Evelyn Reynolds

From the November 1995 issue of Car and Driver.”Is it fun? Is it a real BMW? More to the point, am I gonna look cool in it?” These are the questions presented by the BMW 318ti, a car that turns on its charm even before you can grab the keys. Largely, that’s due to its initials. In the past, we’ve measured our driving fun in BMWs in nautical miles. Naturally, the prospect of a $20,000-something Bimmer with its pedigree intact looked like the pro­file of a future leader of the pack. Only one problem. The 318ti shows up ready to rumble on turf already claimed by some intimidating hot hatches and sports coupes. At the forefront is one Acura Integra, a car knighted by comparison tests so frequently that Kenneth Branagh is looking into film rights. With a couple of bouts under its belt, the 170-hp Integra GS-R just might knock the 318ti’s strut down to a stroll. Sound like trouble? Sounds like a com­parison test. Aaron Kiley|Car and Driver”Wait just a minute, Sparky,” you pipe in, breaking the mood. “What about the VW GTI?”Granted, the BMW hatch does look an awful lot more like its German compatriot than its Japanese fencing partner. But the GTI finished last in its most recent com­parison test (C/D, March 1995) largely because of its soft handling. Stay with us here. Both the BMW and the Acura have 1.8-liter four-cylinder engines. Both are hatchbacks with flip-fold rear seats. Their base prices open on either side of the $21,000 bookmark. After hours of knitting our eye­brows together until we looked like that guy in R.E.M., we decided the 318ti was more closely matched in configura­tion, performance, and price to the Integra GS-R than to any­thing else. So, exactly what happens when you throw two toughs into the same shark tank? You get to blaze across southeastern Michigan in the duo, sample the narcotic effects of spaetzle at the German restau­rant in Stockbridge, and choose a favorite speed thug. In the end, one wins and the other gets to play Miss Congeniality in the ever-growing ranks of “Nice, but . . .” Here’s how these two settled their dif­ferences. 2nd Place: BMW 318ti If you read magazines like Details, watch NBC’s “Friends,” or listen to any radio station with an “X” in its call letters, you’ve probably already been assaulted by a tempting numerical come-on for BMW’s 318ti: “$19,900.”Allow us to gently disabuse you of that notion. First, you’ll have to pay to get your vehicle off a ship and to your dealer ($570). Which means the baby Bimmer will run at least $20,470, including two airbags, anti-lock brakes, and power win­dows. Bargain hunters who crave Euro credentials can and should stop there. HIGHS: Unblemished handling and mechanical verve . . . LOWS: . . . but we’ll get back to you on its speed and looks. VERDICT: A real BMW for slightly tighter belts.If you want your Bavarian-built bahn­stormer to handle like an SCCA sprinter, it’ll cost you more. You’ll need the lim­ited-slip differential ($580) and the $2400 Sport package, which includes trick 15-inch wheels and tires, a sport suspension, grippy seats, and extremely groovy fabric upholstery. A minimum of $23,450 by our HP calculators. Add a premium stereo, a power sun­roof, a security system, and cruise control, and you’re talking $25,200. That many dead presidents would also buy you a nifty VTEC Prelude or a Ram Air Firebird. It would almost get you into Audi’s new A4. And BMW’s own 318i two-door sedan is just a grand more. No surprise, really, because the two have much in common—at least in front of the firewall, where the 318ti is a dead ringer for the 318i sedan. Aft of there, even the lookalike parts are subtly different. Look at the doors: those windows are framed, dude, and a little of their flame-red paint shows through into the cabin. The 318ti’s dash is a simpler, streamlined affair with big push-pull knobs for the headlights and foglamps. Its rear seats split and fold to reveal a cargo area that’ll swallow a Sears lawn mower. Try that in an M3. If you could take an X-ray of the 318ti’s internals, you’d notice more. The heart of this matter isn’t the stout inline six common to the 325i and M3; rather, it’s the 138-hp 16-valve four that’s been around since the last-generation 3-series. It’s still a sweet-revving engine, especially coupled to the slick-shifting stylings of BMW’s five-speed. But after living with Bavaria’s senior statesmen, we’re not used to waiting 8.4 seconds to get to 60 mph. And with 170-hp GS-Rs running around, we’re used to more energy from 1.8-liters. Another BMW 318ti Review From the ArchiveKeep going. Under that low-liftover hatchback floor you’d find a semi-trailing-­arm rear suspension. The various 3-series 10Best champs each have an indepen­dent multilink rear suspension, but the 318ti reverts to the setup of the previous­-generation 3-series cars. Theoretically, it’s a little less adept at handling single-wheel bumps. In practice, the handling tradeoff, in exchange for a usable trunk and low base price, seems reasonable.This melding of old and new leaves the traditional BMW virtues—like light, pre­cise steering and an uncompromised sense of stability at speed—in place. Handling is balanced; it tends toward mild understeer, but you can rotate the tail in low­-gear, high-rpm corners. The pedals are tightly grouped so that even narrow feet can execute deft heel-and-toe maneuvers. We’re intrigued by the possibility of a bargain BMW, even with the minor com­promises made to the rear suspension and interior. It’s a great deal of fun and a rea­sonable value, but we’d be more enthusi­astic if the 318ti, with the handling goodies, really could be ours for just $19,900. 1st Place: Acura Integra GS-R Handling or utility? Speed or ride quality? The face-off between the Integra GS-R and the 318ti is a Gordian knot of practicality and comfort versus fun. We’ll take the latter. The Integra may be a smaller, less useful package than the 318ti, but it spits out the objective num­bers and insinuates the subjective percep­tions that once were the sole province of expensive sporting machinery. Like BMWs. HIGHS: Top-gun motor and shifter, slick steering. LOWS: Concedes ride quality and roominess to speed, sounds less happy as the revs build.VERDICT: A bully with a heart of gold.A dazzling powertrain is chief among the Integra’s many delights. The GS-R gathers a head of steam like no other sports sedan—except of course, the four-door GS-R. Its 1.8-liter VTEC four charges full­-tilt for 8100 rpm at the slightest provoca­tion, burning only 7.1 seconds as it claws to 60 mph on its way to an unfettered 134 mph. Playing around in the upper reaches of its power band is more fun than playing around in a sandbox is to a five-year-old­—without the itchy aftermath. The yang to this yin is a short-throw shifter that clicks in and out of gear over bare inches of travel like a toggle switch. It’s mounted a little low, but the shift lever feel wouldn’t be better if it were made by Nintendo. Even if you prefer the steer-here, power-there feel of rear-wheel drive, the GS-R’s benign understeer is anything but offensive. This is a very balanced chassis, one that remains unflappably poised as it dashes from crest to crown. The steering response is fast and fluid, if a little heavy. The only penalty for its razor’s-edge pre­cision is a slight arthritic feel as it dances over irregular surfaces, transmitting some harsh impacts a little too directly. In a narrowly won contest, we decided that the Integra is more handsome than the BMW. Its proportions are leaner. And though the projector-style headlamps are at the zenith of their trendiness, the face isn’t something you see everyday—unless you drive a Lexus coupe or a del Sol.Other complaints we could muster were typically small. The Integra isn’t the roomiest sports coupe, while the BMW is essentially as large inside as any other 3-series. Predictably, the Acura suffers in compar­ison. It does have a tilt wheel and the BMW doesn’t, but the Integra’ s front seats are a little less commodious. The back seat is much tighter, requiring contortions and goodwill far and above that asked by the 318ti. The dash styling is cooked clean of any imperfections in the same autoclave as the rest of Honda’s ergonomically faultless offerings—maybe a little too sterile. More Integra GS Reviews From the ArchiveIf you can’t feel the intent of the GS-R through its mechanicals, you will certainly hear it. It registers 6 dBA more noise at full throttle than the BMW, and the Acura’s cockpit throbs with exhaust boom above 4000 rpm—coincidentally, the point where the VTEC mechanism switches from the lower-lift set of valves to the higher-lift variety. Last, despite some minor fade from the brakes, the Integra stopped just as quickly as the BMW did ­in a short, controllable 185 feet. Toe to toe, the Integra GS-R out­muscles and outhustles BMW’s newest trick pony. Deft handling is on both agendas, but the Acura’s bonus ponies and punchier feel nudge it ahead of the BMW’s superior package and probably its resale luster. The prestige of a whirling propeller might look good in prep school, but in this neighborhood, an attitude counts for some­thing, too. SpecificationsSpecifications
1995 Acura Integra GS-RVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,070/$21,870
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 110 in3, 1797 cm3Power: 170 hp @ 7600 rpmTorque: 128 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.2 inLength: 172.4 inWidth: 67.3 inHeight: 52.6inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/28 ft3Cargo Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 2649 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 19.1 sec120 mph: 34.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.3 secTop Speed: 134 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 25/31 mpg 
— 
1995 BMW 318tiVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $20,470/$25,200
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 110 in3, 1796 cm3Power: 138 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 129 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 165.7 inWidth: 66.9 inHeight: 54.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/36 ft3Cargo Volume: 11 ft3Curb Weight: 2789 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.4 sec100 mph: 24.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.4 sec @ 84 mphRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 114 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 22/32 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.In 1902, a miner named William “Burro” Schmidt began digging a tunnel through a mountain in California’s Mojave Desert. He continued, by hand, for three decades, despite that a road was built during that time, and his tunnel came out on a ledge above the valley. You can visit Schmidt’s work down a silty dirt road. It’s a slidey, sandy journey, but it’s so easy in the Chevy Colorado ZR2 that if Schmidt had had one, he wouldn’t have bothered trying to make a shortcut. HIGHS: Well sized for trails and parking garages, mulelike off-road ability, stout turbo four.Much like the burros that gave Schmidt his nickname, the Colorado is stubborn and sure-footed. It’s easier to house than a draft horse, although for 2023, the mid-size Colorado grows in width, wheelbase, and ground clearance. A simplified powertrain lineup means all versions come with a turbocharged 2.7-liter inline-four and an eight-speed automatic transmission. The engine comes in three strengths, and the ZR2 gets max burro power: the high-output 310-hp version that makes 430 lb-ft of torque. That’s enough to tow 6000 pounds (1000 more than the previous generation), but unladen acceleration is no quicker, with a trot to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds. On the road, the ZR2 brays loudly when spurred, but off-road, it scampers up hills and over loose surfaces. All that pulling and climbing makes it hungry—its fuel economy is slightly worse than the previous V-6, with an EPA combined rating of 16 mpg. LOWS: Interior is basic, rear seat is child-size, engine is loud and thirsty.The ZR2’s off-road prowess comes by means of a 3.0-inch lift and more suspension travel, as well as Multimatic DSSV spool-valve dampers. Larger 33-inch tires on 17-inch wheels also help soak up the rough stuff, and a redesigned front fascia and a better-packaged spare tire enable steeper ups and downs. An exclusive Baja drive mode holds gears longer and encourages slides in either two- or four-wheel drive. All of these goodies raise the price, of course—the ZR2 is now a $48,295 proposition.More on the Colorado ZR2Marc Urbano|Car and DriverInside, the ZR2 is dark and rubbery. Off-road features like the drive modes and locking front and rear diffs are easy to find and use—not so the headlights (those controls are tucked into the 11.3-inch touchscreen). The front seats are heated and optionally ventilated, but the rears may have your riders wishing for a full-size workhorse. For most loads and trails, though, the Colorado ZR2 is all the truck you need.VERDICT: No mere show pony.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $48,295/$53,280 Options: Technology package (adaptive cruise control, rear pedestrian alert, surround-view cameras), $950; ZR2 Convenience package (perforated and ventilated leather front seats, driver’s-seat memory settings, heated steering wheel, wireless charging, rear center armrest), $1490; power sliding-glass sunroof, $1000; Bose 7-speaker stereo system, $500; underbody cameras, $500; removable assist step, $495; yellow seatbelts, $50
ENGINE
Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 166 in3, 2727 cm3Power: 310 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/13.3-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler Territory MT285/70R-17 116/113Q TPC Spec 2808 POR
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.4 inLength: 212.7 inWidth: 76.3 inHeight: 73.8 inCurb Weight: 4926 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 23.3 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 100 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.73 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/16/16 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDLike 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 August 1998 issue of Car and Driver.After more than six years on the market, Jeep has redesigned the Grand Cherokee to keep the pop­ular sport-ute’s body looking up-to-date and stylish and in the process has fixed a long-running complaint about the location of the spare tire. For the new vehicle, two optional V-8s are replaced by one that is more fuel-efficient (but less torquey), and a better four-wheel-drive system is now a part of the package. Many Grand Cherokee owners said the location of the spare—bolted to a panel on the left side in the cargo area—hogged valuable hauling space and blocked the view out the back. The full-size spare still resides inside the vehicle, but it’s now tucked tidily beneath a floor panel. This took some doing—the load floor had to be raised three inches and the rear of the body stretched another three inches. Engineers also had to shrink the fuel tank, located just in front of the new spare-tire location, by 2.5 gallons to 20.5. JeepNew sheetmetal raises the roof two inches, giving an inch more front head­room and allowing the seats to be raised an inch heavenward for a better view. The track is an inch wider, the body is 1.5 inches wider. Newly configured seats are said to provide rear passengers with an extra three inches of hiproom. It’s easier to get into this Grand Cherokee, as the step-in height of the floors has been brought down an inch. The new body rides on the same 105.9-inch wheelbase, and the approach, departure, and breakover angles, as well as ground clearance, remain the same. Jeep says the Grand Cherokee’s off­-road skills had to remain high, since the company claims that owners take this sport-ute off-road more often than do buyers of other luxury SUVs. The standard 4.0-liter six-cylinder pushrod engine gets a stiffer block, and new intake and exhaust manifolds, along with other noise-reducing tweaks. (This engine descends from one that dates back to 1971 for Jeep, which inherited the six then from new owner American Motors.) Power output of the six is up 10 horses (but just 5 in states that have adopted California’s standards), and emissions have been reduced. The 1998 Grand Cherokee’s two big, brutish pushrod V-8s are replaced by a new 4.7-liter SOHC two-valve-per­-cylinder V-8 that will be exclusive to the Grand Cherokee in its first year. Rated at 230 horsepower, it slots between the out­going V-8s, which made 220 and 245 horsepower. Its 295 pound-feet of torque trails that of both its predecessors. The good news is that the new engine promises better fuel economy and is 54 pounds lighter than even the 5.2-liter V-8. And for the first time, both engines get a five-speed automatic transmission. This new gearbox splits the second gear from the previous four-speed into high-second and low-­second ratios, allowing a higher-ratio first gear and five ratios total. JeepThe standard four-wheel-drive system with the six-cylinder engine is the selec­table rear- or four-wheel-drive Selec-Trac, with a lockable center differential. Quadra-Drive is a new full-time system that features limited-slip front, center, and rear differentials. It’s optional with the six and standard with the V-8. (A rear-wheel­-drive-only version will be available later in the model year.) Since Toyota removed the front lock from its Land Cruiser, the Jeep is now the only widely available SUV with a high-traction front axle. The lim­ited-slip units use rotary oil pumps that mechanically sense speed differential and apply pres­sure to small multiplate clutch packs. Says Dan Knott, development man­ager of the Grand Cherokee: “Intuitively, we believe we want to transfer engine torque to the wheel that needs it, not brake the wheels that don’t. The suburban driver will feel it. The hard­core off-roader will feel it.” Our major complaint about the previous Grand Cherokee was numb steer­ing. Body engineers promise that a stiffer front structure and engine cradle will improve that steering feel. Jeep hired Porsche’s engineering-services divi­sion to help make the body stiffer and to keep weight low by using thinner metal in unstressed areas. The engine-cradle area and the frame members behind the rear axle are stiffer. The gaps between the panels are smaller, too. JeepThe suspension remains live axles front and rear, although the Panhard rod in the rear was ditched in favor of a center-­mounted triangular trailing link. The turning circle is a foot smaller than the current car’s 36.8 feet. The optional Up Country suspension increases ground clearance an inch. The front rotors are two millimeters thicker. Larger, optional 245/65-series 16-inch tires are 20 mil­limeters wider than the largest ones avail­able on the ’98 vehicle. The body is little-changed. Exterior design manager John Sgalia says: “Cur­rent customers told us, ‘Please don’t change the body design.’ But we rounded the corners to improve aerodynamics.” More Grand Cherokee Reviews From the ArchiveThe new big Jeep goes on sale at the end of August. Its price is likely to rise slightly, to about $30,000 for the popular Laredo four-wheel-drive version, with the Limited model running about $36,000. We’re happy Jeep didn’t make this nimble wagon larger or compromise its leading-edge off-road ability, and we like the new-found refinement of the structure.SpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Jeep Grand CherokeeVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4 or 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICE (EST)
Base: $30,000-$36,000
ENGINESpushrod 12-valve 4.0-liter inline-6, 190–195 hp; SOHC 16-valve 4.7-liter V-8, 230 hp, 295 lb-ft 
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 181.2 inWidth: 72.2 inHeight: 64.9–65.9 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 3900–4100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph, inline-6/V-8: 9.7/8.1 sec1/4-Mile, inline-6/V-8: 17.3/16.5 sec100 mph, inline-6/V-8: 35.0/26.0 sec
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)City/Highway, inline-6/V-8: 16/20 mpg; 15/18 mpg More

It’s embarrassing to be upstaged by a little sibling. Just ask the Chevrolet Trailblazer, a subcompact SUV that’s been around since 2021. The underachieving Trax sitting next to it in the showroom never really gave the Trailblazer cause for concern, until the redesigned 2024 Trax showed up with a whole new outlook on life. The new Trax promises more space, appealing style, and new features—all for significantly less money—and we just awarded it a 10Best Trucks and SUVs trophy. It is already encroaching on the Trailblazer’s sales numbers, too, outselling it in the third quarter of 2023.HIGHS: Cheeky looks, refined ride, strong brakes.The Trailblazer is doing its best to stay relevant, and a refresh for the 2024 model year brings bigger screens inside, freshened looks, and new colors. But the Trailblazer is facing an uphill battle against its significantly cheaper stablemate—and against other vehicles in this competitive segment.One might wonder why Chevrolet bothers to sell both the Trax and the Trailblazer. These two models are an example of a split that’s evident within the subcompact-crossover segment. The Trax is meant to compete with the smaller, front-wheel-drive-only pseudo-hatchbacks that exist on the lower end of the price spectrum—think Kia Soul, Hyundai Venue, and Nissan Kicks—while the taller Trailblazer is meant to be a “real” SUV (in that it offers optional all-wheel drive, at least) that costs a bit more and has a more upright shape.LOWS: Sluggish acceleration, cheap interior materials, questionable value.It’s not entirely an illusion, either, as the Trailblazer has a higher seating position than the Trax by more than two inches, according to our measurements. And, if you select all-wheel drive, the Trailblazer does offer a more compelling optional powertrain, a 155-hp 1.3-liter turbocharged three-cylinder with a nine-speed automatic transmission (as opposed to a CVT in other Trailblazers and a six-speed automatic in the Trax). There is a bit more refinement to be found in the Trailblazer, too, as its heavier curb weight creates more of a planted feeling on the road. We like the way the Trailblazer steers, and its brake pedal exhibits good feel, bringing the SUV to a rest from 70 mph in just 166 feet.But when you look more closely at the numbers, paying more for the Trailblazer starts to make less and less sense. The Trax’s longer wheelbase means it offers slightly more passenger room, and it even has a bit more cargo room with the seats folded, swallowing 21 carry-on suitcases in our testing compared with the Trailblazer’s 19. Plus, the Trax’s 1.2-liter engine is barely at a disadvantage next to the heavier Trailblazer’s 1.3-liter. The Trax gets to 60 mph just 0.1 second slower and had a slightly better performance in our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy test (30 mpg, versus 29 mpg for the Trailblazer).More on the TrailblazerThe price difference is what really makes the fight seem unfair. The Trax’s base price sits at just $21,495, while a comparable Trailblazer is nearly $3000 dearer. The disparity grows when you start piling on options, as our loaded Trailblazer RS AWD—admittedly thick with desirable extras such as a panoramic sunroof and a power liftgate, neither of which the Trax offers—stickered for $34,470. A loaded Trax, on the other hand, barely crests $27,000.VERDICT: The Trailblazer suffers from the existence of the more compelling Trax.If you’re merely looking to spend as little money as you can on a satisfying crossover-esque small car, the high-value Trax is a no-brainer. But if you’re willing to shell out more for things like all-wheel drive and interior niceties, several more attractive options exist within the Trailblazer’s price range, including the Mazda CX-30 and the Kia Seltos. That leaves the Trailblazer stuck in an awkward liminal space, with little to recommend it unless you manage to snag an attractive discount.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Chevrolet Trailblazer RS AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase/As Tested: $29,995/$34,470Options: power panoramic sunroof, $1495; Convenience package (automatic climate control, rear type-A and -C USB ports, wireless device charging, 120-volt outlet, auto-dimming interior mirror, driver and passenger illuminated vanity mirrors, power liftgate), $1195; Adaptive Cruise and Sound package (7-speaker Bose sound system, adaptive cruise control), $995; Fountain Blue paint, $395; Driver Confidence package (blind-spot monitoring, rear-cross-traffic alert, rear park assist), $395
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 82 in3, 1338 cm3Power: 155 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 174 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION9-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 11.8-in vented disc/10.4-in discTires: Continental ProContact TX245/45R-19 98H M+S TPC Spec 3178
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 173.5 inWidth: 71.2 inHeight: 65.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/45 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 54/25 ft3Curb Weight: 3390 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-Mile: 16.7 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 28.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.5 secTop Speed (C/D est): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 380 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 27/26/29 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

Crossover SUVs have usurped mid-size sedans as the go-to family car, with some companies, such as Ford, vacating the sedan segment altogether to concentrate on higher-riding vehicles. But a contingent of holdouts still sells in sizable numbers. While the Nissan Altima trails the perennial frontrunners—the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord—it remains Nissan’s second-bestselling model after the Rogue crossover. The Altima’s sixth generation launched for 2019, with a refresh for 2023 bringing sharper styling and a larger touchscreen. But with Honda and Toyota treating their sedans to major overhauls for 2023 and 2025, respectively, the Altima’s upgrades aren’t enough to move the needle, with the Nissan falling even further behind. HIGHS: Cosseting ride, good fuel economy, comfortable cabin.We tested a 2024 Nissan Altima SL AWD, which sported an eye-watering $37,030 window sticker. The Garnet Pearl Metallic paint—a new color for 2023—was a no-cost option, but the sedan was fitted with several add-ons that raised the price. An all-wheel-drive Altima starts at $29,145, but to step up from the base SV trim to our top SL tester is a $5900 upcharge and includes things such as leather seats, 19-inch wheels, a larger 12.3-inch center touchscreen, and upgraded Bose audio. Our car also added floor mats, exterior ground lighting under the side sills, a rear spoiler, and illuminated kick plates. The 2023 refresh didn’t include any mechanical changes, so the Altima soldiers on with the same standard 2.5-liter four-cylinder—making 182 horses in SL AWD form—paired with a continuously variable transmission. The unrefined powertrain is the Nissan’s biggest flaw, with unsettling vibrations shimmying through the steering wheel at rest that only worsen at highway speeds. A low rumbling reminiscent of agricultural heavy machinery is always present in the background, and asking for even moderate acceleration brings a cacophony of engine noise as the 2.5-liter groans and the CVT sends revs skyward.The Altima is sluggish relative to its peers. Hitting 60 mph from a standstill takes 7.6 seconds, three-tenths behind a front-wheel-drive Accord EX and a half-second behind a less powerful front-wheel-drive 2023 Hyundai Sonata. It matches the outgoing Camry (we’ve yet to test the new hybrid-only 2025 model) but feels slower, the lethargic acceleration exacerbated by the engine’s strained aria and the clunky, confused CVT that always allows a beat to pass before responding to throttle inputs. While the Altima feels a bit perkier at highway speeds, the numbers once again disappoint. The 50-to-70-mph passing test takes 5.5 seconds, four-tenths adrift of the Honda and the Camry and eight-tenths behind the Sonata. The Altima shines brighter in the corners. The sedan is fairly nimble, with minimal body roll contributing to a sense of stability. We recorded 0.89 g on the skidpad, better than both the Accord and Camry, but the Altima is let down by its steering, which is completely devoid of feedback. This detracts from the confidence instilled by the suspension—in spirited driving on curvy roads, the detached feeling from the steering wheel makes the Altima seem less surefooted than it actually is. The Honda, meanwhile, feels more balanced and can even bring a grin to your face when you dash through a series of esses.LOWS: Unrefined powertrain, lethargic acceleration, numb steering.The brakes also lack communication, although they hauled the Altima from 70 mph to a stop in an impressive 164 feet. That’s 20 feet shorter than the Accord and 12 feet better than the Camry, but the absence of feel and the short, grabby pedal travel can make smooth braking tricky.While the Altima lacks the driving enjoyment of its rivals, the sedan is a comfortable partner for tootling about town. It isn’t quite luxury-car plush, but the ride is excellent for the segment. The suspension absorbs the harshest impacts, even over particularly brutal potholes, so while bumps are still present, they aren’t jarring. The Altima also makes for a solid road-trip companion, returning 35 mpg on our 75-mph highway test. But that’s slightly worse than the highway mileage we recorded with the Sonata and the all-wheel-drive Camry and falls well short of the Accord’s 40-mpg highway test result.Moving inside, the cabin looks essentially the same as the pre-refresh Altima. You won’t mistake it for an Infiniti, but this SL model was well appointed with comfortable leather seats, high-quality wood trim, and cushy armrests that feel well suited for a long drive. Underside lighting along the door sills, a $565 option, elevates the Altima and ensures good footing at night.The big upgrade is the new 12.3-inch screen, standard on the SL and SR VC-Turbo and optional on the SV and regular SR trims. The screen certainly modernizes the cabin, but it’s undercut by the backup camera, which displays a fuzzy image and is overexposed at night. The bird’s-eye view is a useful parking tool, although the video feed that looks like a VHS tape being played on an old CRT box TV really cheapens the effect. That’s All-tima, FolksOtherwise, the bigger screen is a handy upgrade, but we’re also glad there are still physical buttons to poke and prod for essential functions, intuitively arranged and within easy reach. For $37K, it’s surprising that the rear-seat passengers don’t get climate controls, but there are USB-A and USB-C ports. The back seat is spacious and comfortable, however, even if the bench sits a tad high, slightly cutting into headroom for taller occupants.VERDICT: The Altima is comfortable and decent to drive, but it’s outclassed by fresher rivals.As the sedan market dwindles, the Altima’s flaws appear more stark next to the remaining well-rounded choices. The Altima’s base price of $26,845 slips in under that of the Accord and Camry, but this SL AWD example can’t really be considered a value play, and both competitors offer hybrid powertrains at similar prices. The Altima’s latest update feels like too little for a sedan that was already playing second fiddle to its fellow Japanese competition.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Nissan Altima 2.5 AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,145/$37,030 Options: SL trim (19-inch wheels, moonroof, leather seats, 12.3-inch touchscreen, 9-speaker Bose audio), $5900; external lighting with logo, $565; rear spoiler, $420; illuminated kick plates, $400; floor/trunk mats, $355; splash guards, $245
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2488 cm3Power: 182 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 178 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.7-in vented disc/11.5-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/40R-19 92V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.2 inLength: 192.9 inWidth: 72.9 inHeight: 57.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/43 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3500 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 35 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 560 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 30/26/36 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCaleb Miller began blogging about cars at 13 years old, and he realized his dream of writing for a car magazine after graduating from Carnegie Mellon University and joining the Car and Driver team. He loves quirky and obscure autos, aiming to one day own something bizarre like a Nissan S-Cargo, and is an avid motorsports fan. More

From the January 2024 issue of Car and Driver.Lexus’s history with three-row SUVs is not especially heroic. The body-on-frame GX and LX have space but ride like trucks. The now-dead RX L drove better, but its diminutive third row had Porsche 911 levels of comfort. Lexus needed a better solution. Enter the 2024 Lexus TX. Sharing a platform with Toyota’s Grand Highlander, it scratches the family-truckster itch better than any of its predecessors. The TX comes in three flavors of powertrain. Sitting between the 275-hp turbo 2.4-liter and the 404-hp plug-in hybrid, the TX500h features an electric motor, a turbocharged 2.4-liter four, a six-speed automatic, and another motor that motivates the rear axle to provide all-wheel drive. The powertrain is good for 366 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque. It parallels Toyota’s Hybrid Max setup but nudges output up by four horsepower and six pound-feet. The extra power helps shore up the 5119-pound TX500h’s performance versus the 183-pound-lighter Grand Highlander Hybrid Max. The TX’s 5.7-second 60-mph time and 14.5-second quarter-mile both are just fractionally behind the Grand Highlander’s. And despite the TX500h wearing the F Sport badge, the adaptive dampers err toward softness, providing a much cushier ride. Lexus also fits larger 15.7-inch front brakes, and the TX’s 174-foot stopping distance from 70 mph handily beats its sibling’s 187-foot result. The Lexus’s 0.85-g skidpad grip also eclipses the Toyota’s 0.80-g effort. HIGHS: Supple in all the right ways, fuel-miser powertrain, space to spare.LOWS: Steep pricing, some silly interior ergonomics, angry face.VERDICT: Finally, a three-row SUV worthy of the Lexus badge. On our highway test, the TX achieved 26 mpg, 2 mpg below the EPA estimate but 2 mpg better than the Grand Highlander’s result. The softly lined cabin’s high points include USB-C ports in all rows, the center console’s sliding wireless charger and swappable cupholders, and a third row that can fit two actual adults. It’s not perfect, though. Electronic door handles still feel strange to us, and we wish the temperature dials had detents for easier no-look adjustments. If only the cabin’s demure design were shared by the front fascia, which looks like an angry cheese grater. More on the Lexus TXAt $77,159 as tested, the TX500h is also priced aggressively. But you’d be hard-pressed to find a three-row utility vehicle that treats its occupants as well as this Lexus.What’s in a Name? Did Lexus name its new three-row SUV after the Lone Star State it calls home? No, but no one minds if you think so. “The ‘Lexus Texas’ thing was a wordplay we couldn’t pass up,” a Toyota spokesperson told us, even if the actual origin is “a bit more vanilla.” TX stands for “Thoughtful/Three-Row X-Over.” A little less vanilla is the similarity to the name of actress Alexis Texas.SpecificationsSpecifications 
2024 Lexus TX500h F Sport Performance Luxury AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $72,650/$77,159Options: Technology package (peripheral monitor camera, head-up display, remote park assist, digital rearview mirror, interior rearview mirror, garage door opener), $2380; Convenience package (pre-collision system, lane-keeping assist, rear and rear side monitor, digital entry key), $895; 120V/1500-watt power outlet, $560; rear hatch cargo lamps, $399; side puddle lamps, $175; Cold Area package (wiper/window/windshield deicer), $100
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 271 hp, 339 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, 85 and 101 hp, 215 and 124 lb-ft (combined output: 366 hp, 406 lb-ft; 1.4-kWh nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions: 6-speed automatic/direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.7-in vented disc/13.3-in vented discTires: Continental CrossContact LX20255/45R-22 107V M+S Extra Load
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.1 inLength: 203.5 inWidth: 78.4 inHeight: 70.1 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 60/54/39 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 97/57/20 ft3Curb Weight: 5119 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.7 sec1/4-Mile: 14.5 sec @ 95 mph100 mph: 16.2 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.0 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 116 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 26 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 440 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 27/27/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCars 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

From the August 1998 issue of Car and Driver.In Nairobi, one noble use of the compact pickup has been to convert it to a 25-passenger municipal bus. In Afghanistan, compact pickups with mounted guns served the rebels heroically in ousting the Soviets, who drove larger, clumsier tanks. In California, enthusiasts drive heavily modified versions of these little trucks on snaking roads as if they were sports cars, and down in Texas, the locals use the most frugal of these machines to commute to work. Well, as for ourselves, we’re neither noble, heroic, nor frugal. But enthusiastic? To put it mildly, we’re excessive—especially when it comes to having fun on four wheels. Compact pickups are not our traditional mount when it comes to four-wheeled frolicking, so before we set off on this comparison test, we took the precaution of filling the beds of our trucks with all-terrain vehicles and trail bikes. Then we headed for Michigan’s north-woods trails, where we commenced major motorized playtime, tra­versing 52-inch-wide dirt paths at the speed of a water­skier. We assure you no animals were harmed during the testing of any of our four ATVs, or during the general flailing of these five compact pickups, five trail bicycles, two barbecues, and two bulging coolers. But before we get muddy, let’s look at the guest list of trucks. The compact-pickup market consists of eight name­plates riding on five different trucks. The Mazda B-series is an exact copy of a Ford Ranger, and the GMC Sonoma and Isuzu Hombre are duplicates of the Chevy S-10, so we left the clones at home. The Nissan Frontier has been around since the fall of 1997, and arch-rival Toyota has sold its Tacoma since 1995. Dodge’s Dakota was com­prehensively overhauled for the 1997 model year. Compact pickups come in a dizzying array of choices. There are regular- and extended-cab versions that can seat two, three, four, five, or six passengers. Chevy and Ford offer optional half-doors to ease entry into the rear seat. All offer a choice of rear- or four-wheel drive. The Chevy, the Dodge, and the Ford offer a choice of bed lengths. Most also provide a menu of engine choices. The standard motor in the Ranger is a 2.5-liter four; there are two optional V-6s. The Dakota’s standard powerplant is also a 2.5-liter four, with one optional V-6 and two V-8s. The Chevy’s standard engine is a 2.2-liter four, the upgrade is a 4.3-liter V-6. Tacomas come standard with a four­-cylinder of either 2.4- or 2.7-liter dis­placement, depending on the choice of rear- or four-wheel drive. A 3.4-liter V-6 is optional. This fall Nissan will add the 3.3-liter V-6 found in the Pathfinder sport­-utility to four-wheel-drive versions of the Frontier, but rear-drivers will continue to be motivated by the only engine available now, a 2.4-liter four.For this test we chose extended-cab, short-bed, rear-drive trucks powered by V-6 engines (except for the Nissan) and auto­matic transmissions. Sticker prices ranged from $19,589 to $21,532. (Four-cylinder, two-seat versions start at about $12,000, and loaded four-wheel-drive examples can top $25,000.) The majority of compact­-pickup buyers prefer less expensive, more lightly optioned trucks than we selected, according to several of the manufacturers.The shortest of our trucks was the 196.1-inch-long Nissan Frontier, and the longest was the 214.8-inch Dodge Dakota. Some argue the Dakota is in its own size class, but with a price close to the others’, it competes fine here.Two of our pickups—the Ford Ranger Splash SuperCab and the extended-cab Chevy S-10 LS Sportside—came with narrower, stepside beds. The side-mounted steps make it slightly easier to climb aboard while securing an unwieldy load, but those steps shrink the carrying space from 36 cubic feet to 31 in the Ford and from 40 to 29 in the Chevy. The bigger, flat-sided pickup boxes cost less, so we figure the main attraction of the stepside layout is styling. A different kind of fashion is available in Toyota’s Tacoma PreRunner Xtracab, which has the optional Toyota Racing Development (TRD) off-road suspension and big tires. It’s the odd duck in this group of over­whelmingly street-oriented rear-drive pickups, but we didn’t think its off-road parts would necessarily harm the Toyota’s street performance, so we sprang for the indulgence. With this group we carried neither guns nor 25 terrified passengers; instead, we sorted through the best and worst of compact-pickup life on a 650-mile road trip.5th Place: Nissan Frontier SE King CabMost of the pickups Nissan sells in the U.S. are rear-drive, regular-cab models, made for light hauling and com­muting. In fact, you see bunches of these Tennessee-built pickups in the truck-rich state of Texas, where it’s been selling third-best behind compact Fords and Chevys. The redesign for ’98 was its sixth since this class was created in 1959 with the Datsun 1000. Money-wise folks looking for no-nonsense transportation like the Frontier. Indulgent toymongers like us, however, find the Nissan lacking. HIGHS: Low price, good assembly quality, and for a pickup, its ride is quiet and as soft as feathers. LOWS: Cheapo interior trim pieces, boring styling inside and out, lacks a V-6. VERDICT: Physically and visually, the least trucklike here.Our $19,589 Frontier SE King Cab came standard with a sunroof; a tinted sliding rear window; upscale carpets; cruise control; a tilting steering wheel; power mirrors, locks, and windows; and a keyless remote. Even loaded up like that, it still fell $1151 shy of the next-cheapest, the Ford. What this truck doesn’t offer are the toys we like: a limited-slip differential, a V-6 engine, extra doors, and big meaty wheels and tires—things the other trucks offer. Quite simply, Nissan is aiming at the simpler, less-expensive end of the market. With a 2000-pound towing capacity and a 1460-pound payload capacity, our SE is the bargain hauler of our group.The Frontier does some truck things better than you’d expect for the price. It rides smoothly when unladen, on paved or dirt roads. Its steering is precise, and the messages it sends to the driver are honest. Surprisingly, it is not the slowest of the group. The 2.4-liter four-cylinder, which Altima sedan drivers will recognize by sound, makes 143 quiet, calm horsepower, nine more than last year’s Nissan pickup. This four-cylinder gets the 3240-pound Nissan to 60 mph in 10.7 seconds, 0.5 second quicker than the Dakota with its 175-hp, 3.9-liter V-6. The Nissan, the lightest in this test by 280 pounds, loses this acceleration advantage when both vehicles are loaded with 800 pounds of ATV and play gear. It then requires the same 13.4 seconds the Dakota takes to get to 60 mph. The Frontier works most like a car on bad roads and washboard gravel. The ride motions are soft but controlled. When loaded up with a 500-pound Yamaha Warrior and 300 pounds of bal­last, the Nissan tended to bob and bounce like a 1976 Caprice. That’s not the kind of car we want a truck to mimic. The Nissan ties the Toyota for the narrowest and smallest interior—both Japanese-branded trucks still follow the obsolete 66.5-inch width limit originally created by a long-extinct Japanese tax law. The Nissan feels smallest in the rear passenger compartment, too. You can haul two kids back there, but we’re warning medium-size adults right now that if they can squeeze in behind the folded seat (there are no handy half-doors), they risk physical injury when the road turns bumpy. Finally, the other trucks made us feel like strapping on our Justins and yodeling like Montana ranch hands. We never got that feeling driving the soft-riding Nissan.1998 Nissan Frontier SE King Cab143-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3240 lbBase/as-tested price: $19,530/$19,589Payload/towing capacity: 1460/2000 lbC/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.0 sec60 mph: 10.7 sec1/4-Mile: 17.9 sec @ 74 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 224 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.68 g C/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg4th Place: Toyota Tacoma PreRunner XtracabHard-core car fans and truck lovers alike at Car and Driver prefer to be seen in this California-built pickup than in the others. It’s a styling thing. This particular Tacoma is the new-for-1998 PreRunner model. It’s made for folks who want to indulge in the Baja image but whose desert travels rarely require the four-wheel drive that costs about $4500 more but may be necessary in a Colorado blizzard. The PreRunner option comes only as an extended-cab rear-drive truck with an automatic transmission. It costs $1810 with the 2.7-liter four-cylinder (which is otherwise available only in four-wheel­-drive models) and $1220 with the V-6. The PreRunner gets the new aerodynamic headlights and new grille that were added to all four-wheel-drive Tacomas for 1998. Other bits borrowed from the four­-wheeler include an electrically locking rear differential and the larger front-disc and rear-drum brakes of the four-wheel-­drive Tacomas. Our PreRunner also had the $1610 TRD off-road package that adds butch-looking truck tires, a stiffer sus­pension, fender flares, and a tach. HIGHS: Macho, head-turning styling.LOWS: Giant tires and a stiff suspension, although great for crashing across the desert provide a punishing ride everywhere else.VERDICT: Appealing for its power and looks, but a Nervous Nellie on pavement.The PreRunner and TRD packages make the Tacoma a trick truck for running the Parker 400 around Lake Havasu in Arizona, but on our trek to the north woods, we found it a rough rider. “Being jacked up on tiptoes, the Tacoma loses some of its directional stability and becomes way scary in turns,” noted boss ATV wrangler John Phillips. The interior is inviting, but the Pre­Runner has the least headroom of the bunch. Our test truck’s optional bucket front seats and console replace the stan­dard three-seat front bench. Two jump seats fold forward from the back wall of the Tacoma’s cab, but a normal grown-up can’t sit facing forward. It’s emergency seating only. We like the clean, effective ergonomics of the Camry-like instrument panel, which adds a luxury feel to the Tacoma. But by indulging too much on the desert-racing equipment, we priced our way out of elec­tric windows, locks, and mirrors, and cruise control. We could live without that luxostuff, but next time we’d get the $590 anti-lock brakes. The twin-cam 3.4-liter engine felt strong on the track, getting our Tacoma to 60 mph in 9.2 seconds, the same as the pushrod 4.3-liter-equipped Chevy S-10. The Toyota engine is rated highest in horsepower, at 190, 15 more than the 175-hp Dodge or Chevy, and this power showed best when we loaded the Pre­Runner up with our 800-pound toy kit. Thus encumbered, it’s the fastest of the group to 60 mph at 10.9 seconds, and through the quarter-mile at 18.0 seconds. Only the Ranger stopped more quickly than our unladen Tacoma, but with 800 pounds in its bed, it dropped to third best. We were hoping the extra weight would temper the desert truck’s stiff ride, but it softened things up only slightly. At least the PreRunner boasts the highest pay­load of the group at 1480 pounds. To be fair, cruising the paved highways of the Midwest is not what Toyota designed this truck to do.1998 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner Xtracab190-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3520 lbBase/as-tested price: $18,588/$20,990Payload/towing capacity: 1480/5000 lbC/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.2 sec1/4-Mile: 17.0 sec @ 79 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 217 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg3rd Place: Chevrolet S-10 Extended-Cab SportsideRedesigned in 1994, the S-10 is second in compact-pickup sales only to the Ranger. The S-10 is unique in offering seven different suspension options, three of which are for rear-drivers: a base suspension for all-purpose use, a higher-load­-capacity suspension standard on extended­-cab models, and a “ZQ8” sport suspension. We indulged in—guess which?—the $703 sport setup. With this package come extra frame bracing, lowered springs, stiffer anti-roll bars, and a faster steering ratio. Low-profile 16-inch Goodyear Eagle GA tires, also available on an SS two-seat model that has been added for ’98, come with the sporty suspension. The tires were mounted on rims we nicknamed Corvette wheels, and they delivered the fastest emergency-lane-change slalom at the track and returned skidpad grip of 0.77 g, almost as high as the Ranger’s best of 0.78 g. The Chevy’s 4.3-liter V-6 boasted the largest displacement of the pack and also the biggest torque rating, 240 pound-feet. Unloaded, the S-10 matched the Toyota to 30 and 60 mph but lost the quarter-mile race by 0.1 second (17.1 seconds). Loaded with our toys, the Chevy placed third in accelera­tion performance. HIGHS: Silky automatic transmission, big dash buttons that are easy to use while wearing thick ranch-hand gloves. LOWS: Weird ride on bumpy roads, transient steering feel. VERDICT: Tries harder to be a car than it does to be a truck.On the road, the S-10’s four-speed auto­matic transmission proved best, delivering steady, quick shifts, with and without a load in back. On twistier roads, the Chevy displays excellent roll control, even with its bed full. But the good performance numbers we recorded on the skidpad didn’t translate so well on the road. When you’re traveling straight ahead and making small steering inputs, the S-10 feels good and your confi­dence rises. But press the truck into a tight corner, and the steering feels suddenly numb and uncommunica­tive, thereby demanding a bit more faith in what it can do than does the Ranger, the top performer on the skidpad.The ride of the S-10 with the sport suspension didn’t bother any of us, except the bed made its presence known without invitation: “The bed wob­bles and dances over bumps—a discon­certing thing in Michigan,” noted Phillips. Our Chevy came with a third door, which opens behind the driver’s door. To get this $375 option you have to give up one jump seat in the rear, reducing the maximum people-carrying capacity of our bucket-seat-equipped test car from four to three. It’s okay for one-child families, even as the kid grows to legal working age. The jump seat cantilevers from the right-side cab wall, extending far enough so an adult can sit on it for short trips—but we’d get mutinous back there after 30 minutes. The stepside bed gives up too much space for styling’s sake. It will barely accept an ATV, which means you’ll need a friend’s vehicle to carry the rest of your stuff. The Chevy is competent and competi­tive in this pack, but its structure is dated, and we had more fun driving the Ford.1998 Chevrolet S-10 LS Extended-Cab Sportside175-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3600 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,615/$21,532Payload/towing capacity: 800/5000 lbC/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.2 sec1/4-Mile: 17.1 sec @ 79 mph100 mph: 23.3 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 222 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg2nd Place: Ford Ranger Splash SuperCabLast fall, Ford added a new front sus­pension, frame reinforcements, and other refinements to the Ranger. The changes produced two things: more-supple steering and a smoother, quieter ride. But those weren’t the only traits we liked about this pickup. Our test vehicle was powered by the larger of two optional V-6 engines, a 4.0-liter rated at 158 hp and 223 pound-feet of torque. Only the Frontier’s engine was less powerful. But mated to the group’s only five-speed automatic with nice, short gearing, the Ford was the quickest in our group when empty, getting to 60 mph in 8.8 seconds. Loaded down, it fell to second place behind the Toyota, achieving 60 mph in 11.1 seconds.HIGHS: Strong engine, confident handling, relaxed highway demeanor. LOWS: Overly styled Splash body moldings made us feel a little nerdy. VERDICT: It feels like the sports car of the group.The Ranger’s throttle response felt fastest of the group, too. “The peppy engine is immediately noticeable, even with an ATV in the rear,” remarked Jeep-owner Brad Nevin. On challenging roads, the Ranger Splash worked best. The steering is sensi­tive and quick. The Ranger stopped the best, too, with or without a Kawasaki Bayou and heavy gear filling the box. Inside, the Ranger’s front seats felt less­-than-ideal to some drivers’ backsides. Two test drivers said the bottom cushions felt too short, forcing them to recline the seat­backs farther than they normally would, just to make more rump room. In back, the jump seats (you can delete them for a $145 credit) can hold two adults. Like the single jump seat in the Chevy, the two in the Ranger have back­rests that are quite supportive. Unlike the rear seats in the Dodge and Toyota, there are no shoulder belts, just two lap belts. Overall, we wouldn’t mind riding around in the rear of the Ranger for up to 30 minutes. Max. And if we expected frequent rear-seat riders, we’d spend the $595 for two rear half-doors. The Splash package adds $1020 to the price of a base Ranger XLT extended-cab V-6, but all five test drivers were relieved to know that its black spoiler and body­color bumpers, side moldings, grille, and door handles are effectively optional. Oddly enough, though, constructing a sim­ilarly equipped XLT with the stylish stepside (Ford calls it Flareside) bed actually costs $430 more. We think the styling verges on the juvenile, and so do Ford’s cus­tomers: Of the 300,000 Rangers sold last year, just 1500 or so came with the Splash body treatment. As a commuter truck, the Ranger is the most fun to drive, but its bed is only two cubic feet larger than the diminutive box of the Chevrolet. Phillips wrote, “It’s a pleasant-enough around-town errand bopper, but a real truck? Hmm . . . “If your gig is radio-controlled miniature cars and planes, we can visualize the Ranger as your hauler. But for bigger toys, we like the Dodge best.1998 Ford Ranger Splash SuperCab158-hp V-6, 5-speed automatic, 3560 lbBase/as-tested price: $17,425/$20,740Payload/towing capacity: 1200/2000 lbC/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.5 sec60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.7 sec @ 79 mph100 mph: 23.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 213 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg1st Place: Dodge Dakota SLT Club CabThere’s no substitute for cubic feet. The big Dakota satisfied a broader collection of our indulgences than any other pickup in this test. First, it tied the Toyota as a styling favorite. Then, it swallowed the largest complement of all-terrain machinery and other gear. The cargo bed is huge compared with the stepside boxes of the Ranger and S-10. It’s no clever packaging miracle, it’s just bigger. At 47 cubic feet, it’s three cubes up on the next-largest Nissan Frontier. HIGHS: Titanic cargo capacity, spacious interior, grown-up styling. LOWS: Drag-strip-loser V-6, toughest to park in a crowded lot. VERDICT: It changes “trucklike” to a complimentary term.Whether the big bed was empty or full, the Magnum 3.9-liter V-6 failed to impress us with its ability to motivate our big Dakota. In our standing-start acceleration tests, it was the slowest, hitting 60 mph in a leisurely 11.2 seconds. We didn’t expect the V-6 Dakota to be a hot rod, considering that its 3900-pound curb weight out-tipped the next-heaviest, the Chevy, by 300 pounds. But it felt slow to respond and often transmitted gritty shivers through the throttle pedal. Top-gear acceleration was slow enough to zap our passing confidence on two-lane highways. Loaded or not, you need patience to accelerate.You have to wait longer at the pump, too. The Dakota has the largest fuel tank (22 gallons) and gets the poorest fuel economy of the group: 16 mpg on the EPA’s city cycle and 18 mpg during our trail-busting trip. Like we men­tioned up front, we don’t profess frugality. We tested the high-priced SLT version of the Dodge, which starts at $17,465—$945 more than the more popular Sport model. We also had the $200 high-back bucket seats in our test truck, but you can get a bench seat that will hold three. We might have traded some of our pricey options for a 5.2-liter V-8, which only costs $590 and 2 mpg in city mileage. The rear bench will hold three adults, too, all facing forward. It’s no sedan, but we believe a trip of two hours would be bearable for two reasonably big people. It’s a significant achievement. It means the Dakota can be used as a sedan. None of the other trucks can, and this fact appealed to the rational car buyer in all five testers voting on these pickups. Most cars can’t carry as many people as a Dakota can with a bench seat, never mind that the Dodge’s bed will also carry 1300 pounds.Although the Dakota won this toy-toting festival, none of these trucks sated our fun-to-drive appetites. But if your hauling needs are focused more on cargo than people, these compact pickups can satisfy in smaller, less-expensive packages than their full-size coun­terparts’. But if you’re not serious about hauling anything, and want merely a membership badge for admittance to the Pickup Club, we think you’ll have less fun than you would in a car. 1998 Dodge Dakota SLT Club Cab175-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3900 lbBase/as-tested price: $17,465/$21,100Payload/towing capacity: 1300/4800 lbC/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.7 sec60 mph: 11.2 sec1/4-Mile: 18.4 sec @ 75 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 244 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg More

From the January 2024 issue of Car and Driver.The Germans have a word for everything. In Munich, zuzeln means sucking a sausage out of its casing. BMW has employed a bit of automotive zuzeln with the 2024 530i xDrive, removing a familiar filling—a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder hooked to a ZF eight-speed automatic transmission and all-wheel drive—and stuffing it into a new wrapper. Not to dive too deep into Bavarian etymology, but the reason Germans zuzeln is because the region’s signature weisswurst is wrapped in a particularly unappetizing casing. That is certainly not the situation with the new 5-series, which marks a return to the aesthetic adventurism of the 2004 E60, only this time without the Chris Bangle controversy. Our office is split, but there is a faction that thinks the new 5er looks awesome.HIGHS: Stupendous brakes, good fuel economy, design that’s daring in a good way.As the entry-level 5-series, the 530i concerns itself with delivering a certain look and a business-sedan experience rather than scalding performance, and that’s been true since the days when a 530i actually had a 3.0-liter inline-six engine. This latest 2.0-liter four offers a modest performance bump, making 255 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque (versus last year’s 248 horses and 258 pound-feet). While the engine shares its displacement with its predecessor, BMW made plenty of revisions, most notably adopting the Miller-cycle combustion process, which leaves the intake valves open at the beginning of the compression stroke to increase efficiency. On that front, we saw 35-mpg highway fuel economy at 75 mph, matching the EPA’s number. With the 530i’s 15.9-gallon fuel tank, you’ll probably need to stop for a break before the car does. BMW also added a 48-volt hybrid system to bolster city mileage.Stronger powertrain options, gas and electric, exist on the 5-series menu, but the 530i xDrive aims to please the Bimmerphile who prioritizes efficiency and lower monthly lease payments over 60-mph and quarter-mile times. Not that the latter two are mediocre—5.5 seconds to 60 mph, quarter-mile in 14.2 seconds at 96 mph—but that kind of performance constitutes the minimum you’d expect from a modern BMW sedan.On the other hand, a sub-six-second 60-mph run looks more impressive when we consider the size of the new 5, which is longer, wider, and taller than its predecessor. We need only look as far back as 2008 to find a 7-series of comparable dimensions, the E65. This 530i’s 117.9-inch wheelbase and 199.2-inch length are slightly longer than those of the E65, and the two cars’ width and height are nearly identical. So it’s perhaps unsurprising that the 530i xDrive also checked in with an E65-caliber 4090-pound curb weight.For a two-ton slab of sedan, the 530i xDrive certainly knows how to dance. Its variable-ratio steering feels natural and seamless, and our test car’s optional M Sport suspension and 21-inch Continental EcoContact 6 Q tires helped it cling to the skidpad with 0.92 g of grip. The M Sport brakes, peacocking with their blue calipers, generated an impressive 156-foot stop from 70 mph. That’s only four feet longer than the stop we recorded from a 2019 M5 Competition with carbon-ceramic brakes, so: Wow, nice binders.View PhotosUh-oh, BMW heard about Easter eggs. See if you can find the hidden portrait of Wilhelm Hofmeister!Marc Urbano|Car and DriverWhen the throttle goes down, the 530 spits out some feisty turbocharger intake noise, though you only really hear it if a window is down. Put the transmission in manual mode, and it will faithfully hold gears. Pulling and holding the left shift paddle activates Sport Boost mode, bringing up a 10-second countdown on the instrument cluster that implies a timed deployment of extra power. However, Sport Boost doesn’t actually do anything besides drop to the lowest possible gear ratio. Any performance gain was undetectable to our test equipment.As we’d expect of a BMW, the 5-series’ stability control is fully defeatable, and that includes the traction-management technology. The system integrates traction control into the engine-control computer instead of a separate stability-control processor. BMW says this essentially allows it to snuff out wheelspin before it even happens, like the precogs in Minority Report preventing future crimes. Indeed, when we drove a rear-drive 530i at BMW Group Test Fest in South Carolina and deliberately launched it with max aggression, it smoothly pulled away with no wheelspin or apparent intervention. We’ll have to test a 530i to figure out whether that was evidence of supreme traction-control prescience or just the fact that 255 horsepower in a big sedan won’t generate a two-block burnout.LOWS: Sport Boost does jack squat, 7-series bulk, price is a big ask for 255 horsepower.The 5-series’ embrace of tech wizardry continues inside. While our test car didn’t have this particular option, the new Driving Assistance Professional system enables hands-free highway driving up to 85 mph. And they mean hands-free: When the car suggests a lane change, the driver confirms it by merely looking at the corresponding side-view mirror. What if, say, you didn’t want to change lanes but just noticed a brown marmorated stink bug crawling on the lower A-pillar? If there’s not yet a German word meaning “regret for surrendering decisions to the machine,” they’re probably working on one.View PhotosThat digital display can switch themes, but none of them look like an E39 instrument cluster.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverThe 5 also offers AirConsole in-car gaming. Passengers use their phones as controllers for games displayed on the 14.9-inch infotainment screen. BMW is initially offering about 20 games, but hopefully the options will expand to AirConsole’s full portfolio, which includes games like ClusterPuck 99, Mucho Muscle, and fARTwork, titles that seem calibrated to ensure that AirConsole will soon be available in Teslas.There are various display themes for that screen and the 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster. While we wish BMW had stolen an idea from the new Ford Mustang and threw in an E39 M5 gauge emulator, at least it’s using all of those pixels creatively. Digital Art mode splashes the screen with “Quantum Garden” by Cao Fei, banishing the speedometer to the lower left corner while trippy swirls of purple and green cover most of the screen. Far out, man. The interior includes some interesting physical details too, such as hidden HVAC directional vanes controlled by rubber nubs on the dash. It’s not immediately obvious what they do until you swivel one and feel the airflow change direction. There’s an extended Merino leather option that swathes the interior in fine hides and another that banishes leather altogether. The synthetic stand-in is called Veganza, which sounds like an early-2000s Kia hatchback sold only in Singapore.VERDICT: We’re really looking forward to the M5.Besides the $3000 M Sport package and the $2550 Premium package (heated steering wheel, remote start, and head-up display, among other things), our test car had the $600 Sky Lounge roof, which puts an enormous glass panel overhead. Its sunshade deploys from the front rather than the back, which means that, counter to decades of sunroof convention, you push the overhead button back to close the shade and forward to open it. You’ll get used to that around month 35 of your 36-month lease.View PhotosThe 255-hp inline-four isn’t much to look at, but it did return a commendable 35 mpg at 75 mph.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverIt may also take that long to get used to the idea of a four-cylinder 5-series that costs $70,745, as this one does. Though we admittedly haven’t sampled the whole range, including the forthcoming 540i and M5, this might be the best 5-series since they were dropping V-10s into the Banglemobiles. However, we can’t help but point out that a loaded 360-hp Cadillac CT5-V goes for $64,045. And if we were in one of those, lined up against a 530i at an intersection, we’d wait for the light to turn green and savor the schadenfreude.CounterpointsThe 530i seems confused. Its son-of-iX creased and folded styling makes it look smaller than it is; I almost mistook it for a 3-series. Its velvety turbo four is quiet, as a luxury car’s engine should be, but its optional M Sport suspension is tuned firmly. But if it’s supposed to be a sports sedan, where did its steering feel go? Then again, if BMW’s goal here is luxurious driving, why does the infotainment system add to your workload rather than ease it? The 530i has me asking too many questions it can’t answer. —Rich CepposI can still clearly envision the experience of driving an E39 540i back to back to back with its peers on twisty roads in upstate New York in 2001, because it completely recalibrated my car sense as a fresh-faced road warrior. This new series? The engine’s limiter steps in 500 rpm before the redline, the M Sport package gets standard all-season tires, and even if you pony up for the 21-inch summers, the tire is co-branded with a Mercedes marking. Today’s road warriors have already forgotten it. —Dave VanderWerpSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 BMW 530i xDriveVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,195/$70,745Options: M Sport package, $3000; Premium package, $2550; 21-inch wheels, $1800; Bowers & Wilkins stereo, $950; Cape York Green Metallic paint, $650; Sky Lounge roof, $600
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1998 cm3Power: 255 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 295 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.7-in vented disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Continental EcoContact 6 QF: 245/35R-21 96Y ★ MOR: 275/30R-21 98Y ★ MO
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 117.9 inLength: 199.2 inWidth: 74.8 inHeight: 59.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 18 ft3Curb Weight: 4090 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.5 sec1/4-Mile: 14.2 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 15.4 sec130 mph: 30.6 sec140 mph: 40.3 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.2 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 156 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 318 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.92 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 26 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 35 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 550 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 30/27/35 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDEzra Dyer is a Car and Driver senior editor and columnist. He’s now based in North Carolina but still remembers how to turn right. He owns a 2009 GEM e4 and once drove 206 mph. Those facts are mutually exclusive. More