Evelyn Reynolds

Much has been said about the death and rebirth of the Toyota Land Cruiser, which left the U.S. market after the 2020–21 Heritage Edition. But it was all a ruse, a necessary step in a model realignment that Toyota’s North American arm had planned all along. Instead of moving in lockstep with the rest of the world to the new 300-series Cruiser chassis, Toyota Motor North America hit pause and waited until the closely related 250-series chassis was ready. From what we now know and have experienced, the collective internet hand-wringing over the move to the so-called Land Cruiser Prado configuration (as it is known worldwide) is woefully misplaced. The new 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser is the best Land Cruiser in years because of this change.Massively Downsized PricesFor proof, all you need do is look at the Lexus LX600, a bloated and expensive six-figure behemoth (the base model you’ll never see is $93,915; all other trims exceed $100,000) that is the Lexus interpretation of the global 300-series Land Cruiser. A similar fate would have defined the Land Cruiser if it had adopted the 300-series and succeeded a model that already had a base price of $87,030 back in 2021. Instead, the 2024 Land Cruiser represents a change the faithful have been demanding. It has tidier dimensions and an attainable price of just $57,345 for the base 1958 model (so-named for the nameplate’s North American debut year), while the nicely equipped volume-selling Land Cruiser grade is a reasonable $63,345. The First Edition, a limited-time-only model with exclusive bits, will set eager beavers back $76,345.But is it really a Land Cruiser? Absolutely, not least because it, the LX600, and the Lexus GX are all built on the same TNGA-F chassis. And when we say same, we mean the same. The trio all share a wheelbase of 112.2 inches. Their control arm front and live axle located by four link and panhard rear suspension layouts match, and their track widths differ by mere tenths of an inch due to styling- and tire clearance-driven variations in wheel offset, not some underlying mechanical difference. All of them have full-time four-wheel drive with a lockable Torsen center differential that essentially turns pavement-friendly all-wheel drive into off-road-ready four-wheel drive at the press of a button. Basically, their differences have more to do with the powertrains within and the body above than the chassis below.Downsized but RightsizedAmong the three, the Land Cruiser is by far the shortest from nose to tail, with a 193.8-inch length that is 6.8 inches stubbier than the LX and 3.3 inches shorter than the GX. Much of this is due to a shorter front overhang, which delivers an approach angle of 32 degrees instead of the GX’s middling 26 degrees. Meanwhile, the LX scores a pitiful 21 degrees that precludes it from further mention.Measuring 77.9 inches wide, the Land Cruiser closely parallels the others. But the TLC and GX share a basic 250-series body styling that is markedly narrower than the LX/300-series at the doors, which makes for easier entry in parking lots and garages. Their hoods and front fenders are sculpted to offer better forward visibility, and the door side glass is cut low to enhance the downward view to the side. Combine this with an upright driving position, and you get a commanding view of road and trail alike, with enough head clearance inside to keep your pith helmet on, if that’s your jam.The Land Cruiser is strictly a two-row, five-passenger machine. That’s not a consequence of moving to the 250-series body, because you can get a three-row GX. Aside from general cost reduction and the desire to appeal to active off-roaders, there’s a practical reason that’s surprisingly related to what’s under the hood.Torquiest and Most Efficient Land CruiserThe Land Cruiser does not use the twin-turbocharged 3.4-liter V-6 found in the LX and GX, nor does it employ their 10-speed automatic. Instead, it’s powered by Toyota’s i-Force Max hybrid powertrain, consisting of a turbocharged 2.4-liter inline-four with a potent electric motor sandwiched between it and a conventional eight-speed automatic. A Tacoma TRD Off-Road with the 278-hp turbo four sans electric boost impressed us mightily, but the added Max e-motor cranks the Cruiser’s output up to 326 horsepower and 465 pound-feet—the latter representing more torque than any prior North American Land Cruiser. It’s the same engine that powers the TRD Pro and Trailhunter Tacomas, and the abundant torque was on full display as we barreled up freeway off-ramps or sauntered up steep off-road climbs that might’ve needed the torque multiplication of low range in prior years but didn’t here.If you’re thinking the i-Force Max makes the new Cruiser some kind of ersatz Prius, think again. The Max is not like a two-motor Toyota hybrid designed to maximize fuel economy. Instead, it’s engineered to bolster output. That said, fuel economy will improve any time you can recapture energy while slowing and redeploy it later because the electric motor’s supplemental power is paid out even if you’re taking it easy. As a result, the new Land Cruiser is EPA rated to deliver 23 mpg combined (22 city/25 highway), a massive 64 percent improvement over the old 5.7-liter V-8’s 14 mpg combined rating.We expect the new Cruiser to be a few tenths behind the 6.2-second 60-mph acceleration time we measured on the GX550 because the GX’s output pips it with 349 horses and 479 pound-feet—and that’s with the GX being about 100 pounds heavier. The powertrain and other differences do take a bite out of maximum towing capacity, however, where the comparatively fleeting effects of the hybrid system limits towing to 6000 pounds on the Cruiser, while the pure internal-combustion GX can manage nearly 9100 pounds.All of this links back to why the Land Cruiser doesn’t have a third row and isn’t likely to grow one unless Toyota fits a different engine. The nickel-metal hydride battery pack that collects and redeploys energy is mounted under the cargo floor. The load floor is a couple of inches higher than a GX’s as a result, and cargo space behind the rear seat is down accordingly. The hybrid system does allow for a 2400-watt 120-volt outlet back there, though, while the GX’s tops out at 400 watts.Running Gear Differences Favor ModdingEven the cheapest 1958 model has an electronically controlled rear differential lock, Downhill Assist, and Crawl Control, items that are only available on the Overtrail version of the GX. All Cruisers likewise roll on standard 18-inch wheels and tires with a healthy amount of sidewall. The 1958 wears 245/70R-18 tires that stand some 32 inches tall, while the Land Cruiser and First Edition grades have 265/70R-18 tires that amount to 33 inches tall. You can get 20-inch rolling stock on the Land Cruiser grade if you must, but intentionally taking away sidewall and paying $1240 for the privilege seems out of character here. Compared to the GX, certain suspension differences put the Land Cruiser in a favorable light if you squint hard enough. The dampers on the $69,250 GX550 Overtrail (the closest parallel to the $63,345 Land Cruiser) are fancy Adaptive Variable Suspension (AVS) units, whereas the Land Cruiser uses simple passive dampers. The Cruiser’s ride is generally well composed on this hardware, yet those looking to mod their Cruiser’s suspension won’t waste money by tossing them aside (and won’t have AVS malfunction lights to deal with).Likewise, the Overtrail’s impressive E-KDSS anti-roll bar defeat mechanism system doesn’t appear on the Land Cruiser, which uses a push-button front anti-roll bar disconnect instead. Standard on the Land Cruiser and First Edition models but not available on the 1958, it’s a simpler and potentially more robust alternative that absolutely keeps the price down. Prior KDSS systems always came with concerns over how much of a lift kit they could tolerate, but that’s not an issue here. What this change means for maximum articulation isn’t yet clear, but we will measure that as soon as we get one for a full workup.Interior DifferencesInside, the Land Cruiser’s dash and driver environs are made of slightly less sumptuous materials than the GX’s, but they still look attractive. Most of the switchgear is similar in location and operation, but everything is styled and positioned slightly differently—this is not parts-bin stuff. The main infotainment screen on the Land Cruiser and First Edition trims measures 12.3 inches (1958 gets an 8.0-inch screen) and has less screen height than the GX’s 14.0-inch setup, but the viewable area for things like maps and smartphone mirroring is essentially the same. In fact, the reduced screen space is a boon for the Land Cruiser, whose climate controls are physical buttons and knobs set below the air vents instead of the largely virtual GX switchgear that occupies the lower edge of the Lexus’s screen.The Land Cruiser has six USB ports to the GX’s four, and the Cruiser and First Edition grades have dual-color fog lights (switchable between white and amber) instead of the single-hue ones, power tilt and telescopic steering instead of manual, and driver’s seat memory. The GX Overtrail doesn’t get that stuff unless you spring for the far more expensive Overtrail+. The 1958 Land Cruiser doesn’t have those upgrades either, but that’s to be expected for a base model with manual cloth seats (that are quite comfortable, by the way.)More on the Land CruiserIn short, the Land Cruiser isn’t as sumptuous as the GX, but its tidier dimensions and more focused hardware equate to more off-road potential and an attainable price. First owners are far more likely to use it as intended because it didn’t cost an arm and a leg to start with. That was, after all, the whole point of reconstituting the Land Cruiser, which arguably lost the plot years ago. The reset represented by the 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser sets things right. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Toyota Land CruiserVehicle Type: front-engine, mid-motor, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Land Cruiser 1958, $57,345; Land Cruiser, $63,345; First Edition, $76,345
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 278 hp, 317 lb-ft + AC motor, 48 hp, 184 lb-ft (combined output: 326 hp, 465 lb-ft; 1.4 nickel-metal hydride battery pack [C/D est])Transmission: 8-speed automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 193.8 inWidth: 77.9 inHeight: 76.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 59/50 ft3Cargo Volume: 38 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5450 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.1 secTop Speed: 105 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/22/25 mpgDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

The tanned, gray-haired local in the current-gen BMW X4 M40i lead car is a veteran of this Autodrome de Miramas circuit in France and joined the BMW proving-ground team back in 1995. Even though the wiry professional test driver must know every single curb of this track, he and his crossover coupe didn’t stand a chance against the big, bad, camo’d 2025 X3 M50 filling his rearview mirror (BMW is dropping the “i” from the model names of its gas-powered vehicles going forward, only using that letter for its EVs). “It’s not just the extra 35 horsepower that’s giving him a hard time,” said the grinning Matthias Richter, the young vehicle dynamics project engineer strapped into the passenger seat of our prototype X3 M50. “The new model fields an extensively revised chassis, more precise and communicative steering, and a selectively beefed-up body structure for much improved handling and more tenacious cornering grip.” Playing catch and release hasn’t been this much fun in a long time.First launched in 2003 and initially built by Magna in Graz, Austria, the X3 quickly became BMW’s bestselling model and has racked up over 3.5 million deliveries to date globally. The fourth-generation version, which comes on stream in October 2024 in the U.S., will continue to be assembled in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Still based on the familiar CLAR WE platform, the new X3 is to be offered alongside the fully electric iX3 that’s derived from the brand-new Neue Klasse architecture. We understand that the first versions to go on sale in the U.S. are the four-cylinder X3 xDrive30 rated at around 280 horsepower and the six-cylinder M50 good for approximately 390 horsepower. In addition to the hybrid-assisted gasoline engines, BMW will offer the upgraded xDrive30e plug-in hybrid believed to peak at a combined 300 horsepower. BMWLonger, wider, lower, and more slippery (with a coefficient of drag of 0.27), the new SUV is also roomier than its predecessor. Developed during the COVID-19 pandemic when the world almost ground to a complete halt, the X3 was significantly decontented in a rush move to curb costs. Accordingly, the interior of the lesser models looks drab and somber in its materials and generic displays, with a pair of quirky touch sliders popping up in the door panels. On the credit side, we must thank the designers for keeping the intuitive iDrive controller, which went missing in the latest X1 and X2. The driver-assist systems have learned a bunch of new comfort- and safety-enhancing tricks. Among them are automated lane change, active lane guidance, adaptive cruise control with traffic light recognition, and various collision-avoidance measures complete with brake intervention. The new X3 also can switch from ultimate driving to ultimate parking machine. How about taking a front-row seat in your favorite street café before hitting a button on the My BMW App, which automatically moves this family-size SUV in the designated curbside space? The system can also memorize and repeat up to 10 different complex parking maneuvers, such as backing out of a super-tight underground garage. All the driver needs to do is brake, accelerate, and marvel at the technological progress. On the open road, the car uses a mix of short- and long-range radars, as well as four 3-D cameras to create a permanent 360-degree scan that covers cross traffic, cycle lanes, oncoming vehicles, and objects approaching from behind. BMWAfter that extensive but passive lesson in the new X3’s capabilities, we’re back at the wheel ready for an encore. Although some sources claim that the new X3 M50 will get a last-minute power boost to 421 horsepower, other channels suggest that the output will be kept below 400 horses because there is an unconfirmed X3 M Competition (codenamed G97) looming in the background. Outright performance, however, is not the main thrust here. The key improvements were made to the steering and the suspension. There are three variants to choose from: base, Sport, and M Sport. All three can be paired with VDC, which is BMW-speak for variable damper control. Unlike the X1 and X2, the VDC-equipped X3 actually offers two clearly different calibrations: Comfort and Sport. The same dual-mode philosophy was applied to the steering but thankfully not to the brakes. Matching these set-ups are various trim levels, as well as four wheel and tire sizes, which include for the first time extra-wide 22-inchers. In the steering department, BMW replaced the traditional dual-pinion layout with a brand-new so-called axially parallel design (APA) that’s claimed to advance handling and response. Supporting the trick steering are the wider rear track, a more rigid body structure, stiffer anti-roll bar attachments, revised pivot bearings, beefed-up control-arm mounts, and an uprated front axle geometry with more camber. “It’s a scalable system, tailor-made to match different axle loads,” explains Stefan Gress from the vehicle dynamics team. “Benefits include improved directional stability, more turn-in grip, and reduced understeer all the way to the limit. The new steering literally puts the road in the driver’s hands.” For cost reasons and to protect the more profitable X5, the smaller X won’t be available with air suspension or rear-wheel steering. We take to the track one last time in the M50 xDrive before hitting the open road in the slower but more frugal PHEV. The outer loop of the pan-flat single-track Miramas handling section is mainly second-, third-, and fourth-gear turf. Devoid of runoff areas, the ancient sun-bleached tarmac dotted with a few freshly surfaced sections here and there leaves zero room for error. Only at the very end of the vast site, where a small off-road section is tucked away behind unkempt shrubbery, does the course go up and down a couple of times before curling back past the old pig farm and a block of stables. Instead of leaving all systems in Sport, we switch the steering into Comfort, and DSC Off is only one more nudge away. This gives us a bit of extra drama at the exit of the slow corners and also allows a more playful attitude through the long 70-mph bends where the electronic rear diff permits a broader scope of sidesteps.BMWWe next set off on a tour of the Miramas hinterlands in the xDrive30e PHEV. While the previous version was rated at 292 horsepower and had an electric range of only 28 miles, insiders are predicting a minor increase to 300 horses for the latest one, while the zero-emission range is expected to increase to 60 miles thanks to a bigger battery. Although this is by no means a light vehicle, the combustion engine and the e-motor provide commendable verve and stamina. As long as the state of charge does not drop below 10 percent, there is always enough ballsy instant torque on tap for one more pedal-to-the-metal passing maneuver. Going all out is a challenge on the bumpy and winding ancient mountain roads with their sudden corners and blind crests. Dampers in Sport? No. For maximum compliance and control, Comfort is the only option. The steering also feels less erratic and better connected in Comfort. The PHEV is shod with Goodyears (255/45R-20 front, 285/40R-20 rear) featuring marginally softer sidewalls and a less extreme rubber compound for smoother breakaway characteristics and a less harsh response to ridges and potholes. Thus equipped, the X3 does a remarkable job soaking up bumps, balancing along crumbling hard shoulders, and straddling all sorts of evil speed bumps. Downsides? The e-motor occasionally doesn’t fill the turbo hole, the steering feedback is at times not quite as clear and linear as expected, and the brakes need a fast and firm foot to reel in the substantial 4500 pounds of mass and momentum. All in all, however, the new X3 feels more mature, grown-up, and dynamically classier. BMWIf our prototype drive is anything to go by, the fourth generation of the most popular BMW globally does a convincing job defending its traditional middle-ground position against the sportier and even more entertaining Porsche Macan and the more relaxed and somewhat cushier Mercedes-Benz GLC.Although I was born the only son of an ornithologist and a postal clerk, it was clear from the beginning that birdwatching and stamp collecting were not my thing. Had I known that God wanted me to grow to 6’8″, I also would have ruled out anything to do with cars, which are to blame for a couple of slipped discs, a torn ligament, and that stupid stooped posture behind the wheel. While working as a keeper in the Aberdeen Zoo, smuggling cheap cigarettes from Yugoslavia to Germany, and an embarrassing interlude with an amateur drama group also failed to yield fulfillment, driving and writing about cars became a much better option. And it still is now, many years later, as I approach my 70th birthday. I love every aspect of my job except long-haul travel on lousy airlines, and I hope it shows. More

The 2024 Aston Martin DB12 Volante can pop the decklid and deploy its eight-layer top in just 16 seconds at speeds up to 31 mph, which is useful if your planned open-cabin Malibu day trip takes you right into stormy weather. The Pacific Ocean was iron gray, but the Volante was ocean blue (Caribbean Blue on the order sheet), and with a heated steering wheel and heated seats in leather the color of a white-sand shore, we made our own warm, beachy weather as we outran the rain up the California coastline. Like the DB12 coupe, the convertible is a big machine. That’s big in the good way, like in song lyrics describing desirable partners or restaurant adverts promoting new burgers. The Volante is thick and juicy, a high-calorie treat. After the first anxiety-provoking seconds behind the wheel, mostly focused on not scraping the 21-inch Y-spoke wheels against the stone curbs leaving the hotel parking lot, we adjusted to the Aston’s size. Despite its wide hood and curvy flanks, it’s not difficult to sense where the edges are, and the result is a car that feels hefty, but pleasantly so, like a Montblanc fountain pen. There’s nothing like putting the pedal down while the top is down, and the Volante’s AMG-sourced twin-turbo 4.0-liter V-8 rewards with both vigorous acceleration and a predatory roar that grows hungrier with changes in drive mode. The Volante offers four stages of electronic stability control and five drive modes, from the soft GT mode to Sport (our preferred roadgoing setting), Sport Plus (a little lumpy for casual driving), Individual, and Wet (which we didn’t use, despite our drive being very). While the DB12 does not currently offer a V-12, and fans of the higher cylinder count may miss its distinctive croon, the V-8 in the Volante sounds amazing. It also gets a bump in power thanks to bigger turbos, new cam profiles, and better cooling, resulting in 671 horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque. Aston says it will race to 60 mph a tick slower than the roughly 250-pound-lighter coupe—we expect 3.4 seconds—and top out at 202 mph, a speed at which you’ll probably want (and need) the top up. Click through the gears with the aluminum paddles behind the thick-rimmed steering wheel, or let the ZF eight-speed automatic handle shifting duties, which it will with snappy downshifts and high-revving upshifts. We found the shifts well timed during more aggressive driving but almost comically vigorous at part-throttle acceleration, where the DB12 kicks down and digs in with the enthusiasm of a sled dog in harness. There’s no need for it, as the Aston is plenty torquey even in higher gears. Changes to both coupe and Volante from the DB11 include a shorter final drive ratio for more response where you need it. An electronic rear differential keeps both rear tires in the game. Somewhat rare for a big grand tourer, the DB12 is still rear-wheel drive with no parlor tricks such as rear-wheel steering. We didn’t miss it. Even on the narrow roads in the Malibu hills, the Aston stayed tucked in its lane. We won’t say it drove like a smaller car, because it didn’t, but there’s a particular charm to a heavyweight who can dance. Some credit for the Volante’s stable cornering is no doubt due to its bonded aluminum chassis with stiffened mounting points for the rear suspension and additional cross bracing, while new adaptive dampers and retuned rear springs smooth out bumps and potholes. Electric power steering responds quickly to directional input and offers just enough heft to match the car. Michelin Pilot Sport S5 summer tires got a workout during our wet drive, but the Volante slid just a fun amount as we navigated fallen rocks in the hills. Our test car had the carbon-ceramic disc brakes (a $14,500 option), plus bronze calipers (an additional $1800). That’s a pricey add-on, but they save nearly 60 pounds of unsprung weight over the standard rotors, and they slowed our go with authority. Back on the main road, and in a rare spot of sunshine, we had a chance to admire the cabin. Aston offers an incredible amount of customization. Its configurator will have you comparing accent stitches in a rainbow of color combos. Our car’s cream and navy leather with dark wood trim gave the Volante a yacht-like swagger that matched its powerboat driving characteristics. The Volante is available with a more aggressive carbon-fiber performance seat option, but why ruin the perfect cruiser with stiff seating? The standard seats not only look and smell great, with their diamond-stitched leather design and gentle bolsters, they’re also well padded with standard heating and available ventilation—must-haves for open-weather driving. The rear seats are for belongings, not beloveds. Related StoriesAston’s big news for both coupe and convertible DB12 is a new infotainment system. No longer a Mercedes hand-me-down, the 10.3-inch touchscreen houses Aston Martin’s first in-house software. It has some cool tricks, like a split-screen display and a rotatable camera view. The gauge cluster is digital, changes color with drive mode selection, and is virtually impossible to see with the top down. Convertible problems. Back in the touchscreen, smartphone mirroring is wireless, and there’s a charging pad tucked under the sweeping console so you can put your phone there and forget it for three days. Knurled metal switchgear includes hard buttons for things like exhaust sound, stereo volume for the optional Bowers & Wilkins 15-speaker system, and climate control. At $268,086 to start and $342,586 for our car (with options), there’s nothing budget-friendly about the DB12, but if you want a cheap convertible, pick up an ex-rental Mustang. The Volante is for a buyer who wants a say in every detail, with a drive experience that blends heritage coachbuilding with just the right amount of modern convenience. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Aston Martin DB12 VolanteVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base: $268,086
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 243 in3, 3982 cm3Power: 671 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 590 lb-ft @ 2750 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.4 inLength: 186.0 inWidth: 78.0 inHeight: 51.0 inTrunk Volume: 9 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4150 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.4 sec100 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 11.3 secTop Speed: 202 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 17/15/22 mpgLike a sleeper agent activated late in the game, Elana Scherr didn’t know her calling at a young age. Like many girls, she planned to be a vet-astronaut-artist, and came closest to that last one by attending UCLA art school. She painted images of cars, but did not own one. Elana reluctantly got a driver’s license at age 21 and discovered that she not only loved cars and wanted to drive them, but that other people loved cars and wanted to read about them, which meant somebody had to write about them. Since receiving activation codes, Elana has written for numerous car magazines and websites, covering classics, car culture, technology, motorsports, and new-car reviews. In 2020, she received a Best Feature award from the Motor Press Guild for the C/D story “A Drive through Classic Americana in a Polestar 2.”  In 2023, her Car and Driver feature story More

From the March 1975 issue of Car and Driver.Nobody can be indifferent to the new Porsche Carrera after they’ve driven it. Stand on the gas in second gear and you’ll use up a week’s quota of adrenaline in one burst. Just the smell of the interior is enough to overcome most leather fet­ishists. So the 1975 Carrera is a com­manding package, whether you are in­clined to think the Porsche blueprint was handed down on stone tablets or if you are more of the persuasion that it’s a Su­per Beetle honed to a razor edge. There are, of course, changes in the Porsche lineup for 1975. The choices have been culled down to two models: the 911S and the Carrera. Both share the same 157-hp (152 hp in California), 2.7-liter six, which is down 10 hp from last year’s 911S engine and up 14 hp from the old base engine. A four-speed transmission is standard on the 911, the five-speed is standard on the Carrera and the Sportomatic is optional on both. Other standard equipment for both mod­els includes front and rear sway bars, tinted glass and intermittent wipers.An extra $1900 over the base 911S gets you the Carrera in all of its radiant splendor. The wider wheels (7.0 inches in front and 8.0 behind, compared to 6.0 all around for the 911S) are functional, as are the wider low-profile tires on the rear and the flared fenders to accommo­date them. The aerodynamic aids (chin spoiler in front and the whale-tail on the rear lid) should be steadying influences at extra-legal speeds. And fog lamps will help you keep the pace when the ceiling is low. The rest—leather seats, velour carpet and Carrera side lettering—is cosmetic. Or labor-saving in the case of the electric windows (coupe only). So much for the specifications. You also notice a few differences as a driver. Acceleration is about the same as last year’s plain 911 due to the reduced horsepower of the new S engine and about 100 pounds of additional weight in the car—partially attributable to the new rear bumper. There is also a slight shift toward the rear in weight distribution, but this is not readily apparent in handling. Skidpad cornering ability (at 0.80 g) shows no change from last year’s Carr­era despite the extra inch of wheel width in the new model, but there does seem to be a minor improvement in road­-course behavior. The tail has learned its place a bit better and it’s less inclined to sneak out when you lift off the power at the approach of a turn. Still, the differ­ence is small. The new Porsches remain Porsches and must be driven according­ly. More power means more understeer, watch out for lift-throttle oversteer and be careful when you try to brake hard and turn hard at the same time. Apart from that, everything is rosy. If you are up on your Porsches, you will also notice that the gear ratios have once again been reshuffled so that all five speeds are effectively longer than before and there is a bigger gap be­tween first and second. The engine now sounds less frantic at cruising speeds and the interior is one dBA quieter at 70 mph than the 1974 model. Unfortunate­ly, the same old balky shift linkage con­tinues without relief. No two Porsches are alike in this regard: Some are ac­ceptably good; others, like our test Carr­era, frustrate nearly every shift. The machinery seems to bind up as you pull into gear. You must be careful or risk a graunch—which is to say you must shift slowly, which in turn is altogether out of character for this kind of automobile. Because when you get right down to cases, the new Carrera is maybe the world’s best tearing-around car. In ac­celeration, it’s got every new U.S.-legal automobile covered, including the Cor­vette. Punch the gas and it squirts. And it’s a specialist at hanging lefts and rights through the cityscape. A combina­tion Godzilla and weasel just waiting to be turned loose. But at times it’s unnecessarily hairy. Send it up an undulating blacktop at about twice the legal limit and you’d bet­ter hang on. The steering wheel twists against your grip as the front suspension geometry fights itself on every bump; as a result, your path is a series of side­ways lurches. No other car would dare act that way, but this is merely another chapter in the Porsche mystique. It’s what makes Porsches fun. It’s like driv­ing a half-wild car. You don’t dare relax; the Carrera is too nervous and twitchy (although it is admittedly tamer than the 911S of three years ago). If you want to sit back and take it easy, get a Buick or a Ferrari or something sensible like that. Porsches are for car junkies in the ad­vanced stages. It also must be remembered that Porsches are in the advanced stages themselves and, when you consider their mechanical heritage, it’s little won­der that the Carrera is a hairy car. It is the superest Super Beetle of them all. Take a look at the layout: MacPherson front suspension, semi-trailing arms in back, the engine hung out behind the rear wheels and all with a bug-shaped body draped over top. The difference is not in concept but in degree. The Carr­era is a Super Beetle optimized for per­formance, which makes it as intriguing from an engineering point of view as it is to drive. The performance is considerable: 0.80 g cornering, 0.83 g braking and enough power to urge you through the quarter mile in less than 15 seconds. And as a companion to all of this is the half-wild demeanor of a rear-engine car that makes you reluctant to take your hands off the wheel for fear it will do something rash. The truth is that enthu­siasts—be they parachute jumpers or pi­lots or drivers—are usually taken more by the quirks and the demands of their machinery than by simple sophistication. After all, sophistication does not require involvement; quirks do. And no group is more involved with its cars than Porsche drivers. Still, technology marches on. The Beetle and the Porsche 911 are now alone on what was once a highly fash­ionable island of rear-engine cars—and even these two have evacuation plans. Porsche’s escape centers about a front-engine, water-cooled V-8. With the company’s engineering expertise, it should be a sophisticated and fantastic automobile when it arrives. Yet it’s hard to imagine the new car offering more to be enthusiastic about than the Carrera. It could be more powerful—but since the Carrera is already the quickest new car around, little is to be gained here. And every step toward a conventional layout will mute the Porsche personality which, as it is known today, emanates entirely from the air-cooled rear engine. All of which tends to make today’s Carrera highly attractive to those who are susceptible to it. And Porsche, through the magic of a price cut, has done its part. Like Detroit’s price roll­backs, it’s hard to know what the Porsche cut is really worth. A long list of optional equipment for which Porsche charged exorbitant prices (mandatory rear spoiler, $285; tinted glass, $190; intermittent wipers, $25, etc.) have now been made standard equipment. This extra value is at least partially offset by a new engine that does not contain all of the premium parts of the old 911S. But the bottom line on the window sticker—­the figure that counts—is about $1000 less. Now you can buy a Carrera just like our test car for only $14,410. More 911 Reviews From the ArchiveOr you can shake your head in amaze­ment and walk on by. But the point is that nowhere else can you buy this sort of high-powered, hair-trigger sports car at any price.SpecificationsSpecifications
1975 Porsche 911 CarreraVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $13,575/$14,410Options: special paint, $330; AM/FM stereo tape player, $240; speakers, $165
ENGINEair-cooled flat-6, magnesium block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 164 in3, 2687 cm3Power: 157 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 166 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/semi-trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 9.0-in vented disc/9.6-in vented discTires: Dunlop SP Sport SuperF: 185/70VR-15R: 215/60VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 89.4 inLength: 168.9 inWidth: 65.0 inHeight: 52.0 inCurb Weight: 2576 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.2 sec90 mph: 14.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.9 sec @ 92 mphTop Speed (observed): 132 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 196 ftRoadholding: 0.83 g  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the May/June issue of Car and Driver.Elsewhere in this magazine is a comparison test of eight rational compact SUVs that carry families, haul groceries, and do the daily grind honorably. Here, we compare two examples of a very different type of automobile. Built less for the practical side of transportation and more for the admittedly selfish pursuit of driving pleasure, the 500-hp Ford Mustang Dark Horse and its 453-hp German rival, the BMW M2, square up against each other now that the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger have hit the showers. Both the Dark Horse and the M2 are products of a major refresh, indicating that their makers are here to play for a little while longer—but maybe not much longer. The M2 is likely to be the last BMW to offer three pedals, according to M’s head of development, Dirk Hacker, and the Mustang is Ford’s lone surviving passenger car, although Ford CEO Jim Farley promises that the V-8 Mustang has a lot of life left in it. Perhaps you’re wondering why we didn’t include the Toyota Supra and the new Nissan Z NISMO in this round. We decided to examine only cars with rear seats; practicality isn’t completely dead here.Seeking the most visceral driving experience, we opted for the six-speed manual versions of the 2023 M2 and 2024 Dark Horse. The prices also lined up well. At $75,345, the M2 came equipped with the Carbon package ($9900), which adds carbon-fiber trim, sheds weight with a carbon-fiber roof and M Carbon bucket seats, and unlocks a higher top-speed governor and a day at BMW’s driving school. The M2 also had the Shadowline package ($300), which darkens the headlight surrounds and cannon-sized quad exhaust tips, plus adaptive LED headlights ($650) and special emblems and badging from the BMW M 50 Years package ($200). Its Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires are standard. The $78,755 Mustang Dark Horse had plenty of extras too. The Dark Horse Handling package ($5495) brings adjustable strut mounts, a more aggressive tune for the magnetorheological dampers, and wider 19-inch wheels wrapped in sticky Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS tires, which happen to fall under Tire Rack’s “streetable track and competition” category. The Recaro seats ($1995) get unique bolsters, while Grabber Blue brake calipers cost $495. The Premium package ($3995) tacked on an anti-theft system, wheel locks, and a garage-door opener. The painted Tarnish Dark and Shadow Black hood stripe ($5495) is an option we could go without. A day at Ford’s Performance Driving School is included with all Dark Horses. To ensure a proper environment for testing these two coupes, we drew a loop from Los Angeles southeast to Borrego Springs, then back north via Palm Springs and west into the city of Azusa. Palomar Mountain challenged us with tightly knit hairpins, Palm Desert’s Highway 74 brought high-speed sweepers, and San Gabriel Canyon Road took us to new heights and a dead end. To keep things real, we sprinkled in the occasional freeway stint around greater L.A. After over 500 miles of fun, we settled on a winner. Interior and ExteriorDespite each car sharing a host of spicy menu items, sitting in both is like visiting two completely different restaurants. Both vehicles get sport seats and large screens, but that’s where the similarities end. The manually adjustable Recaros in the Dark Horse are plush and comfortable. The M2 gets racing-style carbon-fiber buckets that are not only tough to get in and out of but also force your legs together. Technical editor Dan Edmunds complained about a lack of padding, digging his wallet out of his back pocket to find relief each time he climbed in. The M2’s seats were better at holding us in place during high-g cornering maneuvers, but the Mustang’s Recaros remained the obvious favorite in every other environment.Nostalgia and technology bump heads in the Mustang’s interior. Dotting the center stack ahead of the shifter are the push-button start, volume knob, and traction-control button. The whole area looks like it’s just missing a tape deck. Perched above it, though, is a Jumbotron-rivaling 13.2-inch infotainment touchscreen, and directly in front of the driver is a 12.4-inch digital instrument cluster. Wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are on the menu, as are launch-control settings and track-data analysis, and the gauge cluster’s look can change to a digital rendition of the 1987–1993 Mustang’s instruments. The Ford infotainment system did suffer from slow startups, distortion in music while using smartphone streaming apps, and relatively sluggish reaction to inputs.Ford Mustang Dark HorseHIGHS: Beauty that’s both seen and heard, comfy seats for the streets, brakes that will get you out of trouble. LOWS: Defeated by most gas stations and their entrances, it’s not good when the late-’80s gauge cluster is the clearest one, a few infotainment-related problems. VERDICT: The last—and best—of its kind.The BMW offers more screen acreage with a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and a 14.9-inch center touchscreen embedded in the dash. There’s an almost overwhelming level of configurability, which makes finding an operation as basic as disabling lane-keeping assist a user-experience nightmare. You select drive modes through the touchscreen too, although you can activate your combination of favorites with the bright red M1 and M2 toggle switches near the center of the steering wheel. Light blue, dark blue, and red M patterns on the M2’s door panels and within the M Carbon bucket seats’ inserts add a splash of color to the BMW’s interior. There are carbon-fiber trim pieces on the steering wheel, dash, center console, door panels, and places where the Dark Horse uses grained plastic instead. Neither coupe has rear seats worthy of human passengers, but if you do cram someone back there, at least the BMW offers climate controls to keep them from complaining too much.Upright and relatively glassy, the M2’s greenhouse provides easy outside views. The Mustang’s smaller side glass and its mirrors that are no bigger than Pop-Tarts limit visibility. In the BMW’s rearview mirror, you can see a subtle hump at the corner of the trunklid, while the Dark Horse blocks that view with a wing. Good outward visibility makes lane changes less stressful—advantage, BMW.Powertrain and PerformanceThe Dark Horse takes choice parts from great Mustangs of the recent past: forged connecting rods from the discontinued Shelby GT500 and the Tremec TR-3160 six-speed manual transmission out of the last-gen Mach 1 and Shelby GT350/350R. The M2 is a mix of spare parts too. Its twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-six powerplant is a slightly detuned version of the S58 found in many BMW M models. The 15.0-inch front and 14.6-inch rear rotors, adaptive dampers, and an electronically controlled limited-slip differential are all borrowed from its big brother, the M4. The straight-six in the M2 revs as if unencumbered by reciprocating mass. At no point on its way to a 7200-rpm redline does it sound as exciting and menacing as the Dark Horse’s 5.0- liter V-8, but the altitude-compensating turbos kept the BMW squirting ahead of the Ford in the thin air 4000 feet above sea level. On city streets, it’s the Mustang that has people swiveling their heads to see what is making that sound—especially with the exhaust in Sport or Track mode.The M2 wins the race to 60 mph, which it completes in 4.1 seconds, two-tenths quicker than the Mustang. It beats the Ford nearly everywhere, traveling a quarter-mile in 12.3 seconds at 119 mph versus the Dark Horse’s 12.7-second run at 115 mph. The M2’s short gearing means passing at freeway speeds doesn’t necessarily call for a downshift; the Bimmer’s 6.7-second 50-to-70-mph result is 2.5 seconds quicker than the taller-geared Mustang’s. BMW M2HIGHS: As quick as techno, performance that’s more accessible, easier to live with on a daily basis.LOWS: Can’t hear it over the Mustang’s V-8, optional seats are hard and difficult to get out of, shifter lacks the crisp engagement of the Stang’s.VERDICT: A practical, powerful, and fun sports coupe—the kind BMW used to make.During our stopping tests, the Mustang’s humongous 15.4-inch two-piece iron front rotors, six-piston calipers, and sticky summer tires dug in. The Dark Horse stopped from 70 mph in 141 feet, 10 feet sooner than the M2, and from 100 mph in 274 feet, 23 less than the BMW.Both the Mustang and the M2 gained some weight with this generation. At 3968 pounds, the Dark Horse is 214 pounds heavier than the BMW and 175 pounds heavier than its closest analogue, the previous-generation Mustang Mach 1. The M2, though 182 pounds heavier than the previous-generation M2 Competition, is easily the nimbler and more playful of the two.Driving ExperienceAgainst the seemingly never-ending corners of the best canyon roads Southern California has to offer, the M2 proves to be the easier coupe to drive quickly. The BMW’s Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires aren’t as aggressive as the big boots on the Mustang, but 1.04 g’s on the skidpad isn’t far behind the Dark Horse’s 1.07-g average. On the street, the M2 lacks the grip of the fat-tired Dark Horse, but it’s happier approaching its limits, inspiring the confidence to go harder into the next apex. The Dark Horse never gets left behind, but despite having better steering feel than the BMW, its larger size and greater mass do make hustling it on tight roads feel more like work. But sometimes work is fun. Plus, the V-8’s exhaust note sounds breathtaking as it echoes off canyon walls.Whatever the setting, the M2’s steering effort is usually too light. It’s easy to give it too much input, though a good driver will adjust quickly. And though we preferred the Mustang’s steering feel, it too left us wanting more feedback. Listening to the Dark Horse’s Pirellis squeal tells you more than the steering wheel does anyway. The driver can configure the M2’s ride toward comfort, but even the more pliant damper settings can’t add cushion to the stiff competition seats. The Dark Horse benefits from a smooth ride and plush seating, but its Handling package gives it just enough camber to cause tramlining on anything but perfectly smooth roads. Working the Tremec six-speed’s titanium shift knob is a direct and mechanical affair. Quick shifts are possible in both, although the Ford seems happier to take the abuse of a fast one-to-two redline shift. It also features no-lift shifting.The Mustang’s predatory growl greatly out-shouts the buzzing and pops of the M2. At highway speeds, the M2 is quieter and more relaxed than the Mustang and goes a lot farther on a gallon of gas. Its twin-turbocharged inline-six sipped a gallon every 18 miles, while the V-8-powered Dark Hose sucked down premium at a rate of 14 mpg. Offsetting that efficiency advantage is the BMW’s tiny 13.7-gallon tank, which requires refilling almost as often as the Dark Horse’s 16.0-gallon hold.When you pull into the gas station, you might scrape the Dark Horse’s optional front splitter upon entrance. Driving with it attached during street use requires angled entries to avoid damage. With no front parking sensors or camera, park carefully or listen for the crunch. The M2 (Captain Practical, as we nicknamed it) clears most parking blocks and—unlike the Mustang—has front park assist for when it won’t.And the Winner Is . . .Many of the Dark Horse’s best attributes—the roaring V-8, the sticky rubber, its menacing muscle-car looks, and its mega brakes—are all good enough reasons to want one. The BMW might not measure up when it comes to V-8 rumble, but it serves up performance with greater ease. More glass makes it easier to sluice through traffic. Its infotainment software operates without a hiccup. Its shifter, though not as wonderfully mechanical as the Mustang’s, is effortless to row quickly. We don’t love how light the steering feels in the M2, but the lighter clutch-pedal feel is easier on the leg. Plus, the M2 is quicker. More on the M2 and Mustang Dark HorseThe Dark Horse costs over $15,000 more than a similarly optioned Mustang GT and barely beats the GT’s performance. There always has to be a second place, but we wouldn’t call the Dark Horse a loser. Both coupes supply the type of driving experience we love, and we’re willing to give up a bit of comfort, some fuel economy, and a little of our hearing to experience it. But the M2 requires less sacrifice to enjoy the same performance and is a better time when you’re just trundling home on a clogged freeway. It’s more comfortable, more refined, and easier to drive to its limits. The BMW takes the win, but if you fall hard for the Mustang’s V-8, we completely understand.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 BMW M2Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $63,195/$75,345Options: Carbon Fiber package (M carbon roof, M Carbon bucket seats, and M Driver’s package, carbon fiber trim), $9900; Live Cockpit Pro (head-up display), $1100; lighting package (adaptive full LED lights, automatic high-beams), $650; Shadowline package (M Shadowline lights and exhaust tips), $300; BMW M 50 Years emblems, $200
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2993 cm3Power: 453 hp @ 6250 rpmTorque: 406 lb-ft @ 2650 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.0-in vented, cross-drilled disc/14.6-in vented, cross-drilled discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4SF: 275/35ZR-19 (100Y)R: 285/30ZR-20 (99Y)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.1 inLength: 180.3 inWidth: 74.3 inHeight: 55.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54/34 ft3Trunk Volume: 14 ft3Curb Weight: 3754 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.3 sec @ 119 mph130 mph: 14.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 178 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 151 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 297 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.04 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 19/16/24 mpg 
— 
2024 Ford Mustang Dark HorseVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,080/$78,755Options: Dark Horse Handling package (adjustable strut top mounts, revised chassis tuning, magnetic damping system, 305/315 tires, performance rear spoiler with Gurney flap, front tow hooks, tarnished aluminum painted 19-inch wheels), $5495; custom hood and accent strip, $5495; Equipment Group 700A Premium package (premier trim with color accent group, accent stitched center console with electronic locking lid, wrapped knee bolsters with accent stitch shifter boot, color accent door trim, Security package, active anti-theft system, wheel locking kit, approach detection, welcome/farewell exterior lighting, universal garage door opener, memory driver seat and mirrors, aluminum foot pedals), $3995; Recaro Sport Seats, $1995; Grabber Blue brake calipers, $495; premium floor mats, $200
ENGINEDOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 307 in3, 5038 cm3Power: 500 hp @ 7250 rpmTorque: 418 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.4-in vented disc/14.0-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RSF: 305/30ZR-19 (98Y)R: 315/30ZR-19 (100Y)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.0 inLength: 189.7 inWidth: 75.5 inHeight: 55.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/30 ft3Trunk Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 3968 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.3 sec100 mph: 9.9 sec1/4-Mile: 12.7 sec @ 115 mph130 mph: 16.8 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 9.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 9.2 secTop Speed (mfr claim): 166 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 141 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 274 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.07 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/14/22 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDYes, he’s still working on the 1986 Nissan 300ZX Turbo project car he started in high school, and no, it’s not for sale yet. Austin Irwin was born and raised in Michigan, and, despite getting shelled by hockey pucks during a not-so-successful goaltending career through high school and college, still has all of his teeth. He loves cars from the 1980s and Bleu, his Great Pyrenees, and is an active member of the Buffalo Wild Wings community. When Austin isn’t working on his own cars, he’s likely on the side of the highway helping someone else fix theirs. More

From the June 1989 issue of Car and Driver.We have driven the all-new 1990 Acura Integra, and it is good. Damn good. And yet we’ve come away from our preview drive feeling disappointed.More on that in a moment. First, some background. Even a casual reader will know that the old Integra was one of our favorite cars. Ever since its 1986 debut, the sporty hatchback from Honda’s upscale division has impressed us with its amazing combination of practicality, performance, value, quality, and refinement. We voted the Integra onto our Ten Best Cars list in 1987 and then again in 1988. The Integra failed to make the Ten Best cut for 1989, largely because of tough new competition in the sports-coupe ranks, but by then Honda had a new Integra waiting in the on-deck circle.The newcomer is now at the plate and ready to swing. Ruthless in its product-introduction schedule, Honda replaces its major players every four years whether the scouting reports say “minor-league” or “all-star.” (And they almost always say the latter.) Thus despite the old model’s heady press notices, the 1990 Integra is new from the tire contact patches up. It sports a new engine, a pair of new transmissions, a new suspension, and a new interior. The Integra’s look has changed, too: the five-door hatch­back is gone, replaced by a new four-­door notchback sedan. The three-door hatchback remains, but it too is com­pletely restyled. Based on the latest Civic platform, the new Integra is longer, wider, and lower than the old model. The new three-­door’s 100.4-inch wheelbase is almost four inches longer than the previous model’s, and the new four-door sedan’s 102.4-inch wheelbase is more than three inches longer than the extinct five-­door’s. Both models employ the Civic’s suspension pieces: unequal-length con­trol arms and coil springs up front and a multilink layout at the rear. The latter ar­rangement consists of a trailing arm, two lateral links, a toe-control link, and a coil spring at each corner. Each end wears an anti-roll bar, and gas-pressurized shocks are used all around. The bodies that cover these worthy components are entirely new. Compared with the old Integra, which was sharp and angular, the new models are soft, round­ed, and smooth. Flush headlights replace the old car’s pop-up units. Frameless window glass tops the side doors. Neat, thin taillights grace the restyled rear end. The shapes look functional, and they are: the three-door’s drag coefficient is a low 0.32, and the four-door checks in with a 0.34 Cd. The interior is all-new as well, but that doesn’t mean surprises. Logic continues to be Honda’s guiding design force. The gauges are large, clear analog dials; the switches are simple buttons and knobs that feel good to the touch. And thanks to a panel that cants toward the driver, all the controls fall within easy reach. Happily, Honda has replaced the old car’s mobile-home-grade door and seat mate­rial with a natty gray cloth that considera­bly improves the interior’s appeal. We still have a few minor gripes—the steer­ing-wheel spokes, for example, are set lower than we’d like—but overall this is a first-rate cockpit. Despite increased interior room, the three-door hatchback remains best suit­ed to two passengers and their luggage. Normal-sized adults can fit into the rear seats, but they won’t want to sit in them for long. Cargo fits better: the rear seat splits 60–40 and can fold down com­pletely for extra storage space. Drivers who frequently travel with more than one companion will want the four-door se­dan. It can carry four adults comfortably, and it has an 11.2-cubic-foot trunk.The new Integra is more potent than the previous model, thanks to a new six­teen-valve, DOHC 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine. The all-aluminum 1.8-liter puts out 130 hp at 6000 rpm—a ten-percent increase over the old 1.6-liter four. Torque is up 17.5 percent, to 121 pound-feet at 5000 rpm. The Integra de­livers that power to the front wheels through one of two new transmissions: a five-speed manual with revised ratios and a larger clutch, or a stronger yet more compact four-speed automatic with a lockup torque converter. A driver­-selectable Sport mode raises the auto­matic’s shift points and increases its responsiveness. Whereas the old Integra offered two trim levels, the new Integra offers three. The base RS package includes such stan­dard items as fog lamps, tinted glass, a rear wiper-washer (on the three-door only), intermittent wipers, and motor­ized front passive seatbelts. The LS trim kit adds power side mirrors, an AM/FM stereo with cassette, a power sunroof, and a new electric-servo-controlled cruise-control system that’s said to be more accurate than the previous vacu­um-operated system. The new top-of­-the-line CS package includes all of the previously mentioned niceties plus alloy wheels, power windows, adjustable side bolsters on the driver’s seat, and—on the three-door model—a rear spoiler. Most important, all GS Integras come with Honda’s ALB anti-lock braking system as standard equipment.Though we sampled both three-door and four-door Integras during our preview drive at Honda’s Tochigi proving grounds in Japan, we spent the bulk of our time in a top-model five-speed GS three-door. We never base our final conclusions on preview drives, but we came away from our experience in the three-door GS with a number of telling observations.The new Integra exhibits all of the goodness of the previous model—and more. The new engine winds to its redline with all the smooth, effortless grace of the old 1.6-liter, and the five-speed box shifts with a slickness all but unmatched in the industry. Despite the extra power provided by the larger engine, however, the Integra still doesn’t feel like a class-beating performer. We didn’t have a chance to conduct any instrumented tests, but a few hand-timed acceleration runs showed acceleration from 0 to 60 mph in the low-eight-sec­ond range. We saw an indicated 126 mph on the Honda PG’s banked oval, a con­siderable improvement over the old car’s 112-mph top end.Hustled around the PG’s twisty road circuit, the new Integra proved that Honda’s engineers have learned from past criticisms. The old car tended to lose its poise when pushed hard; the suspen­sion felt too soft for seriously sporting maneuvers. And the steering lacked the direct feel that serious drivers appreciate. Happily, both of those shortcomings have received attention. The new all-in­dependent suspension feels considera­bly tauter and more composed than the previous rigid-rear-axle layout. Bend into a tight corner and the new Integra responds with no theatrics. Understeer is still the prevalent cornering attitude, but there’s enough trailing-throttle over­steer to make the car tossable and easy to slide around. The GS’s standard 195/60VR-14 Michelin MXVs add to the fun, providing reasonable grip and predict­able limits. A new variable-assist steering system all but cures our other major complaint. The old Integra’s steering system was precise but furnished little in the way of cornering information to the driver. The new system, which gradually feathers out the amount of power assist as speed in­creases, is vastly superior. The Integra now steers with an accuracy and smooth­ness approaching the high standards set by Honda’s own front-drive Prelude. By now you’re probably wondering why we prefaced this report with a sour note. What’s not to like, you ask? Our disappointment stems from the new Integra’s character. The cars from Honda’s Acura Division are supposed to deliver something above and beyond Honda’s standard offerings. For the Integra, that has always meant a little added zest—more spirit, if you will. And that strategy has worked. The strictly sensible folks who wanted a first-class, no-nonsense set of wheels bought Honda’s Accord. Enthusiasts, on the oth­er hand—those buyers swayed by the conspicuous growl of a DOHC engine and the rakish presence of a swept-roof hatchback—gravitated toward the sporty Integra. The new Integra, however, is a mid­dle-of-the-road car. Granted, its styling is smooth and neat—there’s not a tacky line on the exterior. But the shape is conser­vative, even boring. Instead of looking dashing, the new Integra looks stocky. The wheel wells look too roomy (or may­be the tires are too small). The rear spoil­er spoils the clean rear end. The nose looks heavy. This is not an exciting car to look at. More Integra Reviews From the ArchiveNor is it particularly exciting to drive. Prior to our preview, we had heard ru­mors of a hot 1.6-liter four-cylinder with variable valve timing and horsepower ga­lore. The rumors, it turns out, are true—if you live in Japan. Domestic-market Integras will get a potent 1.6-liter four that is said to produce almost 160 hp (Honda would not confirm the output at our preview). Our Honda hosts made the mistake of allowing us to drive this hot­-to-trot Integra on the Tochigi oval. That was all we needed to feel cheated. Fitted with this powerplant, the Integra comes alive. The variable-valve-timing 1.6-liter four screams to its 8000-rpm redline like a Formula 1 engine under an iron boot. And it easily reaches that redline in fifth gear. Talk about zest! Unfortunately, Honda views the U.S. as torque territory. That means a larger­-displacement engine with lots of low-end grunt, not a high-revving 1.6-liter ban­shee that prefers manual transmissions to automatics. And so, unless U.S. de­mand is great enough, the sizzling 1.6-liter will remain a Japan-only treat.SpecificationsSpecifications
1990 Acura Integra GSVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2- or 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base (estimated): $12,000–$16,500
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 112 in3, 1834 cm3Power: 130 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 121 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm 
TRANSMISSIONS
5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 100.4–102.4 inLength: 172.9–176.5 inWidth: 67.4 inHeight: 52.2–52.8 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 2550–2700 lb
MANUFACTURER’S PERFORMANCE RATINGS
60 mph, 2-door manual/auto; 4-door manual/auto: 8.7/9.7 sec; 8.9/9.9 sec1/4-Mile, 2-door manual/auto; 4-door manual/auto: 16.5/17.4 sec; 16.6/17.5 secTop Speed, 2-door manual/auto; 4-door manual/auto: 126/124 mph; 124/122 mph 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity, manual/auto: 24/22 mpgHighway, manual/auto: 28/26 mpg More

Buying ice cream—much like shopping for a car—is a matter of taste. Sure, there are objective qualities to measure (something we focus on quite extensively), but after mulling over your fourth free sample, you choose the flavor you think will bring you the most joy. None of the options is bad; ice cream is a delicious treat no matter the flavor, but in the end, you follow your gut. Literally. New-car shopping is quite similar. When choosing between compact SUVs like the 2024 Mazda CX-50 and the 2024 Volkswagen Tiguan—two vehicles with more positive qualities than negative—the final choice often comes down to a simple matter of taste. We rounded up a pair of crossovers dressed to the nines with options, loaded up a weekend’s worth of luggage, and headed for the hills to see which SUV our taste buds preferred. What We TestedThe Mazda’s trim lineup offers more flavors than the Volkswagen’s, with an entry model starting at $31,675 and eight total trim levels compared to the VW’s four. Our top-trim CX-50 Turbo Premium Plus fetched $44,675, while our Tiguan SEL R-Line was equally loaded and stickered at a more modest $40,700, with the only addition being the Kings Red Metallic paint for $395. All-wheel drive is standard across the entire CX-50 lineup and on the SEL R-Line, but on lower Tiguan trims, all-wheel drive is a $1500 option.The Mazda’s zippy turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder is good for 256 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque (there’s also a less powerful naturally aspirated version). No matter the trim, all Tiguans feature a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder putting out 184 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque. 2024 Volkswagen Tiguan SEL R-LineHIGHS: Costco-ready interior, compliant ride and handling. LOWS: Unenthusiastic powertrain, frustrating mix of new and old infotainment controls.VERDICT: Practicality without any flashiness.Interior Comparison The CX-50’s interior is all class from the moment you open the door. Dark leather is draped throughout the cabin, helping the CX-50 feel certifiably premium, especially with contrast piping and stitching on the seats. Forward visibility from the driver’s seat is good, but the low roofline hinders rearward visibility a bit. Headroom in the Mazda also could be better, and one evaluator complained about too-thick A-pillars. View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Mazda CX-50 Turbo Premium PlusView PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Volkswagen Tiguan SELThe vibe from the German is a bit more utilitarian, to the surprise of nobody. The Tiguan’s materials are nice but not too flashy or stylish against the Mazda’s moody feel. The driver sits more upright in the Volkswagen, minimizing blind spots. And whereas the Mazda’s rear seat feels cramped, the Volkswagen’s earned praise for its airiness. Neither car manages to earn top marks in the ergonomics department. The Mazda’s finicky rotary-dial infotainment control is far from our favorite, while the Volkswagen frustrated our testers with its array of imprecise touch-sliders and haptic climate controls. The Mazda at least offers a workaround of sorts, with the inclusion of a touchscreen that you have to lean uncomfortably far forward to use.Fuel Economy and LivabilityThe Tiguan makes a case for itself in the fuel-economy department, beating out the Mazda during our evaluation. We covered roughly 600 miles during our testing, and the Tiguan sipped considerably less fuel throughout, returning 26 mpg compared to 23 in the Mazda. Things were tighter in our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy testing, where the Tiguan earned 30 mpg to the Mazda’s 29. That’s pretty close, considering the 72-hp, 99-pound-foot delta between their respective engines.The Tiguan’s extra length and taller roofline help prove the SUV’s worth as a grocery getter. The Tiguan crushes the CX-50 in practical storage and has room for 25 carry-on-sized boxes with the rear seats folded, compared to 20 in the Mazda. The Tiguan wins with the rear seats up as well, though the results are closer at 11 and nine boxes. 2024 Mazda CX-50 Turbo Premium PlusHIGHS: Handsome interior finishes, robust turbo four.LOWS: Cramped rear seat, middling fuel economy.VERDICT: A seamless blend of luxury and sportiness.How They Drive and PerformWhat it lacks in fuel efficiency, the CX-50 makes up in on-road enjoyment. Nudge the throttle and the CX-50 rolls off the line with smooth acceleration and linear power delivery. Turn the radio down low, stomp the accelerator a bit harder, and the Mazda’s turbo 2.5-liter offers a gearhead-placating level of turbocharger sound that earned more than one smile from our evaluators with the wastegate’s hushed woot doot doot. For the Tiguan’s part, throttle response is sharp, but acceleration quickly runs out of steam. It marches to 60 mph in a humdrum 8.2 seconds, a far cry from the Mazda’s impressive 6.4-second hustle. We found the Tiguan’s eight-speed automatic transmission to be a step behind the engine, as well, often settling on a gear higher than desired in spirited driving sessions. View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Volkswagen Tiguan SELCompared to more vanilla crossovers in the segment, like the Nissan Rogue and the Kia Sportage, both the CX-50 and the Tiguan have impressive body control and handling. The steering is precise in both models. The Mazda overcomes its clearly artificially weighted steering, offering a sliver more precision and confidence than the Tiguan’s somewhat overboosted helm. Neither car is destined for the racetrack, but the Mazda does a good job of making you forget you’re driving a compact crossover. Which is Better?Although the Volkswagen offers better fuel economy and slightly more space, we continuously found ourselves wanting to spend our time living with and driving the Mazda. The nicer cabin, sportier driving demeanor, and handsome styling were just to our taste. If you’re willing to indulge the upcharge, the 2024 Mazda CX-50 proves quite the rewarding complement to daily life. You are buying dessert, after all, so why not pile on a few more sprinkles and add a waffle cone? View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Mazda CX-50 Turbo Premium PlusSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mazda CX-50 Turbo Premium PlusVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $44,675/$44,675Options: none
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2488 cm3Power: 256 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 320 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
6-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/12.8-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle Touring245/45R-20 99V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.8 inLength: 185.8 inWidth: 75.6 inHeight: 63.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/46 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 56/31 ft3Curb Weight: 3864 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4-Mile: 14.9 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 17.8 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.8 secTop Speed (mfr claim): 142 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 460 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 25/23/29 mpg
—
2024 Volkswagen Tiguan SEL R-Line AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $40,305/$40,700Options: Kings Red Metallic paint, $395
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 121 in3, 1984 cm3Power: 184 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 221 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/11.8-in discTires: Pirelli Scorpion Zero All-Season255/40R-20 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 109.9 inLength: 186.1 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 73/38 ft3Curb Weight: 4003 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 23.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.6 secTop Speed (C/D est): 124 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 181 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 26 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 470 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/22/29 mpg

C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDJack Fitzgerald’s love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1. After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn’t afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. More

For Porsche, the Taycan Turbo GT’s 1092 horsepower was just the starting point in the quest for EV supremacy. The four-door sedan ditches its rear seat, swapping in a carbon-fiber storage bin (saving 49 pounds); it removes the driver’s-side charge-port door and associated wiring to save weight, even at the expense of an entirely new fender stamping. It also uses thinner windshield glass, ditches the rear speakers, and tosses the floor mats. We can’t help but respect Porsche’s all-in commitment on its new top dog in the Taycan lineup. Granted, the most extreme measures come only if you select the Weissach package, which, in addition to the weight-saving measures, brings a large, fixed wing in the back along with front and rear splitters and underbody changes that help create to 175 pounds of front and 310 pounds of rear downforce. Weissach-package cars also get gummy Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS Elect track-oriented tires as standard, whereas they’re optional on the more feature-laden standard Turbo GT. All Turbo GTs have forged 21-inch wheels. We drove Europe-spec cars, which also get fixed-back carbon-fiber buckets, but those don’t meet U.S. unbelted-occupant crash requirements (absurd U.S. regulations strike again). Overall, the Turbo GT with Weissach is a claimed 165 pounds lighter than a regular Turbo GT and 157 pounds lighter than a Turbo S.Transformative TiresHere’s your regular reminder that tires make all the difference, and at our drive on the 2.4-mile Monteblanco circuit outside Seville, Spain, the Trofeo RS Elects completely transform the Turbo GT. There’s so much more front grip than with the standard Pirelli P Zero R rubber, which is to be expected, but the tires also totally change the balance of the car. With the P Zero Rs, we were a little underwhelmed by the tame, mild-understeer balance at the limit. But the Trofeo RSs—which have many Taycan-specific differences in the angles of the belts and plies, according to Pirelli, as well as the compound versus the off-the-shelf version or the ones fitted to the Ford Mustang Dark Horse—work the rear end much harder. It’s also far easier to get the rear end to waggle, but it still doesn’t bite. Even in Sport Plus mode, the steering effort is relatively light, but the pavement texture flows far more freely to one’s fingers than in most EVs. The active dampers that are also available across the rest of the updated 2025 Taycan lineup, called Porsche Active Ride, are standard on the Turbo GT. Even at racetrack speeds, they make for oh-so-flat cornering and the ability to more completely leverage the tires’ grip. We found the brake pedal to have a slight dead zone at the top of its travel, but then the large fixed calipers and carbon-ceramic rotors—Porsche trimmed almost five pounds from the brake hardware as well—shed speed of the roughly 4950-pound Taycan seriously quickly. Peak PowerThe Turbo GT retains a two-motor powertrain, but a 900-amp rear inverter, what converts the battery’s DC energy to AC for the rear motor, replaces a 600-amp unit from the Taycan Turbo S and is the key element in the massive power boost. The higher-flow inverter eats into some trunk space, not that buyers of a two-seat sedan will likely mind. Peak output can briefly kiss 1092 horsepower (for two seconds), with 1019 horses available for 10-second bursts; the Turbo S has a 938-hp peak. Adding some grams to the Turbo GT are steering-wheel-mounted paddles that are unique in the Taycan lineup. These were the idea of development driver Lars Kern, making it easier to actuate the boost mode than using the button at the center of the mode-control knob, which is how it’s done on lesser Taycans. The button remains, but the right paddle is easier to grab when doing serious wheel work, and Kern did so nine times during the Laguna Seca lap and 20 during the ‘Ring lap to add a 160-hp hit for 10 seconds at a time. Porsche didn’t want to do a mono paddle like GM has done on its EVs to control additional regenerative braking, so the left paddle switches between the Taycan’s two regen settings. Every other Weissach package that Porsche has offered—which until now has only been available on sports cars such as the 911 GT2 and GT3 RS, the Cayman GT4 RS, and the 918 Spyder—has cost serious money, typically $15,000 to $30,000. But on the $231,995 Taycan Turbo GT, it’s a no-cost option. This perhaps says a lot about how many Taycan buyers the company believes are clamoring for such a hardcore electric sedan.Track TimesBut the big question, ostensibly the Turbo GT’s reason for being, is whether it’s quicker than the 1020-hp Tesla Model S Plaid and the 1234-hp Lucid Air Sapphire. Straight-line acceleration is too close to call, with Porsche’s acceleration claims putting the Turbo GT right on top of or fractionally ahead of what we’ve measured from the other two. Porsche has already set records for production EVs at Laguna Seca and the Nürburgring, in both cases one-upping the Model S Plaid. At the ‘Ring, the Turbo GT went nearly 18 seconds quicker than the Tesla and an insane 26 seconds quicker than the previous Taycan Turbo S. That’s a monumental improvement, but there was some low-hanging fruit. Development driver Kern, the wheelman for both of those records, says the Turbo GT’s higher top speed—180 mph or, with the Weissach package, 190 mph—alone was worth three to four seconds through the fastest sections, where the Turbo S previously maxed out at its 161-mph limiter. Kern reckons that the Trofeo RS tires are worth roughly 1.5 to two seconds at Laguna Seca and about six seconds at the Nürburgring. The engineering necessity was for the car to be able to give its all for an entire lap of the ‘Ring. Kern recalls that during the record-setting lap, the battery temperature started at 57 degrees and rose to 144 degrees, just shy of the 149-degree give point.More on the TaycanAt our last Lightning Lap outing, the Lucid Air Sapphire decisively set a new EV record, going nearly 11 seconds quicker than a 2020 Taycan Turbo S. But the Turbo GT, with acceleration equal to the Sapphire’s, far more extreme tires, and about 350 pounds less weight, should have more than a fighting chance at taking back that mantle. We can’t wait to find out if it does.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Porsche Taycan Turbo GTVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 2- or 4-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base: $231,995; Turbo GT with Weissach package, $231,995
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC Rear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC Combined Power: 1092 hpCombined Torque: 988 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 97.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 320 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive, 2-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 114.2 inLength: 195.6 inWidth: 78.7 inHeight: 54.3 inCargo Volume, F/R: 3/12–13 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4950–5100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 2.0–2.1 sec100 mph: 4.3–4.4 sec1/4-Mile: 9.3–9.4 secTop Speed: 180–190 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined: 71–84 MPGeRange: 230–270 miDave VanderWerp has spent more than 20 years in the automotive industry, in varied roles from engineering to product consulting, and now leading Car and Driver’s vehicle-testing efforts. Dave got his very lucky start at C/D by happening to submit an unsolicited resume at just the right time to land a part-time road warrior job when he was a student at the University of Michigan, where he immediately became enthralled with the world of automotive journalism. More