2013 Audi Q5

The 2013 Audi Q5 is one of the more carlike crossovers, with elegant execution, smart high-tech features, and very good passenger space.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Audi Q5 redefines the term “car-like” as used to refer to the driving characteristics of a crossover utility vehicle. Almost straddling the border between crossovers and wagons, the Q5 feels truly car-like, despite the taller roof line, extra ground clearance, and standard quattro all-wheel drive.

The Q5 wasn’t the first luxury crossover in the U.S., and it’s not the newest, but what it offers in handling, acceleration, and passenger space make it one of the top options in its size class, and even a viable alternative to those shopping for sedans and wagons like the Audi A4 or Allroad.

It’s much closer to those roots than some of its competition–the BMW X3, the Cadillac SRX, the Range Rover Evoque, the Mercedes-Benz GLK–and it shows plainly, right off the bat in styling.

The Q5 isn’t so much a downsized Q7 as it is a grown-up A4 Avant. The proportions are just about perfect, and the look is cohesive and clean, inside and out. The changes made to the A4 this year have merged onto the Q5’s front end, in the reshaped grille and in headlamps ringed in LED tubes. The cabin’s sprouted a few more buttons and a richer LCD display, but still sets a benchmark for visual simplicity–and for the synergy of styling and materials that elevates the cabin to a higher plane, especially in the layered-oak treatment we’ve seen in a few recent test cars.

For the 2013 model year, the Audi Q5 carries over its turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, but offers as a high-output option its 272-horsepower supercharged 3.0-liter V-6 coupled to an eight-speed automatic–and introduces a new Q5 Hybrid to the mix. The hybrid blends the turbo four powertrain and eight-speed automatic with lithium-ion batteries and a 54-hp electric motor for a net of 245 hp, a 0-60 mph time of 7.1 seconds, and combined gas mileage of 26 mpg. Quattro all-wheel drive is standard with the hybrid, as it is with the other powertrains.
The 2.0-liter TFSI four-cylinder remains our pick in the lineup, for its lively acceleration and good fuel economy; the added weight from standard all-wheel drive is offset in the fuel-economy numbers by a responsive eight-speed automatic. The V-6 is quieter and about second quicker to 60 mph, but adds thousands to the Q5’s already stiff sticker price and thousands to the Q5’s already stiff sticker price and extracts a significant gas-mileage penalty. With either gas-only powertrain, the Q5 excels at in passing maneuvers, and out of corners, and it truly handles like a car, with the lean, responsive feel of a lower-riding wagon–though we’ll pass on the user-adjustable driving inputs of Drive Select, and stick with the stock suspension and steering setups.

Passengers sit relatively high in the Q5, with more than enough headroom and legroom in front, and the seats themselves are firm and adjustable to a wide range of sizes. Even in back, there’s a enough legroom for most adults, thanks to a rather long wheelbase. Cabin materials are about the best they come in this class, with a rich, unified feel throughout and nice detailing. The Q5 has excellent build quality and a tight, refined feel overall–although road noise can be an issue.

The Audi Q5 remains an IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2013, and it has one of the most complete sets of safety features in this class; rear thorax airbags, which aren’t broadly offered, are optional here. A rearview camera is available, but only in an expensive bundle of features.

The Q5 can be equipped with a wide range of features, but its base price of around $37,000 can be driven up very rapidly by checking a few option boxes. Standard equipment includes a ten-speaker sound system, heated mirrors, leather upholstery, power front seats, tri-zone climate control, Sirius satellite radio, and an SD card slot that can manage up to 32 gigabytes of music–but you’ll pay extra for Bluetooth and iPod connectivity. Premium Plus and Prestige models load on the luxuries, and a Q5 3.0T can easily top $55,000. The Q5 also now offers as optional equipment Audi Connect 3G wireless Internet service, Google Earth mapping, adaptive cruise control with full braking at speeds of up to 19 mph, and a rear-seat entertainment system.

Amazing Car Window Technology

What do u think guys? Have your say:

 

The 2013 Audi A3

The 2013 Audi A3 ranks 6 out of 14 Upscale Small Cars. This ranking is based on our analysis of published reviews and test drives of the Audi A3, as well as reliability and safety data. The 2013 Audi A3 is ranked: #6 in Upscale Small Cars #15 in Hatchbacks Though the 2013 Audi A3 has cramped rear seats, auto reviewers still think its ample cargo space and fuel-efficient diesel engine make it one of the more versatile models in its class. The 2013 Audi A3 can come with a turbocharged four-cylinder gasoline engine or a turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine. Critics find that models with the standard gasoline engine are the most enjoyable to drive, but they’re also impressed with the diesel’s fuel economy ratings of 30/42 mpg city/highway, which is significantly higher than the base model’s 21/30 mpg. Both engines have a standard six-speed manual transmission, though a six-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission is optional. Test drivers are satisfied with both transmissions, and say that they shift gears smoothly. They say that overall, the A3’s performance is characterized by sharp handling and comfortable ride quality. While auto reviewers say they’re impressed with the Audi A3’s conservative, attractive cabin and quality materials, they note that its optional navigation system is confusing. The A3 also lacks features that are standard on many rivals, such as Bluetooth. A USB port is not available at all. Test drivers add that the five-seat Audi A3’s passenger accommodations may not satisfy all shoppers. The rear seats are cramped for adults, though that is a common complaint among upscale small cars. The front-row seats, however, offer plenty of room, and the A3 has a lot of cargo space for the class. “Both available motors suffer from non-linear turbo-engine power delivery, and prices quickly escalate when costly options are added. Those demerits are overshadowed by this car’s virtues of a handsome cabin, excellent versatility, and high level of driving enjoyment. The diesel offers the same levels of refinement, with the added bonus of better fuel economy over the already thrifty turbocharged gasoline 4-cylinder.” — Consumer Guide (2012) “Ample cargo capacity and available all-wheel drive make the Audi A3 one of the most versatile cars on the road.” — Kelley Blue Book (2012) “A superb interior, hatchback capabilities, and lively driving dynamics won’t be compromised by the diesel engine; you’ll just go a little farther on each gallon of fuel.” — Automobile Magazine (2010) “It’s incredibly cute, fun to drive and gets great mileage, but it’s a squeeze for my family of four in a way that makes road trips seem forbidding.” — Cars.com (2010)

Ford Drops Microsoft, Will Build Next Infotainment Systems Using Blackberry. Wait, What?

Detroit News, Ford may soon ditch the Microsoft platform that underlies Sync and migrate to a new, more stable system.

SYNC: THEN AND NOW

When Microsoft first partnered with Ford to build infotainment systems for cars, Bill Gates was still a full-time employee, and Microsoft was a proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the tech industry. Now, not so much.

Over the past several years, Microsoft has lost much of its edge, thanks to (a) mass migration to cloud-based software, (b) renewed popularity of Apple computers (not to mention Chromebooks and other alternatives), (c) Microsoft’s deeply despised Windows 8 operating system, and (d) its deeply disappointing Surface tablets. Heck, even Nokia — which will soon be partly owned by Microsoft — is trying to back away from the Windows Mobile operating system. At this point, the only area in which Microsoft remains a bona fide leader is in console gaming, and with the release of the Sony PS4, even that’s in jeopardy.

Given Microsoft’s growing obsolescence, it’s no surprise that one of its best-known offerings for cars — Ford Sync — has been a dismal failure. (Popular, yes, but a failure.) Paired with MyFord Touch, Sync is largely responsible for Ford’s steep decline in initial quality rankings.

And so, Ford appears to be drafting a “Dear John” letter, addressed to Redmond. Detroit News cites someone with “knowledge” of Ford’s tech plans, who says that in the near future, Ford will kick Microsoft to the curb and build its next-gen infotainment systems with younger, nimbler company: Blackberry.

Wait, what?

Yes, Blackberry. (It exists. Who knew?) If the rumors are true, Ford will rebuild Sync on the QNX platform, which is owned by Blackberry. The source suggests that an update to Sync could migrate existing models from Microsoft to QNX very quickly and easily.

QNX is popular with developers and handset makers because of the way it’s designed. While most operating systems work as one big program, QNX simultaneously runs a range of parallel processes. In layman’s terms, that means that if QNX encounters a problem, it only has to shut down one app or program, rather than the entire operating system. As a result, it’s faster than many operating systems, and its more stable and lightweight, too.

Neither Ford nor Blackberry would deny the rumor, which would seem to give it some substance. If accurate, the changeover could happen this year or next.

2013 Nissan Pathfinder- Review

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The 2013 Nissan Pathfinder is in a new place that’s just right for families who want a big, comfortable, sensible wagon, but it’s given up some of its path-finding heritage to get there.

The Nissan Pathfinder is a mighty familiar SUV nameplate in the U.S. market. It’s been around more than a quarter century; yet this year it warrants a complete reintroduction.

Current or former Pathfinder owners looking to rekindle their relationship with the new version are likely to be sorely disappointed, as the 2013 Pathfinder doesn’t exactly follow in the previous model’s footsteps. This is no longer a musclebound truck; and Nissan wasn’t shooting for rock-crawling ability, or powerboat-towing prowess.

Those who clear their preconceptions will find who Nissan was opening the doors to: families, and especially families who need a little extra space. For that, you’ll likely find the Pathfinder to be an attractive, well-thought-out vehicle that performs better (and more efficiently) than a number of other family crossovers on the road—where it matters.

The 2013 Nissan Pathfinder has made that transition to a passenger-oriented uni-body design—now with just a dash of ruggedness—and its styling, with a soft, rakish tall-wagon look, communicates exactly that. It’s a little more swept-back, rakish, and curvaceous compared to other large crossovers, with a much more swept-back stance compared to most rival models; altogether it’s more wagon-like to our eyes than any of its rivals, like the Highlander, Pilot, or Explorer—not a bad thing, really. The Pathfinder’s heavily sculpted front fenders and rear fender accents give the design the right degree of ‘pop,’ and they fit right in with the design aesthetic of Nissan’s latest passenger-car models like the Altima and Sentra. Inside, there’s some trickle-down design and appointments from Infiniti for sure, but unremarkable materials and a limited set of just two rather drab interior colors makes the cabin feel unexpectedly conservative.

Provided you keep to the streets and highways—as Nissan is anticipating that the vast majority of Pathfinder owners will do—this is a vehicle that responds far better than last year’s model of the same name. All Pathfinders are now powered by the familiar 3.5-liter ‘VQ’ V-6, which has been used in everything from the 370Z to the Maxima and Murano, all in somewhat different tunes. Here it makes 260 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque, is good to go on regular-grade gasoline, and provides strong, smooth

acceleration with the continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT). With a wider span than the previous unit—and a sturdy chain instead of a belt—this CVT allows quicker acceleration and lower revs when cruising, although we note that there’s quite a delay for quick bursts of power for passing. Otherwise when you’re behind the wheel of the Pathfinder, it’s quite easy to forget that you’re driving any kind of utility vehicle. The Pathfinder responds in corners much more like a softly spring sedan than an SUV, and it drives without the nagging sense of heft that heavier models like GM’s full-size crossovers (which weigh several hundred pounds more) have. The hydraulic-electric steering in particular is excellent.

Models with four-wheel drive come with an Auto mode, as well as a 4WD Lock mode that sends an equal 50/50 to the front and rear axles, with traction-control electronics managing distribution side to side. There’s also a 2WD mode that can boost your gas mileage slightly when roads are completely dry and clear. There’s still some trail ability here, but don’t expect much more than you’d get in, say, a Subaru Outback (there’s actually less ground clearance). When equipped with the tow package, the Pathfinder can pull up to 5,000 pounds, and the chain-driven CVT will settle to a different cruising RPM depending on loads.

The new Pathfinder feels like it was designed for passenger comfort, interior space, and interior flexibility above nearly all else. It fits in for height and width within a few inches of the Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer, and Toyota Highlander, yet it’s quite a bit longer than any of those models—a few inches shorter than the super-roomy GM full-size crossovers (Traverse, Acadia, Enclave) and around the same length as the Mazda CX-9. Most of that length goes to the cabin, and it follows that the Pathfinder actually fits three usable rows of seating. Second-row bench accommodations can be slid back up to 5.5 inches when there’s nobody back in the third row, though adults may find it hard to get comfortable as they’re quite short, flat, and van-like, as well as surprisingly low—inviting a sort of legs-splayed position. The third row is low and hard, with barely enough headroom for an average adult—in other words, it’s roomier than the typical third row. And the second row has a trick ‘Latch and Glide’ function that lets you leave child seats in place while tilting the second row forward.

Ride quality is another strength for the Pathfinder. It’s smooth and refined—Nissan has paid extra attention to secondary vibrations—and you don’t hear or feel minor road coarseness. Wind noise is also kept under wraps even at Interstate cruising speeds, and the V-6 here is one of the few engines mated to a CVT that doesn’t drone insufferably when accelerating rapidly.

Nissan boasts that the Pathfinder provides “premium features for all passengers,” and especially if you spring for one of the higher trim levels, and some key options, that’s true. Opt for the top-of-the-line Pathfinder Platinum and for a bottom-line price of about $42k (4WD) you get the tow package, cooled front seats, the Bose audio system, navigation, and an Around View Monitor, all with a higher-resolution eight-inch WVGA display. With the available Nissan Navigation System, you also get traffic information, Bluetooth streaming audio, and voice recognition. Also on offer is a tri-zone entertainment system that lets you play separate programming for each of the two seven-inch rear screens (DVD, gaming input, or photos), all while front-seat occupants can listen to their own programming. All that’s missing on the Pathfinder is the taste of high-tech convenience features—like adaptive cruise control, or a blind-spot system—that are starting to jump from luxury brands down to the mainstream.

Video: How touch screen controls in cars should work

If you have a (relatively) new car, the center stack is probably flawed. You’d hoped for something sleek and intuitive, and instead, you wound up with Lieutenant Uhura’s computer from Star Trek: lots of bells and whistles that don’t seem to do much of anything.

This is a major problem, and solving it ranks among the biggest challenges facing today’s car companies. Our vehicles themselves may be better built than they once were, but as systems like Ford’s popular but much-loathed MyFord Touch demonstrate, our infotainment features are ready for the scrap heap.

Enter designer Matthaeus Krenn, who bemoans the fact that automakers “merely replicate old button layouts and shapes on these new, flat, glowing surfaces” littering today’s dashboards. In his notes for the video embedded above, Krenn says:

I propose a new mode that can be invoked at any time: It clears the entire screen of those tiny, intangible control elements and makes way for big, forgiving gestures that can be performed anywhere. In place of the lost tactile feedback, the interface leverages the driver’s muscle memory to ensure their ability to control crucial features without taking their eyes off the road.

Which sounds great, until you see what he’s actually proposed.

Is Krenn’s prototype beautiful? Absolutely. It looks like something out of Logan’s Run or Tron (high praise, back in the day). It would make a fantastic control panel for your in-home thermostat, lighting, and stereo.

Could it work in a car? Yes, but it would probably kill you.

We understand how Krenn’s interface works. We appreciate the way that it’s designed to be adaptive, so that it works no matter where you first touch it. Eventually, we could get used to its one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-finger controls.

But learning the system would take time, and we could envision many occasions when we meant to turn up the a/c but instead cranked up the Def Leppard. Also, we think he’s being far too optimistic when he suggest that a user could flip through her entire song catalog without glancing over at the screen.

And heaven forbid one of your parents should get a car with Krenn’s interface. You thought teaching them AOL was hard?

How Good is Your Country in this: The 10 Best & Worst Countries For Drivers

There are lots ways to die. There are also lots of people on Planet Earth tracking when and how people die. Two of those people — Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle — have compiled much of that data to show us where folks are most prone to die on the road.

The study is called Mortality from Road Crashes in 193 Countries: A Comparison with Other Leading Causes of Death (PDF). The title’s a little somber for our tastes, but in fairness, the report deals with a very somber subject, so we’ll it slide.

To compile their report, Sivak and Schoettle, who head up the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, pored over fatality statistics published by the World Health Organization in 2008. Though the two were keenly interested in traffic-related deaths, they also took note of fatalities from three other causes: heart disease, malignant neoplasms (shorthand: cancer), and cerebrovascular disease (shorthand: strokes). Then, they mapped that data, calculating the highest and lowest fatality rates associated with each illness, the fatality rates associated with auto accidents, and how the former and latter overlapped.

The good news is that, on average, strokes, heart disease, and cancer are much bigger threats to human beings than car accidents. The bad news is that in some countries, that’s not entirely true. In Namibia, for example, you’re 53 percent more likely to die in automobile collision than from cancer. And in Qatar, you’re more than five times as likely to die in a car accident than from a stroke. You’ve been warned.

Here are the ten deadliest countries for all four measured causes, with the number of deaths per 100,000 residents in parentheses. Not surprisingly, many of these countries are in the developing world and/or in regions experiencing significant civil conflict.

1. Chad (1717)
2. Guinea-Bissau (1675)
3. Central African Republic (1671)
4. Ukraine (1638)
5. Malawi (1627)
6. Afghanistan (1612)
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1607)
8. Somalia (1560)
9. Lesotho (1559)
10. Mozambique (1559)

And here are the deadliest countries with regard to just automobile accidents, along with the number of fatalities per 100,000 residents. Note that there’s only one overlapping country, Malawi. (“Congo” refers to the Republic of the Congo, not the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is a completely separate country.)

1. Namibia (45)
2. Thailand (44)
3. Iran (38)
4. Sudan (36)
5. Swaziland (36)
6. Venezuela (35)
7. Congo (34)
8. Malawi (32)
9. Dominican Republic (32)
10. Iraq (32)

And now, to the other end of the chart: the lowest fatality rates from all four causes of death…

183. Nicaragua (439)
184. Costa Rica (434)
185. Saudi Arabia (404)
186. Maldives (380)
187. Syria (364)
188. Oman (331)
189. Brunei Darussalam (310)
190. Bahrain (296)
191. Kuwait (175)
192. United Arab Emirates (155)
193. Qatar (141)

And the lowest fatality rates from auto accidents. Again, there’s little overlap, other than Maldives:

184. Switzerland (5)
185. Netherlands (4)
186. Antigua and Barbuda (4)
187. Tonga (4)
188. Israel (4)
189. Marshall Islands (4)
190. Fiji (4)
191. Malta (3)
192. Tajikistan (3)
193. Maldives (2)

For reference, the U.S. had 817 deaths per 100,000 residents from all four causes, which is slightly better than the average global fatality rate of 844.  In terms of auto fatalities, the U.S. had 14 deaths per 100,000, placing it above the global average of 18.

We should point out that the report leaves out a few countries that might’ve made the “ten safest” lists, but weren’t included — countries like Greenland and Vatican City. It also overlooks some troubled areas that could’ve ended up on the bottom, like South Sudan and Palestine. Just so you know.

SO, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

Maybe we’re Type-A personalities, but when we read a report, we expect to walk away with a few bullet points. Sivak and Schoettle’s findings, however, are a bit subtle for that. True, their per-country comparisons of various causes of death are interesting (e.g. the overwhelming likelihood that Qataris will die in auto accidents rather than from strokes), but the authors don’t draw any conclusions from those stats or offer any suggestions to explain them.

Perhaps Sivak and Schoettle began their work assuming/hoping that they’d find some overlap between the various causes of death. Unfortunately, they were comparing apples to apples, and such Freakonomic-style linkages occur more often when comparing apples to oranges — in this case, for example, looking for parallels between education rates or GDP and auto fatalities.

And so, we’re left with three major takeaways:

1. The knowledge that auto fatalities constitute a mere sliver of the world’s deaths: “For the world, fatalities from road crashes represented 2.1% of fatalities from all causes…. The highest percentage by country (15.9% in the United Arab Emirates) was 53 times the lowest percentage (0.3% in the Marshall Islands).”

2. Math still works: “For a country to have fatalities from road crashes corresponding to a high percentage of fatalities from another cause requires either a high fatality rate per population from road crashes, or a low fatality rate from the other cause, or both. The converse applies to a low percentage.” Which is a complicated sentence, but also duh.

3. Decent, if grisly fodder for cocktail party conversations.

If you’re intrigued by this kind of data, you should really check out a similar study published by the Pulitzer Center based on WHO data from 2010. Though many of the best and worst performers are the same as in Sivak and Schoettle’s report, the findings are far more nuanced.

The Pulitzer Center looked only at auto fatalities, taking into account the number of people killed as auto passengers as well as those killed while riding motorcycles, bicycles, and while walking. It also provided data on legal efforts to curb auto fatalities in each country, which was immensely interesting to data hounds like us.

Granted, the folks at Pulitzer didn’t draw many telling conclusions, either, but at least their data’s pretty.

2014 Toyota 4Runner

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The 2014 Toyota 4Runner’s brawny looks don’t fit the crossover mold, but neither do its off-road talents, either.

Back in the day, real sport-utility vehicles like the Toyota 4 Runner ruled the roads, the dirt ones and the paved ones. Today, Toyota’s RAV4 and Venza crossovers outsell the 4Runner by a factor of 10, but the 4 Runner survives as one of the few true-blue SUVs that still give drivers an alternative to the softer, rounder utes of today.

When it comes to charging up a steep incline or trudging through a muddy, rutted trail, only the 4Runner will make it through without any complaints. There aren’t many substitutes for that kind of hardcore sport-ute capability. The 4Runner is nearly in a class by itself these days, along with its two-door FJ Cruiser companion, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the Nissan Xterra–not to mention the Jeep Wrangler original.

The 4Runner’s rugged SUV look isn’t some conjured image. It’s the reverse: a long time ago it was spun off from truck-based hardware and given a wagon body, with few concessions made to style. That’s held true for decades now, and while we might like a ground-up fresh start every generation or so, the 4Runner at least remains honest to its mission. The beltline is high, the proportions are chunky, and the downward slope of the rear pillars are a direct callback to the ur-4Runner. Inside, the same fundamental approach works, and works well: the knobs and controls are big and laid out in an uncluttered way, and the controls and gauges are framed with simple materials and the barest dash of metallic trim. For 2014, the 4Runner adds more soft-touch trim inside on base SR5 and Trail models, and the SR5 gets Toyota’s sharp, bright Optitron gauges.

Overall, the Toyota 4Runner drives much better—and more athletically—than its trail-crawling appearance might suggest. Steering feel and maneuverability are unexpected delights in the 4Runner; at low speeds especially, the 4Runner handles with better precision and control than you might expect from such a big, heavy model, and visibility isn’t bad. But you’ll be reminded you’re in a tall vehicle with soft sidewalls and a safe suspension calibration if you attack corners too quickly. A 4.0-liter V-6 engine, makes 270 horsepower and 278 pound-feet of torque, and feels plenty quick either off the line or at highway speeds.
Fuel economy is estimated at 17/23 mpg for rear-drive models, and 17/22 mpg for four-wheel-drive versions.

V-6 SR5 models are offered either with rear-wheel drive or a part-time four-wheel-drive system, while Trail models are only offered with that 4WD system, with overhead controls. Limited models get a separate full-time four-wheel-drive system that’s more road-oriented. The Limited gets standard 20-inch wheels and tires, while other models come fitted with 17-inchers.

In Trail grade (the off-road model), the 4Runner includes a host of electronics and systems meant to complement the sturdy off-road hardware. Base models can be a little pitchy on rough pavement, but Limited models get yet another setup: a so-called X-REAS system with electronically adjusting dampers, geared for flatter cornering and pavement surfaces. The Kinetic Dynamic Suspension System (KDSS) that’s optional in the Trail model uses hydraulics to reduce motions on-road or increase off-road traction and riding comfort, with more wheel travel in that situation.

Interior space is where you might start to notice some of the shortcomings of the 4Runner’s traditional body-on-frame layout versus models like the Ford Explorer or Dodge Durango. Simply put, while the 4Runner has smartly designed seating and is comfortable enough for long highway trips, it’s not quite up to some of these alternatives in terms of cargo space or flexibility, due to its narrower body and rather tall floor. The front seats look and feel great with the available perforated-leather upholstery, and they’re wide and supportive, to fit quite the range of sizes. The second row adjusts for rake (reclining 16 degrees in four stops), and adult-sized occupants will also feel at home, thanks to seat contouring that goes well beyond the stiff bench cushions in some rivals. As for the third row, it’s hard to get back there, so leave it to the (small) kids; it’s only offered on the more on-road-oriented models, not on the Trail edition.

The 4Runner is also surprisingly refined inside–dodging some of the impressions of trucks and off-road-able vehicles and providing a tight, quiet highway cruising experience, with a reasonably smooth ride and very little road or wind noise. Safety is also not at all compromised compared to popular crossovers, with eight standard airbags, including front side bags, side-curtain bags for the second and third rows, and front knee bags for the driver and passenger. Safety scores from the IIHS and federal government have indicated that the 4Runner has relatively good occupant protection, but it’s not quite in the top tier. A rearview camera is now standard on all models.

Base 4Runner SR5 models include plenty of standard equipment, including a power driver seat, a roof rack, power features, and an audio system with a CD player, satellite radio, a USB port, iPod connectivity, and Bluetooth audio streaming. Mobile-app connectivity is standard via Toyota’s Entune services. The off-road purists who also sometimes need to haul the family will want the Trail model, which includes all the off-road goodies. Top Limited models step up to dual power front seats, navigation, and 15-speaker JBL premium sound. Other desirable features include sonar-based rear parking, a navigation system, and a subscription-based Safety Connect telematics system.

2013 Ford Explorer- Review

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Ford Explorer trades some trail-riding and towing for on-road driving lessons, and comes out fluent.

The Ford Explorer may be one of the most familiar sport-utility vehicles in the universe, but it’s hardly a rugged SUV anymore. We call it a crossover vehicle–a wagon with car-based running gear, and some off-road ability, but more emphasis on family-hauling and all-weather ability.

That sea change makes today’s Explorer the most suited yet to how most drivers actually use it. Gas mileage is better than ever, and so is handling. On the infotainment front, the Explorer has more navigation, audio, and connectivity options than any Ford of just a few years ago–rivaled only by its archrival, the trail-ready Grand Cherokee.

The Explorer still looks reassuringly ute-like, though its rounded corners and subtle details register on a carlike plane, while the interior does its best impression of a Taurus sedan. Today’s Explorer can carry up to seven passengers, and adults will be fine in the front five seats, with truly excellent head and shoulder room. It sits taller than Ford’s own Flex, and access to the third-row seat is tight. Cargo space comes within a few cubic feet, though, and the Explorer’s utility doesn’t seem diminished at all with time–if anything, the power-folding seats and power tailgate have made it easier to stuff with big-box finds.

The Explorer’s performance has been totally transformed in this generation, buttoned down to sport-wagon standards. There’s a base V-6 and six-speed automatic with front-wheel drive that delivers benign and predictable handling, with all-wheel drive as an option. Experimenting with the optional (and more expensive) turbo four is best left to those who don’t carry people or their heavier possessions very often. The grunty Explorer Sport? It’s quicker than any V-8 Explorer in the past, and makes for a swifter, tauter, more appealing driving machine than Ford’s own Taurus SHO, with better visibility and interior room to boot.

Since it shares running gear with the likes of the Flex, even the Taurus, the new Explorer can’t quite hit the trails with the likes of the Grand Cherokee. That leaves it more equipped to excel at on-road handling, which it does convincingly with quick steering and terrific ride control that’s due in equal part to an independent suspension and its still-substantial curb weight.

The Explorer is happiest when it’s behaving on the highway–but it’s more than willing to get a little dirty when you want to, with a Terrain Management system that controls stability and other systems to limit wheelspin while maintaining a 5000-pound towing capacity. It’s definitely Explorer Lite compared to the distant past, but it’s still quite capable, in the wider view.

The Explorer is one of the safest vehicles Ford builds, with inflatable rear seat belts and rearview cameras and blind-spot detectors. It also woos gearheads of another kind with MyFord Touch, the convoluted but promising system that uses voice, button or touchscreen control to govern infotainment and other vehicle functions.
And in truth, the 2013 Ford Explorer does what the wide majority of us want to do in a crossover. It makes plenty of room for lots of people, or lots of stuff, and it does it much more efficiently than it ever did in the past. It holds on to those mud-running bona fides too–even if they probably were only ever weekend ambitions for most of their suburban owners.

2014 Mercedes-Benz M Class – Review

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For active families who need to tow a boat or occasionally head off-pavement–but don’t need a third row–the 2014 Mercedes-Benz ML is an excellence vehicle choice.

What the Mercedes-Benz M-Class can do, and what it’s actually used for, aren’t always the same thing, but that’s life for a luxury SUV. The M-Class possesses a degree of off-road ruggedness that most owners will never explore, instead choosing to treat it as a minivan replacement, hauling kids from school to soccer practice.

The current M-Class looks more aggressive than past models, but without straying too far from the outward image too much. Inside, it’s soft and sedan-like, with swooping curves and sculpted lines making up the instrument panels, center stack and the seven-inch display for the latest version of M-B’s COMAND interface.

Seating in the M-Class is about on par with that in other luxury SUVs its size. Taller adults can sit in back, in the outboard positions, though it’s still a bit of a squeeze to fit three across. Cushions are well contoured, and the front seats especially are like we expect from Mercedes, with all-day support built in. Rear seatbacks are also now adjustable for rake, and there’s more than 36 cubic feet of cargo space behind the second-row seats. With the last generation of the ML, Mercedes made considerable advances in refinement and materials, bringing the cabin appointments and ride quality up to par with that of the brand’s sedans. In this new third-gen version, it’s even better—especially the way everything fits.

Although it does flaunt its off-road side in appearance, the 2014 Mercedes-Benz M-Class drives like a luxury sedan most of the time, with a smooth, refined character behind the wheel. Powertrains are strong and responsive; handling is secure; and roadholding is confident. The new 302-hp base V-6 engine in the M-Class, a 3.5-liter, 60-degree V-6, was completely new last year, and we think it’s one of the best V-6 luxury engines. But we’d still go with the torquey, fuel-efficient BlueTEC turbodiesel V-6. The gasoline engines especially tend to work well in concert with the seven-speed automatic transmission, singing all the way up the rev range with no rough edges. ML550 models include a stronger, direct-injection 4.6-liter V-8 that makes 402 hp and 443 pound-feet of torque. And at the top of the range–and new for 2013–is the new ML 63 AMG, which comes with a 5.5-liter biturbo V-8 making 518 hp and 516 lb-ft. Other upgrades include five-spoke, 20-inch AMG wheels, and if you opt for the AMG Perfor 20-inch AMG wheels, and if you opt for the AMG Performance Package you’ll have 550 hp and 560 lb-ft.

Some customers will still expect the off-road ability to be here, so Mercedes-Benz hasn’t dumbed that down too much or lightened the M-Class’ towing or basic trail ability. The 4MATIC system’s electronic, stability-system-linked 4-ETS torque distribution can send nearly all engine torque to whichever single wheel can use it. The suspension is also remarkably versatile for a combination of on-road use or off-roading. Opt for the off-road package, and you get an automatically detaching roll-bar system. Towing capability is here, too–up to 7,200 pounds, and at its best in torquey BlueTEC guise.

The 2014 Mercedes-Benz M-Class offers many of the same comforts, infotainment, connectivity, and plush luxury features you’ll find in the brand’s top sedans, like the S-Class–as well as some features that help it standout against other utility vehicles.

Some of those standouts include a heated or cooled cupholder that can heat up to 141 degrees F. And there’s an iPad docking station—positioned between the front seats and in view for rear passengers—that will be available first in this product but will soon be available for all Mercedes-Benz models. A night-vision system is among the standalone options, as is an Advanced Park Assist system, which helps steer the vehicle back into a parallel-parking space as the driver controls the accelerator and brakes.