Evelyn Reynolds

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

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

In evolution, unnecessary appendages don’t just fall off arbitrarily. As a vestige becomes less and less necessary for survival, it’ll spend some time shrinking before it eventually disappears for good or becomes something else. Coupe-like SUVs have long sacrificed rear visibility for the sake of aesthetics, and instead of staying that course, the 2025 Polestar 4 is the first fish to take a walk in the sun and do away with the aft glass entirely. And, as we learned from some time with an engineering prototype, you won’t miss it.More Than Just a Missing Piece of GlassThe Polestar 4 isn’t as physically imposing as its larger Polestar 3 sibling, which is billed as an electric competitor to the Porsche Cayenne. At 190.6 inches long, the 4 is about a half-foot longer than a Porsche Macan, and the Polestar’s standard glass roof sits just over three inches lower than the German’s roof does. The Swede’s wheelbase is nearly eight inches longer, too, which makes for a vastly airier cabin—further aided by that gigantic glass panel overhead, stretching all the way over the second row.Polestar offers the 4 in two distinct flavors. The long-range, single-motor configuration relies on a permanent-magnet synchronous electric motor producing 268 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque, which should shove the roughly 5000-pound Polestar to 62 mph in a claimed 7.1 seconds. Those looking for a little extra vim will find it in the dual-motor variant, which increases output to 536 horsepower and 506 pound-feet. In that version, 62 mph arrives much more hastily—in 3.8 seconds, by Polestar’s stopwatch. Regardless of what’s providing the motivation, the electricity comes from the same tap. Both Polestar 4 variants rely on a CATL-built lithium-ion battery (of the nickel-manganese-cobalt variety, for the chemistry buffs) with 94.0 kilowatt-hours of usable capacity. Polestar estimates a European WLTP range of 379 miles for the RWD model and 360 miles with AWD. In more star-spangled terms, we’d wager estimates closer to the 300-mile mark when the EPA gets its turn.On the charging front, the Polestar 4’s 400-volt architecture will accept up to 11.0 kilowatts of AC juicin’ (enough to go from empty to full in about 5.5 hours on a 16-amp circuit) and up to 200 kilowatts of that DC good-good—provided the fast-charge gods feel like showing up to work at your plug of choice. If they do, Polestar says a charge from 10 to 80 percent should take 30 minutes.Driving the Polestar 4While we have had our constructive criticism taken to heart during engineering-prototype drives, it’s probably too late to tell Polestar, “Nah, there should really be glass back here.” So with an open mind, we hopped behind the wheel of both Polestar 4 iterations—and, turns out, we were too enamored with the 4’s test-track manners to even care about the missing glass.We started in the dual-motor Polestar 4. Like any good performance-oriented EV, the all-wheel-drive 4 absolutely space-shuttles its way forward. Pedal response was good, not delivering everything all at once but not hiding all the beans in the back half of its travel either. Jam on the brakes like you’re trying to grind those steel discs into a cloud of dust, and you’re met with the opposite of dramatics; there is no squirming under heavy braking, just a whole lot of head-tilting g’s.The steering offers three different levels of artificial heft; we preferred it light, but even when the weight was dialed up, off-center response was quick, and it only required the lightest of touches to adjust the car’s position. That may sound like a recipe for a lot of uncomfortable micro-darting on the road, but a quick run on a banked high-speed oval with Joakim Rydholm, Polestar’s head of chassis development, proved that the steering shouldn’t be twitchy on the highway.Our AWD prototype was equipped with Polestar’s three-mode adaptive dampers; the basic around-town setting does an impressive job of isolating wheel movement over Polestar’s test-track adaptations of the world’s worst roads. Ruts, potholes, and protruding manhole covers disappeared underfoot with only a hint of noise and jostling, but the ride wasn’t so mushy and wallowy you’d confuse it with Grandpa’s Lincoln. Moving over to its sportier Firm mode, we found plenty of usable communication between arse and asphalt. It will definitely rustle one’s jimmies over bad pavement, but a simple touchscreen press is all it takes to return to the softer side.From there, we slid over to the single-motor Polestar 4, and unsurprisingly, the overarching vibe remained. Despite being down on power against the dual-motor model, the RWD model still hustles and doesn’t feel heavy or overburdened. Even though this car ditches the adaptive dampers, the passive units are still extremely well tuned. There is a bit more bounce over major road undulations, and it’s not as cushy overall, but everything is kept in check, and we felt fine whether we were chucking the car around or taking a lazy stroll through the curves. Earlier in the day, Rydholm took us around a tighter test track in this model, and he spent the whole time drifting the car in lurid slides, so don’t assume the single-motor 4 is some party-averse lameoid. It, too, can hang.Oh, Right, About That Rear Windshield”Change is painful for people,” said Thomas Ingenlath, Polestar’s CEO, during an interview ahead of the prototype drive. “[Deleting the rear windshield] is not a gimmick—we really believe that this is a great innovation that will drive automotive design and technology forward. I hope we can convince people that it makes a lot of sense.”And the man’s right. At no point during our brief prototype foray did we miss the rear glass. Granted, we weren’t parallel-parking or weaving through rush-hour traffic, but there were merges on the test track where we had to watch out for other Polestar 4s zipping by, and we had zero issues there. A quick glance at either side mirror—physical side mirrors, not cameras, because Polestar wanted to retain some analog optics—is all we needed. An increasing number of new cars offer a digital rearview mirror, and the Polestar 4 keeps that going. Its unit carries a feed from a camera mounted atop the roof (a location free of wind vortices that could cover it in schmutz), and the view out back is displayed in a suitably crisp resolution that features a few new tricks to reduce the flicker from LED headlights, which can be extremely distracting on most modern digital mirrors. A switch on the bottom of the unit will revert it to a traditional mirror, should one feel the need to shoot a petulant child in the back seat the ol’ stink eye.More on the Polestar SUVsSince there’s no need to worry about engineering around a piece of rear glass, Polestar was able to set the seats a little farther back, offering an impressive amount of rear legroom, even for a wheelbase of this length. Your author’s lanky six-foot Gumby build had no issue getting comfy back there. The rear seats recline for added comfort, but even when upright, there was zero risk of hair contacting anything remotely resembling a roof. Plus, with this newfound real estate, Polestar found a new space to add ambient lighting, bringing cars one step closer to becoming gaming PCs. Those who actually use their trunks will be happy to know that the rear seats still maintain a 60/40 folding split, and the little trim piece that separates cabin from cargo can be removed and stowed under the trunk floor—so you can stink-eye your groceries too.Down to Brass Tacks The 2025 Polestar 4 is easily the fledgling brand’s most engaging offering to date. While we’ll have to wait until later this year to take a deep dive into its impressive telematics and other tech offerings, we can assure you now that the dynamics half of the equation has already been signed, sealed, and delivered with gusto. Perhaps you’re not quite ready to embrace a future with less glass in it, but here, too, we promise that it’s not the end of the world. In fact, it’s the start of an entirely new one. This fish has some real gams.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Polestar 4Vehicle Type: rear- or front- and rear-motor, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: Single Motor, $60,000; Dual Motor, $80,000
POWERTRAINS
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 268 hp, 253 lb-ftRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 268 hp, 253 lb-ftCombined Power: 268 or 536 hpCombined Torque: 253 or 506 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 94.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 22.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 200 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 190.6 inWidth: 79.1 inHeight: 60.4 inCargo Volume, Behind F/R: 54/19 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5000–5300 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.5–6.5 sec100 mph: 9.5–18.2 sec1/4-Mile: 11.9–15.0 secTop Speed: 124 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 80–110/85–120/75–100 MPGeRange: 280–310 miCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

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

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/16/18 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

The definition of an SUV has changed a lot in recent times, but the classic two-box profile still hasn’t gone out of style. If anything, boxy is more in than ever. It’s hard to argue with a box for carrying people and stuff, and the aesthetic appeal of a rectilinear, square-jawed vehicle like the 2024 Hyundai Santa Fe also jibes well with other current trends toward a rugged and outdoorsy image.Radical New LookHyundai designers, for their part, say that they arrived at the new Santa Fe’s radically rectangular new look by penning this mid-size SUV from the rear forward. Much of the design focus for this new model went toward the tailgate and cargo area, which largely explains why it’s such a wholesale departure from its swoopier predecessor. And the eye-catching new shape, which has more than a few hints of Ford Flex, pays off handsomely: The new model is far more spacious than before in terms of both passenger and cargo space, even though its footprint only stretches by a couple inches here and there.Highs: Great-looking inside and out, airy cabin, impressive refinement.It’s not just a simple two-box look, either. Interesting lighting elements, sharp creases along the body sides, and detailing around the wheel arches make the Santa Fe look more upscale and distinctive than many luxury-badged SUVs—especially in our test example’s $1000 Earthy Brass matte paint. The most controversial styling elements are the low-mounted taillights, which Hyundai says were necessary due to the larger struts needed to hold up the heavier tailgate.Inside StoryOpen up that tailgate and you’ll find a nice, wide opening and a relatively low cargo floor. The standard third row of seats—which the previous-gen Santa Fe didn’t have—folds flat, and the second-row captain’s chairs are power operated and fold at the touch of a button (a three-passenger bench is also offered on lower trims). Second-row space is good for adults, but the third row is best left for children; its bottom cushion forces your knees into your chest, and to get any kind of meaningful legroom back there requires you to slide the second-row seats forward considerably.Not only is the new cabin roomier than before, it’s also fitted with high-quality materials and class-above design and features. Our loaded Calligraphy trim level came with enough kit to make the more expensive Palisade jealous, including nappa leather seats, a UVC sanitization compartment, dual wireless phone chargers, and an extendable footrest for the driver’s seat that makes rest-stop napping a breeze. Soft leather, grained wood trim with an interesting-looking pattern, a steering wheel that looks like it’s straight out of a Range Rover, and crisply rendered display screens are among other visual delights. Importantly, there are enough hard buttons and knobs to keep the screen-heavy setup from being an ergonomic hassle.Power and Performance All this new stuff inside does have consequences, the biggest being the Santa Fe’s prodigious weight gain. Our 2024 Santa Fe Calligraphy weighed in at 4416 pounds, nearly 400 pounds more than the last Santa Fe Calligraphy we tested. As such, Hyundai ditched the old base powertrain, a naturally aspirated 2.5-liter inline-four, and made the previously optional turbo 2.5-liter four standard equipment. Output is down by a few horses, to 277 horsepower, but this engine still has plenty of power to motivate even this porkier Santa Fe. Our test car got to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds, which is 0.3 behind the previous model but still plenty competitive for its class.Lows: Transmission’s low-speed wonkiness, uncomfortable third row, backsliding fuel economy.We question Hyundai’s choice, however, to offer this turbo four only with an eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. This gearbox, the same wet-clutch unit that gave us numerous problems in our long-term Kia Sorento, doesn’t feel like the right fit for a big, heavy SUV like this. While it shifts quickly once underway, its laggy low-speed behavior is frustrating in normal driving, such as when pulling away from a stop. The way it engages the clutch feels like a new driver learning stick-shift for the first time. We can’t imagine this will improve when exploiting the Santa Fe’s towing capacity, rated at 3500 pounds here and up to 4500 pounds in the off-road-oriented XRT trim.Fuel economy takes a slight hit compared to the old model—the new model is rated at 23 mpg combined—but there’s a Santa Fe Hybrid in the queue that will offer well above 30 mpg combined when it arrives later this year. The hybrid might be a better choice in terms of drivability too, as we found the previous-gen Santa Fe Hybrid to be a smooth and quiet runner with a well-integrated powertrain.Related StoriesDespite the additional heft, the new Santa Fe rides and handles quite well for a three-row family SUV. The suspension is tuned softly, with a clear priority toward ride quality, and only the sharpest impacts penetrate the cabin, even on the Calligraphy’s large 21-inch wheels. We liked the steering weighting, and although there’s a lot of body roll, the Santa Fe holds on for 0.84 g of grip on the skidpad and stops from 70 mph in a short 167 feet. There are mid-size SUVs that offer a bit more driver involvement, but the Santa Fe is near the top of its class for refinement. Sublimely quiet on the highway—68 decibels inside at a steady 70 mph—it’s noticeably more isolated than before, with little wind and road noise.Money FactorOur loaded Calligraphy stickered for just over $50,000, which is right in the sweet spot of the three-row-SUV market. It offers a far more luxurious interior than just about anything else at that price point, and even the less well-equipped lower trims—starting in the mid-$30,000 range—offer that same distinctive exterior design that will have onlookers thinking you paid considerably more.Verdict: Hyundai takes a big swing and scores.Hyundai has done a good job evolving the Santa Fe to fit the desires of family-SUV buyers who care most about interior space, features, and comfort. Its clever design both inside and out expertly balances form and function, offering a distinctive look that also enhances practicality. While we still have questions about its dual-clutch transmission, the new Santa Fe is uncommonly refined and well equipped for a mainstream three-row SUV, and it’s a welcome new entrant in this crowded segment.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Hyundai Santa Fe Calligraphy AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $49,695/$50,905 (est.)Options: Earthy Brass Matte paint, $1000; carpeted floor mats, $210;
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2497 cm3Power: 277 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 311 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed dual-clutch automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.8-inch vented disc/12.8-inch discTires: Pirelli Scorpion MS PNCS245/45R-21 (104V) M+S Extra Load KS
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.8 inLength: 190.2 inWidth: 74.8 inHeight: 67.7 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 61/56/33 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 80/41/15 ft3Curb Weight: 4416 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.3 sec1/4-Mile: 14.8 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 16.1 sec130 mph: 35.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.4 secTop Speed (C/D est): 135 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/20/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

Diesel passenger cars were barely more than a statistical blip in the United States, but they conquered the European market. The peak came in 2011, when no fewer than 56 percent of the cars sold across the European Union had compression-ignition engines. In some countries the proportion rose much higher; pity anybody selling spark plugs in France in 2008, when a full 77 percent of new cars ran on diesel.Things have changed dramatically since then. Last year just under 14 percent of the cars sold in Europe were diesel—a smaller percentage than EVs—and yet it remains a popular choice in some parts of the market. These include luxury sedans and the reason that brings us here—the Mercedes S450d L we recently got the chance to experience in some wintry conditions in Germany and Switzerland. Despite this fall from fashion, there remains a huge amount to like about a good diesel engine—and very few are better than the turbocharged six-cylinder that Mercedes offers in the S-class for certain markets. This is a 3.0-liter turbodiesel that was introduced in 2017—just months after Volkswagen had agreed to pay $4.3 billion to settle its infamous emissions-cheating scandal in the U.S.—and since then it has been offered in most of the company’s larger models in Europe. The 2024 S-class offers two different specs of the same base engine, the S350d making a peak of 308 horsepower and the brawnier S450d we drove rated at 362 horsepower.That number is impressive by itself, especially for anybody old enough to remember the 300SD and its 120-hp five-cylinder turbodiesel that was launched in the States in 1979. But the S450d’s maximum power output is also a largely irrelevant statistic, as owners are likely to only rarely push their cars to 4000 rpm, the point at which it’s delivered. But they will experience the peak torque—a mighty 553 pound-feet available between 1350 rpm and 2800 rpm—every time they drive the car. This relaxed muscularity defines the way the long-wheelbase S450d L drives—and suits its luxurious purpose perfectly (shorter-wheelbase, non-L models with 4.3 fewer inches between their axles are available in some markets). The car’s low-speed manners are exemplary, with gas and brake allowing for almost imperceptible starts and stops. Once rolling, the software controlling the standard nine-speed automatic transmission upshifts early to keep revs low, yet the rate of acceleration barely seems to diminish as speed rises. This is a car that can accelerate from rest to a 100-mph cruise without the engine ever going past 2000 rpm or the driver needing to press the accelerator more than a quarter of the way to its stop. As a definition of effortless, that’s hard to beat. There are no obvious compromises on refinement compared to the standard S500 model. No current-generation S-class is vocal under anything except hard use, and at idle the S450d is no louder than its gasoline sibling. On the move, the diesel engine produces a subdued hum, its cabin staying as hushed as that of any other current-generation S-class. Only when pushed hard does the S450d develop a distinct voice, a muscular thrum a little like that produced by a hard-working but well-insulated turbine. We weren’t able to confirm Mercedes’s claimed 155-mph top speed on the autobahn, but only because our test car’s winter tires were only rated to 149 mph. So we drove at 149 mph instead.But the diesel S-class was almost equally impressive when asked to deal with heavy snow in the Swiss Alps. Conditions were bad enough to cause the cancellation of the St. Moritz ice concours we were meant to be attending—one held on a frozen lake that it was feared would struggle with the weight of the snowfall. But even in treacherous conditions on unplowed roads the S450d’s all-wheel drive and stability management found grip and traction—even as many of the generally well-prepared Swiss drivers were struggling to keep rolling. Beyond badging, and the fact the digital tachometer’s redline is marked at a lowly 4000 rpm, the S450d is effectively identical to look at and touch as its gasoline-powered siblings. The beautifully finished cabin is supremely comfortable and a great place to spend serious time—we still felt fresh after multi-hour stints behind the wheel. But the diesel also shares the same frustrations as the rest of the range, including the overly complex UI system, the continued experience of which has not made us grow any fonder of it. But a definite highlight in tight-fitting European towns and cities is the rear-axle-steering system, which makes the S-class impressively wieldy for something so large.More on the S-ClassIn Germany, the S450d costs less than comparative S500 models; the S450d L opens at the equivalent of $128,500. Yet for most buyers the diesel’s most impressive virtue in its European homeland is its fuel economy. The official mileage number of the continent’s generous WLTP test cycle is the equivalent of 38 mpg. While we didn’t achieve that, we did see the onboard trip computer reporting 27 mpg after a 200-mile journey that had included long stretches of high-speed autobahn cruising. We know that diesel is dead and almost certainly buried when it comes to passenger cars in the U.S., and Europe won’t be much further behind. But the S450d is a reminder of just how good the best diesels are. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-Benz S450d L 4MaticVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, five-passenger, four-door sedan
PRICE (Germany)
Base: $128,500
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve diesel inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 182 in3, 2989 cm3Power: 362 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 553 lb-ft @ 1350 rpm
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 126.6 inLength: 209.4 inWidth: 76.9 inHeight: 59.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 61/59 ft3Trunk: 19 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5050 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.9 sec100 mph: 11.8 sec1/4-Mile: 14.0 secTop Speed: 155 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 32/28/40 mpgOur man on the other side of the pond, Mike Duff lives in Britain but reports from across Europe, sometimes beyond. He has previously held staff roles on U.K. titles including CAR, Autocar, and evo, but his own automotive tastes tend toward the Germanic: he owns both a troublesome 987-generation Porsche Cayman S and a Mercedes 190E 2.5-16. More

There’s a first time for everything. Honda’s latest alt-fuel creation is the first hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle in the U.S. to also include a battery and a charge port. This is also the first time we can recall seeing a colon in a model name. One of these advancements is more interesting than the other.Oh, the Flexibility!Like the FCX and Clarity FCEV before it, the CR-V e:FCEV will be available here exclusively as a lease and only in California. That’s where you’ll find the overwhelming bulk of the country’s light-vehicle hydrogen refueling infrastructure, but even that’s sparse and trending in the wrong direction—Shell recently shuttered its H2 operations in Cali, reducing the number of stations in the state by seven, a 9 percent drop. For those times when you’re not near a hydrogen station, or in the case they’re out of fuel, the e:FCEV lets you plug in. Its 17.7-kWh battery, which can also be recharged using the fuel cell while on the go, is good for 29 all-electric miles, per the EPA, while the two hydrogen tanks combine for for an additional 241 miles of range. Recharging takes under two hours at 240 volts or about 10 hours on 120. Hydrogen refueling is much quicker.The e:FCEV is Honda’s attempt to break the chicken-and-egg infrastructure cycle—if hydrogen stations aren’t proliferating (and they’re not), then drivers need an alternative to that alternative fuel. In this case, the addition of a rechargeable battery is meant to reduce range anxiety. How the tables have turned.It’s not a coincidence that this latest fuel-cell vehicle uses the very popular CR-V crossover, Honda’s bestselling model, as its basis. It’s likely to attract a wider audience than the Clarity fuel-cell sedan while blending in better with traffic in SoCal and the Bay Area, where hydrogen stations are most concentrated.About that initial-heavy name: Honda reps tell us the lowercase e preceding the colon is meant to denote that the vehicle is electrified. Elsewhere around the globe, the CR-V hybrid is badged e:HEV, while the not-for-U.S.-consumption plug-in-hybrid version is the e:PHEV. Fully parsed, that makes this one the Honda Comfortable Runabout Vehicle Electrified Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicle. We’ll stick with e:FCEV.A Nose Job and Bespoke AssemblyAnother first: This is the initial and so far only consumer application of the fuel-cell stack developed through a Honda-General Motors joint venture. The powertrain modules are assembled in Michigan and then shipped down to Marysville, Ohio, where the e:FCEV is hand-assembled in the same Performance Manufacturing Center that turned out the NSX and a handful of special-edition Acura sedans and crossovers.Honda had to lengthen the front overhang nearly four inches to accommodate the fuel cell, so the designers took the opportunity to restyle everything ahead of the A-pillars. Fenders and hood are aluminum to save weight, the hood is lower and a little longer, and the hexagonal grille opening extends lower down on the fascia, giving it a distinct look somewhere between that of the standard CR-V and the Prologue EV. The taillights get a clear treatment, and there’s a new tailpipe-less rear fascia. Water, the only hydrogen-oxygen byproduct, exits inboard of one of the rear wheels. The Clarity spit its liquid out under the rear bumper, where it had a tendency to land on the footwear of anyone opening the rear hatch.The 10,000-psi hydrogen tanks reside below and behind the rear seats, impinging not a whit on passenger space but reducing cargo capacity. You still get a flat-ish load floor with the rear seats folded thanks to an adjustable shelf that can sit level with the bump created by the topmost of the two carbon-fiber tanks. Honda didn’t have a cargo-volume figure available, but we can confirm that it is less than the nonhybrid CR-V’s 39 cubic feet.Honda plans to produce around 300 e:FCEVs per year. It will be available in a single spec, Touring, meaning it’s fully loaded. Interior differences are relatively minimal aside from updated digital interfaces. The e:FCEV is the only CR-V in the U.S. to include a fully digital gauge package (it measures 10.2 inches), as well as a heated steering wheel, the latter of which is borrowed from the global parts bin and covered in synthetic leather. Shift buttons replace the console lever we’re used to in U.S.-spec CR-Vs. Paint is applied by humans in either white (to accommodate the expected municipal customers) or a handsome charcoal. The door is potentially open to add a more interesting hue in coming years.Quiet ReassuranceThe first thing we noticed after setting off in the e:FCEV was that the CR-V hybrid’s artificial steering feel, which wants to click into faux detents off-center, is thankfully not present. In its place is the steering system from the European CR-V e:PHEV, which doesn’t resist your inputs and feels more natural.Then there’s the quiet. Most of what you hear in the cabin is generated sound and the occasional gurgle of the fuel cell. The European e:PHEV also donates its battery pack, situated low down and providing some sound deadening.Engineers retuned the suspension from the e:PHEV to accommodate the different weight distribution; Honda estimates the fuel-cell model will weigh about 500 pounds more than a comparable CR-V hybrid—for reference, the last CR-V Sport Touring hybrid we tested weighed in at 3914 pounds. The added weight wasn’t too noticeable during our short drive, likely aided by the smoother steering setup.Fuel-cell CR-Vs include the same drive modes as the hybrid—Normal, Sport, Econ, and Snow—as well as a handful of battery settings. Save keeps some battery-electric range in reserve, Charge runs the fuel cell to top up the battery, EV keeps the fuel cell off if possible, and Auto makes its own decisions. Fancy zinc-alloy paddles behind the steering wheel offer four levels of brake regeneration. Like in the CR-V hybrid, the effect is only temporary, allowing for brief stints of one-pedal driving before the vehicle reverts to a low-regen setting.More on the CR-V e:FCEVThe e:FCEV is both heavier and less powerful than its turbo and hybrid brethren, making 174 horsepower, and its 229 pound-feet of torque about splits the difference between the other powertrains’ totals. As such, the fuel-cell model’s acceleration feels only adequate, although pedal response is smooth, and the modest torque hits immediately.Zero Emissions, Two Fuel SourcesHonda hasn’t announced pricing for the three-year lease yet but says the figure should be “attractive” to its target customers. If the Clarity FCEV is a guide, expect a monthly payment in the neighborhood of $400 with some hydrogen credit included. SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEVVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: $60,000
MOTOR
AC motor, 174 hp, 229 lb-ft, 17.7-kWh lithium-ion battery pack
FUEL-CELLsolid-polymer-electrolyte, 124 hp
TRANSMISSIONdirect-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 187.6 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 66.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/51 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4400 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 17.8 sec
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 61/52/57 MPGeHighway Range: 270 milesEV Range: 29 mi More

The outgoing Ford Ranger, which debuted in the U.S. as a 2019 model, was a federalized version of an eight-year-old world-market Ranger that the local Ford team put together to reenter the game. The 2024 Ford Ranger represents a full-court press meant to transform this newest Ranger into a legitimate threat.It’s tough being a mid-size pickup nowadays, not least because a recent surge in new product has made an already-competitive field that much more cutthroat. Ford’s Ranger, in particular, had a lot of ground to make up, finishing fourth of four in a comparison that took place even before the competition made recent strides. Could it dig itself out of an ever-deepening hole? The task is not as imposing as it seems.My, How You’ve GrownAt first glance, the Ranger now looks more like a downsized F-150, as it shares the broad-shouldered look of the bestseller. It’s no illusion, because the new Ranger is 2.2 inches wider than the old one, and its front and rear track widths are each meatier by 2.4 inches. Its 128.7-inch wheelbase is likewise 1.9 inches longer than before, but it’s a fractionally shorter from nose to tail thanks to some front and rear overhang trimming. Its flanks have also traded the previous model’s exaggerated rake for a more traditional stance. The largest tires now stand 31 inches tall, which is an inch taller than before, and the smallest wheel diameter is now 17 inches. The end result is a Ranger that looks burlier and beefier but still maintains the tidy dimensions necessary to negotiate tight parking lots and ease into a garage as a mid-size should. Engines Old and New Under the hood, the new Ranger retains the EcoBoost turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder from before, and it makes the same 270 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. It somehow feels punchier here, although that was never a problem before. The 10-speed automatic’s first- and second-gear ratios are indeed shorter, but the numerical difference doesn’t seem significant enough to explain the apparent increase in verve. Maybe our memory has gone soft. It’ll take a track test to see if the new one is quicker than the 6.5 seconds to 60 mph we measured with the retiring player. The EPA says that the four-wheel-drive models’ fuel economy is unchanged at 22 mpg combined (20 city/24 highway), but two-wheel-drive thrift has sagged from 23 mpg combined to 22, owing to a highway rating that has backtracked from 26 mpg to 25 mpg. We’re not too bothered by this small slip; in fact, we’re kind of impressed because, while the new truck isn’t meaningfully heavier, it does punch a significantly larger hole through the air. Perhaps the taller tires amount to a higher effective final drive, which is otherwise identical from an axle-gearing standpoint.The new Ranger’s extra width comes with wider-spaced frame rails that make room for V-6 engines. The F-150’s EcoBoost twin-turbo 2.7-liter V-6 will be optional, and here it’ll make 315 horsepower and 400 pound-feet. We haven’t had the opportunity to drive it yet, and it won’t arrive until midyear, but EPA filings suggest V-6 Rangers will be limited to 4WD and will be rated at 20 mpg combined (19 city/23 highway). And then there’s the Ranger Raptor, which is new for North America and will sport a twin-turbo 3.0-liter V-6 that’ll make 405 ponies and 430 pound-feet. Look for details on the junior Raptor in a separate review.A Vastly Improved RideAt first glance, the new Ranger’s suspension doesn’t seem all that different. The front still rides on dual control arms, while the rear wields a live axle with dual leaf springs (one steel primary and a helper). A second glance, however, reveals that the upper and lower control arms are now aluminum instead of steel, the helper rear leaf spring is now made of composite, and the shocks have moved outboard of the leaf springs. All are good changes, and they pair nicely with reformulated spring and damper tuning that exorcises the old truck’s pronounced float and wallow. Add the taller tires’ extra sidewall and you end up with a smooth-riding Ranger that also feels infinitely more stable and buttoned-down. The changes don’t eliminate all the prior dribble, particularly on an FX4-packaged Lariat model with 18-inch rolling stock, but it’s a giant leap forward nevertheless.One area in need of further coaching is the steering, which exhibits the typical Ford-truck syrupy vagueness that masks the on-center definition necessary to guide the truck subconsciously. There’s buildup when you bend it into corners, but it’s more of a suggestion of cornering feel instead of the genuine article. Major Cabin ChangesThe cabin is clearly the most improved player on the Ranger bench—of course, the front seats themselves are attractive-looking buckets. The surroundings are interesting and layered, and the materials are varied, mostly soft-touch, and attractive. The interior environs still give off a Ford-truck vibe, but this is a worst-to-first moment in terms of mid-size-truck interior design, materials, and execution. There’s decent storage, too, in the form of a wide console, a rubberized dashboard shelf, and an available second glovebox. The back seat is decently spacious (for a mid-size rig), and the rear seatback now folds fully flat to make a horizontal load surface, but Ford fumbled by not offering a 60/40 split so one person could ride with the other part folded.Most of the controls are straightforward, but the shifter defies convention. The release button is on the front, but your thumb falls naturally to the side, where the manual shift buttons live. This is fine shifting into Drive, because your index finger is nearby, but it’s weird going back to Park because an open-palm push feels natural. Your hand also covers the PRND indicator, so you can easily overshoot Reverse. We might get used to it, but that doesn’t mean it’ll ever feel natural. Beyond that, the highly preferable 12.4-inch central touchscreen stands tall in portrait mode, confining smartphone mirroring (wired and wireless) into the upper two-thirds. This leaves the bottom third open for always-there shortcuts to other screens and the climate control, but this is odd because physical HVAC knobs and buttons reside just below. Something for everyone, we guess, and still much improved from before.One Body, Three TrimsThe Ranger’s extended cab and six-foot bed are history, which means the sole remaining body combination comprises a five-passenger crew cab and a five-foot bed. That said, “five-foot” now means 59.6 inches at the floor instead of 61.0, but we think this is more than offset by the wider suspension accommodating an expanded wheelhouse width (48.2 inches, up from 44.8). In more practical terms, that means the Ranger’s bed can now hold plywood and drywall panels flat on the deck, an impossible feat among its competitors, save for the Honda Ridgeline. The open bed’s floor is seven feet long to the end of the tailgate, which is now damped, has a torsion spring to ease closing, and is tied into the central-locking function. Another feature we really like is the boot-friendly Integrated Box Side Step built into both fenders ahead of the rear bumper, a no-brainer option at $215. Maximum payload for 2WD models is 1805 pounds, and 4WDs can tote up to 1711 pounds; the max tow rating is 7500 pounds in either case.As before, the Ranger comes in XL, XLT, and Lariat trims, with prices now opening at $34,265. The Tremor is not (yet?) offered because of the new Raptor, but you can get the modest FX4 off-road setup with its electronically locking rear differential, skid plates, suspension tuning tweaks, running boards, and FX4 graphics for $1295. The two-wheel drive FX2 version has been benched, however. If you want an electronic locker without said FX4, you can get that by itself for $420. Selecting the Chrome package nets you extra brightwork and 18-inch “chrome-like” wheels for no cost—well, except for the compulsory addition of the $215 box step.More on the RangerIs the new Ranger a slam dunk? It has vastly improved stats, but it will take more game time and an instrumented test to know how it stacks up against the competition. It’s clearly no longer alone in the basement, and despite a few quibbles, there’s a lot we really like. For some people, that could add up to a win. It’s certainly in the running for most-improved player.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Ford RangerVehicle Type: front-engine, rear- or rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base: XL 4×2, $34,265; XLT 4×2, $37,705; XL 4×4, $37,910; XLT 4×4, $41,190; Lariat 4×2, $45,225; Lariat 4×4, $48,710
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 138 in3, 2261 cm3Power: 270 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 310 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 128.7 inLength: 210.6 inWidth: 75.5 inHeight: 74.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/43 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4200-4600 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.5 sec1/4-Mile: 15.0 secTop Speed: 110 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 22/20–21/24–25 mpgDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More