Evelyn Reynolds

From the July 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
Yes, yes, we know—we wouldn’t have compared a Corvette with a Mustang back in 1968, because the Ford’s primary rival was the Chevrolet Camaro. But we thought it would be fun to see how the antecedents of the current Corvette and GT500 shaped up.
The two most charismatic cars from Ford and Chevy have retained much of their ’60s DNA. Today, the Corvette is a relatively sophisticated two-place sports car with a honking big V-8 up front, a car that provides lots of performance and style for the money. Back in 1968, the Corvette did the self-same thing. The big difference, one could argue, is that today’s car looks a little tame, whereas Bill Mitchell’s styling was sexier than anything the Europeans could manage this side of a Lamborghini Miura.
The ’68 GT500KR, like the newest GT500, was the ultimate Ford pony car, sporting a big bad V-8 and scoops and spoilers aplenty. Unlike the Corvette, the old car doesn’t look that dissimilar from its modern counterpart, which slavishly apes the ’68 Mustang’s iconic styling. Then as now, the Ford is a relatively crude device, the KR having a live rear axle compared with the Corvette’s independent rear suspension and rear drums as opposed to all-around disc brakes.

View Photos

TOM DREW

Our GT500KR was supplied by Chris and Karen Burkhart, who are the third owners of this 41,000-mile example. The panel work and the interior are totally original, but the Highland Green color has been reapplied and Burkhart has fitted more modern BFGoodrich Radial T/A tires, a hotter cam, and a freer-flowing exhaust in his 28-year ownership.
The KR—for “King of the Road”—was a development of the ’68 GT500, with the so-called Cobra Jet 428-cubic-inch engine in place of the Police Interceptor unit. The GT500 was nominally rated at 360 horsepower, whereas the KR was down to 335. “This was done for insurance purposes,” says Chris Burkart. “Everyone knew that was a joke and the real number was somewhere slightly north of 400 horsepower, with 440 pound-feet of torque.” Compared with a stock ’68 Mustang, the GT500 gained a plethora of scoops and vents, a fiberglass hood and trunklid, a front-strut brace, wider rear brake drums and shoes, an 8000-rpm tach, a 140-mph speedometer, and a rollover bar. The heavy-duty Mustang suspension, as well as power brakes and steering, were standard on all GT500s.
Before we tested the car at nearby Michigan Dragway, Burkhart was frank about the car’s strengths. “It’s a green-light car. It’s good in a straight line, and that’s about it.” He’s right about the straight-line part. Burkhart advised test driver Dave VanderWerp to leave the selector for the three-speed automatic transmission in D, “put your foot on the brakes, keep the rpm up, and hope for the best.” The best was a strong 13.9-second quarter-mile, a 0-to-60 in 5.4 seconds, and a 30-to-50 mph acceleration that’s comparable with that of some AMG Mercedes.

VanderWerp came back grinning: “That thing bangs it home, just like you want for the drag strip. It’s a hoot, man,” he said, getting into the period lingo. What the numbers fail to convey is the noise the GT500 makes as it blasts down the strip, the V-8 roaring like the soundtrack from Bullitt, its progress punctuated by chirps from the tires as the brawny V-8 broke traction in all three gears. On the street, the torque, power, and insane noise dominate the driving experience. This is just as well, because the brakes, handling, and roadholding are pretty hopeless. The car feels clumsy when you start hustling it, in part because it wants to understeer like crazy and in part because the incredibly light steering has almost no feel. It rides quite nicely, but just like modern Mustangs, it never feels as if the front and rear ends are totally in sync. In fact, we were surprised by how the new car has adopted the old car’s demeanor: great in a straight line, but a bit wayward when the road starts curving.
Barry Davison’s 1968 Corvette coupe is a big-block 427 rated at 435 horsepower and fitted with the LS9 aluminum-cylinder-head option and a four-speed manual transmission. Davison, who has a garage full of Corvettes, is only the second owner of this 26,000-mile car. Original owner Dave Sullivan drag-raced it, eventually putting in a 454 engine, replacing the frame, and running elapsed times as low as 10 seconds. “I decided to restore it,” Sullivan said, “when the cars started to become valuable.” He had the original frame in his garage and entrusted the work to Werner Meier, a former GM engineer who runs Masterworks Automotive Services in the Detroit ’burb of Madison Heights. The car has been restored to factory standard, down to the skinny Goodyear Speedway bias-ply tires. The tobacco interior is completely original and is a ’60s vision in vinyl and plastic.

View Photos

TOM DREW

Meier, who still looks after the car, and Davison took turns running the strip for our tests, in between some carburetion issues. “The three double-barrel Holleys weren’t called triple double for nothing,” Meier said. In the end, Davison’s Vette set the better times, with a stout 13.8-second quarter-mile and a 0-to-60 in 5.3 seconds. Those times are fast for a 1968 car.
The Corvette is much more complete than the Mustang, like the current machine. It feels like a sports car from the moment you sit in it, low down as opposed to high up. The brakes have more power and feedback, the steering has more weight and road feel, and it rides more stiffly over broken pavement. The Corvette demonstrates that handling and roadholding are very different things: Although the Vette generates a feeble 0.65 g on the skidpad, the balance is sweet. You can enter a turn with mild understeer, then use the gas pedal to shift the attitude from neutral behavior to oversteer in a gentle, progressive manner. It simply feels lighter on its feet, a corollary of its 259-fewer pounds. You expect the Corvette to be a rorty beast, but the noticeable Detroit backbeat is muffled compared with the Mustang’s. The four-speed manual shifter needs positive efforts but adds to the sports-car experience.
In the same way the new Corvette competes with the best European sports cars for less money, so the ’68 car stacked up favorably against its rivals of the time—Porsches, Jaguars, and even Ferraris. The Mustang, on the other hand, feels bigger, heavier, and clumsier, even if its performance and character are just as endearing, a uniquely American take on the sports coupe. Just like today, in fact.
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 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
This magazine unashamedly panders to car lust. Just name your passion. Be it come-hither styling or pulse-quickening horsepower or exotic machinery, we deliver your fix every month.
So who asked for a Hyundai Sonata, you’re wondering?

Sonata Hybrid Weds Style and Fuel Efficiency

Compared: Accord, Camry, Altima, Sonata, Legacy

It just so happens that Hyundai specializes in the single feature most wanted by the majority of new-car shoppers, more important even than sexy fenders, twin turbos, or a glut of valves. Hyundai features low price.
Low price is the thing everybody wants and nobody lusts after, which means that this limousine of the Hyundai line, the Sonata, needs to be viewed a little differently than the normal road-test candidate. After all, most folks still think of South Korea as a Third World country. Moreover, the company didn’t build its first car until 1967 and didn’t export to the U.S. until 1986. So nobody expects an automobile wearing the Hyundai label to be a great car. The question is, is it good enough?

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

That question has to be answered with another question: what’s really important to you in a new car?
If you’re looking for the utmost in sophistication, there are other cars of comparable size that do better, although the difference is surprisingly narrow. But if the top three items on your list are price, price, and price, the Sonata is probably unbeatable.
Hyundai offers cars of two sizes. The smaller of the two is the Excel, now in its second generation. There’s not a grin in a boatload of Excels: they’re specialists in cost-efficient transport.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

The four-door Sonata, new last year, aspires to much more. lt’s sized up into the smaller end of the intermediate range, close to the 1990 Honda Accord, about two inches longer than a Toyota Camry, about four inches shorter than a Ford Taurus. A 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine is standard. A 3.0-Iiter, 142-hp V-6 (with automatic transmission only) is optional. This size and power, along with a reasonable list of convenience options, puts the Sonata squarely in competition with the no-excuses brands.
Yet the Sonata’s price is clearly lower. Exact price comparisons are difficult because of equipment variations on the base cars. But let’s take the least costly four-door version of each car and add a V-6 engine, an automatic transmission, air conditioning, and destination charges. The Sonata works out to $12,464, compared with $15,468 for the Camry, $14,547 for the Taurus, $14,340 for the four-cylinder-only Accord. As you can see, the price-conscious have a good reason to consider the Sonata.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

And when they do, they’ll find a car that seems a whole lot closer to the others than price would suggest. Staffers of average weight and height find easy comfort in this car. In the base version, the only adjustments on the driver’s seat are fore and aft and seatback angle, but nothing more is necessary. The steering column tilts. The motorized shoulder belt does its thing and you’re ready to go. The Sonata is reasonably quiet on the highway: mostly you hear air rushing past the windows. The ride (if you avoid the 60-series tire option) is about normal for this class of car. The controls respond appropriately. The passenger seats are quite comfortable. In all, there’s nothing significant to complain about.
In fact, a trip in the Sonata is perfectly forgettable, which is a compliment for this relative newcomer. That means no annoyances, no bad habits.
Real car guys, of course, expect more of their car than simply the absence of bother. They want accurate controls, quick responses, and the general feeling of quality. How does the Sonata do on that score?
Well, it’s mostly forgettable there, too. Nothing stands out. While that’s not much of a recommendation to an enthusiast, it’s certainly an impressive accomplishment for a company that’s been making cars for only 24 years, in a country where driving is a luxury beyond the means of most citizens.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Already the Sonata has features of special interest to some professionals. The styling is must-have stuff for bank robbers. The look is pleasing enough; it has very little bright trim, and the curves are soft, rather in the aero mode. But turn away and, “Darn, what did that car look like, anyway?” Again, the word “forgettable” comes to mind.
The instrument panel is busy territory, with more switches, buttons, and dials than you’d expect. While Honda makes the driver’s compartment simple, Hyundai makes it look complicated. Our test car was equipped with a fine-sounding AM/FM/cassette system using six Polk loudspeakers, a $795 option. The radio’s digital display on the dash was too faint to read in the daytime, though. And the dashboard clock was the only electronic clock we can remember that was a hopeless timekeeper: it lost about two hours a day.
While the cloth-upholstered interior is quite comfortable, the eye notices details that are a bit behind the times. The map pockets, for example, are plastic moldings attached to the door panels in the fashion of a patch rather than being integrated into the shape. Also, the console and some of the dashboard trim seem tentatively fastened.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Still, nobody can accuse Hyundai of avoiding the hard jobs. A leather interior is optional. The alliance with Polk to produce a special sound system is a move you’d expect of a mainline carmaker, and the result is much superior to, say, the Bose system in the Nissan Maxima SE. There’s an even better sound option—it includes a CD player, a 160-walt amplifier, and twelve Polk speakers—that we did not hear.
Mechanically, Hyundai relies on licenses from Mitsubishi for some of its components. The engine, for example, is a Mitsubishi design, although it is not exactly the same as the one used in Mitsubishi and Chrysler cars in the U.S. The Sonata’s V-6 has two valves per cylinder and a single overhead cam per bank. Multipoint fuel injection, also a Mitsubishi-licensed system, is standard equipment. The engine runs quietly and teams happily with the electronically controlled four-speed automatic. Shifts are notably smooth, and the computer knows its business: it didn’t get confused when we accelerated hard in one of the lower gears and then eased back just when it was getting ready to shift.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Two sizes of Michelin Sport EPX tires are offered as options: 195/70SR-14 and 205/60HR-15. The 70-series option coordinates well with the Sonata’s intrinsic suspension response. The 60-series choice is less pleasing. This tire’s quickness seemed out of phase with the suspension, producing small darting motions in defiance of the driver’s steering inputs. The Sonata has a relatively soft suspension, good for comfort, unsatisfying for aggressive driving. So the avowedly sporting 60-series tires make about as much sense as ketchup on ice cream.
After numerous conversations around the water cooler, we’ve decided that the Sonata’s best feature—after price—is roominess. It’s not as big inside as a Taurus, particularly in width, but there’s more space inside for five passengers than you’d expect from the exterior dimensions. The trunk is reasonably large, too, with a low lift-over.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Because Hyundai is an emerging carmaker specializing in low prices, we cast a critical eye on the details. Overall, the Sonata is a reasonably well put together car. Our two test examples had no rattles, structural shakes, or wind leaks. The textures of the cloth and the vinyl used inside were pleasing. And yet, when you look at the basics‑the finish inside the trunk and under the hood, the hinges, the stampings, and the like‑you see rudimentary executions. Moreover, when driving we hear small, unidentifiable sounds that are uncarlike, little reminders that this is not a Honda.
That’s okay. All cars needn’t be the same. The Sonata’s prices aren’t in Honda’s league either. Yet Hyundai is obviously crowding its prices up about as fast as it dares. The leather interior and the twelve-speaker stereo are ways to raise the gross price without lifting the advertised base. Which leads us to the final water-cooler consensus. We’re impressed how quickly this South Korean company learned to produce a car of distinctly middle-class capabilities, and we’re equally impressed with its pricing ambitions.
Counterpoint
In 1962 my father bought his first new car, a six-cylinder Ford Galaxie, for about 2600. It was the bottom­-of-the-line full-sized Ford, with industrial upholstery and no power assists. It didn’t even have carpeting.
Cheap as it was, my father’s Galaxie was a serviceable unit: reasonably economical, reliable, and able to carry our family and all of our detritus on long trips. Not once, however, did we forget we were traveling in a bare­bones transportation appliance.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

The Sonata V6 is spiritually akin to that old Galaxie. It’s big and roomy, and it offers a healthy powertrain and a reliable reputation. And, compared with other similarly equipped cars, it’s cheap. Of course, the passage of a quarter-century has endowed the Sonata with far more sophistication than any lowball sedan of the sixties. It has attractive upholstery and carpeting and an efficient climate-control system. It also offers features that didn’t exist in 1962. Still, like my father’s Galaxie, the Sonata V6 is a transportation tool, nothing more. —Csaba Csere
You can imagine reading a classified ad in your Sunday paper detailing Hyundai’s new Sonata V6: 1990 Hyundai Sinatra, vry cln, nvr titled, FM/cass, A/C, V-6, auto, pwr evrythng, nice car, must sell, $14,500.
Farther down the page, you could find similar descriptions of Mitsubishis, Nissans, and Toyotas, but those cars would cost at least $2300 more than the Hyundai. To find a similarly equipped car at the Hyundai’s price, you’d have to look for year-old Toyota Camry V-6s or used Nissan Maximas.
I’d prefer the used cars. Though the Sonata is roomy and well equipped, it lacks the refinements in noise and vibration control that you find in the Japanese sedans. Of course, if you go with a used car you have to worry about the previous owner’s maintenance habits and his pets and whether the warranty will transfer. Big worries. I still wouldn’t buy the Hyundai, but I wouldn’t laugh at anyone who did. —Phil Berg
The Hyundai Sonata is not my kind of car. But keep reading if you’re in the market for some decent, if unexciting, transportation. Our test example of the Sonata cost just over $14,500, erasing any thoughts of the Sonata being a bargain-basement steal. But it is V-6 powered. And the V-6 is matched to an automatic transmission that gives true meaning to the word “smooth.” It’s a driveline that Ford would kill to have in its Tempo.
When I sat down in the Sonata, my first thoughts were, in order, that it felt surprisingly large inside and that it looked more American than Japanese in the areas of fit and finish. The too-soft velour seats, in particular, clearly spoke American.
During the many miles I drove the Sonata, the car worked with a smooth dullness made to order for claims adjusters and health-food junkies. Practical Pig would love it. —William Jeanes

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
1997 Hyundai Sonata V6
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$15,504 (base price: $11,684)
ENGINE TYPESOHC 12-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 181 in3, 2972 cm3Power: 142 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 168 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): struts/trailing armBrakes (F/R): 10.1-in vented disc/9.0-in drumTires: Michelin Sport EPX Plus M+S, P205/60HR-15
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 184.3 inWidth: 68.9 inHeight: 55.4 inPassenger volume: 104 ft3Trunk volume: 14 ft3Curb weight: 2986 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.9 sec100 mph: 36.6 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 5.0 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 6.9 sec1/4 mile: 17.2 sec @ 79 mphTop speed: 114 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 18/16/22 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 1989 issue of Car and Driver.
The Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1, unless we miss our guess, is going to cost some people at General Motors their jobs.

The 13 Quickest Cars of the 1980s

The Quickest Cars We’ve Tested, From 1955 to Today

You ask, how can that be? After all, is this not the Corvette from hell? The King of the Hill? The Ferrari-fighting world-class two-seater from the Motor City? A legend-to-be? Yes, it is that and more. But it still may cause heads to roll.
To anyone who’s ever been a part of the corporate world, such a situation is familiar. In all corporations, only one person can do no wrong. That person is the boss — the chairman or president or chief executive officer or maximum leader or whatever the top man is called. A second group, friends of the boss, can do some wrong. A third contingent, those not a part of the power structure, can quite easily commit perceived transgressions against the entrenched moguls. In short, everyone but the boss is at some risk.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Friends of the boss get in trouble by doing something that doesn’t work out. The Outs, those not basking in the shared glow of power, get in trouble by doing something that turns out so outrageously well that the Ins become jealous. Once that happens, the Ins will be out for some heads, determined that no one will make them look bad ever again.
The whole process of carrying any project — a car, for example — to its conclusion has been reduced to a six-step progression that, once set in motion, is as inexorable as the sunrise: (1) unbridled enthusiasm, (2) sudden disillusionment, (3) total confusion, (4) the search for the guilty, (5) punishment of the innocent, and (6) rewarding of nonparticipants.
But what has all this to do with the ZR-1? Just this: the car is so good that those who didn’t want it to happen and those who made it happen anyway have both put their livelihoods on the line. Nothing this good can come out of a large American corporation without causing some shock waves. And we all know what some companies — GM, in particular, has been publicly vocal on the issue — think about anything that rocks the boat. Well, the folks up there on the fourteenth floor had best plan on getting wet feet, because if any car can slosh saltwater over the gunwales of the corporate lifeboat, it’s this one.

View Photos

TOM DREW

“If you don’t keep pushing the envelope, the limits of what’s technically feasible,” Chevy’s chief engineer Fred Schaafsma told us, “you’re going to fall behind.” Hear, hear. If General Motors engineering could — or would — improve upon a basic sedan to the extent that the Corvette engineering team improved upon the existing Corvette, the crowds at GM dealerships would cause a nationwide traffic jam.
Dave McLellan, Corvette chief engineer, says, “The ZR-1 makes the statement that we can do things today that no one even dreamed could be done ten or twenty years ago. We’ve achieved a spectacular level of performance and are still able to meet or exceed all government standards for fuel economy, safety, noise, emissions, and so on.” The ZR-1 engineering team has done nothing less than prove that Detroit can indeed run with the big dogs. The car is, and deserves to be, a source of pride to U.S. enthusiasts.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

The new ZR-1 can provide the best driver in the world with all the slam-bam power that he could ask for, yet its personality and demeanor are such that drivers who are less than world-class — a group that, by our observation, includes a great many owners of high-performance cars — are remarkably well protected from themselves.
Does this mean you can’t get yourself in trouble behind the wheel of a ZR-1? No. Does it mean that you have to be suicidal to fall victim to its power and speed? Yes. Left to its own devices, the ZR-1 is at once the most exciting and responsible high-performance car ever conceived in Detroit, let alone ever built. It feels glued to the pavement, and it goes as if it were powered by equal parts lightning and solid rocket fuel. It even looks tough, if you stand behind it so you get the prime view of the rear tires — tires so fat that only the differential housing seems to prevent their meeting in the middle. The ZR-1 is the kind of machine that will send the safety Nazis to their daybeds with the vapors, even as it brings car lovers to their feet clapping and cheering.
The last of the ZR-1’s umpteen auto-show introductions (Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago) took place in Geneva, Switzerland, of all places, and — at long last — involved a long-distance drive in the car we had only driven for a limited distance on the test track. The choice of Europe as an introductory venue permitted us to experience the Corvette in the arena dominated by Ferraris, BMWs, and big, whistling Mercedes sedans — an arena otherwise populated by small, nimble cars that run fast on the autobahns and autoroutes and almost as fast on the twisting, sometimes rough secondary roads. Would this American beast still pound its chest after such an encounter?

View Photos

TOM DREW

Certainly it has the equipment, on paper and in fact, to compete anywhere. To review, the Corvette ZR-1 is a rear-drive sports car powered by a 32-valve, 5.7-liter, port-fuel-injected V-8 engine with an aluminum block and aluminum heads. The engine was designed by GM’s Group Lotus Division, was further developed by GM, and is built under contract by Mercury Marine in Oklahoma, a facility with more than a passing familiarity with high-muscle aluminum engines.
The 32-valve V-8 engine, “LT5” on the options sheet, has two camshafts on each of its aluminum heads. Maximum horsepower — achieved at 6200 rpm — is 380. The torque curve shows a maximum of 370 pound-feet at 4200 rpm, and the band feels about as wide as, say, Utah.
The engine’s performance is best described as otherworldly. Its power just plain warps the mind. The ZR-1 has the ability to take you from 0 to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds and from a stop to 100 in 10.4 seconds. We also recorded a 0-to-150-mph time of a tick under half a minute. Top speed, for the adventurous, is a sizzling 175 miles per hour.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Behind the engine is a six-speed manual transmission that’s as sweet as anything mechanical you’re likely to lay a hand on. Capable of withstanding 425 pound-feet of torque, the six-shifter is the same manual gearbox used in all 1989 Corvettes, but it’s heaven sent for the Corvette from hell.
Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen AG, usually referred to simply as ZF, designed the six-speed transmission especially for the Corvette. The fully synchronized unit derives much of its slick operation from an internal-rail shift mechanism and a hydraulically actuated, 280mm-diameter pull-type clutch. Because GM has a severe allergy to seeing the gas-guzzler tax applied to any of its cars, the Corvette team softened the fuel gluttony by installing a system known as computer-aided gear selection. Rich Ceppos explains the system’s intricacies in his accompanying Corvette convertible review; we’ll just add that the CAGS-equipped six-speed transmission is infinitely more pleasurable to use than the old Doug Nash 4 + 3 manual overdrive transmission.
Transmission particulars aside, you should know that shifting could not be easier. The clutch-pedal effort is mild, and the gearbox is as at home under city driving conditions as it is on mountain roads taken at speed.
Though the driveline comes from across the water, the exterior remains pure American. There are no significant differences between the standard L98-powered Corvette and the LT5-powered ZR-1. But a close examination of the rear reveals that the ZR-1 is some three inches wider in the fanny, with the smooth flaring-out process beginning at the front edge of the doors and ending in a square-lensed taillamp fascia. The ZR-1 distances itself from its lesser compadres with the kind of subtlety dear to the hearts of Q-ship lovers.

View Photos

TOM DREW

The added width is there for a purpose: to provide shelter for a pair of tires that the word “humongous” was surely coined to describe. The ZR-1 carries 315/35ZR-17 Goodyear Eagle unidirectional gatorbacks in the rear and 275/40ZR-17 Eagles up front. Wheel width is 9.5 inches in front and 11.0 inches in the back.
The only drawback we found with the tires, which are loosely based on Goodyear’s Formula 1 rain tires, was an oversupply of road noise. Their benefits, which come in the form of limpetlike adhesion to the earth’s paved surfaces, go far toward minimizing the negative effects of the noise. As big as these tires are, we may see bigger yet. Goodyear says that size-405 tires are now practical to build — for the next Corvette, perhaps. Meanwhile, the current tires are protected and monitored by low-tire-pressure warning sensors that light up an alert on the dash whenever any tire’s pressure falls below a preset level. The result of a ten-year, ten-million-mile testing program, the low-tire-pressure warning system (option-code “UJ6”) can sense variations of plus or minus 1 psi.
Behind the wheels are vented disc brakes developed by PBR Automotive, an arm of Brake and Clutch Industries Australia, Pty, Ltd. — yet another group of outlanders. The big 13.0-inch front discs (the rears are an inch smaller in diameter) reflect lessons learned during Corvette Showroom Stock endurance racing and are as good to the touch as any we’ve set a toe to. The brakes will haul the ZR-1 to a stop from 70 mph in an impressive 170 feet, and fade is not a part of the ZR-1 braking equation.
The suspension is the same sporting combination of Z51 heavy-duty suspension and FX3 selective ride control that can be ordered on garden-variety Vettes. That is, moderately stiff transverse fiberglass springs, thick anti-roll bars, and adjustable Delco/Bilstein gas-filled shock absorbers. The only departure from the standard setup is a thicker rear anti-roll bar, which is needed to cope with the ZR-1’s added weight and power and larger rear tires.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Inside all is reasonably familiar, but if you scrutinize the console between the seats you’ll see two unfamiliar objects: a lock with a key in it and a three-position switch.
First, the lock, or kiddie key. This gives the operator a choice of full or reduced engine power, sealing off the high-rpm end of the induction system and reducing peak output by about 150 hp. This means that young drivers can be sent to play in traffic with at least some comfort to a parent. The switch has been incorrectly called a valet key — incorrect because any parking-lot attendant unable to cause an owner grief with the 230 or so remaining horses just isn’t trying.
The other switch, which operates the FX3 Selective Ride Control system, makes a real difference in the ZR-1 — and, indeed, in all Corvettes so equipped. Its three settings — Touring, Sport, and Performance — allow the driver to tailor the suspension to meet variations in road conditions, levels of driver aggression, and comfort requirements. Within each mode, there are six gradations of shock-absorber damping; they vary with speed to maintain a constant level of ride control. The Performance setting will rattle your fillings over rough roads, but the other two are useful in adapting the car to differing roads and driving styles. A rough road can be tamed by switching to the Touring setting, and the Sport setting can draw real cornering performance — and surprising comfort — from the ZR-1 on a smooth, twisting surface. Without the FX3 system, the ZR-1 would not be the grand tourer it is.
We drove the ZR-1 first from Geneva to southwestern France and later from Montpelier to the principality of Andorra, a tiny dot in the Pyrenees Mountains. Altogether, we spent somewhere between 700 and 800 miles in the car. A number of observations resulted. First, the ZR-1 makes every previous Corvette seem antediluvian. It also makes you wonder why anyone would spend more than $50,000 on a two-seater — given that the ZR-1 will be available for about that. But the best news of all is that the Corvette standard-bearer is not some overpowered, noisy (well, not too noisy) rattler that feels as if its engine were trying to escape its body.
Driving the ZR-1 reminds you that it is possible to create a car that is bewilderingly fast but that maintains an air of civilization about it. Unlike previous Corvettes, the ZR-1 doesn’t subject its driver to corporal punishment in the form of a head-rattling ride quality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Twice, after driving hard all day on French roads that ranged from challenging to hostile, we emerged unscathed and unbrutalized by the ZR-1. This feeling of freshness after a long and difficult drive is stuff of which great grand-touring cars are made.
Twice, once through poor planning on our part, we were forced to stand hard on the brakes. They stopped us short of disaster with the sureness of a racing car. Innumerable times we called on the engine for extra effort in passing situations. The effort was given freely and without incident. Despite the constant stream of brute strength that surges through the seat and into your body, we never had the feeling that we were in anything but a finely tuned example of true automotive craftsmanship.
The car takes mountain turns—hard mountain turns—with a neutrality that would do credit to the Swiss banking industry. The clutch action and the shifter throw make power application pleasurably smooth, and the amount of power available, as we’ve noted, simply exceeds the expectations of sane persons.
Were there complaints? A few. The road noise has already been mentioned, and some of the test cars we drove had considerable wind whistle at both the A-pillars and the C-pillars. After the hard run to Andorra, we finally coaxed some familiar squeaks from the fiberglass body, but nothing that would ruin your day. The garish electronic dash neither pleases nor works properly. Time after time we came to a full stop and waited for the electronic speedometer to catch up — or, more properly, wind down. There seems little excuse for that.
The seats are just fine and can be adjusted to an almost limitless number of driving positions. Even the seat wings and lumbar supports are power controlled. The overall look of the dash and other plastic-clad surfaces stops short of being cheap, but it stops even further from richness. A redo of the interior is due for the 1990 model year, however, so we’ll hope for improvement.
Meanwhile, we will lust after the ZR-1. Only a few hundred will be built during 1989, and production — which is limited by engine availability — will likely not exceed 4000 units annually.
Persistent rumors of engine problems, primarily overheating and oil-system malfunctions, dogged the ZR-1 during the first quarter of 1989. Chevrolet denies them categorically, and, indeed, we watched a dozen journalists and engineers flog thirteen ZR-1s for three solid days in France — including time on Goodyear’s Mireval test track—with nary a misfire. We’re therefore willing to believe that the rumors stemmed from normal developmental teething pains and not from product irregularities.
We’re also willing to hope (we’ll believe it when we see it) that the ZR-1 will spark other units of General Motors to produce cars equal in their class to the ZR-1. The single-minded effort toward a common goal—performance excellence—put forth by the Corvette engineering team should be an example to the entire American industry. Will the industry follow? We’ll see.
Meanwhile, we’ll look forward hungrily to more time in the car that, for now, is the best thing yet seen from an American manufacturer—and we’ll hope that the wrong people at Chevrolet don’t lose their jobs because the ZR-1 they created is so good at its job.

Specifications

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 1971 Issue of Car and Driver.
Shortly after Detroit’s Powers That Be signaled their recognition that the small car thing was truly a revolution and not merely aberration—by introducing small cars of their own—we put together a six-model sampling. A typ­ical Car and Driver magnum opus comparison test on a representative selection of “small” cars. This sampling included Ford’s then-new Pinto; Chevrolet’s ditto Vega; the American Motors Gremlin; Volkswagen’s Super Beetle; Chrysler Corpora­tion’s Simca 1204; and the representative from Japan was Toyo­ta’s Corolla, which then came with a 1200cc engine. At that time we had a lot of good things to say about the Toyota: principally that it was remarkably roomy for its overall size, and offered both comfort and quality in more-than-fair measure at Toyota’s $1798 asking price. In fact, we liked the car a lot.
And why didn’t the Toyota 1200 win? Because its brakes were marginal, it didn’t handle very well (swervy in a cross-wind, and given to a canine lifting of its inside rear wheel when cornering hard) and—worst of all—it was a buzzbox at freeway speeds. At 65 mph you could almost hear it grunt and feel its headlights bulge with strain. In some cars that strained feeling is more ap­parent than real, but in the Toyota 1200 it was real enough to carry a notarized certificate. At 70 mph, the car’s 4.22-to-one axle ratio and 12-inch wheels (with 6.00-12 tires) had its engine spinning 4700 rpm—and the engine began its protest at about 4200 rpm, or 62 mph. It was a fairly gutty device in urban traffic, if not too heavily laden and if its driver made maximum use of the transmission, but a freeway flier it wasn’t and that’s part of the game in most of the country these days. Thus, one third-place finish for Toyota. A good car for the price, but not quite enough car for the market.
Now, enter the Toyota 1600 Corolla, and exit much of our criticism. The difference between the 1200 Corolla and the new 1600 is enormously greater than the added dollop (here, a dollop comes to exactly 423cc—1588cc versus 1165cc) of engine dis­placement would suggest. Maybe it can be said better by telling you that the 1200 engine delivered 73 hp at 6000 rpm, and that it’s 102 hp at 6000 rpm for the 1600 with a similar increase in torque—101 lbs.-ft. at 3800 rpm versus 75 lbs.-ft. at 3800 for the 1600. All of which is about what you’d expect from the increase in displacement but it doesn’t begin to tell the whole story either. In fact, the 1600 engine is not the bored and stroked 1200 that many people seem to imagine; it’s a new engine, with design features and operating characteristics different from any preced­ing Toyota.
Curiously, to us anyway, Toyota’s bigger engines have always managed to combine an overhead camshaft with an unconvinc­ingly soggy performance at high revs. Now, everybody knows that overhead cammers are supposed to be happy highwinders, but Toyota’s are the traditional exceptions; they’re good, solid plodders and refuse any other kind of duty. And now, as though trying to further confound those who think they know what is what with engines, Toyota hits us with this 1600, which has its camshaft tucked away down in the block and a forest of pushrods and rocker arms leading up to the valves, and it feels, from the driver’s seat, like there might be a couple of dozen camshafts in its cylinderhead. Lively, it is. And you can get nearly 80 mph in third gear without feeling anything near an impending separation from within the engine.
That kind of willingness to make power at high revs is nice, especially while passing on a narrow road, but it’s not the new engine’s best feature. Neither, for that matter, is the 1600’s low-speed lugging capability. Actually, all the good stuff happens when you get above 2800 rpm, which is near 50 mph in top gear, 36 mph in third. Right there is where the engine really comes to life, with a forward surge under full throttle and there is very much a “sports car” feel coming from this unpretentious sedan. The Toyota 1600’s engine is, as the sporting set are wont to say, “cammy”; a bit flat at low revs (though without a lumpy idle) and then suddenly bursting with energy when the valve timing and the columns of gases in the intake and exhaust manifolds all get into step. It is an engine that gives its best for drivers who drive, and one that will sulk a bit in the hands of those who would let dust gather on the shift knob. (For those, there is the option of a 2-speed automatic anyhow.)
Of course, while whizzing along a freeway, you won’t have to do any shifting, and you’ll like the way the 1600 Corolla runs at 65–70 mph without any feeling of strain—and there is a goodly amount of power in reserve at that speed. The new hemi-head engine has absolutely transformed this side of the Corolla’s char­acter. And it has done it all without serious dollar penalty: the car is more expensive to buy with the bigger engine, $170 more, but still not above its competition and we averaged between 22 and 27 miles-per-gallon of fuel in driving that was mostly 70 mph cruising. That’s within fractions of what you could expect with the smaller 1200, if you could work yourself up to the cruelty required to push it that fast.
In the area of braking, the new Toyota Corolla has also been blessed with a transformation, albeit a mi­nor one. In the 1200 Corolla we tested, the brakes were both weak and had a spongy feel at the pedal. Now the sponginess is gone. Unfortunately the brakes themselves are no better. The tires are larger (6.15-13s compared to the 6.00-12s on the 1200) but the 1600 is also 140 lbs. heavier. The big­ger tires apparently aren’t enough to com­pensate for the weight increase because the test car required 235 feet (0.700) to stop from 70 mph, five feet longer than the 1200. This is extremely poor braking per­formance. The Corolla was introduced with substandard brakes and Toyota obvi­ously intends to leave it that way.
The Corolla could also use some im­provements in its handling. With the new, bigger engine it is even more nose-heavy than before (the 1200 had 980 lbs. on its front wheels; the 1600, 1100 lbs.) and while this 57% front weight bias has made the car less sensitive to side-winds, it has also largely negated any of the potential benefits to handling of the large tires and wheels (rim-width remains the same).
With all that weight up front, and the habit of raising its inside rear wheel still very much with the Corolla, it cannot be made to corner hard. Get it on a skid pad and you quickly find that the car assumes a low speed, low cornering-force equilibri­um-with the front wheels understeering to scrub off speed and the inside rear wheel unloaded and spinning, which keeps you from forcing the nose around any faster. On the other hand, the Corolla is agile (it could hardly be otherwise, given its quick steering and short wheelbase). For most drivers, this agility will pass for good han­dling.
Despite the Corolla’s new straight-line strength, no one driving the 1600 Corolla we tested has any excuse for getting a tick­et on the freeway. At precisely 70 mph in­dicated (a safe-enough 67 mph), the engine vibrations, subdued by the rubber motor­ mounts at lower speeds, begin marching in lock-step with various body panels, knobs, fixtures, seat-cushion springs, etc., and the view in the rear-view mirror turns into a blur. “That’s it, Driversan,” the car says, “you can now start looking for attention from the shirobai.” You don’t have to ac­cept the warning, as the 1600 Corolla will charge right on up to a true 90 mph, and you don’t even have to listen to the buzz, as it fades away, and everything becomes smooth and silent when you get above that critical resonance at 70. We appreciate Toyota’s concern for law and order, but we wish that they would re-tune the Corolla’s engine mounts or panels or something, and move the resonance higher. Maybe the U.S. Department of Transportation could suggest a figure.
As was true of the earlier 1200, the 1600 Corolla is somewhat cramped in the knee room it provides for rear-seat passengers, but with the seats pushed right back it is a marvel of small-package comforts for the driver and a friend. The front bucket seats are contoured to give lateral support far in excess of any side forces the Corolla is ca­pable of generating, and have those neat reclining backs. All controls are just about where you would want them and both inte­rior style and finish bespeak of quality far above the Corolla’s price. The only thing we didn’t like inside the Corolla was that all too often one either swelters or gets wind-buffeted. Toyota’s habit of building ­in all of the air-conditioning ducting just in case someone asks for the refrigerator pump, cooling coils, etc., gives the car a nicely comprehensive collection of vents—­two of them being directional spiggots. Unhappily, neither the ducting nor the vents are adequate to keeping the car’s in­terior cool unless the incoming air is refrig­erated. The piddling amount of air they ad­mit is barely adequate with ambient tem­perature at 70°F, and forward motion at 70 mph. Go slower, or let the air get warmer, and you’ll be obliged to crank down the windows—in which case the wind whipping around your head will be enough to convert anything but a crew-cut into a passable imitation of an Afro in mere mo­ments. And the wind roar at anything above 30 mph will be deafening, as the air spills off the comers of the windshield and into the wingless side windows.
However, you can’t expect everything in a car that stands so near the bottom of the whole automotive price range, and no one can say that the Toyota does not more than fully justify what its makers are ask­ing of purchasers. With the 1600 engine, it performs well enough to be totally useful to anyone not in the major cargo business, even for longish trips, and the enthusiast driver (who would have found the 1200 Corolla a dull proposition) will positively enjoy the way it responds crisply to urging with the gear lever. The various gimcracks and furbelows added to this car’s exterior to distinguish it from those previous do not please, but its high level of finish certainly does. And service, when the need arises, shouldn’t be a problem with Toyota’s deal­er network approaching the point of ubi­quity. In the Los Angeles area, where it all began, Toyota and the others have pushed small-car sales to about half the total. With things like the 1600 Corolla around, that could get to be a country-wide situation.

Specifications

Specifications1971 Toyota CorollaVEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$1918
ENGINE TYPEOHV inline-4Displacement285 in3, 4664 cm3Power73 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque74 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): independent MacPherson strut, coil springs, anti-sway car/rigid axle, semi-elliptical leaf springsBrakes (F/R): 6.3-in disc/7.9-in cast iron drumTires: Dunlop Gold Seal
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 91.9 inLength: 161.4 inWidth: 59.3 inHeight: 51.4 inCurb weight: 1785 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph 4.0 sec60 mph: 15.5 sec1/4 mile: 19.8 sec @ 65.5 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 230 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 27.9

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

We at Car and Driver are sadly aware that younger readers view several editors here as, well, old farts, hopelessly mired in the automotive past as new trends threaten to pass us by at speeds that would twist our turtlenecks and wrinkle our Sansabelt slacks.

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

The Ultimate Mustang vs. the Ultimate Camaro

Mustang GT PPL2 vs. Mustang Shelby GT350

This point is driven home by confoundingly frequent reader letters and e-mails—some containing correct spellings, giving us all hope for the future of public schools—that point accusing fingers at those of us who actually remember the name of that backup group Paul McCartney used to play with. We can picture you there at the keyboard of your iMac, forefinger tapping your nose ring for inspiration, as you whip out a pithy note insisting that your nitrous-sniffing slammed Honda Civic is the future, and that the gas-guzzling V-8s we hold so dear are dinosaurs.

But on this V-8 thing—we gotta agree to disagree. Several of us sitting around at lunch were talking about great exhaust sounds (our lunches really are as exciting as you imagine!) when we almost unanimously agreed that we grew up listening to the American V-8, and to us, that was the sound of power.

Unanimously, except for a fresh-faced road warrior who drives an old Acura Integra. “When I think of the sound of fast cars,” he offered, “I think of, you know, like, really tuned four-cylinders.” Ah, youth.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All this introspection turned our attention to the trio of throwbacks, the keepers of the flame: the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird. They meet the LAF criteria—loud, affordable, fast. We felt it was time to revisit these pony cars and see how well the idea of rear-wheel-drive V-8s has fared.
So we ordered up the hottest stuff: Ford’s new-for-’99 SVT Mustang Cobra, the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS, and the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am. Send us the fastest models available from our local dealers, we said. Manual transmissions, we demanded (they still make those, right?). And while you’re at it, chop the tops. We want to feel the wind rushing through (what is left of) our hair. It’ll make us feel young again!

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

As long as we can get home by 10 p.m., and be in bed by 11.
We drove the trio down to Honda’s Transportation Research Center in Ohio for testing, which included top-speed blasts around the 7.5-mile oval. Then we went to GingerMan Raceway in western Michigan, an 11-turn road course where we spent the better part of a day thrashing the three cars.
And then we summoned a fellow old fart, a literal graybeard, who graciously set aside his walker and lapped the three cars for us. That particular graybeard was Paul Gentilozzi, 49, the 1998 Sports Car Club of America Trans-Am champion, who started 1999 with a win at the Long Beach Grand Prix, resoundingly kicking the collective butts of a bunch of snot-nosed youngsters.
Sound interesting? Read on.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
A former staffer once assigned to write a Pontiac Trans Am road test mentioned to his associates that he wished he could hang a sign out the window that read, “This is not my car!” Invariably dramatic, the Trans Am’s styling has crossed over to the snarkily garish, and the limited-edition 30th-anniversary package is just slightly beyond garish.

HIGHS: Unmistakable styling, 163-mph top speed, monster motor.

For an extra $1575, that package gives you 17-inch aluminum wheels with a blue clear-coat tint sprayed on, a blue cloth top, white leather seats with anniversary-edition embroidery on the headrests, and several other trim pieces. We could not help feeling we were about to be arrested by Starsky or Hutch.
That said, when the three cars were parked together, invariably the attention of civilians turned first to our Firebird, No. 0052 according to a dash plaque. When we took the car to a McDonald’ s drive-through, the pimply slacker who waited on us could scarcely contain his bubbling hormones, immediately summoning a half-dozen fellow slackers to drool all over our Quarter Pounders. “Odd,” wrote one tester. “This car is absolutely coveted by people who can’t afford it.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It was by far the most expensive of the three, topping out at $37,092, a price bolstered by the non-anniversary $595 trunk-mounted, 12-disc CD changer, which was in addition to the in-dash CD player that comes with the potent Monsoon sound system. Mostly, though, you’re paying for exclusivity, as only 500 anniversary convertibles and 1000 anniversary coupes will be sold in the U.S.
If you’re looking for the fastest car of the trio, your search stops here. The Trans Am matched the Camaro with a 5.3-second 0-to-60-mph time, but then the Trans Am pulled away, hitting 100 mph 0.2 second quicker, 130 mph 1.8 seconds quicker, and finally a governed 163 mph, whereas the Camaro ran out of steam at 160.

LOWS: Unmistakable styling, awkward trunk layout, poor rear visibility, handling less precise than Camaro’s.

Why? We aren’t certain. The Trans Am has the heavily advertised Ram Air, fed to the air filter through a baffled snout. The Camaro has a more circuitous system—its hood scoop feeds a little air to the air cleaner through two long ducts that route from the middle of the hood to the rear and back to the front. Although we doubt the Pontiac’s Ram Air system is sealed up against the air cleaner well enough to pressurize intake air, we suspect it does, at least, deliver more cool air. We also suspect the Trans Am’s engine may be just a hair stouter than the SS’s. Or maybe the Trans Am’s flip-up headlights, although clunky when operated, are aerodynamically slicker. Regardless, this was a waaay quick car.
On the test track and the racetrack, though, the Pontiac had the sloppiest handling. It weighs a scant 43 pounds more than the Camaro, but nearly all of that extra weight is on the nose, making it understeer more. The suspension also allowed excessive body motions. “Twitchier than the Camaro,” wrote one tester after the lane-change maneuver, “requiring a delicate touch.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

At GingerMan Raceway, “there’s more body roll than in the Camaro,” wrote another tester, and under hard cornering, “I can hear the tires hitting the wheel wells.” The Hurst shifter—also on the Camaro—received criticism: “It’s the only one I ever miss shifts in.” There was substantial brake fade after extended lapping, slightly more severe than the Camaro’s.
On the road, though, the Trans Am was an entirely competent cruiser. “I love the way it lopes along in sixth gear at 85 mph,” wrote one tester. When introduced in the 1997 Chevrolet Corvette, the LS1 engine’s exhaust note seemed slightly sterile. On the Trans Am and SS, it’s as sweet as the old LT1 ever was.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Inside, the Pontiac’s front seats drew the highest marks, mostly because of the adjustable side bolsters and lumbar support, but its thinly padded steering wheel drew the lowest. Instruments and controls were where they should be, and the Trans Am was the only one of the three with steering-wheel-operated sound controls.

VERDICT: Your only choice if you wanna go fast and be noticed.

Like the two other cars, dropping the top requires unlatching the windshield header before powering the top down. It’s a fifteen-second job on all three. Still, we think the GM twins make slightly better convertibles than the Ford. Wind buffeting at speed is lower in the Pontiac and Chevy, and chassis stiffness seemed slightly better, too. All the tops were watertight in the carwash, and none suffered any flap or flutter at maximum speed. The Mustang had the best, easiest-to-use tonneau cover—it’s a soft one-piece unit, whereas the GM cars use a hard three-piece unit—but we’d leave all of them at home, as they dominate the already minimal trunk space.
Given the fact that the Pontiac and the Chevrolet are built on the same assembly line, GM has done a reasonably effective job of giving them unique identities. If you like the Trans Am’s identity—and are among those admirers who can actually afford to buy one—we sure won’t try to talk you out of it. From the suspension up, though, Chevy’s version is more our kind of car.
1999 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3617 lbBase/as-tested price: $34,255/$37,092C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.61/4 mile: 13.9 @ 104 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra
Speaking of throwbacks, we keep wondering when Ford’s exalted upper management will discover that the Special Vehicle Team exists and appears to be having fun, and therefore must be eliminated. This little group of in-house skunkworkers is currently responsible for three very potent, very limited-edition hot rods: the SVT Contour, the F-150 Lightning pickup, and the Mustang Cobra.

HIGHS: Freshest styling, high-tech powerplant, independent rear suspension, killer brakes when flogged, cheapest of the three.

Going into this comparison test, the just-released Cobra convertible had to be seeded the favorite. It’s the freshest makeover of a moderately dated platform and has the new, SVT-exclusive independent rear suspension. The standard Mustang, as well as GM’s Camaro and Firebird competitors, still use a rigid rear axle.
The Cobra’s engine is also the most up-to-date, with the 4.6-liter V-8 sporting four valves per cylinder and double overhead camshafts, while the GM entries have two-valve pushrod technology in their 5.7-liter V-8s. This modernized technology allows the Cobra to pump out an advertised 320 horsepower for 1999—exactly matching the GM motors’ although it spots them 65 cubic inches. The displacement deficit explains the Ford’s 18 less pound-feet of torque. At least the Ford can rev much higher—to 6800 rpm vs. the 6000 rpm of the GM twins.
The Cobra was the least expensive of the three, with an out-the-door price of $32,190. Although hardly bare-bones, it ranked lowest on our “features” scale, but only by a few points. Whereas the GM cars had leather on all seating surfaces, the Cobra had leather up front and leather-look vinyl in the rear. The rather heavy hood was held up by a balky prop rod, whereas the GM cars used hydraulic shocks. The manual transmission was a five-speed, whereas the GM twins had six-speeds. Relatively minor points, perhaps, but this was a comparison test that was, in the end, decided by minor points.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

One thing in the Cobra’s favor was its rear quarter-windows. It’s more work to build a convertible with four side windows instead of two, but having that little bit of extra glass back there provides the car with considerably better rearward visibility. Measured from the front edge of the convertible top to the outward edge of the back window, you’d find a 32-inch blind spot on the GM cars. That blind spot is 22 inches on the Mustang, thanks mostly to the extra glass those rear side windows provide.
“A very quiet ride for a convertible at 90 mph,” one tester noted in the logbook. “A very high, upright driving position, even with the power seat adjusted all the way down.” The driving position seemed even more so after stints in the Camaro and Firebird, where the seating position is largely butt-on-the-floor.
Although none of the front seats drew raves, the Mustang’s drew only complaints for their lack of lateral support and their puny headrests. And although none of these cars is noted for rear-seat room or access, the Mustang’s was the least roomy, with less kneeroom and far less headroom. In any of these cars, the rear seat is best left for groceries and small people.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Despite the plasticky dash, the Cobra’s controls were the easiest to use, except for the button-happy sound system. The black-on-white-face instruments had a pleasant green glow at night, an SVT trademark. The Mach 460 sound system—an AM/FM/cassette with a separate in-dash CD player—was a close second to the Monsoon system in the Trans Am, but to our aging ears, all three stereo systems were excellent. Although these three cars each have eight cubic feet of trunk space, the Mustang’s is in a far more usable configuration.
On the road, the Cobra seemed the most buttoned down, especially on rough pavement, where the independent rear suspension shines. We still found room for improvement, however. “Well balanced, but steering feel is minimal,” a tester wrote. “The wheel is simply a directional dial. There’s also a soft, somewhat disconnected sense here, although the car is very well behaved.”

LOWS: Five-speed transmission could use another gear, smaller engine means less torque, mediocre seats.

The Cobra offered the best roadholding and was the clear winner in the lane change. “The easiest to drive in this exercise by far,” we noted. “Steering response is gradual and accurate, and when the tail does break away, the slide is smooth and controlled.”
Although the Cobra’s beefy brakes took 189 feet to stop from 70 mph, compared with 175 for the Camaro and 178 for the Firebird, once they heated up at the racetrack, they were superb. “After a long lapping session at the racetrack,” a tester wrote, “the Mustang is the only one of the three that still has brakes.”
In a straight line, though, the Cobra suffered. Zero to 60 mph took 6.0 seconds in the Mustang and just 5.3 seconds in both GM cars. The quarter-mile time for the Cobra was 14.6 seconds, with the Camaro and Firebird doing it in 13.9. Surprisingly, the independent rear suspension made the Cobra slightly more prone to wheel hop and consequently more difficult, rather than easier, to launch smoothly off the line. We’d expected the opposite.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

In top-speed times, the Mustang really suffered, due mostly to the gearing. Its 149-mph top speed was reached in fourth gear with the engine screaming along at 6550 rpm, well above the Cobra’s 6000-rpm power peak. Shift into fifth, and speed dropped to 140 mph. The Camaro and the Trans Am didn’t have this problem. Their gearing allows top speeds much closer to the power peaks of their engines.
On paper, the Cobra convertible’s numbers appeared to be in the ballpark. When we tested the Cobra coupe (C/D, April 1999), our 0-to-60-mph time was 5.5 seconds, with a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds and an identical top speed. Given the fact that our convertible weighed about 300 pounds more than the coupe we tested in April, that seemed plausible.
But to several of us, the Cobra did not have the punch we were expecting or have experienced with other 320-hp Cobras. We called SVT about our test results, and it said, indeed, that was slower than expected.

VERDICT: Competent, quick, and exclusive, but you’ll lose every drag race to the two others.

And when SVT got its car back, this was confirmed. In fact, that led SVT to look at the batch of engines produced when our Cobra convertible was built, and according to a commendably candid spokesman, the engines might have a problem. But at this writing, SVT doesn’t know what it is. We’re confident SVT can and will correct any problems, not only in future cars, but also in those already shipped to dealers.
SVT promptly sent over a Cobra convertible with an engine from a different batch, and it was indeed quicker—0 to 60 mph in a more-like-it 5.6 seconds instead of 6.0 seconds; a quarter-mile run of 14.2 seconds at 100 mph instead of 14.6 seconds at 98 mph. Top speed remained 149 mph. If we’d had that car for the whole test, the Cobra might have scored slightly higher, but it’s doubtful it would have passed the Camaro.
1999 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra320-hp V-8, 5-speed manual, 3588 lbBase/as-tested price: $31,995/$32,190C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 15.31/4 mile: 14.6 @ 98 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

First Place: Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS
When the SS arrived at Hogback Road, we were slightly disappointed. Rather than a dynamic black like the Cobra, or a sparkling white like the Trans Am, the SS was an understated pewter with a black top. We were expecting perhaps arrest-me red.

HIGHS: Clean looks; torquey, great-sounding engine, thorw-it-around handling; attractive price for a convertible.

But the longer we had it, the more handsome it seemed. It has nice, almost elegant lines, complemented by the quiet color. In the end, we gave it the highest marks in styling. And we also appreciated that this was a 160-mph convertible that did not shout its presence to ticket-hungry cops.
It took us less time to appreciate the way the SS went quietly about its business. As fast as the Trans Am up to about 90 mph, the SS bested the two others in general drivability, but only marginally. Much that was said about the Camaro applied to the Firebird, such as: “Every time I get into one of these F-body cars, I’m amazed by their ponderous feel. Although the Camaro is very responsive, I feel as if I’m maneuvering the Queen Mary.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

“The steering seems quick off-center,” wrote a tester. “This will take some getting used to.”
That sensation dissipated at the racetrack, where the Camaro’s tighter suspension was obvious. “More composed, responsive, cleaner out here. Not as much steering correction is required for tail-out slides. You can really throw this thing around, and it just hangs on. Amazing, considering the price, and the fact that it’s a droptop,” a tester noted.

LOWS: Arguable less prestigious, same trunk and rear-visibility problems as in Trans Am.

The SS could slither through the emergency-lane-change maneuver as quickly as the Trans Am, but more slowly than the Cobra. “The Camaro has faster, more delicate steering than the Mustang,” recorded a driver. “You must turn in with your fingertips, or you wash out the front end instantly. And when the tail goes, it goes with a big wiggle.”
Both the GM cars wore the same tires—Goodyear Eagle F1 GS P275/40ZR-17s—and they drew few complaints for their performance on wet and dry pavement. The BFGoodrich Comp T/A 245/45ZR-17s on the Mustang worked very well in the dry but skated more than we’d anticipated in the wet.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The SS’s leather-trimmed interior was undistinguished but thoughtfully executed. The Delco stereo sounded fine and contained an AM/FM/cassette/CD player in one unit. It was the only stereo with a speed-controlled-volume feature.
As with all the F-body cars, there were two inherent problems: The incredibly steep windshield rake means a picnic-table-size dashboard beneath it, and the presence of a catalytic converter beneath the passenger-side floor means a big hump that, when covered with a floor mat, appears as if you’re trying to conceal contraband.

VERDICT: The utility infielder—a race car disguised as daily transportation.

All things considered, though, the Camaro is the car we’d be the most willing to drive on a daily basis. As with the two others, traction control and ABS make the SS nearly a year-round car as long as the snowfall is light and infrequent, but unlike the two others, the Camaro seems less like a midlife-crisis car and more like an opportunity to sensibly recapture a little of the past.
And get you home by 10 p.m., and in bed by 11.
1999 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3574 lbBase/as-tested price: $32,085/$33,995C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.81/4 mile: 13.9 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg
How a Pro Rates These Pony Cars
The Chevrolet Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird, and the Ford Mustang make up most of the field in the Sports Car Club of America’s BFGoodrich Trans-Am Series. Although 1998 champ Paul Gentilozzi dominated the series with a Chevrolet Corvette, for 1999 he has switched to Ford. The new-for-’99 SVT Cobra came out of the box a winner. Gentilozzi drove it to victory in the Long Beach Grand Prix, the first race of the year.
Of course, as is typical with many of the professional racing series, Gentilozzi’s Mustang Cobra has comparatively little in common with the civilian version. It uses a tube-frame chassis and a 625-hp V-8, but Trans-Am race cars still have more in common with roadgoing pony cars than do the cars in any other racing series—a front engine, rear-wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a honking V-8.
We asked the current champ to weigh in on the latest Camaro, Mustang, and Firebird ragtop performance versions. After Gentilozzi agreed, we rented GingerMan Raceway, the 1.88-mile road course in western Michigan where we tested his championship-winning Corvette (C/D, November 1998), and turned him loose. Several staffers also drove multiple laps in the cars, and our observations were quite similar to his.
As far as credentials, Gentilozzi’s win at Long Beach came in his 138th Trans-Am race. He had seven wins last year en route to the championship, leading 438 of the 674 laps run in 1998. He has also won the Rolex 24 Hours of Daytona and finished third in his class at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. At 49, he believes he’s driving better than ever, and his results back that up.
We timed Gentilozzi, and for a baseline, we also timed senior technical editor Don Schroeder, who more than held his own. Worth noting: Gentilozzi’s Trans‑Am Cobra laps GingerMan about 20 seconds faster than the quickest of our cars.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Ford SVT Mustang CobraGentilozzi: 1 minute, 41.6 seconds at 66.6 mphC/D: 1:42.0 at 66.4 mph
Even though Gentilozzi drives a Mustang and his racing program gets some help from Ford, we’ve spent enough time around the real-estate tycoon to know that, if he doesn’t like something, he’ll say so. We were confident he wouldn’t sugar-coat any criticism of the Mustang if it deserved criticizing. And it did, but it also deserved praise.
“The brakes and the gearbox are the best part of the car,” Gentilozzi said. “The power is down compared to the other two, so you can’t just get on the gas and control the balance of the car. If they’re going to build a four-valve engine, it ought to be the 5.4-liter, so they can get back some of the torque they’re giving up to the other two.”
The Cobra is deceptive. Gentilozzi said that even though the lack of torque kept the car from squirting out of the corners the way the GM twins do, he felt he was turning quicker lap times with the Cobra because of the handling—”Less entry oversteer with this independent rear suspension,” he said—and the excellent brakes. “You aren’t going to win drag races with this car, but it’d hold its own in a road race.”

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Pontiac Firebird Trans AmGentilozzi: 1:41.2 at 66.9 mphC/D: 1:40.6 at 67.3 mph
That’s right—our guy knocked out a quicker lap time in the Trans Am than did the Trans-Am champ. Gentilozzi said it just didn’t suit his driving style. “There’s a lot of entry roll coming into the corners,” Gentilozzi said. “You unload the back end, and that causes oversteer.”
As we all did, he praised the stout engine. “There’s plenty of power, and the gearbox is nice, and the driving position is good. But this steering—you get no feel for the road. You hold the steering wheel in a certain position, and you feel you should be getting a certain amount of turn-in, but you don’t.” Under hard braking, Gentilozzi noticed some rear-axle hop—”The last car I had that hopped like this was my ’68 Camaro Z28. It’s disconcerting.”
Gentilozzi could not resist a comment about the Trans Am’s styling. “This one’s Penthouse,” he said, pointing to the Camaro SS. “And that one’s Hustler,” he said, pointing to the Trans Am.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SSGentilozzi: 1:39.7 at 67.9 mphC/D: 1:40.3 at 67.5 mph
“It doesn’t fight you as much as the Firebird,” Gentilozzi said, dirt-tracking the Camaro SS through a sweeper. “And it’s definitely more forgiving.” He found the Camaro to be more precise in the entry and exit of turns. “I know this is basically the same car as the Firebird, so the differences must be just general calibrations on the suspension. But this one seems like the best hot rod of the bunch.”
Gentilozzi praised the chassis rigidity of all three cars, and the fact that while they’re capable of cranking out very respectable lap times, they’re also able and willing to serve as daily transportation.
Still, “I don’t drive as many street cars as you do,” he said, “so I guess I’m not as tolerant of some of the crap they make you put up with.” Case in point: Although the timed laps were taken with the traction control turned off, Gentilozzi took some casual laps with the traction control engaged, and he was particularly put off by the invasive nature of the GM system, which kicks back on the accelerator pedal. He was also annoyed by GM’s first-to-fourth shifter, which eliminates second and third gears as a fuel-saving measure when driven leisurely.
You might be interested to learn that Gentilozzi’s daily driver is a chrome yellow Ferrari 550 Maranello. That will just have to do until the new Ferrari 360 Modena he has on order arrives. —SCS
What Does the Future Hold for Pony Cars?
Let’s face it: it was much easier for Ford and General Motors to justify building these three cars when they shared platforms or assorted bits and pieces with existing products. They don’t anymore. The one with the most promising future, though appears to be the Mustang, which continues to sell nearly twice as many cars as the Camaro and Firebird combined. The 1999 Mustang benefited from an extensive freshening, so we’re guessing it will be around at least through 2002. After that, rumors are that if it is to continue, it could be built on the Lincoln LS platform that will serve as a basis for the 2001 Ford Thunderbird.
As for the Camaro and Firebird, the Canadian plant will definitely cease production of the two. There will be 2001 models, we hear. Beyond that, their fate is murky.
Several possibilities loom at GM, though, for a rear-drive V-8 car. One is to adopt the Holden platform currently being developed in Australia but that, for various reasons, is not expected to happen. Another presented to us by one GM exec is to keep the Firebird name but drop the Camaro, making the Firebird a semiluxury four-passenger coupe on the Cadillac Evoq platform, and leave the Corvette to Chevrolet.
A final scenario has the Camaro being moved upscale, sharing a platform with the Corvette, built in the underutilized Vette plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky. We might see some movement in that direction as early as this fall. Rumor is that Chevy is building a show car for the Specialty Equipment. Market Association trade show that is, in essence, a four-seat Corvette, possibly testing the water.
And a final, fanciful scenario was broached at a press event for the new front-drive Monte Carlo. “You know,” said one Chevy exec, “this platform could be made rear-wheel drive quite easily.” —SCS
Shooing the Breeze
In the good old days, wind in the hair was the allure of convertibles, but in this era of cell phones, digital stereo sound, and $60 hairdos, wind-reducing devices are all the rage. Most high-end ragtops offer custom-fit clear-plastic or mesh-screen wind blockers that fit just behind the front seats to prevent backdrafts from entering the cockpit.
Chevy, Ford, and Pontiac do not offer such devices, but Wind Baffle (888-266-WIND) sells a product for $249 (plus shipping) that can be mounted in most convertibles on the road today. The Wind Baffle’s polycarbonate panel is 30 inches wide by 20 inches high. It installs like a tension rod for curtains. Two spring rods adjust laterally to fit the width of the car, and each fits into a small plastic cup that mounts to the side trim panel with adhesive-backed hook-and-loop fasteners. A third vertical rod presses down onto the rear seat or package shelf for stability. A safety cable tethers the unit to the front seat. With the Wind Baffle installed, the rear seat can’t be used but the top can be raised and lowered.
The Wind Baffle dramatically reduced backdrafts and wind noise in all three pony cars, although wind still tickled the tops of our heads. It rendered the more aerodynamic Camaro and Firebird cockpits nearly still with the windows up—even at speeds of 110 mph. The Cobra was transformed from tornado-watch gusty to merely breezy, and the backdraft was nearly eliminated. Reducing cockpit turbulence improves the effectiveness of the climate controls, so this product should help to extend the convertible driving season. For the acid test of the Wind Baffle’s mounting system, we logged 1600 miles in a buzzy, rattly, flexy vintage British roadster, and it only popped loose twice. At the price, the Wind Baffle seems like a must. —Frank Markus
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 November 2002 issue of Car and Driver.
According to Toyota senior vice-president and general manager Don Esmond, mid-size SUVs now account for 10 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S and are the biggest sellers in the SUV category.
So it doesn’t seem unreasonable for Toyota to have two players in that category: the Highlander, which is a car-based monocoque vehicle, and the 4Runner, which is a body-on-frame vehicle with truck DNA and better off-road potential.

2005 SUV Showdown

Best SUVs and Crossovers of 2020

The 4Runner got here first, having played the market for 18 years in three successive generations. Make that four. The new 4Runner is here as a 2003 model, and it’s bigger, heavier, and more powerful than ever before.
Seeking improvements in comfort, on- and off-road handling, safety, performance, and economy, Toyota has completely reinvented the 4Runner. Based on the Prado (a sort-of seven-eighths-scale Land Cruiser not sold in this country) rather than the Tacoma, the new vehicle has a wheelbase that is 4.5 inches longer (109.8 inches), as well as an equal increase in overall length (now 187.8 inches).

Highs: Solid build, good refinement, plenty of power.

Accordingly, the stretched 4Runner offers two more inches of front legroom. There’s 0.4 inch more headroom, and the outboard passengers sit two inches farther apart in an interior that’s now four inches wider.
Under the more-spacious bodywork is a new frame with full-length box-section rails and nine fully welded crossmembers. The front crossmember is mounted low enough to engage the bumpers and crash systems of smaller vehicles, and “soft” front-end sheetmetal and a plastic grille are intended to reduce injury to pedestrians.
Two engines are offered in two- and four-wheel-drive configurations. A new 4.0-liter V-6 is now the base motivation for the 4Runner, developing 245 horsepower at 5200 rpm and a hefty 283 pound-feet of torque at 3400 rpm. As well as being Toyota’s first aluminum truck engine, the 1GR-FE (as it’s known internally) is the product of 3-D engine-modeling techniques and features chain-driven camshafts, variable valve timing with intelligence, and variable intake geometry.

DAVID DEWHURST

The upscale engine is a 4.7-liter V-8 related to the i-Force mill found in the Sequoia, Tundra, and Land Cruiser. In this guise it produces 235 horsepower at 4800 rpm and 320 pound-feet of torque at 3400 rpm. As you can see from the numbers, the V-6 has more horsepower, but the V-8 has more torque, and it’s delivered across a very broad rev range.
Thus, our V-8-powered 4Runner SR5 test car purred to 60 mph in just eight seconds–no mean feat for a two-plus-ton SUV with full-time four-wheel drive. We’ll have to wait until we test the V-6 model before we’ll know whether it can duplicate that achievement. Clearly, though, power isn’t a problem in the new 4Runner.
Nor is driveline refinement. The 4Runner shifted smoothly and elegantly in every situation through the five ratios of its new automatic transmission. Selecting low range with the dash-mounted rotary switch–also used in the part-time system on V-6 models to shift from two- to four-wheel drive–was equally transparent.

Lows: A little heavy for serious off-roading, intrusive stability-control systems.

The transfer case in both engine variants uses a lockable Torsen center differential and in normal operating circumstances has a rear-wheel torque bias (the planetary gearing splits torque 40/60 front to rear). It can increase rearward torque distribution up to 70 percent when needed, or send up to 53 percent forward when the rears lose grip.
Combined with a control-arm front suspension and a solid rear axle located by four trailing links and a Panhard rod, the 4Runner’s off-road arsenal looks pretty convincing. And assisting the usual four-wheel-drive traction hardware are two electronic strategies intended to optimize off-road performance. One is Hill-start Assist Control (HAC), a kind of stability-control offshoot that applies brakes and manages torque for tricky uphill launches. The other is Downhill Assist Control (DAC), which works only in low range at an initial speed less than 18 mph when the driver has his feet off the pedals, to maintain a target forward speed of 2 to 4 mph.

DAVID DEWHURST

Here’s the “grade” strategy for the new 4Runner: three trim levels, with either a V-6 or V-8 engine and optional four-wheel drive that is part-time on V-6 vehicles and full-time when teamed with the V-8. The lowest grade is the SR5, which comes with gray-metallic bumpers, lower cladding, and 16-inch steel wheels (alloys are optional) with 265/70R-16 tires. Figure $26,000 to open. Next up is the Sport model, which is pretty much like the SR5 but has a silver-colored grille and roof rails; a hood scoop; fog lamps; color-keyed, heated outside mirrors; and six-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels with 65-series rubber. Expect to pay at least $33,000 for a Sport.
The top-of-the-line model is the Limited, with color-keyed bumpers and cladding; illuminated running boards; and five-spoke, 17-inch alloys. The 4Runner interiors vary little from grade to grade, but Sport and Limited variants get leather-wrapped steering wheels with audio and cruise controls. The Limited is also fitted with an anti-theft engine immobilizer, a HomeLink transmitter, silver-colored trim in various places, power-adjustable heated front seats, dual-zone climate controls, and a novel double-decker shelf in the cargo compartment for more efficient storage. Loaded up, the Limited should top out at about $40,000.
An option we have not yet mentioned is the X-Relative Absorber System (X-REAS) that is standard for the Sport model and available as an option on the Limited. We like this one. It’s an installation that links diagonally opposed front and rear shock absorbers via a nitrogen-charged center damper as in Audi’s RS 6. The effect is much like that of the diagonal jacking systems found in CART race cars, and it provides additional roll and pitch damping to such an extent that a 4Runner equipped with X-REAS steers into bends with a discernible lack of roll motions.
Despite its greater size and mass, this largish SUV steers precisely, with no corruption of the line from bump steer, roll steer, or any other shifts in geometry. It eases into bends with nicely cushioned body motions and takes a set that a driver can lean on with real confidence. A new hollow steering rack contributes to the plot with smooth and accurate responses.
No wonder the VSC is so cautious. Relying on feedback alone, a 4Runner driver would soon be exploiting the full handling envelope on the basis of this sense of stability. X-REAS can be coupled with an optional rear air suspension (available only on V-8 Limited 4Runners) that replaces the steel coils with reinforced air bladders. These provide automatic load leveling, a switch-selected ride-height increase (up to 1.5 inches) for rough going, and about three-quarters of an inch of height reduction for loading or trailer hauling. Consistent with the 4Runner’s heritage of off-road capability, ground clearance is listed at 9.1 inches.

The Verdict: If you build ’em bigger, they will apparently keep coming.

Toyota’s professed ambitions for the 4Runner were to improve roadgoing stability and comfort without compromising the off-road potential that many consumers treasure, while upgrading the power, space, and safety of the vehicle. In its attempt to do so, the company has added about 350 pounds to the 4Runner. That may be regrettable, but the new 4Runners are nonetheless better in every way than their predecessors. What’s 350 pounds between friends, anyway?

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2003 Toyota 4Runner SR5 V-8 4WD
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagonPRICE AS TESTED$134,235 (C/D est.)ENGINE TYPEDOHC 32-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement285 in3, 4664 cm3Power235 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque320 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): independent, unequal-length control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar/rigid axle located by 4 trailing links and a Panhard rod, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakes (F/R): 12.6-in vented disc/12.3-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Dueler H/T 689, P265/70TR-16
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 109.8 inLength: 187.8 inWidth: 73.8 inHeight: 71.2 inCargo volume: 42 ft3Curb weight: 4450 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.0 sec100 mph: 28.1 secStreet start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 sec1/4 mile: 16.4 sec @ 84 mphTop speed (governor limited): 116 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/highway: 16/19

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 Archive: New suspension, new traction control, bigger engine, longer wheelbase. And it’s still chic. More

View Photos
Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Elementary schools teach us that humans have five senses. Later in life, depending on who you believe, it turns out that there may be many more. Proposed additions to the original five seem a bit dubious—is hunger really a sense, or are you just bored?—but five make the list every time. One of those is our ability to perceive sound. And we do more than perceive it. We seek out noises that are pleasing to us. First came singing, then someone invented the piano, and now we have supercharged V-8 engines. Progress.

HIGHS: Excellent V-8, hearing it coming, clean and elegant exterior design, not a 911.

Of the supercharged V-8s, the one found in the 2021 Jaguar F-type R coupe is a particularly sonorous example. There’s the burbling and cracking soundtrack that Jaguar introduced when they launched the F-type in 2014. But now there’s 575 horsepower and, thanks to the power and traction of all-wheel drive, a 3.5-second run to 60 mph (that’s 0.1 second quicker than a Shelby GT500). Every tap of the accelerator is a gut punch. It’s a special engine, a little talisman against boredom and the indignities of daily life.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Updated Jaguar F-Type Tames Some of its Roar

Tested: 2017 Jaguar F-type SVR Convertible

Jaguar is smart to use this engine in the R model. Once exclusive to the top-performing F-type SVR, the SVR’s death allowed the 575-hp V-8 to make it into the slightly less exotic F-type R. The engine is intoxicating and helps distract from the fact that so little was changed in this year’s redesign of this now seven-year-old car. The biggest difference is that a new hood and front end give the F-type a fresh face. In back, taillights are now narrow LED strips, but the rest of the F-type’s exterior changes are harder to spot. Inside, the main difference is that the analog gauges in front of the driver are replaced by a large 12.3-inch digital screen that offers a few different gauge displays.
Aside from the extra 25 horsepower it inherited from the dearly departed SVR, the biggest changes to the F-type R reside in the suspension and chassis. There are new springs, dampers, anti-roll bars, and rear knuckles. Those new elements were designed to improve the R’s ride and improve steering feel. The ride still isn’t what we’d call soft, but it makes Michigan’s uncivilized roads seem nearly civilized. The steering communicates better than in some lesser sports coupes we’ve driven lately, but responses are just a bit too twitchy.

LOWS: Cramped cabin, extra power doesn’t improve acceleration, not a 911.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Perceived ride and handling improvements aside, the F-type failed to achieve any meaningful performance improvements as a result of its various tweaks and upgrades. A trip to the test track returned performance numbers that were almost identical to those we recorded in an F-type R in 2015. Skidpad grip is strong at 1.0 g, but a 1.0-g car isn’t as astonishing as it used to be; a 911 can pull 1.08 g.
There are some other small problems with the F-type R. The cabin remains cramped, and seat travel is severely limited by the bulkhead that separates cabin from cargo area. If two hours in the F-type induced back pain in our young, active reviewer, imagine the effect it will have on drivers in Jag’s target demographic. There were also a few maladies that befell this particular F-type. The rear spoiler wouldn’t deploy on command, though it did stand at attention when the car was traveling at high speed. The door handles, which are designed to lay flush with the door panel when not in use, refused to retract into their shells even when the car was parked and locked.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

This car’s $115,110 asking price makes those foibles and the unchanged performance harder to swallow, but it’s not all bad in the F-type. It feels and looks upscale. If any of the interior surfaces are covered in something that’s not leather, we were fooled. The 14 cubic feet of cargo space is plenty for a weekend trip, and twice what you get in the convertible. The F-type coupe is one of the best-looking cars on the road today, with an exterior design that’s arresting without straying into ostentatiousness. And the as-tested price drops if you’re willing to forgo the $4500 paint color. Plus, there’s that exhaust note. It’s almost enough to make you drain your 401(k).

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Jaguar F-Type R Coupe
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED $115,110 (base price: $104,225)
ENGINE TYPE supercharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 305 in3, 5000 cm3Power 575 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 516 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): multilink/control armsBrakes (F/R): 15.0-in vented disc/14.8-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4, F: 265/35R-20 (99Y) J R: 305/30R-20 (93Y) J
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 103.2 inLength: 176.0 inWidth: 75.7 inHeight: 51.5 inPassenger volume: 51 ft3Cargo volume: 14 ft3Curb weight: 4105 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 3.5 sec100 mph: 8.2 sec130 mph: 13.9 sec150 mph: 19.6 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.9 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.1 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 2.9 sec1/4 mile: 11.7 sec @ 121 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 186 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 155 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 307 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 17 mpg75-mph highway driving: 27 mpgHighway range: 490 miles
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 18/16/24 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