Evelyn Reynolds

In the case of the 2024 BMW X5 M60i, it’s not hard to see why Bimmer pilots earn disrepute among car folk. When a large luxury SUV can deliver this much power this smoothly and consistently across the speedometer, it’s not hard to overshoot your targeted velocity, nor is it difficult to keep pulling water from that well until flashing red and blue lights appear in the rearview. But raw motive force is only part of the appeal; this longtime favorite manages to do everything with grace, landing in the sweet spot between the need for speed and daily-driving compliance.In these times of cylinder downsizing, there’s comfort to be found under the X5 M60i’s hood. The twin-turbo 4.4-liter V-8 hiding in there produces a meaty 523 horsepower and 553 pound-feet of torque, which in our testing was enough to shove this 5360-pound SUV to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds. That puts it three-tenths ahead of the latest Porsche Cayenne S Coupe, which also rocks a V-8 (albeit one that makes just 468 ponies) and boasts a curb weight advantage of about 250 pounds. The BMW’s still that far ahead at the quarter-mile mark, as well, which it reaches in 12.1 seconds at 113 mph.But stoplight drags only cover a part of what makes the X5 M60i’s powertrain so rewarding. Combined with a quick-shifting eight-speed automatic transmission, there’s never a bad spot in the rev range; even though we found some response delay in our 4.7-second run between five and 60 mph, the X5 still outperformed the Cayenne S Coupe in all three of our passing tests. In commuting situations, it means the only thing standing between a late departure and an early arrival at the office is your tolerance for scofflaw behavior. And, again, the engine practically begs to push the envelope at any opportunity.HIGHS: Effortless V-8 power, cushy accommodations, more supple than the X5 M.Thankfully, braking is equally strong, with stops from 70 mph taking 157 feet and from 100 mph needing 325 feet. Here, the Cayenne S Coupe has the Bimmer beat, but not by much, and that’s to be expected given the mass delta. Fuel economy exceeds expectations, with the X5 achieving 24 mpg on our 75-mph highway test loop, 2 mpg higher than the EPA highway estimate.The X5 M may still be the track star of the family, but the M60i has some pretty good moves around town. Handling is as flat as any other performance-oriented BMW, but the steering’s quickness might catch a driver off guard, especially if their second vehicle is something a bit lazier; it’s easy to dial in a bit too much angle and point the nose more severely than desired. LOWS: Twitchy steering around town, too few physical buttons, disappointing skidpad results.However, the X5’s commuting athletics don’t really translate to the skidpad, where we recorded an underwhelming 0.86 g and a wave of excessive understeer that stands in stark contrast to the Cayenne S. Perhaps it’s alignment, perhaps there’s something else afoot with the X5’s combination of big wheels—22 inches, in our test car’s case—and Pirelli P Zero PZ4 summer tires (275/35R-22 front, 315/30R-22 rear). But either way, disappointing skidpad results are a trend we’ve noticed on several X5s over the last few years. Despite those Italian rubber-band tires, the X5 exhibits a surprisingly comfortable ride in daily driving. There’s a hint of stiffness making its way through the electronically controlled dampers that make up the standard Adaptive M Suspension, but the manifold road imperfections around our Ann Arbor office never rise to the level of bothersome. Moving through the drive modes will bring more of that feel to the driver, but we think everything is best left in its default Comfort setting; there’s still plenty of fun to be had within those limits.Even if your passengers aren’t wowed by the M60i’s performance chops, they’ll dig the interior. The seats are comfortable, and every single inch of real estate looks and feels like the near-six-figure (for starters) cabin that this is. BMW refreshed the X5 for 2024, but some unfortunate vestiges remain—namely gesture control, which is frustrating to use intentionally and easy to activate accidentally. Performance Out the WazooThe biggest cabin update is that the 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster combines with a 14.9-inch central touchscreen in one giant curved installation rising from the dashboard. We love the latest iteration of iDrive, which is info-dense but easy to learn over time, but we dislike that nearly all climate functions require a trip through on-screen menus. The wireless device charger, which is tucked inside the center console behind a sliding lid, could use some additional ventilation, we think; your author’s phone heat-bricked itself in there while running wireless Apple CarPlay. Thankfully, time in the open air hooked up to a nearby USB-C port allowed us to juice up while keeping the volume up.VERDICT: Skip the X5 M’s hefty price premium and put that cash toward your tire budget.As with most German luxo-tanks, the BMW X5 M60i is an expensive proposition even before its countless potential options are factored in. Starting at $90,295, our test car picked up frivolities like a $5000 British Racing Green paint job, a $1950 upcharge for fancier Merino leather, and $1900 for the larger 22-inch wheels. Throw another five packages into the mix that add things like surround-view cameras, four-zone climate control, and the aforementioned cursed gesture control, and we’re choking down a $105,745 pill. That’s still a far cry from the X5 M’s $123,295 pre-options price, so if you’re willing to forgo the 617-hp V-8, you can save a fair bit of scratch by sticking with the M60i, which still delivers impressive street performance with fewer comfort-related drawbacks.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 BMW X5 M60i xDriveVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase/As Tested: $90,295/$105,745Options: British Racing Green paint, $5000; Driving Assistance Pro package, $2100; Coffee Extended Merino Leather interior, $1950; 22-inch M Wheels with summer tires, $1900; Executive package (panoramic sky lounge LED roof, soft-close automatic doors, glass and gesture controls), $1650; Climate Comfort package (front and rear heated seats, heated armrests and steering wheel, 4-zone climate control), $1000; Parking Assistance package, $900; M Sport Professional package (M Sport brakes with red calipers, extended Shadowline trim, M Shadowline lights), $650; carbon-fiber trim, $300
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 268 in3, 4395 cm3Power: 523 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 553 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.6-in vented disc/14.6-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4F: 275/35R-22 104Y Extra Load ★R: 315/30R-22 107Y Extra Load ★
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 117.1 inLength: 194.2 inWidth: 78.9 inHeight: 69.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/50 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 72/34 ft3Curb Weight: 5360 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.6 sec100 mph: 9.2 sec1/4-Mile: 12.1 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 16.6 sec150 mph: 25.0 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 157 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 325 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg75-mphHighway Driving: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 520 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 19/17/22 mpg
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 March 1983 issue of Car and Driver.At last you can go to a Volkswagen dealer and buy one of the long-awaited turbo Sciroccos. Unfortunately, they’re available only from a few selected deal­ers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. And the cars aren’t built in Wolfsburg or even Westmoreland, but rather in Old Lyme, Connecticut.These blown Sciroccos come from none other than Callaway Turbo Sys­tems. Reeves Callaway, the proprietor, has been marketing well-respected tur­bo kits for Volkswagens—and nearly ev­erything else on four wheels—for sever­al years. In the Scirocco he saw a unique opportunity to expand his business by building on the car’s basic goodness and offering complete package up­grades through Volkswagen dealers. This approach is meant to attract customers who desire the benefits of high­-performance modifications but lack the inclination or skill to perform them personally. It also allows the cost of the improvements to be included in the cars’ financing arrangements. There are a few catches, of course. New cars must comply with federal safe­ty and emissions requirements, and new-car buyers expect warranties with their cars. Callaway attacked both of these issues head-on. To satisfy the neb­ulous EPA requirements for aftermarket manufacturers, he refined his turbo kit to work with the stock catalytic convert­er until he could demonstrate that it had minimal effect on the standard Scirocco’s emissions performance. The warranty problem was even simpler. Callaway contracted with an aftermarket warranty company (one of the firms that offer extended warranties on regular new cars) to provide a twelve-month/20,000-mile warranty for his car, the same coverage offered with factory Volkswagens. The cost of the warranty is included in the package. Callaway considered the total-pack­age concept critical to the car’s success, so he upgraded the chassis to keep pace with the blown engine. Starting from the pavement up, 195/50VR-15 Phoe­nix Stahlflex tires mounted on 5.5-inch-wide Centra or ATS wheels replace the standard items. Bilstein shocks and stiff­er springs at all four corners, along with a 19mm rear anti-sway bar, keep the suspension’s motions in tune with the Scirocco’s newfound speed and grip.Inside, a classic three-spoke, leather­-wrapped steering wheel directs these components. A boost gauge, mounted in a beautifully executed housing to the right of the instrument binnacle, moni­tors the engine’s efforts. The only other interior change is special Callaway-em­blazoned upholstery fitted to the other­wise stock seats. Naturally, a trick car needs some ex­ternal identification. Callaway has add­ed four tapering stripes to each side of the car to accentuate the Scirocco’s ba­sic wedge shape, as well as “Callaway Turbo Scirocco” graphics to the hatch and rear quarter-windows. Combined with the spacy wheels, these additions clearly differentiate the Turbo from gar­den-variety Sciroccos, yet are still rea­sonably subtle and tasteful. All of these modifications aside, the heart of the car is its turbo engine. With a mere eight pounds of boost, it’s one of Callaway’s milder installations, yet it still pumps the horsepower from 74 to 117. Water injection and premium-un­leaded fuel keep detonation at bay, while a thermostatically controlled oil cooler keeps the temperature under control. This engine is hard to fault. It retains all of the stock engine’s docile and re­fined nature, yet can boot the Scirocco around with real authority. Zero-to-60-mph acceleration takes but 7.7 seconds, the quarter-mile is covered in 15.8 sec­onds at 87 mph, and 100 mph comes up in 24.6 seconds. Top speed is improved by an incredible 24 mph, to 126 mph. The Turbo does have a voracious ap­petite for water when driven this hard. But the two-quart supply, held in the windshield-washer reservoir, will last as long as a tank of fuel under anything but track conditions. Our overall water consumption was 415 miles per gallon during very hard driving. Fuel economy was an excellent 22 mpg; according to the certification tests, the Turbo deliv­ers the same 28 mpg as a stock 1982 Scirocco when driven sedately. The Turbo’s suspension nearly equals the engine’s all-around excel­lence. Cornering grip is improved dra­matically, from 0.74 to 0.79 g. Equally important, the Turbo responds more crisply and turns in harder than any stock Scirocco. The engine’s goodness comes with no compromises, but the suspension does extract a comfort penalty in exchange for its handling improvements. Particu­larly on small pavement imperfections, there is a decided increase in ride harsh­ness; still, this seems like a fair trade for the cornering capabilities. We also tried a Turbo with the optional front anti- roll bar. That car was far rougher-­riding, with no commensurate handling benefits. The only performance aspect of the Turbo that is unimproved is the brakes. While standard Scirocco brakes are very good, the Turbo’s higher speed capabil­ities can push them well beyond their fade limits. Unfortunately, there is no expedient improvement available, although GMP in Charlotte, North Caroli­na, does offer an assortment of upgraded brake components from West Germany. More on the SciroccoFor $16,495, the Callaway Turbo Sci­rocco is pretty hard to beat. It’s a well­-executed blend of Scirocco refinement, utility, and economy with outstanding performance, tenacious handling, and distinctive appearance. Our only con­cern is long-term engine durability, but Callaway offers an optional extended warranty to put customers’ minds at rest. We can’t help wondering why, if Callaway Turbo Systems can turn out such a car, Volkswagen of America still hasn’t seen fit to do so. SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Callaway Turbo SciroccoVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 3-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $16,495/$17,000
ENGINEturbocharged inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 105 in3, 1716 cm3Power: 117 hp @ 5800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 94.5 inLength: 165.7 inCurb Weight: 2300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 24.6 secTop Speed: 126 mphRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 28 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and WRL racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, 2009 Mercedes SL550, 2013 Porsche Cayenne S, and four motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

If you’re scrolling through the never-ending list of compact crossovers available today, we understand if you’re feeling overwhelmed. But two names on that list likely stand out as comforting, familiar choices, largely because the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 basically invented this segment when they first arrived in the 1990s. And they’re still going strong today, with both consistently ranking among the bestselling vehicles in the U.S.The Honda CR-V has been redesigned since the last time we visited this pair, as the sixth-generation model arrived for 2023. The fifth-generation RAV4 is nearing the end of its life cycle, but it received a small update for 2022 that brought revised styling and a few other tweaks. We figured now was as good a time as any to revisit this long-standing rivalry and choose our favorite among these popular, well-established SUVs.What We TestedAlthough both the CR-V and RAV4 are placing an increasing emphasis on their hybrid variants, the base gas-only powertrains still make up a large portion of sales, so the examples you see here have the standard setups with optional all-wheel drive. For the Honda, its nonhybrid powertrain consists of a 190-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-four with a continuously variable automatic, while the Toyota has a 203-hp 2.5-liter inline-four and an eight-speed automatic.Toyota RAV4HIGHS: Rugged look and feel, smooth-shifting transmission, lots of features.LOWS: Buzzy engine, less-than-comfy rear seat, dour interior.VERDICT: Solid bones but showing its age.More on the RAV4The RAV4 lineup includes a far wider range of trim levels than the CR-V’s does, and our 2024 example of the Toyota came kitted out in TRD Off-Road trim. This setup includes a few rugged-looking styling tweaks, all-terrain tires, and a modified suspension, and our version also came festooned with various extras and accessories that ballooned its sticker price to a steep $44,844. That’s a whole lot more than our plain-looking mid-spec 2023 CR-V EX-L AWD, which cost only $37,565 and came with but one option, its $455 Radiant Red Metallic paint. View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadHow They Drive and PerformThe CR-V and RAV4 have similar strengths and weaknesses on the road. Both have accurate steering and good ride quality, but each suffers from an unrefined engine that brings lots of noise, vibration, and harshness into the cabin under hard acceleration. The RAV4’s engine is the worst of the two in this regard, as the naturally aspirated four-cylinder is buzzy and harsh, while the CR-V’s turbo four has more torque low down in the rev range, meaning it feels more responsive and doesn’t require you to explore the upper rev range as often.One key difference between the two is transmission type, as the Honda has a continuously variable automatic and the RAV4 has a traditional eight-speed automatic. We prefer the Toyota’s setup to the Honda’s, mostly because its conventional shifts avoid the droning sensation of the CVT. But the two cars’ acceleration performance is similar, with the 190-hp Honda getting to 60 mph in 8.1 seconds and the 203-hp Toyota hitting the mark in 8.3 seconds.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2023 Honda CR-V EX-LThat said, we still prefer driving the CR-V to the RAV4 overall, as it offers a better ride and handling balance and a bit more refinement. The CR-V outgripped and outbraked the RAV4 at our test track, though the Toyota’s all-terrain tires likely hurt it in this regard. In terms of feel, the Honda’s handling is more fluid and cohesive, while the RAV4 can occasionally feel discombobulated in comparison. The Honda is also quieter in our testing and is more isolated from the road.Honda CR-VHIGHS: Spacious rear seat, nicely trimmed interior, composed handling.LOWS: Lacking in grunt compared to the available hybrid, CVT causes engine to drone.VERDICT: A well-rounded choice that will please most everyone.More on the CR-VBoth the Toyota and Honda are among the most fuel-efficient vehicles in this class, even if you don’t opt for their thriftier hybrid powertrains. In our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy testing, the RAV4 barely edged out the CR-V, hitting 32 mpg to the Honda’s 31 mpg. Either way, you’ll get more than 400 miles between fill-ups on highway trips, although the hybrids—with EPA ratings of up to 40 mpg for the Honda and 39 mpg for the Toyota—are the real choice for thrifty shoppers.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2023 Honda CR-V EX-LInterior ComparisonBecause the CR-V received a comprehensive redesign more recently, it’s no surprise that its cabin looks more modern and pleasing to the eye than the RAV4’s dated interior. We like the simple layout of the Honda’s dashboard, which incorporates an easy-to-use touchscreen plus plenty of knobs and buttons for the audio and climate controls. A honeycomb-texture trim piece over the air vents adds some visual interest, while the RAV4 features a dour array of black plastics with only a few rubberized knobs and orange trim pieces breaking up the monotony. We also didn’t like the Toyota’s infotainment system as much, as it doesn’t offer a convenient home screen and can’t display audio and navigation functions simultaneously.The CR-V is also the better choice for rear-seat passengers. We judged it to have the superior space and comfort with both two or three passengers back there. Comparatively, the RAV4’s back seat feels more cramped, and the seating position is less comfortable. To top it all off, the CR-V has more cargo space, as it fit 12 carry-on-sized boxes behind the rear seats versus 10 for the RAV4.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadWhich Is Better?Although the Toyota has plenty of character and offers a wide variety of configurations to suit your personality, the Honda is the far more well-rounded choice. With its more spacious cabin, pleasant driving dynamics, and easy-to-use tech features, the CR-V is one of our favorite compact SUVs for a wide variety of reasons. We’d recommend the CR-V Hybrid even more highly than the nonhybrid due to its quieter driving experience and better fuel economy, but either version of the CR-V is a great choice.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda CR-V EX-L AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $37,110/$37,565Options: Radiant Red Metallic paint, $455
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 91 in3, 1498 cm3Power: 190 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 179 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/12.2-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/60R-18 (103H) M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 184.8 inWidth: 73.5 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 77/39 ft3Curb Weight: 3614 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.1 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.2 sec120 mph: 38.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.8 secTop Speed (C/D est): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 430 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 29/27/32 mpg
– 
2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $39,645/$44,844Options: TRD Off-Road Premium Audio package (panoramic view monitor, 12.3-inch display, JBL amplifier and speakers), $1390; TRD Off-Road Weather package (heated steering wheel and front seats, rain-sensing wipers), $1015; TRD Off-Road Technology package (front and rear parking assists with automatic braking, wireless device charging), $640; digital rearview mirror, $625; running boards, $620; dashcam $375; door sill protector, $199; mudguards, $150; black chrome exhaust tip, $120; black emblems, $65
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2487 cm3Power: 203 hp @ 6600 rpmTorque: 184 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Falken Wildpeak A/T Trail 01A225/60R-18 (101H) M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 181.5 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 68.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 70/38 ft3Curb Weight: 3719 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.5 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 460 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 28/25/32 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

From the April 1975 issue of Car and Driver.This is it, where it’s all going to be this summer in Europe. Used Panteras will be a dime a dozen, but there’ll be a line of hype-types outside the Lancia showroom stretching down the block. Because the Lancia Stratos will be the next Thrill Ma­chine, and the high flyers who dumped their Lamborghini Mi­uras for Panteras have discovered the next step.The Stratos is a car conjured from the fantasies of a styling proposal presented in 1971. A competition car, developed and perfected to win the World Rally Championship—which it just did. Of all the ferocious cars of recent memory, the Stra­tos has the smallest engine and perhaps the smallest cockpit and easily the lowest curb weight. Which makes it one of the meanest bullies ever to dominate a showroom. In off-the-rack street form, the Stratos is a surly, muscular animal with an ornery, rawboned personality that is unmistak­ably defined from your first sight of the squat, brutal lines of the body—which just barely covers the tires, the mechanicals and the people inside. The Stratos is a racing car, tamed ever so slightly for use on some streets. Needless to say, it will never come to the North American continent as a licensable road car in its present form (unless the request for exceptions to federal standards based on the car’s limited production are granted—and the chances are slim). It will be sold in Europe in sufficient numbers (660 produced in 1974, 540 scheduled for ’75) to justify homologation as a Group 4 GT vehicle; some may even try racing it against the venerable Porsche Carrera. In the Fiat/Lancia/Ferrari model mix, it replaces the discontinued Ferrari Dino 246. The Stratos is a tough car any way you measure it, so the heirs apparent, young lions, and accessory companions who will brighten this summer behind the wheel of one will suffer a quotient of hardship. But don’t feel too badly for them; there’s always the Mercedes 450SEL or the motor yacht or the turbo­prop for long trips—and they can send the Stratos down to the Blue, Emerald, or Sun Coast with the chauffeur. Just riding in a Stratos, its Ferrari Dino engine strapped virtually on your back, is a searing, inebriating experience that assaults every sensory perception you possess. You sit in the confines of a gun turret. The steeply inclined windshield wraps around you like the faceshield of a Bellstar helmet. Looking forward, the nose of the car is invisible; all you can see are the two bulges in the body that cover the front tires. The baseline of the windshield rises as it goes aft to the side windows, which end in slots framed in sharp, sinister curves. The rear quarters are filled with the roll-bar structure, while the rear is a maze of horizontal matte-black shutters. The cockpit is stark and unadorned: black, untrimmed fiber­glass doors and an aluminum instrument panel shrouded with imitation leather. The small leather-trimmed steering wheel is anodized black; the shift lever right next to your thigh is capped by a huge knob that fits the palm of the hand perfectly. You sit belted into a junior-size anatomic seat that is cov­ered with an inch of padding and more imitation leather and bolted directly to the floor pan. And if you are of average height and proportions, your head rubs the pleated padding glued to the underside of the steel roof panel. From the steer­ing wheel to the pedals to the hard contours of the seat, you get the sensation of the dimension of your surroundings through the roots of your hair.There’s no way to avoid rubbing shoulders with an eventual passenger; the seats are separated only by a tunnel carrying two water pipes to the front radiator. Without rally inter­phones, conversation is uncomfortable—there is noise and the need for intense concentration. The indecisive among us will be discouraged by this one aspect alone. Because right off the floor, this car is dressed for heavy street-fighting. The starter whines metallically, and as the engine begins to fire, the car starts to tremble and vibrate. The cramped cock­pit fills with the whir of timing chains, the sharp click of cam followers, a muted whistle from the drop gears, and an occa­sional pfst…pfst from the three twin-throat carburetors as one cylinder or another refuses to digest its mixture and spits it gently back against the closed butterfly. You hear the ping­ing of the exhaust pulses in the steel headers three inches behind the seats—the same noise a Coventry Climax Grand Prix engine makes at idle. Run the engine up and the individual noises blur into a low­-pitched growl with piercing overtones. The clutch and acceler­ator pedals are both heavy, reluctant members with immedi­ate response. You pull the shift lever into the first slot and slip the clutch against a 1200-rpm idle and tallish gear. As if by magic, the car moves forward down the street with the smoothness of a switch engine. The 190-hp, 2.5-liter powerplant has been through an ex­tensive course at Fiat’s finishing school. Born a Ferrari and sold to Fiat to power the Fiat Dino coupe and spider, the engine was completely redesigned and redeveloped before Fiat Manufacturing was given the go-ahead. The aluminum cylinder block was discarded in favor of a stable, rigid cast-­iron part. The ports, valves, timing, pistons, carburetors, lubri­cation and cooling systems were revised; electronic ignition perfected and added. The name “Dino” remains on the cam covers, but the engine is a Fiat. Step on the pedal and the asphalt conveyor belt in front of the car starts passing under the lower edge of the windshield with ever-increasing velocity. The engine is smooth and docile until it reaches 3000 rpm; then everything starts to happen at once. The tach needle lashes across the dial to hide behind the steering wheel rim. If you work the clutch and accelerator pedal and the shift lever—all of them fighting your commands with obstinate stubbornness—the imprecise gating of the transmission throws the chain of events out of phase. Tenths of a second are amplified into decades as you search for second gear. You find it and turn the power back on and the car surges ahead, yawing left and right as the limited-slip dif­ferential goes to work. The film speed increases and the en­gine says it’s time for another gear. Thankfully, third comes easier. The car leaps ahead again, but this time there’s an instant more to comprehend what is occurring. Then it’s time for fourth—simple and smooth. The car ac­celerates again and you use a couple of seconds to flip the tachometer needle to somewhere between 6000 and 7000 rpm, say 110 mph. Then the shift lever, with no other place to go, drops into fifth almost by itself. You ease out the clutch and roll on the power, and again the car surges ahead, only this time the steering goes numb. As you search through the free play in its mechanism for some kind of reassuring re­sponse, a flash of sweat glues the palms of your hands to the imitation leather of the wheel. You’re moving quickly past 130 mph, your senses straining for orientation. Blood pounds in your ears. Every surface around you—even the air in the cockpit—is flailed by a sav­age resonance. The vibration blurs your vision. Which way is the car pointed? The road has suddenly become a funnel, the guardrails seeming to brush the sides of the car. A few sec­onds more of trying desperately to bend the car’s will to your totally inadequate inputs and you’ve had enough—there’s a speed limit and it’s called survival. You shut down the throttle and the noise ceases. It’s the first time you’ve heard it since second gear. The speed scrubs off slowly. Back to 80 mph, the accelerator pedal is just off an idle. Fling it to seven grand in fourth, slip it into fifth, turn things back on hard and taste the bitterness on the back of your tongue. In a day of hamstrung and pigeon-toed cars, this is what the Lancia Stratos is all about. Understand that it’s not drag racing. No slingshotting big steamboats down a quarter mile. No, it is something entirely different. First because you’re wrestling barehanded with a wild, live animal; secondly because this level of performance continues through curves and dips, day or night, wet or dry, on any public road. The Stratos’s tough, aggressive, bullwhip personality could use a little submission to be sure, because even if the car will go around turns with consummate ease, control is never an easy experience for its driver. The Stratos does not “forgive” anything. You drive it from the moment the engine lights off. You match your wits and ability with the laws of physics. It’s a vehicle with too much power, too little weight and too short a wheelbase for the commonweal. It does exactly what you ask it to, immediately, and if you ask for something wrong . . . you’re on your own, sweetheart. The car bares its fangs to an indifferent or incom­petent hand, and to wrestle things back under control, you’d better have the right answer, right now. Because second chances with a Stratos are rare. If you get into an 80-mph sweeper a little too hot, just ease up on the throttle—but don’t shut it down and whatever you do, don’t step on the brake. The car twitches its nose into the turn; you think about steering the wrong way, but the instinct of self preservation tells you to hold what you’ve got. Push the throttle forward about a sixteenth of an inch against the husky drag of the return spring and the nose twitches out to where it was. You’ve burned up about a yard of the road’s width. A chain of events that passes in the blinking of an eye—next time you’ll be more careful. Tough, uncompromising; you do it to the car or the car does it to you. No mercy, humor or excuses. Lay your $17,000 on the table and see if you measure up. You say you don’t want to drive fast? Okay; buy a Stratos for its looks. Slip down Main Street at 2500 rpm in third gear and polarize the crowds. First ignore the punks in jacked-up six-pack Dusters that cruise alongside like sharks—then ease into the stream when they get no response. Watch the onlookers’ faces turn from anger to envy, maybe even pleasure, as they project themselves into the seat next to you. What the hell, a little envy never hurt the proles. It keeps them in line. More Performance Car Reviews From the ArchiveSo what is the Stratos, really? A 17-grand car that goes and stops and looks and sounds like the wildest sidewinder ever made. More than 200 people have already lined up to buy next year’s production, and there will be more the year after. And if it isn’t a Stratos they’re lining up for in 1976, it’ll be something else. Because people love themselves too much to ever give up adult toys like this. SpecificationsSpecifications
1975 Lancia StratosVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base: $16,500 (in Italy)
ENGINE
V-6, iron block and aluminum headsDisplacement: 148 in3, 2418 cm3Power: 190 hp @ 7400 rpmTorque: 166 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/strutsBrakes, F/R: 10.5-in vented/10.5-in ventedTires: Michelin XWX205/70VR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 86.0 inLength: 146.0 inWidth: 69.0 inHeight: 43.9 inCurb Weight: 2400 lb  More

From the July 1999 issue of Car and Driver.According to Jim Kornas, who is GMC’s Sierra brand manager, roughly 75 percent of all pickup sales are light-duty, half-ton models—­Ford F-150s, GMC Sierra 1500s, and Dodge Ram 1500s. Fifteen percent are the so-called three-quarter-ton variety, and the remaining 10 percent are heavy-duty com­mercial vehicles. For this comparison test, we decided to have a look at the three-quarter-ton trucks—the middleweights. Unlike their lightweight brothers, which can often be seen trolling suburban streets hauling peat moss and garden supplies, three-quarter-­ton trucks are bought by those needing more capacity—both towing and payload. Komas estimates that 50 percent of three-­quarter-ton pickups are registered to busi­nesses. Contractors and construction foremen use these brutes not only to haul supplies and equipment around but also to serve as rolling offices. Our competitors here are the two newest entries in a field of four vehicles. Ford actu­ally makes two distinct trucks in the three­-quarter-ton class: the regular F-series that debuted in 1996 as a 1997 model and the SuperDuty version that appeared late last year. For this test we chose the newer SuperDuty model to get a feel for how it operates and also to check out the SuperDuty’s bigger, optional engine—a 6.7-liter V-10. The largest engine in the reg­ular F-250 is a 5.4-liter V-8. Also new late last year was GMC’s Sierra, so we ordered a 2500 Heavy Duty with the largest available gas engine—a 6.0-liter V-8. We omitted Dodge’s Ram from this test because it’s been around since 1994 and a new Ram is expected early next millennium. More Truck Comparos From the ArchiveWe set a price ceiling of about $32,000 and specified three must-haves—four-­wheel drive, an extended cab, and the largest gas engine available. We got two capable trucks. Both can tow 10,000 pounds and have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of at least 8600 pounds. In truck-speak, the gross vehicle weight rating is the vehicle’s payload plus the vehicle’s weight. Subtract the vehicle weight from the GVWR, and you have the payload—the weight of passengers and cargo that each vehicle can carry. Although these big trucks are not known for their agility and speed, we put each through our standard battery of per­formance tests and spent two days driving them on highways, back roads, and dirt trails. Here’s how they stacked up.2nd Place: Ford F-250 SuperDuty Among the Ford SuperDuty vehicles, the F-250 is the lightweight of the bunch. The SuperDuty chassis is available in F-250, F-350, F-450, and even F-550 guise—that one has a GVWR of 17,500 pounds. Our test truck was rated for 8800 pounds. Our truck’s base price was $25,395. We added $5955 worth of options, including the V-10 engine and an auto­matic transmission, air conditioning, anti-lock brakes, cruise control, a cassette player, keyless entry, a power driver’s seat, auto-locking hubs, and running boards. HIGHS: Rugged styling, four doors, gutsy V-10 engine.LOWS: High load height, choppy ride, vacuum-cleaner engine note. VERDICT: Wins the mine’s-bigger-­than-yours contest, but that size doesn’t pay off with increased capability.You have to have the running boards, a $370 option, because, at least in the Midwest, this truck qual­ifies as a mountain, and you’ll need help climbing into it. Its roofline is a half-foot higher than the GMC’s, and the floorboards are 26 inches above terra firma. That height translates into 8.3 inches of ground clear­ance—only half an inch more than the GMC—but we’d gladly give up a few inches to bring this high rider closer to earth. With the tailgate low­ered, the load height is almost 39 inches. Trust us on this one—hoisting objects into the F-250’s bed is a serious chore. What good is a pickup bed if it’s a pain to use? The GMC’s cargo box rides at a more convenient elevation, five inches lower. More than its unruly height rel­egated this Ford to second place. The optional $335 V-10 engine has plenty of grunt—its 410 pound-feet of torque out-twists the GMC’s by 55—but it’s saddled with a 6300-pound curb weight, 800 pounds more than the GMC. The V-10 also makes 25 less horsepower than the GMC V-8, so the truck with the bigger engine is slower. And under full-throttle acceleration, you’d swear there’s an exhaust leak.More Ford Pickups From the ArchiveThe F-250 uses rigid axles and leaf springs front and rear, which gives it a bouncy, stiff-legged ride when the truck’s bed is empty. Freeway expansion strips are especially painful, and bumpy off-ramps send the back end skittering. The steering is slow; we had to drive this Ford 4 mph slower than the GMC through our emergency-lane-change test to avoid spinning. The payoff for the SuperDuty’s unruli­ness should come in increased payload and towing capability. Unfortunately for Ford, that isn’t the case here. The F-250’s 10,000-pound towing capacity is equaled by the GMC truck’s, but its 2500-pound payload is 600 pounds less than the GMC’s, despite a GVWR that’s 200 pounds higher. High curb weight strikes again. Still, the Ford has a few excellent touches. The optional trailer-towing mir­rors ($155) include small blind-spot mag­nifiers and afford an excellent view. The rear seat can be folded to become a flat load area—perfect for hauling stuff inside the cab. And the four doors are a must-­have in our opinion. Before you start howling about how we should have chosen the regular F-250 and not the SuperDuty model, let us remind you that the most weight a regular F-250 with four-wheel drive and an extended cab can tow is 8300 pounds. Before we ven­tured into this comparo, we might have assumed that a rough ride was the price one had to pay to haul around big weight, but the General’s new truck proves that notion was wrong. 1st Place: GMC Sierra 2500 A glance at the voting numbers by cat­egory reveals why the GMC won. Although the Ford rated many sevens, the GMC didn’t score lower than eight. What accounts for these consistently better marks?Let’s start with the engine. At 6.0 liters, it’s smaller than the Ford’s V-10, but you’d never know that during real-world driving. The transmission downshifts promptly and smoothly, and there’s also a towing-and-hauling button that GMC says delays upshifts and makes them firmer so that you won’t feel any performance dif­ference while towing big loads. In every acceleration test, the lighter GMC is quicker—most notably in the 50-to-70-mph acceleration test, where it’s a second and a half quicker. HIGHS: Comfortable interior, good ride for a pickup, lots of useful details. LOWS: No fourth door—and the third one is on the passenger’s side. VERDICT: Able to tow 10,000 pounds, yet it’s reasonably civilized and comfortable.On the road, the GMC doesn’t feel like a truck that can pull more than four tons. Although we wouldn’t call the ride smooth, it isn’t nearly as punishing as the Ford’s. Through the lane-change test, the GMC handles more assuredly than the Ford, and this emergency maneuver is more easily executed with the GMC’s tighter steering (3.3 turns lock-to-lock versus Ford’s 4.0). For the 2500 series, GMC upgrades the rear brakes from single-piston calipers to double­piston units, just like the front, and hydraulic power assist sup­plants the 1500’s vacuum booster. We think these brakes should be on all GM pickups­—our test truck’s brake pedal didn’t have the vague, mushy feel of lesser GM trucks. The GMC brakes were less prone to fade than the Ford’s, which would cer­tainly make us more confident while towing a heavy load. The interior of the GMC is a much more inviting place, too. Leather covers the seats. Although you can’t seat three abreast as you can in the Ford, the bucket seats are well shaped and have a power backrest and power passenger seat—two of many features the Ford doesn’t have.We were surprised by the rear seat, which was actually comfortable for two medium­-size adults. The rear seat of the GMC’s backrest is reclined to a more comfortable angle than the Ford’s and the bottom cushion is longer. There are also two adjustable headrests. We were not happy, however, with the absence of a fourth door. This problem is exacerbated by a driver’s seatback-release latch that forces you to pull the backrest forward manually. If you can wait, a fourth door should be on the 2000 model.More GM HD Pickup Reviews From the ArchiveBoth of these trucks have dash-mounted knobs to switch over from two-wheel to four-wheel drive, but only the GMC truck has a full-time four-wheel­-drive knob position. Basically, you leave the GMC in the “auto” position—on any roads—and when the rear wheels slip, elec­tronic clutches automatically send power to the front axle. Ford recommends using four-wheel drive only in slippery conditions. Loaded with similar hard­ware, the Sierra 2500 costs about $2000 more than the F-250, but we think its extra standard fea­tures—a CD player, leather seats, overhead console, and an auto-dimming rearview mirror—make up for it.Things might have turned out differently if the GMC hadn’t been able to haul or tow as much as the Ford, but since it has equal or better capa­bilities, is more comfortable, and rides better, this time picking the winner of a comparison was relatively easy. SpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Ford F-250 SuperDutyVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $25,395/$31,350
ENGINESOHC 20-valve V-10, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 412 in3, 6747 cm3Power: 275 hp @ 4250 rpmTorque: 410 lb-ft @ 2650 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: rigid axle/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: vented disc/vented discTires: General Grabber TR235/85R-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 141.8 inLength: 231.4 inWidth: 79.9 inHeight: 80.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 66/49 ft3Towing Capacity, Max/As-Tested: 10,000/10,000 lbCurb Weight: 6300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.0 sec60 mph: 9.6 sec1/4-Mile: 17.4 sec @ 77 mph90 mph: 26.6 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 7.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 92 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 231 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.69 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg 
—
1999 GMC Sierra 2500Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $30,110/$33,727
ENGINEpushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 in3, 5967 cm3Power: 300 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 355 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: vented/vented discTires: Firestone Steeltex Radial R4S245/75R-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 143.5 inLength: 227.6 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 74.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 64/50 ft3Towing Capacity, Max/As-Tested: 10,000/10,000 lbCurb Weight: 5500 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.3 sec60 mph: 9.21/4-Mile: 17.1 sec @ 83 mph90 mph: 20.8 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 96 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 200 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.70 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the February 1983 issue of Car and Driver.We’ve known all along that the Honda Civic wanted to be more than just sensi­ble. You could feel it in the sharp pulses of power transmitted by the gas pedal. You could see it in the subtle aerody­namic reshaping of the nose in 1982. The Civic wanted to come out and play, but apparently it had to stay inside for piano lessons or something.Maybe Honda figured that a sporting Civic was too unseemly. Civics tended to come in lots of flavors, each of which seemed to be a permutation of the com­fort-group options. You picked your Civic according to the radio you pre­ferred, and we contented ourselves with praising the engine and putting up with the flabby cornering equipment. Finally, though, Honda decided that Civic buyers were getting a little stodgy for the company’s own good, so it shook the full-plush GL hatchback out of the Civic lineup for ’83 (luxury-minded buyers were choosing the four-door se­dan anyway) and substituted a sporting Civic, the 1500S.The “S” designation means a lot more than just another kind of steering wheel to hang onto. First off, you’ll no­tice this Civic doesn’t come in yet an­other selection from the official Morgan Bank color palette. You can choose red with black, or you can choose black with red. We took the black one, easily the most striking Honda we’ve seen aside from the City Turbo. All the moldings feature a matte finish. Then there are the dual outside rear-view mirrors and a front air dam. The seats are black with red inserts and prominent bolsters. The really good stuff is under the skin, however. All ’83 1500-cc Civics get front discs with ventilated rotors. The S-type also features the 1300-cc model’s final-drive ratio, some 13 percent shorter than the other 1500s’. The sus­pension gets new shock calibrations with 18 percent firmer rebound damp­ing front and rear, 25 percent firmer compression damping in front, wheels wider by half an inch, and a rear anti­-roll bar. Finally, 165/70SR-13 Miche­lin XVS tires substitute for the doughy rubber that is the curse of other Civics.Unfortunately, the first manifestation of the Civic’s revitalized personality is a rocky ride on the expressway. Expan­sion joints signal their presence with a decided thump, and there’s not enough rebound damping to soothe the rear end’s springiness. Furthermore, the tread noise from the tires makes you think someone has secretly slipped off­-road rubber under the fenders.Freeway work hardly amounts to tor­ture, however. The ride is acceptable, helped out by comfortable seats and a good driving position. The optional air conditioning and radio work great. Then there’s the remarkable engine, which sails silently along in top gear. When you want acceleration, you just put your foot down; using the shift lever is optional. Right about the moment 94 mph comes up on the Civic’s new-for­-’83 100-mph speedometer, you appreci­ate once again how great this engine is. It feels better than the Accord’s 1750-cc, 75-hp motor just because it doesn’t sac­rifice peak power to midrange torque.The corners are also great in the S. The S-type doesn’t drop to its knees and squirm around on its suspension bushings; it zings into a corner upright and stable, answering steering inputs with calm assurance, while the tires grip far past the limit at which most Honda rubber peels off the rim. There’s enough roll stiffness, so you don’t feel as if you’re going to fall out the door on freeway ramps. This Honda is just plain good in the corners, as its 0.76-g rating on the skidpad confirms. The only drawback is the carbureted engine’s continued sensitivity to lean misfire in abrupt (predominantly right-hand) ma­neuvers. Unless you’re delicate with the throttle and the clutch in these largely low-speed situations, it’s easy to induce bucking and surging from the drivetrain. The Civic 1500S is the first Honda (aside from the City) that feels as if it has its feet on the ground. That’s be­cause the engine is finally complement­ed by controls that respond to the driv­er’s inputs instead of to other priorities. No longer does the Civic force you to do your daily duty with the rest of the three-door-hatchback pack in the com­muter lane. You can get out there in the fast lane with the high rollers if you want; nobody has to know that the S-­type set you back only $6400. More Civic Reviews From the ArchiveFun-to-drive sums it up for this car. There are still things like a harsh ride, wonky carburetion, and torque steer to deal with, so the S-type hardly amounts to a revelation. Even so, this is exactly the charisma transplant the Civic has al­ways needed.SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Honda Civic 1500SVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $6399/$7149
ENGINESOHC 12-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 91 in3, 1488 cm3Power: 67 hp @ 5000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 88.6 inLength: 148.4 inCurb Weight: 1980 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 12.1 sec1/4-Mile: 18.5 sec @ 73 mphTop Speed: 94 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 34 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

In evolution, unnecessary appendages don’t just fall off arbitrarily. As a vestige becomes less and less necessary for survival, it’ll spend some time shrinking before it eventually disappears for good or becomes something else. Coupe-like SUVs have long sacrificed rear visibility for the sake of aesthetics, and instead of staying that course, the 2025 Polestar 4 is the first fish to take a walk in the sun and do away with the aft glass entirely. And, as we learned from some time with an engineering prototype, you won’t miss it.More Than Just a Missing Piece of GlassThe Polestar 4 isn’t as physically imposing as its larger Polestar 3 sibling, which is billed as an electric competitor to the Porsche Cayenne. At 190.6 inches long, the 4 is about a half-foot longer than a Porsche Macan, and the Polestar’s standard glass roof sits just over three inches lower than the German’s roof does. The Swede’s wheelbase is nearly eight inches longer, too, which makes for a vastly airier cabin—further aided by that gigantic glass panel overhead, stretching all the way over the second row.Polestar offers the 4 in two distinct flavors. The long-range, single-motor configuration relies on a permanent-magnet synchronous electric motor producing 268 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque, which should shove the roughly 5000-pound Polestar to 62 mph in a claimed 7.1 seconds. Those looking for a little extra vim will find it in the dual-motor variant, which increases output to 536 horsepower and 506 pound-feet. In that version, 62 mph arrives much more hastily—in 3.8 seconds, by Polestar’s stopwatch. Regardless of what’s providing the motivation, the electricity comes from the same tap. Both Polestar 4 variants rely on a CATL-built lithium-ion battery (of the nickel-manganese-cobalt variety, for the chemistry buffs) with 94.0 kilowatt-hours of usable capacity. Polestar estimates a European WLTP range of 379 miles for the RWD model and 360 miles with AWD. In more star-spangled terms, we’d wager estimates closer to the 300-mile mark when the EPA gets its turn.On the charging front, the Polestar 4’s 400-volt architecture will accept up to 11.0 kilowatts of AC juicin’ (enough to go from empty to full in about 5.5 hours on a 16-amp circuit) and up to 200 kilowatts of that DC good-good—provided the fast-charge gods feel like showing up to work at your plug of choice. If they do, Polestar says a charge from 10 to 80 percent should take 30 minutes.Driving the Polestar 4While we have had our constructive criticism taken to heart during engineering-prototype drives, it’s probably too late to tell Polestar, “Nah, there should really be glass back here.” So with an open mind, we hopped behind the wheel of both Polestar 4 iterations—and, turns out, we were too enamored with the 4’s test-track manners to even care about the missing glass.We started in the dual-motor Polestar 4. Like any good performance-oriented EV, the all-wheel-drive 4 absolutely space-shuttles its way forward. Pedal response was good, not delivering everything all at once but not hiding all the beans in the back half of its travel either. Jam on the brakes like you’re trying to grind those steel discs into a cloud of dust, and you’re met with the opposite of dramatics; there is no squirming under heavy braking, just a whole lot of head-tilting g’s.The steering offers three different levels of artificial heft; we preferred it light, but even when the weight was dialed up, off-center response was quick, and it only required the lightest of touches to adjust the car’s position. That may sound like a recipe for a lot of uncomfortable micro-darting on the road, but a quick run on a banked high-speed oval with Joakim Rydholm, Polestar’s head of chassis development, proved that the steering shouldn’t be twitchy on the highway.Our AWD prototype was equipped with Polestar’s three-mode adaptive dampers; the basic around-town setting does an impressive job of isolating wheel movement over Polestar’s test-track adaptations of the world’s worst roads. Ruts, potholes, and protruding manhole covers disappeared underfoot with only a hint of noise and jostling, but the ride wasn’t so mushy and wallowy you’d confuse it with Grandpa’s Lincoln. Moving over to its sportier Firm mode, we found plenty of usable communication between arse and asphalt. It will definitely rustle one’s jimmies over bad pavement, but a simple touchscreen press is all it takes to return to the softer side.From there, we slid over to the single-motor Polestar 4, and unsurprisingly, the overarching vibe remained. Despite being down on power against the dual-motor model, the RWD model still hustles and doesn’t feel heavy or overburdened. Even though this car ditches the adaptive dampers, the passive units are still extremely well tuned. There is a bit more bounce over major road undulations, and it’s not as cushy overall, but everything is kept in check, and we felt fine whether we were chucking the car around or taking a lazy stroll through the curves. Earlier in the day, Rydholm took us around a tighter test track in this model, and he spent the whole time drifting the car in lurid slides, so don’t assume the single-motor 4 is some party-averse lameoid. It, too, can hang.Oh, Right, About That Rear Windshield”Change is painful for people,” said Thomas Ingenlath, Polestar’s CEO, during an interview ahead of the prototype drive. “[Deleting the rear windshield] is not a gimmick—we really believe that this is a great innovation that will drive automotive design and technology forward. I hope we can convince people that it makes a lot of sense.”And the man’s right. At no point during our brief prototype foray did we miss the rear glass. Granted, we weren’t parallel-parking or weaving through rush-hour traffic, but there were merges on the test track where we had to watch out for other Polestar 4s zipping by, and we had zero issues there. A quick glance at either side mirror—physical side mirrors, not cameras, because Polestar wanted to retain some analog optics—is all we needed. An increasing number of new cars offer a digital rearview mirror, and the Polestar 4 keeps that going. Its unit carries a feed from a camera mounted atop the roof (a location free of wind vortices that could cover it in schmutz), and the view out back is displayed in a suitably crisp resolution that features a few new tricks to reduce the flicker from LED headlights, which can be extremely distracting on most modern digital mirrors. A switch on the bottom of the unit will revert it to a traditional mirror, should one feel the need to shoot a petulant child in the back seat the ol’ stink eye.More on the Polestar SUVsSince there’s no need to worry about engineering around a piece of rear glass, Polestar was able to set the seats a little farther back, offering an impressive amount of rear legroom, even for a wheelbase of this length. Your author’s lanky six-foot Gumby build had no issue getting comfy back there. The rear seats recline for added comfort, but even when upright, there was zero risk of hair contacting anything remotely resembling a roof. Plus, with this newfound real estate, Polestar found a new space to add ambient lighting, bringing cars one step closer to becoming gaming PCs. Those who actually use their trunks will be happy to know that the rear seats still maintain a 60/40 folding split, and the little trim piece that separates cabin from cargo can be removed and stowed under the trunk floor—so you can stink-eye your groceries too.Down to Brass Tacks The 2025 Polestar 4 is easily the fledgling brand’s most engaging offering to date. While we’ll have to wait until later this year to take a deep dive into its impressive telematics and other tech offerings, we can assure you now that the dynamics half of the equation has already been signed, sealed, and delivered with gusto. Perhaps you’re not quite ready to embrace a future with less glass in it, but here, too, we promise that it’s not the end of the world. In fact, it’s the start of an entirely new one. This fish has some real gams.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Polestar 4Vehicle Type: rear- or front- and rear-motor, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: Single Motor, $60,000; Dual Motor, $80,000
POWERTRAINS
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 268 hp, 253 lb-ftRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 268 hp, 253 lb-ftCombined Power: 268 or 536 hpCombined Torque: 253 or 506 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 94.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 22.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 200 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 190.6 inWidth: 79.1 inHeight: 60.4 inCargo Volume, Behind F/R: 54/19 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5000–5300 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.5–6.5 sec100 mph: 9.5–18.2 sec1/4-Mile: 11.9–15.0 secTop Speed: 124 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 80–110/85–120/75–100 MPGeRange: 280–310 miCars 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

The Mojave Desert is crisscrossed with lonely two-track trails that lead to old mines, primitive camping sites, and little-known points of interest. We wandered down one such track in a 2024 Ranger Raptor in search of a memorial to the crew of a crashed YB-49—an early flying-wing precursor to the B-2 bomber—that went down in 1948. The co-pilot on that fateful day was Captain Glen Edwards, and today the nearby Edwards Air Force Base bears his name. The narrow trail we were following hugged the rough contours of the land and wound between scraggly creosote bushes as we made our way uncertainly toward ground zero. We were certain of one thing, however: This path was no place for an F-150 Raptor.As much as we love the Ford F-150 Raptor and its undeniable off-road prowess, we’ve always thought that it’s too damn big and wide for such trails. It is legally required to have commercial truck clearance lights, for crying out loud. Most two-track trails, on the other hand, were blazed by narrower machines—like Jeep CJs. They’re not wide, in other words, and the only pruning the vegetation gets comes from the occasional passage of more Jeeps, Toyota 4Runners and, increasingly, compact off-road pickups. “Trail striping” is a common F-150 Raptor hazard, but the Ranger Raptor is rightsized to combat this existential peril to resale value. Don’t get us wrong. The Ranger Raptor is still a wide-stance off-road pickup in the Raptor mold—0.1 inch narrower than a regular F-150, at least out at the fenders. But it’s built up from the new 2024 Ford Ranger, a compact truck that’s just 75.5 inches wide. Sure, the Ranger Raptor is 4.3 inches broader largely because its long-travel suspension sets its tires 3.5 inches farther apart, but the junior Raptor is still 6.8 inches narrower than its big brother. That buys you a lot of maneuvering space between woody shrubs and allows a driver more freedom to choose a line on tricky trails that lack vegetation. Even if you never go off-road, the above still pays dividends in parking lots and—at nearly two feet shorter and some four inches lower—in your garage.The Ranger Raptor gets its motivation from the same 3.0-liter twin-turbo V-6 that powers the Bronco Raptor. Because of its longer exhaust piping, the Ranger Raptor makes 405 horsepower and 430 pound-feet instead of 418 horsepower and 440 pound-feet. That’s nothing to fret over, because the Ranger Raptor’s 5372-pound curb weight is 392 pounds lighter than a Bronco Raptor we tested. All of this shows up clearly at the track, where the Ranger Raptor gets to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds, finishes the quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds at 97 mph, and romps from 50 to 70 mph in 3.9 seconds. The Bronco lags in all three measures. The Ranger Raptor is only a tenth slower to 60 mph than the F-150 version, but it executes the 50-to-70-mph pass a tenth quicker. In the contest that really matters, the Ranger Raptor’s 5.3-second romp to 60 mph destroys the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2’s 6.8-second effort, which it rightly should with 95 extra ponies.HIGHS: Raptor quickness, well-sorted suspension, fits on tight trails.Underneath, the Raptor’s 3.5-inch front track increase comes primarily from longer forged aluminum upper and lower control arms. Its fortified steering rack is a bespoke piece instead of a carryover from the regular Ranger, with longer tie rods. Damping comes from 2.5-inch Fox Live-valve shocks with variable compression damping, and there’s a front anti-roll bar. In back, the axle tube is 3.5 inches broader, fortified by trusswork, and located by four trailing links. Lateral control comes from a Watt’s link instead of the usual Panhard bar, a more expensive approach that provides greater cornering stiffness and symmetrical roll behavior. The springs are coil-overs surrounding Fox shocks, but there’s no rear anti-roll bar.On the road, the Raptor delivers a settled ride that sometimes borders on supple. Cracked surfaces can get the big 33-inch BFGoodrich KO3s a-thumpin’, but it’s never the dominant theme. The Ranger Raptor even steers more assuredly than the regular model, on account of a sportier effort tune. It bends nicely into turns, too, but only up to a point. If you push hard, the square-shouldered off-road tires will balk. They only manage 0.69 g on the skidpad, with abundant understeer at the limit. Same is true of the brakes, which feel capable in daily use but only manage 70-mph panic stops in a woeful 218 feet when passed through the KO3 filter. It’s all typical Raptor stuff that’s common to its Bronco and F-150 relations, though. Drive accordingly.LOWS: Off-road tires limit grip, expect big markups.The assembled parts work supremely well at speed in the desert. Once we got to the monument and paid our respects, our route back was the same way we came in. We knew what to expect and where to turn, so we hammered it. The Raptor’s suspension and tires dug in, and its tidy dimensions allowed us to flick it between outstretched creosote limbs with nary a scratch. Dips, crests, and drainages we’d barely noticed on the tentative drive in felt like an off-road course at triple the speed, and the Raptor’s 10 inches of front and rear suspension travel soaked it all up greedily. It’s clear that the Ranger Raptor is most definitely a rightsized machine that’s scaled perfectly for this environment, and it has the suspension to match.Earlier, we’d driven it slowly on rockier trails that were more technical. This gave us a chance to sort through the various driving modes, which are accessed through a rotary knob shared with the regular Ranger, but with three extra modes: Off-Road, Baja, and Rock Crawl. Inside its perimeter there are five buttons instead of the Ranger’s four. 2H, 4H, 4L (high and low range), and a central trailer tow button are here, but the Raptor alone has a 4A mode that automatically shifts into four-wheel drive in response to traction conditions.Selecting Off-Road brings up 4H as the initial default, and Rock Crawl automatically goes for 4L. Baja starts in 4H (and switches off the stability and traction control), but you can run it in 2H or 4L. The electronically locking rear differential comes on automatically when you select Off-Road or Rock Crawl (unlocking it is a driver action), but you select it manually in Baja. Frankly, we think it should behave this way in all three modes, because locking any differential should be a conscious decision you make at need. Meanwhile, the front locker is only selectable in low range in Rock Crawl with the rear diff locked, which is fair enough.All of these mode changes take little time, with the usual shift to neutral being the only delay going into and out of 4L. We’re not crazy about the location of the diff-lock buttons, which only appear on the lower half of the touchscreen after you press the off-road status button next to the rotary knob. Between the virtual front and rear diff lock buttons you’ll find the Trail Control button, which, when engaged, is an off-road cruise control that works uphill or down. You use the regular cruise control buttons to set and adjust speed in increments of 1 mph in 4H and 0.5 mph in 4L. It’s not a bad system, but manual control is easy enough with the 10-speed automatic, which delivers a 61.59:1 crawl ratio in low range and first gear.In normal truck terms, the Raptor is packed with all the interior design goodness of the new Ranger, including its dual gloveboxes, Bang & Olufsen sound system, and 12.4-inch vertical touchscreen. The Raptor seats are comfy and hold tight, and it’s generally a pleasant place to while away the miles—if a bit monochromatic in the Raptor’s all-black-with-red-accents theme. The five-foot bed behind the crew cab is similarly able to carry four-foot plywood and drywall panels flat on the deck, and the bed comes replete with 110- and 12-volt outlets, under-rail lighting, and numerous attachment points for various factory and aftermarket add-ons. The only thing missing is the optional bed step from the regular Ranger, which had to be omitted because the Raptor’s dual exhausts run through the mounting space.More on the RaptorWhat does it cost for all of this? The starting price is $57,065. Yes, a ZR2 costs less to start, but there are several options you’d need to add to match equipment, and you’d never get as nice an interior or the extra 95 horsepower. Meanwhile, the essentially loaded Raptor offers few options. Beadlock-capable wheels ($1495) are one that our test truck didn’t have, but ours did have the always dubious Raptor graphics ($750), a spray-in bedliner ($495), and the Securicode keyless entry keypad ($95) for a total of $58,405. Apart from a couple of extra-cost colors, which does not apply to our truck’s Shelter Green Metallic hue, that’s about it apart from the regionally appealing block heater and front license plate bracket.VERDICT: Take my money.In short, the Ranger Raptor is the most trail-worthy member of the Raptor family because of its rightsized dimensions. It’s much more likely to be bought by off-road types who never gave the big Raptor a serious look. It’s also the most affordable by a wide margin, so there’s strong appeal on the budget front. And it’s as quick as any other Raptor, except for the F-150’s V-8-powered R model. Anyone want to buy a slightly used 4Runner?SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Ford Ranger RaptorVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $57,065/$58,405Options: Raptor graphics, $750; spray-in bedliner, $495; keyless keypad, $95
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron-and-aluminum block and aluminum heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 180 in3, 2949 cm3Power: 405 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 12.2-in vented disc/12.1-in vented discTires: BF Goodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3LT285/70R-17 116/113S M+S 3PMS
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 128.7 inLength: 210.9 inWidth: 79.8 inHeight: 75.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/43 ft3Curb Weight: 5372 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.3 sec1/4-Mile: 14.1 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 107 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 218 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.69 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 360 mi

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/16/18 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDan 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