Evelyn Reynolds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A starting price barely over $34,000. A claimed curb weight under 3000 pounds. Power and acceleration figures that aren’t chasing modern sports cars. Enough battery capacity for several days of around-town driving. Healthy levels of standard equipment. While a parade of big-battery, multi-motor, mega-horsepower, high-dollar electric vehicles are pushing EVs in one direction, there’s a dearth of small, affordable EVs that keep it simple, and the 2024 Fiat 500e is such a presence.Staggeringly Normal SpecsMost modern EVs make enough horsepower to put generation-old sports cars to shame, and that’s not exactly what everyone wants or needs. The 2024 500e is more of an anachronism in this sense, returning to the days of small, inexpensive cars that provide tepid acceleration. Here, a single permanent-magnet electric motor powers the front axle and produces just 117 horsepower and 162 lb-ft of torque. Fiat claims the 500e will meander its way to 60 mph in 8.5 seconds before topping out at 94 mph. And while that pales next to the dual-motor Hyundai Ioniq 5, which gets to 60 in 4.5 seconds, it is quicker than a Chevy Trax or a Kia Sportage.Under the body lies a similarly modest lithium-ion battery, which we estimate has roughly 37 kWh of usable capacity and will be good for 140 to 150 miles of range. Our projection would’ve been lower, but the 500e’s compact dimensions mean Fiat was able to keep the curb weight at a respectable claimed 2952 pounds, a far cry from those 5000-plus-pound Chunka Lunkas rolling around. The battery will charge from empty to 100 percent in a claimed six hours on a 6.6-kW Level 2 charger or in less than 4.5 hours on an 11.0-kW connection, and at its max DC fast-charge rate of 85 kW, it will refill to 80 percent in 35 minutes, Fiat says.Aesthetically, this little one is clearly a Fiat 500. The exterior picks up some LED lighting front and rear, as well as flush electronic door handles. But the flashiest of the new stuff as well as the throwbacks lie in the cabin. The dashboard trim, rounded gauge cluster, and two-spoke steering wheel are meant to evoke the OG 1957 Cinquecento. We dig the dedicated wireless-charging nook just below the (physical!) climate controls and 10.3-inch center display, which runs the latest version of Stellantis’s Uconnect 5 software. A 7.0-inch digital gauge cluster is a nice thing to see, especially as fellow small-car manufacturer Mini seems intent on eliminating that feature in favor of a cheapo head-up display.While the eyes may deceive, the 500e is a bit larger than it was before, ringing in nearly an inch longer in both wheelbase and overall length and also 2.2 inches wider. An additional 1.7 inches of shoulder room in the front row keeps the Fiat from feeling truly cramped, and the cargo hold will swallow eight cubic feet of stuff, or a few backpacks or several bags of groceries, with ease. The back seat will fit an adult, though not for long journeys—but then, you’re not going on a long journey, are you? Behind a seat set for a six-foot-tall driver, there was decent headroom, but the legroom was more reminiscent of a budget European airline than a car. Despite the small accommodations, the center console has a decently sized hidey-hole that could hold a small tablet. Two USB-A ports and another USB-C reside in various crannies. There’s only one cupholder that isn’t integrated into a door panel, but it can be folded and stowed when not needed, opening space in the cabin’s lower half.In addition to the tech, there’s a bunch of other standard kit in this package. LED headlights, automatic climate control, keyless entry and start, wireless device charging and smartphone mirroring, and rain-sensing wipers all are included. Also standard is the buyer’s choice of a Level 2 home charger or fast-charge credits through the company’s Free2move Charge program.Staggeringly Normal DemeanorWhile the Fiat 500e’s vibe might fit our Miami drive location well, this locale is not exactly suited for, well, driving. Endless parades of stoplights, confused drivers piloting rented convertibles (with the top still up, natch), strips of asphalt where lunar-rover testing clearly takes place (or should)—Vice City has it all. The 500e’s ride was, as we expected, a little on the flinty side, but we found very little unwanted interior noise until higher speeds. Chucking this little guy into corners at normal speeds made for a fun urban jaunt, with an appropriate amount of body roll for a small but kind of tall car.It’s fortunate that the 500e feels zippy at a relatively modest pace, because that’s all the pace the Italian jelly bean can muster. There’s a good bit of right-pedal sensitivity at lower speeds in both the standard Normal mode and the more efficient Range mode, and the zero- to 30-mph span is what matters most in a car of this ilk. Switch into Range mode, and the pedal does require a smidge more prodding to get going, but the increased regenerative braking permits one-pedal driving, so it’s the mode we preferred. If you’re not a fan of regen, Normal mode’s coasting and braking feel like any other small car’s. There’s also a Sherpa mode that limits the top speed to 50 mph and cuts max motor output to 76 horsepower. It was explained as an “Oh crap, I have less battery than I thought and need to get home” mode, not one for normal use.Dollars and SenseAchieving a $34,095 base price is not the easiest thing to do, especially at a time when the average transaction price for a new car is approaching the $50,000 mark, and that becomes clear in places like the torsion-beam rear axle and rear drum brakes. Unlike with Fiat’s last foray into battery-electric models, parent company Stellantis probably won’t lose the farm on every car it sells this time, despite that the new 500e’s MSRP is lower than its 2019 forebear’s, even with years having passed between their debuts. While it won’t solve the problem of charging access for those who park on the street, the 2024 Fiat 500e does help address one issue the EV space needs to work on: affordable variety. It’s a true city car, with the thrift and capability needed for most weekly forays, and it works well as a second around-town-mobile when long trips aren’t on the docket. It’s a turtle among hares, but if that’s all you need, why go overboard? SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Fiat 500e Vehicle Type: front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base: Inspi(Red), $34,095; Music, $37,595; Beauty, $37,595
POWERTRAIN
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC
Power: 117 hp Torque: 162 lb-ft Battery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 37.0 kWh (C/D est)Onboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 85 kWTransmission: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 91.4 inLength: 143.0 inWidth: 66.3 inHeight: 60.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/29 ft3Cargo Volume: 8 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 2950 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-Mile: 16.5 secTop Speed: 94 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined: 116–120 MPGeRange: 140–150 miCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More