Lexus CT Hybrid

 David Spriggs, New, REVIEWS  1 Response »
Feb 072012
 

 

I like the idea of a hybrid for 2 reasons, as both daily commuter and for long trips to visits friends and relatives. The conservative gas consumption is appealing on both fronts. For the first 2 days the Lexus CT 200 was used simply to transport me to and from the office, which would include quite a bit of errand running in-between. This would tally up to about 36 miles a day. I was pleasantly surprised as I watched the gas needle throughout my travels.

The real test however would come on Friday as we loaded up the CT for a 900 mile round trip southward, from MD to NC.  This is where we got a true feeling of what this car was like to own. The trip took us through heavy stop and go traffic, Back country roads and open highway with speeds upwards of 80mph.  So with that back drop, let’s get into the review.

Exterior - Breaking away from the bland and odd styling of the Prius was a good move for this Lexus. Actually, quite a few people we introduced this car to didn’t know it was a hybrid. And that’s a good thing. That said, the styling of the CT is a departure from the other cars in the Toyota/ Lexus line up. It’s a  bit edgier but its not quite bold enough. So it doesn’t particularly appeal to me.  Its foot print is just a little over 170” long. Making it about 9” shorter then the Corolla. The Creases down the sides of the car give it a slightly more mature look, which I like. The roofline is pretty low standing at 56.7” and it tapers to the hatch which was designed to minimize drag. This is where I feel the design fails. The lines stop too abruptly at the rear giving it that minivan look. This design works on crossovers like the venza as it’s a large car. But it simply fails on such a small frame cars as the CT. I do like the front end of this car as the face of the CT doesn’t scream “economy” as most hybrids do. Rather it has an aggressive stare and low dropping air dam giving it a sporty look. Changing the 17” wheels to 18s would be a step in the right direction. Even though you would lose a step or two in efficiency you would gain points in style as the car would look more balanced.

Interior - The interior of the CT is both Clean and simple. Which is fitting for a sport hybrid. I particularly like the thick wrapped steering wheel and the seats. The car is very welcoming to the driver. The seats are countered as more of a sport seat so they held us snugly in place as I swept through corners. Typically seats that hold this well come with a price, which is a sacrifice of comfort. Not so with the CT. They provided a form fitting seat that proved soft and comfortable, even on long rides. Kudos to Lexus. On another note, we found a few pieces not fitting as snug as they should. For instance, the door trim was pooping loose on our loaner car as did the plastic trim at the bottom of the hatch. Minor problems that may have stemmed from abuse from the previous reviewer.

The cock pit layout is straight forward as well. All of your common controls are in reach and easily identifiable. All accept the gear lever, you can identify it but the feel and placement of it is all wrong. Like the prius, your gear shifter puts your car in drive or reverse with tap in the respected direction. The shifter then returns to center position and your input is shown in the tachometer area. I would much rather have real shifter with a leather shift boot. The current lever feels plastic and out of place.

The steering wheel controls can change media function modes as well as control the volume and presets. It also allows you to answer your phone and activate the cars voice recognition, which also controls many of the cars features. Lexus has incorporated a joystick like control called “Remote touch” which selects and toggle features that appear on the pop up multi function display. This screen shows everything from AC to the navigation controls. Unlike BMWs I-drive the lexus control works and feels more like a PCs mouse. Complete with a sort of right and left click feel. The one button is “enter” and the other is “display” which can back you out of your current screen. I get the premise of keeping your head up and eyes forward instead of downward but I found my eyes constantly focusing on that screen to guide the pointer where I needed it.  So even though the positioning of the joy stick is ideal and comfortable, I’m just not a fan of it as it doesn’t save time. I found myself using the standard controls to operate temperature and radio as it was faster.

The back seats were not as tight as I thought they would be. We loaded up the CT with 4 adults and took a trip to the local store. Our back seat passengers reported that shoulder, head and leg room was OK. So despite the compact car looks, it has more of a mid size interior.  Your Storage space however is going to suffer. This car was not built to haul a lot of luggage or anything else. So if you have the urge to buy a  TV or a Desk chair getting it into the hatch may be a struggle. We were able to pack 3 small travel bags and a notebook bag. We did still have some room up top as well. But fitting in larger luggage sets simply wouldn’t work

Performance - The CT achieves 43/42 MPG, to achieve this, the CT is equipped with a 1.8 liter 4 cylinder engine coupled with a magnet, electric drive motor. Yet, the combo only produces 134HP. Which is a bit disappointing when you consider that models like the Mazda 3 Delivers 155Hp and is still able to achieve 28/39 MPG without the use of a extra battery and magnetic motor. When cruising along in city traffic the car is fine. It’s when you take it on the open freeway or in back twisty roads that the car begins to feel sluggish and under powered. The slow climb to 60-70 may leave you craving a bit more power. On the other hand, the MPG on this car will put a smile on your face. We averaged 41MPG on a trip from MD to NC while maintaining speeds of 80MPH, quite impressive. You can dial the CT into 3 different driving modes, Eco – the most economical mode but also the slowest. Normal –An efficient blend of battery and engine. Sport – Which demands the most from the engine and is the least fuel efficient. The later is the only mode that gives this little car life from 0 – 50.

So the car looks sporty but doesn’t perform like a sports car. It does OK in the corners but I can’t call this a driver’s car. It falls into the category of a “point A –B appliance”. Which is not my cup of tea. If you don’t need the pep in your daily driver then this car should suite you well. Its interior room and comfort is more than we expected. It also carries plenty of creature comforts like heated seats, voice recognition (which works rather well) and the MPG on this hybrid well drastically shorten your visits to the gas station.  All and all, I enjoyed my time with the CT. Now if only they would couple that high output electric motor with a 2.2 liter engine and a sport exhaust. Ahhh now were talkin.

Join the forum discussion on this post
 Posted by

2011 Toyota Sienna Review

 David Spriggs, New, REVIEWS  1 Response »
Oct 052011
 

thinking outside the "box" in exterior styling

A minivan can be practical in a variety of settings. Comfortably transporting your business colleagues to the airport or an important event, loading up the kids for a soccer game, family vacations with easy access to your infant or infants as it were even hauling sheets of drywall to finish your basement. Today’s minivans do all of the above and quite well. So what are the strong points of the Toyota Sienna and where does it fall short?

Exterior - This is one of the better looking minivans out there. True, it’s basically a box, as the rest are. But by incorporating the new identifiable front bumper onto it, it has become a more stylish box. Joking aside, it does make a big difference giving it a style that sets it apart from the rest. The Sienna is a huge vehicle, measuring just over 200” long and 69” tall. It’s hard to make something so big look sleek and pretty so I found the added rear spoiler simply gets lost in all the mass. The standard 17” tires look out of place on such a large vehicle, but the ride was comfortable and smooth. Larger tires will hurt with MPG but will work wonders for this vehicle visually.

Interior- To say that there is ample room in this van is an understatement. I.e. I wear a size 48 jacket and when I close the driver’s side door, I still have about 6” of room between my shoulder and the door. I typically only have about an inch or two so that extra room is nice. The passenger also has plenty of elbow and head room in this vehicle. Toyota uses a good quality leather on this van as well. I personally wouldn’t buy this van without it as it’s very convenient for quickly cleaning spills. My family and I found the seats comfortable as well. The 2nd row seats not only recline but also have a hideaway foot rest like a lazy boy chair. However, this only works if the front seats are moved very close to the dash and the 2nd row seat is slid far back. Otherwise, you have no room to stretch your legs anyway. This van also has great rear storage space. There’s luggage room for a family of 4 or 5 that shouldn’t impede the passenger area. All and all it’s a solid vehicle with a smart ergonomic layout and a tidy fit and finished package.

Electronics- The first gizmo to strike my eye was the multi function head unit at center dash. This blue tooth compatible device serves as your Navigation, AM/FM radio, Satellite radio, rear-view camera and multi disc CD player. It also has full ipod integration so you can plug in your ipod, tuck it away and control it from the head unit. Although happy with all of the features this unit entails, I found it cumbersome to navigate at times. The most annoying was the ipod integration. I found that my eyes were off the road for too long due to the delay in the touch screens response. Scrolling through playlist is even more annoying. The unit will list about six songs per screen, when you advance to the next six it automatically selects and starts playing song one of the next six. All of this causes more delays. And music is a part of our driving experience nowadays.

Performance - The 3.5 V6 engine powers this massive vehicle with ease. I found it rather easy, not only to keep up with smaller cars but to pass them. We drove the vehicle to PA for the weekend and found that we averaged around 19.5 MPG that’s pretty good for a fully loaded van of this size. I was most pleased with the suspension. Even thought it doesn’t ride like a car (it’s far too big for that), it doesn’t ride like a Truck either. The suspension made even the bumpy roads of PA feel rather smooth. And that’s what I want in a people hauler. There is just too much drinking and snacking going on to deal with a sport suspension of any type. Toyota’s 3.5 as well as the 2.7 i4 are both well tested engines that for the most part will go for a long time requiring minimal maintenance.

I would highly recommend the Toyota Sienna for those in the market for a minivan. It was designed with family in mind and that reflected in the comfort and convenience found from every seat in the van. It’s also well built, comfortable, roomy, and great on gas and, if I may, has a little “swag”. The Toyota Sienna is worth a serious look.

 Posted by

2010 Nissan GT-R vs 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1: GT-R for the win!

 Jon Gandy, New, REVIEWS  2 Responses »
Oct 192010
 

After posting the anticipation one Up Shift writer has for 2012 Nissan GT-R that will debut at the LA Auto Show this year it wasn’t long before a Corvette fan had a few words to say.  And much like the Corvette his points were massively loud and didn’t get anywhere quick.

Now before you start sharpening your sticks allow me to make a few points.

I decided to go to website of Motor Trend, whom every good enthusiast knows, loves some American iron.  What I found is that there are some differences that are very small and some very between the two.  But it’s the extremes, the biggest and the smallest that made up my mind.

I’m not going to jump on the displacement soap box because it’s a pointless debate in this comparison.  What the two power-plants produce however is not.  The GT-R gives you 485HP 153 less than the ZR1′s dumbfounding 638HP.  The GT-R will only give you 430lb-ft of torque, 174 less than the 604 lb-ft of the ZR1.   At 3,814lbs the GT-R has the curb weight of a beached whale some 490lbs heavier than the 3,324lb ZR1.  Some of that extra weight comes from the fact that the GT-R has a gas tank that is 1.5 gallons bigger.

Then there the suspension dimensions.  Don’t worry, I won’t make you put your thinking cap on.  In fact it’s pretty simple to understand.  The GT-R has a slightly longer wheelbase and a narrower track width in both the front and rear compared to the ZR1.  It’s taller as well.  So flat cornering should be thrown out the window next to the lower and wider Corvette.

Up until now you would think that I was making a case for the mighty domestic, but you would be wrong.  You see there are many ways to approach the whole idea of building a car and, to use a bit of hyperbole, the ZR1 comes from what I would call the Cave Man school of thought.  It walks heavy and carries a very large club.  But the GT-R is, in the opinion of many automotive journalists, is simply a phenomenon of engineering.  That’s why the GT-R manages 2 miles per gallon more on the highway.

But if you remember I told you this was all about the extreme differences.  In all honesty, they are the ones that matter the most as well.  The number I came across that was the smallest difference between the GT-R and ZR1 was their respective lap times on the Nurburgring.  7:26.7 and 7:26.4.

Side Note:  Rumors put a very nice compound of rubber on the ZR1 for that lap which some questioned but GM says it is OEM stock equipment, and we will honor that claim.  However its also been documented that the engineers in charge of prepping the GT-R for its laps said that the car should not have been run because of maintenance that had not been conducted on the transmission and displayed failures after the lap, though no failures could be recorded during the lap.

That having been said the GT-R was not able to beat the ZR1 that day.  Instead it had to settle for 3 tenths of a second behind the GT-R.  Now try balancing that against the other extreme.  The largest difference between the GT-R Premium, as tested, was its price at $83,040.  The ZR1’s price $106,880.  A $23,840 wallet crippling price jump for just .03 seconds on the score board.

Now I’ve seen a lot of people spend a lot of money to get more speed and more power.  Now I haven’t had the chance yet to drive a ZR1 and I think we can all agree you don’t really have to understand that 600+HP would be a blast of a drive and that the car should handle like a dream.  But you would have to be pretty desperate or out of your mind to spend almost $24K for what looks like the same outcome.

 Posted by  Tagged with: , , , ,
© 2012 up-shift.net Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha