Evelyn Reynolds

From the April 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
In the hope of attracting more buyers, Lexus last October replaced its sales-lagging sporty-compact IS300 with two cars for 2006, the IS250 and the IS350. The more-powerful IS350 starts at $36,030 and comes with a class-leading 3.5-liter V-6 making 306 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque. But we think Lexus dropped the ball by not offering a manual gearbox on this little powerhouse on wheels.

2021 Lexus IS Gets Redesign, Handling Upgrades

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

If you wish to row your own, the lesser IS250 is your only choice. It starts at a more obtainable $30,580 and comes standard with a six-speed manual (the automatic is an $1170 option). And it needs it-this lesser 2.5-liter V-6 makes 204 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque at a lofty 4800 rpm. Math geniuses can tell you that’s 102 fewer horses than the IS350.
The 2.5-liter pulls the IS to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds, two seconds slower than the 3.5-liter. Still, that’s 0.1 second quicker than the fastest IS300 we’d ever tested. The IS250 jogs through the quarter-mile in 15.4 seconds at 90 mph (tying that old IS), compared with the 3.5-liter’s 13.7-second sprint at 104.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Straight-line performance aside, the IS250 is a pleasure to drive, even more than its big brother. The IS350 weighs 135 more pounds than the 3465-pound IS250, and with extra weight carried over its handsome nose, the 350 understeers more than we’d like. Also, the more powerful car’s suspension feels a bit overdamped and overzealous, whereas the 250’s feels composed and tight. There’s predictable understeer on corner entry, but a midcorner squeeze on the throttle is enough to tighten your line for a precise and pleasant blast to the next corner. For better balance, we’d take the IS250 over the IS350.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

The 250’s mission is to make potential buyers of a BMW 325i think twice. It’s worth a look. That Bimmer starts at about a grand more ($31,595), comes with a six-speed and a 3.0-liter inline-six that makes 215 horsepower and 185 pound-feet at a low 2750 rpm. Its specs are nearly identical to the IS250’s, but BMW seems to make better use of them-the German car gets to 60 mph a full second before the IS250 and 0.7 second more quickly through the quarter (14.7 seconds) at 94 mph. And the 325i feels right when pushed. Clutch engagement, shifting, braking, and steering all respond exactly as they should. On the other hand, the IS250’s clutch, for one, engages too abruptly at the end of its pedal travel, which can lead to embarrassing lurches from a traffic light. So although the IS250’s moves verge on those of BMW’s superb 3-series, the Lexus doesn’t feel quite as planted. For pure driving, BMW still has the edge.
The styling Lexus gave the new IS line turns the car from sharp to stunning. The body fits tight and low around the chassis with cool fender flares at each corner. Yet the overall shape remains graceful. And although BMW has a similarly tight design, its back-seat space is vastly better than the IS250’s (41 cubic feet to the Lexus’s 34, with four more inches of legroom).

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Inside, the new Lexus has a more luxurious look, and the leather and plastic seem even better than those in the original model. Lexus replaced the previous IS300’s chronograph-style gauge cluster with two easy-to-read electroluminescent gauges. And in this age of techno overkill, the dash layout is retro simple and intuitive. For example, the radio has just two knobs-one for volume, the other for tuning. Brilliant!
The IS250’s list of standard equipment includes keyless entry and start, dual-zone climate control, a 13-speaker stereo with a six-CD changer and auxiliary input, and a power sunroof. Most of those are options on a 325i. Our tester came with the $194 Preferred Accessory package (trunk mat, cargo net, and wheel locks) and the $1290 Premium package that includes wood trim and fantastic heated and ventilated leather seats.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

And for that occasional run through the woods, when you’d rather not have the electronics interfere with your tire-sliding ambitions, here’s how to shut down the stability system. Start the car with the hand brake engaged. Press the brake pedal twice and hold. Engage the hand brake twice and hold. Repeat until the “skid lights” appear on the dash. The ABS does not shut off. When the engine is subsequently turned off and then switched back on, the stability control is reactivated. (Presumably, this trick works on all new Toyota and Lexus models, and it’s easier than it sounds.)
The IS250 offers tremendous value to anyone looking for an affordable, sexy luxury car. But we strongly suggest a high-protein diet to beef up the motor.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Lexus IS250
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$32,064 (base price: $30,580)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 cu in, 2499ccPower (SAE net): 204 bhp @ 6400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 185 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 107.5 inLength: 180.1 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 56.1 inCurb weight: 3465 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 7.1 secZero to 100 mph: 19.1 secZero to 130 mph: 41.3 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mphTop speed (drag limited, mfr’s est): 142 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 170 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: -*
FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 20 mpgC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
*A snow-covered skidpad precluded this test.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the April 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
The press and public reactions when Chevrolet unveiled the SSR concept at the 2000 Detroit auto show were overwhelmingly positive. The message to Chevrolet was: Build it and they will buy it. The whole idea was outrageous: a pickup truck/roadster with bulging fenders and huge wheels. It just screamed for attention.

Quickest Pickup Trucks We’ve Ever Tested

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Most observers of the car scene laughed at the notion that Chevrolet would ever build its outlandish concept truck, but to everyone’s astonishment, GM green-lighted it. For once, gearheads got what they’d wished for. Well, sort of.
The production SSR remained close to the concept. The compromises included moving the outside mirrors from the A-pillars to the doors, adding marker lights to the body, and losing in the translation the sweeping metallic band along the tailgate. We were amazed and pleased that the muscular, bulging fenders made it to production.
Then the excitement waned. The show-circuit SSR had a 6.0-liter V-8 from a three-quarter-ton Silverado pickup, but the real deal ended up with a 5.3-liter V-8 that had only 300 horsepower to motivate more than two tons of truck. And it was only available with a four-speed automatic transmission. Reviewers described the SSR as all show and not much go.
Chevy had missed the boat in the same way Chrysler had with its 1997 Plymouth Prowler, a flashy hot rod that was hampered by a wimpy V-6. The SSR also brought to mind Ford’s weak and jiggly retro Thunderbird that went on sale in 2001. In fact, the looks and the attitude were only skin-deep. To qualify as cool and desirable, these car toys need to not only look fast but also be fast, or at least quick. The Prowler fizzled out two years ago, and the Thunderbird is destined for the same fate. Things haven’t looked much rosier for the SSR since it went on sale in 2003. On December 1, 2004, GM had a 300-day supply of unsold SSRs. The corporation sold 9648 SSRs last year but had envisioned selling 13,000.

Now instead of simply waiting for the ax to fall, Chevy has taken steps for 2005 to give the SSR what it deserved from the start—a big honking engine and a manual transmission. The 5.3-liter V-8 has been replaced with a 6.0-liter LS2 V-8 that churns out 390 horsepower and 405 pound-feet of torque. It’s the same engine found under the hood of the Corvette and the Pontiac GTO, although in those cars it’s tuned to crank out another 10 horses. A four-speed automatic also found in the Corvette is the standard transmission, but for an extra $815 there’s a Tremec M10 six-speed manual. The combination of this engine and the six-speed tranny gives the SSR some rabid bite to go along with an already hairy bark. The SSR we tested in September 2003 took a leisurely seven seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. This 2005 tester, with the six-speed manual, performed that task in 5.5 seconds. The 0-to-100-mph time was even more impressive. The new SSR whacked six seconds off the previous car’s time and reached the century number in just 14.1 seconds. The quarter-mile ET and speed went from 15.4 seconds at 89 mph to 14.1 seconds at 100 mph. These are respectable numbers that put the SSR in the same league with more conventional roadsters like the BMW Z4, Honda S2000, and Nissan 350Z when it comes to straight-line acceleration.
Chevrolet also enhanced a few other things in the revised SSR, most notably the steering system, which now has a retuned valve assembly and new bearings and seals for more precise on-center feel and a reduction in steering effort. The steering does feel a bit more accurate, and it’s easier to maneuver the SSR around town, but the truck still isn’t any fun for slaloming through corners. Push the SSR, and its truck roots are quickly revealed by its bouncy ride. The SSR pulled 0.82 g on the skidpad and stopped from 70 mph in 185 feet, the same distance as the one we tested in 2003.
Amazingly, despite the added 90 horsepower, one thing that hasn’t significantly changed on the SSR is its sticker price. The first SSR we tested had a base price of $41,995; this latest 390-hp version starts at $43,180. It’s easy to pile on expensive options, though. Our tester had, among other options, the 1SB Preferred Equipment Group ($1900), which includes heated seats, a Bose premium sound system, and an engine cover insert, and the Cargo Compartment Trim package ($895) for a hefty total of $47,375.
We won’t argue with the SSR’s eye-candy value or its ability to attract lots of attention, but there are a number of roadsters out there that offer better all-around performance at the same price. GM should have put a bigger, more powerful engine and a manual transmission in the SSR right from the start. That’s what this radical, uniquely American-looking vehicle deserved.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Chevrolet SSR
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE AS TESTED $47,375 (base price: $43,180)
ENGINE TYPE Pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 cu in, 5967ccPower (SAE net): 390 bhp @ 5400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 405 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 116.0 inLength: 191.4 inWidth: 78.6 inHeight: 64.2 inCurb weight: 4746 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 14.1 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 secStanding 1/4-mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mphTop speed (governor limited): 125 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 13 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the January 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
Ford’s GT could be the most overhyped car of the decade. We admit we’re in part to blame, paying tribute with 12 pages in this magazine to date, covering every square inch of the reprised Le Mans champion, every engineering iteration, every development Ford threw our way. We’ve driven early mules with nonspec engines, and unfinished prototypes, but up until now, we’d never strapped our test gear onto the car to find out what we all want to know: How fast is it?

2021 Ford GT Gets Heritage and Studio Editions

Ferrari 812 Superfast: Fast as Its Name Implies

Look Back at 20 Years of the Porsche 911 GT3

It’s a simple question. Here’s another: How does the $150,000 supercar stack up against the newest European repli-racers, the $101,965 Porsche 911 GT3 and the $193,324 Ferrari Challenge Stradale?
You’re going to find out, but we should explain why we’ve brought these three cars together. First, all of them are meant to give a race-car-like experience in a street vehicle. The race-car theme has been taken to almost ridiculous extremes both to save weight and to provide the perception of saved poundage.
Race cars don’t have sunroofs or navigation systems or satellite radios, and neither do any of these cars. The Ferrari and the Ford have bare floors. Lightweight and extremely cool carbon-fiber panels adorn the insides of the Ferrari’s doors. You won’t find a spare tire in the group.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Even driver aids that wouldn’t add much weight have been left off. Although each car has anti-lock brakes, none has the software and sensors that turn ABS hardware into stability-control systems. Computer bytes weigh nothing. Will the Stradale be that much faster without its optional radio? All these cars have air conditioning, however, despite the pounds it adds. The race-car fantasy would sour quickly if you were sweating all over your date.
Second, each of these cars has a significant racing heritage. The 911 GT3 shares its engine and gearbox with the racing-version GT3 that won its class at Le Mans last year. The Ferrari shares its internal components with two race cars: the 360 GT, which races in the same class as the GT3, and the 360 Challenge, which runs in the single-make Ferrari Challenge series. The Ford GT is a modern interpretation of the GT40 that finished one-two-three at Le Mans in 1966 and went on to win again in ’67, ’68, and ’69.
The third point is that after devoting so much space to describing the GT, it’s high time we put it up against some worthy opponents, and the GT3 and the Stradale are the newest gunslingers on the block. Plus, at about $100,000 for the Porsche and roughly $200,000 for the Ferrari, the Ford GT’s expected base price of $150,000 neatly bisects the two.
Since these are performance cars, we spent most of our time on the 1.9-mile GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan. We also performed our standard testing regimen, in addition to driving the cars on a very bumpy public-road loop. Along the way to frying three sets of tires, we found a winner.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Porsche 911 GT3
The GT3 is an overachieving sports car. On paper, it should have trailed its two competitors in every performance test. It has the poorest power-to-weight ratio here, with each of its 380 ponies burdened by 8.5 pounds, 15 percent more than the Ferrari’s 425 horses are saddled with. But this is one scrappy car.
It shadowed the more powerful and lighter Ferrari in nearly every acceleration test. The two ran side by side to 60 mph (4.0 seconds) and to 150 (23.9) and were just about equal in the quarter-mile with the Porsche hitting 114 mph in 12.3 seconds and the Ferrari at 115 mph in 12.4.

Highs: Flexible engine, the least expensive of the pack, the most features, lively handling.

We loved the GT3’s aluminum flat-six engine. Its guttural growl provided a wonderful race-car soundtrack, and it revved freely to its 8200-rpm redline. Even though the peak torque of 284 pound-feet occurs at a fairly high 5000 rpm, there’s still plenty of grunt at lower rpm, and the throttle response is prompt.
We weren’t so thrilled with the shifting action of the six-speed manual transmission. Our test car had a rubbery linkage that didn’t provide a clear path through the gears. We had to be very deliberate with the shifts, and that extra effort probably cost the GT3 a 10th or so in the acceleration times.
No time was lost on the skidpad as the GT3 pulled an astonishing 1.03 g, a figure that’s been bested by only one other street car, the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo. The Stradale and the GT trailed the Porsche by 0.05 g.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Using all that grip on the racetrack took some practice because the GT3 likes to swing its tail. If we entered one of GingerMan’s long corners a little too fast and lifted off the gas to tuck in the front end, the tail would immediately swing wide. But it didn’t snap—we always caught the slide—although we found ourselves countersteering quite a bit.

Lows: To some, lively means evil; flat, unsupportive seats.

Regardless, it was great fun. If we wanted, we could dirt-track through the corners Dukes of Hazzard-style. The problem was there didn’t seem to be a happy medium in the handling. It was a case of powering through the turns and dealing with the front-tire slide that would put it wide of the intended arc, or backing off a little and trying to catch the inevitable flick-out of the rear end. As a result, you are always correcting something in the GT3.
We would have had an easier time if the seats held us in place better. While cornering at the GT3’s very high limits, we were sliding all over the seat, which made it hard to work the pedals precisely.
Still, that willingness to rotate did help the GT3 polish off the corners with ease and post a 1:34.15 lap time, 0.04 second ahead of the more highly powered, lighter Ferrari (see track map above). Our car also had the optional ceramic brakes, which refused to fade.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All three cars have stiff suspensions, so even though the Porsche was the best-riding car of the bunch, it was still a roughrider. It also displayed quite a bit of bump steer and tended to dart around the road as the tires followed any new groove they encountered.
The Ferrari costs almost twice what the Porsche does and isn’t quicker, so what’s the GT3 doing in third place? As good as it was, those unsupportive seats cost it some points, as did the balky shifter. In addition, it came down to the cachet of the two others. If ever a 911 could feel plain, it does in the company of the Stradale and Ford GT. It did have the most features, including cruise control, a CD player, even a trip computer.

The Verdict: The return of the bad-boy Porsche—fun, fast, and with a real kick.

Before you castigate us and opine that clearly we should have opted for the 477-hp Porsche 911 GT2 for this test, keep in mind that its $192,000 price tag would have evaporated the high value here, and based on previous experience, we doubt it would have been fast enough to offset its higher price.
2004 Porsche 911 GT3380-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3219 lbBase/as-tested price: $101,965/$120,965C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 114 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.03 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ferrari Challenge Stradale
You won’t find another car here that gets your heart thumping like this Ferrari. But you pay for the pleasure, and we’re not just talking about the price.
Stripped of sound insulation and carpeting and with noise-amplifying carbon fiber in place of the usual leather door panels, this Ferrari doesn’t simply let the noise in, it invites it. When the aluminum 40-valve V-8 sings its primal scream, no one cares that it blows 93 on the decibel meter (a Honda Accord hits about 74 dBA). When you’re cruising, the predominant sounds of the suspension thumping over every road imperfection and the carbon-fiber trim bits squeaking against one another get tiresome almost immediately. How much could a radio weigh?

Highs: A primal engine note that leaves your knees wobbling, fantastic seats.

The Stradale is the most powerful and lightest roadgoing 360 ever built. The 425-hp V-8 has 30 more horses than the 360 Modena. Credit a slightly higher compression ratio (11.2:1 versus 11.0:1) and freer-flowing intake and exhaust systems for the new juice.
Ferrari saved 139 pounds (the Stradale weighs 3152) via the aforementioned missing radio, carpet, and sound insulation; the use of carbon fiber for the rear hatch, door skins, center tunnel, and seat buckets; and ceramic brake rotors.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Stradales are only available with the F1 gearbox that automatically operates the clutch and performs the shifts. All the driver has to do is pull on one of two steering-column-mounted paddles: right for upshifts, left for down. There is no fully automatic mode, but the F1 gearbox will automatically select first gear at a complete stop. Our car also had a launch-control system that greatly helped standing-start acceleration runs.
Once you’ve pressed the right buttons to turn on launch control, you simply bring the engine revs to the desired level and lift off the brake. The computer then performs a perfect burnout on your behalf. After some experimenting, we found that about 3000 rpm produced the quickest runs.

Lows: Every thump makes it through the interior, choppy ride, $200K won’t get you a radio.

We think we could have gone a little quicker with a fully manual system, but still, the Stradale’s 4.0-second blast to 60 mph was 0.6 second quicker than the last 360 Modena we tested.
Ferrari says its cars are not about the numbers. Considering that the Ferrari finished ahead of the Porsche in voting while costing so much more and not being quicker, we’d have to say the company’s right. On the track, the Ferrari was the easiest of the group to drive.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The handling balance is the opposite of the Porsche’s: The Stradale only wags its tail when wildly provoked. Yet it doesn’t clumsily push through the corners, either. It didn’t feel like the lightest, nimblest car here—that’s the Porsche’s terrain—but it did feel the most solid, the most planted. We did our top-speed testing on a windy day, and with the Porsche jumping around dramatically, we didn’t have the cojones to bring it to its claimed 190-mph top end. The Ferrari was just the opposite—buttoned down, secure, undramatic. We ran it to 176 mph with nary a white knuckle. The steering, too, is precise and communicative.
The seats are fantastic and prove once again that thinly padded deep buckets are good both at the track and on the street. We did have some trouble locating the right shift paddle while cornering, but we got used to it. And we never grew tired of hearing the engine. It really is the sweetest-sounding motor available. Every time we headed off on a lapping session, crowds formed at the starter’s stand.

The Verdict: Presses automotive buttons we didn’t know we had.

Any complaints? Well, there’s a lot of road noise, and the suspension is harsh. It soaks up big bumps fine but reverberates over small holes and cracks. Still, although the Ferrari couldn’t outrun the less-expensive Porsche, we’d sell our homes if it meant we could hear that engine every day.
2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale425-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3152 lbBase/as-tested price: $193,324/$193,324C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 115 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg

First Place: Ford GT

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It wasn’t even a contest. The Ford GT so completely dusted off its two highly recognized competitors that if we had wanted to make this a real challenge, we would have had to go way up the “supercar” price ladder. The $401,000 Saleen S7 is about as quick as the Ford GT, and we know of only one car that would surely outrun the Ford–the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo.
Rocketing the GT to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and to 150 in 16.9 (that’s an incredible seven seconds quicker than the Porsche and the Ferrari) was a cinch. Unlike some other supercars that have hair-trigger clutches with monstrously heavy pedal efforts, the GT’s clutch was as easy to operate as a Honda Accord’s.

Highs: Fantastic performance, updated vintage skin is Jack Nicholson cool.

It’ll do burnouts until the tires disintegrate, but we found that gently spinning the tires at the launch with careful throttle modulation produced jack-rabbit starts. The Ferrari and the Porsche both require an upshift before 60 mph, but the Ford does not, which accounts for some of the huge sprint-time advantage.
But Ford can use a tall first gear because the engine has an enormously wide power band. In this comparo, it had the crispest throttle response. In the rolling-start test to 60 mph, where the gas pedal is floored at 5 mph, the GT hooked up and simply bolted, reaching 60 in 3.7 seconds, a full second quicker than the GT3 and 0.7 second faster than the Ferrari.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The rear tires do a fantastic job of turning the engine’s mighty 500 pound-feet of torque (besting both the others by more than 200 pound-feet) into forward motion without losing traction. Although lots of rear traction sounds like a recipe for an understeering car, that was not the case.
The Ford tied the Ferrari for skidpad grip (0.98 g), and it handily outran the others in the lane-change test (70.1 mph versus the Porsche’s 67.6 and the Ferrari’s 67.2). The GT’s handling neatly combined what we like best about the two other cars: It had the rock-solid stability of the Ferrari with less tendency to understeer, and although its tail could be gradually swung out, it wasn’t as eager to do so as the Porsche.

Lows: Somehow, could use more mechanical soul.

What really made for the GT’s stunning two-second-per-lap advantage–it ran a lap in 1:32.13–was its ability to put the power down while exiting a corner. A tire that’s cornering is more likely to spin if you give the car too much throttle. In the Porsche and Ferrari, sloppy throttle work resulted in a power slide. The GT hunkered down and dug out of the corners with impressive verve. Its corner-exit speeds were almost always higher than the others’. And even though the Ford did not have fancy ceramic brake rotors, its brakes never faded, and it stopped from 70 mph in the shortest distance (153 feet versus 167 for the GT3 and Stradale).

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Ford said it had not completed top-speed development and asked us not to go faster than 170 mph, so we can’t answer the top-speed question yet. The projections in Dearborn are for more than 200 mph. Considering how mightily it was accelerating at 170 mph (it got there in only 23.0 seconds), we’d have to say Ford is right.
Shortcomings? The GT rides about as stiffly as the Ferrari. The wide A-pillar blocks some of your vision. We’d like more steering feedback. The ratio and the turn-in response are fine, but you don’t get any sense of what the tires are up to. The whole car has a kind of robotic feel to it when compared with the lusty Ferrari. There’s no supercharger whine, none of the classic V-8 burble, and the cable shifter feels lifeless. Plus, the seats in our test car were hopelessly flat and uncomfortable. Ford says a change is in the works.

The Verdict: A worthy successor to the original.

Maybe we’re being too picky here, because for the money, you get not only one of the coolest shapes on the road but also one of the best-performing new cars you can buy. Period. It’s gratifying to know at last that the heavily hyped Ford GT does indeed deliver the goods.
2005 Ford GT500-hp supercharged V-8, 6-speed manual, 3429 lbBase/as-tested price: $150,000/$150,000 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 3.3 sec1/4 mile: 11.6 @ 128 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 153 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 gEPA city/highway fuel economy: 14/21 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the September 2002 issue of Car and Driver.
Turns out not everyone who wants the visual vim and patriotic panache of an American sports coupe finds it necessary to personally supervise each and every gear selection by operating that lever located between the front seats. Take these three cars, which are the entire menu of sporty Big Three two-doors competing in the $25,000 neighborhood. Although two of the three (the Mustang and the Stratus) come with manual gearboxes as standard equipment, most owners prefer to leave the shifting to the car’s engine-transmission management system. (Asterisk: To their credit, about 55 percent of Mustang GT and SVT Cobra buyers want to manage gear selection for themselves. But that percentage drops to 33 when base Mustangs, with V-6 engines, are factored into the equation. The mix skews much more heavily toward minimal driver involvement with the Stratus two-door — 78 percent are automatics, and even for the sportier R/Ts, it’s 77 percent.) And since the Monte Carlo is automatic only, we specified automatics for all the players.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

We didn’t invite the Stratus-twin Chrysler Sebring, or the walking-dead Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird, since their contracts won’t be renewed for 2003, and then learned that another apparently eligible contender — the two-door version of the Pontiac Grand Prix — had also been consigned to history. The two-door Grand Prix went out of production in August, and there won’t be an equivalent car in the Excitement Division lineup until the Americanized version of the Holden Monaro makes its appearance as the 2004 GTO.
The U.S. sports-coupe hood count doesn’t increase much even when you throw a lasso around the entire category. The Ford ZX2 and Mercury Cougar both disappear at the end of the ’02 model year, making the low end of the spectrum an all-General Motors show: the aging Chevy Cavalier Z24 and Pontiac Sunfire GT, and the new-for-’03 Saturn Ion, which replaces the SC lineup. And that’s the lot.
Since we were insistent about transmission choice, you may wonder why there’s a disparity in price and, in particular, power. Here’s the rationale. The Monte Carlo SS, which wound up wearing the heaviest price tag of our trio, starts at $23,860. That’s a lot more than a manual Mustang V-6 at $18,100 ($18,915 for an automatic). Since it was possible to have V-8 power and stay within the pricing parameters, we opted for the GT. However, the Mustang that showed up for this showdown was loaded with other goodies, including some $1300 worth of audio add-ons.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

The Stratus was shortest on muscle — 200 hp and 205 pound-feet of torque are as good as it gets — but by checking enough options boxes, we didn’t have much trouble getting it into the same price stratum as its cross-town competitors.
Our flog was conducted near the small town of Coshocton, Ohio, home of Roscoe Village (and Bob Brenly, the sign said). Make that Historic Roscoe Village — a collection of restored buildings on a street paved with bricks, established during the heyday of the Ohio & Erie Canal (from 1825). And how Ohio is this? The burg’s big restaurant closes at 8 p.m. Nearby, we encountered some meandering roads in the hilly country west of town that we had not previously pillaged.
Would power prevail over sophistication and style? Only one way to find out.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Third Place: Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS
Remember Cool Hand Luke? There was that wonderful moment when the warden (Strother Martin) returned a battered Luke (Paul Newman) to the slammer and told the assembled inmates, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” So it is with the Monte Carlo SS. Chevy advertises “dual personality,” portraying a car that’s “classy with a wild streak.” There are also allusions to the cars roaring around NASCAR tracks — never mind that the real commonality between the two versions is that they both have four wheels.

Highs: Plentiful torque, excellent fit and finish, voluminous rear seat.

Where does the communications failure reside? Probably at our end, because try as we may, we find it impossible to embrace the notion that this car can satisfy the inner racer. Comfortable? Yes. Roomy? Yes, tops in this group. Solid? No question, arguably the best in this threesome. But sporty? Sorry. This car is as frisky and fun-loving as an Arthur Andersen accountant.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

So, to review: The Monte Carlo (as well as the Impala sedan) shares the same foundation as the Pontiac Grand Prix, the Olds Intrigue, and a brace of Buicks, the Regal and the Century. This is one of the best front-drive platforms in GM’s passenger-car inventory. Overall chassis rigidity is high, and we were also impressed by the fine quality of assembly fit and finish.
Chassis rigidity is a key component in good handling, but Chevy seems unwilling to take any chances in this realm. Even with the heavier anti-roll bars and bigger tires on the SS version, the Monte’s all-strut suspension is conservatively tuned to deliver smooth ride quality on most surfaces, plus the predictability of progressive understeer. Add steering that substitutes effort for feel, and you have a device that makes back-road driving more chore than pleasure.

Lows: Regressive styling, Novocain steering, absolute absence of fun-to-drive factor.

“There’s a pervading heaviness to this car that makes it feel slow-witted, slow on its feet, and generally reluctant,” opined one logbook scribbler.
The powertrain in the SS consists of GM’s deathless 3.8-liter pushrod V-6 mated with a 4T65-E GM automatic. We called the old 3800 “solid, pleasantly torquey, and nearly bulletproof” in our September 1999 road test of the Monte, and that opinion holds today. But it’s no JATO unit. Despite its advantage in torque, the SS edged the Stratus by a mere 0.1 second to 60 mph, 8.6 seconds versus 8.7, and the same was true of its quarter-mile performance — 16.6 seconds at 84 mph. Why Chevrolet doesn’t offer the supercharged version of the 3800 V-6 mystifies us, but we attribute this sluggishness to mass: at 3515 pounds, the Monte was this test’s fat guy.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

It was also the biggest. Although the Mustang is a bit wider, the Monte Carlo is distinctly longer and taller than its rivals, with a much longer wheelbase. Thus, it’s not too surprising that the Monte also delivered by far the roomiest cabin, with a back seat that can accommodate three adults in something closely resembling comfort. We were also impressed with the ergonomics, particularly the dash-mounted ignition switch, the sound system, and even the roomy leather-clad seating, although all hands wished for more lateral support.
Our test car was adorned with some $5000 worth of options, including a $2100 High Sport Appearance package that included, among other things, a “racing-inspired rear spoiler.” None of the elements enhances performance, and knocking a couple grand off the total probably makes the Monte Carlo a more attractive buy to someone, although not to us.

The Verdict: A sport two-door well-suited to the relaxed-fit era.

“If you can ignore the Martian styling,” concluded one tester, “this is a very nice car. But it’s really selling comfort and style, not sportiness.” Amen.
2002 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3515 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,860/$28,930C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.6 sec1/4 mile: 16.6 @ 84 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 206 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ford Mustang GT
Here’s a face that is nothing if not familiar. Although its visage was modestly revitalized for the 1999 model year, the Mustang looks pretty much as it has since its 1994 makeover. Nine years is a long time for a design to endure, but it’s a mere eye blink compared with the age of what lies beneath. Although subjected to numerous surgical procedures conceived to stiffen its spine and thus keep old age at bay, the bones of Ford’s pony car date more or less directly to the Fairmont sedan, circa 1978. That’s the automotive equivalent of the Lascaux cave paintings, and even though the chassis guys have managed to keep this survivor spry, the ancient underpinnings show to disadvantage within, where space and layout are defined and limited by the relatively short wheelbase and live axle.

Highs: V-8 punch. athletic character. mysterious Mustang magic.

Ford’s interior design crew did a nice job of blending now with then (i.e., 1964) during the 1994 makeover, but they were unable to entirely eliminate the awkward relationship of seat, steering wheel, and foot pedals. We never quite got comfortable in the Mustang, and the seats drew some caustic comments: “Like padded lawn chairs,” wrote one tester.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

That’s an exaggeration, but it’s fair to say the limited lateral support is disappointing in a car wearing GT badges. So was the relatively high seating position, undoubtedly designed to compensate for the high cowl. The rear seat is restrictive to the point of torment; two adults can be wedged in there for short hauls, longer if they happen to be adults you dislike.
A few other strikes against the inner Mustang: The old-line climate controls, which are being phased out in other Fords, are anachronistic; the dark-gray color scheme is almost more oppressive than the Chevy’s all-black treatment; and the Mach 1000 audio system, whose multiple amps consume a fair percentage of the trunk space, doesn’t sound like $1295 worth to us. And there’s nothing new to say about the Mustang’s exterior. You either like those chunky, muscular lines, or you don’t — our crew varies on that subject, but we’re unanimous in our opinion of the fake hood and side scoops: oh, puh-leeze.

Lows: Awkward ergonomics. low-rent climate controls. fake scoopery. iron-maiden back seat.

Dated though it is, with its live-axle rear suspension, the Mustang drew acceptable marks on the dynamic side of the ledger. There was some logbook carping about stiff ride quality and road noise transmitted through the suspension — a function, we suspect, of bushings with pretty stern durometers — but the Mustang’s cornering attitudes were the least nautical, its steering was both quick and tactile, and its braking performance (187 feet from 70 mph, with limited fade) was the best of this bunch, but unremarkable versus all sports coupes.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

The element that really kept the Mustang out of the cellar was located just under its ductless hood scoop — that “throaty V-8” so loved by William Clay Ford Jr., whose last name adorns a number of buildings in Dearborn, as well as this car. There was some unhappiness with the action of the four-speed automatic transmission — “Feels confused,” said one tester, “jerky upshifts, delayed downshifts” — but even so it motored merrily away from its rivals in almost all acceleration categories: 6.3 seconds to 60, 15.1 seconds at 93 mph in the quarter. They’re best in this test.

The Verdict: Not getting any newer, but clearly the best performance buy in this bunch.

Subtracting the $1295 audio system and the $815 automatic transmission from the as-tested price would improve our opinion of this car. Still, it’s clear that this first and last of the pony cars is overdue for the major overhaul that’s coming for 2004. If we were in the market for a Mustang, we’d wait.
2002 Ford Mustang GT260-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 3495 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,845/$27,125C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.3 sec1/4 mile: 15.1 @ 93 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

First Place: Dodge Stratus R/T

Highs: Uptown styling. unflappable deportment. AutoStick manumatic.

Dodge updated its two-door for the 2001 model year, a process that included a name change — from Avenger to Stratus — and offered two new engine choices. The R/T is distinguished by 17-inch wheels, a little more tire contact patch, a little less sidewall, bigger brakes, a bigger rear anti-roll bar, and, the key feature, a standard 3.0-liter SOHC 24-valve V-6. The engine, as well as much of the chassis, is from Mitsubishi, and it’s shared with the Eclipse sports coupe. It’s a far more salubrious propulsion system than the previous V-6, a rather asthmatic 2.5-liter, and if you must have an automatic transmission, the DaimlerChrysler four-speed AutoStick is about as good as it gets, allowing manual operation with very little of the override that goes with some manumatics. Still, it damped the Dodge’s dash to 60 mph — 8.7 seconds, more than a second slower than a manual model we acquired for comparison purposes. Only at higher speeds did the R/T’s superior aero begin to assert itself. Although its 0-to-100 time — 23.8 seconds — was almost three seconds slower than the manual R/T and more than six seconds adrift of the Mustang, it was nevertheless two seconds quicker than the Monte Carlo. It also gave a good account of itself in passing performance with the quickest time — 5.3 seconds — from 50 to 70 mph. And it sounded sweet at any speed.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Where the Stratus surprised us most was on the byways of the Ohio outback. Given its excellent ride quality, we anticipated more rock and roll in the hinterlands, but the reality was otherwise. Inevitably, there was body roll, plus some up-and-down suspension motion, but well-controlled. When it understeered, a quick lift and/or left-foot touch on the brake pedal brought the nose back on the desired line. For all its modest skidpad performance—the all-season Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires managed just 0.79 g on the black lake—the Stratus bites into corners and hangs on like a terrier grabbing a muskrat. Although we’d prefer a little less power assist, the steering is precise, and the car turns in decisively and changes direction briskly. Perhaps we shouldn’t have been so surprised, given the R/T’s decisive edge in the double-lane-change exercise—3 mph quicker than the Mustang—but it was a surprise of the pleasant variety.
It doesn’t take a very keen eye to see that the Stratus is the cosmetic pacesetter in this troika. The rakish lines that make the Dodge Intrepid so sexy look just as seductive on a smaller scale, if not more so. Moreover, it’s a shape that makes its two opponents look dated and dowdy.

Lows: Limited power. excess steering assist.

For all its eye appeal, though, the elements that make the Stratus so striking — the steeply raked windshield and even steeper rear window — create some irritating side effects inside the car. Accommodating the windshield angle, for example, required a long upper dashboard, which negates, to some degree, the advantage of the car’s low cowl. Forward sightlines are compromised. Looking aft, the rear parcel shelf slopes sharply upward to meet the backlight, requiring constant fiddling with the rearview mirror to avoid seeing a reflection of the shelf and its three inset vents.
Elsewhere, the R/T’s interior treatment — executed in tastefully contrasting dark and dove grays — got top marks. There were those who were a little uneasy with the various fighter-plane visual cues that busied the dashboard, smacking, as they did, of creeping Pontiacism. But the many plastics had a quality look, the gray leather upholstery was creamy, and if the front seats were a bit deficient in lateral support on the back roads, they were long-haul comfortable. Long-haul comfort doesn’t quite extend to the rear-seat space, but two can ride back there for short hauls without cramping major muscle groups, and it’s possible to squeeze in three without resorting to Mazola.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Like its rivals’, the as-tested price of our Status R/T was inflated by a fair amount of optional gear. An automatic transmission, for example, adds $825, and if you want the AutoStick feature—you do, you do—be prepared to pony up another $165. We’d also broom the polished-aluminum wheels ($375). However, most of the other big-ticket extras—anti-lock brakes ($740), a power sunroof ($695), the leather interior group ($1045)—make the car more desirable and seem worth the extra dough.

The Verdict: Delivers on the promise of its slick packaging.

In any case, the Stratus R/T rates a high value index. Add comfort, athleticism, and best-in-test good looks, and you have a winning recipe—at least in this all-Motor City cook-off. How the Stratus would fare versus out-of-town competitors is a story for another day.
2002 Dodge Stratus R/T200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3376 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,985/$25,955C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4 mile: 16.7 @ 85 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

Much has changed since we sampled a prototype version of Aston Martin’s new SUV, the DBX. Since that January drive, Aston has been hitting iceberg after iceberg, knocked down by both a pandemic-induced production shutdown and a cash crisis that threatened to bankrupt it. Aston lost $300 million during the first six months of the year, and its stock price has now fallen by more than 90 percent since the company went public back in 2018. CEO Andy Palmer is gone and his replacement, Tobias Moers, formerly of AMG, is joining a company in desperate need of good news.
Here’s some: The now-production-ready DBX is as good to drive as our limited time in the prototype had us hoping it would be. The huge cost of developing its first SUV might have nearly broken Aston, but in terms of the way the car looks and drives, it seems it might have been entirely worth it.

2021 Aston Martin DBX Prototype Drive

Aston Martin DBX Could Add Three-Row, AMR Variants

Aston’s new CEO will be familiar with the AMG-sourced twin-turbo 4.0-liter V-8, but the engine surprisingly doesn’t make the DBX’s highlight reel. The combination of the DBX’s near 5000-pound curb weight and the engine’s relatively modest 542 horsepower—61 fewer horses that you’d find in a Mercedes-AMG GLE63 S—means it is actually one of the slowest vehicles to use this twin-turbo V-8. But the engine still provides AMG levels of sound and fury when unleashed. The nine-speed automatic transmission uses a conventional torque converter rather than the wet clutch pack AMG employs in some applications. Gearchanges are both smooth and rapid. Brakes are strong, and pedal feel is excellent.

View Photos

Max Earey/Aston Martin

The DBX’s best dynamic features are its standard air springs, its active anti-roll system, and an all-wheel-drive system that incorporates a limited-slip rear axle. These systems work seamlessly to effectively disguise the car’s mass and to deliver a markedly different driving experience in each of the car’s dynamic modes.
The default GT setting is predictably soft-edged, with active anti-roll bars not being too overactive and still allowing for some body lean under hard cornering. In GT mode, the DBX exhibits mild understeer as the Pirellis run short on adhesion. Switching to Sport sharpens responses, reduces body roll, and gives a much more rear-drive sensation to the power delivery. Sport Plus, which partly deactivates the stability control, turns the DBX into a two-and-a-half-ton hooligan, firming up the suspension even further and allowing the rear end to slide in a remarkably predictable and unthreatening fashion for something so tall and heavy.

View Photos

Max Earey/Aston Martin

The air springs’ ability to vary ride height also gives the DBX a surprising amount of off-road prowess. Clearance is increased by up to two inches in the loftiest Terrain Plus mode, allowing the DBX to pass over modest obstacles without scraping noises. All-wheel drive and brake-based descent control allow it to scramble up and down slippery gradients without drama. It can also tow, another first for Aston, with the company claiming it can tug up to 5940 pounds.
While drifting and off-roading the DBX is good fun, the real test begins when we take it on a 300-mile tour of some of England’s best roads. The drive, you will not be surprised to hear, is conducted in traditional British rain. The V-8 actually impresses more when asked to do less, its effortless muscularity and keen low-rev response is well suited for relaxed cruising. Refinement is good, markedly better than in Aston’s traditional sports cars, and although the DBX’s cabin lacks the sepulchral hush of something like a Rolls-Royce Cullinan or Mercedes GLS in the softest GT setting, the air springs allow for a compliant ride.

View Photos

Dominic Fraser/Aston Martin

Even in its most relaxed mode, chassis discipline is never lacking. Once onto the lonely and demanding roads that cross the bleak emptiness of the Exmoor National Park, the DBX shows remarkable body control over rollercoaster dips and compressions, the gentle springing perfectly matched by the no-nonsense adaptive dampers. In its GT mode the DBX never feels wayward, and in Sport it doesn’t feel harsh, the suspension refusing to be caught out by anything we could find to throw at it. Traction was impressive and the steering accurate enough to keep the DBX on a chosen line at speeds we are sure none of the company’s sports cars could have matched over such tough terrain. Enthusiastic progress did carry a penalty, with fuel economy of just 12.6 mpg over 340 miles, with more than 200 of those at an 80-mph highway cruise.
The DBX is handsome, without any use of the “for an SUV” provisos commonly dropped in this part of the market. We looked long and hard for a bad angle and struggled to find one, with a possible asterisk over the sheer size of the toothy radiator grille. The styling team deftly integrated cues from the brand’s lower and sleeker sports cars without making the DBX look like a pastiche. They have also made full use of the proportional freedom given by the car’s platform and bonded aluminum underpinnings: It is shorter than the Lamborghini Urus and Bentley Bentayga, but sits on a longer wheelbase than either.

View Photos

Dominic Fraser/Aston Martin

The cabin is similarly Aston with a twist. Many details are familiar, from the arrowhead door releases and the brand’s curious tradition of sticking gear selection buttons on the dashboard like a 1950s Chrysler to the preponderance of Mercedes switchgear that comes with the DBX’s Daimler-Bosch electrical architecture. The DBX’s steering wheel marks a welcome return to circularity when compared to the squared-off wheels of DB11 and Vantage, but with a similarly thick rim and well-weighted metal gearchange paddles. It is roomy in the front, and the long wheelbase yields space in the back. It has the biggest cabin of any Aston since the wedge-shaped Lagonda sedan of the 1970s and ’80s.
But although fit and finish felt good, as you would expect from a vehicle with a base price near $200,000, the level of technology is disappointing. Digital instruments are standard, a first for Aston, but the 10.2-inch screen in the center of the dashboard isn’t touch sensitive, being based on the last-generation Mercedes infotainment system. Commands need to be made through a click-and-scroll controller. Five years ago, we wouldn’t have complained. Today it feels dated.

View Photos

Dominic Fraser/Aston Martin

Other notable omissions include the full suite of active safety systems and piloted cruise control, which are fast becoming luxury-car staples. The DBX can maintain distance and warn when it is leaving a lane but won’t actively steer itself. The seat frames are carried over from the DB11, and we could only find comfort with a position that was lower and more reclined than we would normally pick in an SUV.
The DBX is not going to be confused with the brand’s sports cars, but it is a deeply engaging machine shaped like a utility vehicle. Think of it an Aston Martin that happens to be an SUV rather than an SUV dressed up as an Aston. It’s short on the latest tech toys and the overt showiness of others in the segment, but for those wealthy buyers in search of a luxury SUV they can actually enjoy driving hard, it deserves to be at the top of the list.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Aston Martin DBX
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
BASE PRICE $192,986
ENGINE TYPE twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 243 in3, 3982 cm3Power 542 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 516 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm
TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 120.5 inLength: 198.4 inWidth: 78.7 inHeight: 66.1 inCargo volume: 25 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 4950 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 3.8 sec100 mph: 9.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.0 secTop speed: 181 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 16/15/19 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

A de-chromed body, decorative red stripes, three letters on the front grille: The new Volkswagen GTI has the subtle touchstones that have characterized it since it began in the mid-1970s. What began as a secret project for the first-generation Golf made it to production and became an instant success. The original GTI defined its segment, and the upcoming eighth-generation GTI promises to keep GTI on top.
In the United States market, the front-wheel-drive GTI, fitted with a turbocharged 2.0-liter TSI inline-four with about 245 horsepower, will initially be the only way we’ll get the latest Golf. After the GTI launches, it’ll be joined by the all-wheel-drive Golf R, rated at around 330 horsepower. But, that’s it. There won’t be a regular Golf coming to the States, and, sadly, that means no Sportwagon or Alltrack.

View Photos

Volkswagen

New Mk 8 Golf GTI Laps VW Track Faster Than Mk 7

We Ride Shotgun in the 2022 Volkswagen Golf GTI

Those U.S.-bound GTIs will come from Germany instead of Mexico. And a first drive in the GTI’s home turf—country roads and autobahns near Wolfsburg—have us very excited.
The GTIs we drove were European-spec versions, but U.S.-bound models should be similarly powerful. The upgraded 2.0-liter turbo-four (EA888) serves up 245 horsepower from 5000 to 6500 rpm. Maximum torque is an impressive 273 pound-feet, delivered from 1600 to 4300 rpm. According to Volkswagen, that’s enough power to hurl the GTI to 62 mph in 6.3 seconds. That number seems conservative to us considering the seventh generation with less power could hit 60 in less than six seconds. Top speed is governed at 155 mph. Fuel consumption is not yet rated, but we expect the GTI to match or best the current car’s 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway EPA numbers.
Regular C/D readers will appreciate the continued presence of a manual transmission. Gearing is such that 60 mph can be reached in second, and third gear is good for nearly 100 mph. The engine is supremely elastic, makes power everywhere, and runs through the entire rev range with a satisfying linearity.

View Photos

Volkswagen

The manual gearbox could be better, though. The throws could be a bit shorter, and the brake pedal protrudes to an extent that makes it difficult to execute a heel-and-toe downshifts. The manual also keeps the kickdown switch under the accelerator pedal, which seems a bit silly in a manual. There’s no auto rev-match system, which makes the pedal position even more regrettable.
The other gearbox is VW’s familiar seven-speed dual-clutch automatic. It adds about 65 pounds, bringing the curb weight to about 3220 pounds, but we can’t fault the seamless and instant shifts. The gearbox is controlled with a futuristic selector on the center console and two paddles on the steering wheel. Hold down the left paddle, and the gearbox will give you the lowest possible gear for your speed.
We think the GTI feels more agile and fun with the manual ‘box, but the dual-clutch is excellent. The snaps and pops during shifts and when you abruptly lift have largely disappeared, but that may be due to Europe’s mandatory particulate filter. U.S. models won’t get the filter, which may make them sound a little more dramatic.

View Photos

Volkswagen

Chassis tuning and the embedded electronic control systems are superb. The steering is extremely precise and direct; the electronically controlled dampers can be adjusted through a large spread from comfortable to very hard. The electronically controlled VAQ front differential lock is vastly superior to just the stability-control-based XDS system, which remains on the car to complement the other dynamic systems. Steering and traction improve noticeably over the previous GTI, especially when fitted with 235/35R-19 tires, as on our test car.
Like the new Golf, the new GTI has an almost shockingly futuristic dashboard, configurable in many ways. It’s perhaps a bit gimmicky, but it offers a wide array of display styles. The seat fabric is a reminder of early GTIs, and for those not into tartan, there’s a leather option. The center console holds a charging module for smartphones and two cupholders. They work well in the automatic version, but in the manual version, any cups, bottles, or mugs will get in the way of the driver’s elbow when shifting. Fortunately, you can toss your drinks into the holders in the door pockets.

View Photos

Volkswagen

The GTI remains at the top of its class in terms of quality and materials, and it feels truly spacious inside despite its compact body. The sport seats offer plenty of lateral support, yet they are comfortable enough for long road trips.
While we generally approve of the digital user interface, we have one particular gripe: The adjustment of the stability control system is buried deep in the bowels of the complex menu structure, and it requires a staggering six pushing or swiping inputs to deactivate the system or to put it into Sport mode, which allows for greater yaw angles. On a sporty car like the GTI, this function deserves a button right in the driving-mode menu.
In Germany, the GTI will cost about 35,000 euros, including a 16 percent sales tax. When it launches in the U.S. in late 2021, prices are expected to remain close to the current model’s $29,515. With its power boost and noticeably improved dynamics, we think the utterly modern GTI will remain at the top of the segment its ancestor founded.

View Photos

Volkswagen

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

Exclusivity was never an issue in the early years of the automobile. Those who were wealthy enough to afford cars before the era of mass manufacturing would normally commission their favored style of bodywork from the same coachbuilders who had previously made horse-drawn carriages. It was a largely separate—and more dignified—trade to the grubby business of making frames, engines, and axles.

Bentley Bacalar Is an Ultra-Exclusive Speedster

Bentley Dresses Bacalar in Wild Colors, Interiors

Coachbuilding survived for an impressively long time after the arrival of production line-built cars, but it became increasingly harder and more expensive as vehicles got more and more complex. But Bentley is now bringing back something very similar. Previewed by the Bacalar, Bentley’s in-house Mulliner division is offering a radically different, limited-edition car built on the same underpinnings as the existing Continental GT convertible.
This approach is not entirely new—Lamborghini seems to launch two or three unobtanium-grade special models a year—but it’s less common in the ultra-luxury segment. Bentley announced its plan to build a limited run of a dozen Bacalars earlier this year. The debut was originally scheduled for the Geneva auto show but, following its cancellation, the reveal was subsequently held online. At the same time, it also confirmed that all the cars had already been sold, despite their roughly $2 million price tag and the fact that Bacalars could only be imported to the United States under restrictive show-and-display regulations.

View Photos

Bentley

None of the customer Bacalars has been built yet, let alone a baseline prototype for honing the mechanical package. But we were given the chance to experience the concept that was meant to be on the stand at Geneva, with an exclusive drive on the Goodwood Circuit in the United Kingdom.
The combination of a seven-figure show car with zero weather protection and what is meant to be the height of the British summer produces an entirely predictable outcome: near-torrential rain. Not ideal conditions for a 650-hp car on an infamously crashable, high-speed racetrack, although it soon became clear that the show car is not built for speed, whatever the conditions.
The Bacalar’s damp but beautifully finished interior quickly proves to be a theatrical set. Trying to close the windows reveals that the switches don’t work, and the milled-aluminum temperature controls spin without altering either the display on the digital readout or the cabin’s airflow; there is no actual climate-control system behind the dashboard. The hands of the clock and the trio of dials that sit on what should be a rotating panel atop the dashboard are frozen in place. The digital instrument display works, but it only plays a looped video to represent rising speed and revs. This means we do get to enjoy the unlikely experience of turning into Goodwood’s tricky first Madgwick corner at an indicated 170 mph, but it’s not one that reflects reality. On the plus side, at least the windshield wipers work.

View Photos

Bentley

Once rolling, the Bacalar’s windshield actually offers an impressive amount of weather protection. Bentley claims that the finished car, which should weigh about 220 pounds less than the softtop Continental GT, will be the fastest open-roof road car in its history: zero to 60 mph in a conservative 3.5 seconds and a “better than 200 mph” top speed. Neither figure can be confirmed in the show car at Goodwood, but gentler progress is more in keeping with how owners are likely to enjoy the Bacalar—at speeds that keep its cabin reasonably calm so as to better enjoy the wuffling soundtrack and effortless punch of its mighty twin-turbo 6.0-liter W-12. The Conti’s eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission pairs well with the car’s split mission, offering both snappy responses and almost torque converter-like smoothness at lower revs.
Not that you’d want to speed past all the jealous glances. The Bacalar looks stunning, an auto show concept that a lucky group of affluent customers will actually be able to buy. Despite using the same platform as the Continental GT convertible, which starts at $228,025, Mulliner’s design team has changed every exterior panel. The new bodywork employs both aluminum (for the rear deck) and carbon fiber (doors and front fenders). The only carryover parts from the Continental are the windshield and the door handles, which incorporate the keyless entry system. Bentley’s head of color and trim, Maria Mulder, says that at least one customer has specified the show car’s Flame Yellow hue, which comes alive under gray skies and nicely accents the car’s unique 22-inch wheels.

View Photos

Bentley

Much less inside the cabin has been changed, as it is far more difficult to redesign and relocate switchgear than it is body panels. But almost every surface has been covered in exotic and expensive materials. The show car’s dashboard is made from 5000-year-old petrified river wood recovered from a peat bog, and therefore presumably able to cope with another soaking. We were more concerned about both the quilted leather seats (each with 148,000 individual stiches) and the ultra-fine wool-cloth dash panels. But Mulder says they are actually pretty tough. Bentley has to meet the Volkswagen Group’s standards for trim durability and (in open-top models) short-term water resistance.
When we speak to Mulliner boss Tim Hannig after our drive, he admits the decision to build only a dozen Bacalars was a deliberately cautious one. This car is intended to be both a proof of Bentley’s ability to make substantive changes to its existing models and also to gauge the market for them, although he insists that production numbers for future Mulliner models will never make them commonplace. “When you increase volumes, people’s excitement goes away,” he said. “I don’t think we’ll ever get to 150.”
But the Bacalar will be followed by other limited-run specials. “We’re absolutely not planning to do one and then stop,” Hannig said. “This is a very serious start into a forgotten niche of the market.”
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

New electric vehicles are beginning to roll out with increasing regularity and Volkswagen, the company that brought us Dieselgate, is pushing aggressively into the EV space. Under the guidance of CEO Herbert Diess, VW has launched a formidable electrification strategy, and at its heart is an entire lineup of cars dubbed ID. The first is the ID.3, so named because VW says it’s the company’s “third big idea.” The first was the original Beetle, and the second was the Golf. Those are some big footsteps to follow.
We just spent a day behind the wheel of the ID.3. The ID.3 is a compact hatchback that will be followed by the crossover ID.4. The United States will get an ID.4 imported from Germany in 2021, but production will shift to VW’s plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 2022. The ID.3 is the first of the EVs, and it likely provides a good preview of what the ID.4 will be like, as both share the new MEB platform. Other Volkswagen Group brands such as Audi, Seat, and Skoda will get their own spinoffs, and there will even be an MEB-based Ford. In Germany, the ID.3 starting price is about $42,000, but less expensive versions are coming.

View Photos

Matthias KnödlerCar and Driver

VW ID.3 Electric Crossover Debuts with New VW Logo

VW’s Shares Details on Upcoming ID.4 Electric SUV

The ID.3 comes with a motor mounted just ahead of the rear axle and a single-speed transmission. The only versions available at launch make 201 horsepower and 229 pound-feet of torque; a downgraded version of the same motor with 143 horsepower is coming soon. A battery with 58 kWh of usable energy is standard, and a 77-kWh battery is optional. The larger battery offers considerably more range, of course, but its additional weight dampens acceleration. Fitted with the 58-kWh battery, the ID.3 weighs a claimed 3814 pounds and can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in roughly 7.2 seconds. The larger battery bumps the weight to more than 4000 pounds, and we estimate the sprint to 60 mph will take 7.6 seconds. Both versions top out at a governed and unimpressive-to-a-German 99 mph, even though we’re told theoretical top speed would be closer to 120.
Acceleration is brisk right up to the ID.3’s terminal velocity. Passing maneuvers are quick and effortless affairs that require little planning. It is fun to drive the ID.3 quickly, and the damping is on the stiffer side compared to similarly sized EVs. But it won’t be confused with a GTI. There is still quite a bit of body roll around fast corners, the brake pedal has a lot of travel, and while the steering is precise, the ID.3 is no go-kart. What’s more, the electric power steering can be clearly heard during quick maneuvers. Overdo it, and the non-defeatable stability-control system kicks in.

View Photos

Matthias KnödlerCar and Driver

The single-speed transmission has a normal mode, which allows the car coast a bit, and a B mode that uses the motor to slow the car more aggressively when lifting off the accelerator. The difference between the modes could be larger, but we like the fact the car offers the adjustability.
U.S. EPA range has yet to be determined, but in Europe the official range is 264 miles with the smaller battery and 341 miles with the larger one. Those figures, of course, are unrealistic and nowhere near actual on-road performance. We estimate U.S. range figures would come in just under 200 miles for the smaller-battery variant and about 250 with the larger pack. VW is quick to add that the optimistic numbers, in this case, are the EU’s business. European regulators force carmakers to use an extremely favorable cycle for EVs to help their range appear similar to conventionally powered cars.
Visually, we think VW got it right. ID.3 is clean and contemporary, not cutesy or overdone but quite industrial-design-like. It’s not an intimidating or aggressive look but manages to appear serious and sporty. The drag coefficient is 0.27, which isn’t great for a purpose-built EV but not too bad for a short hatchback. And the car makes the most of the electric platform, with a spacious passenger cabin that offers nearly the interior space of a VW Passat, even though it is only 167.8 inches long, or about the length of a Golf.

View Photos

Matthias KnödlerCar and Driver

We drove a well-equipped version with a panoramic roof. Thus equipped, the interior is airy and flooded with light. The materials are attractive and of high quality. The center console isn’t very useful, however, as it has little purpose except for housing the cupholders. There are few color and trim choices as VW is taking a page from U.S. and Asian carmakers and limiting choice to simplify production. The ID.3 comes with bundled packages and very few à-la-carte choices beyond that.
There’s a slim dashboard with a smaller screen in front of the driver with basic information and a larger one in the vehicle’s center. Some versions feature a large head-up display that seems to project directional arrows overlaid onto the actual road. This option, however, is not fully functional yet, and neither is Apple CarPlay or Android Auto functionality. VW blames the pandemic for the delay, but we suspect that the sheer workload of simultaneous development of the ID.3 and the eighth-gen Golf could also be to blame. Whatever the reason, the issue should be rectified before any MEB model comes stateside.

View Photos

Matthias KnödlerCar and Driver

Like a Tesla, the ID.3 requires no turn of a key or push of a button before putting it into gear and taking off, but for those who like to turn their cars on and off, there is a start-stop button that causes a few lights in the instrument cluster to appear and disappear. It doesn’t actually do anything aside from illuminating those lights. Either way, if you have the key and put your foot on the brake, you can put the car in gear and drive away. When you’re through, put it in park, get out, simply walk away, and it will shut down.
With its acoustically decoupled chassis and body, the ID.3 is extraordinarily quiet even at highway speeds. Wind rush and tire noise are kept low. City driving is a joy, thanks to the small turning circle of 33.5 feet. Fun to drive, agile, handsome, and impeccably built, it portends good things for VW’s herd of coming EVs.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Volkswagen ID.3
VEHICLE TYPE mid-motor, rear-wheel-drive, 4- or 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
BASE PRICE (GERMANY) Pro Performance, $42,250; Pro S, $48,600
MOTOR permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 229 lb-ft; 58.0-kWh or 77.0-kWh lithium-ion battery pack
TRANSMISSION 1-speed direct drive
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 108.9 inLength: 167.8 inWidth: 71.2 inHeight: 61.1 inCargo volume: 14 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 3850–4100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 7.2–7.6 sec100 mph: 20.1–20.5 sec1/4 mile: 15.6–16.0 secTop speed: 99 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 113–118/125–130/105–110 MPGe >Range: 195–250 miles

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More