The minute I climbed into the driver’s seat, I knew: General Motors is getting its mojo back.

It may sound strange, but for a long time GM has felt lost in the product development wilderness. Some of its cars were simply duds. Others, even the ones deemed more successful, like the Chevy Malibu and Cadillac CTS, felt overly thought out and excessively mannered.

GM has been in the car business for 101 years. Why did it seem to have to relearn what it is doing, time and time again?

My Equinox experience was especially notable given my opposite reaction to a similar vehicle, the Cadillac SRX, a few weeks earlier. The SRX felt like it was developed by following the results of focus groups that weren’t coordinated with each other. The result was a mashup of features and functions that didn’t match up.

Not so in the Equinox. Everything is of a piece and seems to fit this midsize crossover. Its controls are all in the right place and function smartly the way they should, and none of the instruments or trim was fighting for my attention.

Likewise, the exterior design was well-resolved and identifiably Chevy, without slopping into the self-referential or overly mannered.

Unfortunately, some of the good feeling abated once I got underway. Although the Equinox came equipped with the optional 264-horsepower V6, it labored going up hills, refusing to shift down until the very last moment.

Would that be a deal-breaker? It depends on the terrain where I expected to drive.

The Equinox competes in a cutthroat segment against Honda’s CR-V and Toyota’s RAV-4. It is up to a foot longer than the competition and weighs several hundred pounds more but carries nine cubic feet less.

As the newest car in the segment, the Equinox is also the priciest. Loaded up with more than $5,000 worth of optional equipment, my test car carried a sticker price of $33,235.

It isn’t the best, and it isn’t cheap, but I consider Equinox competitive in this segment, and it has been a long time since I’ve been able to say that about a non-truck GM product.

The success of the Equinox bodes well for future Chevys due in the next year or so, like the Cruze, Spark, and Volt.

Getting its mojo back would be good for GM and good for the rest of the auto industry. GM should devoutly hope that Equinox is not just one of a kind.

Let’s get it out of the way right at the top: The new convertible version of Aston’s V-12 powered 2+2 grand tourer (with automatic transmission) carries a sticker price of $285,990.

That’s crazy, right, as we struggle to emerge from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

But let’s consider this: The DBS Volante is the most drop-dead gorgeous, most satisfying car I can ever remember driving.

More refined and sophisticated in appearance than a typical Italian supercar, yet more expressive than a Porsche or a Jaguar, the Aston is stunning to look at. Every detail, from the four mesh inserts in the hood and the flared headlamp openings to the carbon fiber door handles is executed with an extra helping of panache that elevates it from the merely attractive to the alluring.

My test car glowed in a hue that Aston endearingly describes as Hardly Green that was both unique and eye-catching, and worked nicely with the brown leather surface coverings.

The view from behind the wheel is no less stunning. The winged Aston emblem dominates the steering wheel, the instruments are finely calibrated, and the Bang and Olufsen audio provides superb fidelity.

Fire up the six-liter engine by inserting the ignition device in its slot, and the Aston barks to life. Onlookers snap to attention. Select a gear by punching one of the traditional Aston dashboard buttons and you are off.

Power arrives smoothly and you can feel the six-speed transmission shifting smoothly up and down through the gears, proceeding so smartly that manual gear changes would be an insult to the software.

My agreement with Aston prohibited me from performance tests like 0-60 acceleration, so I can only report the company’s claim that 62 miles per hour can be reached in 4.3 seconds and top speed is 191 miles per hour.

As for flaws, I can identify but two: The carbon fiber chin spoiler is so close to the ground that it inhibits travel over rough surfaces, and the trunk is too tight to accept a bag of golf clubs.

But practicality isn’t the point here. Like a fine watch, the DBS Volante represents an ambitious expression of the mechanical arts.

For those who can afford to indulge such pleasures, and who can accommodate a Volante in their fleet of automobiles, it is an entirely worthy addition.

I would consider it a modern-day classic, for which paying the unreal sticker price is merely part of the pleasure of ownership.

Jaguar is at another turning point in its storied and eventful history. It is operating under a new owner, Tata Motors of India, while it launches models developed under its old owner, Ford.

The global economic downturn hasn’t been kind to Jaguar but it hasn’t impacted its product cycle either. Coming soon to dealers is the XF-R, a supercharged version of the midsize sedan, and an all-new XJ — the Jaguar flagship.

The model under review, the XK-R, has also been reworked for 2010. The spiritual, if not functional, successor to the historic XK-E, this two-plus-two features a new supercharged V-8 engine that puts out 510 horsepower and hustles the coupe to 60 miles per hour in a reported 4.6 seconds — should you have an opportunity to exercise it in that fashion.

The interior has been made over as well, with instruments and a silver rotary gear selector adapted from the XF. The gear selector has been criticized by some as too gimmicky, but I found it more ergonomically suitable than the dashboard mounted switches that the German luxury car makers have been experimenting with.

Historically, Jaguars have been among the most esthetically-pleasing (if not mechanically accomplished) cars on the road, and, for me, the XK-R is one of the Jag’s greatest hits. There isn’t a false note or awkward line on it, and the overall shape, with the long hood and suavely tapered rear, is enormously appealing.

The car drove the way it looks, smoothly and effortlessly. The level of intensity it required entirely depended on the demands made by the driver. All of its power and dynamic capability waited unobtrusively until it was requested.

The price for this élan is not insignificant. With 20” wheels and special paint, the total suggested retail price on my car came to $102,000. For those whose lives can accommodate what is basically a two-seat hatchback, and have the means at their disposal to afford it, the XK-R is a worthy investment.

Jags are still made in the U.K. and still source most of their parts from the British homeland. So those who turn up their noses at the idea of this fine old marque under Indian ownership have no substantive issues on which to base their bias.

Yet, as Tata, which bought Jaguar in 2008, enters Western markets for the first time, it is faced with a significant challenge. It has inherited a piece of automobile history that has been buffed to a high sheen by its previous owner. It remains to be seen what Tata make of the automotive heritage with which it has been entrusted.

For the first time since the aero-shaped original made its debut in 1985, the Ford Taurus has become big news again.

There are three important reasons why:

1.    This is the first new Ford to reflect the input of CEO Alan Mulally.

2.    This is the first new Ford to arrive since the company forsook government assistance and still dodged bankruptcy — unlike General Motors and Chrysler.

3.     The 2010 Taurus represents the latest American entry into the full-size car segment where Detroit needs to stake a new claim if it is to regain credibility in the marketplace.

From an engineering and design standpoint, the Taurus is a success. It is stylish, contemporary, and functional. But it will face fierce competition because it is relatively large, relatively heavy, and relatively expensive.

The original Taurus was a middleweight that contended for the most popular car crown with Accord and Camry, and in some years sold around 400,000 units.

The 2010 Taurus is a heavyweight (more than 4,000 pounds), which goes against other full-size vehicles such as the Toyota Avalon and Chrysler 300. Ford (F) would like to sell just 80,000 a year.

The new Taurus has more bling than the old one, including extraneous vents in the front fenders and a superfluous character line on the flanks. The new lower profile is a plus and the Taurus has a raked stance that makes it look faster when it is parked.

The interior is first-class all the way: high-grade materials, smart layout, highly visible controls. Following Mulally’s dictate that all Fords have similar driver interfaces, the Taurus also comes with Formula One-style, steering-wheel mounted gear shift flippers, perhaps not needed for a car mostly driven by patrons of the Early Bird dinner. Electronic navigation features, like blind-spot detection in the rearview mirrors, are extremely helpful and should be standard equipment for everybody.

On the road, the Taurus drives like a big car. The chassis feels like it is made out of rebar and the chunky seats wouldn’t be out of place in a men’s club. My test car suffered from a ticklish accelerator pedal but otherwise purred on the highway, without ever suggesting it was interested in anything athletic. Its trusty 3.6L Duratec V-6 delivered 22 miles per gallon in mostly highway driving. Those craving excitement are advised to seek out the SHO, with its 3.5L turbocharged V-6.

With delivery charges, my ingot silver metallic test car carried a base price of $31,170 that rose to $38,080 with a couple of options. The 2010 Taurus isn’t going to ignite the world the way its ancestor did, but it should draw some shoppers back to Ford showrooms. If they postpone their visit until next year, they will see some more eagerly-awaited new Fords, like the Focus and Fiesta.

For a mid-summer run on the Berkshire back roads to a Saturday evening performance by the Boston Symphony at Tanglewood, it would be difficult to beat my TTS roadster. The top was down, the stereo was pumping out classical tunes from Sirius satellite radio, and the brilliant red TTS was the best looking car on the road — though not so good looking as to attract the attention of any Massachusetts state police, who were anyway otherwise engaged directing concert-going traffic.

The “S” designation identifies the sport version of the well-known TT roadster. An $8,200 bump in the base price gets you a pumped-up version of Audi’s 2.0 liter turbocharged engine that puts out 265 horsepower (vs. 200 hp in the TT) as well as a host of appearance features like 19-inch 7 twin-spoke wheels. Audi doesn’t make any ugly cars, and the front end, with a body-colored bar bisecting the iconic horseshoe grille, is the brand’s best looking.

The Quattro all-wheel drive system keeps the TTS planted through the tightest curves, and acceleration at higher revs is impressive. There is one important performance exception, though: The turbo is slow to spool up at low engine turns, creating sponginess underfoot and uncertainty before you attain cruising speed. I eventually discovered that a slow, even throttle advancement produced better results than an impulsive stab. But I missed the feeling of power under pedal I remember from a Porsche Boxster.

With its stubby but refined bubble shape, the TT is a modern design classic whose looks are only improved in this latest version. And thank goodness Audi didn’t follow BMW by adding a power retractable hardtop. The TTS’s convertible fabric roof is as tight as it needs to be and raises and lowers in seconds, never impinging, needless to say, on the surprisingly commodious trunk.

Owning a TT is a very special experience these days. Only 951 new ones changed hands during the first half of the year, only a fraction of those were roadsters, and only a fraction of THOSE were ”S” roadsters. The $55,075 sticker price for my test car gives you one big clue why. Still, there is nothing else quite like it on the road, and I can begin to justify the purchase to myself if I think about it as an investment, like a mechanical Swiss watch, to be handed down to future generations.

If that proves inadequate, I can always plan more trips to Tanglewood.

It is rare that the appearance of a car isn’t diminished by the addition of a retractable hardtop roof. The storage requirements for all that metal and machinery usually dictate a wider and higher rear end than is esthetically desirable. Check out the Chrysler Sebring convertible for an especially egregious example.

Not so with the newly grown-up Z4, which may be the best-looking BMW of all. Its tightly-tailored butt is balanced by a long, long front end, with attractive accent lines on the flanks. The effect is to create a modern car with classic proportions. Think pre-war Mille Miglia.

The Z4 interior closes the deal. It combines intelligent functionality and helpful info-graphics with a stylish touch not seen in earlier models, which to my eye were obsessively Spartan.

The Z4’s good looks are combined with stylish road matters. My test car was powered by a 3.0 liter, 255-horsepower inline-six. (The 300 horsepower twin-turbo six is also available). With the automatic transmission, the 3.0 is reported to get the car to 60 miles per hour in six seconds flat. The steering is typically precise, and the suspension produces a nice blend between a sporty ride and one that is comfortable. Mileage is a none-to-shabby 19 miles per gallon city/29 mpg highway.

All of this excellence comes at a price, both financially and functionally. While the base price of the Z4 is $45,750, my test model with the smaller engine came in at nearly $60,000, which included $500 for heated front seats and $350 for a high-definition radio.

That helps explain why Z4 sales are less than robust: BMW sold 361 in July. By comparison, it sold 427 X6s and 807 7 series.

Then there is the matter of trunk space. You’d never get a bag of golf clubs into the trunk of a Z4, but with the top down, you’d have a hard time even squeezing in a shaving kit. That puts a limit on the places you’ll go.

Sadly, the combination of price and space limits the appeal of the Z4 to a very small number of owners. Too bad. A car this good deserves a wider audience. Perhaps this leaves an opening for BMW to bring back the old cloth topped, four-cylinder Z3, with a smaller price tag and more room in the rear.

Now that Cadillac has been designated a core brand for the new General Motors, expect to see a rush of new vehicles bearing the traditional wreath-and-crest.

Eventually, Cadillac wants to have a line of cars that matches Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi, with models that come in small, medium, and large sizes. That would give Cadillac a range that faces off against Mercedes’ C-, E-, and S-class, or BMW’s 3-, 5-,and 7-series.

For now, Cadillac only has the CTS in the center of its lineup. The larger Cadillac STS has been an underperformer; ditto for the smaller Saab-based Cadillac sold in Europe.

But Cadillac isn’t waiting for the new cars to arrive. A pair of more utilitarian Cadillacs, both new to the brand, will show up at dealers this summer.

The old SRX nameplate has been grafted onto a new vehicle, a mid-size crossover SUV that shares its platform with an upcoming Saab. The sticker on my test vehicle was $37,735.

But there is no mistaking the identification of the brand, given the thick layering of Cadillac styling cues — chrome and chrome-finished trim inside and out, flashy fender vents, and so on.

In fact, the Cadillac stylists may have overdone it. The SRX wears as much bling as an extended-length Escalade but has far less space in which to display it.

The base 260-horsepower 3.0 V-6, which the SRX shares with the Chevy Equinox, doesn’t do much to give the vehicle a distinctive personality either, providing only adequate power and atmospherics — and adequate fuel economy: 18 mpg city/25 mpg highway.

By comparison, the Sport Wagon seems perfectly comfortable in its Cadillac finery. For my money, this is the sharpest looking CTS variant. The sharp angles of the roof rack and the rear window complement the jutting front grill.

This is also a Cadillac that can get out of its own way. The standard engine is a 3.6 liter, 304-hp, V-6 that provides plenty of oomph.

Surprisingly, the close fit of the Sport Wagon body sacrifices little in the way of cargo room to the SRX. It has 25 cubic feet of space behind the rear seat and 121 cubic feet overall, vs. 29 cu. ft. and 129 cu. ft. overall for the crossover.

I did miss a start-stop button on the CTS; because the platform is older, it still has the ignition switch mounted on the steering column.

Pricing is unavailable at this time, But the CTS Sport Wagon is my favorite of the Cadillac carryalls — and my favorite Cadillac overall — in almost every way.

All but alone in the wreckage left by the automotive depression, the population of small crossover SUVs bearing upscale brands has been exploding.

In the past several months, Mercedes, Audi, and Volvo have all added new small SUVs to their lineups. They are chasing the Lexus RX350, the segment’s longtime leader, which has just been redesigned to fend off the new competition. Small crossovers represent a profitable niche; Lexus sold 7,500 RXs last month.

I’ve driven all three of these vehicles in the past several months, as well as the non-premium Toyota RAV4, and while they all have their strong points and special flavor, my favorite is the Audi Q. It combines sportiness, luxury, and all-round driveability in a good-looking package that I expect will age with grace.

The Audi’s biggest drawbacks, in my view, are its small cargo area, and its price — $48,275 for my test car with three special equipment packages. While that’s not out of line with the competition, it is certainly substantial for a vehicle built on the bones of the compact A4, only with a higher stance and a hatchback.

On the other hand, I definitely enjoyed the typically classy Audi interior, the three-dimensional map display on the navigation plus package ($3,000 option) as well as the panoramic sunroof that exposed the entire passenger compartment to daylight ($4,300 option for the premium plus package). Audi ambiance has been raised to a new level.

As for the additional $2,950 to pay for Audi drive select, that feature may be one of today’s novelties that turns into tomorrow’s necessities. Drive select allows the driver to choose settings for the car’s important functions.

I’ve never been a big fan of adjustable suspensions that deliver minimal changes, but drive select combines suspension control with steering, transmission, and steering –- and you can feel the differences at every setting.

In comfort mode, you get Audi’s equivalent of Buick ride performance. Switch to dynamic, and you are behind the wheel of an S4. The throttle kicks down and the shift points come more quickly. You can pretend you are driving a performance model without shelling out the extra bucks and get extra pleasure from navigating twisty roads.

Innovations like this one that improve the performance of crossovers could boost their appeal to the enthusiasts who usually shun them.

And it helps explain why Audi sales are holding up better than competitors’ as it gains market share in an otherwise dismal auto market.

How did Bob Lutz let the Camaro out of the design studio?

I can claim only a shrunken six feet in height, and my close-cut and thinning hair is the opposite of Conan O’Brien’s pompadour, yet the top of my head scraped the roof of the sunroof-equipped Camaro. Lutz, General Motors’ legendary, and now retired, head of product development, is about four inches taller than I am, and his posture is much more erect. How does he squeeze into the driver’s seat?

Okay, I’ve gotten seated in the car, and adjusted the seat — which is the same sensation as sitting in a well. I feel like I’m scraping the pavement, the beltline easily rises to my shoulder, and my view forward includes more instrument panel than windshield.

Some of that’s good. The chunky gauges on the instrument panel are retro-themed but readable, and the surrounding pebble-grained plastic is well-done for this class of vehicle.  I turn the steering-column mounted ignition key and pull back the shift lever with a hefty yank. You would never confuse the unyielding feel with a Lexus, but the stiff action is to be expected from a vehicle that attempts to recapture the ambiance of an original from 40 years ago.

Underway, the 3.6 liter, V6 engine makes all the right noises in producing 304 horsepower and launching the Camaro to 60 miles per hour in 6.1 seconds. This is a heavy car for its size — 3719 pounds — and wouldn’t be my first choice to navigate the twisty country paths of Connecticut’s Litchfield County, but it does just fine on the open road.

GM revived the Camaro in response to the sustained success of the Ford Mustang, and it arrives on the market a year after Chrysler’s similarly-inspired Dodge Challenger. It is no coincidence that the two laggards in this product segment have both entered bankruptcy court.

The Camaro makes its debut just as the Obama Administration has imposed strict new fuel economy standards for 2016. The Camaro is no slacker in this category by today’s standards. The V-6 is rated at 18 mpg city/ 29 mpg highway, and I recorded 26 mpg over several hundred miles of driviing.

What the future holds is something else. The whole pony car concept — big engine in a low-slung coupe body — seems dated and I can’t imagine a General Motors (GM) now largely owned by the U.S. government renewing this car at the end of its life cycle.

With an as-tested price of $31,485, the 2010 Camaro could appeal to those who owned an original and want to relive the experience, or to those who wanted an original but couldn’t afford one. Its attraction for the rest of us is limited.

And it would be non-existent for younger drivers. A 15-year-old enthusiast of my acquaintance all but sneered when he discovered what car I was driving. “Mr. Taylor,” he said, “I’m not into Camaros.”

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.