Evelyn Reynolds

From the May 1991 issue of Car and Driver.9:00 a.m. Monday, Wilmington, Califor­nia—We arrive at Vector headquarters, nestled in an industrial ghetto between the Los Angeles and Long Beach har­bors. Jerry Wiegert has lured us with the promise of an exclusive first crack at test­ing his audacious supercar, which has been the subject of great intrigue and speculation since we covered his first running prototype in December 1980.The decade since then has been long and hard for Wiegert, who, like Ferruccio Lamborghini in the early sixties, decided to take on the established supercar or­der. Unlike Lamborghini, however, who was a wealthy industrialist, Wiegert was a young industrial designer without a per­sonal fortune. Although Wiegert often boasts of the Vector’s ten years of devel­opment, he spent much of the eighties scratching for cash. That he survived is a testament to his dedication to his brain­child and his gift for self-promotion. He scored a financial victory in No­vember 1988, when a public stock offer­ing in the newly reconstituted Vector Aeromotive Corporation raised $6 mil­lion. Wiegert’s company got $4.9 million and the remainder went to his underwrit­er, Blinder, Robinson & Company, which has since filed for bankruptcy. More Archive Supercar ContentThat cash infusion and a later one in­flated what had been Wiegert’s shoe­string operation into a 40,000-square­-foot plant employing 82 workers—the plant we have just entered. Palletized en­gines, bins of suspension parts, stacks of complex castings, half a dozen cars un­der construction, and a score of busy employees fill the final assembly area. The Vector operation is real indeed. David Kostka, Vector’s vice president for engineering, shows us the gray and red engineering prototypes that we are to test as we wait for the truck he has or­dered to haul the cars up to our designat­ed testing sites. 11:30 a.m, Angeles Crest Highway—We unload the Vectors in the San Gabriel Mountains. Although the W8’s styling is about fifteen years old, the car is still an ocular magnet. Its snout is higher and longer than the current fashion and the body creases are too sharp, but like the late Lamborghini Countach, the Vector has a timeless visual appeal. Inside, the Vector has the blocky, hand­-tailored, somewhat homemade look indigenous to most limited-production cars, but the fashion theme is jet-fighter cockpit. There’s a computerized instru­ment display on which the driver can choose one of four information displays. And the black-anodized aluminum eye­ball air vents, the Allen-head cap screws, the push-to-reset circuit breakers, and the illuminated square switches not only look like aircraft parts, they are aircraft parts—very expensive ones at that. Not surprisingly, the seating position is very low, but visibility forward is excel­lent, gradually deteriorating as one’s view traverses toward the rear. The Recaro C seats are superbly comfortable, the driv­ing position is good, and there’s ample leg and headroom in the wide cockpit. The tilting, air-bag-equipped steering wheel is a pleasant surprise, but the shift­er is a disappointment. Buried in a well to the left of the driver’s seat, a short lever topped by a crossbar controls the Vec­tor’s three-speed automatic transmis­sion—a much modified version of the GM unit developed for the original Olds Toronado more than 25 years ago. The handle moves through the usual park-reverse-neutral-drive sequence to allow fully automatic operation. When you lift the handle, it becomes a ratchet shifter, shifting up or down a gear with each fore or aft movement. Upon firing up the Vector, we find that the shifter, buried in its tight little well, does not fall readily to hand. When you do grab it, screws protrude from its un­derside and there’s a heavy, sticky action. With the gearbox in drive, the transmis­sion upshifts at very low rpm and refuses to kickdown when you floor the accelera­tor at anything above city speed. Under way though, the red prototype feels tight and solid, although the engine is loud. During our cornering passes for the photographer, the suspension seems supple and well controlled. The power steering is too light, however, and it doesn’t provide as much self-centering action as we like in 200-mph cars. Our photography completed, we head toward our desert test site. The 3680-pound Vector is quick, with the twin-turbocharged 6.0-liter V-8 building boost and thrust quickly. Above 4000 rpm, the push is strong enough to make Vector’s claim of 625 hp believable. Soon, however, we find ourselves coasting. The engine is still running, but the transmission has ceased communica­tion with the rear wheels. We glide to a halt on the shoulder of Angeles Forest Highway. After a few minutes of fiddling, Kostka suggests we press on with the gray car, while his mechanic coasts down the mountain with the red car toward a nearby restaurant to summon the truck. 3:00 p.m., C/D desert test site near Ed­wards AFB—Instruments in place, we start our testing. Although Vector litera­ture calls the W8 the fastest production car in the world, Kostka asks us to refrain from top-speed testing because of insuf­ficient high-speed development. Since we’re not paid enough to be 200-mph guinea pigs, we agree, but wonder pri­vately about the overseas owners of the three cars already delivered. Top-gear acceleration is strong, but the transmission is slipping out of third gear. The brakes are powerful; only pre­mature rear lockup extends the stopping distance from 70 mph to 191 feet. We’re ready to do the acceleration runs, but the coolant-temperature gauge has surged to 250 degrees, and wisps of steam are wafting through the louvered engine cover. Kostka suspects an air bub­ble in the cooling system and suggests waiting a bit before adding water. After two hours of waiting and drib­bling water into the Vector’s expansion tank (to avoid cracking the hot head or block with a sudden deluge of cold wa­ter), darkness is approaching, and we de­cide to go to the nearby skidpad. Al­though the surface is wet, the Vector circulates at an admirable 0.91 g, with a touch of tail-happiness at the limit. We suspect it would probably pull in the area of 0.95 g on dry pavement. The skidpad testing overheats the en­gine again, so we spend another hour cooling the cooling system. Kostka final­ly suggests we try an acceleration run. Not only does the temperature skyrocket as soon as we leg it, but the engine deto­nates fiercely and the transmission reso­lutely resists shifting into third gear. We decide to pack it in while the Vector can still limp home under its own power. 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, Wilmington—While the mechanics are puzzling over the gray Vector’s cooling system, Mark Bailey, vice president for production, gives us a tour of the premises. Bailey learned his trade fabricating aerospace components at Northrop, and he is simultaneously enthusiastic about the Vector and frank about the problems gearing up the assembly line. “We’re just now finishing the engineering drawings and fixtures for the parts. Many of the first sheetmetal pieces had to be traced from prototype components.” Despite these handicaps, chassis num­ber 14 is in progress at the frame shop, one of the dozen or so cars somewhere in the production process at any one time. The Vector’s core is formed by a weld­ed chrome-molybdenum steel-tubing roll cage reinforced by riveted aluminum panels and an aluminum honeycomb floorpan. Riveted and bonded aluminum monocoque structures extend from this central core to mount the suspension and driveline components, a well as to provide crush zones and bumper supports. Bailey bemoans the cost of pump­ing the 6000 or so rivets that go into each Vector, but the superbly crafted chassis easily passed the Department of Transportation’s crash tests. The body is made of fiberglass, carbon fiber, and Kevlar composite panels. Each set of panels is individually fitted to a matched chassis, then finished with cata­lyzed paint. The result is smooth body­work, a gleaming finish, and admirably even gaps—quality in keeping with the Vector’s $400,000-plus price. The running gear is equally top-draw­er. The front hubs and uprights are Grand National stock-car pieces. The brakes are huge Alcon rotors with alumi­num calipers all around. The engine is a race-prepped small-block Chevy, assem­bled by a subcontractor using top-grade aftermarket components such as a Rodeck aluminum block, Air Flow Re­search aluminum heads, TRW pistons, and Carrillo rods. Rated at 625 hp with 10-psi boost from its twin turbos, the V-8 had not received emissions certification at press time. But Jasjit Rarewala, the very experienced exotic car certifier in charge, promises that it will pass the tests soon. The powertrain tucks into the engine compartment bolted to a pair of intricate blue-anodized aluminum plates the size of doormats, which attach from the rear bulkhead. The glittering array of pol­ished aluminum, braided stainless-steel plumbing, and heavy-duty heat exchang­ers is an impressive sight. As we photograph the engine, Kostka promises to have the gray car’s overheat­ing problem solved by evening. 7:00 p.m. same night, Wilmington—We leave for another crack at testing, this time at a most unofficial track. Kostka and I make for the nearby Terminal Is­land Freeway, which should be deserted at this hour. In the five-minute drive to the freeway, the engine overheats again. We return to the factory with the Vector bleeding steam from its haunches. Wiegert is tense and unhappy. “The car is sound, you can see that. It has been tested and punished to the max.” He attributes the breakdowns to obsolete parts in the development cars we’ve been driving, explaining: “You put the best stuff in the cars you have to ship.” He seems desperate for us to complete a successful test and presses us to stay until the cars can be fixed. Unfortunately, we’re scheduled to leave for Michigan the next morning. But we offer him an­other shot if one of the cars is repaired before flight time. 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, Los Angeles—The phone jars me awake in my hotel room near Los Angeles International. Kostka says he has the red car running again. We agree to meet in the lobby at 3:00 a.m. Even in the dark of early morning, the arrival of the Vector perks up the hotel’s skeleton staff. Kostka and I hop in, fol­lowed by one of his mechanics in a Sub­urban. This time we head toward Per­shing Avenue—a limited-access divided four-lane road just west of the airport that should be barren at this hour. The red car is running strong. Its tem­perature stays in the low 200s and there is no sign of detonation. After four runs, our best 0-to-60 time is 3.8 seconds, and we measure a standing quarter-mile in twelve seconds flat at 118 mph. Those times are good enough to edge out a Ferrari F40. There was room to go faster, but the car refused to upshift into third gear and the engine was hitting its rev limiter well short of its 7000-rpm redline. I drive over to the waiting Kostka so that he can check it out. He confirms the problems, and we find that reverse is also gone. We call it a night, and I am back in my room at 4:00 a.m. “It costs us substantially more to build this car than it costs Ferrari to build an F40,” says Jerry Wiegert. Judging by the premium components, fine craftsman­ship, and excellent finish of the cars he is shipping, that may well be true. But in development and engineering, we sus­pect Ferrari has outspent Vector. Will the Vector satisfy the demanding supercar buyer? Perhaps. But this ques­tion doesn’t frighten Jerry Wiegert. “My customers are big guys; they’ve got attor­neys, they know what to do if they’re not satisfied.” Is Wiegert himself satisfied? No per­fectionist ever is. “I will improve this car through my team and efforts.”Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1991 Vector W8 TwinTurboVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base: $421,720
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged and intercooled pushrod V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 in3, 5972 cm3Power: 625 hp @ 5700 rpmTorque: 630 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 13.0-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: Michelin Sport XGT PlusF: 225/45ZR-16R: 315/40ZR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.0 inLength: 172.0 inWidth: 76.0 inHeight: 42.5 inPassenger Volume: 50 ft3Cargo Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight: 3680 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.8 sec100 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 12.0 sec @ 118 mph120 mph: 12.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 5.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 218 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.91 g 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (est.)City/Highway: 7/15 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDContributing EditorCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and LeMons racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, and trio of motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

If you think you see Honda CR-Vs everywhere, it’s not your imagination. The CR-V is Honda’s most popular vehicle, and Honda claims it to be the bestselling crossover for the past 25 years. It’s not surprising that Honda took a careful approach with the sixth-generation version that debuts for 2023, with the LX, EX, and EX-L models powered by the same engine as before. The CR-V gets an all-new exterior design, arguably the biggest change. A bluff new nose should help the CR-V shed the cute-ute image associated with past versions. It’s not just a styling trick. The latest CR-V also has a longer wheelbase, a greater overall length, and a fractional increase in width. It has just about grown into the footprint of the original Honda Pilot—the wheelbase, in fact, is identical. No wonder it looks all grown up.Related StoriesWhereas that OG Pilot was a three-row conveyance, the CR-V continues to seat just five, though it does so in a roomy, airy cabin. The rear seat in the outgoing CR-V was already one of the most spacious in the segment, and Honda has added a bit more legroom this year. A nearly flat floor makes the rear-seat middle position viable, while ingress and egress are a breeze front and rear. Behind the rear seats, there’s 39 cubic feet of luggage space; cargo volume expands to 77 cubes with the rear seatbacks folded. For the driver, the narrow A-pillars have been moved nearly five inches rearward, and the cowl is lower, making for improved forward visibility.The two powertrains are both making a return appearance, but whereas the hybrid has been heavily revised, the standard engine—a turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-four—is effectively carryover. Its musters the same 190 horsepower and 179 pound-feet of torque as before and is again lashed to a continuously variable automatic transmission. Grunt is dispatched to the front wheels or, as in our EX-L test vehicle, all four.With 190 horses dispensed via a continuously variable transmission, the 1.5-liter’s part-throttle response can be syrupy. Mat the pedal, though, and the transmission does a better impression of a traditional gearbox, with revs rising to redline, then dropping back with a simulated shift and rising again. For such a small-displacement turbocharged engine, Honda’s 1.5-liter is largely free of lag. With an 8.3-second run to 60 mph, though, the 1.5-liter has lost some spring in its step compared with the previous-gen CR-V we last tested with this powertrain, a 2020 model that managed a 7.6-second time. The turbo four also is a few ticks behind the 2023 CR-V hybrid, which does the 60-mph dash in 7.9 seconds. In the 50-to-70-mph highway passing test, the base version again trails the hybrid, by 0.4 second.HIGHS: User-friendly packaging, steers with ease, rides well.Fuel economy is unchanged from last year. The 1.5-liter CR-V with all-wheel drive again earns EPA ratings of 27 mpg city and 32 mpg highway. By comparison, the hybrid CR-V with all-wheel drive blows that city figure out of the water with a 40-mpg estimate and notches 34 mpg on the highway. Opting for front-wheel drive adds 1 to 2 mpg to the base engine’s figures and 2 to 3 mpg to the hybrid’s.The new CR-V benefits from a stiffer body structure and additional sound insulation that makes it quieter than before. Foot to the floor, we measured 74 decibels, versus 78 decibels previously. The hybrid, though, gets additional sound-deadening measures and is quieter still, by two decibels under full-throttle acceleration and by one decibel during 70-mph cruising.Grasp the steering wheel wrapped in smooth high-quality leather, and you discover steering that is crisp and nicely weighted, with a solid sense of on-center. It almost could be in a Mazda, but the CR-V’s chassis isn’t as snappily responsive as a CX-5’s. There’s a bit more body roll, and the Honda isn’t quite as eager to dive into corners. Here again, the hybrid, with its stiffer suspension, has the edge. The CR-V EX-L exhibited a class-competitive 0.84 g of grip, just fractionally less than the hybrid’s 0.85 g, rolling on Hankook Kinergy GT tires. At 235/60R-18, those tires’ tall sidewalls help the CR-V take the edge off broken pavement. They contribute to a smooth ride that effectively smoothers bumps while keeping the cabin placidly calm and free of disturbances.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverThe new CR-V’s interior is also free of the frustrations that can arise from weird or wonky switchgear. The shifter has moved from the lower dash in the outgoing model to a more normal position in the center console, and we’re glad to say it remains a traditional shift lever rather than a dial or a toggle. The climate controls are three simple dials (with the vents neatly integrated into the dash trim). All models now have partially screen-based instrumentation and Apple and Android phone mirroring. The EX gets a 7.0-inch touchscreen with volume and tuning knobs, while the EX-L upgrades to a larger 9.0-inch display but sacrifices the tuning knob. Plentiful storage space makes life easy, and despite being only mid-tier in the CR-V’s five-trim hierarchy, our EX-L’s interior had a handsome if straightforward design and quality materials. LOWS: Not as quick as the hybrid, not as economical as the hybrid, not as quiet as the hybrid.The CR-V’s easy everyday livability, overall competence, and lack of obvious downsides earned it a 10Best award this year. That award tells you that the CR-V hits its marks—and the hybrid version just does so a little bit better than this base-engine model. Both are likely to be just as ubiquitous as their forebears.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda CR-V EX-L AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $37,055/$37,510Options: Radiant Red paint, $455
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 91 in3, 1498 cm3Power: 190 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 179 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/12.2-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/60R-18 103H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 184.8 inWidth: 73.5 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/51 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 77/39 ft3Curb Weight: 3612 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.4 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 22.2 sec120 mph: 40.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 121 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 168 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 29/27/32 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDeputy Editor, Reviews and FeaturesJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

From the February 1991 issue of Car and Driver.Mouthwatering station wagons come few and far between: the Audi Quattro, the Ford Taurus, the Mercedes 300, the Volvo Turbo. The first three showed up rounded, the last starkly boxlike, but all remain classy and well proportioned. About fifteen months ago, when Honda’s forward thinkers introduced to­day’s Accord sedans and coupes, they showed renderings presented as their own mouthwatering wagon. Its shape promised to outprofile even the world’s most handsome five-doors. Unlike many styling studies, this one was restrained enough to suggest a producible vehicle instead of a pure pipe dream. If the sketch came true, the Volvo, Mercedes, Ford, and Audi stylists would soon be frantically whittling away on some fresh five-doors. Like a cloudburst in the desert, here comes the Honda to gully-wash the sta­tus quo. Yet the Accord Wagon hasn’t come out as svelte as we expected. It lacks, perhaps, in the sheetmetal what looked so attractive on the sketch pad. But get this: the freethinkers who dreamed up this potential flood tide work not out of Honda’s Japanese R&D center and studio but its American think tank and design enclave in Southern Cal­ifornia. More irony: Honda will build the Accord wagon in the States—at its Marysville, Ohio, plant—for sale here and for export to Japan. Honda proves again that it can simultaneously move its markets in fast-forward and rapid­-rewind. Despite the stylish original plan, some details slipped away between the early rendering and the final fendering. The wagon’s bodywork remains leanly hand­some, especially the aggressive nose, slick shell, and glassy cabin. But the win­dows along the appended “boot” don’t blend into its shape—or the shapes of the other side windows—as seamlessly as the artwork led us to expect. The Accord’s liftgate and taillights also fail to mesh as smoothly as they might. Yet overall the wagon comes across as distinctly trim—­and trimmed for distinction. It bears a solid yet agile look, borne out by its basic solidity and dynamics. Concentrations of cargo inevitably cram every station wagon at times. Cargo fills space the way work expands to fill time, the way play takes up leisure hours: The Honda’s cargo capacity, though not huge, can haul plenty that doesn’t re­quire Mayflower movers. The nicely crafted carpet and panels encourage care in loading and unloading. We’d use pads or tarps to blunt heavy items with sharp edges. Cargo-packaging choices include a rear seat split to fold forward in one-­third, two-thirds, or full width according to needs—handy for skis (and crutches for aprés). To fold the rear seatbacks flat, you pull the bottom cushions up and flop them forward. Then you pull the rear headrests from their seatbacks, fold the backs forward, and safely slip the prongs of the rear headrests into receptacles on the backsides of the bottom cushion. A luggage cover mounted horizontally be­tween the rear wheel wells unreels from just behind the rear seat. Configured like a window shade, the cover’s eyelets hook on to tabs near the tailgate, hiding what­ever caboodle you’re carting around. Keeping the caboodle below the sills of the panoramic windows maintains excel­lent visibility out the tail and the right rear quarter. The driver’s B-pillar, the wagon’s only blind spot, stolidly blanks the view to the left rear quarter. Larry Griffin|Car and DriverThe interior dimensions suggest Honda has decided to aim more at birth­-controllers than population-explosionists. You’ll find plenty of room for luggage and four large travelers, but a maximum of only five will fit—and that’s only if the one sitting on the middle of the back seat is small enough to scuttle under a limbo bar without bending over backward. We say “sitting on” the rear seat because it’s as firm as a pew padded solely in shellac. Legroom front and rear proves adequate, extended in back by useful footroom under the front seats. The low bolsters up front make for com­fortable support over long distances, presuming you don’t abuse winding roads as if you were attacking the Suzuka Circuit. But drivers who have long legs will find the Accord’s pedals set too close, its wheel too far. We can’t fathom why Honda fails in this respect to match Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda.Honda packages an air bag in the nifty four-spoke steering wheel, replacing its add-on chrome “H” with the trademark molded into the padded hub cover. The wagon wears the same stylish wheel applied to other Accords. They are—how to phrase it?—unobtrusively eye-catching. Though smooth in the modem aero idiom, their subtle curva­ture, angled inlets, and glossy machining catch the light and flicker like MTV. For an outfit with very little use for chrome, Honda has a way with brightwork; note the crystal-like cuts of the mirrors within the halogen headlights. The high beams throw an even spread of light but also highlight the problems of many head­lights developed for use in countries with low speed limits: too much illumination directly in front of the car, not enough “throw” down the road. So your eyes, overwhelmed by your own pool of light, “stop down” like a camera lens that can’t be overridden—dimming the view of whatever lies further ahead, a dubious situation. Honda’s 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine applies its fuel injection, sixteen valves, and balance shafts to producing a spicy 140 horsepower. Its performance, though flavored more along the lines of nutmeg than tabasco, whips up enthusi­asm and lops off miles. The Accord’s five-speed, front-drive transaxle pulls the wagon’s 3170 pounds from 0 to 60 mph in 9.0 seconds and on up to a top speed of 119 mph. The Accord wagon feels secure till you need better tracking, maximum corner­ing, or absolute braking. Pavement creased by truck ruts causes the chassis to wig-wag. Tricky corners can quickly tax the Goodyear Eagle GAs beyond the wagon’s 0.76-g cornering grip. Worse, maximum braking reveals poor front-­rear balance and sorry 223-foot stops from 70 mph. These test results come as a shock from a chassis that feels good in the brisk driving invited by its basically good balance. Nevertheless, we had hoped the wag­on version of America’s best compact sedan would shine a little brighter. Honda is expected to ask twenty grand for it, a number big enough to rev up our expectations. Still, the Accord wag­on is very tasty stuff. We bet Honda, in short order, will make it maximum delicious.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1991 Honda Accord EX WagonVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICEAs Tested: $20,000 (est.)
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 132 in3, 2156 cm3Power: 140 hp @ 5600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.1 inLength: 186.0 inCurb Weight: 3170 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 28.6 secTop Speed: 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 223 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 24 mpg (est.) 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

There’s something to be said for knowing you have a good thing going and improving on a formula without upending it. That’s the guiding principle behind the 2024 Mercedes-AMG GLE53. This performance SUV throws a little more of everything into the mix, and while the result is largely the same as before, there wasn’t a lot here that needed addressing.There’s still a supercharged and turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six and a 48-volt starter-generator under the hood making a total of 429 horsepower, but thanks to a bigger turbocharger and some revised software, torque is up from 384 to 413 pound-feet. The electric motor contributes 21 horsepower and 148 pound-feet, helping fill in torque gaps down low and between gear changes rather than at the engine’s peak. That impressive shove is routed to all four wheels through a nine-speed automatic transmission.More on the Mercedes-AMG GLE53It’s a wonder what a little extra twist can do. In our testing, the revised GLE53 performed better in nearly every scenario compared to the 2021 GLE53 Coupe. The sprint to 60 mph required 4.4 seconds instead of 4.7. The updated GLE covered the quarter-mile in 13.0 seconds at 107 mph, shaving four-tenths of a second and adding 4 mph. Accelerating from 30 to 50 mph happened half a second sooner. Comparing outside the family, you’ll blow the doors off a Genesis GV80 3.5T, but a Porsche Cayenne GTS will still gap you by a fair bit.The only figures that didn’t improve were braking and skidpad grip, both of which were about even with the 2021 GLE53. Even fuel economy is nearly a wash; on our 200-mile, 75-mph highway fuel-economy loop, the new GLE53’s 25-mpg result is just 1 mpg lower than the outgoing version. And that still handily beats its official 23-mpg EPA highway rating.HIGHS: Perkier than before, loads of desirable standard equipment, negligible fuel-economy penalty.One of the things that makes the GLE53’s powertrain so peachy is how smooth it is. Power delivery always comes on strong as the electric supercharger zips the turbo up to speed to minimize lag without much perturbance from gear changes (they’re smooth too), and the electric motor’s torque-filling nature keeps the powertrain feeling strong no matter where the tach needle is. Most stop-start systems have trouble hiding some shudder under restart, but not this AMG—this is one of the least dramatic setups we’ve driven. It’s almost good enough to warrant being left on. The GLE isn’t as unflappable when Pure Michigan’s roads rear their ugly heads. Our test car arrived wearing optional 22-inch wheels wrapped in Yokohama Advan Sport V107 summer rubber, and the dub-dubs did not play well with Ann Arbor’s craggy local pavement. The ride was a little flintier and noisier than we’d expect of a large, plush SUV riding on a standard air springs with an $87,900 starting point. Unless you live in Palm Springs, we’d stick with stock. Sportier modes exist to flatten the handling and make corners a little more exciting, but with 5238 pounds to lug around, the AMG GLE53 never really feels like a true speedster—it’s more like a defensive lineman who can surprise with his 40-yard-dash time. The steering is generally unremarkable, and the same can be said for how the pedals feel underfoot.LOWS: Interior is a little dated, some large-wheel ride harshness.The GLE53’s interior retains the top-tier fit and finish we’ve come to expect from higher-end Mercedes vehicles, although it’s beginning to feel a little long of tooth. The black-and-cream two-tone motif doesn’t suffer from monotony, but its vent-heavy binnacle and the continued presence of a now-outdated infotainment touchpad remind you that a mid-cycle refresh doesn’t redo everything. AMG’s new double-bladed steering wheel makes an appearance ahead of a pair of 12.3-inch displays that cover gauge-cluster and infotainment duties. While the latest version of Mercedes’s MBUX software in here doesn’t have the visual punch of a Hyperscreen, it’s still responsive and easy to use, and smartphone mirroring is standard. The best updates to the GLE’s cabin come in terms of equipment. Stuttgart threw everything but the kitchen sink in here during the mid-cycle refresh, and it’s all standard. This year’s kit swells to include a dual-mode exhaust, a Burmester surround-sound upgrade, augmented-reality navigation, surround-view cameras, an electric panoramic sunroof, and nappa leather upholstery.Then again, considering the base price rose nearly $10,000 alongside the refresh, there’d better be more to enjoy. Our test car kept it pretty calm in terms of optional equipment. Adding nappa leather and microfiber to the steering wheel cost $500, while heating the windshield-wiper nozzles and the steering wheel only required $450. The wheels were the sole big-ticket option at $3950, while the Night package, which swaps all the exterior brightwork to gloss black, tacked on another $750. All in, this GLE53 carried a $93,550 window sticker, which is at least 20 grand less than you’d spend on the GLE63 and its 4.0-liter V-8.VERDICT: This nicely refined hybrid performer brings even more to the table.Mercedes didn’t really need to do much to the GLE53 to keep it relevant, and it’s clear the company didn’t feel like messing with success. A little extra oomph, some more standard equipment, and a little aesthetic nip-tuck was all that was needed to keep this hybrid feeling fresh enough.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-AMG GLE53 4Matic+ SUVVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $87,900/$93,500Options: 22-inch AMG Cross-Spoke forged wheels, $3950; AMG Night package (black exterior accents, AMG exhaust system in black chrome), $750; AMG performance steering wheel, $500; Winter package (heated steering wheel and windshield washers), $450
ENGINE
supercharged, turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2999 cm3Power: 429 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 413 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.8-in vented, cross-drilled disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Yokohama Advan Sport V107F: 285/40ZR-22 100Y MO1 Extra LoadR: 325/35ZR-22 114Y MO1 Extra Load
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 117.9 inLength: 194.4 inWidth: 79.3 inHeight: 70.2 inCurb Weight: 5238 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.4 sec100 mph: 11.2 sec1/4-Mile: 13.0 sec @ 107 mph130 mph: 21.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.6 secTop Speed (C/D est): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 154 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 308 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 25 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 400 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 20/18/23 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorCars 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 February 1991 issue of Car and Driver.When Subaru announced it was going to bolt a turbocharger onto its best se­dan, we happily anticipated the arrival of a Legacy From Hell. Imagine: 217 horse­power, 0 to 60 in 6.9 seconds, four-wheel drive. Why, John Buffum could nose this car out of the showroom Friday night and return on Monday morning with a massive SCCA PRO Rally trophy wedged into the back seat.”No, no, not that car,” said Subaru’s Fred Heiler when we asked about this Legacy Sport Sedan’s stateside arrival. “This is a tamer version, a more main­stream car for the U.S.” Uh-oh. You hear the word “main­stream” and you just know it’s going to include “Baby on Board” signs and a free tape of John Denver’s greatest hits. Here’s the bad news: We won’t see the 217-horse four-cam be­cause (1) it’s expensive to build, (2) it was intended only as a rally homologation ex­ercise, and (3) it doesn’t jibe with Suba­ru’s image in America, which, as it hap­pens, resembles nothing so much as a medley of John Denver’s greatest hits. What we get instead is a Legacy Sport Sedan with a diminutive water-cooled IHI turbocharger that raises the SOHC 2.2-liter boxer’s output from 130 to 160 hp. Rocket shoppers will be disappoint­ed, although the force-fed engine’s more significant statistic is the extra 44 pound­-feet of torque payload arrives 1600 rpm sooner than it did before. HIGHS: Smooth turbo, a real road grabber.All of which is more important than it sounds. This turbocharged engine feels as smooth as a normally aspirated one, with the juice delivered from 2000 to 5500 rpm in a fat, seamless flow. That was Subaru’s intention. The turbo’s inlet is tiny, and both the angle and the curva­ture of its turbine blades are designed for rapid spool-up. Throttle response is very good, and there is no turbo lag. In fact, there’s no boost gauge in the cockpit. If it weren’t for the chrome “Turbo” badge on the Legacy’s rump and the subtle air intake near the base of the windshield (a scoop that does indeed work, force-feed­ing air directly atop the turbo snail in the interest of cooler operation), a lot of driv­ers would not know that this growly, whiskey-throated boxer was breathing artificially hard. Under the whip, the Legacy Sport Se­dan accelerates smartly, but the 160-hp engine is not entirely responsible. Some of the credit goes to sage engineering. This car weighs 3140 pounds, good for a five-passenger sedan with full-time four-wheel drive. It sprints to 60 mph in just 7.9 seconds and clears the quarter-mile in 16.1 seconds, which makes it a half­second quicker than the equally powerful Nissan Maxima SE. We’re not talking about gobs of power here, and it’s tough to keep your right Florsheim out of the 8.7 psi of available boost. The penalty is a 19-mpg ob­served-fuel-economy figure—and the Sport Sedan insists on drinking premium unleaded. We took the wheel for an eight-hour drive with Masaru Katsurada, the car’s chief engineer. Katsurada wanted to pro­vide higher steering effort, as well as more aggressiveness from the spring rates, the anti-roll bars, the bushings, and the tires. But the final tuning, he groaned, would require a process he hates: a herd of engineers, product plan­ners, and general hangers-on all bicker­ing and nit-picking and fussing with the settings until, he said, ”I’d have a suspen­sion with the personality of a committee, which is no personality.” Katsurada’s solution: “I pointed at one of my engineers, a rally driver named Eiji Tatsumi, and I said to him: ‘Tatsumi, you select settings. You drive alone. You change suspension until you are happy. No one else. Then drive Legacy to me. That is the suspension we build.'” And that, he said, is what happened. The engineer’s rally roots apparently were not deeply buried. He retained the Legacy’s long wheel travel and its rela­tively supple ride. At warp speed, the car still steps over railroad crossings and B­-road yumps with grace and composure. But when the struts and springs ap­proach the limit of their strokes, they are now 70-percent stiffer than those on non-turbo Legacys. In day-to-day driving, the ride is nearly as compliant as the standard sedan’s (which makes you ask, “Why don’t all Legacys have these springs?”), and you feel the added stiffness only in the struts’ last inch of travel. The system clearly works: witness our Sport Sedan’s 0.80-g skidpad performance. LOWS: Indifferent styling, tacky plastic stuff inside.The unique tuning extends to the steering’s variable assist, which bleeds off far more quickly than the standard Legacy’s. This is a worthwhile improve­ment, although we’d still prefer more on-­center feel above 45 mph. Katsurada’s engineer mated six-inch­-wide alloy wheels to Bridgestone RE88s. For no extra money, you can specify all­-season RE92s if you live in a really filthy climate. But don’t do it unless you have to. Connected to four-wheel drive, the stickier RE88s offer generous grip and fine straight-line tracking, even during a near-blinding downpour on the greasy roads of the Green Mountains in Vermont. Moreover, we are loath to tamper with any tire-suspension combination that can stop from 70 mph in 173 feet, matching the stopping distance of a BMW 535i. Subaru’s full-time all-wheel drive is a well-sorted system that is both reliable and virtually transparent in operation, and it accounts for less than a 200-pound penalty. In the Sport Sedan, the slick five­-speed manual is mated to a mechanical center differential with a 50/50 front/rear torque split. Viscous clutches pro­vide limited slip for the rear and center differentials. To cope with the additional torque, the Sport Sedan has a new hy­draulic clutch with a pull-type release bearing. For some reason, this has made the clutch pedal stiff, and there is now more takeup vagueness than we appreciate. Tearing along our favorite roller­coaster roads, the Sport Sedan rarely runs out of stick, but neither does it en­courage you to toss it into turns. Hustle the car in rally-driver fashion and it sim­ply plows resolutely, elongating the radi­us of its turn with the monotonous predictability of a Johnny Carson monologue. You can alter this trait in only one way: lift off the throttle and the front tires will bite instantly, returning to the business of steering and—presto!—you’re back on course. Product-liability lawyers will hate this car. Buyers drawn to the Legacy Sport Se­dan won’t need to spend much time jawing with salesmen—not a single op­tion is needed. In addition to the stan­dard four-wheel drive and Bosch ABS, the deal includes air conditioning, power windows, central locking, cruise control, a moonroof (which rattled like an an­noyed diamondback in our test car), a sonically spectacular Clarion-built 80-watt stereo with four speakers, and spe­cial front seats with new (and nicely shaped) squabs and backrests. The Legacy’s cabin is still awash in life­less plastic surfaces whose tacky grain makes a mess of the doorsills, most of the dash, the headliner, the A-pillars, the sun visors, even the steering-wheel hub. Su­baru’s leather-laden Legacy LSi would be just the ticket, but no turbocharged engine is offered in that model. Bottom-line time: the Sport Sedan is carefully engineered, capable, and fast in its class. But it is also a car that drives like it looks—largely benign and bland, somehow failing to excite. This $19,350 turbocharged Subaru would draw a lot more attention if it were priced to compete with $16,000 Honda Accords and Mitsubishi Galants. Instead, it finds itself within $650 of a nasty brawl with true luminaries in the hot $20,000 sports-sedan niche. It is, for example, neither as fast nor as firmly planted as the Ford Taurus SHO. It puts out the same 160 horsepower and rides as capably as the jewel-like Nissan Maxima SE, but it is not as luxurious, as finely finished, nor as satisfying to drive. VERDICT: A B+ in Engineering, a C in Fun 101.This revised Legacy’s principal al­lure—and the hook on which the marketing mavens seem dangerously willing to hang most of Subaru’s recently dwin­dling fortune—is maximum traction: four-wheel drive and ABS. That may carry the car to glory in Vermont, and it may give John Denver a rocky-mountain high. But it makes the car a quirky choice—a kind of Subaru hallmark, come to think of it—in most other areas. The Legacy Sport Sedan is a car we respect more than we desire. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1991 Subaru Legacy Sport SedanVehicle Type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $19,294/$19,357Options: floor mats, $63
ENGINEturbocharged SOHC flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 135 in3, 2212 cm3Power: 160 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 181 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION[S]5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 10.9-in vented disc/10.5-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Potenza RE88195/60HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.6 inLength: 177.6 inWidth: 66.5 inHeight: 53.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 47/36 ft3Trunk Volume: 14 ft3Curb Weight: 3140 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4-Mile: 16.1 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 24.2 sec120 mph: 57.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.1 secTop Speed: 129 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 173 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 19/25 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

The Buick Encore GX is working through a bit of an identity crisis. Now in its fourth year of production, the 2024 Encore GX replaces the Essence with the Avenir trim at the top of its lineup and starts at $34,795. The Avenir arrives alongside a refreshed look for Buick’s smallest SUV which opens at a base price of $26,895. The slimmer headlights, reshaped front and rear bumpers, and grille are all new. Additionally, the GX is the first U.S. model to feature Buick’s updated tri-shield crest, though it’s relatively easy to miss the change from the old logo if you aren’t looking for it. Inside, new tech and nicer materials inside help elevate the GX above similarly sized subcompact crossovers like the Honda HR-V and Volkswagen Taos and inch it closer to luxury competitors such as the BMW X1 and Volvo XC40. However, the top-spec Avenir finds itself caught in the small space between both camps. More from the tri-shield brandOur top-level all-wheel-drive Avenir came swathed in leather upholstery, with a heated steering wheel and an inductive charging pad amid the niceties. The interior is attractive and the controls are intuitive. The inclusion of higher-end materials makes for a more pleasant cabin than less-expensive alternatives such as the HR-V or Toyota Corolla Cross. However, premium-brand competitors such as the Mercedes-Benz GLB-class offer a richer finish for only a few thousand dollars more than the Buick’s $39,580 as-tested price. The Encore GX’s new digital display panel, which should be the centerpiece of the new interior, has a strange-looking bezel that detracts from the GX’s otherwise attractive design. But the dual screens—an 11.0-inch central touchscreen and an 8.0-inch instrument display—are crisp and responsive. Buick’s native software works well too, and wireless smartphone mirroring is standard. Small SUVs like the Encore GX aren’t typically lauded for their sportiness, and that’s true here as well. In lesser trim levels, the Encore GX’s base engine is a 137-hp turbocharged 1.2-liter three-cylinder, but the Avenir trim comes standard with a turbocharged 1.3-liter three-cylinder that generates 155 horsepower. More power would be welcome as the Avenir requires a lazy 8.8 seconds to reach 60 mph, though that figure is 0.5 second better than we recorded with the same powertrain in a 2020 Encore GX.While you might assume such a minuscule engine would have a commensurately small appetite for fuel, we found that it didn’t quite live up to that expectation. We did measure 30 mpg in our 200-mile highway fuel-economy test, a figure beats the EPA’s 28-mpg estimate, but even so, the more powerful Mazda CX-30 matches the Buick’s fuel economy in the same highway test, while an all-wheel-drive VW Taos beats it by 3 mpg. Fortunately, everyday driving isn’t ruled by on-paper statistics, and while the Encore GX is certainly not quick, the 1.3-liter hits peak torque at 1600 rpm, giving it enough low-down pep to leave stoplights with some authority, and it can easily keep up with freeway traffic—even if the nine-speed automatic transmission is occasionally slow to downshift. If the sound of a three-cylinder concerns you, the Buick’s engine doesn’t raise its voice much. Under wide-open throttle, the Avenir measured a quiet 72 decibels in our testing. The considerably more expensive Mercedes-Benz GLC300 emits 76 decibels in the same test. At a steady 70 mph, the Encore GX rolls at a hushed 68 decibels. Even over Michigan’s frost-heaved roads, the ride is smooth and comfortable and the handling remains secure right up to its low skidpad grip of 0.81 g. Again, sportiness isn’t the flavor here, so sit back and enjoy the quiet.Despite its size, the Encore GX manages to offer impressive practicality. We wouldn’t recommend stuffing your tallest friends in the back seat for long road trips, but the rear of the Buick is comfortable and spacious enough for shorter journeys. Something the Encore GX’s size isn’t built for schlepping major cargo, but the front passenger seat’s fold-flat capability allows you to stuff in an extra-long IKEA flat-pack or a ladder. For additional versatility, the load floor can be adjusted up or down, and there’s a removable shelf in the cargo area allowing for even more storage. In our testing, we found there’s room for six carry-on suitcases behind the rear seats, 19 with them folded.As a mainstream crossover, the Encore GX Avenir is quiet, comfortable, and practical. But at nearly $40,000 as-tested, the Avenir trim is priced just below the premium competition and far beyond the Encore GX’s base price. Despite the Avenir’s luxury features and an effective makeover, the little Buick needs something a bit more special and powerful under the hood to properly bridge the gap between the mainstream and luxury markets.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Buick Encore GX AvenirVehicle Type: front-engine, front/all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $34,795/$39,580Options: panoramic moonroof, $1495; Avenir Technology package (adaptive cruise control, review camera interior mirror, surround-view camera system, wireless device charging), $1395; Avenir Convenience package (Bose premium audio system, hands-free power liftgate, rain-sensing wipers, rear park assist), $1295; White Frost Tricoat paint, $600
ENGINE
turbocharged 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
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 11.8-in vented disc/11.4-in discTires: Continental ProContact TX245/45-19 98H M+S TPC Spec 3178MS
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 102.2 inLength: 171.4 inWidth: 71.4 inHeight: 64.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/42 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 50/24 ft3Curb Weight: 3384 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.9 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 28.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 10.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.8 secTop Speed (C/D est): 120 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 390 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 27/26/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDAssociate News EditorJack Fitzgerald’s love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1. After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn’t afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. More

From the November 1998 issue of Car and Driver.First impressions can be misleading, and not just with people. Our early impressions of cars are subject to change after 40,000 miles behind the wheel. For example, it was love at first sight with a certain European convertible some years ago (hey, we don’t kiss and tell), but the romance soured after its trou­blesome long-term stay with us. On the other hand, the Jaguar XJ6 (this we can tell) had us tearing out our hair during a brief stay for its first road test of the 1995 redesign, but after 40,000 mostly pleasant miles in a long-term car, we were no longer scoffing at Jag’s claims of improved reliability. The current-design Honda Prelude cer­tainly left good impressions at its intro­duction in the fall of 1996. Its engine—a 195-hp, 2.2-liter four-cylinder with vari­able valve timing and a soaring 7400-rpm redline—was as thrilling as ever. We also liked the Active Torque Transfer System (ATTS) on the SH model, which directs torque to the outside front wheel under hard cornering to reduce the numb under­steer that plagues most front-drivers. In short order, we named the SH model a 10Best car. Five months later, it won the title of “Best-Handling Car for Less Than $30,000.” But would our impressions change with time and miles? In April 1997, an arrest­-me-red Prelude SH arrived at our door with just 11 miles on the odometer. This car left good first impressions, too. An inspection for flaws revealed only a loose shifter knob and a tad too much lubricant on the door hinges. After 1000 miles, we took it to the track. The Prelude leapt to 60 mph in 6.9 seconds, sped through the quarter-mile in 15.4 seconds, and topped out at 138 mph. It could brake to a stop from 70 mph in 172 feet and corner at 0.83 g. Early logbook impressions glowed. “Drives quite rightly,” went one entry. “Lovely engine,” chimed another. Drivers applauded the car’s sensitive and secure steering, its tight structure, and the coor­dination of its clutch and shifter, which worked wonderfully with little more than a quick flick of the wrist. The Prelude requires service at 7500-mile intervals, which works out to an oil change and a tire rotation, but the filter stays put until 15,000 miles, at which time various other functions are inspected. At 30,000 miles, the air filter is changed again and adjustments to the drive belts and valve clearances are made. (The first major service arrives at a distant 90,000 miles, and a new camshaft belt and spark plug aren’t recommended until 105,000 miles.) When a Prelude nears a 7500-mile interval, a little “main­tenance required” window beneath the odometer turns first yellow, then red, as a reminder that it’s time for service. More ’90s Honda Prelude SH ReviewsOur local dealer, Howard Cooper Import Center, in Ann Arbor, had a 10-day waiting list! So instead of taking our Prelude there for its first required service, we shuttled it to Rosenau Automotive Group in Inkster, Michigan. Rosenau had its own agenda for the 7500-mile service and charged us for not only the oil change and tire rotation but also a fuel-system additive and a graphite oil treatment. It left a smoking $87 hole in our AmEx card. Even after subtracting these unwanted items (as we always do for our service tal­lies in the specifications), the total still came to an eyebrow-arching $71. It would be our only unpleasant service experience. Howard Cooper performed the remaining four services, which were all done more or less to the book, and inex­pensively, at $218, making for a service total of $289. That’s cheap for any car. (Our long-term Nissan 240SX cost $395, and a Ford Probe GT we had for 35,000 miles cost us $359 for service.) We didn’t need a dealer’s help for any­thing else. Our only unscheduled service stop came at 14,630 miles, when day­tripper Larry Griffin could no longer tolerate a tire imbalance during a 7000-mile trip. Ripley Firestone in Ripley, West Virginia, did the balancing act on all four tires. Believe it or not, the price was just $19—our only repair charge. Many of us came to appreciate the Prelude’s understated, simple exterior. “Pretty sharp for a foreign car,” men­tioned one Ford F-150 driver at a gas station. The interior received high marks for its functionality and low marks for its cautious styling. If Honda execs contemplate hara-kiri after reading that sentence, we sympathize. The last-generation Prelude had a more creatively sculpted interior, and we complained about that, too. Most other gripes were of the Pecksniffian kind. A few didn’t like the “chaise longue” seating position, and shorter drivers couldn’t adjust the steering wheel high enough for com­fort. The “Acoustic Feedback” system with AM/FM-stereo/CD player, standard equipment in the SH, was crisp and clear with the volume cranked. Turn it down, however, and it sounded more like one of those AM radios you get when you open a new checking account. Some thought the doors and the trunklid closed with a hollow, tinny sound that belied the Prelude SH’s $26,095 base price. The ATTS received mixed reviews. Berg: “I love the way the front end tucks in under power on rainy, wet corners.” Markus: “Did a quick, low-speed lane change into an opening on I-696. I think the ATTS was still trying hard to go left as I steered right. Not what I was expecting.” After its 40,000-mile stay, we returned the Prelude to the track. Sprints to 60 mph took 7.2 seconds, 0.3 second longer, but top speed increased a notch to 139 mph. Cornering grip improved slightly, and braking performance held, with impressive fade resistance after so many miles. By the end of the test, the window weatherstripping wouldn’t stay in the slots on both doors, and the floor mats devel­oped an annoying tendency to slide for­ward, interfering with the driver’s pedals. Slight gear grinding accompanied most fourth-to-fifth-gear shifts, perhaps due to a weak transmission synchro. But our enthusiasm for this sporty car continued unabated. “One of my favorite long-term cars, second only to the Boxster,” wrote a test driver in the log­book. “Love driving this car,” wrote another. Throughout its stay with us, the Prelude SH was a reliable, inexpensive, and fun drive. Sometimes, good first impressions are right on the money.ServiceScheduled service: 5Unscheduled service: 1Operating Costs (for 40,000 miles)Service: $289Normal wear: $0Repair: $19Gasoline (@ $1.04 per gallon): $1651Rants and RavesWonderful engine, clean lines, but what’s up with the interior? I’ve recently driven an Acura NSX-T, two Civics, and this Prelude and could not tell you the difference from inside. For $26,095, you would think the interior would be as memorable as the exterior and the engine. —Erik DavidekSuch a quick-witted car, with instant throttle response, fast steering that isn’t nervous, progressive clutch takeup that’s fast without being abrupt. This remains, in my book, the best of the two-plus-two hatchbacks, but without the hatch. —John PhillipsPowertrain and chassis dovetail nicely, if not altogether seamlessly. I’d like shorter, more precise strokes for the clutch, shifter, throttle, and brakes. Plus a 2.5-to-2.8-liter V-6 for more low-rev punch. —Larry GriffinThe A/C blower on low is still too energetic. C’mon with the complaints! —Brock YatesDoes anyone else think the center tunnel is a bit big for a front-driver? —Phil BergThis is my next used-car purchase. —Christian SpencerArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1997 Honda Prelude SHVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $26,095/$26,095Options: none
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 132 in3, 2157 cm3Power: 195 hp @ 7000 rpmTorque: 156 lb-ft @ 5250 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 101.8 inLength: 178.0 inCurb Weight: 3038 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS: NEW
60 mph: 6.9 sec1/4-Mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 19.6 sec130 mph: 34.7 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 138 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g 
C/D TEST RESULTS: 40,000 miles60 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.6 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 19.8 sec130 mph: 35.5 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.9 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 139 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 22 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

It’s a sign of the times that nearly every luxury brand offers an EV of some sort, and it’s no coincidence that many of these new entries are taking the shape of compact crossovers—one of the most popular segments in all of autodom. Audi’s Q4 e-tron is the third EV from the German automaker, while Lexus’s new-for-2023 RZ is the first electric model from Toyota’s luxury spinoff.Because these two models have similar specs, price ranges, and missions, we decided to pit them against each other to see which has a better chance at making inroads in this increasingly crowded segment that also includes vehicles such as the Genesis Electrified GV70, Mercedes-Benz EQB, and Tesla Model Y.More on the Q4 e-tronPrice and PositioningWhile the 2023 Audi Q4 e-tron starts at just $50,995 to the 2023 Lexus RZ’s base price of $59,650, the as-tested versions of these two were far closer in price. In 50 Quattro Prestige form, the fully loaded Q4 you see here costs $66,190, while the RZ450e Premium (one step below the top Luxury trim) came in at $63,415. As you’d expect of premium SUVs like these, both were equipped with all-wheel drive, all manner of driver-assistance and infotainment features, and niceties such as heated steering wheels and panoramic sunroofs.Both of these vehicles have cheaper analogs. In the case of the Lexus, it’s the Toyota bZ4X that rides on the same platform and uses similar battery packs. The RZ is at least more powerful than the Toyota and comes standard with a dual-motor, all-wheel-drive powertrain, plus its interior is laid out differently than the bZ4X’s. The Audi shares its underpinnings with the Volkswagen ID.4 and doesn’t offer anything different in terms of its drivetrain, with the same 201-hp single-motor and 295-hp dual-motor configurations and a 77.0-kWh battery pack.Lexus has done a better job differentiating the RZ from its mainstream sibling than Audi has. The RZ’s exterior styling is distinctive and upscale, while its interior features soft synthetic leather, nice aluminum trim, and a completely different dashboard arrangement than the Toyota. The Q4 e-tron looks and feels too similar to the ID.4 on which it’s based, from its awkwardly tall proportions to its subpar interior materials that don’t meet typical Audi standards. We weren’t fans of the textured plastic found on the dashboard and door panels, and we found the overall vibe to be dour, especially in our test car’s black interior color scheme.Andi Hedrick|Car and Driver2023 Audi Q4 50 e-tron Quattro HIGHS: Responsive handling, superior range, spacious rear seat.LOWS: Awkward styling, less-than-luxurious interior, not so quick.VERDICT: Although its EV bones are sound, the Q4 feels too much like an ID.4 clone.How They DriveWe also found the Lexus to provide a more luxurious driving experience than the Audi. The RZ is impressively quiet and smooth, with a hushed cabin and cosseting ride quality. More road and wind noise enters the Q4’s interior at speed, and its ride is firmer. The tradeoff is that the Q4 e-tron corners well, with minimal body roll, responsive steering, and an eagerness to change direction that the Lexus lacks. On our test track, the Audi edged out the Lexus in both skidpad and braking performance, with an 0.01-g advantage on the skidpad and a slightly shorter stop from 70 mph of 167 feet, four feet better than the Lexus. This is particularly notable, since the Audi did so wearing all-season tires versus the summer rubber on the Lexus.More on the RZThe Lexus, though, was the quicker of the two. It reached 60 mph in a brisk 4.6 seconds, while the Audi took precisely one second longer to reach that speed. Neither feels lightning-quick, but the Audi’s superior throttle response in real-world driving helps make up for its acceleration deficiency. We were disappointed in the regenerative-braking configurability in these vehicles. Both offer multiple levels of regen, but neither car’s top setting was particularly aggressive, and one-pedal driving is not possible. Range and ChargingBoth the Audi and Lexus have relatively small battery packs, so they won’t provide nearly as much driving range as some of their competitors. The RZ’s pack is particularly tiny, measuring 63.4 kWh of usable capacity, and it can’t even crack 200 miles by the EPA’s estimates, with the model tested here and its optional 20-inch wheels rated at 196 miles. Meanwhile, the base version with smaller 18-inch wheels is rated at 220 miles. Our real-world 75-mph highway range test recorded an even more disappointing result of just 120 miles, which will mean frequent charging stops on road trips. The Audi, with its 77.0-kWh battery, fared better, achieving a real-world result of 190 miles against an EPA range of 236 miles. Both are capable of DC fast-charging at up to 150 kilowatts, less than what some rivals offer.Andi Hedrick|Car and Driver2023 Lexus RZ450eHIGHS: Comfortable ride, hushed cabin, premium interior materials.LOWS: Pitiful real-world highway range, sluggish throttle response, weak regen.VERDICT: Lexus builds a nice luxury SUV but forgot to focus on the EV basics.Neither the RZ nor the Q4 e-tron represents the state of the art among luxury EVs. Competitors such as the Genesis Electrified GV70 offer at least equal or more driving range, faster charging, and better acceleration. Neither the Lexus nor the Audi would be our first choice if we were shopping this segment. But if we were choosing among these two, we’d select the Lexus because it at least is more credible as a luxury vehicle. Even though the Audi handles better and offers more real-world range, the Q4 is too similar to its Volkswagen equivalent to warrant paying thousands of dollars extra for a premium badge. It’s a better EV than the RZ, but not better overall. If Lexus can figure out a way to improve upon the RZ’s electric platform—namely a bigger battery pack and faster charging—it could be much more of a contender.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Audi Q4 50 e-tron Quattro PrestigeVehicle Type: front and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $56,395/$66,190Options: Prestige package (adaptive cruise control with lane guidance, head-up display with augmented reality, dual-pane acoustic front side glass, Sonos premium sound, matrix LED headlights, headlight and taillight animation, heated steering wheel with regen paddles, Audi Connect Plus, Park Assist Plus, Virtual Cockpit Plus, MMI Navigation Plus, memory for driver’s seat and exterior mirrors, hands-free power tailgate, wireless phone-charging pad), $7700; Black Optic package (20-inch Y-spoke wheels, black exterior accents), $1500; Audi Guard protection kit (all-weather floor and cargo mats), $320; Audi Beam-Rings (lower front-door illumination), $275
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: induction asynchronous AC, 107 hp, 119 lb-ftRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 229 lb-ftCombined Power: 295 hpCombined Torque: 339 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 77.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.5 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 150 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.1-in vented disc/11.0-in drumTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/SF: 235/50R-20 104T M+S A0R: 255/45R-20 105T M+S A0
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.7 inLength: 180.7 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 64.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 53/25 ft3Curb Weight: 4974 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.3 sec @ 98 mph100 mph: 15.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 113 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 77 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 71 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 190 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 93/97/87 MPGeRange: 236 mi

2023 Lexus RZ450e PremiumVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $59,650/$63,415Options: Technology package (digital key, head-up display, parking assist), $1425; 20-inch wheels, $1240; premium Ether paint, $500; Cold Area package (headlamp washers), $200; digital rearview mirror, $200; illuminated front badge, $200
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 196 lb-ft Rear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 107 hp, 124 lb-ft Combined Power: 308 hpCombined Torque: 320 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 63.4 kWhOnboard Charger: 6.6 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 150 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.9-in vented disc/12.5-in vented discTires: Dunlop SP SportMaxx 060F: 235/50R-20 104V R: 255/45R-20 105W 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 189.2 inWidth: 74.6 inHeight: 64.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 48/35 ft3Curb Weight: 4617 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.6 sec1/4-Mile: 13.5 sec @ 99 mph100 mph: 13.8 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 103 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 354 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 73 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 68 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 120 miAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 36 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 86 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 95/102/87 MPGeRange: 196 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorDespite 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