Z-06

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

I is not. Just stating the actions.

...and GM isn't the only one with the idea that FWD is the way to go...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/16/ru...eplacement-com/

I think I'm going to buy an old 50's truck and give up on modern car makers. In about 3 or 4 years there will be nothing outside of the MINI that will appeal to me.

...and people who are passionate about what they drive will be the ones getting the shaft.

Chris

It is Honda. FWD is ingrained full time in the company. Does not surprise me least bit. The most conservative of the Japanese company, while its powertrain strides are good when it comes to 4-cylinders, creating hardcore performance oriented vehicle is still an elusive giant squid for Honda.

Camino, while I do not have any numbers, I did notice the activity on the forum was almost more than it has been for a while when the announcement came. And after CSPEC put the death news on yesterday evening, it has been slow here.

[source: Road and Track]

When a Cadillac CTS-V and the brand-new Jaguar XFR arrived at our offices, it was obvious a proper road trip was in order. But not just any old road trip would do. We needed to take these two pinnacles of sports-sedan-dom on an epic adventure, somewhere they could stretch their really long legs. After all, the CTS-V and XFR pack some serious heat, armed with 500-plus-bhp supercharged V-8s, suitably stiffened and electronically adjustable suspension systems, big brakes, limited-slip differentials and properly sporting interiors. Since a run up the RV-bogged California coast simply wasn't going to cut it this time, Road Test Editor Jonathan Elfalan and I packed our bags, grabbed our sunglasses and iPods and headed northeast toward Utah, in search of wide-open spaces, beautiful scenery and incredible driving roads.

A few scorched tires and a couple of speeding tickets later, we found all of the above. Plus a new super sedan king.

2010 Jaguar XFR

Points: 375.4

The 2010 XFR easily ranks as one of the most impressive cars ever to come from Jaguar. What makes the XFR truly "leap" is an all-new direct-injected V-8 dubbed the AJ-V8 Gen III R. This 5.0-liter actually takes up less space in the engine bay than its 4.2-liter predecessor (it's shortened by 0.94 in.) due to the relocation of the oil pump within the engine architecture, while the weight has remained virtually unchanged.

But it's the 4-lobe Roots-type supercharger that steals the show here, the high-helix rotor design pretty much making supercharger whine a thing of the past. Power and torque have jumped by 23 percent and 12 percent, respectively, from the previous 4.2-liter supercharged engine's, the new XFR putting out 510 bhp at 6000 rpm and 461 lb.-ft. of torque at a low 2500 rpm. It's that abundance of low-end torque that makes the Jag powerplant such a sweet piece to use, Elfalan calling it "a jewel with a nice snarl," and praising the V-8's "torque band that's broader and comes in lower than the CTS-V's." Although the Caddy has more torque — 551 lb.-ft. — it's produced at a higher 3800 rpm, making it more common to find yourself in one of those "wait for it" moments. With the XFR, power is always there and seemingly never-ending, like a jet airplane on takeoff.

Handling transmission duty in the Jag is ZF's 6HP28 6-speed automatic gearbox — enhanced with additional clutch plates and an upgraded torque converter to accommodate the engine's extra power. The result is 0–60 mph in 4.3 seconds. While it's true the CTS-V accomplishes the same feat 0.2 sec. quicker, it's impressive that the Jag stays as close to the Caddy as it does, considering the CTS-V has more power, a manual transmission and is 275 lb. lighter.

For the most part, the Jag's paddle-shift automatic is a pleasure to use, with seamless shifts in full automatic operation and quick gearchanges in Manual mode accompanied by strong throttle blips on downshifts, along with what we believe is the industry's largest gear indicator when in Dynamic mode. Two annoyances: In Manual mode, the transmission doesn't automatically downshift to 1st gear when you come to a stop, leaving you launching in 2nd gear if you forget to shift it down yourself. And occasionally the system won't let you downshift manually if it thinks the revs are too high.

Jaguar has long been known for an ability to tune a great ride/handling suspension compromise, and the new XFR keeps the faith thanks to its computer-controlled suspension called Adaptive Dynamics. The system automatically adjusts the Bilstein shock absorbers to suit both the road conditions and the way in which the car is being driven. Switch the XFR to Dynamic mode, and the throttle, stability control, transmission and suspension responses are set to even more aggressive levels.

Despite its size and weight, the XFR truly is a spry cat, one that can be thrown into a corner with a ton of confidence. It's only in comparison to the oh-so-serious CTS-V that the Jag falters slightly. It's then you notice the XFR's variable-ratio steering is too light and lacks precision, its suspension is set a touch softer and the Dunlop tires are a bit less grippy. Still, the XFR is a playful machine that's very controllable at the limit, aided by Jaguar's new electronic limited-slip rear differential — it gives all the handling and traction benefits of a mechanical diff, while dialing out initial turn-in understeer and eliminating low-speed diff noise.

And, given a choice of Caddy or Jag to drive from Utah back to California, Elfalan and I fought over the smoother-riding Jag...literally.

The level of workmanship throughout the XFR's interior is superb, and every feature imaginable comes standard at the car's $80,000 as-tested price. We couldn't get enough of the Jag's superbly stitched leather, plush Alcantara headliner and soothing Phosphor Blue interior lighting. Sure, the automatically opening vent outlets and rising gearshift knob are a bit gimmicky, but we like them anyway. Some, though, have questioned the "Jaguar-ness" of both the interior and exterior styling — neither seems particularly British.

But for most, what will matter is that the XFR is a fantastic sports sedan. While the standard XF and XF Supercharged were already fine-driving machines, the new XFR version jumps this cat to a whole new level of performance.

2009 Cadillac CTS-V

Points: 384.9

Few cars have been more heralded of late than Cadillac's second-generation CTS-V. First, the car set a lap record for production sedans at the Nürburgring (R&T, August 2008). Next, we set up a lap-time grudge match between BMW's legendary M5 and the CTS-V (R&T, October 2008), with the Cadillac nipping the mighty German.

So the CTS-V comes standard with hype. But contrary to what you might think for a car equipped with a version of the Corvette ZR1's supercharged V-8, what stands out the most about the CTS-V is not its power, but rather its superb handling. Much of the credit here goes to the use of magneto-rheological shock absorbers. The system's electronic sensors "read the road" every millisecond, constantly adjusting the damping to control the car's body motions. Changing the Caddy's suspension from Tour to Sport mode further ups the 4-door sports-car quotient. Body roll gets significantly checked, the car taking on a "hunkered-down set," as Elfalan put it. The levels of grip and confidence let you attack corners as if you were in a much lighter sports car.

The variable-effort steering is quick and precise in normal use. But switch the car's stability system to Competitive mode, or fully off, and extra steering effort is automatically dialed in. The result? Near perfect weighting. Grip is plentiful from the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, to the tune of 0.90g around the skidpad and an impressive 70.1 mph through the slalom, bettering the previous CTS-V's numbers of 0.87g and 66.0 mph, respectively.

The CTS-V's pushrod 6.2-liter V-8 (called the LSA), as with the Jag XFR, uses a Roots-type 4-lobe supercharger to achieve 556 bhp at 6100 rpm and 551 lb.-ft. of torque at 3800 rpm. But unlike the raucous and beastly LS9 upon which the engine is based, the Caddy's V-8 exhibits a surprisingly muted sound, even under full throttle at high revs. The Jag sounds more muscular, largely due to intake manifold pressure pulsations ducted into its cabin.

Muted or not, the CTS-V isn't slow, launching to 60 mph in just 4.1 sec. and scorching the quarter mile in 12.3, besting the XFR by 0.2 and 0.3 sec., respectively. By 130 mph, the CTS-V is 1.7 sec. ahead of the lesser powered Jag. Drag launches are one thing, but out in the real world, when you're not always in the gear you need to be, the CTS-V feels softer than the Jag low in the rev range.

All credit to Cadillac for continuing to offer the CTS-V with a 6-speed manual (for the first time, a 6-speed automatic with paddle shifters is also available). The new Tremec TR6060 transmission features a more user-friendly dual-disc clutch, while the whole unit has been significantly strengthened versus the previous T56 to handle the CTS-V's newfound torque. Shift quality is far superior to that of the old gearbox, but the throws are still on the longish side.

Similarly impressive are the CTS-V's Brembo brakes, 15.0-in. rotors with 6-piston calipers up front and 14.7-in. rotors with 4-piston calipers at the rear. The pedal feel defines the term "rock solid," giving supreme confidence when pushing the car hard on a twisty mountain road. The same can't be said for the XFR; its brakes were touchy around town and then became mushy with significantly increased pedal travel during the same period of exuberant driving.

The CTS-V's interior has seen drastic improvements. The cheap plastics of the previous model are gone and the styling has grown up, although the breastplate-like center stack stays true to Caddy's modern Art and Science theme. The Alcantara-covered steering wheel and shift lever are nice touches, although the wheel could use thicker padding. As good as the interior is, the CTS-V's is still not a match for the Jaguar's in terms of quality and presentation. Our biggest complaint focused on the optional Recaro sport seats — while their electrically adjustable bolsters offer great amounts of lateral support, the concave shape of the upper seatback combined with the forward cant of the headrest made for uncomfortable long stints.

Optional seat issues aside, the CTS-V proved to be an amazing machine, and definitely lives up to the hype that surrounds it.

Conclusion

As you might have noticed, the CTS-V undercuts the XFR's base price by $21,230. Not small change, for sure. But Elfalan and I decided, initially at least, to judge the cars simply on their own merits regardless of price, and let the price-sensitive points work themselves out later.

As it turned out, the CTS-V didn't need its lower price to help it beat the Jag, accomplishing the feat purely on its own outstanding abilities. The CTS-V won every Performance category save fuel economy, putting the XFR at a severe deficit it couldn't make up, despite a very strong showing in our Subjective ratings.

Although it might not look like the battle was close strictly from a numbers standpoint, people generally don't choose cars based on a points scale. This was proven, no less, by the fact that Elfalan and I were split on our personal picks — Elfalan choosing the Jag and I, the Caddy.

So what can we take from this? If you're looking for a supremely smooth, powerful and comfortable super sedan, you can't go wrong with the new Jag. If all-out performance is your thing, and you can accept small sacrifices in comfort and quality, the CTS-V is the new super sedan king. And at a bargain price, we might add.

In My Opinion I don't consider myself an avid Jaguar fan, but the XFR is an exception. While the CTS-V ultimately outguns this Jag in performance, the XFR can certainly hold its own (not to mention a gear) on a back road. The main difference is the Jag does so with the added benefits of superior comfort, sophistication and a surprisingly more sonorous exhaust note. If there ever was a perfect car to powerslide while listening to classical music, the Jaguar XFR would be it.

— Jonathan Elfalan, Road Test Editor

Both of these sedans are so terrific, it seems a shame to choose sides. While there are few cars I can think of better suited to long miles of sports touring than the Jaguar XFR, I have to side with the more precise-handling Cadillac CTS-V. That the CTS-V is available with a manual transmission, unlike the Jag, doesn't hurt its case, either. I'm utterly impressed with the huge improvement over the old V, yet still at a bargain price. Just don't order the Recaro seats!

— Mike Monticello, Feature Editor

[source: Motor Trend]

First Place: Cadillac CTS-V

Dances like a butterfly, stings like a 556-hp bee. Lacks the flair of the XFR but exquisite ride and handling balance make it the superior driver's car.

Second Place: Jaguar XFR

Superior style and brilliant power delivery hide chassis limitations. Tail happiness at the limit discourages go-for-broke driving. Like Tyson, this one will bite you.

The last time we did this (Mirror, Mirror, July 2009) the American vanquished the mighty Bavarian with a brutal 1-2 combo of power and balance. But that was something of a hollow victory; merely a warm up bout between a surly young whippersnapper and an aging fighter past his prime. Sure, the BMW M5 once stood uncontested atop the luxury sports sedan field, but that was years ago. In the interim, fitter more ferocious combatants have stepped into the 'Ring.

Like the new challenger from Britain, the 2010 Jaguar XFR. Coventry's younger and more powerful bruiser outpoints the SMG equipped M5 in nearly every one of our instrumented tests. On numbers alone, the XFR is clearly a more formidable opponent to the Cadillac's CTS-V.

In physical and historical context, the new Jaguar also measures up better against the Cadillac. Both draw strength from large displacement V-8s enhanced by Roots type superchargers. Both send power rearward via six-speed automatics and stalk about on magnetic fluid-filled dampers. Both were mentored by some of the best corner men in the business, Jaguar chief engineer Mike Cross and former GM Performance Division director and test ace, John Heinricy. Most notably, both are struggling to wrest the luxury performance mantle from Germany and return glory to their storied, resurgent marques. But so far, only one has succeeded in dispatching a heavyweight German rival. Can Coventry's battle cat take the belt away from our American hero?

The Jaguar doesn't skip to battle like an English dandy to a duel -- all top hat, gloves and stretchy tights. There is high style and menace to the way it swaggers down country lanes, like a footy hooligan stuffed into a Saville Row three piece. This is a classic British sports saloon -- thoughtfully designed, elegantly executed, with one hell of a right cross -- the automotive equivalent of Lennox Lewis.

If there is anything to criticize the XFR on visually, it is that there isn't enough distinction between it and the lesser XFs in the range. Badging aside, XFR upgrades amount to a front bumper with larger inlets (to feed the twin intercoolers), more deeply drawn rocker panels, quad exhaust pipes and the slightest of rear spoilers. The most braggadocio is left for the twin XFR-specific hood vents and wheel centers whereupon 'supercharged' is engraved. Perhaps too subtle, but very British.

In comparison, the CTS-V has gone too far the other way. In an attempt to give their sedan some extra edge, Cadillac stylists have succeeded only in making it appear slab sided and overwrought. No doubt extending the lower leading edges of the bumpers and side skirts provides visual drama and perhaps improves aerodynamics, but these changes also add more angles -- too many -- to the already sharp looking CTS. The chiseled hood bulge adds even more creases to a shape that could seriously use some softening.

If the Cadillac looks a bit dated on outside, then that criticism can be lobbed about aspects of the Jaguar's interior. XF-R surfaces are generally more handsome and expensive feeling than those found in the CTS-V. There is less shiny plastic and chromed bits, and the exterior performance mesh theme carries on in an elegant manner, but the metallic tone, blue backlit controls are aging quickly. This is the problem with chasing the designs of our modern age, as XF interior designers did when they aped Motorola's best selling Razr cellphone. When most of your customers have moved on to the latest iPhone, who wants to be reminded of a five year old flip phone? Thankfully there is some touchscreen slickness in both sedans, and in terms of presentation and utility, both sedans recoup points -- but still trail the Germans. Driving position is a toss up: the XFR delivers smoother paddle shifts and more initial seating comfort, but the Cadillac has better outward visibility, quicker steering, and racier Recaros.

While these two warriors feature similar powertrains and suspensions, the tale of the tape reveals that they are not the dimensional equals of the first round. While the M5 and CTS-V were mirror images of each other, the Jaguar is 3.7 inches longer, 1.4 inches wider and half an inch lower than the Cadillac. Significantly, the Jaguar is not nearly as powerful for all of its size and heft.

With a mere 510 horsepower, the Jaguar's 5.0-liter supercharged V-8 gives up 46 horsepower to the Cadillac's similarly blown 6.2-liter V-8. A 90 pound-feet gap in torque (551 vs 461) separate the two, which is considerable given the XFR's 4378 pound fighting weight. Pound for pound, the Caddy weighs less, and hits harder.

Yet at the track, the two are but an eye blink apart through the quarter-mile. At launch they are even through 30 mph. By 40 mph, the Jaguar is a tenth quicker. At 60 it's a tenth behind (4.4 seconds to the CTS-V's 4.3). That lead holds to 100 mph and past the finish line as the CTS-V clicks off a 12.6 second run at 114.6 mph. The XFR is 7.9 feet behind -- 0.1 second and 0.5 mph slower. They don't get much closer than that.

That both 4200+ pound sedans can hit 60 in under 4.5 seconds is as mind warping as their ability to stop from that speed in less than 110 feet. Only three feet separate the two at rest but there is a profound difference in the way they feel under full deceleration. This is primarily a difference in suspension tuning rather than brake set up, as the Jaguar noses down more under load. The Cadillac? It just stops. Fast.

Handling also favors the CTS-V, facts supported on our figure 8 course where the Cadillac breezes through 0.8 seconds quicker. The skidpad is where the real story is told, as the CTS-V outgrips the XFR by a considerable margin, 0.94 g vs 0.87 g. It is in this realm that the CTS-V clearly KOs the XFR. Though the CTS-V has a distinct advantage in total engine output and pure speed, it is the Jaguar's velvet hammer shifts, bottomless pit of pull and enthralling exhaust note that drew raves from our staff. Same goes for the overall fit, finish, and styling. The two were close, but the judges gave the nod to the Jaguar's sexpot-with-a-switchblade attitude. So how does the CTS-V beat an XF-R that looks and launches better? With the same knockout combination it used to fell the M5 -- the exquisite balance of luxurious ride and full race handling.

To be fair, the XFR is no slouch on regular roads at sane speeds. Most preferred its long legged grace and single-malt-smooth ride. Problems begin as you pick up the pace; the XFR chassis weights up and the tires begin to complain and to lose grip. Even with the sharpened steering, suspension, and throttle responses of Dynamic Mode, the Jaguar loses handling clarity and composure as the turns pile up. Steering becomes muddled and the nose bobs and weaves, as though the magnetically juiced struts can't contain all the shifting mass. At this point, aggressive traction control cuts in and out, which is good, because the XFR will go headlong in to a barrier if you let it.

As the XFR comes apart, the CTS-V only gets better. In situations where the Jaguar goes light in front and tail happy, the Caddy hunkers down, poised to pounce. Front grip is tremendous and near telepathic steering feel through the fuzzy Alacantara trimmed wheel is surprising for a vehicle so massive and massively overpowered. Yet it absolutely adores high speed direction changes and devours all manner of corners - banked, off camber, decreasing radius, blue sky - with equal gusto. Sure, it will also step sideways through careless use of the throttle, but the difference is its oversteer is imminently controllable. Paddle shifts also feel a bit slower and rougher than in the XFR, but then you can just slot the lever to Sport mode and forget shifting entirely. That's the way Heinricy did it on his way to clocking a sub 8-minute lap around the Nurburging Nordschleife.

So while the Jaguar has the look and snarl of a backstreet brawler, the CTS-V packs the more potent punch of a pure driver's car. Who's the next contender? How about the Merc's E63 AMG?

If your nice, I'll have my daughter take you for a spin one day ...

Is it a stick or an auto, Borger?

Look at you; all in a lather!

Troll dolls are all asexual and anatomically 'streamlined', aren't they??

I've never really examined them closely...

Depends on how you look at them. Some are just fingers attached to keyboards.

But why that choice as a gift?

And a purple-haired, nude (naturally) troll doll is on the way to you as your prize, Mr Z-06. :wink: Good job.

Guy or a girl? Long hair or short hair? If a girl - bust size?

I hope you do not put smk on it.

Actually GM paid for about 92% of it, BMW paid about 8% of it, yet BMW will reap the benefits ...

Sounds like typical GM to me. Invest money on something and then throw it away.

By CaminoLS6

Wouldn't it look good with Chevy grille on it, a LS3 V8 and a 6-speed manual transmission?

This is a proud moment for me on C&G that I was able to answer the question which Yoda of Vintage cars could not.

1940

Chevy is considered to be the innovator of power tops.

...and man...I'd love to have one of those 640 Today. That would be awesome and unusual...

Chris

Possibly expensive and hiding in the barn somewhere.

Here is something cool.

1944 Chevy Truck

What the frack is that smiley?

Weren't those Advance Design Chevy trucks 1947-1955 post WWII era as the first civilian trucks from GM?

GXP?

I think the car looks spectacular. That white color really stands out. The rims look amazing too.

Saturday July 25 possibly in the afternoon.

NO

Not leaving signs/barriers left a hole for alibi for the teen. But that does not exonerate the teen for lack of paying attention.

If there should be stupidity count then even the workers should be included in the list too.

I am going to be in Detroit next weekend. What a better place to meet than the place our favorite company is located. NOS, Schuby, Dave, Cappy, CD, etc. are from that area and so am I (through the girl). Stang can you drive up there?

Nice Mate. Good news finally trickling.

Fujitsu

A little pricey but not bad. Partly because of its duplex capability, which the Xerox lacks. What do you think?

I don't think he means 50 ppm. I think he means 50 pages at a time. I imagine it can probably be much slower than that.

Yeah that is what I meant. I do not care about the speed so much so as long it is not a sloth.

[source: Motor Trend]

Might this car lure them back to Buick? Clearly the 2010 LaCrosse has been aimed squarely at the front-drive Lexus ES 350. The Buick's basic profile and proportioning ape the Lexus, though it's 5.9 inches longer, 1.4 inch wider, and 2.1 inches taller, with most of the extra space benefiting rear-seat passengers. The body sculpting and chrome flourishes are much more expressive than the ES 350's, especially the crisp bow-wake shoulder line and concave lower "light catcher."

If the exterior entices, the interior could seal the deal. Designed in China, where yuppies already revere Buicks, its vaguely Asian aesthetic of curves and arcs decorated with double-seam stitching and relatively convincing faux wood has a soothing effect-especially at night, when it's all accented in ice-blue ambient lighting. Shut the doors, roll up the acoustic glass (front) and extra thick (5mm rear) windows, and it's like the dome of silence has descended, providing meditation-garden levels of tranquility.

Better still: The tranquil mood never morphs to open rage when attempting to program the nav system, pair a Bluetooth phone, or access the myriad other vehicle features. In fact, on my first night home with the car I sat in the driveway for ages programming the car to avoid all my pet peeves (driver-only unlock, automatic locking, horn chirp on lock, etc.), and did it all without cracking the owner's manual. It felt a lot like the first day home with a new toy from the Apple store. Everything's easily controlled by the eight-inch touch screen, but fingerprintphobes can use the rotary knob and buttons instead and once everything's programmed, many of the features can also be accessed via voice command.

Speaking of features, Buick sees Lexus on most counts and raises on others, like three DOHC direct-injected engine choices, all of which bolt to six-speed automatic transmissions-a base 182-horse, 2.4-liter four in the CX model good for 20 mpg city/30 highway; a 3.0-liter V-6 producing 252 or 255 horses with all- or front-wheel drive in the CXL; and our CXS test car's 280-horse, 3.6-liter V-6 which is front drive only. (The Cadillac SRX's forthcoming 2.8-liter turbo/AWD setup bolts right in, should a Super variant ever be called for.) That full-feature Haldex all-wheel-drive/electronic limited-slip rear differential system is one serious Lexus-trumping feature, with the capability to shift torque fore and aft and left to right. Others include remote starting, Blind Zone Alert (coming soon), a head-up display ($350), and the CXS's electronic damping control, which comes in an $800 Touring package with 19-inch wheels. Sliding the shifter left into the manual gate engages Sport mode, tightening the three-position dampers, firming the steering feel and enlivening throttle response.

Driving both the LaCrosse CXS and Cadillac SRX within a week revealed these two siblings to be almost as closely related as their Camry-based Lexus ES and RX targets. Each is based on the new global Epsilon architecture, and each goes down the road with more verve and driver involvement than its Japanese counterpart does. But that sportiness differential is far smaller between the LaCrosse and the ES 350. LaCrosse's Sport-mode ride quality is much more compliant than the SRX's, there's no performance shift programming to hold lower gears when cornering as in the SRX, and the driver information center doesn't display current posted speed limits as in the Caddy (perhaps fewer Buick drivers are speed demons?).

Engaging Sport mode improves body-motion control, greatly reducing the amount of roll experienced in a double-lane-change maneuver, and it also lets you feel the little expansion joints and pothole patches more distinctly. The steering effort goes up slightly without ever delivering much in the way of genuine road feel (we're targeting Lexus, not BMW, remember?). And even the more aggressive throttle mapping never feels jerky. StabiliTrak can be switched off, though a brake-controlled limited-slip function remains to prevent immolation of an inside front tire under full throttle. Stability off, Sport on, the LaCrosse attacked the figure-eight course laying down three laps with the same 28.1-second time, and a best average of 0.63 g-that's 0.3 second and 0.05 g off the pace of the last ES 350 we tested. The 40-series 19-inch Goodyear Eagle RS-As understeer with plenty of advanced warning at a pretty impressive 0.79 g, up from the ES 350's 0.78 g, and contribute handily to the four-wheel vented discs' 127-foot stopping distance from 60 mph-that's identical to the Lexus's performance. So obviously the figure-eight deficit is mostly acceleration-related.

The problem is weight-to-power, as our full-tilt-boogie LaCrosse CXS weighs 4161 pounds-467 more than the Lexus ES 350. That differential overwhelms the Buick's slim eight-horse power advantage. A relatively lofty 3000-rpm torque-converter stall speed helps get the LaCrosse out of the gates quickly and shorter gearing helps narrow the gap, but our test car's 7.4-second 0-to-60 sprint is 0.9 second off the Lexus's pace. That gap is maintained through the quarter mile (15.8 @ 90.3), where the speed differential is 5.7 mph. But this 3.6L sings such a happy tune under the whip that the car feels quicker.

And that's kind of how it goes with this new Buick. It generally seems like more than it is. More space, better gear, fewer annoyances, more quiet, less total road isolation-and more value. All this Lexus-contending fabulosity starts at $27,835 for the CX, rising to $30,395 for the CXL, and $33,765 for the CXS (similarly equipped, the savings is about $2500 relative to an ES 350).

Is this would-be Lexus fighter perfect? Nope. In addition to its mild obesity, the 12.8-cubic-foot trunk swallows less than others in the class (though it features 60/40 seatback folding and an armrest pass-thru), the door pull cups are partially covered by the armrest and hard to grab without looking. But it's darned good, and winning the medical community back would be a health-care reform GM could really use about now.