Evelyn Reynolds

From the January 1971 issue of Car and Driver.Small cars are small—you have to give them that—and have lightweight price tags. Other than that they share little. Some are masterfully balanced engineering compromises, some are brilliantly innovative transportation devices­—and some are nothing more than ill-conceived, badly executed plugs for holes in a manufactur­er’s leaky model line-up. We have come to know about these things. The C/D staff has been deep­ly involved with small cars for more than a year, driving and evaluating every model available in this country, and some which are not, and we’ve climaxed this investigation with a C/D compar­ison test of six automobiles which are signifi­cant and representative of the current range. The subjects of this test were chosen from the ranks of basic transportation cars—the lowest-­priced class of automobiles that can still be con­sidered real cars. This excludes such mini-cars as the Honda 600 and the Subaru 360. Also we wanted to sort out the controversy that has aris­en since Detroit entered the small car business with the Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin. With those two ground rules in mind, the test resolved itself into a situation where the three small Detroit cars faced off against three imports. As for the imports, Volkswagen, which sells 350,000 copies of the Beetle annually in the U.S., is an obvious choice and since VW has seen fit to introduce a new, larger-trunk, Super Beetle to compete with the Detroit small cars, that model was a required participant in the test. Toyota, the second-largest-selling import in the U.S., offers a wide range of models. The Corolla was finally chosen because it is a complete car at a remarkably low cost and because the next higher Corona series is priced above the Vega which, itself, is nicking the upper edge of econo­my class. To fill up the final spot we brought in the secret car, the Simca 1204. Volkswagen proba­bly spills more Beetles off the boat than Simca sells in this country but we remember from that last road test of the 1204 (C/D, June 1969) that it offers a high degree of comfort and room for the price. In addition, the Simca, with its van­like body, transverse engine, and front-wheel ­drive, stands as a sharp contrast to the conven­tional car layout to which Detroit has adhered. In comparing the test cars, we used all of our normal test procedures for measuring accelera­tion, braking, handling, and fuel economy—but we didn’t stop there. Because we wanted an ac­curate picture of each car’s comfort and suitabil­ity to American road conditions, we formed a six-man jury to evaluate subjective qualities like interior noise, directional stability, and seating comfort. Each man drove each car over a pre­determined circuit of public roads, which in­cluded interstate highways, road construction areas, city traffic, and rough rural blacktops, for a total of 185 evaluation miles in each car. At the end of the test, the observations of the jury were distilled off to form the basis for this text and the “Comfort and Convenience Rating.” And since each car was driven by the same driv­ers over the same roads, the fuel-economy data (shown elsewhere in the test) is directly comparable and reasonably typical of what you can expect in normal driving.Now that you understand our motives and procedures, here is how we ranked the cars.1st Place: Chevrolet Vega Unlike the others, a car for all occasions.The Vega was the most expensive car in the test—by almost $300. In fact, even a naked Vega without a single piece of optional equip­ment goes for a higher dollar than the as-tested price of the other comparison cars. But the Ve­ga’s virtues are nicely in proportion to its price, and it was the unanimous favorite. The Vega pulled down the number one posi­tion because of its particular suitability to American driving conditions. It was one of two cars in the test (the other being the Gremlin) capable of relatively strain-free cruising at 70 mph or above. This is vitally important in a country laced with freeways and interstate high­ways; and, traditionally, it has been the lack of high-speed cruising ability that has confined the imports to a second-car position in the minds of many Americans. The key to the Vega’s high­-speed capability is its incredibly long 2.53.1 axle ratio which allows the engine to loaf along at only 3000 rpm at 80 mph. This is an essential part of the car’s cruising ability since the Vega’s overhead camshaft four is disturbingly loud when revved. But the axle ratio deserves credit for more than just quiet cruising. In the fuel-economy test, the Vega ranked a strong third with 27.1 mpg. According to Chev­rolet engineers, about 2 mpg of that will disap­pear if you select the optional 2.92 ratio. Still, there is a strong temptation to do so. The stan­dard Vega, with its wide-ratio three-speed transmis­sion and long axle feels more like a six-speed with first, third, and fifth gears missing. It always seems like you are starting in second, and the gaps between gears are not valleys but canyons that would be impossible to bridge except for the engine’s bountiful torque. Despite the economy-oriented axle ratio, the Vega’s acceleration is strong. Using first and second gears, the standing-quarter mile required 18.6 seconds—with a speed of 72.3 mph. Aside from the Gremlin, the Vega was the only other car in the test to get under the 19- second mark or to exceed 70 mph at the dragstrip. The Vega’s ability to produce impressive test numbers was also apparent during the evaluation of the brakes. Its consistent 195-foot stops from 70 mph (0.84 g) were the high marks of the test. Even so, stopping the Vega is not the reassuring operation that the numbers suggest. As the rear wheels approach lock-up, the rear axle begins a violent dance which feels like a Force 10 quake on the Richter Scale. While the axle hop must be blamed on the rear suspension rather than on the braking system, it was the suspension’s only serious weak point. Ride quality is good for a car of this price class: Small bumps are absorbed with ease, al­though the shocks seem severe on patchy black­top roads. Handling is very good with mild un­dersteer and tolerant breakaway characteristics. The biggest surprise is the steering, which is light and accurate and feels far quicker than its 4.5 turns lock-to-lock would suggest. In general, the Vega is quick and nimble without the sports car harshness most American sedan buyers find ob­jectionable. The Vega’s interior, a stylist’s idea of the American Dream, drew heavy criticism. Its deeply contoured plastic door panels and dash are inordinately complex but short on function. The treatment is too heavy for a car of the Ve­ga’s size. The instrument panel is almost devoid of instruments: only a horizontal speedometer, a fuel gauge, and a clock are offered and the latter two are blocked from sight by the steering wheel—as is the ashtray. There is no glove box as such; only a small open bin in the center of the dash and a narrow pocket in the door have been provided for interior storage. Even though the Vega was the most expensive car in the test, its floors were covered with a rubber mat rather than carpet, a standard item on all of the im­ports. The controls, too, were unlike the im­ports: Every lever, pedal, and crank-shifter, clutch, window winders, etc.—required excep­tionally long travel to do its job. The engineers were obviously obsessed with minimizing driver effort where possible. In their concern for the driver, the engineers did manage to do a good job in positioning him. You sit low in the Vega with your arms and legs stretched out, more like sitting in a Camaro than a compact sedan. And the seats, while not sensationally comfortable at first sitting, proved to be remarkably livable for long periods. Con­sidering the Vega’s overall size (almost seven inches longer than the Pinto) the interior room is disappointing. The front seat passenger should have no complaints, and the trunk is gen­erous, but knee room in the rear is in tight sup­ply. Despite its shortcomings, the Vega merits the highest rating in this test because it is the only one of the six cars that the jury would choose for a coast-to-coast trip. It provides an excellent combination of performance and economy, it cruises easily at high speeds and it is relatively comfortable for hours at a stretch. It is unique in this test as it is a car for all occasions. 2nd Place: Simca 1204 Plush and efficient as only the French can manage.The Simca differs from all of the other cars in the test in two important ways: It was designed to be comfortable and efficient transportation rather than simply a car, and it is French. Ex­cept for styling, which shouldn’t be too impor­tant in this class, and high-speed cruising ability, it is superior to the Vega in almost every way. The French demand comfort in their cars no matter how little the price, and comfort is perhaps the Simca’s most outstanding virtue. The car is tall, so it is easy to get into and out of, and the gentle grip of the seats would be a selling point in a car of twice the price. But the root of the Simca’s comfort is buried deeply within the car. Like most French automobiles, the Simca’s fully independent torsion bar suspension has an exceptionally long range of travel which allows it to soak up seemingly mountainous bumps with ease. With its steel­-belted Michelin radials (standard equipment), the harshness of tar strips and other small irreg­ularities is more noticeable than in the Vega, but the Simca’s overall ride is more resilient and su­perior to all of the other cars in the test. The 1204’s French designers abandoned a conventional car silhouette in favor of some­thing far more useful—and homely. The Simca consists of a box-shaped passenger compartment with the entire engine and drivetrain mounted transversely in a small module (also box-shaped) on the front. With an overall length of 155.3 inches, the Simca was the shortest car in the test by a full six inches, and yet its body contained the most usable space. Effectively, it is a station wagon—its accurately counter-balanced rear door hinges upward, and the rear seat folds flat, opening up enough floor space so that a six-foot­er can lie diagonally across the cargo area. With only 1200cc of engine displacement, the Simca shares the dubious honor of having the smallest engine in the test with the Corolla. It was hardly a disadvantage, however. The Simca scored highest, with 28.3 mpg, in the fuel-econo­my test and ranked third in acceleration with a very slight advantage over the Pinto in the quar­ter-mile. The Simca’s engine is well isolated and generally less noisy than that of the Vega, Pinto, or VW, but because of its high numerical (3.94.1) final-drive ratio it sounds noticeably strained above 70 mph. All of the other aspects of highway cruising are good, however, and the front-wheel-drive and extreme forward weight bias combine to give the Simca the best directional stability of any car in the test. Almost every aspect of its behavior—soft seats, jolt-absorbing ride, and effective sound deadening—contribute to a feeling of comforta­ble isolation from the road. Unfortunately, this theme is carried to an extreme by the controls. The shifter is vague and rubbery, the steering is­ heavy with excessive friction, and the brakes re­quire high pedal pressure to obtain lock-up. Even the instruments seem remote, and they are—with the dash being so far away. While the dials are well placed, they are so mysteriously labeled that you are never quite sure what it is that seems to be half full at the moment. Some of the small controls—particularly the radio, which is located to the left of the steering col­umn—are so far away as to be nearly unreacha­ble when you are wearing the shoulder belt. Because so few Simcas are sold in this coun­try, the car has had very little chance to develop a reputation. Partly for that reason, we were not prepared for the high level of quality apparent throughout. Its basic structure was so extremely solid that the car was totally without rattles and squeaks. In fact, considering the price, the Simca 1204 is a bargain. It is a highly sophisticated machine that offers maximum comfort and utility in its class and it should win favor with all except those who demand conventionality in their small cars. It is a mystery that Chrysler Corpo­ration keeps it a secret. 3rd Place: Toyota CorollaEconomical and roomy but hard pressed at 70 mph.At $1918, the Corolla was the lowest priced car in the test and yet it ranked third, primarily because of its spacious and attractive interior, good overall quality, and economy. The Corol­la’s biggest shortcoming is that it is poorly suit­ed to the speeds demanded on interstate high­ways. With its 4.22 axle ratio and 12-inch wheels the engine fairly screams at 70 mph, and the car’s low weight (1785 pounds) makes it fair victim for even the mildest of wind gusts. At low speeds and in traffic the car is fun to drive, how­ever, as it feels more like a sports car than the others. The shifter is incredibly light and crisp, there is a hair-trigger clutch, and the steering is very quick if a little imprecise. Even so, the Co­rolla readily lifts its inside rear wheel in tight turns and consequently never achieves very high cornering speeds.Like the Simca, the Corolla’s engine displaces only 1200cc, and while Toyota rates it at 73 horsepower, 11 hp more than the Simca, it actu­ally provides somewhat less performance. Only the Volkswagen was slower in the quarter-mile. It does do well in fuel economy, however. At 27.9 mpg it ranked second overall.Considering all aspects of performance, brak­ing is the Corolla’s weak spot. The car stops in a straight line but the wheels lock up arbitrarily, and the distance (230 feet, 0.71 g) required to stop from 70 mph borders on being unaccept­able. As a point of interest, weak brakes have been a chronic problem with the Corolla since its introduction (C/D, December, 1968). Where the Corolla excels is in interior space. Rear seat knee room, usually in critically short supply in cars of this size, is abundant enough so that most adults can sit in back without their knees pressed sharply into the backs of the front seats. Only the Pinto has more useful rear seat room than the Corolla. And not only is the rear area roomy, but the seat is comfortable as well. Front-seat passengers don’t have it quite so good. The Corolla’s front buckets are well pad­ded but narrow, and the cushions need to be tilt­ed up to offer more support under one’s thighs.While the Corolla was the lowest-priced car in the test, that fact is not obvious when you look at the interior appointments. Carpeting is stan­dard equipment, high quality vinyl is used to cover the seats and door panels, and the whole package is coordinated in pleasing colors. Interi­or styling is of a high standard also, and the in­strument panel is attractive yet highly function­al. In the final analysis, the Toyota Corolla is an extremely economical small car best suited to urban commuting and other short trips where high cruising speeds are not required. It offers less performance and comfort than the Vega and the Simca—deficiencies partially offset by its lower initial price. 4th Place: Ford PintoBig on the inside, needs a dose of VW quality control.The Pinto could do no better than fourth in the rating and was a clear disappointment to ev­ery member of the staff. We can see it reviving all of those terrible old Ford jokes that haven’t been heard since the Second World War, like “What time is it when one Ford follows another Ford down the road?” (answer: “tin after tin”). Conceptually, the Pinto is a very promising car—short and wide with more usable space for four passengers than any other car in the test. But in practice, the excellent space utilization is overshadowed by a poor sound-absorption pack­age and an inordinately flexible structure. Whenever you hit a bump the steering wheel whips around in your hands and the whole car rattles and rustles like a burlap bag full of tin cups. Self-destruction seems only moments away. It all goes back to the engineering depart­ment’s efforts to keep the weight down. The Pin­to checks in at only 2065 pounds, 240 pounds less than the Vega. Anyone with an understanding of basic physics knows that less weight means better performance and economy from a given engine, and the engineers were eager not to overburden the 1600cc four that they were bor­rowing from their British subsidiary. In this re­spect, they were successful. The Pinto ends up with better acceleration and fuel mileage than the VW—which all of Detroit has considered to be the chief target. Apparently, Ford didn’t ap­preciate that there is a whole lot more than this to a good economy car. It turns out that the Pinto is very little more satisfactory for high speed cruising than the Co­rolla. The British engine is one noisy piece, and the weight-saving campaign wouldn’t allow for enough sound-deadener to do an adequate job. Consequently, under hard acceleration or above 70 mph the engine produces a hearty and unwel­come roar. The Pinto has reasonable perform­ance, but you tend to avoid using it because of all the ruckus. If you can block out the noise and various vibrations, the Pinto can be fun to drive. The rack-and-pinion steering and the shifter for the four-speed transmission are both light and direct, and the whole car bites into corners as though it knew what it was about. Handling is very nearly neutral and would be among the best in the test if the rear axle didn’t do quite so much hopping around. Unlike the Vega, the axle is well con­trolled during braking. The standard drum brakes are very effective, their only prob­lem being oversensitivity which causes them to lock up with very low pedal pressures. Inside the Pinto, the front buckets are very low and, in this car, the seatbacks were uncomfortably erect. The Pinto’s seating position was the lowest, with regard to the beltline, of any car in the test, like sitting in a very deep bath tub, and the staff couldn’t agree as to whether that was good or bad. Most thought that it was at least partially responsible for the Pinto’s sporty­-like-a-Triumph TR4 feeling. All of the instru­ments are grouped in two dials directly in front of the driver, and the small controls are conve­niently placed as well. The test car’s interior was done up in various shades of blue vinyl “so color coordinated that it looked like a 3-year-old who had been dressed by his grandmother,” accord­ing to one of the testers. Even though the color coordination was spot on, the general level of quality couldn’t match that of the cars ranked ahead of it. Despite what Ford has led us to believe was its best efforts, the Pinto comes across like a bigger, less disciplined, and less well-made Toyo­ta Corolla, and that is hardly what the market has been waiting for.5th Place: Volkswagen Super BeetleYou can almost love it for its quality, but not quite.As a car, the VW has been hopelessly obsolete for at least a dozen years, but that doesn’t seem to matter out there in the world. People have long since stopped considering it a car. It’s a Volkswagen, and each succeeding model is judged not with respect to the current state of automotive art, but by how much better it is than past VWs. On that basis, the new Super Beetle is one helluva VW. It has a brand-new MacPherson front suspension (which only an expert could detect from the driver’s seat); the front trunk has been made larger as a result of moving suspension pieces out of the way, bulg­ing up the lid, and stretching out the nose; and the engine now has three additional horsepower thanks to new cylinder heads, which have two intake ports instead of one as before. Big deal. As a car, the Super Beetle is just as obsolete as all the rest of the regular VWs. It’s still twitchy in crosswinds, engine noise is excessive, and the interior has more the dimensions of a fox hole than a modern passenger car. In acceleration, the Super Beetle was the fastest Bug in C/D his­tory, charging through the quarter in 19.82 sec­onds at 63.9 mph, but it was still the slowest car in the test by almost 2 mph. Along with the engine, the brakes have been improved over the years, and now they are good enough so that the Beetle was second only to the Vega in stopping ability. Naturally, the handling is much better now than it was in the old swing-axle days. Be­cause of the rear weight bias (F/R: 41.1/58.9) the transients are very quick and the tail wags like a loaded station wagon if you crank the steering wheel too sharply, but the Beetle no longer feels like it will roll over and play dead if you corner a bit too hard. Inside the Beetle you have a choice of a high, erect seating position or walking. There is enough space for four, provided everybody minds their elbows and those in front aren’t too greedy about legroom. For the first time, there is a flow-through ventilation system that can be boosted by a built-in blower. Like the Beetle en­gine, it’s noisy but it works. Despite the Super Beetle’s 1938 infirmities, it has quality of a kind that none of the competitors can match. The whole car feels as solid as a Supreme Court decision, first-rate materials are used throughout, and it is all fastened together as if it was meant to stay that way for several doz­en years. You can almost like it for that alone. But not quite.6th Place: American Motors GremlinPowerful but sadly short of economy car virtue.The Gremlin finished the test in a distant sixth place, not because it was completely without vir­tue but because its few strengths are not com­monly sought after in economy cars. Accelera­tion is a prime example. Compared to the oth­ers, the Gremlin feels like a fuel-burning Hemi on the dragstrip, almost a full second and 4 mph faster than the Vega, the second-quickest car. It’s also like a Hemi when it comes to fuel econ­omy, being the only one of the test cars to regis­ter less than 20 mpg during the mileage check. What kind of economy car is this? To understand the Gremlin better you have to know its heritage. The Gremlin is really a Hor­net—a typical American compact car—made sub-compact by chopping one foot of length out of its wheelbase. The resulting Gremlin is heavy (2640 pounds), it uses the big (232-cubic-inch) 135-hp Hornet engine as standard equipment, and it has no back-seat legroom because that part of the car was removed in the radical sur­gery that transformed the Hornet into a Grem­lin. The result is a wide, two-passenger car with a long nose, slow steering (6.25 turns lock-to-­lock), an incredibly heavy clutch, and none of the nimble feeling that you expect from a small car. Its handling is ponderous and, in braking, the weight transfers to the front wheels to such a degree that the rears lock up and the car yaws sideways. To stop the Gremlin quickly it is abso­lutely necessary to lock all four wheels immedi­ately so that it will maintain a straight path. Otherwise, who knows where you’ll end up? The Gremlin’s best application is that of a compact, two-passenger station wagon capable of high speeds on interstate highways. The car has good directional stability and with the standard 2.73 axle ratio it will cruise at 70 mph with a minimum of fuss. Since the rear seat (optional at extra cost) is too small for anything but children, it can be folded flat to give a generous cargo space which is also accessible from the rear if you order the optional swing-up rear glass. But even if the car does make a successful station wagon it will never be a comfortable one. The front bench seat is hard and offers poor sup­port. The driving position places the steering wheel very close to your chest and there is pre­cious little head room as you will discover the first time you lurch over a railroad grade cross­ing. And unfortunately, the Gremlin doesn’t have Volkswagen quality to fall back on. The interior materials appear depressingly cheap and none too well screwed together. Clearly, the Gremlin would have been far bet­ter off had it stayed a Hornet. As it is, it has a very narrow application compared to the other cars in the test. Comfort and Convenience RatingCar and DriverAt the close of the two-day test, our staff-mem­ber jury was in unanimous agreement on one point: that the Vega offered the best combina­tion of performance, fuel economy, and comfort among the six cars tested. But, giving considera­tion to a price $175–$300 (depending on options) more than the others, none of us are convinced that the Vega represents the best economy car buy. It’s too expensive—not for what you get, but as a true economy car. On the other hand the Simca 1204, which is not so much a creature of blind adherence to convention in design or styling, offers a more comfortable and versatile interior package on a much better suspension system—and all at a friendlier price. Apart from the Vega’s high-speed cruising capability, it has only its GM Tech-Center inspired body styling and a vague, unexplainable sporting flavor to recommend it to the buyer. Considering all that, and the poor showing of the Pinto and Gremlin, it looks like the foreigners still have the edge in building efficient small cars. Key Data Points: How They CompareCar and DriverSpecificationsSpecifications
1971 American Motors GremlinVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $1999/$2066Options: polyester tires, $14; rear window tailgate, $40; front bumper guards, $13
ENGINEpushrod 12-valve inline-6, iron block and head, 1×1-bblDisplacement: 232 in3Power: 135 hp @ 4300 rpmTorque: 215 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 9.0-in drum/9.0-in drum
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 96.0 inLength: 161.3 inWidth: 70.6 inHeight: 51.8 inCurb Weight: 2640 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.3 sec60 mph: 10.5 sec1/4-Mile: 17.8 sec @ 76 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 210 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
—
1971 Chevrolet Vega 2300Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $2091/$2351Options: adjustable driver’s seat back, $17; door edge guards, $6; day-night mirror, $7; belted whitewall tires, $49; clock, $15; radio, $62; guards, $24; custom exterior, $80
ENGINESOHC 8-valve inline-4, iron block and head, 1×1-bblDisplacement: 140 in3Power: 90 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 136 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/live axleBrakes, F/R: 9.6-in disc/9.0-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 97.0 inLength: 169.7 inWidth: 65.4 inHeight: 51.9 inCurb Weight: 2304 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.4 sec60 mph: 12.2 sec1/4-Mile: 18.6 sec @ 72 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 mpg
—
1971 Ford PintoVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $1919/$2070Options: radio, $61; whitewall tires, $30; accent group, $60
ENGINEpushrod 8-valve inline-4, iron block and head, 1×1-bblDisplacement: 98 in3Power: 75 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 96 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 9.0-in drum/9.0-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 94.0 inLength: 163.0 inWidth: 69.4 inHeight: 50.1 inCurb Weight: 2065 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.7 sec60 mph: 15.1 sec1/4-Mile: 19.6 sec @ 66 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 205 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg
—
1971 Simca 1204Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $1875/$1985 (1970 model)Options: radio, $60; Dealer preparation, $50
ENGINE
pushrod 8-valve inline-4, iron block and head, 1×1-bblDisplacement: 74 in3Power: 62 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 65 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 9.3-in disc/8.5-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 99.2 inLength: 155.3 inWidth: 62.5 inHeight: 55.7 inCurb Weight: 2030 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.7 sec60 mph: 14.6 sec1/4-Mile: 19.6 sec @ 68 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 212 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg
—
1971 Toyota CorollaVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $1848/$1918Options: radio, $70
ENGINE
pushrod 8-valve inline-4, iron block and head, 1×2-bblDisplacement: 71 in3Power: 73 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 74 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/live axleBrakes, F/R: 6.3-in disc/7.9-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 91.9 inLength: 161.4 inWidth: 59.3 inHeight: 54.1 inCurb Weight: 1785 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 4.0 sec60 mph: 15.5 sec1/4-Mile: 19.8 sec @ 66 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 230 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg
—
1971 Volkswagen Super BeetleVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $1899/$1999Options: leatherette upholstery, $35; whitewall tires, $30; dealer preparation, $35
ENGINEpushrod 8-valve flat-4, iron block and aluminum heads, 1×1-bblDisplacement: 97 in3Power: 60 hp @ 4400 rpmTorque: 82 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/strutsBrakes, F/R: 9.8-in drum/9.1-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 95.3 inLength: 161.8 inWidth: 62.4 inHeight: 59.1 inCurb Weight: 1960 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.6 sec60 mph: 16.1 sec1/4-Mile: 19.8 sec @ 64 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED  More

To most folks, “Baja mode” is flip-flops and a drink with an umbrella in it at a tourist resort in Cabo San Lucas. To be honest, we’d like that version too, but haven’t convinced management to send us back to Mexico since Csaba Csere hit a cow with a Dodge in the ’80s. So instead of a swim-up bar, we headed to the desert—and the test track—with three of the most off-road-capable mid-size pickups on the market today. This partially revisits a matchup from 2024—Toyota Tacoma TRD Off-Road and Chevrolet Colorado ZR2—but this time we took those already-capable off-roaders up a level, with the TRD Pro and the ZR2 Bison. Ford’s Ranger Raptor rounded out the trio. Our desert rumble saw us roostertailing through sand washes, hanging the bed ends out around cholla cactus, and sliding the Styrofoam cooler around in the back seat. If you don’t have to give the carbonated beverages a minute to settle at the end of a trail, you haven’t been trying. We’ll spoil the ending a tiny bit by saying all three are fantastic trucks, with different areas in which they shine or stumble, but we’ve got a method to picking a winner that rewards vehicles for features and efficiency as much as for performance and flair, and we threw these trucks together in the dirt to see which one came out on top. The Trucks We TestedThe Tacoma owns the off-road mid-size truck scene, at least out near California’s Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, where we took our trio for this comparison. There were so many Tacos in the parking lots and gas stations that we had to double-check that we were walking up to the correct one. Our Tacoma did stand out, thanks to multiple TRD Pro graphics and its 2024-only, TRD Pro–specific Terra orange paint. For 2025, buyers get a new canvas-tan shade seductively called Mudbath. Aside from the new color option, as well as red front tow hooks, 2025 TRD Pros are the same, which makes sense, given that the 2024 model year introduced a massive redesign for the Tacoma. The TRD Pro comes only in a crew-cab, five-foot-bed configuration, as do the Chevy and the Ford. Behind its 33-inch Goodyear Wrangler Territory RT tires and wide-flared fenders are Fox QS3 three-position manually adjustable dampers with rear external reservoirs, forged aluminum upper control arms, electronically lockable rear differential, multi-terrain and crawl-control drive modes, and an electronic anti-roll bar disconnect—an option on other models, standard on the TRD Pro. Other TRD Pro benefits include a 20-inch LED light bar, Rigid Industries LED two colorway fog lamps, an ARB steel rear bumper, and Toyota’s IsoDynamic front seats, which use their own pneumatic dampers to soak up trail bumps that make it past the Foxes. The TRD Pro comes with the Tacoma’s top powertrain option—the hybrid i-Force Max, which combines a turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder with a 48-hp electric motor sandwiched between the engine block and the eight-speed transmission. Total output is 326 horsepower and 465 pound-feet of torque. Of course, with great power comes a great price tag: $65,395, which our TRD Pro bumped up to an as-tested $65,869 with options including a bed mat ($200), a ball mount ($70), and a tailgate insert ($99).In Chevy’s corner stood the Colorado ZR2 Bison, which, if this were purely a competition of looking the part, would have rolled over the other trucks to the winning parking spot. The Bison looms over the Toyota and Ford on 35-inch Goodyear Wrangler Territory MTs under high-arched flared fenders. The wide tires required a new offset on their 17-inch wheels for a pronounced stance, like a steel bulldog. It has a soft heart, though—or at least a hydraulically jounce-controlled heart. Multimatic spool-valve dampers and hydraulic bump stops absorb changing terrain. The Bison has electronically lockable front and rear differentials, AEV beadlock-capable wheels, AEV bumpers front and rear, underbody skid plates in the front and protecting the fuel tank in the rear, and several off-road modes including a ZR2-only Baja mode. Its massive tires are too large to mount a spare beneath the truck, so the fifth sits in the bed, where it eats up cargo room but adds significantly to the Bison’s Mad Max appeal. There are no hybrid options for the Colorado—it’s propelled by the same powertrain as the regular ZR2, a turbocharged 310-hp 2.7-liter four-cylinder making 430 pound-feet of torque and paired with an eight-speed automatic. The base 2025 ZR2 crew cab price is $51,195, but Bisoning it up adds $11,700; our test truck also had the Technology package, which includes a Bose audio system and adaptive cruise control ($1450), and an optional sunroof ($1000), bringing the Colorado’s as-tested total to $63,845.The baby Raptor is the newest option in the rough-and-ready mid-size truck market, and it’s far more than just a sticker on a regular Ranger. While its stance isn’t quite as trophy-truck as its F-150 namesake, the Ranger Raptor has a wider track than non-Raptor models and a beefed-up steering rack. Like Toyota, Ford went to Fox for the suspension, but instead of manually adjustable units, the Raptor gets electronically-controlled Fox Live-Valve dampers—so they adjust themselves to different ground surfaces. A 405-hp twin-turbo 3.0-liter V-6 engine making 430 pound-feet of torque mates to a 10-speed automatic, putting the Ford ahead in horsepower. Our 2024 Ranger Raptor had a starting price of $57,315 (rising to $57,415 for 2025), but our test truck added a $750 Raptor graphic on its rear fenders, a spray-in bedliner ($495), a keyless-entry keypad ($95), and mounted its 33-inch BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3 tires on the optional 17-inch beadlock-capable wheels ($1495) for a $60,150 final price. Whew, these mid-size haulers are hauling big prices, when $60K is our bargain of the week.Interior and ExteriorWe’ve already mentioned that the Colorado was the most eye-catching of the group, although less for its body design and more for its taller tires and rugged stance. The Ranger has a smoother shape, with rounded fender cladding and a chunky black grille that wraps around into the headlights. The Tacoma has more angles than curves, but there isn’t a wimpy design in the bunch. The general aesthetic is “Move off the trail or get the imprint of this logo in your headrests when we drive through your back window.” Nobody wants to explain why the back of their driver’s seat reads “DROF.” We pretty much had the trails to ourselves. On the inside, the crew conditions in these extended cabs vary in space and comfort. The Tacoma earned praise for its wide, comfortable front seats and interior storage space—even though the hybrid’s battery means there’s no longer additional room under the rear seat. The console and door panels offered sturdy cup/bottle holders (a total of 14), nonslip phone surfaces, and side pockets large enough for off-road accoutrements like a radio or a pair of gloves. We especially liked that the door pockets were made with an open-grid design, making it easy to see what’s inside and to clean out sand and pebbles after a day in the dirt. The Toyota’s controls are blessedly physical. While maps and music scroll across a 14.0-inch touchscreen, anything you might want to adjust while in motion can be done by feel. Volume, lights, drive mode, and off-road settings are all physical controls on the center stack or the console. Driver-assistance functions such as lane-keep assist (part of the standard Toyota Safety Sense 3.0 suite) need to be adjusted through the digital instrument cluster with the steering-wheel controls. Where the Tacoma disappointed us was in the back seat—mostly because of its front seat. While the front chairs’ air-ride dampers are a cool idea, and do prevent some head toss for the driver, the space they take up on the back of the seats renders the rear of the cabin unusable for human occupancy. Any legroom in the back is eaten up by the IsoDynamic seats’ structure that contains the dampers and related hardware. Even worse, should someone gamely thread their shins in between the hard points, even on-road bumps will slam the passenger back and forth between various unforgiving surfaces. It’s miserable for two, unbearable for three, and you can’t get the TRD Pro trim without these chairs. Rubbing our bruised knees, we hauled ourselves up into the Colorado. Chevy really could sacrifice a smidge of the Bison’s 12.2-inch ground clearance to offer a step on the angled rock sliders, because it’s a real scramble to get in there, but once ensconced, the ZR2 offers the best driver’s seat, firm but not rigid, with good adjustability for our drivers of varied heights. Chevy leans more on screens than does Toyota, and many of the Bison’s controls, including the headlights, are embedded in menus on the 11.3-inch touchscreen. This may not be an issue for most owners, but there are times on the trail when a driver might want to reach into a truck and turn on the lights without having to climb in and start it, so we dinged it for the inconvenience. At least the off-road controls are easily accessible, though, on a multiuse knob in the console. The Bison doesn’t offer as many storage spots as the Tacoma, but crucially, it can store the most important cargo—back-seat passengers—in way more comfort. We gave the Colorado the highest rating for its crew quarters, where even three across felt livable. The Raptor offers a 12.4-inch touchscreen that feels larger because of its vertical orientation. Controls are bit scattered—some in the screen, some on the console—but even if it isn’t the best organized, it’s easy to find the off-road modes and basic climate and infotainment settings. For storage, it has two gloveboxes, plus a warren of small slots and cubbies in the center console. Ford’s seats were the flashiest, a red-and-black combo that looked like someone had stolen the leathers from a MotoGP team and turned them into seat covers. They weren’t the most supportive front seats, with what felt like a hollow space in the center of the cushion, but the rear seat was far more spacious than the Toyota’s, if not quite as comfortable as in the Bison.PerformanceToday’s mid-size truck can do just about anything. Want to tow? The Ford can haul a max load of 5510 pounds, the Chevy 5500, and Tacoma 6000. That gives the top score to the TRD Pro, but any of the three could pull a boat or some ATVs for the weekend. When it comes to their accomplishments as actual trucks, using the classic definition of a vehicle with a big empty space in back for hauling stuff, the Tacoma takes the lead with the highest payload (1680 pounds) and the most trick accessories, like a composite bed and a clever rail-and-cleat system that comes standard, as well as a small cubby to hold an the optional air compressor or a muddy strap. The Ranger won favor for making its bed wide enough to hold a sheet of plywood flat across the back, and the Bison hides a secret storage compartment in its tailgate, presumably for things you don’t mind rattling around behind you. On the test track, they stack up pretty much by horsepower. The Ranger Raptor crosses the quarter-mile mark well ahead of the others, in 14.1 seconds at 97 mph. The TRD Pro just nudges past the Bison with a 15.3-second run at 89 mph, to the Chevy’s 15.6 seconds at 87 mph. At first this surprised us because on the road the Bison felt positively sluggish compared to the other two, making whoever was behind the wheel work twice as hard to carve through the freeway traffic on our way out to Borrego Springs. Looking at our 50-to-70-mph passing numbers helped put it in perspective. The Chevy isn’t slow off the line—in fact it hits 30 mph 0.1 second before the Toyota, but it’s laggy once it’s moving, taking 5.5 seconds to go from 50 mph to 70 mph, whereas the Tacoma gets there in 4.7 seconds, and the zippy Ford knocks that one out in just 3.9. The three trucks were close together on the skidpad, with the Ranger pulling 0.71 g, the Colorado 0.72 g, and the Tacoma 0.74 g. The Ranger really fell short, or rather, long, in braking, where it took 205 feet to stop from 70 mph versus 196 feet for the Tacoma, while the Colorado on its big 35-inch tires only needed 187 feet. Really, all these numbers are impressive when you realize they aren’t coming from sedans or even sporty SUVs, but from 5000-plus-pound pickups on tires more suited to dirt trails than drag strips. Driving ExperienceTest track numbers don’t always translate to on-road feel, and even less often to off-road feel, where stability and consistency can often make a vehicle feel better and push harder than outright horsepower. In the case of our truck trio, however, the Ranger Raptor’s dominating test numbers absolutely represent our experiences with it on the highway and out in the sand washes. We found it responsive and almost shockingly easy to lay down the power over everything from whoops to deep sand with none of the juddering or violence of the other two trucks. “I knew the Raptor would be a rocket ship,” said managing testing editor David Beard. With a sprint to 60 mph in just 5.3 seconds, it indeed is. “I like that is has an attitude. It wants to be driven hard. It really feels like a Baja truck.” Technical editor Dan Edmunds agreed, saying, “The Raptor did everything right.” It was the fought-over truck for our on-pavement transits between trails and an absolute delight when the pavement ended. It’s also the easiest truck to off-road. While you can play with settings to lock or unlock the electronic rear diff in different modes or adjust stability control depending on your level of comfort with off-roading tech, you can also choose from one of Raptor’s preset all-terrain modes—Off-Road, Baja, or Rock Crawl—and trust the truck to choose 4Auto, 4H, or 4L and turn off traction assistance at the appropriate times. It does a pretty good job, although Baja mode, which was the best suited to the fast, sandy washes and small dunes we were playing in, held the gears longer than any of us wanted to hear the V-6 near the redline. As Beard said after the first day, “The shift paddles are perfectly placed and have a great feel to them, which is good, because in Baja mode you really need to manually shift.” Neither of the other two trucks offers steering-wheel paddles—you can manually shift using buttons on the console shifter or the shifter itself—but they also had much calmer transmission tunes. The Raptor wasn’t perfect though. Beard described its low-speed steering effort as “a steering rack full of molasses” and bemoaned its lack of ventilated seats, but there was no doubt it was the crowd favorite. The TRD Pro surprised us all, and not in a good way, when our initial run found it so stiff in the front it was catching air over the whoops—something only photographer James Lipman was pleased about. After a bit of fumbling, we realized it was set at full stiffness in the front and full soft in the rear. Bringing it back to middle settings all around helped, but even in its softest settings it couldn’t compete with the Ford over washboards or dips. Over long rough passages it beat the driver up enough that you could hear it in their voice over the radio like someone was drumming on their backbone. “HooOOooOOoldDd UUuup, GuuuUUUuuuys.” The dampers were a good lesson in checking your equipment, because anything that can be manually adjusted can be manually adjusted wrong. The Tacoma is the most hands-on of the trucks that way. A first-timer would need to know what damper settings worked best in different landscapes, be willing to get out and lie in the dirt to change them, and make their own decisions about when to be in four-wheel low. Whether that’s a pro or a con depends on your level of off-road experience. It would be great if putting the Tacoma in one of its off-road modes like Sand or Rock automatically disabled certain Safety Sense features, because realizing that the truck won’t go in reverse because of a shadow or a bush while sinking into a dune is a terrible time to have to go through the menu in search of the setting to switch that off. On the road the Colorado was trailing behind, but once we started kicking up some dust, its smaller wheels and bigger tires with tall sidewalls cushioned bumps that chattered teeth in the Tacoma. Its off-road menus were easy to adjust even while in motion, and its extra ground clearance was confidence inspiring while weaving around, and occasionally over, half-buried boulders. Edmunds called it “well damped and smooth,” although we all noted that the rear end had a tendency to dance around over high-speed washboards, where the Ranger stayed planted, and the much-touted hydraulic bump stops were audible on every landing. Like the Ranger, the Chevy has several preset modes to help newbies find the right settings and make it quick and easy for experts, too. And the Winner Is . . .There was a time when owning a capable off-road truck was like owning a boat or a grand piano: ideal for its specialized use but the rest of the time just something that takes up space and offers a surface to pile junk on. Only the most dedicated of wheelers would have used their locker-equipped, knobby-tired, desert build for commuting, because the trade-off in ride comfort, fuel economy, and on-road handling would shatter vertebrae, empty wallets, and require 12-point turns in parking garages. That’s not the case today. The Chevy Colorado ZR2 Bison, Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro, and Ford Ranger Raptor were all ridiculously fun in the dirt and totally civilized on the street. They do all the basic truck jobs and have looks that impress at a trailhead. So, no losers, but we had an obvious winner in the Ranger Raptor. Not only did it offer all kinds of off-road goodies with a lower asking price than the others, it also delivered a better ride off-road with little sacrifice on-road.Like an F1 race in 2023, the real battle here was for second place. It was clear to us pretty quickly that the Ford would claim first, but second could have gone either way between the Chevy and the Toyota. We liked the Bison’s looks and ride comfort more. We definitely liked its rear seat more, but the Tacoma has a more usable, better-equipped bed, and its hybrid powertrain means its EPA estimated fuel economy at 23/22/24 mpg (combined, city, highway) was far better than the others, which were mired in the teens. During our heavy-throttle 500-mile adventure, we didn’t hit EPA numbers for any of the trucks, but the Toyota managed a 16-mpg average, while the Ford and Chevy only got 14 mpg. In the end, the math worked in favor of economy and practicality, and just like in the drag race, the Tacoma TRD Pro slipped by the Colorado at the finish line. Of course, if you disagree, we’d be happy to discuss it over margaritas at the swim-up bar of your choice.James Lipman|Car and DriverToyota Tacoma TRD ProSpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 BisonVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $62,895/$65,345Options: Technology package (360-degree camera system, adaptive cruise control, Bose premium audio system, rear pedestrian alert), $1450; power sunroof, $1000
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 166 in3, 2727 cm3Power: 310 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/13.3-in vented discGoodyear Wrangler Territory MTLT315/70R-17 113/110S M+S TPC Spec 2811
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.4 inLength: 214.1 inWidth: 80.1 inHeight: 75.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 61/43 ft3Curb Weight: 5283 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4-Mile: 15.6 sec @ 87 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 99 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.72 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/16/16 mpg
–
2024 Ford Ranger RaptorVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $57,315/$60,150Options: 17-inch beadlock-capable wheels, $1495; Raptor graphics, $750; spray-in bedliner, $495; keyless-entry keypad, $95
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron-and-aluminum block, aluminum heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 180 in3, 2956 cm3Power: 405 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 12.2-in vented disc/12.1-in vented discBFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3LT285/70R-17 116/113S M+S 3PMSF
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 128.7 inLength: 210.9 inWidth: 79.8 inHeight: 75.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/43 ft3Curb Weight: 5409 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.3 sec1/4-Mile: 14.1 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 107 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 205 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.71 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/16/18 mpg
–
2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro HybridVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $65,395/$65,869Options: bed mat, $200; black tailgate insert, $99; ball mount, $70; mud guards, $60; mini tie-down, $45
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 278 hp, 317 lb-ft + AC motor, 48 hp, 184 lb-ft (combined output: 326 hp, 465 lb-ft; 0.9-kWh [C/D est] nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmission: 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/13.2-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler Territory RT265/70R-18 116T M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.9 inLength: 213.0 inWidth: 79.9 inHeight: 75.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54/43 ft3Curb Weight: 5390 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.9 sec1/4-Mile: 15.3 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.6 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 196 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.74 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/22/24 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDLike a sleeper agent activated late in the game, Elana Scherr didn’t know her calling at a young age. Like many girls, she planned to be a vet-astronaut-artist, and came closest to that last one by attending UCLA art school. She painted images of cars, but did not own one. Elana reluctantly got a driver’s license at age 21 and discovered that she not only loved cars and wanted to drive them, but that other people loved cars and wanted to read about them, which meant somebody had to write about them. Since receiving activation codes, Elana has written for numerous car magazines and websites, covering classics, car culture, technology, motorsports, and new-car reviews. In 2020, she received a Best Feature award from the Motor Press Guild for the C/D story “A Drive through Classic Americana in a Polestar 2.”  In 2023, her Car and Driver feature story More

From the August 1980 issue of Car and Driver.The consensus among your obedient staffers is that this little Subaru has an endearing sort of crudeness that makes it rather fun. This is in contrast to the ordinary sort of crudeness found in Dat­sun 310s and old B-210s, which make them rather annoying. Such findings may seem a misdirected exercise to you—right up there with pondering whether Brussels sprouts should be eat­en buttered or creamed, when every­body with even half a sense of taste knows they shouldn’t be eaten at all­—but these fine judgment calls are what we get paid for.This little Subaru, for the record, starts life as an “STD 4wd hatchback,” the loss leader in Subaru’s four-wheel-­drive line, and at a base price of $4799 ($4998 in California), it’s the cheapest four-wheel-drive thing available in America. In a time when most plain-va­nilla econoboxes list for more than that, the price alone is quite an attraction. At the same time, such a low price im­plies a pretty Spartan machine; hence the crudeness we spoke of earlier. Your opinion of this car will depend pretty much upon what you expect of it. If you live in snow country or RFD America where the roads don’t go everywhere you need to, and therefore want a bud­get-priced go-anywhere car to keep you mobile, you’ll probably think this is the best automobile in the world. If you just want some no-fuss utility box for get­ting around the country and your stan­dards of presentability require hosing out the interior once a year, whether it needs it or not, you’ll probably think the STD 4wd hatchback is a pretty nifty piece as well. But if you have visions of a jewel-like machine with the sophistica­tion of a BMW and the comfort of a Rabbit (or even of an American pickup), you’ll certainly have to go higher in the Subaru line—say, to the DL model we used for photography—or possibly to another store. Because the base four­-wheel-driver is a bit of an automotive hair shirt. Five years ago its creature comforts would have made it competitive with any budget import, but now they are substandard. More Reviews From the ArchiveThere’s absolutely nothing wrong with the four-wheel-drive part, though, at least nothing we discovered in polite motoring. Normally, only the front wheels transmit power. But at any speed up to 50 mph, you may engage 4wd by lifting a healthy-looking lever on the console. When it is pulled fully home, the Honda Accord-style outline draw­ing of a car on the instrument panel comes alive with four green-glowing wheels and an indicator off to the side shows “4wd.” That’s all there is to it. No drum rolls, fanfares, or transient crunchings from the machinery below. Four-wheel drive manifests itself solely by graphics on the dashboard and, one hopes, a better grip on our planet. This latter, unfortunately, is much harder to measure. The 1595 Subaru ccs under the hood are not noticeably ambitious, so there isn’t enough energy available to explore the high-perform­ance possibilities of four-wheel drive in paved-road motoring. The off-road potential of four-wheel drive is, of course, well known, so there seemed little rea­son for us to terrorize the Bambi and bunnies just to report that, yep, four is better than two. All of this is by way of saying that the four-wheel-drive virtue of this car will be left to faith. What we did find is that the personal­ity of this model is substantially differ­ent from that of the four-door, 2wd GL sedan we tested in February. The four­-wheel-driver is much noisier and more subject to vibration. How much of the blame should be apportioned to the four-wheel-drive machinery itself and how much is merely due to the loss-­leader status of the base model we are unable to determine. Moreover, official Subaru spokesmen in this country don’t know either. We also found that the sus­pension of this car did not maintain its aplomb on rough pavement. Even with only the driver aboard, it crashed through to the bump stops in a way that modern econoboxes—Rabbits, Omni/Horizons, Hondas, and the like—would never do, which speaks poorly for the off-road potential of this car.Needless to say, such roughriding is not a part of the endearing crudeness, which in itself is a quality not easy to explain and even harder to defend. But some of it has to do with the engine, a horizontally opposed four-cylinder like that of the old Beetle, except this one is water-cooled. As it happens, both make similar sounds, a kind of beating of the exhaust pulses at certain speeds when you accelerate hard, and we found this to be an endearing foible. Then there is the elemental nature of the car itself. The doors, for example, are incredibly light; they feel like two layers of tin with some glass sandwiched in the middle, and that’s what they sound like when you slam them. Again, this is hardly praiseworthy, but in the case of a bite-sized four-wheel-driver, it adds a sense of purposefulness that we found appealing. Then, too, there is the one-piece molded-rubber interior. Well, that’s an exaggeration, but the entire headliner is one piece of skinned vinyl foam, and each door panel is one piece of formed plastic, and the mats swelling and turn­ing over the countless irregularities in the floor are one-piece, wall-to-wall cre­ations of the most intricate detail. All of this is wonderfully coordinated in a sin­gle hue of cheese-mold gray (we also saw a butterscotch-pudding version). This one-piece theme gets some tricky embellishment on the seats. They’re covered entirely in vinyl; however, to disguise that fact the part where you ac­tually sit has been embossed with a black pattern to make it look like woven cloth. But you could still take a hose to it—to the whole interior, for that mat­ter—and that seems kind of endearing. These diverse elements—the nostalgic engine and the tin-can functionality and the Tupperware interior—all combine to give a pearl-of-discount-price feel to the STD 4wd hatchback; this is such a novelty in the car business today that the Subaru manages to be interestingly annoying rather than just plain annoy­ing. Get yourself a shiny new Bronco Ranger XLT and you’re afraid to drive it out in the bush because it’ll take you a week to pick all the nettles out of the deep-pile carpets. But the Subaru, hell, you just drive it like what it is: a dirt­-cheap, wash-and-wear, go-anywhere car. It’s the automotive equivalent of the pair of shoes you change to when it’s muddy outside, and you can’t argue with the endearing nature of that. You can’t find much fault with the hatchback’s space utilization either. Considering its mere 93.3-inch wheel­base and truncated, 156.7-inch overall length, there is a great deal of room in­side. The front buckets are good enough for adults of almost any com­mon dimension, and, surprisingly, the rear bench is equally accommodating. There is enough room for heads and knees back there for real people. Or you can fold down the seatback to extend the trunk area forward to the backs of the front seats. The trunk’s lift-over height is about medium—the sill line is just above the taillights—but it’s no worse than on Subaru sedans. To put this car into final perspective, the endearing crudeness we spoke of earlier is not all that dissimilar to what you find in typical Japanese pickups. And since those devices are regarded as acceptable transport by what seems like millions of Americans these days, the STD 4wd hatchback is certainly not too rough and ready for an important seg­ment of the nation’s drivers. All in all, we think this car is really quite an attractive alternative to a small four-wheel-drive pickup. Its over-the-road handling is much easier to live with than that of a truck; the driving position offers much more room where it’s need­ed by long American limbs; and the rear seat folds down to make a substantial cargo area—not big enough for a mo­torcycle, true enough, but if your toys are smaller they will enjoy the security of a locked hatch, which no pickup of­fers. And finally, this little skate is well over a grand cheaper than any four-­wheel-drive pickup you can name, ex­cept for Subaru’s own BRAT. So the 4wd hatchback, it seems to us, poses two choices: you approach it ei­ther as a rude little car that will go any­where, or as a wonderfully sophisticated near-pickup. CounterpointsSubaru is much like Mercedes-Benz, in that both firms have a crystal-clear vision of who they are and what they ought to be building. I don’t know the Japanese word for “leitmotif,” but that’s what they have, and it works for Subaru just as well as it works for the Germans. I’m keen on Su­barus because they don’t make any bones about what kinds of car they are, or what they’re supposed to do. This means that it is unheard of for someone who doesn’t want a Subaru to wind up owning one. There are Subaru people, and they were meant to own Subarus. They’ll feel un­comfortable and unloved in a something-­for-everyone car like a Chevrolet Malibu, but they’ll feel as if they’ve just snuggled into Grandma’s lap the minute they sit down behind the wheel of our Subaru three-door and fire up the scrappy little terrier-motor. This is a deadly-serious little car, but it’s so much fun to wail around in that I don’t know how to cate­gorize it. It may be the most useful little car around. Usefulness abounds in the rear hatch, four-wheel drive, fold-down rear seat, great gas mileage, robust per­formance, and the ratio of interior space to the overall bulk of the vehicle. And it doesn’t even look funny. —David E. Davis.Jr.Subaru, I’m happy to see, knows exactly when to mess around with a good thing. The first generation of breadbox all­-wheel-drivers was a great idea, but there was plenty of room left for improvement. The Mark II version attends to every one of the old model’s shortcomings—but there is one caveat. While the new 4wd sedan has taken a quantum leap ahead in room, comfort, appearance, and road manners, it still gives away a chunk of refinement to Subaru’s revitalized, standard-issue front-drive models. For some reason the 4wd’s en­gine seems far coarser, the ride is choppi­er, and on the highway it’s a buzz box. One more trip through finishing school is needed to make it a first-class small car. The Subaru’s saving grace, of course, is the magic lever between the seats. Having four-wheel drive on your side means nev­er having to worry about Mother Nature. And the Subaru’s easy way with fuel makes Blazer-class rigs look as dumb as the dirt they drive in. On balance, life with Subaru is a lot nicer the second time around, caveat and all. —Rich CepposSubaru used to be the ugly duckling of Japan, a last bastion of the strangely-mis­shapen school of auto design. You’d nev­er guess that fact looking at the 1980 line, however. This company has matured into its graceful-swan mode, and the new cars look so terrific that every old-Subaru owner should rush right out and trade for one. What better opportunity to help beautify America? Beauty isn’t the only thing that’s been added this year, either: what we have here is the world’s first small sedan with four-wheel drive. This is your chance to own a weatherproof run­ner with 23 mpg! And best of all, it looks and acts nothing at all like a truck. The interior is modern, roomy, and comfort­able to live with. The hatchback “trunk” is small but versatile since the rear seat splits and folds. Roadworthiness could be better with a little more steam under the hood and some suspension development, but one forgives these minor shortcom­ings the instant all four wheels bite into a snowdrift or a sand dune. What’s more, the best may be yet to come: home-mar­ket 4wd Subarus have two- speed transfer cases. —Don ShermanSpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Subaru 1600 4WDVehicle Type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $5608/$6510Options: Bridgestone tires, $466; Jackman wheels, $224; front-end protector, $119; roof rack, $93
ENGINEpushrod inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 97 in3, 1600 cm3Power: 68 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 84 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/semi-trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 7.2-in disc/7.1-in drumTires: Bridgestone RD703 Steel175/70SR-13
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 93.3 inLength: 156.7 inWidth: 63.8 inHeight: 55.7 inCurb Weight: 2280 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 15.1 sec80 mph: 41.0 sec1/4-Mile: 19.6 sec @ 67 mphTop Speed: 85 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 240 ft  
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined: 23 mpg (est) 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

The Mercedes-Benz van you see here is still nearly a year away from a proper reveal. We don’t even know its name yet, which is why the only name you’ll see here is Van.EA. While Van.EA sounds like a shady website streaming bootleg NFL games, it’s actually a brand-new electric-vehicle architecture that will eventually underpin all corners of Mercedes-Benz’s van empire. Mercedes, aware of current consumer hesitancy, has a complementary combustion-engine platform in the works too. But the most interesting part of Van.EA is that this effort is going to result in a high-end people mover aimed at both China and the United States.Not (Just) a Mall-CrawlerIf you’re familiar with JDM-fanboy favorites like the Toyota Alphard and Lexus LM, that gives you an idea of what Mercedes is cooking up. Something that can serve as high-end VIP transport, chauffeuring—things beyond trips to Target.It’s worth noting that, while this type of vehicle is popular in China, the current U.S. market for luxury minivans is, well, pretty much nonexistent. We have minivans, but not a lot of them, and none that really lean into Benz-level luxury or try to cater to buyers outside the confines of the middle-class nuclear family. The old Metris had a passenger variant, but its commercial roots were obvious; its high-and-forward driving position felt more like that of a Sprinter than a GLS-class.That’s what Van.EA aims to change. Private-use vans, as development head Andreas Zygan put it, will no longer “have to carry the burden” of so many commercial-grade components and hard points; that would immediately put a six-figure minivan into “hard sell” territory with discerning buyers. In fact, to further push it away from its roots, the M-B vans team started collaborating more closely with coworkers from the passenger-cars division.The hope is that the new high-end people mover built on this Van.EA architecture will become favored transport for shuttling VIPs of all stripes. But Mercedes surely wouldn’t be disappointed if you also see many of these suckers stuck in a mile-long pickup line at your local private school. What Can You Tell Us About the Van?In terms of straight facts and figures? Not a ton. Van.EA will run on an 800-volt architecture, which means it should be pretty quick at the DC fast-charger. If you’re charging at home, the platform’s onboard unit can accept AC juice at up to 22 kW, which is almost enough zap to grant sentience to your circuit-breaker panel. Dual-motor all-wheel drive and rear-axle steering will be available. We don’t have any powertrain output figures, nor do we have knowledge of the battery chemistry or motor types, but we do know that Mercedes is aiming for an EPA range estimate north of 300 miles. If electromobility isn’t your hang, worry not. Van.EA will be followed by Van.CA, which will be a variant of the platform dedicated to internal-combustion powertrains. CA shares approximately 70 percent of its components with EA, and they’re able to be built on the same production line, so think of it less as a separate platform and more of an internal-combustion analogue. Even kissin’ cousins would be too distant.The two diverging roads in this yellow wood will offer several variants to suit all sorts of needs. The new platform won’t be limited to six-figure moonshots; there’ll be plenty of commercial models and middle grounds to fill the gaps. But we may have to wait a few more months to get the full skinny there.How Does Van.EA Drive?To give the new electric van a very, very early shakedown, we headed to Mercedes-Benz’s winter testing grounds outside Arjeplog, Sweden. With Van.EA being in the middle of development, its exterior was entirely camouflaged, and the interior was a rat’s nest of ethernet cables and shrouds to hide the bits that were further along and closer to production spec. One thing we can tell you is that three large displays occupy the entire width of the dashboard. There’s a gigantic gauge display, and two similarly sized screens next to it—one for traditional infotainment duty, the other for the passenger. It’s like a more upright and symmetrical Hyperscreen. First, we tackled 10 and 15 percent grades, with one side of the vehicle on dry pavement and the other half on ice. A brake-hold feature prevents the van from rolling backward, and all we needed to do was lightly apply the accelerator and let the stability system dole out the torque to the wheels with the most grip. A little bit of wheelspin later, we made it up with barely any lateral deviation.Then came the low-friction braking. We ran the van up to 62 mph, which admittedly did take awhile on solid ice, but it tracked straight as the stability-control light blinked its little heart out. As we approached a piece of dry pavement, we put half the van on it and slammed the brakes as hard as we could. ABS did its thing, and the ESC once again held the vehicle surprisingly straight. Engineers told us that the goal was to ensure the driver needed no more than a 90-degree steering input to keep the vehicle tracking straight under that kind of braking; we only needed a couple dabs in the 30-degree range.The last two pieces of the puzzle involved pretty simple stuff. Cones were set up in a square so we could see how tight the turning circle was (the answer: impressively). Then we were set loose on a long stretch of icy pavement, as well as a large skidpad-style plot, to see how well the stability control keeps things in line. While you can definitely turn hard flicks of the steering wheel and unnecessary right-pedal tomfoolery into lurid snowy drifts, the ESC sure as hell doesn’t want you to. Half the time, it was already well on its way to sorting us out before we finished our steering corrections. But, of course, in driving a car for the first time, there’s plenty of ancillary stuff to pick up on, too. The seating position was more carlike than in most vans; you sit in it, rather than on it, although the pedals still felt a little too close when your author set the seat for his six-foot frame. Visibility was solid when the camouflage wasn’t in the way. The ride over ice and snow was smooth; as we careened over a large dip, the body slowly and surely recombobulated itself without any annoying nautical float.The biggest issue with Van.EA’s major upmarket push won’t be the van itself—the foundations seem solid, as one would expect. Instead, the challenge will be convincing well-off Americans that they want this instead of a traditional SUV, especially if that SUV already wears a three-pointed star. To Mercedes, part of what makes something luxurious is a feeling of spaciousness, and a van delivers that in spades. Whether people are willing to accept that shape into their predefined mental image of luxury is a different story.Cars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

From the June 1980 issue of Car and Driver.Ladies and gentlemen, you will please cue up your Superman tapes, main title passage, please. We are here to tell you about one of those rare cars, of which a few come to each generation, whose presence and capabilities completely transcend even the uppermost limits of accepted goodness. To harness yourself into this car is to lace up Seven League Boots. To drive it well, with skill, con­centration, and energy, is to unleash the miracle of our own genius for progress in transportation. Each time we drive the 733i, then relinquish the key to a neophyte, we find ourselves looking over our shoulders at the one taking its wheel for the first time. Each of us won­ders privately if he is alone in his per­ception of this car’s capacity to satisfy our wildest dreams of accomplishment in sedandom. But then the newly initiat­ed driver returns, gets out of the car, and pinches himself. As we have pinched ourselves in the same situation. Aha, we are not alone! We on the staff are expected to foam some at the mouth when a piece like the 733i comes along, but when the boss does, too, well, jeez… When the origi­nal 733i was first made available to us two years ago, frankly The Man’s praise button short-circuited in the full-on po­sition. “I’m saved,” he said. “I, David E. Davis, Jr., self-appointed high priest of Bimmer Madness in North America, can finally stop feeling guilty about not lik­ing the 630CSi coupe. Forget the coupe! The magnificent 7-series sedans have arrived in America and God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world! Damn, what a car…this is Bim­mer Infinity.”Right again, Boss-man. What we need here is an automatic typesetter with a key marked “Superlatives.” That is the nature of this 733i. It is so good, it makes you feel guilty when you note something even slightly negative about it. And while it’s nice to dabble around town in, you will never discover its true delights until you take it out in the open, where the road unreels like a bal­loon with a hole punched in it. Knowing that, we quit Los Angeles and set off for Monterey up the coast on Highway 1 in our Seven League Boots, sidestepping the highway patrol by sixth sense and practiced eye. This is necessary because this car makes you feel like a somnolent old coot if you’re not out there thump­ing on it for all you’re worth every sec­ond the wheels are turning. More BMW Content From the ArchiveBMW has done hand-to-hand combat with the rudiments and the complexities of suspension design, and has come out a winner. The result is a fine cream of consistency, a refinement in the way the car goes about its most trying business that carries through to almost every as­pect of its behavior. The 733i offers a thoroughly civilized give-and-take that returns at least what you put into it. It feels better than the Mercedes 450SEL in its way of going, although it will be interesting to see how the new S-class Mercedes, coming next year, will com­pare. BMW’s biggest advance in the 733i’s all-independent suspension came in front at its damper-strut linkage. It is located by two separate positioning links instead of the normal (and less ef­ficient) one. Suspension geometry is thus improved, providing less self-steer­ing when the wheels are unequally load­ed, more self-centering for the steering wheel, and less dive under braking. The 733i goes around corners like an overgrown open-wheeled race car, yet it sacrifices nothing in the way of ride quality. It just turns in and tracks around with record low amounts of un­dersteer for a big sedan. It encourages you and serves devotedly in the tightest of switchbacks, and it cuts beautifully clean arcs through great, long sweepers. It is light on its feet and possessed of startling maneuverability and agility, and while its passage can be breathtak­ing from outside, inside, the 733i pro­fesses absolute calmness and gives time for clearheaded perception. BMW’s characteristic trailing-throttle oversteer, a normal byproduct of semi-trailing-arm rear suspension, has been throttled back, although it’s still provokable. Log­ic has it that the 733i’s very low levels of initial and final understeer help reduce final oversteer because, even entering corners more quickly, it will track around with less addition of steering lock (which tends to initiate an outward swing of the tail with the turning in of the nose), and have much less need to close the throttle (thus avoiding the in­herent steering outward of the semi­-trailed rear wheels), which is the likely way to slow down a car that first threat­ens to go straight on in corners. Dips and bumps pass under BMW’s suspension calibrations like low water under a tall bridge, the 733i flowing over the road as if it were the world’s fastest hovercraft. Its directional stabili­ty seems somehow related to the path and character of unrefracted light, un­wavering and true. The degree of steer­ing assist is determined by road speed, and its subjective feel may outqualify Mercedes’ as the best in the world. The BMW’s steering has slightly less feel, but it also take less effort, nearly perfect effort. We dream about having this no­-muss, no-fuss steering response in se­dans, and discovering it here feels as reassuring and familiar as pocketing your favorite penknife in the morning. Thank God for that. California was just entering its record-breaking rain-­flood-and-mudslide season when we picked up the 733i. Amid the stop-and-­go traffic and the impending, soggy collapse of the coastal range, the car never missed a beat. Its single flaw, in the face of winds that tore shrieks from damp young ladies clutching disemboweled umbrellas that flopped like one-legged chickens, was a tendency for it to be bat­ted around by these stout gusts. This is Mother Nature’s elbow in the ribs of the 733i’s superior attitude. Cars that like to change direction when you tell them to sometimes like to do so when they haven’t been told, you see, and a stabi­lizing air dam would be a welcome addition beneath the front bumper. Beyond that, the smooth attitude transitions and fishbowl visibility of the 733i make working traffic a breeze. And its Continental radials, in spite of minor out-of-roundness, slice through rainwa­ter and cling to sunbaked pavement with equal finesse, though nothing in their appearance would suggest this combination of virtues. BMW has some­how magically wedded these tires to its suspension, and the 733i flashes as surely up Highway 1 in streaming rain as lesser cars do when it’s bone-dry. And in the dry, HO-HO! the 733i plays first chair. It has some tendency to vault through quick cycles of vertical motion over repeated and highly exaggerated ripples, but its speed must be nigh on to ungodly to make this happen, and it re­covers quickly. Most other cars would already have inserted themselves in ditches.When trouble does start, the brakes are at your side. They are hydraulically assisted, shunning the more popular vacuum boost, so they put the squeeze on very quickly, without deliberation but with great consistency. They have tremendous feel, easily defining the ul­timate possible degree of braking under every hard-charging circumstance we could induce on our run up the gantlet of Pacific Coast Highway. The brakes are progressive, direct, and firm, a blessing that shuns disguise. They are also called for. It is no surprise that the engine is a thing of wonder. This is a BMW. It is expected, and BMW has smote our gov­ernment’s emissions and mileage re­quirements with research and develop­ment. The research has turned up a three-way catalyst, a Lambda-sensor, and unleaded fuel, and the develop­ment is horsepower. The expensive and sophisticated six-cylinder engine it’s housed in is the mechanical embodiment of absolute insistence. It has a pas­sion for accelerating the countryside past as if it were wired to a well-man­nered-but-berserk, Jekyll-and-Hyde rhe­ostat. It pulls beautifully through the gears, and when the power band of its overhead cam comes on, it begins to howl. It says you could never ask too much. And lordy, does it give. You may wonder that 3.2 liters can wallop 3600 pounds of prime Bavarian comfort up to 60 mph in 8.2 seconds, and cover the quarter-mile in 16.3 seconds at 84 mph, but believe it. The 6400-rpm redline, if you’re in the grasp of neck-and-neck fe­ver, won’t bid you goodbye in third gear until 97 mph, and running flat-scat over the open road packs your sensory load­ings to overflowing. This raises impolite questions such as, “How come other automakers can’t seem to do this?” and, un­fortunately, “Do they even want to?” BMW’s EPA mileage number is 16 mpg, but we’d say you could probably do better with restraint.Even so, your mileage won’t be terrific. This car needs a five-speed, with fifth an overdrive. At least there isn’t a nicer four-speed around, and finding one in here at all is reward enough. This is sig­nificant because there aren’t any other luxury cars that come with manual gear­boxes over here. BMW, of course, has an automatic too, but the stick shift is the tip. Our engine ran so smoothly that we used the gears too hard, too soon, and it wasn’t long before the box was audibly reminding us of our shortsight­edness. Gear noise is not normally a problem, but proper break-in, as we know from other experiences with BMWs, is very important. Inside this 110-inch wheelbase is enough room for the Jabbar family up front and a non-contact soccer match in back. We stretch the point, but the space is all here. The leather seats are at first very comfortable and they are ad­justable for any angle or attitude from foxhole to crow’s-nest. But the leather is slick, lumbar adjustments are missing, and marathon drivers seem to wind up with minor backaches. But support for hard driving is good, and the back seat is a place of airy comfort despite still more slippery leather. BMW’s four-spoke leather wheel is in-out adjustable. The dash layout, con­trols, and ventilation are worth the price of admission, and there are separate ventilation controls for the back seat. Our only real complaints cover the two-­tone dash treatment—black above, out-­of-place gray below—and the lack of engine-function gauges. A good Blau­punkt AM/FM/cassette unit puts out four-speaker stereo, and a central lock­ing system buttons up everything that can be opened except the ashtrays and the huge, fold-down glove box. The electric sunroof seized open once, as still more rain approached, and then it inexplicably freed itself just in time to fend off another downpour. Outside, the 733i is a solid citizen of upright appearance, but it could use a deft pinstripe around the beltline crease for the sake of definition. Its solidity of construction needs no extra help. The 733i, in terms of driving satisfaction, is certainly worth more than $10,000 less than a 450SEL. And one of these days, one of these 733is will burst up behind you, slashing at your heels. Capitulate and move over. This may not give you the view you’d like, but it’s the second-­best suggestion we’ve got, the other be­ing to fork over big money and plug in your Superman tapes. CounterpointsBefore I wax hyperbolic about the 733i, I think there are a few sobering facts you ought to consider: compared with a Pontiac Bonneville, the 733i has one fewer seats, gets 2 mpg less, and costs $21,971 more. And you have to shift it yourself?Most Bonneville buyers probably think that shelling out nearly 30 grand for any car—let alone one that makes you stir the gears—is about as dumb as buying land by mail. Value, of course, is in the bank account of the beholder. But if you can stretch your credit far enough for a high-roller luxo-sedan, you won’t find more satisfaction than in the 733i. It’s a cornucopia of driving delights, from the way it moves—arrogantly assured, superbly responsive—to its carved-from-a-single-billet construction. From behind the wheel of a 733i you survey the vehicular world as if from a snowcapped peak in the Bavarian Alps. And to drive it is to know all the wonderful things machines can do for man. Which is a sense makes the 733i a pretty good deal. After all, it may cost $30,000 but it make you feel like a million. Make that two million. —Rich CepposSo what we have here is the wonder of the ages, right? The perfect automobile. You’ve just read reams on how exquisite the 733i is, and the people who have been telling you all these wondrous things are card-carrying automotive experts. Still, you’re a little skeptical. Philosophy 101 taught you that nothing is ever as it seems. And you’re right. All is not perfect in 733i land, and I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to reveal the truth. Yes, the engine and transmission are perhaps the most delightful tandem you can own. And the instrument panel is an aesthetic and ergonomic delight. Oh, sure, the suspension offers the best combination of luxury ride and handling available. And, yes, the car’s looks, solid feel, and general over-the-road competence are unmatched in even the best Mercedes-Benz has to offer. But what about the driver’s side floor mat? I’ll tell you what. It doesn’t fit. It snags on the clutch pedal. No matter how you move it around. Can you believe it? Inexcusable. —Mike KnepperThis is the third 7-series BMW I’ve driven since our friends in Munich introduced their Mercedes-zerstörer, and it’s the first one I did’t like so much. The electric sunroof so compromises front-seat headroom that I was always uncomfortable driving the car—literally a pain in the neck, she was. Given the lack of headroom, I then found it impossible to get the seat adjusted to my taste. Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Volvo, Saab, and the GM X-cars all provide me with enough headroom for the hat of my choice—why not BMW’s 733i?The engine is strong and willing, but the one in our test car had a period of vibration in the midrange that would send me bitching and grumbling to my BMW dealer once a week. The four-speed gearbox is a pleasure to use, but it needs a fifth speed, since the engine really begins to intrude at radar-detector cruising speeds. Perhaps I’m being tough on the luxus-Bimmer because I just spent ten days in an XJ6 Jaguar. More and more, though, I feel that BMW’s business is somewhere south of the 5-series cars. I really like the 320i, and I’m eagerly awaiting the 323. Now, if they’d just build us an all-new 1600. —David E. Davis, Jr. SpecificationsSpecifications
1980 BMW 733iVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $28,945/$28,945
ENGINESOHC 12-valve inline-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 196 in3, 3210 cm3Power: 174 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 188 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/semi-trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/11.0-in discTires: Continental TS772205/70HR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.0 inLength: 197.4 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 56.3 inCurb Weight: 3610 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 26.7 secTop Speed: 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined: 16 mpg (est) 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Remember the Mercedes-Benz EQC? An electric analogue to the GLC-class compact luxury SUV has been in the works for years—and in markets beyond the U.S., it actually existed as a thing people could buy. We in the States didn’t get that lucky, though; the EQC as originally conceived suffered several setbacks and ultimately never arrived here. But that’ll soon be rectified with the electric GLC. Ahead of the new EV’s debut at the IAA auto show in Munich this September, we got a taste of the GLC at Benz’s winter proving ground in far-north Sweden.The regular GLC is a bestseller in the U.S., and its electric variant will live within that greater lineup. We don’t have an official name yet, but the lineup currently contains the gas-only GLC300 and the plug-in-hybrid GLC350e, so the EV could slide above that as the GLC380 or GLC480, similar to how the electric G580 is positioned above the gas-only G550. Going forward, this is likely how Mercedes will continue to structure its lineups, even when cars within the same line don’t share a platform.Despite looking like a gas-powered GLC, the electric variant rides on the dedicated MB.EA platform, which will underpin additional future EVs as well. Ahead of our prototype drive, Mercedes told us the decision to use MB.EA was all about compromise—or rather, a lack thereof; putting an EV on the gas-fed GLC’s platform would’ve required the automaker to make undesirable concessions, whereas MB.EA lets Mercedes engineers optimize for the EV part. The examples we drove were heavily camouflaged inside and out, and concrete specs at this stage are few. But Mercedes did tell us that the GLC EV’s body is just a bit longer than the gas model’s, granting enough space in the floor to fit a roughly 94.5-kWh battery. The top offering works at 800 volts, and it is said that charging rates of 320 kW can be “sustained” on a 350-kW charger. As for range, Mercedes estimates that this juice box will be good for a hair over 400 miles on the European WLTP test cycle, with an EPA estimate north of 300 miles. Lift the hood, and you won’t find any power hardware—just a four-cubic-foot frunk, which, according to our eyeballs, should hold at least 50 pounds of shrimp. At least.Similarly, we’re not quite sure of the full breadth of powertrains we’ll get in the U.S., but deep in wintry Sweden, we sampled a dual-motor all-wheel-drive variant that makes approximately 483 horsepower. On roads covered in snow and ice, that proved more than enough power to get the rear end loose at will, and Sport mode offers a surprising amount of yaw before it slowly dialed back the power and brought the rear end in line. There’s a two-speed transmission tucked in at the rear, too, as in the Porsche Taycan, and like the Porsche, the transmission’s shifting is nearly imperceptible.Thankfully, there were some stretches where we were able to assess the GLC EV’s ride quality on normal pavement. Unsurprisingly, it was mighty smooth; the vehicle we drove included the optional air-spring suspension, which did a great job counteracting the EV’s as-yet-unknown curb weight. The car can take a licking, too; with the suspension raised about an inch, we blasted up a small mountain road riddled with washboard bumps and deep ruts. And aside from having the fillings shaken out of our molars, the GLC sailed its way upward without much drama. That’s probably more off-roading than most owners will ever do, but it’s nice that the capability is there. Mercedes-Benz’s complicated all-in-one brake module makes an appearance on the GLC EV, too. We first sampled this unit on the upcoming new CLA-class hybrid; the module combines the booster, master cylinder, and other components, with the goal of providing a seamless brake feel whether using regeneration or friction. The brakes prioritize regen as much as possible to boost efficiency. In most situations, it doesn’t rely on a mechanical link between your foot and the brake discs—the feedback and pressure underfoot are simulated, and they’re simulated quite well.The interior was completely shrouded, so we can’t yet speak to how closely the cabin resembles that of the gas-powered GLC. But we can say that the EV’s extra length pays off in rear-seat legroom, which was ample behind a six-foot-two front-seat passenger. The platform’s flat floor also left more than enough space to comfortably tuck our feet under the front seat. Between that and the sizable panoramic glass roof, the cabin is airy and feels more spacious than the average compact SUV. There’s a long time to go until the GLC EV’s official debut in September, and it will likely end up as a 2026 model when it goes on sale in the States. While pricing likely won’t be announced until after the Munich show concludes, we can look at current context; the GLC350e PHEV tops out at $65,2o0 in its loaded Pinnacle trim, so we’d estimate a starting price somewhere above that. The electric GLC will be expensive, but after our brief spin in one, we think it’ll fit right into the greater lineup—when it finally arrives. Which we think it will, this time.Cars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

Perhaps you were one of the legions of critics of the whole Mercedes-EQ thing—what with the oddball naming convention and the even odder egg-shaped styling. If so, consider yourself vindicated. The backpedaling is now fully underway.A slew of new product announcements have signaled that Mercedes plans to move back toward a more traditional lineup, one where vehicles with different powertrains exist alongside one another with fraternal-twin styling. We’ve seen the first fruits of this new direction with the G-class: The G550 has a gas engine, while visually identical the G580 is electric. And the upcoming new CLA-class keeps this momentum going.We’ve already had an early exposure to the upcoming electric CLA, and now it’s time to take the CLA hybrid for a spin.Not-So-Mild HybridOne of the, let’s say, peculiarities of the Car and Driver style guide is that we generally don’t separate “mild hybrids” from their more traditional counterparts. Yes, so-called mild hybrids do still contain electric motors and a battery (albeit a very tiny one), but these 48-volt systems exist mostly to enable engine-off coasting and extend the length of stop-start engagement. They’re nothing like a Prius.The CLA hybrid is also a 48-volt hybrid, but it’s just different enough to make us glad we never split those hairs. The gas side of the equation comes in the form of a new 1.5-liter four-cylinder, dubbed M252, running on the more efficient Miller cycle. This combines with a 1.3-kWh lithium-ion battery, as well as a 27-hp electric motor sandwiched inside the eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. In total, the CLA hybrid should be good for about 188 horsepower. More on the CLA-classSo what makes the CLA hybrid so different? Simply put, it wants to do more than a “mild hybrid” normally can. Forty-eight-volt hybrids generally pull a bit of energy from the brakes, but the CLA can jam up to 25 kilowatts of juice back into the system at any time. The brake pedal itself is new too; it’s part of an integrated module that, in most circumstances, does not provide a mechanical connection between your foot and your brakes. Instead, the pedal’s force and travel—and the actions of the brakes themselves—are generated electronically, though there is a hydraulic fallback if needed. The module’s goal is to ensure maximum usage of regenerative braking, with friction braking only entering the picture as needed.Mercedes promises that the CLA hybrid will also be capable of electric-only operation in short bursts, but don’t expect to cruise 10 miles on battery power alone—unless you’re at the top of a very large hill. It’ll permit EV operation in traffic, and perhaps on your way out of your neighborhood, but not much more than that. Driving the CLA HybridOur time with the CLA was limited to pre-production prototypes, which we experienced in the same way that its engineers did during the car’s cold-weather development. Thus, we started our journey at the top of a Swedish mountain with rutted roads covered in ice and snow. With simple non-studded winter tires underfoot, the CLA kept itself nice and tidy on the way down—until we gave the wheel a good yank, at which point the car was more than happy to drift. You get more lateral leeway in Sport mode, but no matter the setting, the electronic stability control will eventually rein everything in with minimal noise or vibration. It acted quickly too; by the time we made a steering correction input, the car was already halfway to sorted out.Since the first stretch was entirely downhill, the combustion engine never turned on. Small throttle inputs would provide a smidgeon of acceleration at will, but the temptation of power-induced oversteer couldn’t be satiated without a fat stab of the gas, at which point the engine would step in—and without much fuss, since the e-motor also functions as the starter. If your commute happens to be wholly in a downhill direction (the opposite of how your grandpa walked to school), you won’t hear much from the engine. Which is fine; the 1.5-liter Miller-cycle four sounds okay, but only just okay. The handoff from e-motor to gas engine was more or less imperceptible—a point of praise we must also extend to the new brake-pedal setup, which provided nothing but consistent, strong pedal feel without any blending weirdness. That last bit is notable for anyone who’s driven a Benz EQ model.The second portion of our CLA jaunt took place at a Mercedes-Benz proving ground atop a frozen lake. This part was mostly outright hooliganism. You’ll be glad to learn that you can do snowy donuts all day in the CLA, and it’s rewarding, though maybe not as much as in the insta-torque EV variant. It’s impressive what Mercedes has managed to get out of a 48-volt hybrid system, and that system operates with a delightful smoothness. Nothing odd about that.Cars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

From the October 1986 issue of Car and Driver.Porsche predicted long ago that the 944 would become its mainstream model, just as the 911 once was. In 1969, at a stage of the 911’s evolution comparable to where the 944 line stands today, Porsche offered increasing levels of performance in the 911T, E, and S models, along with the price-leader 912 variant. Similarly, the 944’s promise has become a reality over the past year. With the introduction of the new S model in Germany, there are now three distinct 944 automobiles—the origi­nal 944, the 944 Turbo, and the new-for-1987 944S—as well as the closely related 924S (C/D, July 1987). Only an open-air 944 is missing, and that’s not far down the road.The new S, due to go on sale here this fall, employs a sixteen-valve engine to bridge the nearly 70-horsepower gap be­tween the popular base 944 and the pow­erhouse 944 Turbo. We were certain that such a model was on the way two years ago when Porsche announced the four-valve­-per-cylinder 928S, for the 944’s power­plant is essentially half of the 928’s V-8. Sure enough, the prototype 944 convertible shown at the 1985 Frankfurt Auto Show was powered by just such an engine, rated at 181 horsepower. In the intervening months, Porsche’s engine wizards found another 6 hp, raising the total to 187 SAE net hp for the produc­tion 944S. That translates into 190 hp, ac­cording to the latest EEC, or Common Market, standard (the DI system is no longer used by most European manufac­turers), but don’t let the 3-hp difference confuse you: this engine develops exactly the same output with or without a catalyst, just like the 944 Turbo engine. That equality wasn’t achieved by letting the engine loaf. The 944S’s 187 hp repre­sents 75.4 horsepower per liter, the high­est specific output of any normally aspirat­ed American-spec engine that doesn’t wear a Ferrari or Lamborghini badge. And despite its outstanding power, the new sixteen-valve virtually matches the eight­-valve 944 engine in refinement, low-rpm flexibility, and stingy fuel consumption. At a glance, the 944S’s engine appears to be little more than a 944 block combined with one of the 928’s sixteen-valve heads. Its head is virtually identical to the corresponding 928 part, sharing its unusu­al cam-drive design (a belt drives the ex­haust cam, which in turn drives the intake cam via a chain that connects the two at their midpoints). In addition, the four- and eight-cylinder engines share the same pent-roof combustion-chamber design (with its 27.5-degree valve angle), valve sizes, and even valve timing. However, the four-cylinder head employs considerably larger intake ports, which favor high-rpm breathing at some expense to low-end per­formance. Although such a trade-off is the opposite of the result achieved with the 928S’s heads, which were calibrated to produce the low-rpm torque needed to match the car’s tall, fuel-economy-orient­ed gearing, it is appropriate for the sport­ing 944S. If there is a secret to the new engine’s well-rounded performance, it’s the lofty 10.9:1 compression ratio. High compres­sion simultaneously promotes high-rpm power, low-rpm torque, fuel economy, and, unfortunately, detonation. The last effect is why only one other engine in the land of the free and the home of unleaded fuel has ventured higher than a ratio of 10:0.1 (The exception is Jaguar’s V-12 with an 11:5.1 ratio.)To make their new engine perform at such pressures, Porsche engineers have not only incorporated everything they know about combustion-chamber design but also taken the unprecedented step of employing two detonation sensors. Both sensors are located on the left side of the block, just below the cylinder head with one between the front pair of cylinders and the other between the rear pair. The Bosch Motronic engine-control system monitors each sensor in turn (at any given moment monitoring the one nearer to the firing cylinder), responding to a signal from an intake-cam-position transducer. According to Porsche engineers, this elaborate system is more sensitive to detonation than a single-sensor system would be, particularly in view of the increased noise and vibration generated by the additional hardware and higher rpm of the sixteen-valve engine. When detonation is detected, the timing is dialed back in three-degree increments to a maximum of nine degrees. Porsche specifies premium unleaded fuel for full power, but the system prevents damage if low-octane is used.More on the Porsche 944Other than the mounting bosses for the detonation sensors, very little is changed in the bottom end of the engine. The increased stresses of the sixteen-valve powerplant required no modifications to the block, the crankshaft, the connecting rods, or the lubrication system. Even the new pistons, with their slightly concave faces, weigh the same as their eight-valve counterparts, obviating any changes to the engine’s twin balance shafts.Naturally, the intake and exhaust manifolds were revised to match the flow needs of the sixteen-valve head. To save weight, the new intake manifold is cast from magnesium, as are the distributor-drive housing and the cam cover. In addition, fuel pressure has been increased from 36 to 55 psi to improve atomization.Along with the S engine’s 26 percent power increase, torque is boosted by 18 percent, from 144 pound-feet at 3000 rpm to 170 pound-feet at 4300 rpm. That’s enough of an increase to require upgrading the transaxle with several of the beefier components developed for the 944 Turbo. Indeed, the S’s transmission ratios are exactly the same as the Turbo’s, although its final-drive ratio is 3.89, instead of 3.38. Compared with the standard 944, the S is geared the same in first, is slightly taller in second, third, and fourth, and, like the 924S and the European 944, is much shorter in fifth.The new powertrain should satisfy anyone who feels that the 944 is to docile. Porsche claims a top speed of 142 mph for the S, and our prototype easily reached an indicated 151 on the autobahn. That’s a big improvement over the eight-valve car, which is hard pressed to reach 130, but it’s still well short of the Turbo’s mid-150s capability. In acceleration as well, the S falls right between the other two 944 models, the factory promising a 7.7-second 0-to-60-mph time and a 15.4-second quarter-mile. If those figures don’t seem too impressive, remember that our tests generally find the Porsche factory’s num­bers extremely conservative. Despite the 944S’s strong performance, it doesn’t feel startlingly quick. As with many sixteen-valve engines, the S motor delivers its power almost seamlessly. It simply pulls well at low rpm and keeps tug­ging harder as the revs increase. In con­trast, the Turbo is a bit weak at low rpm; then the boost comes on, and the sudden transition produces a strong kick in the back. In the 944S, it isn’t until you find yourself accelerating forcibly above 100 mph, or zinging up to the redline on an up­hill stretch, that you become fully con­vinced of how strong the car really is. The S’s linear power flow may not pro­vide the adrenaline rush of a turbo climbing its boost curve, but that’s no bad thing when one is exploring a car’s handling lim­its. Instant thrust, exactly proportional to the motion of the driver’s right foot, is very useful in controlling the 944’s cornering attitude. The S handles very much like the standard 944 because its chassis is virtually unchanged. The only noteworthy alter­ation is a switch from a positive to a negative scrub radius in the steering geometry, which improves stability when the optional ABS brakes are applied. (ABS will be op­tional on all 944 models for 1987. Other chassis specifications for the American 944S have not yet been determined, but it’s likely that the base 944’s optional anti-­roll-bar package will be standard.) Externally, the 944S will look exactly like the standard 944 except for the badge on its tail and “16-Valve” labels on its front fenders. The only interior clue will be the 6800-rpm redline on its tachometer. Several new options will be offered on all three 944 variants for 1987: new seats, with fully power-operated adjustments; driver and passenger air bags (standard on the 944 Turbo); and a sound system with ten speakers, an 80-watt amplifier, and an equalizer. In addition, racing packages are being prepared for the two higher-­powered models. Prices haven’t yet been set, but the S will probably be positioned about halfway be­tween the eight-valve 944 and the Turbo. In other words, don’t expect much change from your $30,000. The good news is that such a broad range of models and options is now available that you should have no trouble selecting the 944 that’s exactly right for your needs. SpecificationsSpecifications
1987 Porsche 944SVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base: $28,000 (est)
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 151 in3, 2479 cm3Power: 187 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 170 lb-ft @ 4300 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/semi-trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 11.1-in vented disc/11.4-in vented discTires: Pirelli P6215/60VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 94.5 inLength: 168.9 inWidth: 68.3 inHeight: 50.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/12 ft3Trunk Volume: 12 ft3Curb Weight: 2850 lb
PERFORMANCE (MANUFACTURER RATINGS)
944/944S/944 Turbo60 mph: 8.3/7.7/6.1 sec100 mph: 22.3/19.6/14.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.2/15.4/14.4 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 131/142/153 mph 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 19/27 mpg Csaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and WRL racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, 2009 Mercedes SL550, 2013 Porsche Cayenne S, and four motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More