Are Americans ready to think small – this time for real? Plenty of import manufacturers think so, and increasingly American makers will too.

U.S. buyers give up their trucks, SUVs, and V-8s only reluctantly. And why not? American cars are designed for American roads and American gas prices. The only time drivers think small is when small is cute (think Volkswagen’s Beetle in the 1960s) or when small is smart (if gas prices spike as they did last year).

The way to lure drivers out of their big cars, and foreign manufacturers have learned this, is to convince them that small isn’t a synonym for cheap. Detroit is right behind.

Ford (F) is launching its upscale Fiesta and Focus next year, GM (GM) is readying the Chevy Cruze, and Chrysler hopes to have some Fiats in its showrooms by 2011.

They will find plenty of company when they get here. Example: the Kia Soul Plus. With a base price of $15,900 and an as-tested sticker of $17,795 (sunroof and audio upgrade options), it certainly falls on the inexpensive end of the spectrum.

Yet the Soul Plus is powered by a peppy 2.0 liter 16-valve engine with dual overhead cams, enough power for its 2,800 pounds – and for the driver and a passenger or two to enjoy themselves without getting into trouble.

The quality of the materials and fixtures in the Soul’s interior is higher than I’ve seen in cars costing more, though I’d stay away from the two-tone contrasting treatment in favor of solid black. And the design of the exterior is fashionably squared off, though not as refined as the old Scion xB or the new Nissan (NSANY) Cube.

The hatchback and the fold-down rear seats render the Soul as practical as they come. Fuel economy is rated at 24 miles per gallon city, 30 miles per gallon city.

Quality has been a concern for Kia (KIMTF) owners in the past. I can’t vouch for the long-term reliability of the Soul but my initial impressions were all positive.

I wouldn’t choose the Soul for a cross-country trip with three friends. Nor would I activate the orange lights around the audio speakers that pulsate in time with the music. But for the kind of short trips on winding country roads that account for half my miles these days, the Soul fills the bill.

Volvo is at a very delicate time in its 82-year history. Its president and CEO resigned nine months ago after a failed product offensive; its sales in the U.S. – its most important market – are down 46.4% this year; and Ford, which bought Volvo in 1999, has put it up for sale.

Now comes the XC60, Volvo’s entry in the hotly-contested mid-size premium utility segment. By itself, it won’t be enough to turn the tide (it is a low-volume vehicle) but Volvo could use any kind of hit right now.

Sad to say, it probably won’t find one in the XC60, a vehicle that does most things well, but isn’t really outstanding in any of them. Given the current condition of the Volvo brand, it will have a hard time going head-to-head with the BMW X3, Acura RDX, and Mercedes GLK. And when you stack it up against the Toyota RAV4, prestige aside, the XC60 finishes a distant second

First the good news. From both the front and the rear, this is the best looking Volvo I’ve seen in a long time; the long, vertical taillights are especially well-executed. The interior is handsome and functional, and the controls are easy to operate. Underway, the SC60 moves smartly and quietly ahead as directed, and the ride is well-enough controlled to handle the spring-thaw potholes of northwestern Connecticut.

Here’s the less-good news. The SC60 and the RAV4 are almost identical in size, but the Toyota has six more cubic feet of storage space. The RAV4 with a V-6 has a much larger engine (3.5 liters vs 3.0 liters in the turbocharged Volvo), yet it weighs 600 pounds less and gets much better fuel economy: 19 mpg city/27 highway vs. 16 mpg city/22 highway for the Volvo.

To be sure, the XC60 has some features the RAV4 doesn’t, and it feels like a more expensive vehicle. But with a base price of $37,200 (my tester was $42,500), it was nearly $11,000 more than the Toyota).

That kind of price comparison isn’t going to make Volvo’s recovery any easier. And it may prove to be a significant obstacle as the company tries to find a buyer.

For those of you following the shrinking of General Motors (GM) as it tries to devise a survival plan that could allow a takeover by the federal government, Cadillac has been designated one of its core brands. Its previous association with Saab and Hummer has been dissolved, and the historic old Cadillac brand — which, at 106, is older than GM itself — is looking toward the future.

A question for GM’s prospective government owners: How will you feel about the 556 horsepower CTS-V?

You don’t hear much about maxi-cars from Washington these days. The Obama Administration is one that talks about restraint and sacrifice when it is not inveighing against global warming and climate change.

So where does the CTS-V fit into that picture with its 6.2 liter V-8 engine, Brembo brakes, 19-inch aluminum wheels, magnetic ride control, and – oh, yes – 12 miles per gallon estimated city mileage, and a $57,920 base price. (The as-tested price for my crystal red number, with special seats, a navi system, and gas guzzler tax was $68,135.)

The CTS-V is a limited volume vehicle, with about 1,000 sold in the first four months of this year. And while the big-engine, reasonable-price concept bears the fingerprints of the renowned Bob Lutz, the former head of product development is easing off to retirement, leaving nobody of comparable stature to argue for the CTS-V’s survival.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the CTS – it always feels assembled to me from parts that aren’t fully integrated with each other. But if you are looking for Corvette performance with a nicer interior and four doors, this is the car to get.

Being respectful of my driver’s license, wildlife well-being, roadside joggers, and fuel consumption, I didn’t come near to accessing the car’s full performance capability. But Edmunds reports that a six-speed manual version raced to 60 miles per hour in 4.3 seconds.

That makes the CTS-V one of the best performance-for-money cars on the planet.

What I liked about the car was its tractability around town. Some high-horsepower cars feel like they are fighting to restrain themselves at low speed, but the CTS-V was comfortable in any situation.

So, if you are so inclined, run, don’t walk past the Saab and Hummer stores to get to your Cadillac dealer. V-series models like the CTS-V will be hard to come by if General Motors becomes Obama Motors.