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.

2015 Mini Cooper S Hardtop Four-Door Road Test

Quick Summary
With a revised Mini Clubman still in the concept stage, this 2015 Mini Cooper Hardtop Four-Door fills the somewhat confusing gap between the traditional two-door Cooper and the larger Countryman and Paceman crossovers. The four-door retains the Mini's lively spirit and improves on the formula with much more convenience.

What Is It?
Visually, the four-door Mini Hardtop is very similar to its two-door sibling. Bumper-to-bumper, the four-door is 6 inches longer, with 2.8 inches of that length added between the front and rear wheels. A longer rear overhang makes up the rest. While these measurements may not seem all that significant on paper, the advantages gained on the inside certainly are.

With more rear legroom, the four-door Mini can now easily accommodate child passengers and small adults. Cargo space increases a full 50 percent compared to the two-door hardtop. For those drawn to the Mini brand, the four-door may be more attractive than the ungainly Clubman. As importantly, it is just as fun to drive as the two-door model. When it comes to price, the four-door continues to score points, as there's only a $1,000 premium to get the two extra doors.

Prices start at $22,550 for the base model four-door hardtop that is powered by an adequate 134-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder turbocharged engine. The $25,950 Cooper S version gets a 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder that boosts output to 189 hp, along with a torque-vectoring limited-slip differential that allows it to corner with more aggression. Our Cooper S test vehicle came with almost every option available, including the six-speed automatic transmission and the aptly named Fully Loaded package, sending the price soaring to $35,900.

How Does It Drive?
With a flip of a flat toggle switch glowing red in the center stack, the engine rumbles to life with a pleasing low hum. At start-up, the Mini defaults to its Normal driving mode. A rotating collar switch around the gear selector activates the Sport and Green modes with a quick flick. Sport mode sharpens throttle response, holds gears at higher revs before shifting and increases steering effort. Green mode goes the opposite direction by dulling responses and upshifting earlier to maximize fuel efficiency. Had our test vehicle been equipped with the $500 Dynamic Damper Control option, the drive setting would also adjust the ride stiffness.

Not surprisingly, the Normal mode is a happy medium for daily driving. Green Mode makes the Mini feel as though it's trudging through a thick pool of molasses, but in heavy traffic it's not a problem. What is bothersome, however, is the automatic stop-start function that is engaged in Green mode. When the car is stopped, the engine automatically shuts off. When brake pressure is reduced, the engine restarts. The system is nothing new, but Mini's execution is significant because start-up sends a strong shudder through the vehicle. Fortunately, it can be disabled while retaining Green mode's other attributes.

Sport mode is likely of greater importance to drivers willing to step up to the Cooper S model, of course. In this setting there's more immediacy in the controls, bringing out the playful Mini personality and allowing drivers to extract the maximum performance from the drivetrain.

In Edmunds' testing, the Cooper S four-door reached 60 mph in 6.3 seconds, which is close to most competitors. There's good torque right off the line, and gearchanges are quick and smooth. There's also no sign of the torque steer that used to plague performance-focused hatchbacks. Selecting Sport mode further livens up things with quicker and more noticeable shifts. Steering-wheel-mounted shift paddles allow the driver to take full control of the transmission, and the reactions to inputs are immediate. Rev-matched downshifts are perfectly executed. Of course, you can do it yourself with the six-speed manual, which comes standard.

The brakes are also up to hot hatchback standards when you need to slow down in a hurry. From 60 mph, the four-door required 116 feet to come to a stop, which is a few feet longer than rivals, but still very acceptable. Even with a full stomp on the brake pedal, the Mini remains solidly composed, with very little nosedive and no squirm. After repeated panic stops, the pedal softened, but stopping power remained strong.

Is It Fun?
Despite the larger footprint, the four-door Mini Cooper S is just as fun to unleash on twisting mountain switchbacks as its smaller siblings. When driven with enthusiasm, the car responds with very predictable actions and even dares you to push harder. It instills trust very early on and in some ways it feels a bit more settled than the shorter-wheelbase two-door model. You won't be chasing down dedicated sports cars in a Mini, but it will deliver plenty of thrills and smiles.

If driven just past the handling limit, the stability control system does an excellent job of keeping you on your intended path. A subtle brake application on the appropriate wheel can be felt, and that's just enough to keep the car from pushing toward the outside of a turn. The fun is never interrupted by an overly intrusive system. Four doors, it seems, come with no downside.

Is It Comfortable?
The Mini Cooper S represents the middle ground of performance between the standard Cooper and the top-of-the-line John Cooper Works model. For the added handling ability, the Cooper S does sacrifice some compliance, but ride quality isn't objectionably stiff. Shoppers seeking a softer ride may want to forgo the larger wheel options.

Our test vehicle came equipped with the optional sport seats, which provide excellent lateral support when cornering and just enough adjustments to accommodate a variety of body types. Even so, the aggressive side bolstering may be constricting for wider passengers. Plush seat cushioning remained comfortable after several hundred miles of road tripping, but the thin armrest padding did create some elbow discomfort.

The rear seats are positively spacious compared to the two-door Cooper, but there are still some limitations. There's enough headroom in the rear seat for the average adult, but legroom is tight. The front seatbacks are scooped out enough to accommodate rear passenger legs, but there's no room to stretch out. Smaller passengers will fit fine.

How Is the Interior?
Thanks to the additional two doors, rear passengers no longer have to tunnel between the front seats and roof support. The doors are rather narrow, but access is significantly easier. Otherwise, the interior is just like other Mini models, with all the personality we've come to expect.

Outward visibility is as good as it gets for any vehicle. So good, in fact, that it renders the optional rearview camera unnecessary. Likewise, the gauges and infotainment screen are placed well within the driver's sight lines. With the optional head-up display, speed and navigation prompts are even easier to read.

Throughout the cabin, heavy toggle switches and unique trim elements add a lot of visual interest that is absent in other hatchbacks. Materials quality isn't much better than rivals, but the texturing and styling go a long way toward improving the overall feeling of quality. Surrounding the round infotainment panel in the middle of the dash is an array of accent lights that react to driving conditions as well as system commands. There's a certain cool factor to these lights at first, but at night they can be distracting. Once the novelty had worn off, we disabled them.

One of our main gripes with the current Mini interior is the placement of the infotainment controller. It's mounted too low in the center console to reach and operate comfortably and is further obstructed by the optional center armrest. And that's really a shame because the system, which is nearly identical to BMW's praiseworthy iDrive, is otherwise very easy to use and benefits from a wealth of features.

Interior storage also leaves a bit to be desired, as door pockets, cupholders and even the dual gloveboxes are on the small side. Cargo space does reap the rewards of the four-door's bigger profile, providing 13.1 cubic feet behind the rear seats compared to the two-door's meager 8.7 cubic feet. Folding the split rear seats increases capacity to 40.7 cubes. Underneath the raised trunk floor is an additional space for smaller items, and the panel can be lowered quickly to provide a flat load floor. Despite the cargo capacity increase over the two-door Cooper, the four-door still comes up short of both the VW GTI and Ford Focus ST.

What Kind of Fuel Economy Does It Get?
The EPA estimates fuel economy at 29 mpg combined (26 city/33 highway), which is slightly better than competing sporty hatchbacks. These estimates were confirmed by our overall average of 28.2 mpg, which included many miles of exuberant driving.

What Safety Features Are Available?
On top of the typical standard safety features found in all current vehicles, the 2015 Mini Cooper S Four-Door also includes front knee airbags and full-length side curtain airbags. Rear parking sensors and a rearview camera are optional.

What Are Its Closest Competitors?
Ford Focus ST: In terms of performance numbers, the similarly priced Focus ST outpaces the Mini Cooper S by a slim margin. Behind the wheel, however, the Focus feels more capable and even exhibits some tail-happy antics that are rare among front-wheel-drive cars. With a cargo capacity of 23.8 cubic feet behind the rear seats, the Focus handily defeats the Mini when it comes to utility. Of the few downsides, the MyFord Touch infotainment system can be frustrating to use and there is no option for an automatic transmission.

Volkswagen Golf R: Currently the top-dog hatchback, the 292-hp, all-wheel-drive Golf R takes GTI performance to all-new levels. All that power and handling comes at a cost, though, as it rings in about $11,000 more than the Focus, Mini and GTI.

Volkswagen GTI: As the originator of the sporty hatchback segment, the GTI is a solidly built performer with a more serious approach and design. It's not quite as engaging to drive hard as the Mini or Focus but it still posts performance numbers that keep it competitive. The VW's 22.8-cubic-foot cargo capacity also beats the Mini and it's available with a six-speed automated manual transmission.

Why Should You Consider This Car?
Charm has been one of Mini's strongest selling points, and the Cooper S has it in spades. With the addition of the four-door model, many of the space and cargo drawbacks are reduced without any appreciable influence on performance and entertainment. As an added incentive, Mini offers free scheduled maintenance for the first three years or 36,000 miles of ownership. VW offers one year of maintenance, but with Ford you're on your own.

Why Should You Think Twice About This Car?
Despite being larger than its two-door sibling, this Mini may still pose challenges to shoppers with an eye on practicality. If space, whether it's rear passenger or cargo-related, is a priority, the Mini Cooper S four-door trails its main rivals by a sizable margin.

The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.

2016 Audi R8: We Ride in and Detail the Next Four-Ringed Supercar

Almost 12 years ago, Audi unveiled the 2003 Le Mans Quattro concept, a supercar that signaled the brand's boundless ambition. Just three years later, it morphed into the production R8. Built on a platform shared with the Lamborghini Gallardo, the R8 married everyday usability with supercar performance. Now Audi is launching the second-generation R8—and we were invited to come along for a ride in a development mule being flogged on the Ascari racetrack in Spain. We sat in on some hot laps driven by race-car driver Frank Stippler and were able to talk in-depth with engineers about the new model.

EVOLUTION, NOT REVOLUTION

One thing is certain: Audi didn't reinvent the wheel. The new R8 stands on the thoroughly updated platform of the predecessor, now called MSS, or Modular Sports System. It is shared with the Lamborghini Huracán, but it doesn't bear any similarity to the Porsche 911. At some point down the road, corporate step-siblings Porsche and Audi will have to sit down together and figure out how to get synergies out of their next generation of sports cars. As it sits, the new R8 was conceived before Porsche became part of the Volkswagen Group.

Thanks to a clever materials mix, the new R8 was able to shed more than 100 pounds compared with the current car, and its center of gravity is even lower than before. The R8 is also more powerful than ever. The slightly modified, naturally aspirated 5.2-liter V-10 is a high-revving engine, with an 8850-rpm redline, and it cranks out a healthy 540 horsepower (up from 525). The V10 Plus model adds another 70 horsepower for a total of 610 (versus the previous 550). At its launch, the new R8 will have only the 10-cylinder—no V-8 will be offered initially.

With more power and less weight, the 2016 R8 V10 is, predictably, faster. The sprint from zero to 62 mph takes 3.5 seconds—or 3.2 seconds for the V10 Plus, according to Audi. Top speed is rated at an ungoverned 201 mph or 205 mph, depending on the model.

OUT GOES THE GATE

Despite the old-school powerplant, when it comes to the transmission, Audi turns its back on tradition. The wonderful manual transmission of its predecessor, with its metallic gated shifter, is gone. The new R8 comes only with a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic. The console shifter looks futuristic, and shifting action is ultraquick, but we’re sorry to see the manual go.

As before, torque is transmitted to all four wheels via Audi’s Quattro four-wheel-drive setup. The default distribution is slightly rear-biased, although it is fully variable from 0 to 100 percent on each axle. Standard kit includes 19-inch wheels; 20-inch rolling stock is optional, as are carbon-ceramic brakes. Audi has fitted a water-cooled front differential and a passive limited-slip rear differential, as well as electromechanical power steering. The variable, magnetic-ride suspension again will be offered as an option. Audi’s Drive Select switch is on the steering wheel; Performance is the ultimate setting, and the stability control system can be switched off entirely.

SWITCHED BLADES

The styling of the new R8 is evolutionary, but it doesn't make its predecessor look dated. The R8’s new grille and the chiseled lines bring it closer to the rest of Audi's current portfolio. A defining visual element, the vertical blades behind the doors have been reinterpreted. They have been split into a smaller blade below the beltline as well as an extension behind the side windows. As before, the blades can be ordered in body color, in contrasting colors, or in carbon fiber. LED headlights are standard, and there are optional laser lights; the latter might even be offered in the U.S., if Audi wins its wrestling match with our government over its outdated lighting regulations.

Mirroring the TT sports car’s leap forward, the R8 charges ahead with a futuristic interior that includes Audi's "virtual cockpit" with a large TFT monitor placed directly in front of the driver. Besides the Drive Select function, buttons on the steering wheel are devoted to the exhaust settings and the ignition.

Down the road, we expect to see the topless R8 Spyder return, as well as an entry-level model with either a V-8 or possibly a turbo V-6. There likely will be another version designed for customer racing. Audi also will offer the fully electric, rear-wheel-drive R8 e-tron—which will make for a true exotic.

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.

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

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.

2015 Subaru Liberty review

Subaru's Liberty has now been around for 25 years, but for a variety of reasons in recent times has fallen off the radar of many buyers. One of those reasons is the success of Toyota Camry and the local duo of Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore.

Subaru's intention is to take up some of the slack left by the looming loss of the popular Australian six-cylinder cars with the just launched the sixth-generation Liberty.

The new Liberty is a refined, high-tech offering. It offers two engines and two automatic transmissions, one for four-cylinder variants and one for the six-cylinder.

Subaru has gone for the sales jugular, cutting prices on Liberty by up to $14,000. After three hours behind the wheel of a 2.5i petrol Premium and a six-cylinder 3.6R at the car's launch in East Gippsland, we came away impressed.

Liberty now starts at $29,990 for the entry level 2.5i auto and finishes at $47,990 for the Liberty 3.6R. The 3.6R is the contender for the six cylinder gap in family cars. The 2.5i and 3.6R only come with Subaru's latest incarnation of their upgraded CVT auto, there are no manuals.

The new Liberty has a lot going for it: all-wheel-drive; five-star ANCAP safety rating; thelatest generation of EyeSight, a crash avoidance/reduction system; and an all-new multimedia system that puts Liberty back in the technology race.

Liberty has always been recognised for its engineering, but in the fifth generation was let down by its interior. That too has been addressed in what Subaru describe as "fixing the weaknesses."

Subaru Australia managing director, Nick Senior, said buyers should also consider two small, but significant things, it comes with a full-size alloy spare wheel and metallic paint is a no cost option. Liberty, he said, also has a larger boot space (493 litres) than Commodore.

At present Liberty averages 75 sales a month and Subaru expects this to double to 150 a month. He said the added features over the current model represent $3000 in the 2.5i that was $39,490 and is now $35,490 in the new model.

Like the Outback that was launched at the same time, the new Liberty has a refined version of the CVT transmission that now includes 'steps'. These take away some efficiency as they act like conventional gears to suit drivers who have had difficulty adapting to CVTs. The steps only come into play when pushing the car hard. In normal driving the CVT accelerates seamlessly.

DRIVING

From the driver's seat the new Liberty hits the mark immediately with forward vision significantly improved over the outgoing model. The A-pillar has been moved forward by 50 mm placing more distance between driver and windscreen which also gives Liberty a much improved airy cabin feel.

The side mirrors are now mounted on the door which again reduces the blind spot around the slim A-pillar.

In our road testing we drove the 2.5i Premium first and came away feeling the four cylinder engine would probably satisfy most drivers and their driving needs. It's quick off the mark and quiet. With improvements to the engine, CVT and body aerodynamics it now has a combined fuel consumption of 7.3L/100km. This is down 7.6 per cent on the current model.

Subaru has done an excellent job in reducing NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) in Liberty with little drivetrain/road/wind noise entering the whisper-quiet cabin. The 2.5i features an active grille shutter in the lower grille which closes when driving to reduce resistance and also when cold to warm the engine faster.

Rivals for Liberty 2.5i sedan include Mazda6, Ford Mondeo, Hyundai i40 sedan, Nissan Altima and Skoda Octavia.

The 3.6R is even quieter and more refined than the 2.5i. This six-cylinder boxer engine has the same 3.6-litre capacity as the outgoing engine, but in reality has been rebuilt from the block up with the intention of the making it more compatible with the revised CVT transmission. 

This is where the more refined acceleration comes from, and no doubt the lack of engine noise intrusion into the cabin.

Liberty 3.6R has a braked towing capacity of 1800kg, 100kg more than the four cylinder variants. The 3.6R uses a high torque capacity variant of the CVT for efficiency and power delivery.

VERDICT 

Both variants cling to the road beautifully and, unlike Outback that exhibits some body roll and tyre squeal on tight corners, Liberty simply points into corners nicely and powers out in a no-fuss manner. Like Outback, Liberty now also has torque vectoring to reduce understeer when cornering. It works and works well.

Subaru Liberty - four stars
Warranty: 3 years/unlimited km
Capped price servicing: Yes (lifetime)
Service intervals: 6 months/12,500km
Engines: 2.5-litre 4-cyl boxer, 129kW/235Nm; 3.6-litre 6-cyl boxer, 191kW/350Nm
Transmissions: CVT; AWD
Thirst: 7.3L-9.9L/100km

Specifications

Price:	From $29,990