Evelyn Reynolds

There once was a time when sport trucks roamed the streets. The lineage dates to the ’60s when Chevrolet first planted powerful big blocks under the hoods of its pickups. The 1990s brought the wild GMC Syclone, an all-wheel-drive truck decades ahead of its time that could beat a Ferrari 348ts in straight-line acceleration. The movement would also spawn the full-size Chevrolet Silverado 454SS and Ford SVT F-150 Lightning, which were all displacement and not much more. The Dodge Viper’s V-10 and a manual gearbox blessed the Ram 1500 SRT-10. Highs: 700 horsepower, great fit and finish, backed by a warranty.Though some viewed the single-cab sport truck (the SRT-10 was also offered in four-door configuration) as a dumb concept, it was a purposeful thing. It was the perfect solution for those who wanted a relatively quick ride but needed a truck bed to load a motorcycle or use for other light-duty work. Something that could provide greater functionality than a Mustang or a Camaro—and of course, massive burnouts.And then one day, the sport truck was gone. Chevrolet’s performance truck effort never amounted to much. The SRT-10 faded away after just three years of production. Ford abandoned the Lightning nameplate, and to much dismay from enthusiasts, revived it as an electric pickup. Toyota kept the dream alive, sort of, with a factory supercharger kit for the previous-generation Tundra that took it to 504 hp.Today, sport trucks come one way: desert-pounding, whoop-de-do-bouncing, long suspension—travel, knobby tire—equipped off-road machines branded with ZR2, TRD, Raptor, or TRX badges. Sure, they’re stupid quick in their most powerful forms, but none are available in a single-cab configuration, nor are they optimized for street driving. For those who yearn for the sport trucks of yore, the Ford Performance department now offers a solution: the FP700 package. What Is the FP700 Package?The FP700 isn’t a model that rolls off the production line. Instead, it’s a kit you can purchase from the parts counter to transform any 2021 or newer Ford F-150 equipped with the 400-hp 5.0-liter V-8 into a 700-hp monster. The torque also rises from 410 to 590 pound-feet. Included in the $12,350 package is a Whipple 3.0-liter supercharger, an intercooler, an engine-calibration tool, and all the necessary hoses and hardware to bring that glorious horsepower to life. Appearance wise, the FP700 also includes Ford Performance fender vents, floor mats, and bedside graphics. There’s also a new grille, a rocker panel aero delete, a lowering kit for the rear to level out the ride height, and 22-inch wheels cribbed from the Ford Expedition Stealth Performance. Tires are not included. If Ford’s dress-up package doesn’t suit your palate, you can buy the supercharger kit on its own for $9500. Spend a day bolting on the extra 300 horsepower with your ASE-certified buddy or ship your truck off to the local Ford dealer for the install, and the engine is warrantied for three years or 36,000 miles. Driving the FP700 F-150While Ford could’ve opted to install its blower on something off-road focused such as the F-150 Tremor, building a 700-hp truck that costs substantially less than the equally powerful F-150 Raptor R probably was seen as unwise. Instead, and in a throwback to the days of performance pickups, the FP700 we tested was installed in a rear-wheel-drive, single-cab, short-bed F-150.As with anything with 700 horsepower, getting eyes on the engine is a must. A look under the hood reveals a super-clean supercharger package. The fit and finish is impeccable and looks like it came off the production line, perhaps even better. The 5.0-liter V-8, exhaling through a $1585 Ford Performance exhaust, crackles to life with a 44-decibel idle. It’s really the only indicator this F-150 means business. The 87-decibel scream at wide-open-throttle speaks loudly too. Keep the stock exhaust, and the FP700 would be the ultimate sleeper.Senior editor Ezra Dyer opined that a 700-hp Ford pickup delivering all its muscle through the rear tires could be labeled the F-150 Frightening. With 40.7 percent of the 4576-pound curb weight over the rear end, getting the not-racy-whatsoever 275/50R-22 General Grabber HTS 60 all-season tires to hook up should be challenging. But on the street and at the track, the FP700 was a sweetheart. Lows: 700 horsepower doesn’t come cheap, top speed is limited to 105 mph.Credit much of the drivability to the optional electronically locking rear differential with 3.31:1 gearing. Compared to the 3.73 ring-and-pinion offering, this setup enables long gearing and the ability to lug the engine at lower rpm before using the full sweep of the tachometer. First gear stretches out to 41 mph, and second doesn’t stop until 64 mph. Avoid turning the Generals into a pile of dust off the line, and 60 mph arrives in 4.2 seconds. The quarter-mile shows up in 12.4 seconds at 112 mph—however, it could be way quicker. Technically, the top speed is governed at 105 mph, for warranty reasons. Presumably to keep the driveshaft from puking out its internals like Timmy on the Tilt-a-Whirl. It takes nearly 950 feet for the FP700 to reach 105 mph in the fourth of the 10-speed transmission’s cogs and well before the coveted 1320-foot quarter-mile mark. A programming glitch allowed our test truck to power its way to 120 mph, albeit in a reduced power state. With a higher-speed limiter, the blown F-150 has the potential to be the quickest truck we’ve ever run through the quarter-mile. A brief internet search indicates the aftermarket world hasn’t cracked the latest electrical architecture that controls the newest F-150s, so 105 mph might be it for now. Related StoriesWithout any chassis or braking system modifications, the FP700 delivers a compliant ride just like any production F-150. The General Grabbers clung to the skidpad at 0.81 g, and stops from 70 mph required 195 feet, about what we expect from a stock setup. Verdict: A great package to modify your truck with little downside.The roided-out F-150 would make for one fantastic daily driver. In terms of fuel, it’ll guzzle when prompted, but when driven conservatively, we observed 23 mpg on our 200-mile highway loop. The era of the sport truck may be behind us, but Ford’s à la carte offering to build one your way is a refreshing reminder of when these beasts lived.SpecificationsSpecifications
2022 Ford F-150 XLT FP700Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 3-passenger, 2-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $43,295/$63,067Options: FP700 Black Edition kit (3.0-liter Whipple supercharger, 22-inch wheels, rear lowering kit, gloss black front grille, bedside graphics, tailgate lettering, rocker panel aero delete, Ford Performance floor mats), $12,350; Equipment Group 301A Mild (Trailer Tow package, leather-wrapped steering wheel, dual-zone climate control, 8.0-inch infotainment touchscreen, keyless entry), $2180; Ford Performance exhaust, $1585; 22-inch General Grabber HTS 60 tires, $932; 360-degree camera, $765; Ford Co-Pilot360 Assist 2.0 (rain-sensing wipers, forward parking assist, adaptive cruise), $750; spray-in bedliner, $595; electronically controlled locking rear differential with 3.31:1 axle ratio, $420; remote start system, $195
ENGINE
supercharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 307 in3, 5038 cm3Power: 700 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 590 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 13.8-in vented disc/13.2-in vented discTires: General Grabber HTS 60275/50R-22 115T M+S 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 122.8 inLength: 209.1 inWidth: 79.9 inHeight: 75.6 inPassenger Volume: 69 ft3Curb Weight: 4576 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.2 sec100 mph: 8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 12.4 sec @ 112 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 120 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 520 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDavid Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More

From the September 1992 issue of Car and Driver.Life in the car-testing business does not get any easier. Par­ticularly when the staff of this magazine sets out to compare no fewer than ten sedans that cost about $30,000. What’s worse, the ten we selected aren’t even all the cars that fall into this price bracket. But they are ten of the best (and we have included all of the new entries in the class). No manufac­turer is building bad $30,000 cars. At that price, every maker can afford to fill its products with plenty of style, tech­nology, and performance. Still, some are invariably better than others. Not one of the cars in this test is a loser. Not one of them, if you bought it and drove it, would cripple your quality of life. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverThe two Swedish entries are cases in point. Both the Saab 9000CD and the Volvo 960 seem a bit dated when compared with the newer platforms in this group, but a Waterman fountain pen can be considered dated, and so can a Rolex watch. Excellence has a long life. Nabisco Shredded Wheat is older than anyone reading this maga­zine, and it is anything but an inferior product. Some of the newer cars were less than perfect as well. A lengthy workout of the imagination is required to con­sider the Mitsubishi Diamante LS a five-passenger car. But how many of us travel in groups of five? Likewise, one or two of the cars—the Volvo and the Mazda 929 come to mind—seem to lack fire in the belly, although they have quite acceptable performance and are anything but unpleasant. The Audi 100S and the BMW 325i were, as we’ve come to expect, consummate driver’s cars. One could, with ease, raise ques­tions about the Pontiac SSEi’s exterior treatment. Its basic body shape is as pleasing as they come, but we felt that the outside add-ons make the car seem too zoomy for what the industry terms, not altogether attractively, the “near­-luxury segment.” (”Hey, Marge! It’s about time we moved out of our middle-specialty car and into the near-­luxury class!”) The Lexus ES300’s styling seems almost too quiet—as does the Acura Legend L’s, but the Mazda 929 and the Infiniti J30 display unquestionable luxury-level looks. The SSEi does, however, demonstrate that General Motors can build a world-class driveline. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverFinally, adding to the judging diffi­culty, some of the cars, including the Audi and the BMW, can be considered sports sedans—this despite all the cars, including this pair, having four-speed automatic transmissions. Most of the others lean toward the luxury-car per­sona. So, what you’re getting from us is the answer to this question: “What are my choices if I have about $30,000 to spend on a quality sedan?” Not the answer to “What’s the best ‘near-lux­ury’ car?” or “What’s the best sports sedan?”We drove the cars from Ann Arbor, via Interstate and back roads, to upstate New York, where Brock Yates lives in pastoral splendor near the village of Wyoming. Brock’s wife, Pam, has been a leading light in transforming Wyoming from a sleepy crossroads into a destination well worth a visit. It now contains two inns, the excellent Village Restaurant, the don’t-miss Cannonball Run Pub, a group of inter­esting shops, and Pam’s own spectacular Christmas shop in the restored firehouse (whose tower was once climbed by Teddy Roosevelt). Once there, we drove the cars on two 16-­mile loops for two days, recording our thoughts after each turn at the wheel. The cars had previously undergone C/D’s rigorous controlled testing at the Chrysler proving grounds. That’s what we did and how we did it; here’s what we found. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver9th Place (tie): Saab 9000CD At one point in our past, the Saab 9000 made our 10Best Cars list for four con­secutive years. But that was the Turbo model, which has steadily increased in price to the point where it missed the cut for this test by a few thousand dollars. As noted, the Saab is beginning to feel dated, or more accurately, look dated, especially where the dash and interior are concerned. Also, the wind noise it gener­ates exceeds current standards.HIGHS: Supple ride, direct steering, roomy interior, comfortable seats.LOWS: Short on power, dated feel. VERDICT: A fine long-range cruiser that’s losing ground to more modern competitors.At an observed 24 miles per gallon, the Saab edged the Volvo and the BMW for fuel-economy honors. It did this, of course, with the only four-cylinder engine in the group, a 16-valve 2.3-liter producing 150 horse­power, down a full 22 horsepower from the next most powerful. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverAgreement was univer­sal about the four-cylinder handicap. The engine ran smoothly at speed but seemed a tad coarse at idle. All of us wished for more power. Yet the Saab remains rewarding enough for both long-range cruising and occasional workouts on curvy concourses.One tester, nailing the Saab’s on-road personality, wrote: ‘”It reminds me of a Swedish version of a big Citroën—truly supple but controlled ride atop a chassis that could be from a rally sedan. Terrific steering that’s direct and precise . . . and terrific seats.”We placed—or stuffed in some cases—three C/D testers in each sedan’s rear com­partment to evaluate space and comfort. The Saab’s back seat ranked second-highest in both comfort and pace for three abreast. Several writers also com­mented favorably on the driving position. 1992 Saab 9000CD150-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3204 lbBase/as-tested price: $31,529/$31,529C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.4 sec1/4-mile: 17.8 sec @ 78 mph100 mph: 32.6 sec120 mph: N/ABraking, 70­–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g C/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver9th Place (tie): Volvo 960 Anyone who’s ever gone near a good neighborhood has seen evidence that people of means love Volvos. Solid, safe, dependable, respectable, and even fashion­able are words that proud Volvo owners use to convince their neighbors that they ought to have one, too. In that world the Volvo 960 fits right in. And speaking of fits, two adults fit into the Volvo’s spa­cious rear with reasonable comfort, three with lightly less.HIGHS: Solidity, driving position. LOWS: Big sticker, heavy feel, bulky exterior. VERDICT: Unexciting, dated, but socially acceptable luxury transport.There is good news and bad news on the performance front. The powerful (201 horsepower) in-line six moved the Volvo more than adequately in normal operation, and the car did surprisingly well under the pressure of vigorous driving. But, as one of our panel wrote, “Here is another car that will hustle if you force the issue, but it seems supremely unhappy doing so and responds grudgingly.” The test results sup­port this perception: Its 0.73 g on the skid­pad was the worst in the ten-car field, and its 56.9-mph speed in the lane change fell midpack.View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverHeavy feel has long been part of the Volvo person­ality, a characteristic that some Volvo devotees doubtless find comforting but most of us find unappealing. You must keep in mind our habit, right or wrong, of giving spirited performance a high prior­ity. The Volvo, by the way, was not the heaviest car in the test group. Of all the car’s important mechanical components, the Volvo’s brakes received the highest marks—and tied with the Saab for second-best overall.1992 Volvo 960201-hp inline-6, 4-speed automatic, 3515 lbBase/as-tested price: $34,959/$34,959C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 24.8 sec120 mph: 44.8 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.73 gC/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver8th Place: Mitsubishi Diamante LSMitsubishi, which has given us two stunning sports cars in the Eclipse and the 3000GT, moved into the upscale­-sedan market with its Diamante, a car that our Patrick Bedard called “the sort of quiet, comfy, gadget-rich four-door that the upscale Detroit brands have always regarded as their exclusive franchise.” HIGHS: Smooth, quiet, well-built feel. LOWS: Gimmicky dash, bland styling, tight back seat. VERDICT: An unemotional execution of a boulevard cruiser.Indeed, the Diamante is well equipped in every sense, but so were its colleagues in our test. It held its own in most categories of the editors’ ratings but trailed by a point or two in some that we feel are quite important: fun to drive, handling, styling, and ergo­nomics. This last category requires expla­nation: It’s not that the Diamante’s controls are badly located, but just that there seem to be an overwhelming number of knobs, switches, and gizmos, prompting one tester to write, “Help! I can’t find the button for the margarita machine!”But everything worked, and the sound system did its job commendably. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverOn the road, the Diamante LS was smooth and quiet, even with its adjustable suspen­sion set on Sport. The steering feel tends toward the numb side, but as a highway cruiser, the Diamante pleases.The transmission shifts slickly and with assurance, and the 202-horsepower V-6 is terrific at highway speeds. The Diamante’s 0-to-60-mph time of 8.8 seconds put it in the bottom half of the group, however.At $30,866 as tested, the Diamante was one of the least expensive cars in our aggregation, but that wasn’t enough to overcome the tough competition. 1992 Mitsubishi Diamante LS202-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3668 lbBase/as-tested price: $26,082/$30,886C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-mile: 16.8 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 24.0 sec120 mph: 44.3 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 194 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver6th Place (tie): Mazda 929 Those of us who have attended new-car introductions numbering in the hundreds will forever recall the evening in California when a Mazda executive pulled off the car cover on his company’s newest offering. It looked so good that the assembly of auto writers actually emitted a rare audi­ble “Ahhhhh!” The 929’s styling, inside and out, was rated outstand­ing by the editors in this test, and understandably so. It would be difficult to imag­ine a more handsome exte­rior, and the only negative comment about the interior was a wish that it had a glove compartment accompanying its passen­ger-side air bag, such as the Pontiac SSEi offers. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverThe 195-horsepower V-6 ran smoothly and quietly unless pushed quite hard, at which point it produced some harsh sounds. The engine and transmission combined to pro­duce what one writer called “possibly the smoothest, most refined drivetrain here.” At speed on a smooth road, it’s almost flawless. The 929’s handling was its only weak point—and here again, consider the qual­ity of the competition. The car seemed far more at home in our city-driving cycle and on the freeway than it did when pressed hard on winding roads, though at least one editor felt that the steering seemed heavier than desirable at low speeds (most thought it was just fine, though lacking somewhat in road feel). If looks had been the determining fac­tor in picking a winner, the Mazda 929 would have won going away. But looks weren’t, and it didn’t. 1992 Mazda 929195-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3682 lbBase/as-tested price: $28,850/$32,695C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.5 sec1/4-mile: 16.6 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 24.0 sec120 mph: 49.0 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 180 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver6th Place (tie): Pontiac Bonneville SSEiThe best evidence that the domestic automaker can capably compete in the world of $30,000 sedans can be found at GM’s “Excitement” division: Pontiac. The first time one of us drove a new Bonne­ville, he said, “I could own this car.” That’s impressive when you consider that we drive as many as 180 cars a year. HIGHS: Great driveline, roominess, gutsy engine. LOWS: Complicated seat adjustments, boy-racer styling. VERDICT: A full-featured, fine­-driving car that’s overly made-up.We found two unfortunate aspects of the SSEi that we simply could not explain away. These were its hyper-zoomy exte­rior add-ons—body cladding and rear­-deck spoiler—and the electric seat adjustments. The plain-Jane exterior of the Bonneville SSE is far more tasteful, and we wish that model offered the SSEi’s excellent drivetrain—and it is just that, excellent. However well intentioned, the seat controls are too compli­cated. The chances of achieving the same driving position twice are just about nonexistent. “Some attention to the arts of subtlety and simplicity could benefit the Pontiac guys,” wrote one tester in the SSEi notebook. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverOur highest ratings for rear-seat capacity and comfort went to the SSEi. It and the slightly smaller Saab were, by a large margin, the roomiest cars in the test. The SSEi also performed bet­ter than average in the han­dling categories. It was the quickest off the line, at 7.3 seconds to 60 mph, though one of us commented, “The engine is smooth, but all of its power comes off-the-line. Once under way, its performance seems midpack.” The SSEi tied with the Lexus for most luxury features (which was not a subjective rat­ing; the features were listed and compared among the cars). It was also rated as the best value by the C/D jury. All told, not a bad show at all by Pontiac.1992 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi205-hp supercharged V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3667 lbBase/as-tested price: $28,600/$29,795C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4-mile: 15.9 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.5 sec120 mph: 40.4 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 197 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver5th Place: Acura Legend LWith the Legend, Acura invented the near-luxury car, and it remains the import sales leader in the category. The Legend proved once and for all that a great many owners of low-priced Japanese cars—and other shoppers as well—would accept the idea of a car built in Japan that was luxurious and priced accordingly.The Acura Legend is a classy car to own, an easy car to drive, an excellent example of automaking, but not as exciting as its gutsy performance would lead you to expect.In this test, the Legend L finished midpack in styling. Although it’s sleek and beauti­fully painted, and it displays evi­dence of careful fitting and finishing, it just does not do much for the adrenal glands when you look at it. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverThe interior was off-putting to some writers because of what was deemed strange-looking wood­grain, but the majority found it comfort­able, tasteful, and logical. We accordingly rated the Legend high in ergonomic excel­lence. No engine scored higher than the Acura Legend’s 200-horsepower V-6, a finely tuned, finely executed power source that, for finesse, holds its own against any similar V-6 designs on the market. The transmission was acceptable, but these components did not combine with the soft suspension to produce a handling epiphany. “On twisty, tight roads,” wrote one of our number, “this car is out of its element. It feels like the limousine of the bunch. The car is not happy under the whip. It does have lots of suspension travel, but I wish that travel were more aggressively damped.” Translation: a town car for the luxury-minded.1992 Acura Legend L200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3496 lbBase/as-tested price: $33,350/$33,460C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.4 sec1/4-mile: 16.0 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.6 sec120 mph: 40.9 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 208 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver4th Place: Infiniti J30 It’s hard for a four-door sedan to stand out visually, but the Infiniti J30 does it as surely as a gazelle at a zebra derby. Inevitably described as looking more like a Jaguar than a Jaguar, its looks are another gift from the talented Jerry Hirshberg, a GM defector, and the Nissan Design works in California. HIGHS: Brave styling, smooth performance, fine ergonomics. LOWS: None, other than price. VERDICT: A finely turned-out road car that polarizes onlookers.The Infiniti J30 looks almost as good inside as it does outside, with the major complaint being its lack of a telescoping steering wheel, which would have made the attainment of the perfect driving posi­tion easier. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverBut perfect or not, when the driver drives, he feels good about it. Here’s what one of us wrote: “Nice power, albeit a bit loud, wonderful balance with great steering feel and poise. It gathers great speed with­out seeming to sweat, and I found myself going 5 mph faster in this car than in the others.” All this happens at the behest of a 210-hp V-6 that, as another of us said, “sends you down the road as if you were in a 90-mph cocoon.” It stopped less impressively—though it had excellent pedal feel—taking 207 feet to get from 70 mph to a standstill, one foot less than the Acura, which was the worst in the group.The J30 got its highest marks in the ergonomics and luxury-features categories and its lowest in braking and value. It was the second-costliest vehicle in the bunch, exceeded only by the Volvo, and its back seat was somewhat tight for two persons, downright snug for a trio. Overall, the J30 finished fourth, not bad for this group. You’ll be seeing more and more of these cars. Count on it.1992 Infiniti J30210-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3560 lbBase/as-tested price: $33,740/$33,740C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-mile: 16.5 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 23.3 sec120 mph: 38.0 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 207 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver3rd Place: Audi 100S Since the Audi Fox of the 1970s, Audis have found an enthusiastic audi­ence at this magazine. The German automaker’s cars have been interesting, innovative, and best of all, fun to drive. The 100S, new for the 1992 model year, continues Audi’s tradition of making driver’s cars. HIGHS: Wonderful fun to drive, lean and aggressive feel. LOWS: Harsh ride on city streets, transmission not the smoothest.VERDICT: Useful, tasteful, and competent for any length of trip.Despite its SOHC design and less horsepower than most of its fellow competitors, the 172-hp V-6 performed well and quietly. The transmission wasn’t as smooth as many of the others, though. We would prefer a manual transmission with this engine, but an automatic was a condition of our test. A 100CS—with a five-speed gearbox—is in our long-term test fleet, and it has proved to be outstand­ing for everything from ski trips to long highway runs. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverThe car’s telescoping wheel allows it to be tailored to just about any size of driver, and the seats are predictably firm, though one tester swore the driver seat moved slightly under hard driving on the twisties. The rear seat is com­fortable and sup­portive, and it is adequate for three of our whoppers.Another of our writers noted that the Audi had stiff braking (though its 191-foot stopping distance from 70 mph was good), and added that the steering lacked what he considered enough feel. The ride was slightly on the stiff side in town, where it seemed to go out of its way to notice pavement strips, but the handling more than made up for that small quibble. The 100S finished third, leaving no question that Audi continues to make driving rewards a top priority. 1992 Audi 100S172-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3405 lbBase/as-tested price: $30,336/$32,222C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.9 sec1/4-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 27.0 sec120 mph: 66.4 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver2nd Place: Lexus ES300 Here is the little brother to the LS400, a car that swept the U.S. luxury market with the effectiveness of an industrial-strength Hoover. But don’t emphasize the word “little.” This car is big in power and big in heart. If you don’t have large dollars to spend on a luxurious car, here’s an excellent call. HIGHS: Smoothness, price, surprising handling, surprising luxury. LOWS: Smallish rear doors, sunroof’s encroachment on headroom. VERDICT: Big in power, adept in handling, and an ergonomic masterpiece.Not only is the ES300 luxurious, but its as-tested price of $31,506 also represents good value in this crowded cate­gory. That price brings you a full array of luxury features—in fact, the ES300 and SSEi were the only cars to earn rat­ings of “10” in the luxury-features col­umn. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverHappily, the ES300 turns out to be a stimulating companion on the road. Any road. First, it’s smooth—so smooth that one of the testers said of the transverse engine layout, “This setup should be proof to all car manufacturers that drivetrain smooth­ness, at idle or anywhere else, does not require a fore-and-aft engine layout.” Handling was the biggest surprise that the ES300 gave us. Not that it was the best-handling car in the group, but that it was so much better than you would expect from a car as thoroughly luxurious as this one. It will not disappoint the demanding driver. Inside, the car is nothing less than an ergonomic masterpiece. Every last knob and control is in the right place, does the right thing, and even looks right. Having said all that, we point once again to the stiff competition. It’s that good, but it finished second.1992 Lexus ES300185-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3522 lbBase/as-tested price: $27,850/$31,506C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-mile: 16.5 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 23.6 sec120 mph: 46.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 194 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpgView PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and Driver1st Place: BMW 325i We won’t mince words: The auto­maker who brought you the phrase “Ultimate Driving Experience” has done it again. Though far more a sport sedan than a “near-luxury” car, the BMW 325i wins our comparison test. But would you really expect us to fall for all-luxury when we could have some luxury plus great driving fun? HIGHS: Elegant styling, Germanic crispness and strength, superior handling.LOWS: Rear-seat room, interior that looks more durable than rich. VERDICT: A stunning example of what a great driver’s car should be.Start with an exterior that finished at the top of our styling gauge, though it’s anything but a design breakthrough. Like so many things that BMW does, the body is a pleasure to gaze upon and just damn well executed. The same goes for the sur­prisingly likable 189-horsepower in-line six-cylinder.The 325i’s win is a tribute, unquestion­ably, to its driving capabilities. It is, after all, a four-door linear descendent of the 2002 and, as such, could be questioned for being here. But, as we pointed out earlier, it’s in our sedan price group and it’s stir­ring to drive, so here it is. View PhotosJeffrey Dworin and Susan Smith Jeanes|Car and DriverThe BMW’s crisp, Germanic character was touched on by a writer who said, “Its vault-like feel just isn’t there in the other cars.” The only serious cavil with the understated and handsomely turned out leather interior was—not surprisingly—­the rear seat, which is not bad for two per­sons but very cramped for three. The front seats and the driving position were excellent, and the car’s stiff structure in no way hurts its comfort.The 325i’s on-­the-road charac­ter, which is also undeni­ably German, was described this way by one tester: “The chassis stays very well planted on everything, offer­ing ideal stability and responsiveness. The steering is beautiful, the brakes are precise and linear, and I just love it.” So did we all. 1992 BMW 325i189-hp inline-6, 4-speed automatic, 3128 lbBase/as-tested price: $28,365/$32,167C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4-mile: 16.5 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 21.8 sec120 mph: 41.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 gC/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpgWilliam Jeanes is a former editor-in-chief and publisher of Car and Driver. He and his wife, Susan, a former art director at Car and Driver, are now living in Madison, Mississippi. More

IntroductionBetter late than never! Even though the Hyundai Ioniq 5’s slinkier sedan sibling, the Ioniq 6, is the current crown bearer of our vaunted EV of the Year award, a bunch of manufacturing-related tomfoolery kept the 5 from arriving any earlier for its 40,000-mile long-term test. But hey, that’s in the past; it’s time to start looking forward.The Ioniq 5 is not the first EV to join our long-term ranks—that honor goes to a 2015 Tesla Model S—but rather, it’s part of a new crop of EVs that also includes a Rivian R1T and a BMW i4. Considering the sticker prices on these other electric cars aren’t exactly miserly, the $50,000-ish starting price for a decently equipped all-wheel-drive electric SUV seems like a relative bargain, and it sidles right up against the average new-car transaction price.So let’s examine what you do get for your 52,495 hard-earned simoleons. Our SEL AWD test car places an electric motor at each axle, producing a collective 320 horsepower and 446 pound-feet of torque, drawing electrons from a 77.4-kWh battery pack, which is good for an EPA-estimated 266 miles of range. Nineteen-inch alloy wheels are standard, as is a wealth of kit that includes power-folding mirrors, a powered liftgate, leatherette seats, wireless device charging, a heated steering wheel, and 64-color ambient lighting. A set of $210 carpeted floor mats is the only extra-cost option.We’ve enjoyed the Ioniq 5’s ride well before we had one of our own, and our long-termer continues to pass the vibe check as the miles begin to accumulate. Over the first couple thousand miles, we took the Ioniq 5 to such exotic locales as Cleveland and Toledo. Whether the trips were long or short, our editors continued to heap praise on the Ioniq’s ride, aesthetics, cabin layout, and recharging vigor—our fast-charge test saw peak charging speeds of 235 kilowatts.But it’s not all roses and daisies. The Ioniq 5’s logbook contains multiple tales of broken or malfunctioning public chargers that force drivers to hunt down random trickle-chargers just to stay afloat. Other entries bemoan the lack of amenities such as a rear wiper, USB-C ports, or wireless smartphone mirroring. And then there’s technical editor Austin Irwin, whose diatribe against the Ioniq 5’s infotainment system is both too long and too vulgar to quote here. Even though it’s not the hopped-up performance model (the 5 N is still making its way to series production), the initial test of our long-term Ioniq 5 proves it’s still capable of cutting loose. We managed to sneak our testing in just before the temperatures crept into winter-tire territory, so it’s wearing its stock Michelin Primacy All-Season rubber, sized 235/55R-19, all around. Our 0.84-g skidpad result isn’t a far cry from the 0.85 g we recorded with a 2022 Ioniq 5 Limited AWD, which wore one-inch-larger wheels with similarly grippy all-seasons. Things prove even more exciting in a straight line, where the AWD Ioniq 5 tapped into its surprisingly deep well of motive force to reach 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, which used to be supercar territory not terribly long ago. It dispatched the quarter-mile in 13.1 seconds at 103 mph. That instantaneous torque helps ferry the Ioniq 5 along at highway speeds, too, hopping from 30 to 50 mph in 2.0 seconds and from 50 to 70 in 2.8.More on the Ioniq 5 and 5 NAs Michigan winter once again raises its ugly head, we’re already lacing up a fresh set of snowshoes, which should prevent this 4547-pound EV from becoming an unstoppable ingot of icy momentum. Despite the feds’ insistence on a 266-mile range estimate, driving on our 75-mph highway test loop elicited a max range of just 210 miles, a number that’s sure to drop even further once it’s truly cold out. We’ll cover all our frosty adventures in the 10,000-mile update.Months in Fleet: 3 months Current Mileage: 5660 milesAverage Fuel Economy: 87 MPGe Battery Capacity: 77.4 kWh Observed Driving Range: 210 milesService: $0 Normal Wear: $0 Repair: $0SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 SEL AWDVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $52,285/$52,495Options: carpeted floor mats, $210
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 99 hpRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 221 hpCombined Power: 320 hpCombined Torque: 446 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 77.4 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.9 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 350 kWTransmissions: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/12.8-in discTires: Michelin Primacy All Season235/55R-19 101H M+S DT GOE
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 182.5 inWidth: 74.4 inHeight: 63.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 59/27 ft3Front Trunk Volume: 1 ft3Curb Weight: 4547 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS: NEW
60 mph: 4.4 sec100 mph: 12.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.1 sec @ 103 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 389 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 87 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 210 milesAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 152 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 26 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 101/113/90 MPGeRange: 266 mi
WARRANTY
5 years/60,000 miles bumper to bumper5 years/60,000 miles powertrain10 years/100,000 miles lithium-ion battery7 years/unlimited miles corrosion protection3 years/36,000 miles scheduled maintenance
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCars 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 December 1993 issue of Car and Driver.What can you say about a car that weighs nearly 5000 pounds, costs almost $150,000, and barely seats four tall occupants? If you’re one of the more affluent members of our society, you can say, “I’ll have mine in smoke silver.” After all, if you have that kind of money to spend on an exclusive monument to over-engineered excess, that’s your prerogative.The rest of us will simply look at the car’s broad face with its weird lidless eyes and that giant star in its mouth and con­sole ourselves with the knowledge that this time perhaps Mercedes went too far. But we also must admit that this S-class coupe (to be rebadged as the S600 with no major changes from the 1994 model year onward) is no flabby barge with sloppy responses, and that there’s something very appealing about rolling down the highway in this solidly built chunk of German craftsmanship. Besides, with the thick end of 400 horsepower under your right foot, you can propel all 4960 pounds at consid­erable speed without losing any of the regal hauteur the car exudes when trolling through town. HIGHS: Comfort, luxury, prestige.The SEC’s substantial presence makes itself evident. To begin with, there’s the big profile it presents at curbside. Then, when you tug on a door handle, the long, heavy door yawns open like a bank vault. Everyone comments on the doors as they get in—first about the mass hanging on those hefty hinges, and then, if the doors have proved too heavy to close properly, about the automatic device that cinches them shut through the last few millimeters. Not many people notice that the frameless windows twitch down a hair as the doors open and shut, to form a better seal, but that’s what they do. High-tech gadgetry abounds inside the opulent wood and leather-lined interior, and it can’t be ignored. You’ll most likely take advantage of the three-position seat memory first, selecting your preset arrangement of seat, wheel, and mirror positions. Then, after you twist the match­box-sized key-cum-infrared transmitter and hear a very expensive-sounding starter motor pin the V-12 into action, a robot arm at your shoulder thrusts the seatbelt conspicuously into your peripheral field of vision. The seatbelt anchor point is behind the door, and having to twist around to reach it would put unendurable stress on the seam of your Armani jacket. LOWS: Extreme case of conspicuous consumption.Around you are arrayed the controls to more devices than you could shake a Dun­hill umbrella at. There are seat heating controls, dual climate controls, a switch to activate the electrostatic air filter (there’s also a carbon filter in there somewhere), a two-level traction-control switch, a button that raises and lowers the rear headrests, another one to raise and lower the rear sun­shade, and, oh, a whole lot more. The funny thing is, the layout still seems reasonably uncluttered, and the primary controls are as unambiguously arranged as in any Benz. You can get in, find all the major stuff immediately, and be sliding the transmission selector down its zigzag slot within seconds. The transmission selects second gear for starts, which the big Mercedes performs fairly leisurely and almost silently, wafting away as if under sail. If you stomp on the pedal, it initiates a smart downshift into first, producing a lunge so strong and steady it’s as if someone down the block had switched on a 50-ton electromagnet. Keep standing on it and the 6.0-liter V-12 almost defies physics in its race to its 155-mph limiter. The 600SEC is surprisingly quick for such a heavy car, but its refinement under­states the speed. Despite that, the car’s drivetrain communicates a clear mechan­ical presence. While transmission shifts are smooth, they’re evidently calibrated for deliberate engagements rather than the slurred ones that Lexus and Infiniti use to achieve smoothness, so you often feel them. At low revs the engine sound is a muted sweet hum. At higher revs the sound hardens to a mellifluous baritone that is clearly audible but not loud. In line with the company’s preoccupa­tion with damped responses, the 600SEC has a recirculating-ball steering mech­anism that is well-isolated from road shock. The same conservative priorities probably also explain the on-center slow­ness that some staffers here describe as mushy. A little hard cornering dispels any notions of mushy steering, because the big coupe turns in well and cleaves to the cho­sen line with pleasing accuracy. It’s not exactly nimble, and the fairly soft spring­ing (the automatic damping control notwithstanding) does allow some roll and a tiny amount of body wallow, but the 600SEC does a great job for a large, lux­urious vehicle. And, of course, its long-dis­tance cruising capabilities are sensational. Double-glazed windows put the fin­ishing touches to a well-insulated chassis, and the loudest sound you hear on the move is a steady tire hum. If you pay attention, you can even hear the sound frequency shift in corners as the wheel speeds vary. The ambience inside is always reassuring, restful, and comfort­able. Despite the reduction in rear-seat space that accompanied the metamorphosis from four-door to two-door, we seated a six-foot passenger behind a six-foot-five driver during short trips without much discomfort. More Mercedes ContentThe most difficult-to-describe aspect of 600SEC ownership is the subtle osmosis a driver undergoes as the innumerable engineering details that were sweated so obsessively in Stuttgart begin to insinuate themselves. It’s on this essence that a lot of the development money was spent. We won’t say that it justifies the car’s out­rageous price, but we think it’s a better rationalization for purchase than just the car’s obvious status value. Naturally, $146,710 takes care of that, too. VERDICT: Too much car for too much money.CounterpointWhere do you draw the line between opulent luxury and plain excess? With the S-class Benzes, it’s somewhere between two and four doors. As environmentally and politically incor­rect as it is, there is a pretense of func­tionality about the four-door 600SEL that underlies its frilly buttons and syrupy V-12. Not so the two-door 600SEC. Its only justification as the most expensive Benz is a mechanical valet that brings your seatbelt to arm’s reach. Theoretically, this bruising two­-door makes for a tidier package, but in practice it’s overkill. —Martin Padgett Jr.My problem with the 600SEC isn’t that it’s fat (it is) or that it has mushy steer­ing (it does). My problem is that I climbed into a BMW 850Ci the week­end after I drove the 600SEC. The BMW causes more pedestrians to gawk, smile, and applaud. It tracks down the Interstate more sure-footedly. Its cockpit isn’t too much smaller. And the 850Ci does $56,590 less injury to one’s savings account. This means I could own a German V-12-powered coupe plus, say, a Villager minivan and a Lexus ES300 sedan and still have enough left for a trip to Grand Cayman. —John PhillipsCertain staffers wring their hands when it comes to cars with as many digits in their prices as the 600SEC. What they overlook is that with all the high-qual­ity mass-produced items in the modern world, superiority isn’t cheap. I see 50 percent price hits for 10 percent product improvements all the time—in watches and stereos as well as in cars. If you evaluate the big coupe’s superb ride, uncanny silence, and effortless speed on that scale, it won’t disappoint those who can afford it. And despite their clucking, even the hand-wringers were scrambling to drive it overnight. —Csaba CsereSpecificationsSpecifications
1994 Mercedes-Benz 600SECVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $146,710/$146,710
ENGINEDOHC 48-valve V-12, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 365 in3, 5987 cm3Power: 389 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 420 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.6-in vented disc/11.8-in vented discTire size: 235/60ZR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.9 inLength: 199.2 inWidth: 74.6 inHeight: 56.2 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 54/41 ft3Trunk Volume: 14 ft3Curb Weight: 4960 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.3 sec1/4-Mile: 14.8 sec @ 98 mph100 mph: 15.4 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 12/16 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

There’s no such thing as too many tacos. That’s true of both the tasty handheld food and the new fourth-­generation Toyota Tacoma, with its buffet of bed, cab, and powertrain choices. While most mid-size trucks are limiting their menu, the 2024 Tacoma’s is more diverse than ever.We’ve driven most of the new Tacoma family, minus the Baja-style TRD Pro and overlanding Trailhunter. Those two, with a new hybrid system that produces 326 horsepower, will arrive later. The base Tacoma has a 228-hp turbo 2.4-liter four. The rest have mightier versions with up to 278 horses, matching the outgoing 3.5-liter V-6; their torque rises from 265 to up to 317 pound-feet and arrives as much as 3000 rpm sooner, making the Tacoma feel much more responsive. A manual transmission lives on, and a proficient eight-speed automatic replaces the clumsy six-speed unit. According to Toyota, fuel economy improves too.The cabin is better insulated from engine noise, and a higher seating position means you no longer feel like you’re sitting on the floor. With ­modern design and nicer textures, the interior offers flashy digital displays, power-­adjustable front seats (finally), and a JBL stereo with a portable speaker, all of which vanquish the old truck’s 2005 vibes.The new Tacoma cribs chiseled bodywork and a boxed ladder frame from the Tundra, along with an available coil-spring rear suspension that transforms the Tacoma’s ride from jittery to buttery. The swanky Limited has optional adaptive dampers that increase comfort or sportiness; the base and extended-cab models soldier on with leaf springs that lack the composure of the coils on rough roads. The Tacoma’s driving demeanor feels more cohesive than before. Electrically assisted power steering and rear disc brakes join the party, as well as lane-keeping assist and improved crawl control for off-roading.ToyotaBreaking trail is a Tacoma ­staple. The TRD Off-Road now has 33-inch BFGoodrich Trail-Terrain T/A tires, Bilstein external-reservoir dampers, and an optional front anti-roll bar disconnect for increased wheel articulation, which together aid in easily conquering off-road obstacles. The revived PreRunner trim—with two doors, two seats, and two-wheel drive—is a cheaper alternative with similar hardware.The lineup offers many configurations. Prices range from $32,995 for the SR to $53,595 for the Limited. And the more Tacos, the better.Extra Tacoma StoriesSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Toyota TacomaVehicle Type: front-engine, rear- or rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2- or 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base: $32,995–$41,895 
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 228 hp, 243 lb-ft; 270 hp, 310 lb-ft; 278 hp, 317 lb-ft
TRANSMISSIONS6-speed manual, 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.9–145.1 inLength: 213.0–226.2 inWidth: 76.9–77.9 inHeight: 73.8–74.7 inCurb Weight: 4200–4800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.5–8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.9–16.4 secTop Speed: 110 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR’S EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 20–23/18–21/23–26 mpg  Senior EditorEric Stafford’s automobile addiction began before he could walk, and it has fueled his passion to write news, reviews, and more for Car and Driver since 2016. His aspiration growing up was to become a millionaire with a Jay Leno–like car collection. Apparently, getting rich is harder than social-media influencers make it seem, so he avoided financial success entirely to become an automotive journalist and drive new cars for a living. After earning a journalism degree at Central Michigan University and working at a daily newspaper, the years of basically burning money on failed project cars and lemon-flavored jalopies finally paid off when Car and Driver hired him. His garage currently includes a 2010 Acura RDX, a manual ’97 Chevy Camaro Z/28, and a ’90 Honda CRX Si. More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.We’re living in an EV world. Electric vehicles are the glittery objects grabbing everyone’s attention, from the government to car manufacturers to consumers, who are on track to snap up more than a million EVs this year. To which we counter, “Not so fast.” Maybe you want a hybrid instead. Whether your goal is cutting your operating costs, saving the planet, virtue signaling your elevated social conscience, or some combination of the three, hybrids offer some advantages EVs can’t match. To make that point, we’ve pitted the Toyota Prius and the Honda Accord hybrid against each other. They’re two of the most up-to-date—and possibly the best—gas-electrics on the market.At first glance, this contest might appear to be between apples and cantaloupes, a hybrid-only Prius up against a conventional family sedan in the Accord that’s been implanted with a hybrid powertrain. In reality, though, this matchup is more like McIntosh versus Honeycrisp.Since both the Prius and the Accord hybrid were new for 2023, they represent their makers’ latest hybrid technologies. They’re also emblematic of why hybrids remain relevant. They deliver excellent fuel economy on the highway and transcendent fuel economy in town. And unlike EVs, hybrids don’t require you to plan road-trip routes that tie you to America’s less-than-reliable charging networks; you just gas and go.The Prius and the Accord hybrid share some technical similarities but also carry with them intriguing contrasts. Both cars, for instance, are powered by Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter inline-four gas engines and store electrical energy in small lithium-ion batteries, a 1.1-kWh juicer in the Accord and a 0.9-kWh unit in the Prius. Here, both are front-drivers (the Prius is available with all-wheel drive), and both employ regenerative braking to recover energy. From there, things diverge. The Honda’s gas engine turns a generator that charges the battery or supplies energy to the traction motor that turns the Accord’s front wheels; the traction motor also recoups energy during deceleration events. The Accord features three direct-drive ratios, and at highway speeds, a clutch connects the Honda’s engine directly to the front axle, further improving fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the Prius sends the output of its engine and two motor-generators through a planetary gearset, an arrangement that can continuously vary the gearing while powering the front wheels. Despite those engineering differences, the two cars’ propulsion systems spit out similar power: The Prius makes 194 combined horsepower, and the Accord 204. Both cars can drive on electricity alone for short distances at city speeds. The models we chose for this throwdown, the Prius Limited and the Accord Touring, are also close in other ways. They’re the well-equipped top trims in their respective lineups, as opposed to the models with the highest EPA fuel-economy estimates and fewest niceties. And they’re similarly priced: As tested, the Limited and the Touring are within $1500 of each other. To see which of these apples is sweeter, we put them through a four-part taste test. The driving regimen included urban streets, two-lane roads, interstates, and a separate 200-mile highway run at 75 mph to unearth each car’s real-world road-trip fuel economy. 2nd Place: Toyota PriusPassersby notice this car. The first night we had it, a neighbor pedaling by on his bike asked if he could shoot a photo of it. The next morning, a kid climbing off a Kawasaki Ninja asked, “Is that the new Prius? Sick!” We might have used a different descriptor at the time, but we quickly came to feel the same. The Prius finally looks every inch the high-tech, high-performance machine it is rather than like a science project gone awry. “High- performance,” of course, refers to its ability to squeeze the most miles from every drop of fuel. That hasn’t changed, but now there’s a lot more to this car.Not only does the new Prius look as sleek and fast as a racing greyhound, but it also sprints well enough that references to lethargic canines no longer apply. The hybrid system’s power is up by a combined 73 horses, a 60 percent increase, and it shows. The new Prius now hustles to 60 mph in a peppy 7.1 seconds rather than 10.5 and zips through the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 92 mph—far quicker and a massive 13 mph faster than before. It matched the Honda’s 30-mph time and beat it to 100 mph by 1.0 second. In other acceleration tests, it trailed, but not by much. It’s now lively enough to be, dare we say, almost fun. The powertrain is refined, seamlessly blending gas and electric power. You can’t feel what’s going on behind the scenes, but you can hear it. There’s more engine presence in the Prius’s cabin than in the Honda’s, and the gearbox lets the engine drone at high rpm for brief periods, like when you’re merging onto a highway. Thankfully, those intervals no longer last as long. The chassis is now equally pleasant. It serves up a well-judged balance of agility and coordinated handling matched by a resilient ride that handily sponges up road imperfections. If the dampers were 10 percent firmer, we might even call it sporty. Its steering cuts cleanly and transmits some road feel, and the car corners at a very un-Prius-like 0.87 g on its 195-mm-wide Michelin Primacy All Season tires, providing plenty of grip to play with on back roads. Did we just put “back roads” and “Prius” in the same sentence? HIGHS: Head-turning looks, well stocked with features and amenities, mega real-world fuel economy.LOWS: Smallish rear seat, poor instrument-cluster placement, occasional engine droning.VERDICT: The tastiest way to get maximum fuel economy short of a plug-in hybrid.The biggest difference between the Prius and the Accord is size. This is a compact car, narrower and lower than the Honda and 14.6 inches shorter overall, and in the back seat, it feels every bit a size-class smaller than the Accord. There’s adequate legroom for six-footers in the rear, but just barely, and the severely sloping roofline squeezes rear headroom. Still, the Prius Limited has a welcoming cabin with interesting styling, average materials, and plenty of features, including heated and ventilated front seats, heated outboard rear seats, a JBL audio system, dual-zone climate control, and more. In fact, a Limited equipped like ours offers several extras the Accord doesn’t, including a heated steering wheel, a camera-based rearview mirror, a power liftgate, a 360-degree camera that scans the car’s periphery in a circular sweep (part of the $1085 Limited Premium package), and dual sunroofs to the Honda’s one. Curiously, the Prius’s steering wheel partially blocks the gauge cluster—the interior’s one significant ergonomic miscue.Of course, this is a matchup of fuel sippers, and here the Prius rules. Its smaller size and 296-pound-lighter weight contribute to its fuel-economy advantage, where it returned 48 mpg to the Honda’s 43 mpg on our road drive. It also delivered 49 mpg on our 200-mile, 75-mph highway run, while the Honda managed 39 mpg. The base Prius on 17-inch tires should do even better as its EPA combined fuel economy is 57 mpg, 5 mpg better than the Limited’s. And there’s also the plug-in Prius Prime, which in SE form offers 45 miles of electric driving range. So, if fuel economy is your priority, the Prius is your ride. It’s a slick-looking, well-executed, and surprisingly engaging automobile now. For us, though, the other car in this test was sweeter. 1st Place: Honda AccordThe Accord Touring is the stealth hybrid of this duo. In contrast to the Prius, there’s nothing about the Honda’s appearance indicating it mixes electricity and gasoline. In its dark business suit of Canyon River Blue Metallic paint, our test car looked every bit the tasteful and reserved executive-level sedan it turned out to be. It just happens to come with a hybrid powertrain. That seems to be Honda’s grand plan for propagating hybrid propulsion: Make it standard. The top four of the Accord’s six trim levels come only in hybrid form—no powertrain substitutions allowed. In almost every way, the Accord Touring is a class above the Prius. It’s much larger outside and, more important, inside. Its extra length and width give the cabin much more breathing room and an airy feel. Six-footers have space to stretch their legs from the heated outboard rear seats, which are higher off the ground than the Prius’s and more comfortable. The interior materials have a near-luxury feel, with plenty of well-padded surfaces, and most hard plastics are well hidden. The seats, steering wheel, and shifter are leather-covered. (The Prius sheathes those parts in synthetic leather.) The interior design is as conservative and conventional as the exterior, with an easy-to-see digital instrument cluster residing in a hooded binnacle. Like the Prius, the Accord rolls with a good-size infotainment screen that’s reasonably user-friendly, and there are hard buttons for the climate controls and a knob for audio volume. HIGHS: Roomy cabin, upscale interior appointments, the epitome of refinement.LOWS: Fewer extras for the price, less cargo room, fuel economy is second best.VERDICT: A delicious, luxurious, driver-friendly sedan that just happens to be a hybrid.The rich feel of the Accord hybrid is underscored by the way the car drives. We’ve long admired how Accords comport themselves over the road, and this newest generation holds to that tradition. It’s comfortable and poised yet nimble and responsive. That and its impressive 0.90-g cornering grip—from 19-inch Michelin Primacy MXM4 all-season tires—invite playing on twisty roads. In fact, this Accord has the handling and moves of a sports sedan. The Accord also has enough performance to be engaging, with a 6.5-second 60-mph time—0.6 second quicker than the Prius—and a 15.2-second, 91-mph quarter-mile run. In normal operation, the powertrain is a smooth runner, as well integrated as the Prius’s but considerably quieter. The Honda’s four-cylinder operates so silently at times that it can be hard to tell whether it’s even running. Full-throttle bursts are much more subdued here than in the Prius, and the adjustable regen is stronger. The Accord’s real-world fuel economy is impressive for a car this big and luxurious, but it pays for its greater size and weight on the highway, where it’s a whopping 10 mpg less parsimonious than the Prius. The laws of physics remain immutable, but the Accord’s combination of roominess, comfort, luxuriousness, driving chops, and exceptional overall refinement won us over. Like McIntoshes and Honeycrisps, the choice between the two is ultimately a matter of personal preference. The Toyota Prius is a great car and the best at the hybrid mission, but the Accord Touring is the hybrid we want most.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda Accord TouringVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $38,985/$38,985
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 146 hp, 134 lb-ft + AC motor, 181 hp, 247 lb-ft (combined output: 204 hp, 247 lb-ft; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Michelin Primacy MXM4
235/40R-19 96V M+S DT1
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 inLength: 195.7 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/50 ft3Cargo Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 3525 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.5 sec100 mph: 19.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.2 sec @ 91 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 173 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.90 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 38 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 39 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 490 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 44/46/41 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED
2023 Toyota Prius Limited Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $35,560/$37,494 POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 150 hp, 139 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, (combined output: 194 hp, 0.9-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.1-in vented disc/11.0-in discTires: Michelin Primacy All Season
195/50R-19 88H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.3 inLength: 181.1 inWidth: 70.2 inHeight: 56.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/39 ft3Cargo Volume: 20 ft3Curb Weight: 3229 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec100 mph: 18.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 92 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 116 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.87 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 45 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 49 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 550 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 52/52/52 mpgDirector, Buyer’s GuideRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 19 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata and a 1965 Corvette convertible and appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More

From the December 1995 issue of Car and Driver.The Viper is the New Chrysler Cor­poration’s attempt at atonement, at making up for the sins it committed against cars—all those bogus wire wheel covers and limp shock absorbers and padded-vinyl roofs—during the reign of Lee the Imperious. And by the precise calculations of our test department, each Viper built since the 1992 intro cancels out 817 K-car New Yorkers. HIGHS: The way other cars let you go first, prodigious g-forces, sunny days.A lot of “nice” Chryslers were inflicted on the market in those years (more than it could stand, in fact), but the Viper goes about the work of offsetting them with a swaggering gusto. There’s not a nice fiber in its glass body. It’s so ornery it won’t even cancel its own turn signals. “Knife-in-the-back handling,” we said in our last test (“The Supercar Olympics,” July 1995). “Big, crude, deafening, and something of a cartoon,” we said. “Villainous.” (We don’t hold back once we get the adjectives flowing.) Now we learn that particular Viper was having a bad suspension day—month, actually—during our last test. Wheel alignment was way wrong. High-grip tires don’t like being pointed in contradictory directions. For the record, when we phoned Chrysler before the test to say the suspension had passed through indepen­dent and was well on its way to defiant, we were told: “They’re all like that.” Anyway, that was then and this is 1996 and the Viper has undergone, for the new year, its first change of underwear since its 1992 introduction. It has a new frame, new suspension, new tires and, what it really needed all along, more horsepower. Surely the New Yorker cancellation rate will be much enhanced by such extensive reengi­neering. Knowing how you care about such things, we set up an all-Viper com­parison—the exact same test car of last summer, fresh from alignment therapy, versus a pre-production 1996 model. It’s easy to spot the model-year differ­ences on the outside. There are no side exhausts on the new car, racing stripes now appear on both white and black cars, and wheels are different—they’re painted an astonishing yellow on red cars. Inside, the black cockpits are spiced up with vividly colored leather on the wheel rim, shift knob, and brake handle—it’s bright blue on white cars, lipstick-red on red cars. “I won’t go into the politics on that,” said engineer Pete Gladysz, who is chassis and design manager on the Viper Project. From the driver’s seat, it’s easy to spot differences, too. The new car’s ride is less punishing, the cockpit is much quieter now that exhaust goes out behind, the steering doesn’t squirm as much on truck-worn pavement, and the brake feel is more con­ventional—it’s very good too, thanks to Chrysler ending its infatua­tion with a quirky booster that gave remarkably short pedal travel instead of good modu­lation. “We thought it felt like a Ferrari F40,” Gladysz explains. Gladysz says most of the 1996 changes were made in anticipation of future model needs and to comply with reg­ulations. The first of the future models is the coupe, due in late spring. Inevitably, it will be heavier. So the engineers went looking for offsetting weight reductions to build into the basic car, and they found enough to lighten the roadster by 90 pounds (our test car, a prototype, is about 60 pounds overweight). Logically, the less drafty, less leaky coupe will encourage driving on colder, wetter days, so new tires were sought. “I didn’t say all-weather tires,” Gladysz reminds. On the regulatory side, lower noise standards are coming in Europe, and new emissions requirements are coming in the U.S., occasioned by the on-board diag­nostics OBD II rule. For both noise and OBD II, the side exhausts had to go. Everybody wins: the new system pipes the noise far behind the cockpit and away from the occupants’ ears, and it improves the exhaust note while reducing back-pressure. Output rises 15 hp as a result. LOWS: Interior hospitality of a grizzly’s den, assembly details that look homemade, rainy days.Weight reduction also brings gains. The frame loses 60 pounds while improving 20 percent in torsional stiffness. New suspension arms and knuckles are now aluminum, and the wheels are slightly lighter. Together, those changes reduce unsprung weight substantially. Front-sus­pension geometry remains as before, but the rear roll center was lowered to reduce tire scrub—to cut down on self-steering in the truck ruts. At both ends, shocks are new and their attachments were moved closer to the lower ball joints for better control of small suspension movements. Powertrain changes are numerous as well. Cooling-system capacity is increased, and the clutch, differential, and half-shafts have been upsized for more torque (Gladysz alludes to a future need for this extra beef, without confirming the limited run of high-output Vipers we expect in time for racing season). A power­-steering cooler was added. Tire sizes remain as before, but the carcass construction, tread pattern, and compound reflect an entirely different approach to performance in these new-to­-the-U.S. Pilot SX Michelins. Contrary to Gladysz’s prediction, we find them slightly less grippy on the skidpad than the Michelin XGT Z tires of the 1995 car on hand for comparison: 0.97 g versus 1.00 g. They seem to understeer more, too—for sure, they require larger steering angles at any given lateral force. And they make a shrill howl at the limit.That’s the bad news. The good news is that the car behaves better on them in every other way. Along with the suspension changes, they vastly improve handling. When cornering at the limit, the new Viper no longer seems balanced on a knife edge. It’s more gradual. The tail now slips into a drift angle. Even with alignment prop­erly set, the 1995 car is still snappish—it’ll bite if you change power or steering imprudently near the limit. The new ver­sion is far more tolerant. You can work with it, make corrections, adjust your path, even as you approach the hairy edge. Proof of this new attitude shows up during hot laps. At the Chrysler proving grounds road course, our man Don Schroeder drove a six-lap ses­sion in each car. His best time in the ’96 was 1:17.47, with a best-­lap-to-worst-lap variation of only 0.08 second. In the old car, he managed one lap in 1:17.32, but the best-to-worst variation exceeded two seconds and cumulative time was far behind. Heard from trackside, the 1995 exhaust at full power hisses like a shot-down blimp, seriously uncool compared with the disci­plined roar of the new one. On the road, the difference between new and old is no less dramatic. Tire noise on textured roads used to be deafening; now it’s merely excessive (like everything else about the Viper). Ride is much improved too, enough for us to upgrade our rating from the previous “terrible” to “bad.” Perhaps because of the additional frame stiffness, the body is less clattery. Gladysz says the new tires are signifi­cantly better in braking. Certainly they team happily with the new booster to shorten stopping distances from 177 feet in the realigned ’95 car to 163 feet. Pedal feel is much better too, which is particularly important because the Viper does not offer ABS. More Viper Reviews From the ArchiveThe Viper’s boun­tiful torque “flat”­—the curve, like Nebraska, is flat as far as the eye can see—gives a peculiarly constant acceleration, sort of a civilian substi­tute for a Saturn booster. The extra 15 advertised horses were definitely on the job the day we tested the two cars back-­to-back—0 to 60 mph improves by a tenth of a second to 4.1 seconds, the quarter-mile quickens by a tenth of a second and 1 mph to 12.6 seconds at 113 mph, and top speed rises to 173 mph from 167. A down-to­-weight production car should be slightly quicker. VERDICT: A raw-meat roadster for the folks who don’t care what anybody says.While the changes for 1996 add up to a more powerful and less belligerent machine, the Viper remains outrageous by intent: the cockpit smells like fiberglass, and its weather protection stows in the trunk. The big hospitality breakthrough for 1996 is sliding-glass technology for the side curtains. That, together with the less obstreperous road behavior, adds up to a better Viper, but no one will confuse it with a “nice” car. SpecificationsSpecifications
1996 Dodge Viper RT/10Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,975/$66,045Options: hard top with sliding side curtains, $2500; air conditioning, $1200; luxury tax on options, $370
ENGINEpushrod 20-valve V-10, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 488 in3, 7990 cm3Power: 415 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 488 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/control armsBrakes, F/R: 13.0-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot SXF: 275/40ZR-17R: 335/35ZR-17
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.2 inLength: 175.1 inWidth: 75.7 inHeight: 44.0 inPassenger Volume: 49 ft3Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight: 3484 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 9.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.6 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 16.9 sec150 mph: 29.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 9.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 9.1 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 173 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.97 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 13 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 13/21 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the April 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Executive sedans at the $60,000-plus altitude cruise in rarefied atmosphere. Their owners are a demanding lot. They are obvi­ously well-to-do, but value still figures prominently in their purchase decision. More opulent and expensive sedans boasting V-12 engines, flying-lady hood ornaments, and stratospheric prices exist for the money’s-no-object status seekers. But within the automotive troposphere, an executive demands com­fortable accommodations, strong per­formance, driving pleasure, and a level of features and amenities that justify the car’s lofty price and set his or her car apart from the merely great mass-market automobiles. Only the world’s best automakers compete at this level. We rounded up four from the old world—the Audi A8, the BMW 740iL, the Jaguar XJ8, and the Mercedes-Benz S320—and pitted them against the best sedan available from Japan, the Lexus LS400. Sadly, no American sedans compete in this price range. It is on these flagship cars that man­ufacturers trot out their latest and greatest technological and safety advances, many of which eventually trickle down to bread-and-butter cars. Side airbags, sta­bility-enhancement systems, xenon headlamps, navigation systems, solar­-powered ventilation systems, and other high-tech hardware are among the fea­tures that adorn the five cars we’ve gath­ered for this test. Although most owners in this price class still drive themselves, the five vehi­cles appearing in this test are high enough on the demographic scale that they invite that very old-school badge of wealth: the chauffeur. As such, rear-seat space and amenities are of great importance at this price point. Of the five blue­-bloods we corralled for this test, three (the BMW, the Jaguar, and the Mer­cedes-Benz) have that limo look and ride on stretched wheelbases. The two other (the Audi and the Lexus) achieve their spaciousness without recourse to long-­waisted bodywork. Of the five, only the aluminum-­bodied Audi A8 4.2 Quattro is a real newcomer, bringing its novel body structure, four-wheel drivetrain, and lusty 4.2-liter V-8 engine to bear against the big­-buck players. Soldiering on in familiar sheetmetal, the Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas boasts a new V-8 powerplant inherited from the XK8 coupe, along with new suspension and electrical systems and all the wood and leather British craftsmen could fit into the longer-than-standard 202.7-inch body (which, by the way, makes it second only to the Benz in length). Just a few years into its latest remake, the 1998 Lexus LS400 flaunts new vari­able valve timing under the hood, which substantially improves engine perfor­mance. It also features a new vehicle skid-control system (called VSC), and a resculpted front end with optional high­-intensity-discharge xenon headlights. Various upgrades have attended the BMW 740iL since its 1995 redesign. The latest of these include an inflatable tubular head-protection system for front­-seat passengers, optional side airbags for rear-seat passengers, an improved dynamic stability-control system (a new yaw sensor greatly improves its ability to prevent a spin), and a navigation system. The Mercedes-Benz S320, which is now getting a little long in the tooth as well as in the body, joins this company by way of its lofty $70,128 base price. That price dictated that this car be the only non-V-8 in the group. (The V-8-powered S420 starts at $78,581.) For 1998, the Benz S320 acquires brake assist (which applies full braking when it senses fast pedal operation), an adap­tive service monitor to determine main­tenance intervals, and a passenger airbag that deactivates itself when a Benz baby seat is installed. Add these to the com­prehensive array of engineering innova­tions included in every S-class car, and they help offset the S320’s power deficit. Which of these super sedans is best able to meet the needs and caprices of the cap­tains of American industry? Read on and see. 5th Place: Mercedes-Benz S320 The Mercedes finished in fifth place largely because buyers on a $70,000 budget are stuck with just six cylinders’ worth of Mercedes-Benz S-class. As such, the S320 suffers a 54-to-72 horsepower deficit in this company. Our long-wheel­base test car also sports the largest and heaviest body, as well as the highest base price—$70,128. (The shorter model saves $3531 and 20 pounds.) We weren’t sur­prised to learn that the bestselling S-class model is the $93,561 S500. HIGHS: Stability, space, undoubted engineering excellence.LOWS: Modest engine power, dated styling, spartan interior appointments. VERDICT: Too expensive, and needs more motor to play in this band.Despite its price and power handicaps, the big Benz continued to impress us with its vaultlike structure and superb high-­speed behavior. The 3.2-liter engine produced the slowest test figures, lagging the pack by at least 1.3 seconds and 6 mph in the quarter-mile, but the short-geared, torque-optimized six tugs the car around town with surprising verve. Okay, attack a mountain road with it, and you’ll be revving the bollocks off it, and you’ll encounter a gaping gear-ratio canyon between second and third gears. Nonethe­less, the gear-selector strategy is still the best available, and the car performs ade­quately in settings appropriate to its role.The chassis also does an admirable job of keeping this 4400-pound behemoth on track. The big Benz steered accurately—­if somewhat numbly—and felt stable—if less than responsive—in all conditions we encountered. Hard cornering rolled the front tires so far over that we buffed the letters off the sidewalls, but in doing so, the S320 managed to score second best on the skidpad, registering 0.80 g. If it’s space you’re after, the Benz has it. Voluminous up front, it tied with the BMW for the greatest amount of rear-seat space with three seat testers aboard, although they declared it to be less com­fortable back there than in all but the Audi. The interior is less inviting than in some of the others because its big, bland planes and surfaces lack inter­esting detail and are scaled a little larger than life. Even Mer­cedes’s renowned ergonomics fall short of perfection. The seat adjustment “pictogram” switch, the standard of the industry, is partly obscured by the door handle. Although packed with such features as self-closing doors and a rain­-sensing wiper system, the S320 feels like a stripper. All of which leaves us hoping that the new-for-1999 S-class will be prettier and priced lower. 1998 Mercedes-Benz S320228-hp inline-6, 5-speed automatic, 4400 lbBase/as-tested price: $70,128/$70,128C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.8 sec130 mph: 62.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg4th Place: Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas If it looks luxurious and it smells lux­urious, well, it probably is luxurious. Unless, of course, space is a necessary component of luxury. And in this com­pany, we think it is. Unfortunately, that’s the XJ8’s most glaring deficiency: It just isn’t quite big enough. Oh, sure, this is the Vanden Plas model, which has a wheel­base some five inches longer than that of the normal Jag and a rear door clearly longer than the original designer intended. Nonetheless, that low-slung and stylish roofline which stands the Jag three to five inches shorter than the others, dictates cramped packaging. So the driver’s position is tight for tall people, the front footwells are cramped, and headroom is at a premium. HIGHS: Styling and interior decor provide ample allure. LOWS: Poor space efficiency for a Jaguar on a stretch. VERDICT: The new engine and chassis give this cat another nine lives.Not surprisingly, the Jag scored lowest in the group in our two-passenger back-­seat test, although its wide, flat backrest accommodated three shoulders abreast without overlapping, helping it outscore both the Audi and the Benz for comfort. That’s the downside. The upside is a car with a great view down its sculpted hood and a clear view all around. Beau­tiful wood veneers, thick pile carpeting, and aromatic Connolly hides enfold the occupants as a melodic 4.0-liter V-8 wafts the car along on a soft, quiet suspension. So soft, in fact, that you detect the merest suggestion of float at the rear when driving alone in the car, causing one to wonder what that will mean in the corners.Well, the XJ8’s new spring and damping rates, its new vari­able-assist steering rack, and its superb Pirelli P4000 tires made it feel completely at home in the twisty, hilly bits. Its 60.0-mph speed through the lane change test was 2.1 mph faster than the next best, the Lexus. Endowed with steering that feels natural and organic, a transmission that is unconfused about its mission, and a sus­pension that is simultaneously supple and disciplined, the Jag inspires confidence. It is also more sensitive to transitions than the BMW or the Benz, and it will rotate more willingly than either of them. As long as you switch the automatic stability-control system off, that is. ASC controls wheelspin by retarding engine torque. We found that on dry roads it trims too much power, unbalancing the car into pronounced understeer. The brake pedal has unnecessarily long travel, as does the strange J-pattern gear selector, which man­ually selects gears in a counterintuitive for­ward-for-downshifts pattern. Ergonomics are improved in this-gen­eration Jaguar, but some functions remain inscrutable. How to toggle between the digital odometer and trip meter, for example. Also, it’s difficult to insert and turn the ignition key without triggering the windshield wiper/washer stalk. It’s not perfect, but the XJ8 has considerable charm and style, and it’s the next-to-least expensive car on offer in this group. That’s a seductive combination. 1998 Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas290-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3980 lbBase/as-tested price: $66,367/$67,223C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4-mile: 15.3 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.8 sec130 mph: 42.0Braking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg3rd Place: Audi A8 4.2 Quattro Now, here’s a car whose pedigree had us anticipating a strong finish in this con­test. Equipped with an all-aluminum body, an alloy V-8 of generous displacement, a five-speed automatic with Tiptronic, and an all-wheel-drive Quattro system to put the action down, we expected something spectacular. HIGHS: A buff new body, all-­wheel traction, and a sensational interior. LOWS: A little slower than we’d expected, less dry-pavement grip than we’d like. VERDICT: Very sweet in its sweet spot but doesn’t like to be hurried.What we discovered is that the Audi is a very nice car, but that it manifests some paradoxical elements. It’s a large car, almost as long as the BMW and almost as wide as the Benz, but its size is effectively camouflaged by its elegant styling. Alu­minum construction gives the A8 the second-lowest curb weight, at 3980 pounds (tied with the Jag). Inside the car, the occu­pants are surrounded by probably the most stylish trappings of the class, yet the ambi­ence for the driver is more sporty than lux­urious. It’s an extremely well-equipped car—the only one with four standard side airbags and sound-absorbing glass all around. Rear-seat comfort and space are on par with the Lexus (with two rear occu­pants), and the ride is quiet and smooth. The sound from the 300-horsepower V-8 is stirring; it’s burbly at low revs, hard and manic at high revs. But despite having the most advantageous power-to-weight ratio of any car here, tall gearing and fric­tion in the four-wheel-drive system slowed the A8 to fourth place at the drag strip. Other disappointments: Its skidpad per­formance, at 0.78 g, is the worst of the group, as is its 192-foot stopping distance from 70 mph. We blame the all-season Goodyear Eagle LS tires, which seem mis­matched to the car’s chassis.You see, whereas the A8 feels taut, lithe, and nimble at moderate speeds, it begins to feel less composed and less inte­grated as cornering speeds rise. Those Goodyears start howling early as under­steer sets in, and the car pushes relentlessly if you attempt to pick up the pace. The car also becomes increasingly difficult to drive smoothly. Whereas the BMW and Jaguar retain a fluidity of function even at their limits, the Audi becomes nebulous and discombobulated. In extremes, it seems to have neither the compliance nor the body-motion control of the best cars in this class. The A8 4.2 Quattro is a technological tour de force, and if you live where it snows a lot, this is probably the best choice. Drivers who spend all their time driving within the Audi’s “sweet spot,” below eight-tenths of its capacity, will think it’s a peach. At the limit on dry roads, however, we found the A8 to be a chore. Hence, its third-place ranking. 1998 Audi A8 4.2 Quattro300-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3980 lbBase/as-tested price: $67,565/$71,032C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.6 sec130 mph: 41.8Braking, 70­–0 mph: 192 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg2nd Place: BMW 740iL In the quest for the hearts and minds of the voters on this panel, the BMW easily cornered the hearts. The minds, however, had a tough time with a base price that is $13,562 higher than that of the Lexus. Equipped as they were for this test (both with expensive navigation systems), the BMW costs 10 grand more than the LS400. HIGHS: Beautifully integrated chassis, strong engine, communicative steering, loads of rear-seat space. LOWS: Shocking sticker price. VERDICT: One of the world’s best cars, and priced accordingly.What price excellence, readers? The BMW is probably the finest piece of chassis tuning you’ll ever encounter in a luxury car. This is a plush car that rides as quietly along the highway as the benchmark for these things, the LS400. Then it comes alive in your hands as you commit it to the canyon. The steering is firmly weighted, perhaps a touch too isolated, but it aims the nose with the precision of a vernier gauge, and its action is bionically linear. Even during hard driving, the new stability-con­trol system proved helpful and unobtrusive. The BMW’s ride motions are gracefully damped, and the car feels fluid and alive, even when you’re leaning hard on the 235/60HR-16 Michelins (which are the biggest tires in this group). The 4.4-liter V-8 waffles quietly most of the time, but it utters an awesome ripping snarl when working hard, and it propels the 4260-pound 740iL to 60 mph in the same time it takes the 3980-pound Jaguar to do it (6.8 seconds).Front passenger space is generous, and the rear passengers enjoy the best space and comfort in this group of cars. The rear cabin even has those little movable footrests, just like a Mercedes 600 Pullman. Our notebooks recorded few complaints: among them, grumbles about the lack of a center console box under the peculiar sliding armrest and an interior that feels more functional than luxurious. Fur­thermore, we thought its navigation system was less intuitively obvious to operate and less versatile than the one in the Lexus. Still, the imperfections are few, and the rewards to both driver and passengers are many. Only its price kept the big Bimmer out of the No. l spot. Then again, maybe you get what you pay for. 1998 BMW 740iL282-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 4260 lbBase/as-tested price: $68,175/$70,850C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4-mile: 15.2 sec @ 94 mph100 mph: 17.3 sec130 mph: 35.0 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 183 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg1st Place: Lexus LS400What can you say about a car that turns in the best acceleration and braking num­bers, the second-quickest lane-change results, the quietest overall sound-meter performance, and is priced about 10 grand less than everything but the Jaguar? HIGHS: Incomparable refinement, impeccable build quality, unbeatable value. LOWS: Not very intimate in its tactile responses. VERDICT: An almost perfect recipe for the luxury car.You can say it’s the winner. You can also say it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, given that the levels of refinement and iso­lation are so good that its communication with the driver is subtle rather than sen­sual. Even there, Lexus has sought to improve matters. For 1998, the engineers made changes to the car’s steering to pro­vide a more positive interaction with the driver. They also modified the suspension to provide better body-motion control. There never was much wrong with the car’s suspension geometries and compo­nents, and it still attacks a winding road with surprising poise and ability. A new vehicle skid-control system works quite well, although it steps in a bit more officiously than the BMW’s system does. It’s also a pity the thing beeps at you when it’s working, as this encourages the driver to switch the system off. Most notable among the car’s new attributes is the response that greets the throttle at low- and mid-range engine speeds. Courtesy of Lexus’s VVT-i continuously variable valve-timing system, the 4.0-liter V-8 now pulls like a loco­motive without having to spin like a dervish. The controls are still lighter to the touch than those you find in the European com­petition, but this-generation LS400 has moved some way toward BMW in the way it has been sharpened and tightened. It would have been a mistake for Lexus to forsake the luxury-car attributes that so shocked the world’s premium car manu­facturers, so it hasn’t. The almost eerie quietness and relaxed, detached sense of isolation are still there. So are the quality materials and the meticulous fit and finish. The LS400’s drivetrain is silken and flawless, the brakes strong and fade-free, and the car even uses fuel at a more miserly rate than its rivals. As Frank Markus noted in the logbook: “This car checks all the boxes on most luxury-car buyers’ shopping lists.” Not surprisingly, therefore, it also checks into first place. 1998 Lexus LS400290-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3960 lbBase/as-tested price: $54,613/$60,869C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4-mile: 15.0 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 16.4 sec130 mph: 31.9 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg More