The Best of 2010 Autos

Each year, the editors of Automobile Magazine convene to test, evaluate, and debate the performance, significance, and pure enthusiast appeal of the cars that make the biggest impact.

Despite the auto industry coming off its worst year in recent history, "the level of excellence found during our annual All-Stars competition was at an all-time high and the competition was strong" said Jean Jennings, president and editor-in-chief of Automobile Magazine. "We whittled down a list of thirty-nine finalists to the ten All-Stars. The end results produced a list of true standouts, spanning a wide range of the automotive spectrum."
Jaguar XF,XFR
Base price range: $52,000-$80,000

When the XF received significant improvements for 2010, including three new V-8 engines, Jaguar was rewarded for making a good thing even better.

The XF/XFR is both a sports car and a luxury touring sedan, and its uncompromising practicality and refreshed performance establish the Jaguar XF as an All-Star.
Audi S4
Base Price: $46,725

Cheaper than the car it replaces, the sure-footed, all-wheel-drive Audi S4 takes everything from the Audi A4 on which it's based — comfort, safety, and solid build quality — and cranks it up.

Compared with the previous model, the S4 sheds half a second in the 0 to 60 mph run (5.2 seconds with a six speed manual) while managing to increase fuel economy.
Chevrolet Camaro
Base Price Tange: $23,530-$34,595

2009 wasn't a good year for General Motors, but amid all the turmoil there have been glimmers of hope.

One need look no further than the brash, beautiful Chevrolet Camaro — if one can be found on dealer lots, that is — for proof that GM can build great cars. With its old-school charm, the Camaro is a smashing sales success.
Porsche Boxster,Cayman
Base price range: $48,550-$62,450

According to Automobile Magazine, the Porsche Boxster roadster and its hardtop sibling, the Cayman, are as close as a car company can get to the perfect everyday sports car. With fully optioned models climbing to $70K and beyond, the Boxster/Cayman isn't cheap, but buying one will allow you to achieve sports car nirvana.
Mazda 3
Base Price Range: $15,795-$23,945

With three engines and five trim levels, the 3 accounts for nearly half of Mazda's U.S. sales. The 2010 version brings a stiffer unibody, firmer suspension, tauter steering, revised seats, and a larger engine.
Ford Fusion Hybrid
Base price: $28,350

Quietly, Ford has put a car on the road that essentially enlists Toyota hybrid technology but uses it more cleverly than the originating company did. It is not a performance machine, but neither does it feel hobbled or inadequate for daily driving. Perhaps the best thing about it is that, apart from the LCD color screens, you might never know you're driving a hybrid.
Ford Flex
Base Price Range: $29,325-$43,635

For 2010, Ford has equipped the Flex with its much anticipated EcoBoost engine, thereby addressing the Flex's only weakness — power — and effectively transforming it from a well rounded family hauler into a large sport wagon. The Flex is unique in a market brimming with compromised, look alike utility vehicles and is one of the best-handling full-size crossovers on the market.
Dodge Ram 1500
Base Price Range: $21,510-$43,550

Dodge engineers created a vehicle that works smarter, drives quieter, uses less fuel, and secures cargo storage better. The Ram sets the standard by living up to the radical idea that the cabin of a $40,000 truck should be as nice as that of a $40,000 car.
BMW Z4
Base Price Range: $46,575-$52,475

The previous Z4 was a little rough and tough, a little unsophisticated, and undeniably masculine. BMW took a good look at its customers' needs and traded racetrack readiness for everyday elegance.

The interior is a marvel of simplicity and elegance, the sheetmetal is at once sexy, sultry, and supremely muscular, and 60 mph can be yours in five to six seconds, depending on the powertrain combination you choose.
BMW 335d
Base price: $44,725

The BMW 335d is the most important car this year to get lost in the crowd. Going from 0 to 60 mph in six seconds, the 335d is game for hard driving, but its 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged diesel six-cylinder also returns subcompact-like fuel economy. There is no other car that combines performance and fuel economy at this level.

Hummer Wallpapers.
New York autoshow 2009 Top Desktop Wallpapers.

3D TV Will Flop

"Hey Paul, glad you can make it. Pumped for the game? Yeah, us too. Hey, did you bring your 3D glasses? No? Ah, well, we don't have any extras. Listen, do you mind just manning the snacks and drinks for the next three hours? Appreciate it, Paulie."

Expect to hear many variants of that conversation starting in June and lasting until corporate execs come to their senses.

Fueled by hit films like Avatar and Up, interest in 3D has hit a fever pitch -- some would argue its zenith -- and both cable networks and electronics manufacturers are taking notice. Their conceit: If it works in the theaters, why not in the living room? And that inherently flawed notion is leading companies to sink billions into a trend that won't last long.

The foremost name in televised sports, ESPN (DIS), announced it will kick off the ESPN 3D network on June 11 with a dynamic showcase of the World Cup soccer match -- effectively breaking ground as the first completely 3D television network. Time Warner Cable (TWC) and Comcast (CMCSA) have had preliminary talks over broadcast rights.

Kinks in the network, however, already seem apparent. Firmly dedicated to the no-rerun schedule, ESPN 3D will go dark when there aren't any 3D games to broadcast. So unless it expands way beyond the 85 live sporting events planned for the year, there often won't be any dimension to enjoy -- much less three.

Speaking with USA Today, ESPN's Executive Vice President for Technology Chuck Pagano compared the 3D transition to the shift toward HD. "We don't have all the answers," he admitted. "We asked the same questions back in the HD days. Is this going to be better? Is this going to be worse?"

Hate to break it to you, Chuck, but no one was worried about sharper image quality catching on with the public.

Following not too far behind ESPN's gamble is a joint venture among Discovery Communications (DISCA), Sony (SNE), and IMAX (IMAX). At its launch next year, the nameless network will only air in the US and -- according to the joint press release -- will hopefully boost "consumer adoption of 3D televisions."

And therein lay the catalyst and the downfall to the 3D TV initiative.

3D TV will require brand new television sets and related equipment, which companies like LG Electronics, Panasonic (PC), and Toshiba were eager to show off this week at the Consumer Electronics Show. Special 3D goggles are required for each viewer, unless the set has Auto Stereo Display -- which then only works if everyone is situated directly in front of the set at a specific distance. Otherwise, it's a blur. Your best bet: Shell out for a pair for each family member and expected guest.

The cost of all this equipment could run into the thousands, preventing a surge of early adopters still too strapped to even buy a regular HDTV or wise enough to wait until the technology catches on -- if it ever does. And skimping on a 15-inch screen won't cut it: For 3D to be effective, it needs to be huge -- which is why the technology is best seen in a movie theater, as it has been for decades.

And what about new content? 3D technology is costlier than even HD programming, boosting production costs much higher. And although Pixar's earlier Toy Story titles were overhauled to feature 3D, the process is incredibly labor-intensive and, again, very costly -- even for a CGI movie. Going through a studio's back catalog and revamping the footage to meet 3D standards is a headache not many studios or editors want to endure. Plus, is there much of a demand to watch Scrubs or Hitch with an extra visual depth?

Speaking of headaches: 3D is an eye-straining struggle for many. As crowds exit a theater showing a 3D feature, there will inevitably be pockets of audience members voicing the pain and vertigo that only constantly refocusing your eyes for more than two hours could produce. Are people willing to undergo that barrage of images for an entire evening of TV?

Understandably, studios and electronics manufacturers are excited over the possibility of a new gimmick to fill theater seats and keep couch potatoes paying for cable. But they fail to realize that the cost will far outweigh the charm and, maybe, 3D is only a once-in-a-while treat. You know why nobody rides a roller coaster to work? Because not only would it lose its appeal after the first week, it's completely impractical.

The world is about to witness the rebirth of Nintendo's Virtual Boy debacle -- only on an epic scale worthy of James Cameron.

Nothing contained in this article is intended as a solicitation for business of any kind or for investment in the firm.

Hubble Space Telescope has captured the earliest image

The Hubble Space Telescope has captured the earliest image yet of the universe — just 600 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was just a toddler.

Scientists released the photo Tuesday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. It's the most complete picture of the early universe so far, showing galaxies with stars that are already hundreds of millions of years old, along with the unmistakable primordial signs of the first cluster of stars.

These young galaxies haven't yet formed their familiar spiral or elliptical shapes and are much smaller and quite blue in color. That's mostly because at this stage, they don't contain many heavy metals, said Garth Illingworth, a University of California, Santa Cruz, astronomy professor who was among those releasing the photo.

"We're seeing very small galaxies that are seeds of the great galaxies today," Illingworth said in a news conference.

Until NASA's Hubble telescope was repaired and upgraded last year, the farthest back in time that astronomers could see was about 900 million years after the Big Bang, Illingworth said. Hubble has been key in helping determine the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years, ending a long scientific debate about a decade ago.

As far back as Hubble can see, it still doesn't see the first galaxies. For that, NASA will have to rely on a new observatory, the $4.5 billion James Webb telescope, which is set to launch in about four years.

"We are on the way to the beginning," said astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson of the American Museum of Natural History. "Every step closer to the beginning tells you something you did not know before."

The new Hubble picture captures those distant simpler galaxies juxtaposed amid closer, newer and more evolved ones. The result is a cosmic family photo that portrays galaxies at different ages and stages of development over the course of more than 13 billion years.

Tyson, who was not involved in the Hubble image research, said most people only like their own baby pictures, but Hubble's photo is different: "These are the baby pictures for us all, hence the widespread interest."