Car Review

2009 Fiat 500 Abarth

You know the back story on the Fiat 500. First shown as a retrofashionista-inspired concept at the Geneva motor show a few years back; production followed suit; European Car of the Year; huge sales ensued; blah, blah. It seems nearly everybody loves this thing, which blends cuddly style, reasonable value, and solid driving dynamics.

I know what you’re thinking: “Now that Chrysler and Fiat are swapping spit, will we get the 500 in America?” And, “How does that hot rod Abarth version drive, and will we get that?” Although neither Chrysler nor Fiat has officially announced a North American product plan for the 500, it’s nearly a done deal. The car needs to be crash-tested and certified, powertrain offerings have to be sorted, and production capacity will be made in a North American factory, most likely in Mexico. And what of the Abarth version, the Amped 500? Been there (to Italy), drove that, had a blast.

If you follow such things, you know Carlo Abarth was Fiat’s tuner of choice many decades ago, and the brand is now owned by Fiat. Think Italian version of AMG, BMW M, and such. The 500 Abarth’s closest comparison, in spirit and in dimension, is the Mini Cooper S. Both are enthusiast-spec’d, turbocharged versions of a volume subcompact, hatchback, front-drive coupe. They are relatively close in terms of overall packaging and size, although hardly identical in personality.

Two Abarth-tuned powertrains are offered in Europe. Standard is a 1.4-liter turbocharged DOHC four rated at 133 horsepower. A limited-edition, up-spec version is twisted a little tighter, to produce 160 cavallini out of the same displacement. It’s doubtful either will make it to the U.S. just they are; we suspect a torquier engine of at least 1.6 liters is a more likely guess. The only trans offered is a five-speed manual; this would likely change for U.S. consumption as well. The reason there is no six-speed is that Fiat at the moment doesn’t have a compact transaxle rated for these power outputs that also fits in this chassis architecture. The rest of the Abarth treatment is much as you’d expect: beefier rolling stock, brakes, suspension tuning, stripes, sport seats, and (perhaps a few too many) Abarth badges. Our tester was a somewhat base 135-horse model, wearing 16-inch rubber. A 17-inch wheel and tire package is optional.

Like the Mini, the cinquecento Abarth has charisma in spades. One onlooker commented that it resembles “an angry bowling ball.” Like the cartoon version of the Tazmanian Devil, it’s terminally cute, yet means business. Credit Abarth’s pipe benders: The large dual exhaust pipes burble out an engine note that sounds far too deep and rich to emanate from 1.4 liters. It pops and spits and gurgles; and it wouldn’t hurt our feelings if it were louder but it’s fine as it is. Although the Cooper S has more low-down torque, this pint-size powerplant is pretty linear in delivery, and the power curve stays flat and strong right to the 6000-rpm redline. Fiat claims a 7.8-second 0-to-60 time, which feels accurate.

The lack of a six-speed manual might be a marketing issue for Fiat to consider, but out on the road, you don’t really miss the last cog. The five-speed’s ratios are nicely spaced, and it’s easy to keep the little guy on boil. But the shifter is an unhappy subject. It’s too long, there’s too much slop, and it feels neither crisp nor precise. For such an important driver control, this is an unfortunate boo-boo.

Speaking of driver inputs, the Abarth’s steering is marginally hampered by too many electrons and not enough direct connection. All 500s employ an electric steering system, which is known for lack of feel. In this case, there’s little to no mushiness off-center and a plenty quick steering ratio, but true to form, it all feels somewhat artificial. The computer cranks in adequate weight, but there’s not a lot of genuine feedback from the tires. It’s better than many electronic systems, but more work is needed here. No such complaints with the Brembo brakes, which deliver firm pedal feel, nice modulation, and anchor-worthy stopping power.

We’d peg the Abarth’s overall handling persona as somewhere in between that of a standard Mini Cooper and that of the edgier, turbocharged Cooper S. The Fiat’s a little taller, as is the H-point at which you sit. The Abarth feels as if it has a lot more suspension travel. You trade its easy absorption of nasty bumps, which would send a Mini bouncing, for more body roll. Grip levels feel about equal, but that will be affected a lot by wheel and tire choice.

The Abarth rides better than a Cooper S. The Mini has better steering feel and quicker response, at the expense of annoying torque steer. The Abarth’s steering, as noted, is less communicative, but virtually banishes wheel wiggle. In short, the Cooper S feels like the slightly better handler, and would be a more exacting track toy; all but the most ardent drivers would likely rate the 500 Abarth better for everyday use and on long hauls. We know there’s more to be found in the 500 chassis, and Fiat could tune the Abarth to be more aggressive if it chose to do so. We’d say another 10-percent more response, feel, and flatness would make it. Slightly stiffer anti-roll bars, and the 17-inch rolling stock, would probably be enough.

The Abarth’s interior is a sporty and comfortable place to be. The center stack functions are easier to use than the Mini’s. The HVAC controls don’t require fingers the size of a seven-year-old’s to operate, and the tops of the tach and speedo aren’t cut off by the steering wheel (at least as set for this driver). There’s a skosh more seat room in back, although not a lot. No worries about headroom. Abarth sport seats grip you reasonably and will support you on long hauls, although they could be more aggressive in side bolstering. Visibility is excellent in all directions, and the large, airy greenhouse gives less of a cavelike feeling than you’ll sense in the British motor.

It’s too soon to talk pricing, but we get the impression Fiat could deliver an Abarth 5-10-percent cheaper than a comparably equipped Mini Cooper S would cost. As the new kid in school, that would even the field a bit. Timing is also TBD, but since the 500 needs powertrain development and crash certification, we’d say it’s two years away, at least. We speculate that what we’ll get will be a North America-certified version of the “midlife-updated” 500, product-developed in keeping with our tastes and market trends. It’s a darn good start, however; there’s lots of basic goodness to be found in the Littlest Fiat. We hope the overall plan includes the Abarth, in addition to “base” and cabriolet (convertible) models. Because there’s always room in our hemisphere for one more car that looks cool, is silly fun to drive, and is affordable to the enthusiasts who want it.

Sourced via motortrend.com

Exclusive: The all great Lotus Evora

With its stunning visual impact, exhilarating all-round dynamic
performance, innovative chassis technology and high levels
of luxury, packaging and convenience, the Evora heralds an
exciting new era for Lotus.

The first all-new Lotus since the iconic Elise made its debut in 1995, The
Evora enters the sports car market as currently the world’s only mid-engined
2+2. Powered by a Lotus-tuned 3.5-litre V6 engine producing 280 PS, and
weighing just 1350 kg (prototype specification), the Evora promises
breathtaking performance. During preliminary testing around the famous
Nürburgring, the Lotus chassis engineers report that it is extremely agile and
great fun to drive – even when clad with the full development disguise that hid
the beautiful lines from the prying motor-industry paparazzi.

In addition to its excellent performance and exemplary handling, the Evora
offers a more refined ownership experience than Lotus’s existing smaller four cylinder models. Its elegantly styled cabin is elegantly trimmed and its
equipment list includes contemporary features such as an advanced touchscreen multi-media system and electric power-fold door mirrors.

2010 Bentley Continental Supersports

Just weeks from now, Bentley will unveil its replacement for the Arnage, a rival to the Rolls-Royce Phantom. Yet at the other end of Bentley‘s spectrum, the new Continental Supersports is claimed to be a rival to the Ferrari 599.

Ferrari 599? That’s a bold claim. The Supersports is, after all, a derivative of the Continental GT — an overweight four-seat GT, not a lithe supercar. Well yes, but after an “engineering drive” of a late prototype, we can confirm the Continental Supersports has come a long way from your garden-variety Continental GT.

A rework of the twin-turbo engine sees peak power rise to 621 horsepower. The torque rises seven percent to 590 pound-feet, developed on a level line from 2500 rpm to 4000. And the engine doesn’t have such a hard job: vehicle weight has fallen by 242 pounds.

biggest slim-fast aids are the front seats, a pair of Bentley-upholstered Sparco carbon fiber shells. They have recline and reach adjustments — non-electric — but to move them in any other direction means the use of a wrench. Besides, there’s no rear seat. Instead, it’s a baggage bench with carbon-fiber retaining member.

The interior might be lighter but it’s still pretty plush. If your bags are used to an aircraft hold, they’ll enjoy reclining on the ultrasoft quilted Alcantara in the rear cabin of the Supersports. Up front, the driver enjoys new instrument faces, styled to recall the clocks on the first 100-mph Bentley, the 1925 Supersports.

Carbon brakes are standard, as are extra-lightweight wheels, and the front suspension gets aluminum lower leading links (the other three links and the uprights were aluminum anyway). This is not just weight, but unsprung weight. And in the case of the wheels and brake rotors, rotating weight. Well worth losing.

All of which means the 0-60 mph figure is now a brutal 3.7 seconds, without rollout. And top speed rises to 204 mph. To keep the engine cool and boost power, there are vast intercooler intakes at the lower corners of the front clip. New hood vents help extract the enormous gusts of hot air. The rear wheels have more offset than on the base Continental, so the rack is wider, necessitating different rear fender pressings.

Dr Ulrich Eichhorn, Bentley’s engineering director, takes the driving seat first as we leave the historic factory in Crewe, in England’s North West. The car’s deep, soft, slightly syncopated W-12 beat is more prominent than usual — its tailpipes are bigger and the rear of the car carries less soundproofing as well as missing the absorbent rear seat. We like this noise. There’s a bit more tire roar too but this is still a civilized car.

Eichhorn is a swift, clean, and decisive driver. We’re soon out into the twisting English roads, with their unpredictable second- and third-gear curves and treacherous wet and bumpy surfaces. We are not hanging about. He demonstrates the car’s marvelously disciplined body control as it dips and crests.

The acceleration is properly urgent. Upshifts through the six-speed autobox are accompanied by a fusillade of backfires: It’s a new quickshift strategy that engages each new ratio in half the time, and cuts just the ignition not the fueling.

Eichhorn floors the throttle in a tight curve and shows how the tail will loosen up, thanks to a more rear-biased Torsen center differential. But normally the car just seems to magnetize itself to each apex.

We swap places. First thing to be noticed from the driver’s seat is the sharpness of the steering. The rack is revised, but so is the electronic damper strategy, so the roll rate is better controlled, and the car scythes into a curve with progression, directness, and reassurance. Eichhorn also says that the yaw center has been moved forward — the car “turns around the driver.” That wasn’t possible before because he says it would seem upsetting to rear passengers.

And yes, the car is inclined to steer on the throttle a little. It has been raining hard by the time MT gets to drive, and the traction is immense, helped by the wider rear tread. But more notable is that you can get on the throttle early in a bend and the car pulls itself to the apex rather than understeering away from it, its looser ESP calibration keeping the boost up nicely.

So what about those Ferrari comparisons then? Well, because the Supersports is so capable in the wet and the 599 can so easily overwhelm its rear tires in those conditions, I’m sure the Bentley would have been quicker on the day, and easier to drive thanks to its immense torque. But the Supersports is still more than half a ton heavier than the Ferrari. It wears its pounds well, but not that well.

On the other hand, its air suspension means the Supersports driver can alter the spring rates and the damping, so when switched to comfort mode this is an unusually cosseting sports car for the daily commute.

And a low-guilt one. The Supersports is Bentley’s first E85-capable car, and it was an extensive engine calibration job to get it there. It can run on any mixture from E0 to E85 with no change in power. Bentley will offer this capability as standard across its fleet by 2012.

So the fastest-ever Bentley is the greenest-ever Bentley. Eichhorn felt it important to launch in this way, showing that the two aims aren’t entirely irreconcilable.
Sourced via motortrend.com

Review: 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 vs 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

“Not fair!” howled a bunch of Ford fans when we pitted the 2010 Mustang GT against Chevy’s new Camaro, and it lost. “What about the Shelby GT500? You should be comparing the top-of-the-range Camaro with the top-of-the-range Mustang.”

Hey, it’s not our fault Ford brought a knife to a gunfight. The simple truth is you can buy a 426-horsepower Camaro for the same money as a 315-horsepower Mustang. In fact, order a GT Premium with the TrackPack — the only way to get the GT500-inspired suspension upgrades, 3.73 rear axle, dual-piston front calipers, recalibrated stability control system, plus the 19-inch wheels and tires that make the 2010 Mustang such a blast through the twisties — and you’ll pay about 1500 bucks more than you would for a 1SS-spec Camaro, which comes standard with Pirelli tires, Brembo brakes, a six speed manual transmission, and a 21st-century rear suspension.

Look at the price, look at the market positioning: The Mustang GT’s logical rival is the faster, more powerful, more refined Camaro SS. End of argument.

But the Ford faithful got us thinking: With the 556-horse supercharged Z/28 on indefinite hold, the SS is the toughest factory Camaro you can buy. Is it good enough to take on the new 540-horse 2010 Shelby GT500? Or does Ford now own the high ground in a ponycar war that has ebbed and flowed between these two automakers for more than 40 years now? We decided to find out.

First, we corralled a 2SS Camaro manual with the optional RS package (the giveaway is the red SS badging). It’s mechanically identical to the $30,995 1SS we tested earlier, but a bunch of appearance and luxury extras, including a sunroof, boost the price tag to $37,250. We’ve covered the new GT500 in detail already. Base price is $48,175, but our tester came equipped with Ford’s Electronics Package — essentially nav and dual-zone air-conditioning — plus HID headlights, pushing the sticker to $50,985.

You want bang-for-buck barroom bragging rights? The Camaro SS nails it. There isn’t a car on the planet that delivers as much sheer grunt for the money. It easily outpoints the GT500 — you’ll spend 55 percent more to buy the Shelby, and only get 27 percent more mumbo. But this isn’t about bar talk. Let’s head out to the track.

The Camaro is a porky car, a legacy of its Australian-developed Zeta platform, which was deliberately over-engineered to ensure the Holden Commodore gained five-star ratings in the Australian NCAP crash tests. At 3888 pounds, it has a weight to power ratio of 9.12 pounds/horsepower. The GT500 is no lightweight, either — at 3903 pounds, it weighs a surprising 331 pounds more than a regular Mustang GT. But those 540 horses under the hood help compensate, delivering a weight to power ratio of 7.22 pounds/horsepower.

No surprise, then, that the GT500 is quicker over the quarter mile, nailing the distance in 12.8 seconds. What is a surprise is the Ford’s winning margin, as the Camaro is a mere tenth of a second slower, despite its 114-horsepower handicap. In fact, the big Chevy is actually quicker off the line than the GT500 and only starts to get reeled in by the more powerful supercharged Shelby mid-track. The trap speeds — 115.3 mph versus 110.7 mph — show the Ford’s power advantage at work at the top end.

The Ford’s big problem is traction. The rock-hard Goodyear Eagle F1 tires grip about as well as a pair of bowling balls, and you have to feather the gas otherwise the GT500 will be left standing in a cloud of tire smoke as the Camaro simply digs in and grunts away. If you’re not careful, the GT500′s live rear axle hops and bangs and thumps, spitting the car sideways as the tires struggle for grip.

It’s a core element of modern Mustang mythology that the GT500′s S197 platform has a live rear axle because it delivers better traction on the drag strip. (And it is mythology — several folks who worked at Ford have since revealed the S197 was originally planned to have an independent rear end, and that the drag race traction story was PR spin designed to deflect media criticism of the car’s stone-age rear suspension). But even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we’re not convinced it could match the Chevy’s off-the-line grip.

At Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca for some hot laps, more surprises: The first is that despite the rock hard rubber, the GT500 is a sensational track car. Like the Mustang GT with the TrackPack, it has terrific steering and hyper-aggressive turn-in response. It feels light and agile, and with a ton of power on tap from the supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 pretty much from idle, it’s easily steered on the throttle. The Shelby telegraphs its punches well in advance, and the transitions are smooth and predictable.

The big Chevy has better brakes, the 6.2-liter LS3 is smoother and more refined all the way to its 6200-rpm redline, and the rear end traction is superb. But, oh, boy, does it push when you start to push. You feel like you’re grabbing armfuls more lock through every turn than you are in the Shelby.

Whereas the GT500 can be hurled into a turn, and you can use the responsive steering and engine to sort out the geometry from there, the Camaro demands carefully judged entry speeds and track position. You get one shot at the optimum line, as the car’s trajectory is pretty much non-adjustable from the moment you pull the steering wheel off-center. Try anything other than lifting off the gas — which destroys mid-corner speed — and the front end simply runs wide. Compounding the problem is the Camaro’s low seating position and gun-slit windows, which make it difficult to place the car accurately.

Out on real world roads, the Camaro is easily the smoother, more refined, more mature car of the two; more deliberate in its moves, and more measured in its responses. The LS3 is a sweetheart, as rich and smooth as molten chocolate right through the rev range, but the drivetrain is spoiled by the aggressive clutch takeup high in the pedal’s arc of travel. Other niggles include the oddly profiled steering-wheel rim, which is uncomfortable to hold, and the strangely shaped shifter. The Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual is also not as quick and slick as the version in the ZR1 Corvette.

The GT500 is a much more lively ride off the track, with lots more sharp vertical motions through the suspension, and an unmistakable two-step from the live rear axle through anything other than super-smooth turns. The brakes don’t feel as robust as the Camaro’s, and the engine is harsher, but the steering is wonderful, the retro-style billiard ball shifter easy to use, the pedals are better placed, and the exhaust crackles and barks like a race car’s.

The Chevy Camaro SS is a swaggering rock star of a ponycar. Almost everything you touch and see has been compromised in the name of style — the front-end graphic looks overwrought, the slammed roof means anyone over 6 feet 2 simply won’t fit comfortably in a car equipped with a sunroof, the optional console-mounted gauges look cool but are pretty much useless otherwise, and the trunk opening is little more than a mailbox slot. But the Camaro delivers pure, unadulterated driveway theater few other $30,000-$40,000 cars can match.

Shelby GT500 is probably the greatest Mustang ever built, the ultimate evolution of a tried-and-true formula that dates back 45 years. It needs better brakes and better tires, and, like the Camaro, needs to lose a few pounds. But it’s a comfortably charismatic car; a deliberately rose-tinted, digitally remastered memory of a happier and simpler automotive America. While the Camaro is modern muscle with a manga edge, the GT500 is Norman Rockwell with racing stripes.

Just as the Mustang GT is a lot closer to the Camaro SS than its horsepower difference suggests it ought to be, the Camaro SS is a lot closer to the GT500 than you’d think. The key difference is this: The Camaro can be distant and detached, almost a little clumsy, especially when driven hard, while the GT500 always feels as playful and engaging as a Labrador on puppy uppers. What we have here is one old-school chassis at the absolute apogee of its development curve versus a new one that has missed the mark for the enthusiast driver on its first go-around (the Camaro’s chassis is similar to the Zeta that we love in the Pontiac G8 GXP, but not identical — the front axle center line has been moved almost two inches forward relative to the firewall).

So the Ford Shelby GT500 is king of the modern ponycar hill. For now.

Sourced via motortrend.com