition of one car factory dominates and then gets knocked off the top of the mountain, only to be knocked off by another factory effort that then goes on to dominate for the next string of victories. And, the D-Type is gorgeous. And it also pioneered the use of disc brakes in racing.

At number 9 on the list is the Porsche 911 GT-1. Not only fast, durable and a winner at Le Mans (all of those are Porsche hallmarks, by the by), but it also closely resembled the road-going 911. Although only the chassis, taken from a 993-edition of the venerable 911, was road car sourced, everything else was pretty cool. The water-cooled engine came from a 962, for example. And when the GT1 finally did win over all, it gave Porsche their record-breaking 16th overall win at La Sarthe.

The Jaguar XJR-9, the eight-place car on the list, was the car that returned Jaguar to the top step of the podium at the 24 hour classic. In 1988, when it faced off against the might of the Porsche factory 962s, the XJR-9 was in the lead by the second lap. And despite the Jag suffering gearbox issues, with the car being stuck in fourth gear for much of the race, it won. That was the first time since 1980 that a Porsche did not win, AND it was the first time since 1957 that Jaguar did win.

Ah, the Chaparral 2F landing in seventh place. What is not to like about Jim Hall’s high tech racers from Midland Texas. OK, so they were kind of fragile and prone to breaking. But they did feature such neat bits of tech like a composite fiberglass chassis and a semi-auto gearbox. And this was back in the 1960s! Just check out the video, featuring Phil Hill and narrated by Chris Economaki, to see how cool.

Number 6, the Ferrari 330 P3/4. Really, this car needs to explanation. No, they didn’t win at Le Mans in 1967 (although they did come in one-two-three at Daytona the same year), but dear God what a gorgeous car. That’s reason enough right there.

The Toyota GT-One takes up the fifth place spot, and might be termed the best car never to win Le Mans. Toyota dumped trainloads of money into this beast winning the 24 Hours. It never did, but it was packed with enough tech to make a cruise missile pale in comparison, and seemingly had speed to match. Why did it fail at winning at Le Mans? A lack of reliability. A very un-Toyota like thing to do.

At number 4 on the list we see the Audi R10 TDi. Of course you have to put this car on the list. Speed, solid engineering, horsepower and torque. Lots and lots of torque. Did I mention it was a diesel? It is. Lots of people think that diesel = lack of speed and performance. Audi (and Peugeot) would beg to differ.

Of curse the Ford GT40 is on the list, coming in at number three. This was the car that blew Ferrari into the weeds and one of the few times an American manufacturer won anything on an international stage. Sure, it had an engine half again as big as what Ferrari was running, and a racing budget larger than the GDP of Ivory Coast, but it is damn cool and a winner. Nice video of the GT here:

At number 2 we have the Porsche 962. Essentially an IMSA spec 956 (they had to lengthen the wheelbase to get the drivers feet rear of the front axel line), but dayum these things were quick. And as reliable as an anvil. Porsche could stand on these things, literally all day and all night, and they still one, year after year, race after race.

And finally, the Mazda 787B tops the list. For starters, it’s the only Japanese car to win at Le Mans. For another thing, it’s the only rotary powered car to win the 24 hour race. And for yet another thing the four-rotor plant sounded like shrieking Harpies at full song. Just a terrible/gorgeous wail that most likely could be heard back in Paris.

So, that’s their list and my one addition … I think they seriously slighted the 917, and should have dumped the 911 GT-1.

Source: Jalopnik, lede photo from Fliker user Dave Catchpole.

Related posts:

1. Why Officer, Did I Do Something Wrong?
2. 20 Most Incredible Cartoon Cars Of All Time
3. Z Car Redesign? Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

So, turns out people don’t particularly like minivans anymore. Can’t blame them – they’re big, slow, hideous, mind-numbingly boring, and make you look like the ultimate soccer mom. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard some poor sap wistfully say “Yeah, I had to sell my [insert sports car] and get a minivan for the kids.” Well fear no longer, yearning car enthusiasts, a new(ish) breed of car-based SUVs are available to haul that family around, and you don’t even have to settle for a big, gas-guzzling SUV. Sell that minivan now – large, crossover SUV give you enough room to seat eight people and haul their crap around without trying to hide your face from passersby. Some would even call them stylish.

Honda has one called the Pilot, Mazda calls theirs the CX-9, and Ford’s got the Flex. Don’t think GM isn’t in on the game; they have (count ‘em) four large crossovers – all based on the same platform. GM offers the Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and the two we’ll be taking a look at today, the GMC Acadia and Chevy Traverse. All four serve the same purpose, but are for four different buyers. GM spokesperson Brian Goebel told me “The Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia appeal to distinct customer bases and are developed and packaged accordingly.” Styling differences are obvious inside and out, but we’ll go over that later. Assuming you’re brand-agnostic though, Goebel says “The Acadia offers more items standard in various packages (like rear camera), while Traverse customers are more value-oriented.” Mr. Goebel also said that the suspensions are tuned different based on customer feedback. Accordingly, I found the GMC’s suspension to be a bit too posh, as it tended to float and act unresponsive in the name of a softer ride. The Traverse felt more responsive and car-like in its handling.

Let’s talk about specs:

	Picture	Base Price	As-tested Price	Fuel Econ. (city/hwy)	Curb Weight (lbs.)	Max. Cargo (cu. ft)	Height (in.)	Length (in.)	Width (in.)
Chevy Traverse		$29,224	$42,675	17/24 mpg	4790	116	72.8	205	78.4
GMC Acadia		$31,740	$47,740	17/24 mpg	4722	117	72.8	200.7	78.2

You get the idea – they’re nearly identical. Same size, same transmission, same engine, etc. So which one to buy comes strictly down to matter of preference and budget. The Traverse, as Mr. Goebel puts it, is more “value-oriented,” meaning that it’s the entry-level version of the GM large crossover quartet. Personally, I like the Traverse better anyway. I think it looks better inside and out (although the Acadia felt higher quality inside.) The Chevy handles better, but the GMC takes bumpy roads with more elegance. Both seat up to eight, and have the same basic interior layout with a cargo capacity of 116/117 cubic ft.

Both come with a 6-speed automatic transmission and the same 3.6-liter V6 engine. In the Traverse, the engine produces 281 hp for the LS and LT trims, while the LTZ gets 288 hp due to the dual-exhaust system. The Acadia gets 288 hp across the line. It’s a good engine with plenty of pep. Both front- and all-wheel-drive layouts are available – AWD will cost you an extra $2000. We were given a FWD Acadia and AWD Traverse to test out, and I found the FWD layout of the Acadia to be slightly off-putting – it just doesn’t feel right having the front wheels alone power something this big – I’d opt for AWD.

In terms of styling, I found the Traverse to be the more alluring of the two, inside and out. The Acadia has a work truck appeal – boxy and rugged (and will look better with “dubs,” if that’s your thing,) whereas the Traverse is more modern with swooping lines, curves, and an attractive two-tone interior. Nothing wrong with either one – it’s all about preference.

2010 Chevy Traverse Interior

2010 GMC Acadia Interior

The primary differences between the Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia (other than styling,) lie in the equipment. The Traverse is offered in LS, 1LT, 2LT, and LTZ trim levels. LS is the base model, giving you standard stuff like 17-inch steel wheels, A/C, 8-passenger seating, and all power accessories. Stepping into the LT models gets you 18-inch alloys, parking assist, side-view mirrors with blind spot mirror, and for the 2LT, a rearview camera, power liftgate, bluetooth, dual-zone climate, and remote start. The top-of-the-line LTZ adds touch screen nav, heated windshield washer, heated and cooled leather seats, dual exhaust (with that extra 7 horsepower,) and 20-inch wheels.

The Acadia is better equipped as standard, and is also offered in four trims – SL SLE, SLT-1, and SLT-2. SL starts you off with 18-inch alloys, front and rear air, power accessories, and a six-speaker audio system with satellite radio. The SLE adds fog lights, power liftgate, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, remote start, bluetooth, leather-wrapped steering wheel, power seats, and rear parking sensors with back-up camera. SLT-1 buyers get bigger wheels, tri-zone climate, leather upholstery, 10-speaker Bose audio, and the SLT-2 adds even more stuff – bigger wheels, perforated leather, driver memory, and more available packages. As you could imagine, the Acadia can get expensive fast.

Before You Buy

Both the Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia are good at what they do, and strengthen the “new GM” image by exuding high quality, smart design, and personality. The engine and transmission are powerful with class-leading fuel economy. A few competitors to look at (if you weren’t paying attention before) include the Mazda CX-9, Ford Flex, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Veracruz, and Toyota Highlander.

Let dealers compete for your business and have the upper hand in negotiations before going into the dealership. Find the Lowest Price on Your New Car at CarWoo Today!

Related posts:

1. 2009 Chevy Traverse Unveiled
2. Chevy Traverse Named SEAMO 2009 Family Car of the Year
3. 2009 GMC Acadia SLT-1 Review

Pickup trucks have become an interesting anomaly in the automotive world. These vehicles, with a cab for people and a bed used for hauling or towing, they were originally built to do manual labor. No frills, no fun. Just the ability to start on a cold morning and work all day on the farm or construction site without issue.

Today though, things are radically different. Sure, trucks these days still promise to fulfill everything expected of them, but they are now much more civilized and comfortable, offering many luxuries found on more expensive cars.

But do the fundamentals still work? Are these two four-wheel-drive behemoths, the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab 4TRX and 2010 Toyota Tundra Double Cab, capable of working hard all day, then take the family out to dinner in the evening in comfort? I got to spent some time finding out.

Both the Toyota and Dodge have a multitude of things going for them right out of the box. Each truck can be had in a nauseating array of sizes, powertrains and be built stripped to the bone or swathed in opulence, with various different engine sizes, transmissions, gear ratios, and combustion options (in regards to the Ram). Underneath the skin, both trucks have a fully boxed frame and feel capable both on and off the road.

For this test though, the Ram and Tundra have a gasoline-fed V8, four-wheel-drive, and the mid-level cabin with a four-door extended cabs. Both are within a hair’s width of each other from bumper to bumper, at 229 inches, as well as width and height. Each truck comes standard with power controls, air conditioning, cruise control, two rows of bench seating, a tow hitch and a bed liner.

And that is where the similarities end. As both trucks, while matching in some respects, have a completely different feel inside, under the skin, and especially behind the wheel.

In the Dodge, engineers didn’t stray from the old ways: upright seating position, big windows, and simple dashboard ergonomics. The outside world is very visible in the Ram, which makes moving this big truck easier than expected. The dash is laid out in a simple, utilitarian way. Big rotary knobs, large-faced gauges and multiple storage places are found within and are very user-friendly. However, outside of the gauges, it is the typical Dodge dash, covered in awfully hard plastics that feel far too unsubstantial to be in a work truck. Cost-cutting continues when you look in places behind the rear seatback, where the edge of the trim and sound-deadening material is very visible.

The Toyota is a complete 180, with a more car-like feeling. There’s less window in the Tundra and the dash and door sills sit higher on the beltline, wrapping around the interior around occupants. The seats are more welcoming than the Ram’s, and with a more design-oriented dashboard, this truck feel more like a Camry than a pick-up. Unfortunately, the Tundra follows the Ram in poor dash materials and is ever worse in regards to radio and HVAC controls, which are positioned too far away from the driver. Additionally, outward visibility has been compromised via the higher door sills, make the Tundra a bit.

In regards to room, both trucks match each other with a very spacious with a slightly tight second row. Both rear benches can be folded up and out of the way for dry storage, and there are plenty of cupholders in both. In the Tundra, the rear seats have a touch more legroom, as well as more comfortably-raked seatbacks.

With its independent front and coil-spring rear suspension (no leaf springs found here), the Dodge glides over the pavement with appreciative comfort. Only large expansion joints cause a bit of rear end to hop since it still have a solid axle. Regardless, it is surprisingly civilized. It only gets better once you open the taps on the optional 390 horsepower 5.7-liter HEMI V8 and rip through five-speed automatic. I’ve never felt anything this large move so rapidly outside of a commerical airliner. Thanks to all that power, the Ram can carry up to 1900 lbs. in the bed and tow up to 10,450 lbs when properly equipped.

The Tundra, on the other hand, feels exactly like any pick-up driver would expect. It does have a mostly complaint ride, but the rear end pops up far too easily while the front bobs and weaves like a drunk football player. Loading several hundred pounds of fertilizer certainly helped keep the truck connected to the road. Luckily, with Toyota’s mid-range 4.6-liter, DOHC V8 pumping out 310 horses, the Tundra never felt underpowered, and is capable of carrying more weight in the bed (up to 1,595 lbs.), but not quite as much in regards to towing (up to 8600 lbs. as equipped).

The handling department is where the Toyota makes up some ground. Steering feel is meatier, with an acceptable amount of weight increase as steering angle progresses. The Tundra feels lower to the ground as well, giving the truck a more solid contact feel with the road. Maneuvering the Dodge is easy, as the light steering helps swing the truck around, but it is way too light and lifeless to really be anything other than an object to move the front wheel.

Braking is adequate for both trucks since both do come with four-wheel disks and ABS. With the Tundra feeling much heavier under distress braking. While the Toyota does stop well, the Dodge pulls up shorter, even with it’s knobby 17-inch Goodyears. The Toyota suffers in tight spots as well, as it feels very cumbersome in the local Kroger parking lot. The Dodge, on the other hand, feels surprisingly lithe and agile, even with a turning circle of 45 feet.

Don’t worry, each company did not produce a wussified trucks in the slightest, whether off-roading or hauling loads in the bed, there are no issues.

Tearing up each truck off-road showed that even though both are a bit unwieldy because of their length, the Dodge felt much more agile than the Toyota. The lighter steering felt quicker in tight passes and the more flexible rear suspension helped the big truck pivot its wheels much easier, making sure the 17-inch Goodyear Wrangler were never off the ground. The four-wheel-drive system with the optional TRX4 off-road package (underbody skid plates, 3.92 rear-end gear, and a limited-slip differential) never faulted once and the tires never lost their grip. With 401 lb. ft of torque, the Ram effortlessly climbed, crawled and forded anything I threw at it.

The Tundra, while just as capable, felt far larger and heavier than the Ram. Going up and over heaves in the ground or over rocks portrayed very top-heavy mannerisms. Comparing that to the Dodge, it made me feel very uneasy at times. It does come with a rear limited-slip, similar axle gearing and skid plates just like the Ram does, so it can take a beating without worry.

In the end, there is a clean winner here. Old Faithful beats out the new guy in almost every category. More towing, more agile and more enjoyable off-road makes this an easy choice. But don’t fault the Toyota. They have made a good truck which is just as capable as the Dodge. It simply tries to hard to be both a truck and a car, and cannot pull it off. Dodge did not mess with a proven formula and came out the victor.

Before You Buy

Let dealers compete for your business and have the upper hand in negotiations before going into the dealership. Find the Lowest Price on Your New Car at CarWoo Today!

Related posts:

1. 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 Review
2. 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Review
3. 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Review

Ah yes. Luxurious performance sedans. The cars for those who want power mixed with luxury, and got the dough to get it.

These include the haloed brands of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, and soon to come…Cadillac.

The above names are almost legend among performance sedan aficionados, well, the first two are. BMWs “M” series and Merc’s AMG have been hot-blooded contestants ever since their conception. Audi has their RS 4. Lexus made their debut into this category with their “F” series, but BMW and Mercedes have pretty much got this segment bagged. Then along comes Cadillac to wreck the party.

Now, Cadillac has never done well in the performance sedan category, and the first generation CTS-V pretty much failed against the likes of BMW and Mercedes. But from what I see about the new CTS-V, I think that this time, they’re actually gonna do quite well. Not only does the CTS-V look a lot better this time around, but it also is the fastest and most powerful sedan to ever come from an American manufacturer, and check this out: it just may be the fastest sedan in history.

The CTS-V is basically just a beastlier, more aggressive looking version of the highly praised CTS sedan. Crouched in attack mode under the hood is a 6.2 liter supercharged V-8 beast based on the insane engine from the Corvette ZR1. It produces a monster 556 raging stallions and 551 lb-ft. of torque. That’s CRAZY! Add that on to a stupendous 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds and a top speed of 191 mph, and you have yourself one mind-blowing Cadillac.

Take a look at the competition. Cadillac is obviously targeting the M3, though it can eat the M5 for lunch as well. As one blogger on motortrend.com put it, “I laughing at the $90k M5 right now and just crossed the GT-R off my list.” From the Mercedes lineup Cadillac has its sights set on the C63 AMG, and maybe even the E63 AMG. From Lexus comes the IS-F, and Audi offers the RS 4. All are great performance machines, and BMW and Mercedes have proved themselves time and time again. But do they match up to the insane CTS-V?

Comparison Chart:
(Format is Price/ Horsepower/Torque/ 0-60 mph)

M3: $57,000/ 414/ 295 lb-ft./ 4.3 seconds
—
C63 AMG: $56,000/ 451/ 443 lb-ft./ 4.1 seconds
—
RS 4: $67,000/ 420/ 317 lb-ft./ 4.4 seconds
—
IS-F: $57,000/ 416/ 371 lb-ft./ 4.2 seconds
—
CTS-V: $60,000/ 556/ 551 lb-ft./ 3.9 seconds

As you can see, the competition is impressive, but on paper, it just doesn’t match up to the CTS-V’s. Paper is paper though, and statistics are merely numbers. Which is why we have to see how it measures up to its rivals on the track.

One thing that got CTS-V fans really excited was the recent Nürburgring time. For those who are unfamiliar with the famed track, the magic time is 8 min. This is the time that all performance cars aim to beat, but very few actually accomplish that. Breaking the 8 minute mark has so far been mostly the domain of exotics. The BMW M3 got 8:15, which is considered to be a great lap time. For comparison, the Corvette Z06 gets a lap time of 7:43. The Cadillac CTS-V recently got a lap time of 7:59:32, breaking the 8 minute barrier by a hair. This is an unprecedented speed, and is the fastest sedan lap time in history. Which just about makes the CTS-V the fastest sedan in history as well.

So watch out everybody, ’cause there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s got big guns. 556 horsepower guns, to be exact.

Related posts:

1. 2013 Cadillac XTS, CUE To Debut at LA Auto Show Next Month
2. Cadillac DTS Takes a Final Bow
3. Cadillac Details New Product Offerings for 2012

Check out these two comparisons by Car and Driver and Motor Trend. Both feature the all new Dodge Challenger, and in both tests, the Challenger was pitted against its only current rival— the Mustang. Now, since the Dodge will only be sold in SRT8 trim for this year (the most powerful of the bunch), it’s only fair that it competes against an equally powerful Mustang. Car and Driver chose the Mustang Bullitt, and Motor Trend selected the Shelby GT500.

The Mustang was the first true muscle car in a few decades, and its retro fifth generation design stole the hearts of many consumers (and a good chunk of their change). The Mustang has been the undisputed champ, partly because it was a good car, but mostly because it had the segment all to itself. Now, however, the old ‘Merican pony is going to have to fight for its title, with the new Dodge Challenger the first to strike, and the Mustang’s most feared rival, the Chevy Camaro, due to brawl with both of them in 2009. From the looks of things, it’s going to be one heckuva fight.

Go to the links above for the comparisons, if you could care less about the tests but just want the results, I’ll have the gist of both tests, the winners, and a lot more pics after the jump.

Car and Driver’s Test

Their Challenger was a fiery muscle machine decked out in Hemi Orange, and the classic styling— the long hood short deck, squared off nose and back, and the humps over the wheels— is a toss back to the heydays of the American car. The Mustang Bullitt is actually a Mustang GT that went through the $3,310 Bullitt package. It is the exact opposite of the Challenger, opting for a more stealthy, under-estimated menace look. It comes draped in dark Highland Green, and grayed out wheels and the lack of flashy badges make this one mean machine.

The Bullitt isn’t just a visual mod, ’cause the Mustang’s performance gets beastly when the Bullitt badges are slapped on. The engine is a ___liter V-8 with 315 horsepower and ___ pound-feet of torque. This stealthy pony blasts from 0-60 in 5 seconds flat, and has a top speed of ___mph. Not too bad, but is it good enough to take on the Challenger? Well, the numbers say no. The Dodge’s 6.1 liter V-8 has 425 horses and 420 pound-feet torque, and together they get this machine to 60 in 4.8 seconds, as tested by Car and Driver, and on to a top speed of 170 mph.

Interior-wise, the Bullitt is nicer than the stock GT’s, but its use of plastics and overall simple feel instantly mark it as a Mustang. Exclusive to the Bullitt is a replicated engine-turned swirly design for the dash, and the aluminum ball that sits atop of the shifter. The Challenger’s interior was favored by Car and Driver, who praised the better seats and the roomier set-up.

Car and Driver did have complaints with both, and the biggest strike against the Bullitt was its uncomfortable ride, and the overall “racket of driving”. The only real Challenger criticism is its price tag, which at $40,208, is about $5,000 more than the Bullit’s. On the other hand, the Bullitt’s highlights include the snorty sound of the V-8, the smooth clutch, and the sheer joy of pure driving. The Challenger scored high marks with its beastly engine and performance, and its classy looks.

Motor Trend’s Test

Motor Trend’s Challenger came in silver, and is not as attention demanding (some might say obnoxious) as the bright orange one. The Shelby GT500, on the other hand, is undoubtedly hotter in blazing red with slick white racing stripes.

The GT500, though based on the outdated live axle platform, is a complete beast when it comes to performance— its screeching 5.4 liter V-8 pumps out 540 horses and 480 pound-feet of torque, and it blasts to 60 in a stupendous 4.3 seconds and on to a top speed of an electronically limited 155 mph. The Challenger, though outgunned, still ain’t no wimp, and it uses its 6.1 liter V-8 (yeah, it’s a Hemi), to produce 425 horsepower and 420 pound-feet torque. It scoots to 60 in a respectable 4.7 seconds, and to a top speed of 170 mph, all with the good ol’ American rumble of the classic V-8, compared with the less appealing supercharged whine of the GT500.

For the interior, Motor Trend was rather disappointed with the Challenger, and I am too. Seems like we both expected a cabin closer to that of the concept’s. But, of course, for some reason the Big Three can’t make a concept into a production model without making it worse. While the concept featured retro touches and flashier trim, the SRT8′s interior looks like it was lifted from a Charger or 300C, and just doesn’t look like it belongs in such a good looking machine. Motor Trend also laments the big ugly steering wheel, and preferred the sportier three-spoke version of the GT500′s. However, like Car and Driver they love the beefy leather seats.

Motor Trend didn’t give any opinions on the GT500′s interior, so I’ll inject some of my own. The whole cabin is a lot more attractive than the Challenger’s, which is plain and boring, not befitting of a top of the line SRT8. The Shelby, on the other hand, features blazing red seat and door panel inserts. Flashier trim and sportier steering wheel land this Mustang up front. Plus, it’s got that cool, evil little Cobra badge on the steering wheel to give a better first impression.

As for Motor Trend’s criticisms, the main one against the Mustang is its use of the outdated live axle platform, especially when compared to the Challenger’s fully independent suspension. Motor Trend did praise the GT500′s superior speed, acceleration, and handling. The biggest strike against the Challenger was the fact that it was almost too well-mannered. They wanted an exhaust with more crackle and boom. They also slammed the Dodge for not having a manual. I agree, as every muscle car, as a matter of fact, every performance car should be a manual. Automatics belong only in family sedans, compacts, and worthless things like SUVs and trucks.

Verdict

So who won? Car and Driver, after much deliberation, chose the Challenger. Better performance, better looks, and a better interior means it outscores the Bullitt in everything, though it was a close call.

Motor Trend, who compared the Challenger to the GT500, which is faster, more powerful, and more expensive, gave the number one to the Challenger as well. Perhaps the best way of stating why the Challenger won on both accounts is what Motor Trend said—

“It’s one of the closest comparo calls we’ve made of late, but the nod goes to the all-new Challenger from Dodge. The Shelby GT500 remains a fast and compelling piece, but the Challenger is simply a better-sorted automobile, a 20th-century icon reborn with 21st-century sophistication and poise”.

So the Dodge Challenger, which is brand new, managed to beat the Mustang on two tests. How did that happen? Well, in addition to the reasons given by both Car and Driver and Motor Trend, I think that people just got bored with the Mustang. Ever since its introduction in 1964, it has been ever present, a familiar face that is getting too familiar. The Challenger, on the other hand, looks good, is powerful, but more than that it’s new, and people are interested. That’s also why the new Camaro is so hounded by the press, because it looks good, it’s a muscle car, but most importantly, it is new, something different from the common Mustang.

Speaking of the Camaro, Dodge had better not get too confident from these wins and think the Camaro will be a pushover, ’cause GM won’t spare anything to make the new Camaro the best yet. So, as Motor Trend put it, “Kudos, Dodge, but remember: Don’t spare the sizzle for 2009. Retro Round Two, Challenger versus Camaro, will be here before you can say ‘time warp’”.

Challenger vs. Mustang Bullitt

Price (as tested): $40,208/ $31,525

Engine: 6.1 liter V-8/

Top Speed: 170 mph/

Horsepower: 425/ 315

Torque: 420 lb-ft/

0-60 mph: 4.8 seconds/ 5 seconds

Mileage: 13 city, 18 highway/ 15 city, 23 highway

Challenger vs. Shelby GT500

Price (as tested): $41,158/ $47,210

Engine: 6.1 liter V-8/ 5.4 liter supercharged V-8

Top Speed: 170 mph/ 155 mph (electronically limited)

Horsepower: 425/ 540

Torque: 420 lb-ft/ 480 lb-ft

0-60 mph: 4.7 seconds/ 4.3 seconds

Mileage: 13 city, 18 highway/ 14 city, 20 highway

Car and Driver Pics

Motor Trend Pics

Related posts:

1. Motor Trend, Hot Rod And Automobile Publisher Files For Bankruptcy
2. Best SUV of 2011? Motor Trend Names Land Rover Evoque SUV of the Year
3. SEMA 2008: Dodge brings a Viper powered Challenger

Recently, my brother moved from the Big Apple back to Pittsburgh for a new job. Since he would walk, take the subway, or catch a cab if he needed to go anywhere, he never needed a vehicle in Manhattan. However, the sprawling suburbs of the Steel City have not been blessed with an adequate public transportation system. So he is in the market for a new car.

The ideal car for him would be something small, four-door, and frugal on gas, but at the same time, fun to drive. There are plenty of vehicles that fit this niche, but after some initial searching and brand preferences, he narrowed it down to three choices: the 2008 Mazda3s Touring, 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, and the 2009 Toyota Corolla XRS. Each car was similarly equipped, with power everything, manual transmission, sunroof, upgraded stereo, sport-appearance packages, etc.

As my family’s resident car guru, I was invited along as a second opinion and to make sure he knew what to look for and how to feel each vehicle. So, I thought I would do a little comparison of each vehicle for you all to enjoy.

Three Versions of “Sporty”

As I stated earlier, each version of the vehicles test-driven were constructed with the sporty trim, with bigger wheels and racier bodywork. The Lancer GTS came with an aggressive-looking front bumper, a stylish wing, and larger 18-inch 10-spoke aluminum wheels riding on Dunlop tires.

Toyota’s entry featured a similar front bumper to the Lancer, with lower chinspoilers wrapping around the front bumper, a small wing and 17-inch wheel and tire combo. Compared to the other two, the Mazda was not quite in-your-face as the others, with its more tailored bodywork and 17-inch “snowflake” wheels.

In addition to the bodywork, each vehicle had the more powerful engine that was offered. Both the Toyota and Mitsubishi had 2.4 liter four-cylinder engines, while the Mazda came with a slightly smaller 2.3 liter. All came with their manufacturers’ version of variable valve timing in addition to dual overhead camshafts. Bolted to each engine was a five-speed manual gearbox.

While each car was gussied up (or not in the 3′s case), each had a much different feeling when out on the road.

The Mitsubishi, having been redone a few years ago and receiving a new 168 horsepower, 2.4 liter engine this year, is vastly improved over the previous generation. No longer will you strain to get the car into a higher gear, and there’s no need to downshift to a lower gear to accelerate. Plus, it is much smoother in its operation as well as been much less obtrusive.

The Toyota’s 2.4 puts out a slightly smaller power output of 158 horses, but it feels the most robust of the group. Full throttle acceleration was surprising and the only indication of acceleration was a muted exhaust and the swing of the tachometer.

Mazda’s smaller engine also had the smallest engine output, at 156 horsepower. But while down on the power, it was still able to accelerate with good authority from any speed and in any gear. At a drag strip, it would keep itself right next to the other cars.

What the Mazda lacked in power numbers, however, it made up for in pretty much ever other aspect of what a sporty car should be. The steering was the sharpest, with quick turn-in, good weight and feedback through the steering wheel, and little body roll. Clutch uptake was somewhat more weighted than the others, but it was the easiest to make quick, clean shifts. The shifter was also the better choice, with a short pattern and just-right weighted mechanism.

That doesn’t mean that the other two were hopeless. The Mitsubishi was easy to drive, with a balanced chassis and well-engineered steering that was sharper and more communicative than before. However, the shifter movement was far too light and vague to really row it when having fun. The clutch was short and effortless and is best suited for stop and go traffic, but not for smooth driving when pushed. Plus, it was impossible to heel-toe, as the pedals were spread too far apart.

The Corolla was the least fun to drive. The transmission has a nice short pattern as well, but it felt far too notchy to be quick or smooth. Clutch effort was similar to the Mitsubishi. But the worst part was the steering. It was incredibly over-boosted and lacked zero communication between the driver and the front wheels.

An Insider’s View

Each company created a different atmosphere in these cars. The best one is, of course, the Toyota. Every piece inside this Corolla felt and looked rich. The buttons were clearly labeled and uncluttered, the HVAC controls were large and the gauges were simple to use. Everything was in easy reach. Plus the Corolla had the most storage compartments of the other two, with its two glove boxes being the main attraction.

The Mitsubishi and the Mazda were close behind the Toyota’s, but were not nearly as screwed together as the Toyota. The Lancer has a similar easy-to-use layout, but was rather bland and had that economy-look and feel throughout. I thought I was going to break the seat height lever. The twin hoods surrounding the tachometer and speedometer made reading the cool and informative information screen stuck in the middle difficult to read.

In the Mazda, the interior was more of a conversation piece, with more style and pizazz than the others, but needed a few seconds to learn where all the buttons were located. Plus, the triple-humped gauge cluster made looking at the gauges difficult, although looked cool in red and blue when the headlights were turned on.

The roomiest car was the Mitsubishi, followed by the Toyota and the Mazda. The GTS had plenty of rear leg and headroom for the taller statue. The XRS was nipping at the Lancer’s heels with a similar amount of room, but felt narrower and would be a tight squeeze with three across. The Mazda was down on room, with tall passengers having to ask front seat passengers to scoot up a few inches for more room. However, headroom is much more prevalent here.

The driving position, though, goes to the Mazda. Behind the wheel of this car, everything was placed perfectly. The seat could be adjusted every way possible, and with the only telescoping wheel in the group, it offered tall people like me more flexibility. Pedal position was perfect in this car, with enough space where you won’t bump the gas when pressing the brakes, but can be heel-toed perfectly. The shifter falls right into place, as does reaching for the HVAC controls.

The Toyota was almost as good, but you sat too high, the wheel sits too low, and the pedals are too close together. It just felt overly snug for a car that shouldn’t have been. However, reaching all controls on the center stack was easy as was rowing the transmission.

Again, the Lancer falls to the back of the pack. While huge on the inside, you still sit too high like the Toyota, but the stretch to reach the radio controls was too much as was the need to reach far to the right to reach fifth gear.

How Much Is This Going to Cost?

These three cars driven were all similarly equipped and priced. The Mazda was the cheapest, at $20,325, and had the six-disk CD changer, sunroof and a spoiler. Just a few dollars away was the Lancer GTS at $20,540. This GTS came with the “Sun & Sound” package, which includes a sunroof and a fantastic Rockford Fosgate stereo. The pricier Toyota came in at $21,457 and came with a sunroof, six-disk changer, and a few other touches not worth mentioning.

Verdict

Although down on overall power and interior room, the Mazda3 overcomes those deficits by giving the driver the better looking interior, the more comfortable driving position and the superior driving experience, it’s hard to pass up on this car. Yes, the Toyota is better screwed together and the Mitsubishi has the more aggressive looks and huge interior, but when you feel that connection between driver and vehicle like you do in the Mazda, it’s hard to not want that every day of ownership.

Let dealers compete for your business and have the upper hand in negotiations before going into the dealership. Find the Lowest Price on Your New Car at CarWoo Today!

Related posts:

1. Mazda to Unveil Mazda2 Compact at LA Auto Show
2. New Mazda RX7 in the Works?
3. Ford Sells Portion of its Stake in Mazda

Ahhh….the sound of 454 cubic inches of raw untamed muscle coursing through my body, beckoning me to summon all of its inner demons with each crack of the throttle. Almost forgetting the laws of the land, I release the clutch, smash down on the “loud” pedal, and let rip every pony that existed in that motor all at once, singing to the tune of five thousand rpm, snapping both rear tires loose in a ballet of sideways movements that even the best ice skater would envy.

To look back on the time that you could actually do that and be admired by your friends and neighbors would take you to the days that you could buy one of the beast muscle cars for under four grand. People nowadays have spent years, countless hours a day and a ton of rolled up quarters and dimes to make that once famous entry into “cool” another reality. Although theres a simple solution that has come about within the last 10 years of automotive development.

Its the NEW age muscle cars!! Cant put together that 1968 Camaro sitting in your garage for the past 22 years? Buy a brand new one! With front and side airbags even. Want that rush of power that you missed since high school but cant seem to get it from your wifes minivan? Buy the new Dodge Charger!! Comes complete with a HEMI for all you wheel spinners out there.

What I’m getting at is that car companies are building our once beloved and most prized possessions for the lucky few that can afford them. Will this have an impact on your project car? Will this directly hit you in the wallet for resale value? Who knows. All I can say is that I really enjoy driving them. For the sake that I wasn’t around in the 60′s to really see what these cars were like off the showroom floors, I am given the chance to see several things with car companies building new hotrods and muscle cars.

I see that America, no matter how broke we are as a country, still has a grasp on what is cool to us, and that we are being thought about as owners and collectors of things that take us back to a better time and place. Nevermind the fact that filling once of these fuel hogs up is still costly, we forget all about that when we sit behind the wheel of that one car we never could have growing up.

So here’s the question…if history repeats itself, are we going to lose yet another era of cars that sacrificed practicality for fun? Or are we going to see this trend continue for further generations to enjoy? Think about this…cars wont fly like in the movies. I say keep building the oldies, bring back American heritage, and lastly….don’t forget about the big kids out there that still love to do that tire spinning ballet from time to time.

68 Camaro for sale

Related posts:

1. Lamborghini Not Going Retro
2. Digital Gauges From Retro Cars
3. And You Thought Your Resto Was A Pain

The newest concept from Peugeot is a 2+2 coupe that bears a striking resemblance to the current Mitsubishi Eclipse. Peugeot (pronounced “pooZHO” in case you’ve ever wondered,) calls this new car the 308 RC Z. Don’t expect to be impressed with tire-smoking abilities here; this concept is more about elegant design. However, the 308 Concept houses a 1.6L 218 horsepower turbocharged Inline-4 Cylinder which can get you from 0-60 mph in 7 seconds – not shabby for an efficient everyday driver, but it’s no Ferrari.

The overall design of the car is elegant, if you can tell if it’s coming or going. The rear and side profile looks a bit like a new Mitsubishi Eclipse:

Peugeot 308 RC Z Concept Photo Gallery:

More photos…

Related posts:

1. 2008 Paris Motor Show: Peugeot RC HYmotion4 Concept
2. Electric Hybrid Peugeot 908 HDi Diesel at Le Mans
3. Fiat & Peugeot-Citroen Merging?

Infiniti Coupe Concept Interior:

2008 Infiniti G37 Coupe Interior:

I understand when companies have to change designs because it was only “proof of concept,” but usually those designs are extreme. The interior on the Coupe Concept was not extreme or even very much more expensive to manufacture. Why they reverted to using the G35 Sedan’s interior I’ll never know, but I certainly would have paid extra to have a really cool interior like the Concept.

Related posts:

1. Infiniti G37 Coupe Prices Revealed
2. 2008 Infiniti G35 Coupe Sketch
3. Infiniti G37 Coupe

Last update to this list: December 8, 2010

Bugatti Veyron Super Sport

Top Speed: 268 mph

1200 Horsepower

Not to let SSC’s Ultimate Aero supercar keep Bugatti in second place for long, the French supercar company slapped bigger turbos and intercoolers on their previous world record holding Veyron to produce a seriously impressive 1200 horsepower. The Veyron SS still houses the same 8.0-liter quad-turbocharged W16 engine, but now produces 200 more horsepower. To handle the extra speed and power, Bugatti also had to revise the chassis and suspension. Only 30 Veyron Super Sport models are expected to be produced. Interestingly, the 30 cars sold to the public will be electronically limited to “only” 258 mph.

SSC Ultimate Aero

Top Speed: 256 mph

1183 Horsepower

Boutique supercar maker Shelby Super Cars (SSC) unleashed the Ultimate Aero in 2007, destroying the more expensive Bugatti Veyron’s top speed record. The car in question was a 2007 model – since then, SSC has upgraded the Aero to include an all-new twin-turbo V8 engine (half the size of the Veyron,) producing 1287 hp, giving the car a theoretical top speed of 290 mph. Nope, that’s not a typo. It’s also theoretical. SSC says given a long enough road, they could get the car up to 270 mph. That would break the Veyron’s record again, but let’s see if they ever get around to it.

Koenigsegg CCXR

Top Speed: 250 mph

1018 Horsepower

Although the Koenigsegg CCR broke the top speed record in 2005 on a totally unfair circular track, the updated CCXR has a better engine, aerodynamics, and, well, pretty much everything else. I’d love to see the Swedish company get this out on the VW test track, which is the same track on which the Veyron was tested (and a straight line, not a circle.)

Saleen S7 Twin-Turbo

Top Speed: 248 mph

750 Horsepower

Saleen’s first car not based on an existing model, the S7 supercar grabbed a lot of attention when it was released in 2000. An updated Twin-Turbo model followed shortly afterward, providing 750 hp and a 248 mph top speed. Saleen offers a competition package increasing power to 1000 hp, which brings the top speed up to a rumored 260 mph. Interest has dropped for the S7, but if they can come back and claim a top speed close to Bugatti and SSC, we might see some more of Saleen’s supercar in the near future.

McLaren F1

Top Speed: 240.14

627 Horsepower

Can you believe this? The McLaren F1 was made in 1994, and it’s still one of the fastest cars in the world. This happens to be the first car on this list I would purchase if I had the cash. Produced from 1993 to 1998, the F1 still sells for well over $1 million each, and I have a feeling it will only appreciate over the years. This is a timeless car and will remain on the all-time greatest car list for decades to come. Even though it’s no longer the fastest production car in the world anymore, it’s still the fastest naturally-aspirated road car in the world, sporting a special 6.1-liter V12 capable of biting your head off.

Ferrari Enzo

Top Speed: 226 mph

651 Horsepower

Ferrari’s most recent mega-car seems to have people crashing it left and right, but the drivers always walk away fine (physically.) With only 400 Enzos ever made, the value of the car goes up with each wreck. Sporting a naturally-aspirated 6.0-liter V12, the Enzo is beginning to show its age, but remains one of the fastest cars in the world. Until Ferrari’s next mega-ultra-super-duper-car, of course.

Aston Martin One-77

Top Speed: 220 mph

750 Horsepower

The newest entry in our list, the Aston Martin One-77 is a very limited edition (only 77 made, who’d have thought?) supercar. Originally the top speed was estimated at a relatively paltry 200 mph but later tests confirmed a top speed of 220.007 mph. The 3,307 lb car can rocket from zero to sixty in 3.5 seconds thanks to its 750 horsepower, 7.3-liter V12 engine and six-speed automated manual gearbox.

Pagani Zonda F Clubsport

Top Speed: 215 mph

640 Horsepower

Powered by a 7.3-liter AMG-built V12, the 640 horsepower Pagani Zonda F Clubsport created ripples in the car community when it lapped the Nürburgring’s Nordschleife test track in only 7:24.7 seconds. A very impressive car – I’m actually confused as to why it’s not higher on the list, although Pagani claims that without the car’s aerodynamic equipment (added to increase cornering ability,) the Zonda F Clubsport would have a top speed of 220 mph.

Jaguar XJ220

Top Speed: 213 mph

549 Horsepower

Even older than the McLaren F1, the Jaguar XJ220 has been on this list since 1992. Sporting a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6, the XJ220…wait…a 3.5-liter V6? 217 mph in 1992? That’s some seriously impressive engineering. Be sure to check out the Pininfarina version as well.

Lamborghini Murciélago LP 670-4 SV

Top Speed: 213 mph

661 Horsepower

Another car I’m surprised isn’t higher on the list. The Murciélago LP 670-4 SV is not only the fastest Murcielago ever produced, but the fastest car Lamborghini has ever made, sprinting from 0 to 60 mph in only 2.8 seconds and hitting that 213 mph top speed. This is the last Murcielago variant Lambo is making – there have been plenty of rumor of a successor.

Pushed off the Top 10 List:

Porsche Carrera GT – 209 mph
McLaren Mercedes SLR – 207 mph

Related posts:

1. Fastest Production Cars in the World – Quick Update
2. 2007 Hyper-Cars: What’s New?
3. The Ten Most and Least Expensive Cars to Insure in 2011

I know it’s a drawing next to a picture, but you can use your imagination You’ll notice a few differences between the two, most noticeably the front bumper. You can see that they scratched the two wide, sleek air intakes in favor of a larger intake in the center, with two smaller intakes on each side. There are a few other changes as well, and to be honest, I’m rather disappointed. When I saw the Coupe Concept at the 2006 Chicago Auto Show, I fell in love with it and didn’t want them to change anything; it was perfect. Of course now they have to change things around and try to make it look more like the sedan. It’s not that the sedan is ugly, it’s a great looking sedan. I’m tired of coupes with exceptional potential being clones of their sedan counterpart, with two less doors.

Infiniti, if you are reading this, please PLEASE do not change the Coupe Concept. I will buy the car I saw at the Auto Show, but if it starts getting transformed into the sedan with less doors, I’ll have to pass.

Related posts:

1. Infiniti G37 Coupe Prices Revealed
2. Infiniti G37 Coupe
3. Infiniti G37 Interior Comparison

The new Acura concept is expected to have a powerful front-mounted V-10 engine, and use a brand new, high-performance rear-wheel drive version of Acura’s exclusive Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (SH-AWD). The LED headlights are styled to mimic the NSX’s original pop-up headlight design (while closed, of course.)

Take a look at the comparison pictures of the new Advanced Sports Car Concept and the previous HSC Concept:

Advanced Sports Car Concept front:

HSC Concept front:

Advanced Sports Car Concept side:

HSC Concept side:

Advanced Sports Car Concept rear:

HSC Concept rear:

The pictures are as close as I could get to each other, so sorry about the differences. The rear of the new concept is much better looking than the HSC Concept, but they lost a lot of the sleek, sexy lines and went with the high-tech look instead. Not that it’s a bad thing though, it’s all about personal taste. I personally like the old concept better, but maybe that will change when I see it in person at the Chicago Auto Show next month. What do you think about the new concept compared to the old one?

Related posts:

1. Acura to Rival Bentley, Maybach
2. Details on Acura NSX, Preview Concept Coming To Detroit
3. Audi R-Zero Electric Sports Car Concept