Review: 2015 Honda CR-V Touring

 

Refreshed, redesigned or updated, whatever you want to call the changes to the CR-V for the 2015 model year, it’s hard to argue with this model’s success. The CR-V isn’t just the best-selling compact crossover in America, it’s the best-selling crossover period and the 7th best-selling vehicle overall. With sales success on the line Honda did what any Japanese company would do: make minor changes that give you more of what shoppers want without upsetting the apple cart. Does that make the CR-V just right? Or is it a compact bore-box?

Honda gave the CR-V its last redesign as a 2012 model year vehicle. The “old Honda” would have allowed the CR-V age unchanged for 5-6 years, but the new Honda seems to prefer making incremental changes to keep things fresh. While the 2012 CR-V wasn’t the same kind of mis-step the press thought the 2012 Civic was, competition is fierce and the 2012-2014 CR-V’s performance and fuel economy weren’t exactly compelling.

Exterior
Because this is a refresh and not a redesign, none of the “hard points” in the vehicle changed. Up front we get more modern looking headlamps with LED DRLs in most models and the fog lamps became rectangular. The grill has lost the Ford-like horizontal slats in favor of a simpler design with a larger Honda logo and a chrome “smile” reminiscent of the Accord and Civic. Changes to the rear are similar with new lamp modules, a tweaked bumper with silver painted inserts, more chrome on the tailgate and a style that still reminds me of a Volvo wagon in a way.

Interior
The CR-V’s interior slots somewhere between the Civic and the Accord in terms of both quality and theme. The instrument cluster is [thankfully] styled after the Accord with a large central speedometer flanked by three additional physical gauges.  The small monochrome LCD in the center of the speedometer is still a novel concept, but five years after Honda launched this look it is starting to feel dated compared to the large color LCDs you find in some of the competition. The dashboard and doors are a combination of hard and soft plastics which is again a middle road between the Civic and the Accord. For 2015 Honda has added a few extra features to keep things fresh including a standard console armrest, telescoping sun visors and rear HVAC vents. Since the CR-V never suffered from the unfortunate amount of questionable plastics that the 2012 Civic had, Honda spent the interior budget largely on the infotainment system.

Infotainment

Base CR-V LX models get a 4-speaker 160-watt sound system controlled by large physical buttons and the same small screen that also handles trip computer functions (at the top of the picture above). Thankfully EX and above (which are the majority of sales) use essentially the same 7-inch touchscreen system found in the current Honda Civic with physical buttons instead of touch-controls. Dubbed HondaLink Next Generation, this is not the same system you find in the Accord. Rather it is Honda’s lower cost alternative which I think is also a better value. While there aren’t as many built-in features as you find in the Accord, this system has all the basics like Pandora and Aha streaming, Bluetooth and USB/iDevice integration and available factory navigation. Unlike many systems however it also supports iPhone integrated navigation via a $60 app. (Sorry Android users, there is no love for you at this time.) Unlike the BrinGo navigation we find in certain GM products, this solution doesn’t just store data on the phone and have the head unit render the mapping interface. Instead the iPhone is generating all the video and processing touch inputs but the head unit is displaying the video via an HDMI cable. Shoppers should note that this is not Apple CarPlay but Honda’s own solution that was created prior to CarPlay and is not upgradeable to support Android Auto or Apple CarPlay. For occasional nav users this represents a significant discount over the factory software (assuming you have an iPhone) but there are some limitations. Your iPhone has to stay on the nav app for the system to work, so if you check your email at a stop light, the nav map will disappear. Your iPhone’s data plan will of course get consumed and if you’re out of a coverage area then your mapping will be limited or non-existent depending on how much your device has cached.

Drivetrain

The biggest change for 2015 is under the hood where we find a revised version of the 2.4L “EarthDreams” four-cylinder engine we saw in the 2013 Honda Accord. For 2015 Honda has added counter-rotating balance shafts to try and help cancel out some of the vibrations. Power stays the same as before at 185 ponies, but torque is up to 181 lb-ft and across a broader range than in 2014.
In order to improve efficiency, Honda does something a little different with this 2.4L engine, they offset the cylinders about 8mm from the engine’s centerline. This trades reduced friction for increased vibration, hence the need for the additional balance shafts. The balance shafts certainly help, but some customers have complained about the added vibration especially at idle and indeed it is not as smooth as the 2014 model. Is the vibration worth a 4 MPG bump in the city and 3 MPG improvement overall? I’d say so, but be sure to sound off in the comment section. Also improving economy is an AWD capable version of the CVT found in the Accord bumping the numbers to 27 / 34 / 29 (City / Highway / Combined) for FWD models and 26 / 33 / 28 for AWD.

AWD Controversy

My favorite Swedish magazine, Teknikens Värld, has a winter capability test where they put the test vehicle on a slope and the front wheels on rollers. The test is to see if 100% of the engine power can be sent to the rear wheels. Note that the 100% is essential here, because the incline and front wheels on the rollers makes sure no traction exists on the front axle. The CR-V failed this test because Honda’s AWD control system is programed to not lock the clutch pack if it detects zero traction up front and 100% in the rear. It also appears that traction control was disabled in the test. (The CR-V is not designed to be RWD essentially.) You will note in the diagram above that this type of system can lock the center clutch pack and get a 50/50 power split front/rear like a vehicle with a traditional transfer case, or it can slip that clutch pack to vary things from 100/0 to 50/50 assuming no wheel slip.
When wheel slip occurs, something different happens. Say just one front wheel sips. The front differential, being an open unit would send power to the wheel that is slipping, this action essentially causes the power balance to shift to the rear up to a power balance around 20/80. Leaving the traction control on, the slipping front wheel would be braked until it was spinning the same relative rate as the others. This would return the system to a 50/50 power balance because even if the front wheel was up in the air, the brakes on that wheel would be “consuming” the 50% of the power on that axle to maintain the power balance. The CR-V’s AWD system is designed to operate in this 50/50 window without issue. With your front wheels on ice and your rear wheels on tarmac, the front wheels will always have some traction and the traction control will help keep things in balance. Similarly in off-camber situations in snow with one wheel in the air, the brake based system will keep things in line. Pop the CR-V up on rollers however and the system things something is wrong.
The bottom line is that the CR-V is not a Jeep Cherokee, it was not designed with locking differentials and not designed with the Rubicon Trail in mind. It was however designed with the urban jungle and 2015 snowpocalypse in mind and 99.9% of shoppers will never even know there was a controversy. If you’re the 0.01% of shoppers that lives in a roller factory, there could be an issue of course. Is the Jeep system “superior?” Yes, but for most folks it’s also overkill.

Drive
The popularity of the CR-V is no surprise when you get behind the wheel. The CR-V drives like a slightly taller Accord which makes sense as the ground clearance has dropped over time as the CR-V has transformed from trucklet to tall wagon. The compact CUV doesn’t handle as well as the Mazda CX-5, but the wide tires, relatively light curb weight and moderately firm suspension certainly place the CUV at top end of the segment.
Thanks to the improved torque band and the continuously variable transmission (CVT) that has a much lower starting ratio than the old 5-speed (13.3:1 vs 11.7:1), the CR-V is notably faster off the line and hit 60 MPH nearly second faster than the 2014 model. Similarly the higher effective “top gear” ratio is the key to the CR-V’s large jump in the fuel economy score. As with the Accord and Civic which also use Honda’s new CVT tech, the CR-V’s transmission changes ratios much more rapidly than the Nissan Rogue’s more traditional CVT. The feel is more like a stepped automatic’s downshift than the rubber-bandy feeling you get in the Nissan.

Thanks to the programming of the CVT, fuel economy has indeed improved over the 2014 model coming in at 27.5 MPG, just 1/2 an MPG shy of the EPA rating for our AWD tester despite my commute over a 2,200ft mountain pass daily. Thanks to the lower torque band of the EarthDreams engine, the CVT can keep the engine at a lower and more efficient RPM more of the time. Unfortunately higher torque outputs at low RPMs tend to highlight the new engine’s cylinder offset which, as I said earlier, trades smoothness for efficiency. Many of you on Facebook asked if I encountered the vibrations that some shoppers have complained about and indeed I did. Was it bad? No. Was it noticeable? Yes. Would it keep me from buying the CR-V over something else? No, because for me the MPG improvement is enough of an incentive to overlook it.
2015 also brings some tweaks to the suspension and sound insulation improving ride and cabin noise by a hair. Perhaps the biggest change for the CR-V out on the road has nothing to do with the driveline or suspension however, it’s the infusion of some Acura driving aids. The new Touring model comes standard with radar adaptive cruise control, a lane keeping system that steers you back into your lane and Acura’s Collision Mitigating Braking System or CMBS which will autonomously brake the vehicle if it believes a collision is imminent and you’re going above 10 MPH. While this isn’t breaking any ground, it does help the CR-V stay competitive with the Forester’s camera-based EyeSight system and the Cherokee’s latest radar based features. The Honda system isn’t as smooth as the Jeep system, but it is more natural than the Subaru system, works better in poor weather where the camera systems become less functional and supports a broader range of speeds.

Ranging between $23,445 and $32,895 the CR-V straddles the middle in this segment after you’ve adjusted for feature content. The Forester is less expensive and more capable, but the interior is more down-market, no surprise since the standard AWD means it starts about $2,500 less than a comparable Honda. The Cherokee is the most rugged and capable vehicle in this segment but the off-road ability takes a toll on cargo room and handling while bumping the curb weight north of 4,000lbs in some trims. The RAV4’s latest redesign saw the demise of the optional 3rd row and the V6, (the two prime reasons for buying a RAV4 over the CR-V) and the addition of plenty of questionable plastics on the inside. Mazda’s CX-5 handles extremely well but isn’t as comfortable or as large inside and until the 2016 model arrives, the infotainment system is archaic.
Oddly enough, the fact that the CR-V fails to be the best in the segment in any particular category is actually the key to its success. It’s easy to create the cheapest or best off-road compact crossover (the bar is after all kind of low), a little harder to make the best handling crossover, but making a crossover that averages consistently high marks in every category is quite an undertaking. While the CR-V’s AWD system has received bad press, the same thing applies there. The AWD system isn’t the most capable in this segment but it is perfectly acceptable and won’t leave you stranded on your way to Aspen. The CR-V may lack the charm it once had, but it is still the best all-around vehicle in this segment.

Honda provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Specifications as tested

0-30: 3.2

0-60: 7.79

1/4 mile: 16.4 Seconds @ 87.5 MPH

2016 McLaren 675LT fully revealed

McLaren's hot, new 675LT is a higher-performance variant of the 650S, and the LT portion of its name is derived from the wild 1997 F1 GT "Longtail" homologation special. That rare McLaren menaced the road with radically lengthened bodywork, racy aerodynamics, and a better power-to-weight ratio than the car on which it was based. The 675LT has two of those things, but its tail? Quite vestigial, we'd say.

In fact, the 675LT is just 1.5 inches longer than the 650S, and it appears a decent stretch of that extra length comes from the sports car's epic chin splitter. The rest goes to a slightly longer active rear spoiler that McLaren claims is 50 percent larger than the one fitted to the 650S. McLaren says that a "focus on outright performance, weight reduction, and ultimate levels of driver engagement" define a Longtail, so maybe we're just being too literal. That said, the mighty F1 GT Longtail got more tail—the car was a full 25 inches longer than the regular F1—not to mention a full aero kit that entirely altered the supercar's visuals.

Setting aside the 675LT's length issue, there's little question it'll be an epic thing to drive. The 650S on which it is based is no slouch, and McLaren says it swapped out more than a third of that car's parts to reduce weight and increase power. Standout visual differences include a louvered plexiglass rear window; a contoured, P1-like rear fascia with thin horizontal LED taillights and two big titanium exhaust outlets; a plethora of extra scoops and vents; and a carbon-fiber aerodynamics package. The 675LT is 220 pounds lighter than the 650S, thanks to the plastic rear window, additional carbon-fiber body panels, a redesigned exhaust system, and carbon-fiber seat shells.

The same twin-turbocharged 3.8-liter V-8 bolted between the 650S's rear wheels is present here, but McLaren massaged it for an extra 25 horsepower and 16 lb-ft of torque. While the car's name is drawn from its 675 metric power, we tabulate its might as 666 devilish horsepower and 516 lb-ft of torque. With less McLaren to haul around, the V-8 punches the 675LT to 62 mph in a claimed 2.9 seconds—0.1 quicker than McLaren's stated time for the 650S—and on to a top speed of 205 mph. The LT uses the 650S's seven-speed dual-clutch automatic, and power is still routed to the pavement through the rear wheels.

Polaris Slingshot Three-Wheeler

The Polaris Slingshot SL you see here is red, but base versions come in only one color: titanium metallic. One might call it gray, as in the gray area between cars and motorcycles, a regulatory DMZ where few dare to tread.

Yes, the Slingshot is a three-wheeler, a reverse trike, the ol’ tripod. Three points make a plane, but it’s not plain whether Polaris will be able to convince state bureaucrats that this contraption belongs to the motorcycle family. Freedom-loving Texas, for instance, will happily let you park your helmetless carcass on a Hayabusa, but it blocked sales of the Slingshot on the logic that it has bucket seats and is thus not a motorcycle. Go back to the drawing board and come back when it’s more dangerous.

Indeed, the Slingshot has waterproof seats, three-point belts, and forged aluminum roll hoops. It has a steering wheel and a five-speed manual transmission, with reverse. The view ahead is of two wheels sprouting from forged aluminum control arms, flanking a long hood that conceals a longitudinally mounted GM Ecotec 2.4-liter four-cylinder. A familiar piece from the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky, here it makes 173 horsepower and 166 pound-feet of torque. From the front seats forward, it’s kind of as if you’re driving Mad Max’s Saturn Ion.

It’s behind the front seats where things get really weird. The steel space-frame chassis comes to an abrupt end, sprouting a gigantic swing arm that rides on a coil-over. The back half is propped up by a single wheel shod with a 265/35R-20 Kenda car tire (base models get an 18-inch rear wheel and tire). A driveshaft runs between the transmission and final-drive unit, which connects to the rear wheel via a carbon-fiber-reinforced belt. At 149.6 inches long and 77.2 inches wide at the front, the Slingshot has some singular proportions. It’s nearly eight inches shorter than a Mazda MX-5 Miata and a couple of inches wider than aLamborghini Huracán.

The base Slingshot has no windshield, but our SL had the optional medium-height screen, which is just about tall enough to keep the bugs out of your teeth but not from splattering against your forehead. Each seat has an integrated, molded headrest that’s defiantly convex and forces your head down when you’re wearing a helmet. The solution is either to recline the seat enough to get the headrest out of the way or just forgo the helmet. Sans lid, the Slingshot delivers the airy feeling of exposure you get in a vintage roadster, a sense that you could hang your left arm out and graze the pavement with your fingertips. In that way, this exercise in futurism is more like a Datsun 1600 roadster than any modern car.

The wide forward footprint means that the front end is stable, but the Slingshot doesn’t have a car’s commitment to a straight path. The rear end is a puppy, f­ollowing along wherever you go, but also stopping now and then to sniff the shrubbery. Even with stability control activated, you can get a wiggle from the tail on a strong 1-2 shift. The GM four-banger at first seems a disappointing choice for power, but it turns out that 173 horsepower is quite a bit for a vehicle that (a) weighs less than 1800 pounds and (b) has one drive wheel.

Large-radius corners require a lot of small steering corrections; tight stuff is more the Slingshot’s specialty. Turn-in from the electrically assisted steering is almost startlingly immediate, as there’s not much rear grip to resist a change in direction. A Slingshot would be a riot on the Tail of the Dragon and a drag on your highway drive to get there.

The Slingshot interior basically has only one button, there to turn off the stability control. Do so and you’ll soon find that the Slingshot can do Hellcat-quality burnouts through first and second gears, all while making a noise like someone mixing cake batter with a Bell Huey II helicopter. The exhaust system, muffler and all, is crammed into the space ahead of the passenger’s-side footwell, a design Polaris might want to rethink. For one thing, that’s a lot of heat trying to boil out toward the cockpit. And Polaris would have more leeway to tune the sound if the exhaust system were any longer than a flugelhorn.

Its maker claims no official zero-to-60 time, but the Slingshot probably does the sprint in less than five seconds. You can see why Polaris wants to downplay that number, because five seconds is woefully sluggish by motorcycle standards. It is indeed quick for a car, but the company prefers to distance the Slingshot from any mention of that C-word, lest more states join Texas in giving three-wheelers the hairy eyeball.

Besides, Polaris does have a point that this machine isn’t really about numbers. It’s about an experience that’s unlike any in a modern car or, indeed, on any bike. An Ariel Atom might come close in terms of low-slung, open-frame, bees-in-your-face excitement, but the Atom is much quicker and roughly three times the price

The Slingshot starts at $19,999, which is a whole lot of crazy for not much money. Based on the initial orders, it turns out that a goodly number of Americans have 20 grand available to look like Batman in his bathtub every time they hit a Starbucks. Of course, novelty only gets you so far. Once the early adopters are sated and Slingshots become a semi-normal sight, continued sales momentum will depend on the machine itself..

And the machine is interesting enough to outlive the momentary hype of a hot introduction. Forget what’s going on behind the seats and it’s easy to pretend that you’re piloting your own open-wheel Formula car since the Slingshot is so low, elemental, and raw. It feels as if you’re getting away with something. And who knows? Maybe you are.

2016 Mercedes-Benz C450 AMG 4MATIC

In the vast space that exists in the Mercedes-Benz C-class lineup between the entry C300 and the balls-to-the-wall 2015 Mercedes-AMG C63, Mercedes-Benz currently offers the C400. Nice as that car is, though, one jack-of-all-trades model isn’t really suitable for spanning the divide, so Mercedes is bringing in reinforcements. Luxury-leaning, green-minded customers, for example, soon will have the option of the C350e plug-in hybrid. And folks who might otherwise be attracted to the Audi S4 and the BMW 335i xDrive will be mightily tempted by the car here, the 2016 C450 AMG 4MATIC. (Once the C450 arrives, in fact, it will replace the C400 in the lineup.)

As the new kid on the sports-sedan block, the C450 AMG 4MATIC has a lot to prove, and while it may not be a full-on Mercedes-AMG product like the steroidal C63, it contains enough of its big brother’s goodies to earn the AMG badge. It starts with a power boost for Benz’s twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6, from 329 horsepower and 354 lb-ft of torque in the C400 to a solid 362 horses and 384 lb-ft in the C450. Torque distribution for the 4MATIC all-wheel-drive system is fixed at 33 percent front and 67 percent rear. As with its competitors, the C450 AMG offers multiple drive modes (Eco, Comfort, Sport, Sport+, and Individual) that tweak throttle, transmission, suspension, and steering-effort parameters, and the seven-speed automatic is capable of shifting twice as quickly as the similar unit in the C400.

SHOVIN’ IT

Acceleration is forceful, as the power is delivered in a rapid crescendo and with but a whiff of turbo lag. Mercedes conservatively pegs zero to 60 mph at 4.9 seconds—we achieved 4.7 in the C400—and with all four wheels doing the clawing, it stays more glued to the road than the tail-happy, rear-drive C63, especially when rocketing away from tight, bumpy corners at full tilt. As with the C63, Sport and Sport+ downshifts are served up just when you want them with a throttle-blipped exhaust bark once you go for the brakes. All the while, the V-6 sounds incredible, with a lighter, less restrictive exhaust system than the C400 and a delicious crackling pop-pop-pop on overrun that recalls that of the Jaguar F-type V-6. This is a powertrain that encourages you to wring it out. Like, all the time.

Equally impressive is the C450 AMG’s chassis, which received quite a workout on the lumpy, twisting ribbons of asphalt that snake through southern Portugal’s Algarve region. The car rides on a uniquely developed multilink suspension with three-stage electronically adjustable dampers that come straight out of the C63. Whether bombing down smooth, high-speed straights or making quick left-right-left transitions on broken asphalt, the chassis loyally transmits the road’s texture at all four contact patches. Steering response is immediate, with satisfyingly linear buildup of effort and copious feedback tickling the driver’s fingertips. Even on long, winding descents, the brakes (with rotors measuring a robust 14.2 inches up front and 12.5 inches out back) always seemed to have enough power in reserve, with excellent pedal feedback. If there’s a bone to pick, it’s that the stiffest of the three-stage adjustable shock settings can be too brittle.

ALMOST ALL THE AMG, ALL THE TIME

The C450 AMG looks almost exactly like the C63 and has a nearly identical interior, including the must-have optional one-piece racing-style seats. Indeed, from aesthetic and driving-comfort perspectives, at no point did we wish we were in the C63. Plus, as the C450 weighs some 200 pounds less than the C63, it drives smaller and feels nimbler, lending the midlevel car its own charm. One might see it as the spiritual successor to the 2002–2004 C32 AMG, which, when we last tested one, started at $52,120, or roughly where the C450 AMG 4MATIC is likely to fall without considering inflation. And the 349-hp C32 was slower, too.

So the eminently satisfying C450 AMG packs enough performance to be a full-blooded AMG model just a decade ago, and today it offers something like 75 to 80 percent of an Affalterbach special. Which is to say that it’s damn good.

2015 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe Nighthawk

The last time we reviewed a Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, it was 2009, and none other than P.J. O’Rourke wrote an enlightened piecefull of magnificently qualified praise for the glittery land yacht, with cheeky nods to the people who buy them. We certainly won’t attempt to match O’Rourke’s sage perspective, social insights, and penchant for literary flourish. But we can tell you about the new Phantom Drophead Coupe “Nighthawk”, one of nine produced exclusively for the U.S. market, and how it feels to drive it in an area of the country where the car is even more in its element than O’Rourke’s New Hampshire ’hood: Los Angeles.

STEERING CLEAR OF TMZ

The car hasn’t changed a bit since 2009, at least mechanically, which is why we didn’t bother retesting it. Unless the laws of physics have changed, the 5800-plus-pound cabriolet probably still hits 60 mph in about five and a half seconds, still negotiates corners with roughly 0.76 g of lateral grip, and comes to a halt from 70 mph in 177 feet give or take.

As for driving it today, being at the helm of a three-ton, $570,000 beast as it lists like the Costa Concordia on Mulholland Drive’s notorious S-curves can be pretty terrifying. It’s all about the consequences: Put a wheel off in the Rolls and you’ll make the evening news. Or worse, TMZ.

BORN FOR THE BOULEVARD

And so, this baller Roller is happiest when wafting along PCH or one of L.A.’s famous boulevards at a prudent pace. It is there that one notices the eerie, mausoleum-like quietude with which the Rolls-Royce glides along, as if in its own cone of silence. We’re moving, but is there a V-12 underhood? The top is down, but where are the wind and tumult? We see cracks and expansion joints, visible just beyond the famous Spirit of Ecstasy, but were they suddenly filled by the time our tires reached them? The Drophead Coupe feels as utterly disengaged from the road as its customers feel to the bourgeoisie, which is entirely appropriate, as there’s comfort in isolation.

Unless you live in Beverly Hills, Monte Carlo, or perhaps West Palm Beach, a Phantom sighting is rare. But alas, we encountered no fewer than three other Phantom Drophead Coupes during our 72-hour tryst. That’s where Bespoke comes in.

“BESPOKE”—NOT JUST AN ADJECTIVE ANYMORE

In Rolls’ lexicon, Bespoke is not just an adjective, it’s a division, and its sole purpose is to do things that can’t be done from the company’s conventional list of can-dos—some $62,350 worth of them appear on the Nighthawk. Specifically, these include seat piping ($3375), special wood veneer ($6710), and contrasting RR monograms on the headrests ($1450). And there’s a flat charge of $44,115 for the Diamond Black “matt” (sic) paint applied to the hood, windshield surround, and grille surround; the full carbon-fiber dashboard, dials, and clock face; and the leather-lined trunk and leather-covered driveshaft hump. Plus a $3400 charge for the privilege of ordering Bespoke interior stuff in the first place. All that is in addition to the veneered steering-wheel spokes ($1025), heated rear bench ($1450), black headliner ($1650), and seven-spoke 21-inch wheels ($9875) that are on the regular options list. All together, the extras swelled the Phantom Drophead Coupe’s $484,875 base price to $569,600. The bourgeoisie need not apply.

A word about the matte finish on the hood and windshield surround: It’s the same Diamond Black Metallic as the gloss paint, only it’s not shiny. It is sheeny, though, and we’re not sure it works that well: Up close it looks great, but from 10 paces, it almost looks as if the car had been left outside since the Nixon administration, or the butler waxed the hood in the dark.

READY FOR ITS CLOSE-UP

Admittedly, though, the Nighthawk turned out rather fabulous, even by Rolls-Royce standards. The Nighthawk’s black-on-black over black-and-red color scheme fit right in to the exotic-car parade that is Sunset Boulevard on a Saturday night, it appears a touch crass for an afternoon lunch on Rodeo Drive, and it is suitably glamorous swinging open its coach-style doors at the Hollywood Bowl—and we experienced all three. But where it felt perhaps most at home was creeping around the Hollywood Center Studios lot, to which—after a few phone calls—we were graciously granted access on a Sunday morning for our photo shoot. (It’s all about who you know in this town.)

Indeed, if there is any car in the world that can make someone feel like an A-list movie star, it’s a Phantom Drophead Coupe. With that in mind, we imagine our visit re-created an oft-spied scene at the studio over its near-century in business: a Rolls-Royce perched just outside the huge barn doors of the lot’s numerous sound stages, at times mixing it up with production trucks, stage hands, and forklifts. We saw no movie stars, at least none that were suitable to command a car like this, yet it was all very Hollywood—because it was Hollywood. With respect to our friend Mr. O’Rourke and those who drive a Phantom Drophead Coupe anywhere else in the world, Los Angeles is where this car belongs.

Smart ForTwo review by Richard Hammond: It’s quirky and it hasn’t really got any true rivals

If you live in a city or big town, you’d be mad to not be interested in a Smart ForTwo.

The little shorty is ideal for nipping through traffic and squeezing into what seem to other drivers like impossible parking spots.

Being a mere 2.69 metres long has been a big selling point for the Daimler AG-owned firm’s equivalent of a Mini.

But when it comes to the little ­blighter’s width, well that’s caused rather too much cabin pressure.

Until now.

Because among a host of improvements on the previous model, the latest ForTwo has been widened by 11 centimetres – and that’s something you’ll notice, especially if your passenger is a bit on the weighty side.

There’s more elbow room and you’ll feel a lot less claustrophobic – now that’s a smart improvement.

Widening the body has also improved its manoeuvring ability by creating more space in the arches.

This allows the wheels to turn 45 degrees off the straight ahead, resulting in a turning circle of 6.95m which is tighter than a London cab can do it.

Smart has developed the new ForTwo (and the new ForFour which we’ll be testing in a couple of weeks) in conjunction with Renault.

The four-seater shares its platform with the Twingo but, obviously, the ForTwo is a stand-alone model.

At the back there’s a choice of two engines, both also used in the Twingo. One is a 999cc three-cylinder naturally aspirated motor producing 71bhp and the other is a smaller 898cc turbocharged triple that kicks out 90bhp.

The really good news is that Smart has junked the old jerky five-speed semi-automatic gearbox that was the only transmission available in the previous two generation Smarts (it was also the gearbox that spoiled the cute and fun Smart Roadster and Coupes) .

Instead the firm has replaced it with a conventional five-speed manual gearbox. There will be a double-clutch automatic gearbox available from the Summer as a £995 option.

We’ve tried a pre-production version of it and it works fine.

But back to our test car. We’re driving an Edition 1, a special version to mark the car’s launch. Not cheap at £13,820, but then Smarts have never been budget cars.

Also, ours has the turbo engine which makes the car pricier than the 71bhp Edition1 which is £13,225. Now here’s the thing – if you’re going to be mainly using the car in town, I’d go for the non-turbo engine. Not because it’s cheaper but because it’s a nicer engine in traffic.

The turbo motor in our car produces its power in a burst which makes it hard to drive the car smoothly.

If motorway driving will be a regular thing then live with the in-town jerkiness because the 71bhp version runs out of puff on the open road.

Smart has also improved the ride quality on the new car which is a welcome change. The ForTwo is a million miles off being sporty, not least because its tiny length makes it tricky to drive quickly on country roads.

Big deal, it’s not what the car is for.

Inside our Edition 1 there’s a combination of orange webbing material and conventional grey plastics. Looks as funky as a Smart should be.

As does the outside which on our car is white with an orange Tridion safety cage structure. As usual there’s a wide choice of colours in the rest of the ForTwo range.

If you like the iconic ForTwo then you’ll like this new one even more. It makes more sense and Smart has sorted out the gearbox issue, improved the ride – and made that cabin less of a squeeze.

It’s quirky and it hasn’t really got any true rivals. It’s Smart all right.

The facts

Smart ForTwo Edition 1 Three-door hatchback

Price: £13,820

Engine: 0.8-litre three-cylinder, 90bhp 0-62mph: 10.4sec

Fuel consumption: 67.3mpg

The rivals

Toyota IQ

Clever idea, but third seat is really for rare use. Smart may be not as clever but it’s better. £13,100

Hyundai i10 1.2 Premium

Conventional small car that’s able and good value. £10,810

Renault Twingo 90

Same engine, more doors and seats. Really a ForFour rival. £11,695

Bentley Mulsanne Speed (2015) review

► We drive the new go-faster Mulsanne
► 530bhp 6.8-litre twin-turbo V8
► Full CAR magazine review

It’s hard not to think that the Bentley Mulsanne Speed is for a person a bit like Augustus Gloop, Roald Dahl’s greedy nincompoop.

For this hand-built paragon to lives filled with Golden Tickets now seems at the vanguard of gluttony: a standard 505bhp Mulsanne just not enough lavish sustenance? Then for about £23,000 more, why not tuck into a Speed version with 25bhp extra, some discreet badges on the flanks and a more oily-looking grille? On the surface, the exercise seems gratuitous.

What do you get on the Bentley Mulsanne Speed (2015)?

Like Gloop, each Speed is mollied and coddled to a degree beyond nth: 400 people take 298 hours to build it, the car is hand-polished with lamb’s wool for 12 hours before leaving the factory, there are 120 colour options to choose from (some with gold in them).

But beneath the heavily buffed surface something more is stirring. Alongside that fairly insignificant power increase, an additional swell of torque has been hubbled and bubbled into existence, so the Speed delivers 811lb ft to the rear wheels. That’s like lashing three-and-a-bit Golf GTIs together; only the Veyron offers more shove. This has been achieved with revised combustion chambers, intake ports, injectors and spark plugs, while in Sport mode snappier gear ratios, stiffer air suspension settings and heavier steering have been configured to help deal with the additional surge.

On the road: CAR magazine's Mulsanne speed review

When switching the Speed on, it just rolls away, heading in the direction you have prescribed for it as though on a river of molten chocolate. There can be few cars for which motion is inherent – often they come to a stop when you stop – but the Speed, with its twin-turbo motor plodding along, seems to create its own gravity.

This is ideal for a chauffeur spiriting occupants about without fuss but it has been created to be driven harder too. Bentley’s customers are now younger and more demanding of drama, and for those who are captain of their own ship the firm reckons this is the fastest luxury saloon on the planet and a more focused driver’s car. 

Fast, too, I guess?

Certainly pieces of the planet became very small, very quickly, including a two-mile runway, which was swallowed in the blink of an eye with unbridled 170mph avarice. That said, the three-tonne Speed and its girded loins has to doff its cap to Earth’s forces in corners, though it’s capable and swift if you adopt an old-fashioned slow-in, fast-out approach.

Thing is, such is the stately comportment in the cabin that the Speed doesn’t feel especially speedy. Even the force pushing you into the seat is more akin to a Labrador sitting on you in your favourite armchair, and while there is some distant retort from the new rifled exhausts, the 14 cows that died to cocoon the interior did not expire in vain – it’s a hide cacoon of the very highest calibre. 

Verdict

So by any common criteria the Speed struggles to make a case. Yet it sits in the pantheon of the sublime and the ridiculous. As Willy Wonka said of the man who got everything he wanted: he lived happily ever after. And he probably drives a Bentley Mulsanne Speed.

Statistics

How much?	£252,000
On sale in the UK:
Engine:	6752cc 32v twin-turbo V8, 530bhp @ 4200rpm, 811lb ft @ 1750rpm
Transmission:	Eight-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive
Performance:	4.9sec 0-62mph, 190mph, 19.3mpg, 342g/km CO2
How heavy / made of?	2685kg/steel, aluminium
How big (length/width/height in mm)?	5575/1926/1521

Ratings

Handling	3 out of 5
Performance	5 out of 5
Usability	4 out of 5
Feelgood factor	5 out of 5
CAR's Rating	4 out of 5

Renault Twingo vs VW Up twin-test review (2015)

► Renault's rear-engined Twingo
► Meets VW's conventional Up
► Which makes the better city car? 

What’s interesting about this little tête-à-tête is that it pitches a small car for which a rear-engine, rear-wheel drive platform was rejected by the world’s second largest car maker on grounds of cost, against a small car only armed with precisely that platform because a third party – the world’s third largest car maker – needs it for sundry Smart purposes.

Having already seen off Fiat’s Panda, Volkswagen’s somewhat delicious Up needs no introduction. This isn’t our first thrape in a Twingo either, so let’s cut to the chase, and that which purports to give the latter’s pricey little platform the edge; advantageous packaging.

Well, mounting engine and drive astern certainly hasn’t made the Twingo any more compact overall.
It’s actually over two inches longer and two and a half inches taller than the Up. However, with a wheelbase getting on for three inches more generous than that of the VW, you’d expect the Renault at the very least to take the honours in the accommodation stakes.

From the driver’s perspective there is, ostensibly, little to choose between the two. Front seats are comfortable enough, though a lack of steering-wheel reach adjustment in either car does dictate a somewhat upright approach to the helm. But then the Twingo lobs a queen wasp in the ergonomic Pimms by leaving the driver precisely nowhere to rest his (or, more probably, her) clutch foot.

Worse, the angular, all-too-readily-demountable storage bin in front of the gear lever will keep savaging an already displaced left leg, adding further discomfort, and possible bruising. With the other side of the shin bin annoyance neatly chamfered to fit a passenger footwell which widens out along the transmission tunnel, the words ‘rat’ and ‘smell’ leap to mind in the context of Renault’s conversion to right-hand drive…

Sitting behind myself in the Twingo is tight; lolling, legs akimbo like a bloke on a banquette who’s had one too many is right out. Despite having inherited my mother’s short, fat, hairy legs, my knees are in constant contact with the front seatback. Moreover (and this may be down to the presence of a full-length canvas sunroof) my head is rammed so firmly into the roof lining I might, for all the world, be wearing a giant hat. 

The rear seat itself is decidedly firm and, in the interests of increasing rear loadspace, may be rake adjusted between the Victorian and the positively vertical.

So how come, despite the shorter wheelbase, the Up gives me perceptibly more legroom astern, enough headroom to make my own choice of hat, and a more comfortable seat to boot? Hmmm. Must all come down to luggage capacity, then.

Nope. Rear seats in place, the VW boasts a loadspace 63 litres larger than the 188 litres offered by the Renault. And don’t go thinking that, 911-style, there’s bonnet space up for grabs…

Clearly armed with the collective IQ of a packet of Jaffa Cakes, it took two of us 20 minutes and an ecstasy of fumbling to fathom Twingo bonnet opening. It’s hinge-free and doesn’t so much ‘open’ as flop clumsily forwards a few inches. Indeed it’s only prevented from clattering headlong into impromptu toboggan status by a pair of nylon straps. 

Aspirant luggage space already occupied by a radiator inaccessible even with the bonnet open, then, this two-man tussle reveals nought but a row of fluid top-up caps, suggesting screenwash reservoir refilling to be the work of but an eon. 

So, having clearly established that the Twingo’s alternative platform singularly fails to steal packaging honours from the Up, we must presume that it will prove more competitive in, perhaps, the 4 performance or driving dynamics departments.

Both machines sport 999cc, three-cylinder, naturally-aspirated petrol powerplants. Volkswagen has bullied 5bhp and 3lb ft of torque more from its unit, but the Up is a stout 64kg heavier than the Twingo. Despite this considerable weight disparity, however, the Volkswagen is over a second quicker to 62mph and has a 14mph higher top speed.

In truth, the Up feels consistently livelier throughout the gears than this modest on-paper advantage would suggest. And this has much to do with the fact that it responds far more sharply to the throttle; the Twingo requiring a surprising degree of pedal pressure to elicit any oomph at all.

It’s the same story with the brakes; whilst the Up’s make their presence felt with the first brush of the pedal and are nicely modulated thereafter, too much unrewarded pedal travel followed by a sudden burst of over-enthusiasm makes the Twingo’s brakes particularly tricky to deploy smoothly around town.

The Renault does boast markedly superior claimed average fuel consumption and CO2 figures, but given the wholehearted throttle thrashing which must be administered to get both machines moving with any alacrity, I suspect real-world consumption figures will bear little similarity in either case.

And thrash ’em you surely will because, with less to choose between them than the variation in platform design might suggest, a surprising degree of derring-do may be extracted from either. 

Though the undercarriage of both demonstrates admirable pliancy, the Twingo boasts a fractionally more comfortable ride. We are talking a very small margin, however, and a nagging suspicion lingers that this may have more to do with better cabin insulation from road noise than any true mechanical advantage.

Both offer similar, pleasingly tenacious degrees of mechanical grip allied to respectable body control, before succumbing to understeer which is tidily tempered by ABS-sponsored electronic nannies, neither of whom may be switched off.

Ultimately, however, the Twingo is a less pleasing drive, not only because its somewhat woolly gearchange fails to match the Up’s cleaner, more accurate shift, but also because its steering feels decidedly vague at top dead centre and is perceptibly less crisp and linear in its response to inputs. Lob in the fact that the Renault is all too readily socked about by crosswinds, and the whole elicits a suspicion that the absence of engine weight adhering the bows to the road is actually almost a disadvantage. 

Lest we forget, the second most significant benefit cited of the Twingo’s rear-orientated platform is a turning circle on a par with an ordinary Northumberland spoke-shaver’s coracle. True, but that usefulness is somewhat outweighed by a steering rack ratio requiring at least 90 degrees more twirling than that demanded by the Up to simply negotiate a right-angled bend. And that means constantly having to move your hands on the wheel. Which is inappropriate to a city car.

When it comes to styling, I favour the Up not because I particularly prefer a giant milk carton to a giant jelly bean, but because I find the VW’s straightforward interior design considerably classier than a Twingo dashboard boasting more curves than a children’s water park. The former’s instrumentation is clearer, switchgear more pleasurable to use and the finish is of a higher quality throughout.

Connectivity honours are even, but where the Twingo provides a console switchgear-obscuring cradle in which you must mount your own smartphone for use – via a free app – as a navigation screen, the Up wins out through the simple but welcome provision of a dash-mounted Garmin.

Finally, then, price. Predictably, at £12,500, this Groove Up 1.0 75ps will set you back £1505 more than the £10,995 Twingo Dynamique SCe 70 Stop and Start. But whilst the Up we drove sported just £485 worth of optional kit, the Renault’s options hiked its price tag by £1940 (including £850 for that headroom-stealing sunroof), bringing it to within just £50 of price parity.

What we have, then, despite the most diverse possible approach to powertrain installation, is two extremely closely matched machines. For all that technical trickery, though, the Renault cannot pip the VW for packaging, performance or driving dynamics.

And that leaves the rear-engined Twingo with just two advantages; both front window switches on the driver’s door card, and the turning circle of a startled owl.