Volkswagen’s product offensive is continuing to pay dividends as it outperforms competitors in the U.S. market.  Its sales were down only 11.6% in January vs. an overall industry that cratered 37.1%. These days, a little down is the new up, or at least the new flat.

Among VW’s star performers was the new CC. VW sold 1,072 CC’s during January, making it the third most popular vehicle in VW 10-model lineup.  The CC outsold both the Golf and New Beetle and for the month trailed only the Passat, from which it is derived, and the Jetta.

A frigid February weekend spent in the CC made me a believer. Styled like a four-door coupe, the CC looked handsome from every angle inside and out.  Unlike most VWs, which have a very functional, almost clunky style, the CC is international in appearance,  combining the bravado of higher-end Europeans with the refinement of the Japanese.

Inside, everything was tucked and tailored.   The instruments were well organized and easy to operate (no BMW-style iDrive for VW) and the seats supported without grabbing.  My only complaints were the keyfob ignition device that had to be pushed in for the engine to start (where was the stop-start button with the hands-free key, a real benefit on cold days?) and the rear doors that locked without being so bidden.

Underway, the CC would never be mistaken for a BMW – this is more luxury sedan than sport tourer – but otherwise ran quietly, smoothly, comfortably, and efficiently behind its 3.6 liter six-cylinder engine.   VW’s 4Motion all-wheel-drive system provided a margin of safety on slippery roads. CC mileage is rated at 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway.

The CC is the big brother of the workaday Passat, and herein lies the buyer’s dilemma. The two are all but identical dimensionally, the Passat being a smidgen narrower and a skosh higher. But the Passat lacks the slick looks, upscale finish, and two additional cylinders of engine (it gets by with a 2-liter, turbo-charged four cylinder).

That downgrade in equipment and  pizzazz for the Passat is worth a $10,500 discount from the CC’s base sticker price of $39,800 (my test car ran to $42,630 with delivery charges). Of course, there was a bunch of extra equipment with that, including some I like (sunroof, satellite radio) and some I can do without (front and rear view cameras).  But deleting those knocks only $2,640 off the sticker.   In 2007, I might have suggested splurging on the extra bling and choosing the CC.  These days it is harder to make that  call.

The model-year designation of the latest Mercedes took me by surprise. Here we are just half-way into 2009’s second month and a 2010 model just showed up.

The alpha-numeric designation only adds to the confusion. The GLK isn’t so much a smaller version of the truck-like GL SUV but a crossover vehicle built on the same platform as a C-class sedan. Its appearance further confuses the question of heritage. The boxy lines of the GLK are directly derived from the iconic G-class, also know as the Geländewagen, an archaic SUV once described as having the charisma of an ammo shack.

Questions of genealogy and nomenclature aside, what is the GLK really like? It is Mercedes’ answer to BMW’s X-3 and any number of other compact-sized crossovers in this increasingly popular segment. Besides the three-pointed star emblazoned on its grille, it is distinguished from its competitors by its upright stance. With its boxy greenhouse and ten-spoke alloy wheels, it reminded me of nothing so much as a Conestoga wagon.

Functionally, the GLK feels and runs like every Mercedes. As I do in all low-end Mercedes, I found the interior austere and off-putting. All the stalks and switches are in the same places where it seems they have been for decades. Idle question: Does Mercedes believe that it has so perfectly optimized its ergonomics that it feels no need to improve them?

Once underway, the GLK delivers on its brand promise. Acceleration is smooth and unhurried. The GLK has been clocked at less than seven seconds in getting to 60 miles per hour, yet it felt a tad less comfortable arriving there than in the last mid-size ML SUV I drove.

The GLK bristles with electronic controls to keep the driver from getting into trouble, though I had no opportunity to test the 4matic system in snow, where I’ve encountered trouble with two-wheel-drive Mercedes in the past. Fuel economy is rated at 16 city/21 highway; I averaged a smidgen over 20 mpg in several hundred miles of driving.

As with any Mercedes, the big question is always how much? The GLK carried a beguiling base price of $37,775 including delivery, but the Capri Blue paint cost another $720 and the add-ons sent it up from there. After including the premium lighting, multimedia, and sport appearance packages, the bottom line on my test model read “$50,165.”

For those who are determined to park a Mercedes in their driveway, that may not be too much to pay, and by 2010 it may even seem reasonable. For everyone else in the economically-challenged year of 2009, it may give pause.

AM-FM radio: no. Clock: nada. Automatic door locks: nein. Electric window lifts: nyet.

You don’t get recognized as one of the least expensive cars sold in the U.S. by including a lot of frills. To be sure, what are classified as frills on the Versa 1.6 sedan have long been accepted as basic necessities by most of us. And don’t even think about amenities like cruise control, seat heaters, and DVD players.

Yet, with an as-tested price of $12,090 (including $695 in delivery charges) the Versa certainly delivered on its promise of providing economical, if basic, transportation.

The sedan is the frumpy cousin of the more stylish Versa hatchback. Turnip-shaped and utterly anonymous, it combines an undistinguished exterior with a bland, featureless interior, characterized by vast expanses of black plastic in places where I am accustomed to seeing buttons, knobs, and CRT screens.

A surprising number of features, though, once considered optional equipment, are included as standard, such as air conditioning, power steering and power brakes, and a tire pressure monitoring system. The car is wired for audio, and four speakers are in place, should the owner decide to get fitted for aftermarket equipment.

Yet, the 1.6-liter double overhead cam engine connected to a five-speed manual transmission was willing, and at times invigorating to drive. What I enjoy most about small-displacement engines like this one is the ability to jam the accelerator pedal and still feel as if I am completely in control of the car. Shifting through the gears to climb hills or navigate corners also provides entertainment I don’t ordinarily get from more glamorous vehicles.

The Versa lived up to all the challenges I could throw at it and performed them with a modicum of style. The gear shifts were quick and direct, while the engine was responsive and never buzzy. Decent insulation and an acceptable ride reduced the fatigue on long trips. Fuel economy was exemplary. The Versa is rated at 26 miles per gallon city, 34 mpg highway, and the 13.2-gallon fuel tank reduces the occasion of fill-ups.

While it may be cheap, the Versa was never second-rate. Even if you never look forward to getting behind the wheel, you won’t feel shortchanged once you get there.

I did miss the radio, though.