Battle Royal

HAVE THE MUSTANG AND Z LEFT THE GENESIS COUPE WOUNDED AND DEFEATED? OR DID HYUNDAI JUST RUIN THE DAY FOR FORD AND NISSAN?

SO, IT’S LESS ENDEARING than the Mustang

and less exhilarating than the Z. But does that make the Genesis Coupe less desirable? Not necessarily. By combining some of the choice attributes of each—the forceful façade and 26 mpg highway of the Z and the four-seat accommodations and the nearly 13.4-cubicfoot trunk of the Mustang—the Genesis Coupe represents, in some ways, the best of both worlds. It is quick and fun to drive. It’s easy on the eyes and on the wallet. And it comes with a stellar warranty from an automaker whose sales aren’t in the toilet. The only caveat is that you have to want to live in both those worlds: in the style of the Z and in the functionality of the Mustang.

But if you’re just after a sports car with the low-slung, sharp-nosed design of an Asian import and could care less about passenger or cargo capacity, the Z is the better drive. It’s markedly quicker, handles better, and is more rewarding to pilot. Whether cruising downtown or conquering a canyon road, we’d pass on the Genesis key for the Z’s any day.

In a different vein, if your most important requirement is a sport coupe that accommodates the spouse, kids, and gear and is still a hoot to scoot, the Mustang GT is the superior option. Its back seat is a smidge tighter, but its dynamics are just plain bigger, easily offsetting any defi ciencies in light of the Genesis. The Mustang simply offers more speed, more agility, and more fun. Yet, it’s more mature and refi ned. The Genesis is the car you take to the prom; the Mustang is the one you take to the reunion.

Conditions aside (see, Ford, it’s not that diffi cult), were we left to pick just one of these rear-drive rockets, we’d opt for the Mustang. It’s a close call, as some of the editors, including your scribe, chose the Z for its eye-watering speed and dizzying grip, but the Ford embodies the whole package. It delivers performance numbers on the heels of the Z’s but doesn’t limit roll call to two or subject the driver to high-rpm crudeness. It offers the conveniences of the Genesis yet makes no noticeable sacrifi ces on the street or track, delivering stats that seem fi tting for a Cayman. Plus, neither the Genesis’s 3.8 nor the Z’s 3.7 can match the teeming torque and rapturous rumble of the Mustang’s 4.6. In this case, there is no replacement for displacement.

Although Ford was afraid the Genesis Coupe would make the Mustang look like a chump, the Hyundai has instead turned the Blue Oval’s ponycar into a champ. For being a scaredy cat, Ford now looks like the chump. Funny how things work out. ■ ron kiino

HYUNDAI GENESIS FORD MUSTANG GT NISSAN 370Z TOURING 3.8 TRACK PREMIUM TRACK W/ SPORT PACKAGE

MSRP $30,250 $33,340 $38,155 Vehicle layout Front-engine, Front-engine, Front-engine, RWD, 4-pass, RWD, 4-pass, RWD, 2-pass, 2-door coupe 2-door coupe 2-door hatchback Engine 3.8L/306-hp/266-lb-ft 4.6L/315-hp/325-lb-ft 3.7L/332-hp/270-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6 SOHC 24-valve V-8 DOHC 24-valve V-6 Transmission 6-speed manual 5-speed manual 6-speed manual Curb weight (dist f/r) 3478 lb (55/45%) 3572 lb (53/47%) 3333 lb (55/45%) Wheelbase 111.0 in 107.1 in 100.4 in L x W x H 182.3 x 73.4 x 54.5 in 188.1 x 73.9 x 55.6 in 167.2 x 72.8 x 51.9 in 0-60 mph 5.5 sec 4.9 sec 4.7 sec Quarter mile 14.2 sec @ 99.5 mph 13.5 sec @ 104.0 mph 13.3 sec @ 107.1 mph Braking, 60-0 111 ft 108 ft 109 ft Lateral acceleration 0.90 g 0.95 g 1.01 g MT fi gure eight 26.2 sec @ 0.67 g (avg) 25.5 sec @ 0.70 g (avg) 24.8 sec @ 0.76 g (avg) EPA city/hwy fuel econ 17/26 mpg (est) 16/24 mpg 18/26 mpg C02 emissions 0.96 lb/mi (est) 1.03 lb/mi 0.93 lb/mi

WITH A MORE POTENT ENGINE, THE R8 CLOSES IN ON PERFECTION— THOUGH IT COULD’VE BEEN CLOSER STILL

● words arthur st. antoine ● photographs lee brimble

THE NEWAudi R8 5.2 FSI quattro may drive like one of the world’s most exotic and exquisitely executed sports cars—new V-10 engine, choice of six-speed manual or R-tronic paddle-shift transmissions, body design straight from Pluto—but in many ways the coming U.S. version is very much a work in progress.

For instance, will the 40-valve, 5.2-liter V-10—sister engine to the unit in the Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 —produce 525 horsepower or 518? The difference is normally attributable to the conversion from metric to English units, but in the R8’s case Audi may juice output to 525 Yank ponies for the U.S. The automaker’s marketing and planning execs haven’t yet decided.

Nor have they finalized their thinking on optional carbon-ceramic brakes. The upgraded binders are a done deal for Europe, but Audi bigs aren’t sure whether American buyers will warm to the unique braking feel of ceramics (there are potential wear/ warranty issues at stake as well). Audi’s hesitation seems curious, especially given the high ceramics take rate on Porsches and the fact that Ferrari is going all-ceramic soon. A car as cutting-edge as the R8—particularly in V-10 form—needs top-of-the-line anchors, for cachet if for nothing else.

Anything else still up in the air? Possibly. Like the V-8-powered R8 4.2, the R8 5.2 will feature standard adaptive magnetorheological shocks, but Euro models will also offer a sport suspension sprung on steel. Might the non-magnetic suspension make its way stateside? Not impossible. The Euro car’s fabulous sport seats will not be offered here, as they don’t

THE R8 TURNS into corners with initial understeer, but fields plenty of grip and stability. Go ahead: Try to find another car with sweeter steering and superior handling response. We’ll wait.

incorporate side airbags, but the Continent’s available Alcantara-wrapped wheel and shift knob seem likely to make the voyage. Again, Audi is thinking it over.

What we know for sure, after driving the R8 5.2 on mountain roads and the Ascari race circuit outside Marbella, Spain, is this: No critique of the maximum Audi can be called “thorough” without at least two straight months of daily seat time. Hear that, Audi PR? Please immediately send us an R8 5.2 for, uh, “multi-environment windshieldclarity analysis.” Don’t be surprised if our research actually takes five or six months to complete.

The R8 5.2 is one of those supercars that you exit not by stepping out but by

i i i ’ being pried from the driver’s seat with i ’ ib i i either a tire iron or a threat of embarrassing photos being released. On top of all the R8’s existing virtues—peerless steering feel and handling, NASA-worthy exterior, modern-art cockpit—the V-10 version adds roughly 100 horsepower (again, the final U.S. figure still to be determined). Claimed 0-to-62 drops a half-second, to 3.9. Zero to 124 mph takes 12 seconds flat, Audi says. The factory’s official top speed: 196 mph. The 5.2 doesn’t feel that fast. If there’s a flaw in the character of this immensely gifted machine, it’s that it’s too genteel. Though the V-10 is blessed with an 8700-rpm redline, and loves to reach it, its exhaust note has none of the blazing, chain-saw-by-Tiffany splendor of, say, a Ferrari F430’s V-8. Perhaps, F i ’ it could be argued, the R8 isn’t meant to be that outré; rather, it’s a carefully pressed executive’s express. But that view dilutes the V-10 model’s mission statement. After all, this is the “R8 Plus.” At the very least, the 5.2 should’ve been engineered to go full-commando in the final 2K or so of its rev band. As it is, the customer is instead left to ponder if the additional power is really worth the estimated $45,000 premium the R8 5.2 will carry over a fully equipped V-8. Sensational car, yes, but that much more sensational than the R8 4.2?

One has to wonder, too, how Audi could so willingly allow its flagship two-door to play second-fiddle to the R8’s now-stablemate,

the Lamborghini Gallardo. In the Lambo, the same V-10 produces 552 horsepower (the Gallardo is lighter than the R8 5.2, too). So instead of Audi’s own hero car claiming the performance title, it’s the company’s Italian umbrella division that gets the trophy. Naturally, Audi needs to bear in mind the best economic interests of all of its holdings, but would a 552-horsepower R8 really cannibalize Gallardo sales? By design and character alone, aren’t these by nature two very different vehicles appealing to very different buyers?

If the V-10 doesn’t stir up quite the perfect storm we’d hoped for, in almost every other respect the R8 5.2 FSI is almost beyond reproach. (By the way, know what “FSI” stands for? Don’t worry: Some Audi execs didn’t know, either. It’s “Fuel Stratified Injection.” There, now go win on “Jeopardy”). Handling tends toward understeer, but stability and grip are excellent; the ride is even quite pliable—though it can be immediately tightened up by switching to Sport mode (the 5.2 is more tightly suspended than the 4.2). Steering feel is simply sublime.

Visual changes are subtle. Standard wheels are now 19s. Larger side-mounted radiators lie inside bigger air intakes. The front grille is revised, and it sports all-LED headlamps.

A negative review, this? Why, um, absolutely. Here’s hoping the price drops enough to afford an R8 5.2 of our very own. ■

2010 AUDI R8 5. 2 FSI QUATTRO

B A S E P R I C E $ 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 ( e s t ) V E H I C L E L AY O U T M i d - e n g i n e , A W D , 2- p a s s , 2 - d o o r c o u p e E N G I N E 5 . 2 L / 5 1 8 - h p / 3 9 1 - l b - f t D O H C 4 0 - v a l v e V-1 0

T R A N S M I S S I O N S 6 - s p e e d m a n u a l , 6 - s p e e d a u t o - c l u t c h m a n u a l

C U R B W E I G H T 3 6 0 0 l b ( m f r ) W H E E L B A S E 1 0 4 . 3 i n L E N G T H x W I D T H x H E I G H T 1 74 . 6 x 7 6 . 0 x 4 9 . 3 i n 0 - 6 2 M P H 3 . 9 s e c ( m f r e s t ) E PA C I T Y/ H W Y F U E L E CO N 1 0 -1 1 / 2 3 -2 5 m p g ( m f r e s t ) CO 2 E M I S S I O N S 1 . 3 2-1 . 4 5 l b /m i l e O N S A L E I N U . S . F a l l 2 0 0 9