As long as I've written about cars and the auto industry (about a dozen years), GM has been on the verge of a comeback in the compact- to mid-size sedan segment. Quite a few different, highly heralded models have come out during this time, that I like to call “comeback kids” — the Oldsmobile Intrigue, Chevrolet Impala, Saturn L-Series, Pontiac G6, and most recently, the Saturn Aura are the ones that most readily come to mind. These are all models that, when new, were surrounded by marketing halos, critical acclaim, and lots of general hoopla at the local dealership. But by the time I found my way into these vehicles for a test drive, I have to admit that (except for the Intrigue) I ended up feeling a little underwhelmed. And a year or so later, the buzz is gone and everyone’s back to bowing to the import stalwarts. It has to breed some cynicism whether you're in Detroit, Manhattan, or Orange County.

The last Malibu, introduced for the 2004 model year, was the first one built on GM’s premium Epsilon architecture, shared with cars like the Saab 9-3 and Opel Vectra (and later the G6 and Aura), and it was a big improvement over the model that preceded it, especially in terms of ride, handling, and solidity. But that model was still a bit behind in refinement, its interior appointments were dull compared with the competition, and its styling was the odd one out in my opinion, in a very undesirable way (except for the distinctive shape of the now-discontinued Maxx model, which had lots of untapped potential but was effectively killed by poor marketing).

I just spent a week a new Malibu LTZ, the top-of-the-line model in the range, mine with a sticker price around $28k. That seemed expensive at first glance, but it does come with just about every option and accessory that entry-level luxury models might have — such as automatic climate control, heated power front seats, leather upholstery, a remote starter system, power heated outside mirrors, and power-adjustable pedals. Ours was even optioned with a 110-volt rear power outlet and retractable rear sunshade.

Most notably, though, the LTZ comes with a 3.6-liter DOHC (!) V-6 and six-speed automatic transmission, with paddle shifters aside the steering wheel. A four-cylinder model that may better fit your car and fuel budgets is available starting at $19,995. Gone is the coarse and outdated (but surprisingly economical) pushrod V-6 and four-speed automatic, long a mainstay in GM’s front-drivers.

The Malibu’s new appearance as a complete turnaround from the last-gen model, thankfully. Its styling in back is especially attractive, building more on the Impala’s styling details than the model that preceded it. But I didn’t expect such a revolution inside — I was completely wowed by the interior, which has gone from the back of the pack to one of the best. For the first time, all the trim seems to match, all the materials feel of high quality, and the swoopy, wrap-around, ‘split-cockpit’ design of the instrument panel in particular lends a very premium feel. GM has almost always done switchgear well, but it all fits together here in a cohesive package.

Seating space is surprisingly roomy in back as well as in the driver’s seat, with plenty of headroom. And GM fixed the power seats that we complained about in previous generations — tall folks can now tilt the lower cushions back for good thigh support without driving in a reclined, arms-outstretched position.

The Malibu’s V-6 makes 252 horsepower and 251 lb-ft — that’s slightly less power but slightly more torque than the rival Accord and Camry V-6s, but all three are now comparable. The different real-world feel of the Malibu really comes down to transmission behavior; the new six-speed auto has been programmed to almost lug the engine (to help save fuel) at cruising speeds, sometimes under 1500 rpm, but the engine is so flexible that it stays very smooth. There’s a little bit of tranny hesitation if you press down on the throttle at anything but to the floor, but when you really ask for it the transmission finds the right cog and a rush of high-rev power is delivered.

Powertrain refinement is impressive, as we’ve come to expect from this engine, but the sound levels in the cabin are what’s downright astonishing. Thanks to an acoustic windshield and a host of other improvements, the Malibu feels hushed and vaultlike, more like an expensive German sedan, at a steady 75-mph cruise, with no wind or road noise. The steering keeps a good center on the highway, and although the suspension is a little on the firm side compared with some of the competition, the lack of vocalization of coarse surfaces makes a difference.

The feeling of isolation and heft (it’s a bit heavier than the competition) that makes the Malibu so enjoyable on the highway doesn’t go away on tight city streets or curvy lanes, where you want a little more ‘tossability,’ and that’s our only real complaint, other than severely restricted rearward vision when parking.

Patriots might also enjoy hearing that the Malibu is an American thoroughbred. The engine and transmission originate in the U.S., it’s assembled in Kansas, and our window sticker indicated 85 percent U.S./Canadian content.

I’m thrilled to not be underwhelmed this time. The days of Chevy being a full step behind the import brands (at least with mid-size sedans) are over, and buzz aside, the Malibu is looking like a real comeback kid.

We've already published longer road tests for the Fusion and Accord, but I just did about a hundred miles of driving in top-of-the-line models of both, with a few days in each, and had the chance to really compare and contrast between the two.

The Accord we drove was an EX-L V-6 with Navigation, and the Fusion was an SEL V6 AWD — both with a bottom-line sticker price of $29k, rounding to the nearest grand. Between the two, equipment was actually quite similar; they were both loaded with power accessories all around, automatic climate control, heated seats, and such. The Fusion had all-wheel drive and a six-speed automatic, while the Accord had front-wheel drive plus electronic stability control and a five-speed auto. The Fusion’s 3.0-liter ‘Duratec’ V-6 makes 221 horsepower, while the Accord’s larger, 3.5-liter V-6 makes 268 horsepower.

Ironically, our Accord was U.S.-assembled, while the Fusion is assembled in Mexico; some Accords also made in Mexico.

Seemed like just a few years ago, the mid-size four-door sedans were all looking alike — in fact then, when I was at one of the monthly car mags we ran a photo feature to show how ridiculously close they all were. But now that’s changed — just in taking a look at these two models, the proportions and styling details are completely different.

I’m still a big fan of the Fusion’s styling, two years into its life cycle. Unlike its larger sibling the Taurus, the Fusion continues to look contemporary and uniquely American, with a nice, upright angular appearance throughout that breaks away from the smooth, ovoid shapes of the past. The three-bar chrome grille still makes me squirm, but I guess a lot of you out there like it.

The Accord, on the other hand, falls into a different styling category. It gets a more European influence this time around — I can see more elements from the Passat, C-Class, and even the 5-Series than from its Japanese or American competitors — on the outside, mated to an interior that feels decidedly upscale and Acura-like.

But the interior is what really distinguishes the new Accord from the Fusion. The Fusion’s cabin and dash is noticeably starker and simpler in design; fundamentally, that simplicity is appealing, but the Accord’s materials win us over with a richness and an upscale feel that brings it above. For instance, we lingered over some sharp, injection-molded edges showing in the area around the headlight switch, while in the Accord everything fit together tightly on close inspection with nary a creak.

The Fusion and the Accord have a completely different feel on the road as well. The Fusion is still more of a driver’s car, with a more overtly firm ride, snappier response from the throttle, more noticeable induction sounds from the engine, more decisive shifts from the six-speed automatic, and a level of handling and maneuverability that make it feel quite a bit smaller and lighter (they’re basically the same size and weight, with the Accord about three inches longer, an inch wider, and 90 pounds heavier).

Our only complaints with the Fusion were that the steering stayed overly boosted, as if parking, at mid-speed esses in the 20-40 mph range, road noise could be quite prominent on coarse surfaces, and headroom was borderline-tight.

Even though the Fusion feels peppier in most driving, the new Accord V-6 is really a bit faster, looking at acceleration times. There’s also more of a double-sided personality to this generation of Accord than the previous one. The throttle feels a bit less touchy than I remember; the steering is a little heavier and more firmly centered, the suspension quietly soaks up minor bumps, and the car carries itself as if it’s larger. However, stomp on the gas on a curvy stretch and the Accord literally changes personality, with a firmness and control that’s not initially expected. It’s not dissimilar to the tuning of the current (outgoing) Acura TL.

The Accord V-6 now incorporates the Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) system, which temporarily deactivates half of the cylinders during coasting or cruising, after the engine has fully warmed up. While when this was first applied to the Odyssey minivan we could detect a slight vibration when it entered this mode, it’s now virtually seamless in the Accord.

VCM helps the Accord get a better 19 mpg in the EPA city cycle, versus 17 mpg for the Fusion, with its smaller engine, but it didn’t seem to have much of an effect on our overall mileage in the Accord. We drove both of these cars in short-trip daily errands and suburban-style cruising, broken up with frequent traffic lights, and averaged about 16 mpg in both.

I’m not going to call a winner because it’s a matter of priorities and preferences in this car, but in the city/commuter-style driving I was doing with these two I'd rather be in the Fusion. If comfort for longer highway trips — or leaving an impression on passengers — were an issue, then I might chose the Accord. These two cars will appeal to a different type of buyer, and their completely different personalities are both worthy of consideration.

Is it a Euro-sized minivan? A crossover? An MPV? A tall wagon with sliding doors?

Whatever way you see it, the 5 is a class of vehicle that we don't have enough of in the U.S.: zippy and fun-to-drive (in personality if not execution) yet cavernous inside. Not since being in the Kia Rondo — the closest match I can think of — have I been in a test vehicle that wows me with its available interior space as much as the 5.

Last time we did a full review of the 5, we found its interior smartly designed for people and cargo, and its steering and braking fully in support of Mazda's “zoom-zoom” brand image. But we thought that it fell short in one area: powertrain. The standard five-speed manual brought passable performance with a light load, but especially with the available four-speed and a load of people and effects, it felt anything but “zoom-zoom.”

With the Rondo now in the mix, we decided to revisit the Mazda5 and see if the new five-speed automatic offered for 2008 brought much improvement.

But first, interior space, which is the 5's forte: The 5 has seating for six, with two buckets in each of the first two rows, and a split bench for two in the third row. To clarify, there's really only seating for four adults; the third-row seats are ridiculously small in the legroom department but could prove useful if you're part of a parental carpool and need to transport kids more tot- than teen-sized. The third row flips forward easily, to a flat position, with just the pull of a strap, while folding the second-row seats forward is a simple two-step process. What you get is a cargo floor that's almost completely flat all the way to the front seats. But you'll need a blanket or tarp, as the delicate-feeling leather in our test vehicle continued around the back of the seat, which becomes the cargo floor.

That cargo space is huge. I tested it out by moving a band's worth of equipment. Including multiple instruments, a drum kit, a bass amp, and a large speaker cabinet, it all fit behind the front seats.

The only letdown, ironically, in all of this space-efficiency talk, is a lack of space and comfort for the driver. At 6'-6”, I could fit alright into the driver's seat, but I couldn't get truly comfortable and certainly wouldn't choose the 5 for a long trip for this reason. The proportions of the lower cushion in particular were just too small, and I'd imagine anyone over six feet with long legs to have the same issues — conversely, the seats weren't that wide either.

As before, we were very impressed with the way the 5 handled, steered, and braked (although the brakes on our test car were a little overboosted), and the ride was on the firm side but smoothed out a bit with a full load.

But the powertrain again was the low point. Essentially the same engine that feels so perky in the Mazda3, the 153-hp, 2.3-liter four may surprise you on the test drive with its super-aggressive, touchy throttle, but you'll get used to it and soon realize — to no fault of the engine itself — that there isn't really that much accessible oomph to move nearly 3500 pounds. So much for zoom-zoom. Having five speeds on the automatic helps though, especially at highway speeds where a downshift to fourth to squeeze past traffic is much smoother and less intrusive than we remember the four-speed's kick-down to be.

I won't go so far as to call the Mazda5 seductive, but it is seductively practical and has two things that are rare in this size of vehicle and otherwise impossible to get together: sliding doors and a manual transmission. If you don't mind an automatic and hinged doors, you should take a look at the Rondo, too, but if you're a city dweller and the not-so-mini, so-called minivans are just too big, the 5 — whatever it is — should be on your shortlist.

Naming cars isn’t an art, and it isn’t a science—sometimes it’s just a stab in the dark. Hence the entrance and exit of the Five Hundred nameplate at Ford—and now, the return of the Rabbit moniker at VW.

Americans have dim, dark memories of the Rabbit, but it’s still more evocative than Golf, unless it’s a Buick in question. And with VW’s iffy history in naming new cars—Touareg and Phaeton come to mind—maybe Rabbit will be cleaned up by a good new generation of vehicles.

That’s what the 2007 Rabbit has cut out for it—and good thing it succeeds. We like the Rabbit’s new five-cylinder engine for its economy and its torque, even if it doesn’t have 200 hp like the engaging VW turbo four. The five-speed manual is decent, and the Rabbit’s brakes are nicely responsive.

It’s inside where the Rabbit excels, with great materials, good assembly quality and well-designed controls. That’s the price of admission with most German brands—and VW sets a high standard at the low end of the price spectrum.

What differentiates the Rabbit is its solid, responsive chassis and the overall quality of its interior materials. These truly exceed what's offered by Asian manufacturers at a lower price, and other European manufacturers at a higher MSRP.

VW could use its mojo back. Maybe the bunny will help.

DRIVER'S SEAT: VW RABBIT 2.5—TheCarConnection.com

The first compact Mercedes was called the baby Benz—and often, you had to know the person uttering those words to know whether it was a compliment or a snarky aside. The fact is, that first 190E was more important for what Mercedes would become than it was for luxury buyers. Cramped and kind of cheap inside, the 190E nonetheless marked the shift in thinking in Stuttgart, away from few model lines and directly into head-to-head competition with BMW.

The baby Benz has, in fact, come a long way, baby. And that’s the thrust of our test drive this week of the new C-Class, where we dodged bullet-like fragments of terra cotta roofs in Spain to bring you the first test drive. After sampling the C300 and C350 V-6 editions and the upcoming AMG model, publisher Paul Eisenstein confirms that the new C-Class has the reflexes it needs to hang with BMW’s 3-Series.

“The 3.5-liter V-6 launches like a cat,” he says. “It is quick and confident, boasting 0-60 times of 6.3 seconds, with an electronically-limited top speed of 130 mph.

“Our conclusion: with the AMG suspension package, the new C-Class does a good judge chasing its arch-rival, the 3-Series.

“The new, fourth-generation C-Class is just about everything earlier buyers would have liked: it’s stylish, swift and lavishly-equipped, even without all the option packages.”

What more do you need, a full review? Fine, then. Have it.

TCC DRIVES: 2008 BENZ C-CLASS—TheCarConnection.com