It swings and, well it doesn't miss, but it ain't a home run. 2022 Toyota Tundra Capstone review by Mitchell Weitzman for The Road Beat Where were you when the last Toyota Tundra was launched? Mind you, it was 2007. 2007! Me? I was in the eighth grade examining my first pimples. Tom Brady only had three Super Bowl victories then. That's a mighty long time for any vehicle's lifecycle; Literally fifteen years on sale with practically zero changes. When it came out, though, it turned the half-ton truck world upside down and then some, bringing brute force and strength of an almost heavy-duty truck that left the domestic Detroit icons scrambling (albeit momentarily). The Tundra left its mark with owners who have continuously praised their truck's rugged durability and can-do attitude and abilities. It was a truck you could beat the snot out of and just seemed to always keep working and wanting more. Well, the other trucks caught up and surpassed it in many key areas, such as power and refinement, but the Tundra kept on trucking for years. Only now do we finally have a new Tundra. Was it worth the wait? What is it? The all-new (finally) Toyota Tundra. Redesigned from the wheels-up, there's a new twin-turbocharged V6 powerplant with a hybrid option, a new 10-speed automatic, modern suspension, and a thoroughly reworked cabin to cement its place in this century. Oh, and it kind of looks like a stormtrooper if you're into that (especially in white). With more vehicles downsizing their engines or even going electric, Toyota has hopped onto the same train by replacing the venerable 5.7L V8 with a 3.4L (Toyota will tell you it's 3.5...) V6 that's bolstered by two turbochargers. A keen eye shows that this happens to to be the exact same sized engine that powers several Lexus models like the LS 500; I would be willing to bet it's the same, just slightly reworked and retuned for truck duty given their horsepower and torque ratings differ slightly. Shoot, they both even use ten-speed transmissions. Paper ratings are up as well, with a peak payload capacity of 1,940 and a max tow rating to the tune of 12,000 pounds for potent double cab, 2WD SR5s. Good, and improvements over the former Tundra, but not game-changing like the 2007 was. According to Toyota's website, though, the 4WD Capstone CrewMax tested here (the range-capping model, boasting the most luxury ever in a Toyota truck), can tow 10,340 pounds and carry 1,485 pounds in its bed. Yeah, not ground-breaking in the slightest. However, other grades can do better, such as a TRD Pro's 11,175 towing and 1,600 payload ratings. A modest SR5 4WD CrewMax can up that payload to 1,800 pounds even, but it's that cheaper 2WD model that can do the most. So, if you're searching for the most capable Tundra, the ratings can vary greatly by trim. Either way, the numbers are good enough for most, but just not trend-setting. Also of note is the ditching of leaf springs in favor of coil and/or air springs in conjunction with a multi-link rear suspension arrangement. The benefits? It'll drive less like a truck and more like a car, with improved ride quality given that the new design allows more control over each corner. What's it like? The easiest reason to buy the new Tundra is because you already own a Tundra, one that's getting long in the tooth perhaps and you feel it's time for a new one; you want to stick with the brand you value and trust. Or, maybe you love how it looks (a most subjective trait). After all, your Tundra has never let you down. But, apart from that, there are not any particular standout reasons to buy a new Tundra over other competing trucks. Starting with the most subjective category, the design, it drew an aggressively polarized response from friends and casual passersbys who commented on it, ranging from extremes of, "wow, that looks cool!" to "holy moly it's ugly." So, to each their own, but the looks alone might be enough to make you either want or not. Of course, neither should matter without knowing how it drives and performs. And, spoiler, it's the best driving Tundra ever - as it should be. On a variety of roads, the new Tundra is comfortable and greatly refined, feeling leaps and bounds more modern than its forebear. Starting with the interior, this Capstone possesses a luxury cabin that easily trumps the 1794 trim of its predecessor (the 1794 is still available, just this Capstone sits one level higher now) with soft leather strewn about everywhere and beautiful wood trims. Materials all over are upgraded, too, being put together with a certain military superiority, as is the new and flashy 14" touchscreen display that dominates occupants' attention. This is a very fine place to be, and the CrewMax has space abound, giving the impression of a cowboy limo for those in the rear seats. Other bits and bobs that differentiate the Capstone are the automatically deploying and retracting side steps and bed step, 22" wheels that somehow don't even look that large, and load-leveling rear air suspension, a heads-up display, lots of external chrome accents here and there, and the hybrid i-FORCE MAX version of the new V6. Yes, there are even badges that display the words i-FORCE MAX on the fake hood vents to brag that you got the better Tundra. Yes, it drives good, with accurate steering, an improved ride quality over bumps that avoids shudders through the entire chassis, and for a such physically large vehicle, it doesn't feel that big on the road, being easy to place within your lane. As comfortable as it is inside, though, thanks to the lusciously leather seats, it could be quieter, with pronounced wind noise on the highway hitting the side-mirror and a-pillar. But, and there's a big but, the hybrid V6 is a total miss. In no way am I against V6s or hybrids, but this application left me desiring for much more. I think perhaps it was a bizarre, internal quest to make the hybrid feel less like a hybrid as a way to appeal to more trucks buyers? But, that's complete bollocks, because the appeal of a modern hybrid engine (not one you find in a Prius) is that it combines the best of electric and gas power, and I want to feel and notice that. However, it behaves exactly like a gas engine which negates the inherent benefits that should be present. In other cars (sports cars for example) that use turbocharged hybrid set-ups, the use of an electric motor increases the response by providing immediate power while the turbochargers make no boost, effectively cancelling turbo-lag; they fill in the missing gaps. It works brilliantly in other cars by having this constant immediacy to your inputs because of its 'always-on' electric motor that makes peak torque at all times. The Tundra does not carry this trait. In fact, despite attention-grabbing figures like 437 combined horsepower and a gargantuan 583 foot-pounds of torque, it just never feels that fast (0-60 MPH took 5.8 seconds), and no more powerful than the outgoing V8 model. The first time driving the Tundra away from a stop sign, I gently applied the throttle and was met with basically...nothing. Nada; The truck simply didn't move. I found I had to give a pretty decent squeeze to get it going which belies the notion of there being any electric power available. It's more than fine once you're rolling and accelerating at a steady rate, but increases in throttle input have delays, as instead of utilizing the powerplant's prodigious torque rating (meaning a huge amount of horsepower down low in the rev range), the truck is more prone to just downshifting instead (and the downshifts are slow) to make juice instead of taking advantage of what should be readily available power at all times. I was hoping for the feel of a large diesel in a small and economical package, but the hybridized i-FORCE MAX is a disappointment. The best example of its shortcomings are when traveling at, say 50 MPH, just cruising, and you slam your right foot to the floor. Instead of any form of immediacy, there's a solid one to two second delay before anything happens as the computer instead scrambles to downshift from eighth or ninth gear down to third and then you begin moving. Maybe the reason the response isn't there is because the electric motor is frankly not powerful enough, which might be true, but it does bring the base twin-turbo V6 power up from 389 to 437 horsepower, and the torque number from 479 all the way to the whopping 583 amount. Not insignificant gains, then, but maybe those increases still are simply not enough because you just don't feel much of anything until the V6 starts making boost and/or finds the right gear. Even when you do tap into the power in the midrange around 3,500 or 4,000 RPM, it feels healthy at that point, but go from half-throttle to floored and there isn't any noticeable difference at this point. Okay, you could select sport mode in the Tundra (why does a truck like this have a 'sport' mode?), and this largely cures the issues of lag by making the gas pedal more sensitive to your foot, giving you more sooner. But, you will do so at the expense of your gas mileage as this also remaps the transmission to hold lower gears longer while being reluctant to shift into the tallest gear. I think the fix is very simple and just needs the standard drive mode to be remapped to a sort of 'in-between' mode to take advantage of the technology that we have available to us here. Or, make the electric more aggressive in deployment. If we have it, use it! A hybrid set-up makes sense, with an electric motor there to fill in the gaps of gasoline engine's turbo lag and torque curves, but it frankly doesn't here . But, perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the hybrid is the gas mileage, which was confounding. On the highway, cruising at 72 MPH, the hybrid Tundra achieved 21 MPG. Great! A big truck getting over 20 MPG is a step in the right direction. However, the average? A paltry 16 MPG, well below the manufacturer's estimated 21 combined. And it's not like I drove it hard and floored it everywhere; that was a real world test and me trying to maximize efficiency. On some grades like the TRD Pro and Capstone, the i-FORCE MAX is mandatory, but for others thinking about upgrading to it, I can say that, at this time, it's not worth the $3,400 upgrade on Limited, Platinum, and 1794 models. Other concerns I have include the beautiful touchscreen display that frequently showed lag and lacked responsiveness, and temperature controls that are awkward to click up and down and take too long click into your desired temp if you're going from extremes. The center console is also peculiar with it's small center opening, while the switches on the corners to full open it are placed inconveniently to the driver, requiring a weird arm motion to open. The white leather inside already showed discoloration and staining in this 1,500 mile example. I like white leather - it's pretty - but dang does it not belong in a truck. And how could I forget - the auto side steps. I bashed my shin into them twice during my time with the truck. They stick out too far which can make setting and grabbing stuff from the rear seats or floor quite cumbersome. If you're quickly getting into the truck, you can easily be too fast for the side steps which is how I stepped into one at the same time it extended. Now, this might be just be my clumsiness, but I stand by it. If you don't want them, you can easily disable them, but I think if they stuck out one inch less, they'd be more practical and useful. Other passengers loved using them, so it can be up to you. Lastly, despite the lovely leather, things like the window switches don't feel quite as nice as they should on a $74,575 vehicle. Oh, what's that? Yes, it costs $74,575 for this Capstone. That's more than the amazing Ram 1500 Limited, which has an even better interior and drives nicer, being the Mercedes S-Class of trucks. Instead of being a value player, the Tundra is now just as much, or in this case more than American rivals (minus the Ford F-150 Limited, which can crest 80 large...). SR5 models come in far cheaper at around $50,000 with a couple options, but the Tundra is not exactly an affordable alternative when next to rivals. The unfortunate truth is that this Tundra does nothing better than other trucks. Even the hybrid engine option that should see plentiful fuel economy gains doesn't work that well in the real world and the overall average in practice is no better than what Hemi Ram 1500 or GMC/Chevy Sierra 6.2L V8 would achieve. The Verdict is in... The Tundra might be readily refined and improved on paper next to the outgoing model, but instead of boasting that model's stacked Team USA Olympic starting-5 roster when it debuted, the Tundra comes up short against the rivals it needs to at least match. If you're a lifelong Toyota truck buyer, the new Tundra is the obvious next choice if you want to stick with the brand you love, know, and trust. I had friends who are familiar with the old Tundra say that despite not liking the new truck as much as others, they'd still choose it because they trust it. See, that reputation Toyota has built goes a long, long way. On paper, there are exciting bits to make conquests from other brands, but it doesn't deliver on the promises for me in the real world. And by gosh is it expensive at $74,575; That alone is so hard to shake off. Maybe it's best to think of this as firmware V1.00, and hopefully this is a starting point of continual (and welcome) improvements.

It might sell in droves, but why? This aging truck still has its charms, though. What is it? Like the antique 4Runner stablemate, the Tacoma largely sells on reputation and coolness. Renowned for its implausible durability and reliability, the Tacoma has built itself into some kind of attainable legend, with its off-road cred and rugged looks lending it some serious cool points. While it's engineering from not just last decade, but the preceding one, there still is some charm to the robust and simple nature of this mid-size truck. There are lots of shortcomings, but for nearly 30 years, it still continues to flood our streets in both the States and also other parts of the world as the related Hilux pickup. The Tacoma SR5 Double Cab V6 4x4 starts at $35,655, but the Trail Edition tacks on $3,765 to include the 16" bronze wheels, the special heritage grille, locking rear differential, uprated suspension, locking bed storage, all-weather floor liners, and a basic skid plate. Toss in parking sensors and an upgraded infotainment screen and stereo for another $1,710, $600 for blind spot monitoring and then destination/delivery fee, and this truck sits as equipped at $43,164. Why buy? As mentioned earlier, you want to buy a Tacoma because it's cool. There's so much history behind this truck that it has become something to aspire to. While some dream of Porsches, many do dream of having that perfect Tacoma one day; it's these intangible qualities that make the Tacoma such an alluring prospect for the everyday person. They're also known to last literally forever, and Top Gear found the related Hilux model to be actually non-killable, and so this has lent to the mystique as a vehicle you can truly depend on anywhere in the world. Lots also build them into off-roaders via lift kits and 35" tires, where they are common sights in(as well as being quite formidable) the deserts and Rubicon Trail. When compared to some rivals, the Tacoma is the one that sticks closest to its real truck roots, being a more simple offering next to the relative modernity of Ford's Ranger, Hyundai's Santa Cruz, and the Honda Ridgeline. It's also a case of sticking to what you know almost, like, if you're already a Tacoma owner and it's been a wonderful vehicle for you (as basically all Tacoma owners view theirs as), why take a chance and switch to one of these newer offerings? Stick with what you know and what you can depend on. This Trail edition seriously looks the part, with classy bronze wheels, decent tires for a compromise of asphalt and dirt, a TRD Pro-style grille, and the gorgeous Lunar Rock paint make this an attractive truck. The package itself starts out as an entry SR5, but combines the most desired aesthetic elements to make it appear like a TRD Pro-lite (the TRD Pro is the Tacoma flagship trim). It would also serve as an excellent starting point for a 2" lift kit if you so desired or other accessories. Others who even buy TRD Sports or TRD Off-Roads will want to make theirs look like the Trail. And despite the ancient body-on-frame architecture, the Tacoma actually drives fine, owing a lot to how honest it feels behind the wheel. The steering is a little light, but there's real feedback there at your fingers, and while it is slow and requires lots of input, again, it's surprisingly accurate. For a stiff truck, the ride quality is also not bad either. But, commanding the Tacoma isn't an unpleasant experience in the slightest. And if you do venture into the dirt, the 4WD is operated electronically, so a flick of a knob and the Tacoma will devour most all terrains that aren't the most extreme sections of the Rubicon (ground clearance will be an issue, hence why so many put big tires and lift kits to clear obstacles). And this is both a positive and a negative, but the Tacoma, owing to its old design, is a bit of an Neanderthal. However, looking back at history, Neanderthals were the first humans that were able to inhabit the far colder regions of Europe and were of a rugged biology and makeup when compared to the earliest H. Sapiens that existed at the same time. The Tacoma is an aging brute from years past, but it is made and proven to survive the harshest conditions and environments, places where newer and civil unibody pickups might struggle. Old bones, but bones built to endure where others couldn't and aren't evolved enough to yet. Why fly? Well, many of the reasons why one would want to choose a Tacoma are also the very reason others will want to avoid one. I do think it's overpriced at $43,164, as a half-ton truck from Ram, even a Laramie, isn't much more. The interior is also a catastrophe, being a relic from the early 2000s. Plastics are everywhere, and they're hard and cheap. The infotainment looks like a cheap aftermarket unit from the Obama years, and it's just an overall not nice place to be. I get it, this isn't supposed to be a luxury vehicle, but it's so behind the times. The Hyundai Santa Cruz Limited I had recently, which cost about the same, is a Rolls Royce inside by comparison, and that's not an exaggeration. I know Toyota can do decent interiors, because the one in a Venza or Highlander Limited are of such a higher quality. Just because it's a truck doesn't mean the cabin has to be crap and tired. Furthermore, back seat space in the Double Cab isn't impressive and the seats themselves are too flat; The steering wheel doesn't telescope far enough either. The other relic is the powertrain, consisting of a 3.5L V6 and six-speed automatic; They're turds. With 278 horsepower on paper, it's a travesty just how slow the Tacoma feels. The dim-witted automatic doesn't help, being slow to shift and constantly hunting for gears (at least eight tightly spaced ratios would be a welcome addition). All this results in a 0-60 MPH time of 8 seconds, and this lack of punch is readily apparent when accelerating up hills. Is performance that important in a truck? No, but it's such a lollygagging loser when rivals are significantly more powerful, resulting in the Tacoma constantly requiring heavy throttle input at all times. Also, the angle of the pedal feels weird, with my size modest 9 foot crowding the pedal and hitting the arm of it too often. Besides being slow, the Tacoma is outrageously thirsty, averaging a dismal 18 miles to a gallon and achieving 22 on the highway, both of which are considerably less than the faster Honda Ridgeline and Hyundai Santa Cruz. And despite the 'real truck' architecture that lies underneath the Tacoma, its payload (about 1,200 pounds) and tow ratings (ranges from 3,500-6,400 pounds) don't impress, and the tow rating especially must have been given downhill, because there's no way I would ever trust this weak little engine laden with an extra 6,000 pounds. Tacomas can do off-road, yes, but there's another new rival that also does off-road rather well: the Jeep Gladiator, basically a Jeep Wrangler with a pickup bed. It's also a relic, but has been better modernized than a Tacoma, all while delivering an authentic Jeep experience. Yeah, some examples can be quite expensive, but it has to be a real choice when deciding on a pickup truck in this price range. Verdict For those dead-set on a Tacoma, it is, of course, a triumph. The legendary Tacoma is thoroughly still present and has a few aesthetic upgrades on this Trail Edition. Whether a Tacoma is right for you is one thing, but whether you want one, as many do, is totally separate. Any casual driver wanting a small truck would be best served in the civil Honda Ridgeline, Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon, Ford Ranger, or Hyundai Santa Cruz, but those don't have the same cool and reputation as a Tacoma. It might be a winner of a Tacoma, but it's not exactly a winner of a mid-size truck. An updated and revamped Tacoma will be a most welcome addition. 2022 Toyota Tacoma SR5 Trail Edition Price as-tested: $43,164

With more exposure to VW's first mass electric car in the United States, I have come to like it less. I first tried an ID.4 last year and had a lukewarm reception to it, liking a few aspects of its simple nature in their slow transition to electric vehicles. But, after a second go with the range-topping 'Pro' model, any hope of genuinely liking the ID.4 has decreased significantly despite the presence of a second electric motor and increased performance. To be blunt, there is nothing special about the ID.4, nor is there any reason to buy it, especially over rivals like the Mach-E or Tesla Model Y. I have come to the conclusion that VW actually doesn't care too much about the ID.4 themselves, with little creativity or passion poured into the product of 'their future.' Why buy? You either scored a killer lease deal on one, are a diehard Volkswagen fan, or you just really, really like the way it looks. Other than that, there is next to no reason to choose an ID.4. That said, at least the performance is vastly improved over the former model, needing 5.7 seconds to hit 60 MPH from rest (about a two second reduction over the standard model), even if this new version doesn't ever feel that particularly quick in practice. And, it is decent value I guess, when compared to other dual-motor faux-SUV EV offerings at an as-tested price of $50,870 for this well-equipped example. A comparable Model Y costs several thousand more for the dual-motor, though admittedly, it's still miles faster and offers more range. The ID.4 drives fine, if less enthusiastically than other Volkswagens (VW usually makes a well-driving car), but it doesn't leave any kind of lasting impression. It is, for good measure, at least comfortable on the road. Why not? Lots of reasons, and don't think I'm just hating on this car or for the fact that it's electric. When I initially tried one, I was very open to the idea of it and as a conservative way of attracting existing VW buyers into an electric vehicle, but that's now the past. While other electric vehicles have real reasons and unique, attention-grabbing features to choose them, the ID.4 has next to none other than the fact that it's electric. Design-wise, the exterior plain boring. While it's not ugly like a Tesla, the ID.4 could have been an adventurous creation, but instead chose to be molded from play-dough. It's not unattractive, but it's so mundane when next to Ford's flashy Mach-E or Hyundai's incoming Ioniq 5. And in person, the frontal area looks stupidly large and bulbous. But it's not just how it looks on the outside. Electric cars are supposed to give designers more freedom as there no longer is a large gearbox and engine in the way, which means things can be mounted far lower in the chassis. However, the ID.4 doesn't even have a front 'frunk' storage area. What? Yes, it's filled with 'stuff' and cannot be used for additional storage. The rear cargo area also isn't necessarily impressive, and the interior space itself doesn't dazzle. Even more concerning is how high up everything feels for no reason, and no, I'm not just talking about the seating position, but the height of the hoodline. The hood, whatever junk it's covering, is higher than the dash, which highly impedes vision and makes the view out front appear tragically smaller than it should. There is zero creativity and inspiration here, and instead feels like a hack job to make a car and nothing more. I like the minimalist design, aesthetically, of the cabin, but with an MSRP of $50,870, it fails to impress sadly. Sure, after government rebates that will knock off many thousands offer your price, this interior quality doesn't even come close to matching the MSRP with lots of cheap plastics and the worst feeling door handles of any modern car that actually can nearly trap you in the car. At first glance from the driver's seat, you might think there are no window switches for the rear, but there, you just have to hit a switch first to alternate from operating the fronts verse the rears. Why are there not be individual buttons for each bloody window? Then there's the infotainment system, operated by a giant and attractive touchscreen in the middle. Pretty, right? Yes, but profound lag constantly plagued the entire interface and is a safety concern as a result if you're attempting to operate while moving. Simple things like scrolling through music on Sirius XM was a glaring example, with it refusing to scroll and then also selecting stations you didn't want because of it constantly freezing. And yes, it did this on all menus. And you can't adjust active driver safety systems while moving? C'mon. The operation of the Drive and Reverse rocker switch is tacky and crap, too, and the gauge cluster is equally garbage with its layout and lack of ability of what it can display. They totally copied the BMW i3 in this regard for both of these, but like that was a good starting point and inspiration. Creativity, VW, where is it? And we have the driving experience, a most drab one. Adding a much needed power boost is helpful and stabbing the throttle from under 10 MPH can be fun for about a second, but this is still far from fun to drive. VW keeps playing their propaganda radio ads proclaiming EVs are fun to drive, but really? This is what they're talking about? Good grief. The handling doesn't impress, either, with gas-powered VWs being more entertaining in twisty sections of road. Luckily, this is all-wheel drive for those that want it in inclement weather or snow, but that's also not a unique feature among the segment. As far as efficiency goes, the range computer in my tester, when driven quite conservatively in a mix of city and highway driving, peaked at an estimated combined 220 miles from its 82 kWh battery pack. Frankly, it's just not that impressive from a large battery such as this and falls about 15-20 miles short of the 2WD model. However, a Mach-E with a similarly-sized battery goes only about just as far, while a Model Y standard range will beat them both handily even with its smaller 70 kWh battery pack. Finally, there's the Electrify America charging network, which is growing in cities and new ID.4 owners and lessees can use for free for their first three years. That's a great deal, no doubt, but the chargers are unreliable. Last time, I thought I had a one-time bad experience, but no, it's a trend, and others in the press have complained about it, too. Simply put, the chargers don't seem to work half the time; I had to give up on one charger altogether, and one time the VW locked the failed charger into itself and wouldn't give it back no matter how many times I tried unlocking the car; I actually thought I was stuck! Though some chargers claim 350 kWh fast charging, I never saw it pump more than 130 kWh into the ID.4. This is not the future, but a regression more akin to homo erectus owing to oversight and its clunky implementations and traits than a modern sapien. Wow, brutal. Less brutal, and more just a disappointment that fails to stand-up over time. I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, but seeing from a new perspective of the rivals available, and just compared to other gas cars, the ID.4 is at sometimes a disaster of an automobile, with most issues having nothing to do with the fact that it's electric. If this is supposed to be a future - the future - you got to try harder to inspire people to believe the same. 2022 VW ID.4 Pro S As-tested price: $50,870 Pros: Well-equipped and decent value among peers Cons: Boring, user experience failings Verdict: If they paid attention to it, VW might have been able to make something great

A six-speed manual makes this the most pleasurable of do-it-yourself experiences What is it? Mazda's modern antiquity, the MX-5 Miata. Now in production for over 30 years through multiple generations, the Miata is a distilled sports car experience, focusing on removing the things that don't matter. What doesn't matter in a sports car? Weight, and needless creature comforts. Even with an electrically folding hardtop convertible/targa top, this Miata is light at around 2,500 pounds. It's also rather tiny in physical size, being dwarfed by Toyota Camrys. Lotus themselves called the original MX-5 as inspired by the Lotus Elan, and it continually and dutifully combines the greatest hits of those classic, beloved roadsters for the ever-modern era. What's hot? Quite a lot - there really isn't a whole lot that the Miata doesn't do superbly, given reasonable expectations. But, the point of this car and what it was designed to do - oh it does it all so well. Sink into the narrow cabin and you're greeted by lovely seats as fitted on this Grand Touring model that grip your shoulders like an over-endearing grandmother, but in a good way (there are Recaros you can get optionally on Miatas, but these are still brilliant). The controls are right where you expect and would want them to be, with your hands falling onto the steering wheel and shifter naturally. Pedals are placed well, too, and allow for precise movements and easy heel-toeing. Select first with a satisfying notch (the clutch is easy enough for a first-time manual driver to modulate), give a few revs, and away you go. The two-liter four-cylinder is geared shortly to give it some needed grunt from the small displacement engine and it doesn't even sound bad as far as little blenders like these typically go, emitting an aggressive and even pleasing rasp. It also doesn't shake the car to bits like an unbalanced washing machine like other four-cylinders can do, being relatively smooth. But, who are we kidding, mash your foot down and the revs climb quickly and convincingly with a strong midrange and a decently strong top-end, running it all the way out to 7,000 RPM. Clutch in, move the shifter into second (there's a little bit of resistance here in the 1-2 shift, so it doesn't like to be totally rushed), and you're back on the gas. 2-3 is beautiful and you can be quite aggressive with shift speeds and still be smooth here, banging gears with grace. Corner coming? Squeeze the composed Brembo brakes, go clutch in and blip the throttle with your heal and go back down to second and you're back off. It's easy in the Miata. But, that doesn't mean it isn't fun; It's incredibly fun! For a car so easy to drive and drive quickly, it remains fun because of how right it all feels. Miatas are not drag-racers, though, living for the bends. But, it's still fun to row through the gears and utilize all 181 horsepower all the time, and for those that care, it will do 0-60 MPH in six seconds flat. Anyways, as you would hope and expect, Mazda's MX-5, even with that added bulk from the roof, is an absolute joy in the bends where it belongs. Steering has great weighting and, even if it's a little light on feedback, it's pin-point precision allows huge confidence. I like the softened suspension on the MX-5 for the road because how it encourages the driver to really feel and lean on the chassis and modest tires. This also bequeaths the roadster with approachable limits, and in a most encouraging method and practice. Yeah, grip isn't huge as a result, but there's such sweet balance and communication from the front and rear working in harmony that it makes for such a blast on public roads. This is a car that you don't have to go a million miles an hour to get something out of like you would in even a new base Porsche 911. In slow and tight second-gear corners, if you turn-in aggressively and get aggressive with your right foot, you can even indulge in smooth and impressive-looking oversteer. And the way the rear comes back to grip so naturally without any hint of wanting to do a tank-slapper is immensely fun and repeatable. Oh, and driving like a pissed-off teenager who stole their parent's car for a decent chunk of the time, I still averaged an amazing 32 MPG. That's the average. Wow. Fun, and it saves gas! I expected to hit thirty, but not over 30 without even remotely trying. What's not? Well, a fantastic sports car it may be, but it doesn't make for a fantastic 'car' if that makes sense. The interior is of a nice quality, as all Mazdas are, but it's cramped and with basically no storage space. The cubby behind you is impossibly awkward to get to for example. Even with soft suspension, the ride is still choppy and firm, likely owing to its short 91" wheelbase. Furthermore, with the suspension, it's too soft to drive on track as it sits. You could, but if you're pushing it, and it's so approachable and encouraging remember, you're gonna want some added stiffness to avoid wallowing around like a drunk baby woolly mammoth. I would recommend a thick anti-roll bar upgrade personally and/or some coilovers for track junkies, though hopefully that wouldn't ruin the ride quality on the street. And, even though the roof is not a soft-top like normal Miatas, it's still far from quiet when on the freeway. Yes it's highly impractical as a normal, everyday car, but gosh is it fun. Verdict? So, another important bit is the price. Unfortunately, it's $35,770. That's not a small amount, especially considering the new BRZ and GR86 twins cost the same and offer more power, more usability and space, and are also regarded as some of the most fun new cars on sale today. But, neither are convertibles. And if you really want to get to some facts and figures, what other true convertible/roadster can one buy for the same price? None. BMW's Z4 would be the next one up, but that's more of a GT car and starts at a whopping $15,000 more than this loaded MX-5. Porsche's own 718 Boxster starts at nearly $30,000 more. So, if you're wanting a real 2-seat convertible, your options are limited, and it even makes the Miata look like a bargain. Do I think it's too expensive for what it is? Yes, but what other options are there for a real convertible sports car? That was a rhetorical question by the way...

An eye-catching design and a beautiful interior go far, but does it go far enough? What's hot? Hyundai's new Tucson is made to wow. From the pupil-grabbing exterior (though admittedly, it has received a polarizing reception from some keyboard ninjas) and the luxuriously stupendous interior, the Tucson places all its cards on display from the get-go. But, somehow, there's still an underlying bluff its concealing. As far as casual crossovers go, however, the Tucson dazzles with its edgy, futuristic design that makes the alluring LED headlights the centerpiece on display. It really does make competitors appear rather dull, pun unintended. But, the real highlight of the Tucson Limited is the wondrous cabin. The Limited represents the most luxurious offering for this model, and it delivers convincingly. Just wow. The quality of the materials are top-rate, with a soft leather that belongs in a $50,000 vehicle (this Tucson is well under $40,000. I like the stripped-back nature of the interior, too, with soft, simple curves here and there, and the instrument cluster has no binnacle/shroud, which might be odd at first, but then you quickly realize it makes the view ahead look larger and therefore better. Why do any cars have binnacles? A Mazda CX-5 can match the luxury here, but the Tucson leaves a CR-V and RAV4 in the dust when it comes to the luxury available here. Well done, Hyundai. What's not? This hurts. With such a beautiful cabin, the Tucson frankly doesn't drive that well. Like, it's fine. Just fine. But, I wanted and expected more. First, there's the lethargic four-cylinder that drivels its way to misery via a 8.8 second 0-60 MPH walk. In practice, it's even worse. Despite having eight gears, the little blender has zero power below 3,000 RPM, and when pulling away from a stop, it's like a parachute is deployed when it shifts into third gear; You really have to dig into the throttle to get it going in other words, especially on even slight hills. What also can then happen is, such is the lack of power, the Tucson will upshift and then clunkily shift back down once it realizes it was a mistake - that's annoying. The Tucson Hybrid has far better performance thanks to its extra electrical assist, even if its not the smoothest of hybrid experiences. I hoped that, because it's so slow, that fuel economy would be great, but it isn't. I averaged only 24 MPG during my time with it, or, about a solid 4 less than a regular Toyota RAV4 would manage in the same conditions. This is too small and slow of a vehicle to get only that kind of mileage in 2022. The Hybrid option averaged about 30 MPG when I tested it last year, and for both a performance and efficiency standpoint, it's clearly the way to go. And it's only $1,000 more. Handling and steering are adequately average making the Tucson far from fun to drive. Sure, it's plenty competent, as most all new cars are, but that's it. For transportation, it works, but if you want something even remotely fun, then this isn't the answer, and it clearly isn't happy when challenging suggested speed signs in the bends of backroads. The Tucson will get you from A to B, but will do so in a mundane and boring manner. The suspension can sometimes give this excessive pogo-stick effect over some bumps where it seems to endlessly oscillate up and down. It's rare, but not rare enough to notice it a few times. You want fun from your crossover? Mazda's CX-5 is a full-on sports car in comparison. I also didn't particularly like the PRND push-buttons. I've used them plenty of times and was intrigued by them at first in other Hyundai offerings, but the novelty has worn off with their delayed operation. However, it does free up interior space. Also, it's one of the only components of the interior that seems too plasticky. To make an analogy with what's wrong with this Tucson, let's compare it to different species of early humans and hominids. With each biological change from an Australopithecus and then eventually to when the Homo genus shows up, there were gives and takes in evolution. Some early species adopted a seemingly modern hip suited for bipedalism, but they still had curved arms for tree swinging for example. The Homo genus brought modern traits like flatter foreheads, larger cranial capacities, and the teeth slowly shrank, among countless things a paleoanthropologist like Lee Berger could tell you, but the early Homos still didn't look like modern humans; there were bits and pieces that were of antiquity still. And so it is that, with this Tucson, Hyundai has taken big steps into developing their crossover into a fully evolved and modern specimen, but they've also taken steps backwards in key places. Well, not backwards, because it's better than the old Tucson in every way, but the fact no steps were taken in such key places is a regression. Think more like Homo Naledi, a South African-discovered human species that existed at the same time as early Homo Sapiens and that shared many characteristics, but failed in other key areas which led to its inevitable extinction. The Tucson needs to be the evolved, full package, and these weak links are holding it back tremendously. Verdict - It's no good then? I like the way it looks and the interior is a sumptuous masterpiece. But, that's all surface attention. The engine is a disaster and it's not interesting to drive at all. This, then, is a vehicle that is too focused on style. The price is right, though, undercutting a RAV4 Limited by a couple grand and while boasting a better interior, but a RAV4 drives and performs better and uses less fuel while doing so. And a CX-5 has an optional turbocharged engine that's a rocket ship in relation. That one is also superb to drive. This particular Tucson should never be considered then, not while the Hybrid version exists. With its extra (much needed) power and averaging 30 MPG, the Tucson Hybrid is the one you want, making a much more valid case for why anyone should even choose a Tucson in the first place. 2022 Hyundai Tucson Limited AWD As-tested Price: $37,620

The Road Beat tests Acura's RDX entry-luxury crossover What is it? The RDX, the somewhat compact, luxury crossover from Acura. Set to compete against the likes of the BMW X3, Genesis GV70, Lexus NX, Audi Q5, and/or Mercedes GLC, it's a crowded, but popular segment for these entry-luxury rivals. I liked Acura's MDX from earlier in 2021, and the smaller RDX could bring a sportier edge due to its smaller footprint. At 187" long and 75" wide, it isn't compact, but it is when compared to the current MDX with its three-row seating arrangement. Interestingly, it's only an inch shorter than the original, hugely popular MDX from back when Gore was temporarily President. What's hot? Modern cars are getting so big. As inflation of our currency seems to see no end, so does the general size of all new vehicles. The RDX might be the small offering from Acura, but you'd never know it. For me, not ever needing three rows of seats, it's the perfect size for a crossover SUV. I never once had a doubt for interior space in either the seating nor cargo area, blending a nice balance for physical volume. I like this class of vehicle in general, because how often really are you going to utilize the third-row in your MDX? Mormons, maybe, I guess. I also like the way the RDX looks, especially in the magnetic blue paint and A Spec package that adorns this example. Sharp, yet not offensive, whereas Lexus models are too far in one direction for many. The Acura badge on the nose might be large enough to trap you in its orbit, and/or puritans might mistake you for an adulterer if it were red, but it's a nice looking machine. If you are considering an RDX, you'd be doing yourself a severe disservice by getting one in boring white; Get the blue. The interior is a lovely place for any occasion and is convincingly luxurious, with myself spending half a day in one on a trip to San Francisco and back. The seats are supportive and comfortable, though I reckon the white leather will not stay clean forever. Beautiful when new, but I'd have reservations about maintaining its luster long term. It's also quiet on the motorway at speed, but that's expected from a more prestigious luxury offering. This is an Acura, remember, not a Honda, so there are expectations. On the whole, everything inside from the doors to the switchgear feels wonderfully screwed-together, signifying this Acura's famous Japanese quality. On a sunny Saturday, I decided to venture from Placerville, CA up to Loon Lake for a hike, an Alpine setting in the El Dorado National Forest. Arriving there meant taking some of the best driving roads on the planet, with snaking tarmac winding and flowing its way to well over 6,000 feet above sea level via Wentworth Springs and Ice House Roads. Unfortunately, a vast amount of this driving heaven was thwarted by snow and ice, but luckily the AWD system (Acura calls it, literally, Super-Handling All-Wheel Drive, or SH-AWD for short) in the RDX handled standing inches of snow quite nonchalantly. Instead of powering through corners with the suspension loaded and leaning, a modest 15-20 MPH was enough in these conditions. But yeah, the snow was absolutely no problem nor concern, and that was before realizing there was a dedicated snow mode to select from. I guess you could it's...snow problem. Luckily, before I reached the wintry conditions, I did get a chance to attack some corners. Unlike many mass-appealing 'normal cars,' the RDX gets better the quicker you drive it. Maintaining a consistently fun (and still safe) 7-8/10ths on this well-known road, the RDX handles brilliantly, with a desire to change direction quickly and distinctly and with a surprising amount of shear in turns. The front-end bites hard and resists understeer well, and the AWD lends its hand in creating traction at all times. Dare I say it, it's actually decently fun to hoon around. The turbocharged engine doesn't have much down low, but once the revs are up, there's a decent thrust to satisfy even if it does leave more to be desired. Overall, very impressed with how well behaved and engaging the RDX can be, leaving a lasting impression. What's not? I did hope for more from the 270 horsepower, turbocharged four-cylinder. It's fine in terms of culture and civility as far as four-bangers go, but there just needs to be more punch to match the obviously sporting intentions of its chassis. A BMW X3, with less 'claimed' horsepower, is a smidge quicker, and so is the Genesis GV70. And it's not just outright firepower where it's lacking, but the low-range power, where it can feel lethargic at times, this despite the presence of its 10-speed automatic that ought to always keep the engine boiling. Just a little more oomph in the most commonly driven and utilized engine ranges would be welcome. To go along with the powertrain, I was also discouraged by the fuel economy of the RDX, with the onboard computer showing 26 MPG on the highway and achieving an overall average of 23. 30 on the highway would be a real treat and, honestly, an expectation at this point. Others can do it, so should Acura. So, you know how I said the RDX handles rather well on those back roads? In completely sedated, normal driving, I was disappointed by the steering. With zero feedback and a lack of consistency, I found accuracy to be missing, as the rate of response just didn't seem right as if there was a disconnect. When you bring up the pace, these concerns nearly all disappeared, but just popping around at 45 MPH through town, the steering could be unnerving. Most will likely never notice it, but it did stick out to me as I felt a missing connection between me turning the wheel and what the front tires were actually doing. The interior might be well-made and with a distinct quality, but the infotainment failed to win me over. I was hesitant about it after first trying it in the MDX, and that sentiment remains here in this RDX. Using a little mousepad with supposed, alleged accuracy (each spot on the pad represents a corresponding place on the screen, apparently to allow muscle memory and keep your eyes on the road better), it's just too awkward. And I didn't like how far you have to move your finger sometimes. Say you're going from the far left to the far right, you have to drag your finger all the way across the pad. If you accidently pick your finger up, which is natural to do, you have to restart in the center. I get the intention and idea, but in the real world it's just frustrating and weird. On a laptop, it's common to move your cursor a little, pick-up your finger, and then move more to get to screen's corner, which allows you to keep your finger always in the center of the pad, but in Acura's vision, you have to do one full, uninterrupted motion of moving your finger all over the pad. I don't like it, but maybe it'll be better after a couple months? Oh, and one more thing, I didn't like how I was stuck with always a split-screen display, not finding a way to make it full screen. Sometimes the things that should be so simple and obvious are what get so commonly overlooked, distracted by endless, meaningless drivel instead of giving all attention to what really matters. It can drive really well and succeeds in other areas, too, but it's disappointing to see these other parts bring it down. Verdict The RDX is a well-made, well-priced, good-looking, and (at times) fun to drive luxury crossover. In normal driving, like what 99.5% of buyers will actually do, it misses on the goods, though, not being the most fuel efficient nor the best to drive. The new GV70 from Genesis really is a disrupter, being great to drive at all times and having a Sheik-worthy interior; The RDX needs to improve in a few areas to better compete. I love the fact that it drives as good as it does when you push it, better and more engaging than a BMW X3 even, but it doesn't stand out nearly as much when used as an everyday vehicle. 2022 Acura RDX A-Spec AWD Advanced As-tested price: $52,845

Beautiful and brilliant to drive...Genesis keeps the streak of producing phenomenal luxury vehicles. Review and photos of the 2022 Genesis GV70 by The Road Beat. What is it? Genesis, the luxury brand/division of Hyundai/Kia, isn't just making waves with their new models as much as tsunamis. The GV80, a large SUV tested back in the spring, was brilliant. Now comes the GV70, a 'compact' luxury SUV. There's not much else to say, really, other than it's an enormous achievement. The platforms are shared across models, and so since one drives good, the others follow suit. Engines are the same, too, as this GV70 features the same stonking 3.5L twin-turbo V6 as the GV80, but in a smaller, more lithe body. This is real luxury at a (relatively, mind you) feasible price. And no, there's no cost-cutting evident anywhere. Why pay more of your dough made from GameStop on a Mercedes when you can have the arguably better vehicles for less? What's Hot? Nearly everything. On the outside, from just about every angle, it's a gorgeous bit of kit. Combining classic elements and the sloping roof with its neat c-pillar, plus a modern, big 'ole grille, the GV70 is quite pretty. Ditto goes for the matching, parallel head and tail lights. Open the doors, and this example is garnished in a stunning red leather while metal switchgear and beautifully dutiful screens make their cases known, with the cockpit reminding me of a vintage Riva or Chris-Craft. Don't be surprised when I tell you of the shear quality every you look and touch. It's not just for looks, this, being made with an artisan level of craftsmanship. Seriously, the first time you open the door on a GV70, you will be more than 'wowed.' On the road, the Genesis shines further. Driven normally, it can be mundane albeit with a heftier steering effort than competitors, but it can be remarkably easy to drive and waft around in. Steering is direct and accurate, and the ride absorbs most anything you throw at it despite the large-diameter (21 inch!) wheels. Oh, it's also eerily quiet inside, too. However, up the pace considerably, and the GV70 becomes what a modern BMW wishes it were. The steering's weight adds to these sporting credentials, inspiring confidence and precision. Attacking corners, you might as well be in a well-honed sports sedan. Oh, what's that? Yeah, Genesis' sedans are also wonderful to drive quickly, so it's no wonder the dynamics are very relatable. The suspension will lean and load naturally on its corners, while the all-wheel drive system is not afraid to send power to the rear. With the driver aids totally eliminated, you can even achieve power-on oversteer in the GV70 (lol) with its balance. Seriously, the front-end communicates like you wish your ex would have (admittedly and to be clear, I was the guilty one there), insisting on available grip and inviting for more. And once you get on the power, prepare to launch down the straight and for the next corner. Power doesn't feel as immense as it should at first, with the eight-speed auto's insistence to shift early to avoid fuel-sapping boost. Though, take control with the paddle shifters to get the revs up, put your foot down, and the tachometer's needle soars to the redline at a rapid pace. Harnessing all 375 horsepower, 0-60 MPH comes up in a rampant 5.2 seconds and the speed seems to keep piling on. Sure, there are M, AMG, and RS Audi models that are quicker still, but what's the point in a car like this? You'll enjoy the power here; it's PLENTY impressive. If you don't need that much thrust, there's a potent four-cylinder model available as well for less. What's Not? Very little. This is a compact SUV, so while the second row is livable, you won't want to spend a five hour drive back there exactly. The cargo bay will be spacious enough for most everyday errands and needs, but again, if you want space, then you'll want the GV80 with its third-row seating and cavernous storage abilities. The gear knob is a little interesting to use at first, with its low-profile and weighted resistance to turn, but you do get somewhat used to it. Also in the vicinity are rolling volume controls that are pretty to look at with their knurled metal architecture (lots of beautiful metalwork here), but are oddly placed and not the easiest to use. I like simple dials, please. With that said, some of the controls for things like the air, radio, and so on, could be better to operate; it just takes time to learn to navigate this sculptured interior. A scenic environment, but not the most ergonomically correct. While we're on the looks, the wheels are an acquired taste for sure. If you're looking to save on gas, then this GV70 is not the vehicle for you. Averaging only 19 MPG in my hands, that at least grew to 26 on the highway, but it's not what you'd call fuel efficient by any means. The bigger GV80 did even worse with its identical twin-turbo V6 motor. So, a sure thing? I mean, how could you not recommend the GV70. It's pretty inside and out, with that standout interior design, and it drives very, very well. If you don't require the absolute most in interior space, then the GV70 will work for you. At an as-tested price of $64,045, this top-of-the-line Sport Prestige, even while good value compared to the competition, is still a lot of money. However, the impressive base model with the same engine rings in over $10,000 less. If you can make do with 70ish less horsepower, you can even spend $20,000 less. Obvious rivals include Porsche's Macan, Audi's SQ5, Mercedes GLC43, and BMW's X3 M40i. Even with price thrown out of the equation, the GV70 is so good that it shouldn't even matter. Yes, you'll have to answer the tiring question of, "What's a Genesis?" but it's time to spread the news: Genesis is a real player out of nowhere and deserves all your attention. 2022 Genesis GV70 Sport Prestige AWD As-tested price: $64,045 Pros: Benchmark style and luxury inside and out; Great to drive Cons: While not as expensive as rivals, still isn't 'affordable' Verdict: Money no object, the GV70 should still be at the top of your list

Two years on, how does Toyota's hybrid SUV hold up in top-level Platinum trim? I first drove Toyota's new Highlander nearly two years ago already, sampling both the Hybrid and non-Hybrid variants. I liked them both for their quality, impressive interiors, and the Hybrid's outrageous real-world fuel economy. But in the meantime, I've had chances to drive some of its rivals. Now, coming back to the Highlander Hybrid, how does it hold up two years into its model run? What is it? Toyota's Highlander, a large crossover/SUV with three rows to seat seven people. It's a vast machine, looking nearly like a large wagon with its stretched length. It isn't cheap at just over $50,000, but this is the top-of-the-line Platinum edition that brings some luxury to Toyotaland. And, most interestingly, this Highlander is a Hybrid with huge EPA-promised efficiency figures. How does 35 MPG overall sound? In a car this big, it's scarcely believable. And it isn't believable, because I only averaged 29 unfortunately. Only 29 is still excellent for such a spacious mover of persons, however. What's Hot? Fuel economy. Though I achieved nearly 20% less than what the Environmental Protection Agency achieved in their fantasy-land of hybrid testing, the outright numbers are still terrific for a vehicle of this size. At 29 MPG after a week's worth of driving, and 32 MPG alone on the highway, this is a great way to move your family and all your crap while saving money at the pump. Interestingly, 29 MPG was a significant 4 less than I achieved in a identically specced Highlander Hybrid in 2020, driving on the exact same roads. The interior on this Platinum represents a big step-up from Toyotas of old, and isn't even that far behind some more expensive offerings from Toyota's own Lexus brand. I was more impressed with it back in 2020, but it is a nice place to be when compared to many of its rivals like the VW Atlas. Mazda's CX-9 and the Telluride/Palisade twins are nicer still, but this Platinum does possess an interior that will likely leave a lasting impression on prospective buyers or those looking to upgrade from older Toyotas. The large screen attracts attention, the leather is nice, though some of the switches (like the window buttons) do feel low-rent. Space and comfort are both commendable in the front two rows. The front seats are particularly comfortable while passengers had zero complaints towards the rear captain's chairs. As you can tell from the photos, the leg space for second-row occupants is generous and will likely garner no qualms. The same can't quite be said for the folding third-row, however, with it being best reserved as an emergency jump seat for one adult, or only for kids. With the rear bench folded down, cargo volume will let you ambitiously pack your Highlander with enough non-perishables for a zombie apocalypse. For reference, that is a large camera bag I placed back there in the pictures, and you can easily see how little of a footprint it leaves back there. Yes, you can put a lot of junk in the caboose. The hybrid powertrain consists of a four-cylinder with electrical assistance, and works smoothly and in harmony, far smoother than other four-cylinders from Toyota that can be downright meat grinders. Performance is barely adequate, with 0-60 MPH taking 7.7 seconds, but it's an unoffending propulsion package. What's Not? The Highlander Hybrid is thoroughly practical, but it's also thoroughly bland. The exterior design is far from congruous and has strange elements like the chrome band holding the front Toyota badge and the random swoop along the doors and atop the rear wheels. Next to something elegant like a CX-9, or understated like the Telluride, it's just not good looking. But, looks are subjective, of course. I did just have my eyes checked for what it's worth. Bland also accurately describes the driving experience, which is competent, but wholly unexciting. I couldn't help but feel that driving the Highlander was more akin to steering a toy/remote control car - nothing feels organic. Handling isn't bad per se, with a chassis that's more than capable around freeway onramps, but the steering and its weighting just don't give the pleasure that you get from behind the wheel of the CX-9, the best driving SUV in this class. If this makes it easier to process, the Highlander feels like a minivan from the driver's seat. In fact, I think the recently tested Sienna I had actually drove better and felt less van-like than this. I have to call out some of the amenities in the cabin, too. The large touchscreen, while pretty to look at, is too complicated to use with how its structured, and I hate the fact that some of the climate functions have to be accessed via screen rather than the much easier physical buttons located below it. Also of note is the center storage between the front seats, which is fundamentally obstructed by its wireless mobile phone charger. It lifts up to get out of your hands' way, but what if you have a phone placed there charging? Swing up the tray and the phone will fall out. So, you have to remove the phone first, which is terribly distracting if you're actively driving. And even then, without a phone in place, you have to first lift up the storage cover and then the awkwardly bulky charging tray. No. Just no. Put it somewhere else. Oh, how about the super convenient slot below the touchscreen? It's literally destined for wireless charging, and yet the engineers somehow didn't think of that? Hmm. While the gas mileage is impressive, the range computer is woefully out of whack. With a 17 gallon tank and averaging 29 MPG, that should equate to about exactly 500 miles of range. However, the range computer said I'd be out of puff at just 400 (even near the end of my week, adding the range plus the miles never broke 400), underestimating itself by too much. Come on, math ain't that hard, Toyota. And this isn't the first time I've seen this on a Toyota. It'll keep the unassuming from running out of petroleum, but don't they want their customers to get excited about filling up and seeing an enormous range from their new Hybrid? Verdict: This is an entirely safe choice for a large vehicle. But, if you want real practicality, Toyota's own Sienna minivan has even more space, costs the same, and achieved even better economy in my hands. But, yes, it's a minivan dork-mobile. But, in every sense of occasion, it's the better vehicle. What this Highlander Hybrid Platinum also does is cost too much at an as-tested price of $52,493, being substantially more expensive than a loaded up Palisade or Telluride, so your gas savings are nullified by the MSRP differences. For a Toyota SUV, it does its job well, almost perfectly in fact. Its main saving grace is the fuel economy that no other rival hopes to offer. But, here I am recommending the Sienna minivan as the better choice...

It's a good size, but is it a good choice? The Road Beat tests the 2022 Toyota Corolla Cross. Words and pictures by Mitchell Weitzman I wanted to like the new Corolla Cross, Toyota's new compact crossover. Drawing on the name of one of its most successful models for marketing purposes, this new entry sits below the RAV4 in Toyota's hierarchy, but above the niche C-HR. Actually, think of this as a new RAV4 'classic.' I say 'classic' because the RAV4 has grown rather large over the past decade, dwarfing its early forebears, with this new Corolla Cross being a more similar size to those classic RAV offerings. In fact, it's larger than a pre-2005 RAV4. So, for those that think the RAV4 is now too big for their needs, Toyota may have your answer. Or maybe not. What's good? It looks funky, continuing Toyota's relatively adventurous new design language. Most gave positive compliments regarding the appearance of this new Corolla Cross despite a mish-mash of elements. But, they must work, as even I liked the aesthetics given its reserved yet far from bland design. The round front fenders are strange on their own, but they give an appealing look when paired with the bulbous snout that nearly resembles a dog. That might sound bad, but it does seem to be generally likened. The size is right for many people. As the stalwart RAV4 has aged, it has only grown physically so much that the once compact RAV4 isn't quite so compact anymore. So, as a result, the Corolla Cross comes in at very sensible dimensions for those not needing the absolute most room. For yourself, or a small family and/or plus a Golden Retriever, it works plenty fine. The storage in the rear is ample enough for most daily tasks, too. Inside, I liked the well-finished interior on this fancier XLE trim, boasting materials that give a sincere sense not only quality, but lasting quality. When paired with the comfortable, leather steering wheel, this Corolla Cross is a nice place to be even if it does come up short against, say, Mazda's CX-30. The seats do their job well, too. Toyota's center display remains an aging item as always, though. What isn't good... A good amount, unfortunately, starting with its terrible engine. It's a 2.0-liter, naturally-aspirated inline-four that is also featured Toyota's Corolla models. With 169 horsepower, it's mediocre in every sense. Actually, it feels more like 120 horses, with 0-60 MPH taking a pissy 9 seconds of turmoil raging beneath the hood. I say that because this engine is far too loud and thrashy for its own good, exacerbated further by a Continuously Variable Transmission that holds the RPM and therefore sustains the broken blender nature of the motor to annoying strides. This is one of the many new vehicles that would benefit from being...electric. Ever hear that recent science recreation of what a Neanderthal likely sounded like? Yeah, like that, but for cars; it isn't good. It's so woeful in practice and unpleasant to hear that I'd far rather hear nothing. To make matters worse, I was hoping that the Corolla Cross would at least be economical, but it isn't, Yielding only 30 MPG on the highway at 72 MPH and averaging 25.5. Why do I consider that bad? Because Toyota's own RAV4, with a larger, more powerful engine, and it being a bigger and heavier car to boot, too, gets better overall mileage, with my last one achieving 28 MPG overall. So, you opt for the slower and small choice, but it's also both slower and less efficient? That doesn't compute. A Corolla Cross Hybrid that can average 40 MPG would be hugely appealing and should be the only option available. It should be coming soon. Hopefully. How does it behave on the road? Thrillingly unthrilling, that's how. Lifeless was what I instinctively used to describe it. If you value any kind of excitement while motoring, look elsewhere; This is transportation stripped back to its most boring concoction. The steering is...steering. The handling is...well, unconvincing, with the suspension having its focus more toward the ride quality than any form of exuberance. And yes, the ride quality is decent at least, even if it does get unsettled by rougher sections of road, but it is at least what most will find comfortable. Oh, and the front A-pillars are in the perfect position to block your view for anything that isn't perfectly straight in front of you. This Corolla Cross XLE with AWD can at least venture into mildly inclement weather with some vague confidence, but this model does come at a surprising cost. At $33,550, it's actually more expensive than some decently equipped RAV4s. Thankfully, the starting price for one is under $25,000, a very competitive and attractive price point, but to get a nice one such as this, it's far too expensive for its own good. A turbocharged (it's wickedly fast in comparison) and luxurious Mazda CX-30 is only a couple grand more at that point... Verdict: What the world needs? Or a missed opportunity? I'm all about smaller cars; people don't need the overly generous space afforded by today's crossover and SUV offerings. But, smaller cars also require something to make them unique, because being cheap isn't a personality. Smaller cars need to be fun, and the Corolla Cross goes all out for sensibility by sacrificing all hope of fun. Hyundai's Kona and Venues are small, affordable, but they have some fun instilled into them at least with their driving dynamics. Ditto for Mazda's CX-30. What can the Corolla Cross be counted on for? Being well-made and likely lasting a lifetime, offering the security of Toyota's legendary reliability and ability to always count on it. And for what will likely be 100,000 people each year that buys one of these, that's enough for them. 2022 Toyota Corolla Cross XLE AWD Price as-tested: $33,550 Pros: The right size, well-done interior and well-equipped Cons: Slow, not efficient enough, boring, pricey as equipped Verdict: A missed chance at something fun; wait for a future hybrid variant

It's beautiful inside and out and with a vast rear seat, yet it costs less than 70 grand? It's a bargain. What is it? Sweden's answer to the enduring battle of luxury sedans. Titans like BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Lexus have been duking it out with luxury mini-limos for decades, but there is another option that many fail to register: Volvo. And, for the price alone, it ought to be a serious contender and option for anyone. While Germany's entries will set you back nearly $100,000 for a plus-size saloon, this Swede is a startling bargain at (comfortably) under $70,000 with every option box ticked. It's insanely good value, but also a lovely car to drive (and be driven in). What's hot? Quite a lot. Starting with the outside, I'm rather fond of the understatedly handsome exterior design that has become so synonymous with Volvo and Swedish architecture. In the age of grilles that seem to grow like a rat's teeth (looking at you, Munich), it's refreshing to see something so relatively toned down. You don't need a shiny, striped suit to look good and command attention - sometimes a plain, tailored black tux is the best choice. Open up the doors and you'll be greeted by an interior crafted to artisan standards. The materials, everywhere, are top notch and give the obvious impression that this is a premium product. The seats are particularly comfortable and supportive, and with a raft of adjustments to tailor the leather and padding to your body. The cabin's overall aesthetic is another high point, following the classy sheet metal's theme to create an unmistakable air of simplified elegance. But perhaps the biggest win for the S90 lies in the back. From the driver's seat, turning my head to glance behind me revealed a shocking amount of rear leg room. With a 6' 2" friend back there, he could nearly stretch his legs all the way out straight and not hit the front seats. Not exaggerating, I don't think I've ever seen this much rear leg room besides an actual Vegas limousine. There's enough space on the floor to have an archaeological excavation. In fact, some paleo archaeologists wish they had this much room to work with; It's huge, in other words. Oh, and the rear seats are remarkably comfortable, too. Duh. The dash is completely digital and the view can be changed to whatever you prefer to view. My favorite was the implementation of the navigation between the gauges, with a clear and non-distracting map view giving turn-by-turn directions being extremely helpful while traversing through the San Francisco Bay Area's notorious traffic. There are a few gripes electronically inside, but I'll save that for later. To no surprise, I found the S90 a delight to pilot. On a 300 mile road trip to Bodega Bay for friends' surprise engagement (the perfect vehicle to chauffer the newly engaged couple afterwards, mind you), the S90 was quiet (though not quite the vacuum of space that is a trait of more expensive rivals) and respectfully comfortable, owing to the seats and a plush yet controlled ride from the suspension. Steering is mostly direct (just a tiny bit of inaccuracy due the more relaxed ratio) and has a balance to the weighting to avoid feeling too heavy nor too light like a toy. Sure, feedback through the wheel is non-existent, but this is a luxury car - you don't want to feel vibrations and tremors through the wheel like it's a Porsche GT car. Through some twisting bits, it's happier to cruise, but if you throw some steering input and throttle at it, the S90 will diligently oblige with little fuss and a keenness that belies its mission and size. Overall, a very fine driving machine, but not exactly exciting. Is it the best driving large sedan? No, but it's plenty good on its own. Remember the price difference here... Under the hood rests a complicated affair, but one that works brilliantly in the real world. It's a 2-liter four-cylinder that's helped by a turbocharger, a supercharger, and a mild hybrid system, accumulating 295 horsepower in the process and a peak torque rating of 310. Power delivery is smooth and immediate thanks to all the assistance the little combustion engine receives, and doesn't even sound all too bad; Unwanted vibrations that are inherent of four-bangers are also minimized luckily. 0-60 MPH, aided also by AWD on this model, happens in a reasonable 5.5 seconds. Performance tapers off once you reach freeway speeds, but the initial punch and response is quite convincing here. The best attribute, though, of this complex powertrain? Fantastic fuel economy. Highway mileage, and remember just how large this car is again, is a stellar 32 MPG at my tested 72 MPH, and overall economy was a fab 27 in mixed driving. Often these little engines are so overworked that they don't deliver in the real world, but this unit delivers. What's not? I just about praised the entire car, didn't I? It isn't that one-sided, however, with a few annoyances cropping up here and there. Actually, it all has to do with the electronics. The center display screen, doing its damndest to look like an iPad, is particularly fussy to use at basically all times. I've had other Volvos this year that had what must have been an entirely new generation of user interface, as the S90's system looked like a blockier and less vibrant edition. I found it similar to the transition from iOS 6 iOS 7, then a substantial update to the overall look of one's iPhone. Besides the interface design, it was sometimes laggy to downright freezing. When browsing satellite radio, for instance, selecting a new channel revealed it was stuck on displaying the name of a prior station, with the artist and song also frozen in time. That lasted an entire day and many starts and stops to let the car reset. The next day, it just magically fixed itself. The order of operations aren't ideal, too, with constantly going backwards to go forwards in some cases, or having to rely on swiping screens instead of a back arrow. Further, accessing the climate in-screen was a nuisance and proved unpolished with several cases of touches not registering or being delayed and then registering multiple touches as you frantically keep clicking. Oh, and sometimes the air would be on full blast with the fan only on setting one or two? Hmm. The new system is definitely better from the V90 and XC90, so that would be a welcome update. Also strange was an inability to have both the top-view and rear-view cameras on at the same time displaying. Other cars can, it has the screen real estate to do it, so why not? Awkward to have to switch between them in a difficult parking maneuver. Apart from that, the on/off switch is odd to use as it rotates clockwise for both starting and turning off; Wouldn't it make more sense for clockwise on and counterclockwise for off? It's uncomfortable to grasp, too, and I figure it'd be better if it was rotated 90 degrees for its starting point. And another complaint, this being the case of it being too good, is the heated steering wheel itself. Be careful with turning it on full blast. It will roast your hands. A worthy luxury sedan regardless of the price. Going into this, I had no idea what the S90 cost. I actually figured it must've carried a sticker of over $80,000 due to the competition of extended sedans and the quality onboard. To see a substantially cheaper price was greeted enthusiastically. Even better, an S90 starts at barely above $50,000 if you want to forgo a few options. The fact a vehicle this large costs less than equivalently-equipped BMW 5-series and Mercedes E classes rather than their big brother 7s and S-classes speaks volumes. Indeed, the true competition might come from Genesis' G90, another luxury sedan that comes at great value. But, a Volvo customer is a different type of customer, the kind who views other luxury products as vulgar and ostentatious. The Volvo customer isn't the type to have a garish Louis Vuitton bag or wallet with all the little LVs scattered about to remind yourself and others of your supposed superiority. The Volvo driver doesn't need that. The Volvo driver wants a first-class experience, but they know they don't need to shout about it. 2022 Volvo S90 B6 AWD R-Design As-tested Price: $64,540 Pros: Astounding value, handsome inside and out, HUGE back seat Cons: electronic gremlins related to center display screen Verdict: For the price, it's nigh impossible to do better.

It's a minivan with a hybrid powertrain. Does this make minivans cool? The Road Beat tests and reviews the 2022 Toyota Sienna XSE. What is it? Toyota's Sienna minivan, now in a fourth-generation, featuring newly sharpened looks and the notable introduction of a standard hybrid powertrain. Yes, this minivan is a hybrid, and is also the only way you can have a Sienna from here on. What took them so long? You can also spec all-wheel drive, too. In a world of rising gas prices, the prospect of averaging over 30 MPG in a vehicle this size sure does become extremely alluring. But, is it any good? What's good For starters, the sharpened looks do help the Sienna stand out in a sea of other, boring people movers. It's not quite textbook pretty, but then what minivan is? With this XSE trim, the so-called sporty acronym in Toyota's vocabulary, the Sienna does appear more exciting than rivals from either Honda or Chrysler. Whether you desire that boldness is up to you, but it's nice that Toyota is trying to differentiate their models and be more daring with designs. Kia's Carnival, conversely, looks more grown up and elegant as it ditches traditional minivan proportions to look more SUV-like. Space is enormous, as is commonplace with minivans. The interior can fit seven people, adults even, more comfortably than you'd initially think. Shoot, even without an eighth seat, an eighth adult could fit and not be that uncomfortable. And yes, I did use all the space, cramming six friends inside the Sienna as we drove to the tennis courts. Even with the third row of seats, there is a decently roomy cargo area. While not particularly deep, the height of it allows for some imagination. If you fix the rear seats down, the storage area increases greatly for basically anything. Small Christmas tree? Sure, put it inside. Overall quality in this well-equipped Sienna was good without being particularly impressive - This becomes more apparent when next to a similarly priced Highlander. The front seats do have a cockpit-like feel to them, helped by the high center console that wraps around you and brings the controls closer to you. Underneath lies a storage area that can be useful, but my hydroflask would roll around there endlessly on its own without wedging something else in there to help. It is undeniably comfortable, and from most seats - The second rows can slide to create tons of legroom for rear passengers. Fuel mileage is likely the biggest selling point of the new Sienna, that, and the available all-wheel drive. But, let's talk MPG first. Ready for this? I averaged 33 during my time with the Sienna. Thirty-fricken-three. That's incredible for something so vast. That also is nearly 50 percent better than the last Honda Odyssey I tested. On the highway at 72 MPH, that number grew to an astonishing 37! If you're looking to save on gas, the Sienna is an easy choice and offers substantial savings and gains over non-hybrid rivals. Chrysler, however, does offer a hybrid variant of their own excellent Pacifica minivan to consider. What's not If you're wanting a minivan, there isn't much to not like. It does all the minivan basics with competence while combining those core traits with insane gas mileage. But, not all is as rosy as the ruby paint. And, disappointingly, it's the little things that bugged me with the Sienna. Take for the instance, the rear door handles. Something about them felt clunky, unnecessarily heavy, and yet loose at the same time. And there were multiple times I would pull on them and the rear doors refused to slide open. Yes, it wasn't just one, but both sides, too. I can't help but sense that a more reassuring door handle wouldn't too hard to come by. In addition, I wish the rear doors opened farther to create a larger portal for ingress. Once those doors do open (and subsequently close), they do so at a glacial pace, akin to Australopithecines evolving into the Homo genus. Also less than ideal were adjustments for the rear seats. They slide this way and that way to make access to the rear easy, sure, but some of the levers were not intuitive. I stood there multiple times pulling levers, even - dare I say it - reading the levers for clarity to figure it out, and they just didn't work or do what I wanted. Then magically, they suddenly would work. I found this strange when in other cars have a clear handle to pull and just shazam! it works. The third-row seats do fold into a cubby, but not as cleanly or easily as in other minivans like the Pacifica or Odyssey. Furthermore, the second-row seats have to be removed to clear out complete access for serious cargo hauling. Chrysler steal leads the way with their Stow 'N Go system where you can easily fold the second row seats even completely flat and hidden away. It's easy and brilliant to use. If you never plan on needing something like that, then you won't have to worry. The engine/propulsion set-up, while efficient as heck, is a noisy and annoying four-cylinder engine at its core. So, when accelerating, you get thrashy and ragged noises from the stressed little unit, unlike the smooth and powerful V6s from Honda and Chrysler. But, it's all bout them (MPG) gains , though. Performance is adequate enough, with 0-60 MPH happening in 7.6 seconds, but does lag behind the Honda's V6 thrust. Driving wise? It drives like I expected: a minivan, meaning boring. It's fine just meandering around your daily errands, with steering that doesn't wander and has a welcoming accuracy. The ride quality could be improved with better rebound control over bumps, and I didn't find it all that quiet on the highway either. Things do improve as you drive quicker, surprisingly, where I was treated to an unexpectedly good balance on my cloverleaf onramp test, with enough bite from the front tires to instill some confidence. However, Honda's Odyssey drives and handles better. A rationally rational choice? There is one big, overshadowing reason to choose a Sienna minivan: that gas mileage. I really do believe that this hybrid powertrain is going to take chunks of sales out from minivan-sales-leader Honda due to the enormous fuel economy benefits. I think the Honda drives better, but the look-at-me styling of the Toyota and hybrid efficiency might be enough to convert people over and also draw new buyers who might not have considered a minivan prior. There's another new kid on the block, too, the Kia Carnival. It's a minivan without looking totally like a minivan. It does not have a hybrid option and therefore gets far worse fuel mileage, but it has good dynamics and a lovely interior. My take? If you're a Toyota-for-life customer, as many are, The Highlander Hybrid drives better and has a more luxurious interior. But, if you need the maximum in space, a minivan can deliver. 2022 Toyota Sienna XSE As-tested price: $47,049 Pros: Wonderful fuel economy; looks that standout Cons: Rivals drive better; looks might stand out too much Verdict: Space plus economy, a winning combination for a minivan

What's this Lexus crossover all about? The Road Beat tests and reviews the 2022 Lexus RX 450h F Sport. What is it? The Lexus RX 450h F Sport, a crossover that, unlike other Lexus models, doesn't seem like particularly good value. And at $61,650, it's far from what many would consider affordable. This model does feature an all-wheel drive hybrid powertrain, though, for ambitious fuel economy claims, which can be quite appealing in times where gasoline is nearing $5.00/gallon. What's hot? As is typical with all Lexus models, build quality is quite high, with luxuriously soft materials and excellent fit and finish throughout the interior. You do get the sense of complete solidity when driving the RX around, with no rattles to be heard and confidence that it will last a lifetime; That's why many people choose Lexus over other brands, particularly those from Europe. The cabin features comfortable leather seats, again wrapped in a quality hide that you come to expect from Lexus. The steering wheel feels nice in the hands, too. The ride quality is comfortable for passengers and it's quiet enough, though I did hope for a teensy bit less wind noise from a luxury product. Fuel economy does live up to the hype, where I found myself averaging 28 MPG during my week with the Lexus and achieved 32 MPG on my highway test; Definitely a higher average than pure gas-only competitors. So, if you're for a luxury crossover that still delivers great economy, this unique powertrain represents a compelling choice for it alone. On the road, the RX 450h is adequately competent, but completely boring. Steering is lifeless and dead and with precarious accuracy at times which is unlike the smaller NX crossover I tested last year, because that had great steering. Push through this lack of encouragement and the RX is capable of being commanded to speeds that will make unsuspecting passengers want to hurl still, but there is little joy in hustling and exploring the handling of the RX. The actual balance is respectable, but again, don't buy this for driving thrills, because thrill it doesn't. What's not? Well, I don't find it exactly attractive in any sense of the word. I like the way other Lexus models look now as they've tamed the divisive Predator-grille, but the RX is too ungainly and odd. The color, Grecian Water, is cool, but it doesn't work on the RX. This isn't a full-size SUV (even if its priced as one), but the RX is too shy on interior space unfortunately. The second-row has legroom that's just okay, but it's less roomy that others I've tried recently. The rear cargo space especially doesn't inspire much optimism if you're carrying multiple carts to the IKEA checkout. For those in the need of room, there is a larger 'L' model with a cramped third-row available, but it looks even weirder. It's hard not to feel too compromised on space with the RX 450 because of the price, too. You could have a loaded MDX for the same price, and it's better in every respect save for gas mileage. Ditto for Genesis' superb GV80. Performance isn't a strong suit either, with the 308 horsepower hybrid unit propelling you to 60 MPH from naught in 7 seconds. It's also powertrain that hasn't been updated since at least 2016. Again, probably doesn't matter too much if you're buying this for the economy instead. While the interior is well-appointed with solid leather here and there, some of the switches feel cheap and the center display screen, used for music and navigation, remains a nightmare to operate in typical Lexus fashion. You can eventually tolerate it, but this is nearly 2022 now, you shouldn't have to tolerate what should be an easy and intuitive interface. It's been this way forever basically in Lexus cars, just start over and make it easier. It can't be that hard, Lexus. Verdict Why consider the RX 450h? Buy it if you like the looks and the economy figures. Why would you not buy it, though? Because of the looks, high price, bad screen, and other compelling rivals that drive better and offer more space. Really, this is a niche of a vehicle, but it's a niche that doesn't make a whole lot of sense when comparing competitors. Yes there are other crossovers that offer similar space, but they make up for it by looking much better and offering far better performance for that type of crowd wanting a compromised crossover SUV. I'd even go as far as to say that Lexus parent company Toyota's own Highlander Hybrid Platinum is a better buy for ten grand less, gets better mileage, has way more space, and is actually quite similar in luxury.