Evelyn Reynolds

From the June 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
Chrysler’s 300C SRT8 is the car we thought the American auto industry would not build again. After the muscle-car era, U.S. automakers relinquished the high-performance family-sedan formula to the Germans (who added refinement but charged elitist prices) and Japanese (who charged a little less than the Germans but somehow sterilized the whole thing).

Every Full-Size Sedan Ranked from Worst to Best

The Best Sedans of 2020

On occasion, the home industry was good for the affordable yet unrefined eye-opener that temporarily salved our pain—to name a few, the Buick Grand National and GNX, the Chevrolet Impala SS, and the Ford Taurus SHO. Those vehicles offered performance and price but lacked the refinement of the import brands. For 2004, Cadillac gave us the 400-hp CTS-V that matched the performance and refinement of the über-sedans, but at $51,485, GM charges fully for it.
What makes the SRT8 version of Chrysler’s 300C exceptional is that it’s the first sedan from anyone, anywhere, to combine the refinement and performance of the pricey supersedans with a sticker of $42,095, no incentive necessary. It’s something the U.S. auto industry should have done long ago, but it was worth the wait.

Highs: Performance shames that of most sports cars, $42,095 base price, machine-gun exhaust note, Porsche-grade stopping distances, room for five.

Without the 10Best-winning 340-hp 300C, which probably wouldn’t have gestated in its current form had it not been for the Mercedes merger, SRT (Street and Racing Technology) director Dan Knott would not have had such a superb starting point on which to perform the modifications necessary to make the car into something worthy of SRT badging. For those whose free time is completely taken up by reruns of VH1’s Strange Love, the SRT division of Chrysler and Dodge is akin to Mercedes-Benz’s AMG and BMW’s M division in that they take regular production cars and up the ante until they have about 50 more horsepower than you’d expect.
In the case of the 300C SRT8, the enhanced engine makes 425 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque from a bored-out, high-compression-ratio 6.1-liter version of the corporate 5.7-liter Hemi V-8. Tricks such as variable valve timing or a multistage intake manifold are not present. New stuff includes just a single hot camshaft sitting in the block, 16 lightened valves, and a forged crankshaft that allows the large V-8 to spin to a melodic 6400 rpm. The torque peak arrives at 4800 rpm. That may sound high for an engine this big, but the copious displacement means enough torque is available off idle to put the limited-slip differential to good use. Compared with the 5.7-liter it’s based on, the 6.1-liter feels sportier and, oddly, smaller because of its penchant for high revs.
An eager five-speed automatic modified by SRT provides immediate upshifts and downshifts and is a terrific partner to the 6.1-liter. Full-throttle shifts at the redline are accompanied by an explosive sonic boom from the exhaust. Back off the throttle, and the sound becomes mellow and unobtrusive. At 70 mph we measured 69 dBA of noise, but you don’t hear the engine as much as you hear the wind rushing around the brick-like body and the hum of the wide tires. Following the logic of AMG’s offerings, the German automaker’s American operations do not offer a clutch pedal. Manual transmissions in sedans this large and with this much power somehow feel out of place and too often suffer from high efforts that make them difficult to drive smoothly.

KEVIN WING

The SRT8 is a big sedan with 56 cubic feet of front passenger space and 51 in the rear. It isn’t light at 4212 pounds, but at just below 10 pounds per horsepower the SRT8 will bust through 60 mph in 4.7 seconds on its way to a 13.2-second quarter-mile at 109 mph. If the SRT8 had been included in the “Executive Adrenalators” comparison [ C/D, November 2004], it would have been less expensive and offered more sheetmetal and its acceleration would have been at the top of the heap. The SRT8’s ungoverned top speed of 173 mph also would have placed it on top and is especially startling when you consider the block-like drag coefficient of 0.36 and the garage-door-sized frontal area of 25.8 square feet. Better yet, the SRT8 outpaces the ungoverned CTS-V by 12 mph and all AMG products (which are governed at 155 mph) by 18 mph. Academic for sure, but if you paid more for those other cars, you’d definitely want the bragging rights.
The weight of the SRT8 is also effectively hidden by suspension changes that lower and stiffen the chassis. Striking 20-inch wheels that look nearly big enough to double as turbofan blades on a Boeing 777-200LR are wrapped by uncompromised Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires that adhere to the skidpad to the tune of 0.89 g. For those who don’t want to buy new wheels and snow tires (you’d have to buy new wheels if you wanted snows, since a 20-inch snow tire doesn’t exist at the moment), Chrysler will equip the SRT8 with all-season Goodyear RS-As that might have a better chance of getting you out of a snowy driveway. The tire sizes are staggered—smaller 245/45R-20 fronts and slightly larger 255/45R-20 rears—and on a dry, tight handling course there is some initial understeer, but it’s easily canceled by a quick crack of the throttle. Steering feel isn’t quite as award-worthy as the rest of the chassis. The power-assisted rack-and-pinion setup is predictable and never surprises, but it lacks the feedback you want in a car so willing to defy centripetal forces.

Lows: Acres of gray plastic inside, choppy bad-road ride, spongy brake-pedal feel.

Standard on the SRT8 is a specially tuned stability-control system that allows for more slipping and sliding than the regular 300C’s more intrusive system. As with Mercedes products, pushing the stability button on the dash doesn’t completely disable the control system, but you’ll be permitted even more freedom before the system finally intervenes. With the button pushed, hanging the tail out for those Dukes of Hazzard moments is as easy as cranking the steering wheel and matting the accelerator— Yee-haw!
The Duke boys might appreciate the stiff ride of the SRT8, but if you’re looking for a supple ride, the regular-strength 300C may be more your speed. In the SRT version you and your passengers will experience more bucking than Travolta did in Urban Cowboy. The dubs, the low-profile tires, and the firmer suspension increase the grip but degrade the ride over less than glassy pavement. Fortunately, even the harshest impacts don’t elicit quivers from the unyielding unibody. The strong structure imparts the SRT8 with a feeling of refinement and serenity that rivals that of sedans from das Vaterland.
The brakes are also up there with the finest from the autobahn nation. Stops from 70 mph take only 162 feet of real estate, and these brakes do so over and over again with no sign of fade. The front rotors measure 14.2 inches, and the rears are 13.8 inches tall, with four-piston calipers doing the clamping at every corner. Despite the SRT8’s remarkable braking performance at the track, after the car returned from testing, the brake-pedal feel became a bit spongy, requiring more travel than we like before biting down.

KEVIN WING

What doesn’t quite measure up to more expensive sedans is the interior of the SRT8. On the plus side there are new pseudo-suede and leather front seats that look like Viper seats let out between the bolsters. The chairs are supportive, and the wider size will fit big-and-tall shoppers with ease. An easy-to-use optional navigation system kept us from getting lost whenever we became disoriented by the SRT8’s acceleration. The nav system is part of a $1965 package that includes an upgraded and crisp-sounding stereo with Sirius satellite radio. Metallic trim adorns the center console and doors, but it doesn’t change the plastic-filled cabin to the extent that the rest of the modifications alter the character of the car. Some might call the interior understated, and it is certainly not an unpleasant place to spend time—it’s just a bit dull in light of the stellar performance.

The Verdict: AMG-like performance, Mercedes-like refinement—at a Chrysler price.

DaimlerChrysler must certainly recognize the greatness and appeal of the 300C SRT8 as it will soon be joined by SRT8 versions of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Charger and Magnum. Right now, the only other car selling in the low 40s that approaches the joy we get from the Chrysler is the lightweight, uncompromised Lotus Elise. Obviously, the two cars couldn’t be more different. So why do we want both of them in our garage so badly? Because in both cases a Ferrari-like devotion to driver happiness is the reason they exist, and no one does it as well for the money.
Counterpoint
You can call the 300C SRT8 a poor man’s Mercedes E55 AMG or a four-door Dodge Viper, but I just call it impressive. With a base price of about 42 large, the SRT8 runs right with a Cadillac CTS- V (about 10 grand more) and not too far behind a Corvette. Chrysler has built a true four-door American muscle car here—for pity’s sake, it’s a 4212-pound brick that can hit 173 mph! Perhaps more impressive is that from 70 to 0, it halts those two-plus tons in a fade-free 162 feet. This thing can stop and go better than LeBron. And it’s got mad street cred, thanks to jet-fan dubs, Bentley-esque styling, and a lowered stance. As Chick Hearn used to say, “Slam dunk!” —Ron Kiino
The folks at Chrysler’s SRT had better be careful. I doubt their German bosses paid much attention when the econobox Neon was turbocharged to within an inch of its life or when a Dodge Ram pickup truck was endowed with 500 horses. But now SRT has struck on something a bit dearer to those bosses’ hearts—the Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG. At 4.7 seconds, the 300C SRT8 is just 0.4 second slower to 60 mph. However, the SRT8 outstops the E55 by 11 feet from 70 mph and outgrips it on the skidpad. The SRT8 is also more involving to drive and less like a tool for speed. One last detail: It costs $40,000 less than the Benz. Uh-oh. —Dave VanderWerp
What a brute. The steering is nothing if not manly. The ride quality is just this side of Fred Flintstone. The interior décor is distinctly austere for a $42,095 car. I mutter about these demerits as I rumble around Michigan’s battered byways. Then I tramp on the gas, and— vroom!—a half-mile disappears before a sense of license preservation sets in. I repeated this process regularly during my travels with the SRT8 and emerged with the same conclusion every time: Horsepower is good. More horsepower is better. Not to mention habit-forming. As a child of the muscle-car era, I suppose I subscribe to the foregoing more than most. But I also suppose no one is immune. —Tony Swan

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Chrysler 300C SRT8
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$45,450
ENGINE TYPEPushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port/direct/port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 370 in3, 6059 cm3Power: 425 hp @ 6200 rpmTorque: 420 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): multilink/multilinkBrakes (F/R): 14.2-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Goodyer Eagle F1 Supercar, F: 245/45ZR-20 99Y R:255/45ZR-20 101Y
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 120.0 inLength: 196.8 inWidth: 74.1 inHeight: 57.9 inPassenger volume: 107 ft3Trunk volume: 16 ft3Curb weight: 4212 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.7 sec100 mph: 11.2 sec130 mph: 20.0 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 sec1/4 mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mphTop speed (redline limited): 173 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 162 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 16/14/20 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 June 1970 issue of Car and Driver.
The difference between the Datsun 240Z and your everyday three-and-a-half thousand dollar sports car is that about twice as much thinking went into the Datsun. It shows. For the money the 240Z is an almost brilliant car.

My Fair Lady: A Visual History of the Nissan Z-Car

Datsun 240Z Designer Yoshihiko Matsuo Has Died

Tested: 1979 Datsun 280-ZX Gets Luxurious

The people at Datsun balk at calling the 240Z a sports car. To them it’s a “personal” GT car. Even so, they know perfectly well who the customers will be-sports car buyers-adventuresome young Americans who were collecting their dollars for an Opel GT or MGB-GT or Porsche 914 until something better came along and changed their minds. Still, the “personal” GT car description somehow fits. It separates the Datsun from whimsical, superficial sports cars like the Opel GT and moves it off into a mature class of automobiles that has more to offer than just amusement. The Z-car, as it has come to be called, is a very real transportation automobile, meant as much for coast-to-coast journeys as it is for playing around on idyllic summer days. Datsun is probably right. The Z-car really isn’t a sports car.

1-Owner Datsun 240Z Relives Nissan’s Glory Days

Lime-Yellow 1973 Datsun 240Z Is up for Auction

It is exactly the kind of car we have come to expect from Datsun, however. You can’t really consider Datsun to be an innovator-it didn’t invent the overhead cam engine or disc brakes or independent suspension-but it is one of the most ambitious car manufacturers alive these days and it has a habit of incorporating these sophisticated systems into easily affordable cars. The budget priced PL5I0 sedan is the envy of all its competitors, and the vitality in the engine and gearbox of the 2000 sports car makes a Triumph feel like a first-round loser in the soapbox derby. With that kind of siblings, the Z-car would naturally be a gifted performer.
And it is. Curiously, a double standard has grown up through the years concerning sports cars and equivalently priced- family sedans-the sedans are always more powerful. Not so with the Z-car. It will keep right up with your neighbor’s Bonneville and leave all of the sports cars in its class scuttling along in the slow lane. At Orange County Raceway the test car ran through the quarter in 16.1 seconds at 86.5 mph more than one second and 9 mph quicker than a Triumph TR6. It is also several mph faster than a 2-liter Porsche 91IT, although the elapsed time is not quite as good because the Z-car continues Datsun’s practice of using axle ratios suitable for the Bonneville salt flats.
Of course, it should also be obvious that the Z-car continues Datsun’s practice of using exceptionally powerful engines-in this case a 2.4-liter single-overhead-cam Six. It’s a new engine for Datsun-yet not really new because it is actually one-and-a-half of the Fours used in the PL51O sedan. With the help of two SUs and a 9.0-to-one compression ratio it generates 151 horsepower at 5600 rpm, and if you are so inclined you can turn it all the way to 7000 rpm before you hit the red line. We aren’t inclined, however. Like all Datsuns, the torque curve is as flat as Nebraska and the engine noise is so unpleasant above 6500 that there is just no reason to ever go up there.

Datsun tackles the exhaust emission problem with three separate external devices: an air pump to inject air into the exhaust manifold, a valve that admits air into the intake manifold immediately after the throttle is closed to aid combustion of fuel that is already in the manifold; and diaphragm which prevents the throttle from closing for several seconds after you lift your foot off the accelerator. Only one of these is noticeable to the driver-the last item. It keeps engine speed too high, making smooth upshifts impossible, and seriously detracts from the pleasure of driving. Throttle response, particularly at low speeds, also suffers, due to subtleties of the system.
In most other ways the Z-car is kind to its driver. The steering effort is moderate; the shifting motions are light and acceptably precise; and the driving position is excellent. The brakes-discs in front and leading/ trailing shoes in finned aluminum drums at the rear-stop the car well enough, 259 feet (0.83G) from 80 mph, but very high pedal effort is required for a panic stop. In addition, the system is spongy and offers very little feel to help the driver control lock-up. In the rain things get even worse-at least in the test car. Water somehow splashes up onto the braking surfaces and sharply reduces stopping ability. In this respect the Z-car is not satisfactory.
The Datsun’s suspension system-a fully independent MacPherson strut arrangement both front and rear-also has a few quirks. The test car would understeer more in right than in left turns. You would never notice it on the road but on the test track the car was very well balanced when cornering to the left but would plow heavily when turning right. There is no reason that this should be typical of all of the Z-cars. The test car had expanders between several coils in the left front spring to overcome a sag, and the asymmetric handling can probably be blamed on that spring. We don’t know what to blame for the poor directional stability, however. When you’d like to be going straight down the road the Z-car would rather weave back and forth. The wiggles are small-and they seem to correct themselves-but they are annoying, nonetheless.
Neither Datsun nor we are entirely satisfied with the choice of tires. Bridgestone 175 SR 14 radials were selected as standard equipment because of their good handling characteristics, but they are also responsible for an abnormally high level of road noise, particularly over tar strips and small bumps. The ride quality of the Z-car is actually quite comfortable for a sporting car of its class but the noise tends to make you think otherwise. Knowing this. Datsun engineers were deeply involved in tire testing at the time of our road test and hoped to have a more compatible tire before very many Z-cars were imported.
While there are problems in the chassis that still must be worked out, it’s an altogether different story in the cockpit. At times during the test we found ourselves being very critical of the Z-car-judging harshly where it fell short of perfection and completely forgetting that it sells for $3601. It seems far more expensive than any competitive similarly-priced sports car. We are back to the double standard for family cars and sports cars again. The Z-car has certain qualities that up to now were available only in sedans or very expensive GT cars. Silence is the best example. The engine noise level in the Datsun under normal operating conditions is roughly equal to that of an American intermediate sedan, which is to say that you hardly know it’s there. That doesn’t seem like a monumental achievement except that no one else in this price class has ever done it before.

And the 240Z is very comfortable which also makes it seem more expensive. The bucket seats are elaborately contoured and wrap around you slightly to keep you from sliding around. The backrest angle is adjustable in notches through a small range so you can find a position that suits. Head room, leg room and shoulder room are ample and the final little detail that makes it just right is the dead pedal.
The feeling of getting your money’s worth is reinforced by the complete instrumentation and rather complex looking controls. The speedometer (which for some reason starts at 20 mph) and the 8000-rpm tach are directly in front of the driver, and all of the normal small gauges and a clock are angled toward him from three pods centrally located on top of the instrument panel. A curious rod projects out of the right side of the steering column which has turntype switches for lights and windshield wipers and a button for the washers on its outer end. It works quite well when you get used to it but its biggest advantage is that it can be easily reached, even when you are strapped in with the shoulder belt On the console are two levers that look like they should be for lowering the landing gear or adjusting the flaps-it turns out that one is a hand throttle and the other is the choke (the 240Z always has to be choked to start).
The 240Z is obviously well conceived by standards universal to good automobiles but there has been an East-West struggle in the interior trim. When you consider the tremendous cultural differences between the Japanese and the Americans it’s surprising that any automotive styling could bridge the two. In some areas, like the 1953 Tijuana quilted vinyl on the console and on the sides of the luggage area and yellow wood rim on the steering wheel, the difference in taste is conspicuous. The instrument panel, too, has a characteristic flavor that is found in all Datsuns. It’s a one-piece affair, molded of soft energy absorbing plastic foam, and deeply contoured in a way that suggests nothing but a Datsun instrument panel: Not GT car in the fashion originated by the Italians, not 2-ton nickelodeon in the style championed by Detroit, but just plain Datsun. Elsewhere, the Z-car seems international in its appearance. The exterior styling is smooth and appropriately GT-like, drawing remarks like, “That’s not a Datsun, is it?” and “Man, how much did that thing cost ya?” It’s obviously attractive enough to generate a little envy in everyone who sees it and that is at least half the value of any automobile other than a 4-door sedan.
But while they are envying you for having a sports car the Z-car doesn’t shackle you with the normal sports car limitations. Not only is it comfortable and quiet but it also has a generous luggage area. From just behind the seats all the way back to the rear of the car is a flat area that will easily carry enough luggage for two people. Tie-down straps have been provided to secure small objects that like to roll around. And loading is easy because of the huge tailgate. It would be handier if the seat backs would fold forward so that small things could be unloaded from the front. As it is, the headrests are so high that there is little room left for passing bulky objects around them. Even so, the 240Z sets the new standard for utility in 2-passenger cars of this price.
And it is inevitable that we should come back to price because that ultimately decides the desirability of any car. At the time of the test the Z-car followed Datsun’s typical pricing policy for its sporting cars, everything is standard equipment. Every car, as it comes from the factory, has radial ply tires and an excellent push-button AM radio with a power antenna. It’s as simple as that. There will be options in the future, however. Tinted glass and a heated rear window will soon be available.
Price is the least of the Z-car’s problems -and it does have a few problems. Although it is splendidly conceived, we have the feeling that it’s not quite done yet. There is an annoying vibration somewhere in the drivetrain that you feel under full power, and as near as we can tell it is present in varying degrees in all cars. And as we mentioned before, the brakes are sensitive to splashed-up water which is a serious deficiency. Still, we are optimistic. After the test we sat down in a truth-telling session with the key men of Datsun USA, the importer, and they were intent on hearing any criticisms that we might put forth. It turned out that they were aware of every weakness that we had found and were working closely with the main engineering department in Japan to find solutions. We are confident that they will succeed. Since they were obviously bright enough technically to bring the Z-car this far along, the final rung on the ladder is within easy reach.
Even as it is, the 240Z is worth its price. Just between you and us, when Datsun gets it all straightened around, it might be worth a little more.
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 1986 Issue of Car and Driver.

Just pulling up to Richard Templer’s driveway is enough to send quivers of anticipation up and down this reporter’s spine. Ordinary suburban houses don’t have wrought-iron gates standing guard against the riffraff. Ferrari dealer Rick Mancuso gives the 400i’s urgent horn a toot, and the formidable barrier parts by remote control.

The Quickest Ferraris We’ve Ever Tested

Tested: 1995 Supercar Olympics

Tested: Six-Way 2005 Supercar Comparison Test

As we idle up the curving drive, we imagine Robin Leach’s voice-over, thick with champagne and caviar, describing the scene: “This magnificent home, set in an exclusive northwest-Chicago suburb, was built six years ago by Richard and Diane Templer. In one of its many garages sits an American-spec Ferrari Testarossa, and we’ve been invited to borrow the fabulous redhead and drive it to our heart’s content.
“This will be something more than a road test. Please buckle up for a brush with enchantment. And stay tuned as we explore a special place where your every automotive fantasy can be fulfilled, in this installment of . . . ”
This is the real version of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” Real cars. Real people. Real money. We are about to take a peek behind the Greenback Curtain. We’ll soon see what kind of man owns a 100-grand Ferrari Testarossa.

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

Before we can ring the bell, the big front door swings open and a trim man in his early forties invites us inside. A couple of kids hover nearby. Richard Templer’s attire suggests that he realized partway through dressing this morning that he wouldn’t be going to the office today. The sleeves of his striped shirt are rolled up, his black dress pants sport fresh creases, and his black loafers are shined for success. A pinkie ring containing a diamond the size of a marble adorns his left hand, and a thin gold chain loops around his neck.
Inside, the V-shaped house seems even larger and more breathtaking than it first appeared. The living room arches three stories skyward. The center of the house is dominated by a four-sided fireplace, its brick chimney towering like a missile ready for liftoff. The rear of the Templers’ residence, mostly glass, looks out on a wooded four-acre back yard. Yes, sports fans, there are people who live like this who never get their names in the papers.

2014 Chevrolet Corvette vs 1990 Ferrari Testarossa

I Have a Huge Soft Spot for the Ferrari Testarossa

Is This Ferrari Testarossa Super Rad or Just Ugly?

We settle into a couple of designer sofas in one corner of the sunken living room. Templer and Mancuso joke easily. “Rick and I have worked some creative financing together,” says Templer. It’s apparent from the grain of his speech that he came up the hard way. “Hey, Rick, how about that time you kept calling and calling me about that Mondial?” he teases. “You finally got me down there, even though I didn’t want it.”
“And then you bought it, didn’t you?” counters Mancuso.
“Yeah, yeah.”

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

“You know,” says Mancuso seriously, “Dick has gotten into racing. He sponsored me recently in a Camel Light IMSA car at Sebring.”
The Templers’ daughter, eleven-year-old Jennifer, plops down on the couch and leans warmly into Daddy. “Paul hit me,” she whimpers.
“He did? What’d you do to him?” he asks, putting his arm around her.
“Nothing.” Just then Mom intervenes. Diane Templer, dressed in khaki shorts and a matching blouse with the collar turned up, is very young and very chic.
“How about some croissants?” she offers. “You better. I just made them.”
Over coffee and pastry in the large kitchen, Templer tells us how he came to be a Testarossa owner. “I was always a car nut, but I never owned anything exotic until 1979. I didn’t get my first good car until I got out of the service in 1968. It was a Pontiac Firebird 400. For a while I had a 1976 Corvette that I put a 454 in and drag-raced. I hardly ever completed a full quarter-mile without something breaking.” He and Mancuso both laugh.
Seven years ago, Templer got the Ferrari bug. “I saw one on TV one night and I suddenly wanted it. My first one was a 308. I’ve had a few other exoticars since. Let’s see. I had a couple of Maserati Quattroportes. The paint was bad on both of them—it got all crazed—so I got out of them. That was some catastrophe. I had a 928, and I liked it quite a bit. I also had a Mondial—very nice car, but it was a two-valve, and those were really slow. And then I had the Boxer. Real nice piece.” The Boxer was traded in at Mancuso’s classy Ferrari store, Lake Forest Sports Cars, on the Testarossa you see prancing across these pages.

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

Templer’s other passion is thoroughbred horses. “I love to play them and just to be around them,” he says. He owns a stable of twelve that race in Chicago and in Florida. “They produce a pretty steady profit,” he adds proudly.
Apparently, everything that Richard Templer touches turns to profit. About all he reveals about his past is that he learned the ropes in his father’s appliance-delivery company as a kid. Today, his ample income is derived from four sources: a truck-trailer leasing enterprise, a warehousing-and-distribution company, a trucking business, and a small company that packages real-estate deals.
Before we leave with Templer and his toy for the drive to our Ann Arbor offices, we ask him to show us the rest of his fleet—but we have to press him. “You already saw the Bronco out front?” he asks. “The rest of them are really just a bunch of beaters.”
In the three-car garage, all he has is a black Mercedes-Benz 500SEC with the full AMG treatment and “Miami Vice” blackout windows. And Diane’s Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit. And a Mercedes 560SL roadster for sunny days. Conspicuous consumption is clearly not an issue in the Templer household.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $98,665 (base price: $94,000)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC flat-12, aluminum block and heads
Displacement: 302 cu in, 4943 ccPower: 380 hp @ 5750 rpmTorque: 354 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 100.4 inLength: 176.6 inWidth: 77.8 in Height: 44.5 inCurb weight: 3766 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 secZero to 100 mph: 12.0 secZero to 130 mph: 22.0 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 7.6 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 7.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 13.3 sec @ 107 mphTop speed: 176 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway: 10/15 mpgC/D observed: 14 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 April 1999 issue of Car and Driver.

Who ever thought a factory Mustang would command a price of $28,000? More surprising, who could have imagined that a Mustang would have an independent rear suspension (IRS)? Well, the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra lays claim to both those surprises and makes a strong case that the latter (abetted by a new 320-horsepower version of the four-cam, alloy-block 4.6-liter V-8) justifies the former.

Camaro ZL1 1LE vs. Challenger SRT vs. Shelby GT500

Tested: 1999 Drop-top Muscle Cars

Certainly, the new IRS lends real credence to the Cobra as a serious performance car, taming the old car’s occasional tail-happy tendencies, improving the ride (mainly by reducing pitching motions), and reducing the transmission of road noise into the cabin. It also looks cool on the stand.

Consisting of a welded-up tubular sub-frame that cradles an aluminum diff housing (borrowed from the late Lincoln Mark VIII), assorted steel and alloy control arms, toe-control links, and a pair of coil springs and gas-pressure shocks, the IRS module bolts directly to existing pickup points on the Mustang unibody. All it takes to retrofit this item to a solid-axle Mustang is a special bracket on the GT’s normal shock mount. That and the considerable sum Ford’s Special Vehicle Team (SVT) will undoubtedly charge for all the IRS components soon to appear in its catalog.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The new IRS module provides the Cobra with a slightly wider track (by 1.2 inches), more suspension travel, and less lift under braking, which translates to less perceived dive at the front end. The IRS setup also provides a 125-pound reduction in unsprung weight, despite being 80 pounds heavier than the old live-axle suspension.

At least the increase in mass improves the car’s weight distribution and motivated SVT engineers to lighten the front end, where they trimmed 50 pounds. Of that, 20 pounds came off the engine, six from the adoption of a coil-on-plug direct ignition system. Whereas the previous car had a 57/43 fore-to-aft relationship, the Cobra now shows a 55/45 split. In the end, this test car was 110 pounds lighter than our last Cobra.

Highs: Willing engine, gnarly exhaust note, improved chassis dynamics.

The engine gets a new tumble-port cylinder-head design that improves combustion efficiency and helps bump output to 320 hp at 6000 rpm and 317 pound-feet of torque at 4750. That’s an increase of 15 hp and 17 lb-ft over last year’s Cobra. Given its 7.5-percent power-to-weight advantage relative to our last identically geared Cobra, we expected to hit 60 mph in about five seconds flat, but 5.5 was the best we could do—0.1 second slower than the previous model. Top speed was also down, from 153 to just 149 mph in the slightly more aerodynamic car, all of which confirms that our low-mileage prototype test car wasn’t making a full head of steam.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

1994 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra Road Test

1980 Ford Mustang Cobra Road Test

Ford’s Hot ‘Stang: ’95 SVT Cobra R

Straight-line performance may have missed the target, but more important to sporty drivers is the feel of the Cobra on twisty pavement. The IRS makes the car feel more supple and thus more readable in corners. The rear end is less susceptible to bump steer than before, and as the geometry has been set up for a touch of toe-out as the car begins to heel over, then for toe-in (and safe understeer at the rear axle) at full lean, its off-center steering response is better, and its handling is more neutral at the limit. Hence, 0.03 g better skidpad performance at 0.88 g.
Even power-induced oversteer through Turn Three at Willow Springs raceway could be easily modulated at the throttle, allowing the driver’s right foot to control rotation through the corner. This kind of handling finesse was not available from the solid-axle car.
On smooth California pavement, it was hard to discern any comfort gained from the IRS based on our distant memory of the previous Cobra. Obviously, corrugated surfaces no longer produce the yaw found on solid-axle-equipped cars, and the new Cobra also handles two-wheel bumps with little tail hop.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The IRS seems to put the power down well, too, although it shudders a bit during full-power wheelspin starts of the kind needed to generate good acceleration times. Few owners will subject their cars to this treatment, and indeed, most will drive around with the standard-equipment full-range traction control switched on. This device (supplied by Bosch) detects wheel-speed disparities and intercedes by first retarding the ignition, then manipulating the fuel regime, cutting off cylinders to reduce torque. If the condition persists at speeds up to 62 mph, it will also apply a brake to direct torque to the other wheel.

Lows: Dated ergonomics, balky shifter.

The neat part about the Cobra’s traction control is that it has a so-called power-start feature that allows the driver to make wheelspin starts as long as both front wheels are spinning at the same rate. That’s how it knows the car is going straight-ahead. The rear axle incorporates a Traction-Loc limited-slip mechanism, and all Mustangs now run the same 3.27:1 final-drive ratio.
Naturally, the new Cobra inherits the slightly blocky styling of the 1999 Mustang, but it has is own unique features. The front fascia for one thing, and the Cobra R—like hood, for another. New forged alloy wheels are fitted, and they wear 245/45ZR-17 BFGoodrich Comp T/A tires that do a good job of keeping the Mustang on line, albeit with a fairly intrusive sound playback that starts at moderate cornering speeds as a low growl, then builds to a penetrating howl at the limit.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The engine pulls well, particularly from 3000 rpm up to its power peak at 6000 rpm, but there isn’t a rush to the redline like there is with GM’s LS1 motor, and revving the Ford V-8 beyond 6500 isn’t very productive. However, keep the Ford mill in its sweet band, and you’re rewarded with good power and one of the least inhibited exhaust notes in the business.
That power goes to ground via a new 11-inch clutch and a T45 five-speed box (now made by Tremec under license from Borg-Warner). The T45 gets the job done, but it isn’t the smoothest, most precise cog swapper around. In fact, at Willow Springs, where you rush out of a downhill left-hander in second gear into a right sweep onto the back straight, it takes real concentration to keep the car pointed and find third gear.
It’s fair to say that none of the other shifts is slick and natural-feeling, either. The best one can say is that selections are mechanically positive. But in every other way the Cobra manifests considerable refinement. The car’s structure may have retained seat, shifter, wheel, and pedal positions for enough years to accentuate their inconvenience for extremely tall drivers (for whom the seat does not track back enough and for whom the control relationships are never optimal), but it has received enough reinforcement and tuning tweaks to provide civilized levels of noise, vibration, and harshness, even at the new performance level.

The Verdict: The Cobra finally gets its independence, but we’re still not sure it makes the car better than a Z28.

Who said there’s no gain without pain?

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2 passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $28,190
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-Valve V-8 engine, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 281 cu in, 4601ccPower: 320 bhp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 317 lb-ft@ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 101 .3 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.1 in Height: 53.5 inCurb weight: 3285 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 13.8 secZero to 130 mph: 27.6 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 10.4 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 10.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mphTop speed (drag limited): 149 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway driving: 17/26 mpgC/D observed: 16 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

You would think the nearly countless permutations of the Chevrolet Silverado and its twin, the GMC Sierra, would satisfy anyone’s needs, but you’d be wrong. For a select few, even the largest of GM’s regular pickups isn’t big enough to tow their motorhomes and trailers and boats. Fortunately, GM offers a pickup version of its seriously large GMC TopKick and Chevrolet Kodiak chassis. It’s not as big as Ashton Kutcher’s International CXT, but it’s close.

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Every Full-Size Pickup Truck Ranked

Typically, the Kodiak and the TopKick are used as dump trucks, moving trucks, school buses, and shuttle buses, but Monroe Truck Equipment of Monroe, Wisconsin, builds these over-the-top pickups in its plant in Flint, Michigan, down the road from where the Kodiak and TopKick chassis roll off the assembly line. About 750 of the beasts are built annually.
The TopKick that was sent our way was a C4500 crew cab with four-wheel drive, the least beefy of the available chassis. The optional four-wheel drive was new for 2005 in the pickup version. Pickups can be had in C4500 or C5500 garb. The really heavy-duty C6500 and C7500 don’t get the conversion. The C4500 and C5500 get the same Duramax 6.6-liter turbo-diesel that’s available in heavy-duty Sierras and Silverados, albeit in a lesser state of tune. A 325-hp gasoline-powered 8.1-liter V-8 is also available. The lone transmission with the diesel is an excellent five-speed automatic built by Allison that shifts smoothly and quickly.
With 300 horses and 520 pound-feet of torque, you’re not going to win many drag races, but the truck has no problem keeping up with traffic. The run to 60 mph takes 14.4 seconds, and top speed is governed at 75 mph, presumably to save the tires when the truck is fully loaded. The 11,300-pound TopKick is actually faster to 60 mph than an automatic-transmission four-cylinder Ford Escape. From a stop, stand on the throttle, and you’ll experience the brief hesitation of turbo lag. Once the turbocharger spools up, the truck rushes forward with decent alacrity to the sound of the optional dual-exhaust stacks that poke up through the bed. Lower the windows, and you’ll hear the chrome pipes belt out a loud sucking noise that will scare the “Calvin and Hobbes” stickers off lesser pickups. Now we’re truckin’!

Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2?

Monroe dresses up the interior of the TopKick with thick carpeting, leather seats independently suspended on air bladders—just like the truckers use—and faux-wood trim. Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2? Better yet, you’ll be able to look eye to eye with most truckers.
Unloaded, the TopKick will shake its occupants mercilessly. Two beefy solid axles with thick leaf springs up front and air bladders in the rear make it possible to carry an astonishing 5000 pounds in the bed or tow 14,300 pounds, but the truck will shake and shudder at the slightest imperfection. Aside from the ride, the TopKick drives much like a smaller truck. The turning circle is tight enough to slip easily into a parking spot, and the short, sloped hood gives an excellent view of obstacles ahead. The 95.9-inch-wide TopKick fits in parking spots, but just barely.
We wanted badly to see how the TopKick would behave on a skidpad, so at the risk of wrinkling the asphalt we circled the 300-foot-diameter skidpad at 0.61 g. Not surprisingly, there’s extreme understeer at the limit. Braking from 70 mph was drama-free as the TopKick stopped in 228 feet. C4500 and C5500 TopKicks have hydraulic brakes; the larger-series trucks (C6500 and C7500) get air brakes that go pfffft when you stop. After each 70-mph stop, the TopKick went into a limp-home mode and wouldn’t shift out of second gear for about a minute in an attempt to allow the brakes to cool off.
So what does all this mother trucking cost? Our four-wheel drive crew-cab truck cost $52,171 from GMC, add the Monroe conversion that contributes a pickup bed and almost countless options (dual exhaust stacks, rear-seat DVD, leather seats, power-folding rear bench, hitch camera, adjustable rear air suspension, power-retractable tonneau cover, aluminum wheels, chrome grille), and the TopKick can climb to about $90,000. More-basic versions can be had for closer to $70,000, which is far less than a Hummer H1 and only a bit more than an H2. Faced with those choices, the TopKick looks almost rational.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
GMC TopKick C4500
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED $90,000 (estimated base price: $70,000)
ENGINE TYPE Turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 403 cu in, 6599ccPower (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 3000 rpmTorque (SAE net): 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 169.0 inLength: 265.0 inWidth: 95.9 inHeight: 95.2 inCurb weight: 11,300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 14.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 15.5 secStanding 1/4-mile: 19.8 sec @ 68 mphTop speed (governor limited): 75 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 228 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.61 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving (C/D est):7 mpgC/D-observed fuel economy:8 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 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