Evelyn Reynolds

You’d think that Toyota would have the sport-utility formula long figured out given its numerous popular models. But there’s been a gaping hole in Toyota’s SUV lineup for some time, with the step up from the Highlander crossover to the body-on-frame Sequoia being particularly large.play iconThe triangle icon that indicates to playThough it’s a wildly popular vehicle (3.3 million-plus sold to date), the Highlander’s middle row isn’t exactly world-beating, and its puny third row is no match for the likes of the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Grand Cherokee L, and Kia Telluride. Meanwhile, the product gap grew into a chasm when the new Toyota Sequoia debuted, as it moved in a truckier direction to fill the vacuum left by the departing Land Cruiser. The change from independent to solid-axle rear suspension certainly improved towing and off-road capability, but ride smoothness and third-row passenger/cargo space suffered.Enter the Grand HighlanderThe 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander is a completely new vehicle that is not merely a stretched-wheelbase Highlander. The Grand Highlander certainly has a longer wheelbase, but it’s considerably larger in every other dimension too. It also looks different from the Highlander, with smooth flanks that do not evoke the Supra-wannabe swoopiness of the Highlander. The GH is built specifically to take on the above competition in what Toyota calls the “long-haul three-row SUV” segment. That it uses a derivative name is a calculated strategy, as Toyota freely admits that it is “drafting off the success” of the Highlander by simply tacking “Grand” onto the nameplate.And why not? The Grand Highlander shares its namesake’s core mission, but it’s just better at it—particularly if you’ll use the third row more of the time, or for longer trips. In numeric terms, the Grand’s 116.1-inch wheelbase is 3.9 inches longer than the Highlander’s. It’s also 4.0 inches longer overall than the longest Highlander XSE, 2.3 inches wider, and stands 2.0 inches taller. But it remains significantly more garage- and parking-space-friendly than a Sequoia because its overall length is 6.7 inches stubbier, its roof crouches 4.4 inches lower, and the body is 1.3 inches narrower.Made For the Long HaulThe Grand Highlander’s extra interior space is put to good use, and we’re lucky that chief engineer Craig Payne cut his teeth on the Sienna before he was assigned the Grand Highlander project. The now-spacious third row is easy to enter, and our 6-foot-2-inch tester, yours truly, was able to sit there comfortably, with the second row preset to account for his own adjusted driving position. You could say the Grand Highlander can carry a conga line of Dans. At the same time, there is 21 cubic feet of luggage space behind the third row—enough, in Toyota’s estimation, for seven carry-on suitcases. More on the Grand HighlanderMeanwhile, the Highlander only provides 16 cubic feet behind a third row that is utterly adult-repellent, with 1.1 inches less headroom and 5.5 fewer inches of legroom. Things are surprisingly subpar in the Sequoia, which offers either 22 cubic feet of rear cargo space or Grand Highlander levels of third-row legroom, but not at the same time. You must scooch the seat forward to the point of uninhabitability to get the former or slide it back to get the latter, at which point you have just 12 cubes of cargo room—and 1.6 inches less headroom than the Grand.We like how every outboard seat has a USB-C outlet, and the Grand Highlander’s numerous cupholders feature adjacent slots that can cradle smartphones and tablets. The second-row mini-console pops out quickly to create an aisle, and the front console features a thoughtful roll-back top between fixed armrests that allows you to fish around without disturbing your seatmate. Want to fold seats and tote cargo? The Grand Highlander carries 58 cubic feet behind the middle row and 98 behind the front, which tops the Sequoia’s 49- and 87-cubic-foot efforts and is 10 or so cubes better than the competition in both measures.Up front, the driver’s seat is exceedingly well shaped, and the dash has a layered and interesting look—especially when accented with the Portobello brown leather and bronze trim of our Hybrid Max Platinum sample vehicle. Piano black is used sparingly, and many controls are set on matte-black surfaces that look and feel surprisingly premium. A 12.3-inch touchscreen is standard across all grades, and pairing our phone to wireless Apple CarPlay was painless. Indeed, this is a comfortable and accommodating place to whittle away the miles. Multiple Modes of MotivationUnder the hood, you have your choice of three powertrains. The base turbocharged 2.4-liter inline-four is good for 265 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque, and it’s available with front- or all-wheel drive. The V-6-powered competition delivers between 20 and 28 more horsepower, but the Grand Highlander sends an extra 48 to 50 pound-feet through its eight-speed automatic. Manufacturer-estimated combined fuel economy is 24 mpg for the front-driver and 22–23 mpg with all-wheel drive. That’s about 1–2 mpg better than the aforementioned competition.Next up is Toyota’s familiar hybrid with dual electric motors that work together to recover braking energy, harvest excess engine output, and regulate the drive ratio of the seamless electronic continuously variable automatic transmission. The system’s 2.5-liter engine makes 187 horses and 177 pound-feet on its own, with the electric motors boosting that to 245 horsepower. All-wheel-drive versions add a third motor between the rear wheels. Estimated fuel economy ranges between 33 and 34 mpg combined, depending on trim.Though the top-level powertrain is called Hybrid Max, it shares nothing with the above-described hybrid. It combines the base 265-hp turbo four with a single electric motor sandwiched between its engine and transmission, which has six speeds instead of eight because the electric motor’s added torque helps bridge the wider gaps. All-wheel drive is standard, so there’s a second motor at the rear. All in, this powertrain makes 362 horsepower and 400 pound-feet, which tops the Jeep Grand Cherokee L’s 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in both measures. Fuel economy is an estimated 27 mpg combined, which is 10 mpg better than the Jeep.Drives Like a Bigger Highlander Underway, the base powertrain has no trouble urging the larger and heavier Grand Highlander into merge lanes and up steep grades. The transmission shifts smoothly, and even though the base Grand is not quick, it’s no slug either. We reckon 60 mph will arrive in about 7.5 seconds. The engine note tends to mumble under load but pipes down while cruising. It also cuts a willing arc through corners, though the steering is somewhat light for our tastes.We didn’t drive the base hybrid, but the Hybrid Max feels much more eager, as it should with almost 100 more horsepower. Toyota says 60 mph will come in 6.3 seconds, but we think it’ll do better. Meanwhile, it’s never apparent that its transmission has two fewer cogs, and the feel of the blended brakes is impressively consistent and reassuring. The steering is just as light as the standard GH, but on-center buildup is a bit more muted here, possibly owing to the sharper response of its standard 20-inch wheels.Both versions deliver a generally smooth ride that lacks any semblance of float, but the base model’s 18-inchers came across as more supple over cracked surfaces, as smaller-diameter wheels often do. But we’re not ready to be definitive, because the roads on Hawaii’s Big Island lack the variety of those at home, and the lowly 55-mph speed limit is enforced by unmarked patrol cars.Available Soon, and at Compelling PricesWhen it arrives this summer, the Grand Highlander’s three-powertrain lineup will be available across the XLE, Limited, and Platinum grades. All-wheel drive is optional on the first two for $1600. All three grades are available with the base engine, starting with the XLE at $44,405, which is only $1050 more than a similarly outfitted 2023 Highlander. That’s a steal. The XLE Hybrid goes for $46,005, which again is just $1050 more than a comparable Highlander. Higher up, the all-wheel-drive Limited Hybrid Max, which has no Highlander equivalent, costs $55,375, and the all-wheel-drive Platinum Hybrid Max sits atop the pile at $59,460.ToyotaWith the new Grand Highlander, Toyota has neatly plugged a hole in its lineup that had recently grown larger with the Sequoia’s new realignment. It finally gives Brand T what it needs to go up against the likes of the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, and Kia Telluride in the so-called long-haul three-row SUV segment. Does it have a chance to win a comparison test? That’s not yet clear, but it’s sure to win over new converts that bypassed the Highlander because it didn’t quite measure up.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Toyota Grand HighlanderVehicle Type: front-engine, front-engine and front-motor, or front-engine and front- and rear-motor, front- or all-wheel-drive, 7- or 8-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase: FWD, $44,405; AWD, $46,005; Hybrid FWD, $46,005; Hybrid AWD, $47,605; Hybrid Max, $55,375
POWERTRAINSDOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 187 hp, 177 lb-ft + 2 or 3 AC motors (combined output: 245 hp, nickel-metal hydride battery pack); turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 265 hp, 310 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 265 hp, 310 lb-ft + 2 AC motors (combined output: 362 hp, 400 lb-ft; nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions: continuously variable automatic, 8-speed automatic, continuously variable automatic/direct drive (F/R), 6-speed automatic/direct drive (F/R)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.1 inLength: 201.4 inWidth: 78.3 inHeight: 70.1 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58-60/52-54/39 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 98/58/21 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4400-5000 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.2-8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.4-17.5 secTop Speed: 115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR’S EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 22-34/20-36/26-32 mpgTechnical EditorDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

From the June 2023 issue of Car and Driver.When Honda birthed the TrailSport moniker on the previous-generation Pilot and Passport, it was an inauspicious moment. With the trim offering almost no functional upgrades, the automaker appeared to be cynically chasing the emerging popularity of rugged model-line extensions. That changes with the all-new 2023 Pilot. The TrailSport truly distinguishes itself from the rest of the lineup, with all-terrain tires (and a matching full-size spare), an inch more ground clearance (for 8.3 inches total), beefy skid plates, a slightly softer front anti-roll bar, and a torque-vectoring rear diff with 20 percent more torque capacity. The off-road variant is now fully realized. Driving the Pilot TrailSportSpeaking of that rear diff, it’s a torque-vectoring madman, rotating the rear end around with slide-happy shenanigans on- or off-road. Three-row large SUVs are never this neutral, but the Pilot gets all four tires fully engaged to deliver 0.85 g on the skidpad—astonishing, considering the lowly T speed–rated (118 mph) all-terrain rubber. The Continental TerrainContact A/T tires claw extremely well on soft sand and mud but don’t sing at highway speeds on pavement, despite their knobby tread.HIGHS: Legit off-road capability, adult-size second and third rows, exuberant torque-vectoring rear diff.The TrailSport does give up some on-road prowess relative to its siblings, with the tires and softer front anti-roll bar eroding some steering precision and allowing more body motion. The stopping distance from 70 mph is a longish 189 feet. While the TrailSport isn’t as sharp as the other Pilot models on pavement, most competitors aren’t either. The TrailSport has more serious off-road chops than its peers but is still no mountain goat. Even with the additional ground clearance, the TrailSport’s 19.8-degree approach angle means it can’t quite clear the 20-degree ramp we use to test articulation. And any vehicle with this much wheelbase is at risk for high centering. Also, Honda incorporated the front tow hook into the forward skid plate under the oil pan, which means two things: It won’t work as a flag mount, and you may need a snorkel to attach a snatch strap after getting stuck in a water hole.Larger Exterior and Interior DimensionsThis fourth-gen Pilot debuts a revised and fortified light-truck architecture that will also underpin the next Odyssey minivan, Ridgeline pickup, and Passport SUV. Generally speaking, the Pilot has grown in every dimension— the TrailSport specifically by 2.9 inches in wheelbase, 3.7 inches in length, and over an inch in track widths, which makes for more second- and third-row space, plus greater cargo room. The third row is not just habitable but comfortable for adults, with the seat cushion now about two inches higher off the floor for more stretch-out space. It’s not minivan grade, but it’s not far off. Parents of young children will appreciate the buttons on the second-row seats that tilt and slide them out of the way, making it easy for kids to self-embark for the back. Marc Urbano|Car and DriverBigger and stiffer means heavier, and the TrailSport’s 4709-pound curb weight is a substantial 382 more than that of the last Pilot we tested. But the structure feels about as solid as a bridge abutment, which benefits both ride and handling, and the Pilot steers with a lightness and veracity that belies its increased weight. There’s more sound-deadening material to block out the outside world too. The $49,695 TrailSport is the third-highest trim level, below the $53,375 Elite and $200 less than the Touring. It’s well equipped but missing a few of the top models’ niceties, such as ventilated front seats, heated rear seats, Wi-Fi, and Bose audio. LOWS: Fuel economy takes a dip, not as quick as before, forgettable styling inside and out.Visually, the 2023 Pilot marks a return toward boxy from the previous jelly-bean shape, although it’s not nearly as cubist as the second-gen model. Viewed from the side or the rear, the new Pilot blends in with its peers. Arguably, its most noticeable visual is the $455 Diffused Sky Pearl paint available only on the TrailSport.Interior materials are of reasonably high quality, and storage bins abound. Orange stitching on the seats and dash is a touch of dress-up, but our test vehicle’s all-black color scheme is bland, and it’s the only choice on the TrailSport. We’re never fans of fingerprint-attracting piano-black trim, which unfortunately surrounds the shift buttons and climate controls. The 9.0-inch center touchscreen on EX-L and higher models is small by today’s standards. All-New V-6 EngineHonda’s venerable 60-degree naturally aspirated V-6 sprouts dual overhead cams for the first time, part of a comprehensive overhaul to reduce emissions. Displacement remains 3.5 liters, and a combination of more precise fuel control, higher injection pressures, and variable valve timing on both camshafts conspires to cut particulate and NOx emissions by up to 50 percent. That gets the V-6 to SULEV30 status, which should keep it emissions-legal through the end of the decade. Peak power is up a nominal five horsepower to 285 total, and torque is unchanged at 262 pound-feet, with both peaks at slightly higher rpm. The V-6 still has a pleasing intake honk, but Honda’s storied VTEC is gone, and with it the characterful high-lift-cam switchover point and resulting pandemonium at the top end of the tach.VERDICT: This is your Pilot speaking, now more directly to driving enthusiasts, wherever they may venture.Power-to-weight math puts the new model 7 percent behind the previous one, so it’s no surprise that acceleration is slower by similar margins: 6.9 seconds to 60 mph and 15.4 seconds at 90 mph in the quarter-mile, versus 6.2 seconds and 14.8 at 94 mph before. Fuel economy suffers too, with EPA combined ratings down 1 mpg versus comparable 2022 Pilots. The TrailSport lands at 20 mpg, which is 1 mpg worse than other all-wheel-drive Pilots. Although this SUV lags behind its most efficient peers, some buyers will appreciate that Honda is sticking with the V-6 rather than switching to a turbo four like many competitors. Delivering all the expected practicality of a three-row mid-size SUV, the new Pilot expands the breadth of its lineup with the off-road-ready TrailSport. Its driving dynamics now bring it to the front of the pack, on- or off-road. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda Pilot TrailsportVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $49,695/$50,150Options: Diffused Sky Pearl paint, $455
ENGINEDOHC, 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 212 in3, 3471 cm3Power: 285 hp @ 6100 rpmTorque: 262 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.8-in vented disc/13.0-in discTires: Continental TerrainContact A/T265/60R-18 110T M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.8 inLength: 200.2 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 72.0 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 57/57/40 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/M/R: 87/49/19 ft3Curb Weight: 4709 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.9 sec100 mph: 20.3 sec1/4-Mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 22 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 400 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 20/18/23 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDirector, Vehicle TestingDave VanderWerp has spent more than 20 years in the automotive industry, in varied roles from engineering to product consulting, and now leading Car and Driver’s vehicle-testing efforts. Dave got his very lucky start at C/D by happening to submit an unsolicited resume at just the right time to land a part-time road warrior job when he was a student at the University of Michigan, where he immediately became enthralled with the world of automotive journalism. More

From the May 1998 issue of Car and Driver.”To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” —Sir Isaac NewtonNewton’s 311-year-old law works out­side the physics lab. Consider the President’s job-approval ratings following the Lewinsky, uh, exposure, or the explo­sion of I-Hate-Gates websites in the wake of Microsoft’s runaway marketing suc­cess. Newton’s law also works in the auto industry. Take, for example, sport-utility vehicles. As they gobble up an ever-larger share of the U.S. market—last year, sport­-utes accounted for a record 16 percent of car and light-truck sales—reaction against them is mounting. Greens have begun railing against their higher carbon-dioxide emissions and their fuel-hungry natures. Now it has been discovered by the insurance industry that in all crashes between pickups or sport-utes and cars, people in cars are four times more likely than people in trucks to wind up dead. (Our favorite stat: If a big pickup plows into your little car from the side, guess what? You are 27 times more likely to meet your maker than they are—surprise, surprise! The real stat: 90 percent of all accidents are caused by driver error.) Some insurance companies are charging more for SUV policies, citing the added damage these trucks inflict on other vehicles. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverCar buyers have been responding to these concerns. A market is currently blooming for smaller, less-expensive sport-utility vehicles that combine the advantages of a big SUV—stout-looking wagon bodywork, a high driving position, and trendy four-wheel drive—with the lighter, better-handling, and more fuel-­efficient characteristics of a car. The 1996 Toyota RAV4 was the first SUV based on a car platform to enjoy widespread sales success on both sides of the Pacific. Its popularity quickly attracted me-too vehicles to the market, like the Civic-based Honda CR-V, the Impreza­-based Subaru Forester, and several more that are still on Big Three drawing boards. Even before Toyota’s RAV4, Korean carmaker Kia turned out a vehicle that had a slightly larger sport-ute body riding on a truck-style frame, which sold at an econocar price. The Jeep Cherokee and the Suzuki Sidekick / Chevy Tracker models are neither car-derived nor carlike in their ride and handling, but they fit the size and price class. To see which of these little utes struck the best balance between sport and utility, we sounded the call for a roundup. Invited were five-door models (the Jeep, the Kia, and the Toyota are available with three doors), sporting four-wheel drive (all but the Subaru are available in two-wheel­-drive form) and five-speed manual trans­missions. The price cap was set at $21,000, but inopportune optioning caused the Forester, the CR-V, and the RAV4 to creep over that limit. We excused the lame-duck Sidekick/Tracker from our test as an all-­new model is just around the corner. We drove these utes 1300 miles over all kinds of roads in central and southern California. We maneuvered them through the sometimes steep, always crowded streets of San Francisco and opened them up on the flats and gently rolling hills of Interstate 5. We coaxed them up the breathless climb to Dante’s View a mile above Death Valley and hurled them through the dusty, tight turns of 20 Mule Team Road, which snakes through one of the valley’s many abandoned borax mines. Off-road, we spent a half-day powering our little sport-utes around Dumont Dunes southeast of Death Valley. This pic­turesque series of arid, dusty flats and tow­ering sand mountains has long been a play­ground for off-roaders and car-advertising photographers.Finally, we put them all through our standard battery of performance tests. Here’s how these little land bruisers fared.5th Place: Jeep Cherokee SEOne look at the Cherokee’s narrow, boxy body and tall wheels and tires, and you know this SUV is different. The Cherokee first appeared 14 years ago, and it’s the original compact five-door sport-­ute. Perhaps envisioning this more modest SUV market that indeed thrives today, Chrysler continued to build this Cherokee after its intended replacement—the larger and much grander Grand Cherokee­—appeared in 1992. Last year, the Cherokee’s styling was updated mildly and it was given dual airbags, but the Cherokee is not a custom fit in the tall-car, light-off-roading market that the RAV4 helped create, which might explain its last-­place showing. HIGHS: Handsome, square­-shouldered body; stout-­feeling driveline with lots of torque for off-roading; slick shifter.LOWS: Cramped front and rear quarters, mysterious handling in bad weather, annoying engine whine, excessive plastic inside. VERDICT: A rugged implement for off-roaders, a bit crude for everyone else.You’re reminded of the Cherokee’s age the moment you climb in. The inte­rior is narrow and confining, and from the front, the view out is curtailed by a relatively small windshield. The back doors are narrow, making entry and egress more difficult. Stark-looking plastic dominates the interior, including the dashboard, which shares many parts with the Cherokee’s spartan Wrangler sibling. The Cherokee feels old when you drive it, too. It takes 12 seconds for the cast-iron, 2.5-liter four-cylinder to summon 60 mph. The four-cylinder revs easily despite its humble pushrods (the other wagons all have double overhead cams), but an annoying engine whine takes most of the fun out of winding it out. At least the five-speed manual trans­mission is satisfyingly precise. The Cherokee steers and rides better than we expected for a vehicle with rigid front and rear axles. It felt quite maneu­verable and stable in the emergency-lane­-change test. Its steering is vague and uncommunicative, though, in the rain at highway speeds. The Cherokee was unre­markable in the sand, but its high ground clearance, low-range transfer case, and high-torque engine make it an excellent choice in really rough terrain. Jeep expects that a fourth of its Cherokee customers will go off-road, and that’s a higher percentage than the other four manufacturers expect.The Cherokee’s $18,615 base price includes air conditioning but few other creature comforts. At $19,725, our test truck lacked a tach and power windows and power locks, but it included a limited­-slip differential, skid plates, and a full-size spare in keeping with its true mission as a Rubicon Trail runner. The Cherokee’s spartan simplicity sug­gested an appealing ruggedness to some editors while to others it just felt crude. More of that appeal might have poked through with the $995 optional six-­cylinder engine. But unless you’re a serious off-roader, one of the four other vehicles would probably make a better choice. 1998 Jeep Cherokee SE125-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3380 lbBase/as-tested price: $18,615/$19,725C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.2 sec60 mph: 12.0 sec1/4 mile: 18.6 sec @ 71 mph90 mph: 58.2 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 212 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 g C/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg4th Place: Kia Sportage If there’s a middle-of-the-road approach to building a small SUV, Kia took it with the Sportage. The exterior­—revised for 1998 with a new grille and headlamps—is cute, but its simple lines border on generic. There is no tricky auto­matic four-wheel-drive system—just a simple two-speed transfer case, although the hubs now lock and unlock themselves automatically. The system is engaged with a lever on the floor, as in the Cherokee. The roomy interior has a new dash for 1998 but still offers few frills—no folding table or reclining rear seat or clever storage compartments or cargo tie-downs—just five comfortable seats, all with a nice view out big windows. This is the Korean approach to car- and truck­-building—get the basics down, and take few risks. The payoff is a rock-bottom base price—$16,845. Our test truck’s $18,554 as-tested price was also the lowest of the pack. HIGHS: Airy interior, king­-of-the-road eating posi­tion, cute bod, low base price. LOWS: Syrupy accelera­tion; heavy, numb steering; floppy accelerator pedal; needs more suspension control.VERDICT: A small­ SUV bargain that too often feels like it.The Sportage never quite escaped that cost-cutter feel, though. The engine is a modern design with double overhead cams and competitive power and torque ratings, but its acceleration was the slowest of the group’s. “Underpowered,” wrote Webster.”The engine feels like the flywheel is four sizes too big.” Its fuel economy is only a little better than the low-tech Cherokee’s. The Kia felt nimble and composed on San Francisco’s crowded streets, and the editors all liked the high-up seating posi­tion. More than one driver complained about the Sportage’s heavy, somewhat numb steering on I-5, though. The Kia lacks roll and shock control, and its Uniroyal tires serve up the least amount of grip of the five vehicles here, making the Kia the clumsiest and slowest performer in the emergency lane change. “Sloppy, with little roll control,” wrote the test driver. Bounding around on the sand at Dumont Dunes, the Kia’s body structure felt the most flexible of the group. Its long wheelbase and lack of a limited-slip differential helped get it stuck atop a sand dune, too. Other niggles noted in the logbook: The accelerator-pedal spring lacks resistance, so your leg gets tired on long drives. There is also no remote release for the rear hatch, and the radio buttons are about the size of a baby’s toenails. Addressing these short­comings would expand the appeal of this Kia. Still, the Sportage remains a compe­tent little wagon in most respects, and it should satisfy those on a tight budget. It’s just that a couple of grand extra buys a lot more wagon in this group, which would explain the Kia’s fourth-place finish. 1998 Kia Sportage130-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3320 lbBase/as-tested price: $16,845/$18,554C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 4.2 sec60 mph: 12.8 sec1/4 mile: 19.1 sec @ 72 mph90 mph: 38.7 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 202 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.63 g C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg3rd Place: Honda CR-V EXThose radical-looking D-pillar­-mounted taillamps say a lot about this Honda. It’s loaded with surprises. For example, the tailgate glass flips up sepa­rately for easier loading of lightweight items. The front and rear seat cushions can be arranged to form two flat, almost hori­zontal beds. Once removed, the storage cover of the rear cargo floor turns into a folding table. There’s even a mount for an optional umbrella on the rear door for bad-­weather tailgate parties. HIGHS: Swiss Army–knife versatility, earth-friendly efficiency, roomy interior. LOWS: Strange ergonomics, sloppy emergency handling, jerky four-wheel drive. VERDICT: A handy bad-weather family wagon that leaves enthu­siasts wanting more.This year the CR-V appeals to enthu­siast owners by offering a five-speed manual transmission. Teamed with Honda’s efficient aluminum DOHC 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine, the CR-V now sprints to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds—0.6 second quicker than the automatic. It also averaged a respectable 20 mpg over our 1300-mile test, despite having the most spacious interior in this group. Our CR-V was the only vehicle here with anti-lock brakes, which helped it stop from 70 mph in just 187 feet—the best among these five. The new manual transmission matches the high standards of previous Hondas and Acuras. “Precise, but not rigidly metallic,” wrote Winfield of the shifter. Surprises we didn’t like: The steering wheel is angled uncomfortably outward toward the driver’s A-pillar, and the cruise control on/off switch and power window controls are haphazardly located on the dash behind the steering wheel. Lots of wind and road noise filter into the cabin at highway speeds, too. The CR-V’s nimble steering gets dull with understeer as the pace quickens. The CR-V’s Real Time four-wheel drive uses a clutch pack to distribute power to the rear wheels when it senses front­-wheel slip. Its somewhat abrupt engage­ment reduced the CR-V’s dune-climbing capability. This jerking even disrupted our cornering and lane-change testing on dry pavement. It was also slow to respond. “You can spin the front wheels from rest because it can’t seem to engage the rear wheels quickly enough,” complained Webster. No big deal. Honda expects that just 12 percent of its CR-V drivers will be going off-road anyway. They’ll probably be more impressed with the EX model’s array of standard features, from dual vanity mirrors and map light to keyless entry with an alarm. These goodies make the CR-V an obviously handy vehicle for a small family. From an enthusiast’s perspective, though, it’s a little rough around the edges, and it isn’t as much fun to drive with the manual transmission as we had hoped. 1998 Honda CR-V EX126-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3200 lbBase/as-tested price: $20,645/$21,013C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.1 sec60 mph: 10.3 sec1/4 mile: 17.7 sec @ 76 mph90 mph: 30.1 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 g C/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg2nd Place: Toyota RAV4Toyota helped create the small-SUV market with the RAV4 in 1996. It not only met with critical acclaim, but it’s been a big seller for Toyota, too. Last year, the RAV4 nearly outsold the Avalon sedan. For 1998, its hunky shape has been updated with new front and rear styling and with interior changes that include the addition of seatbelt preten­sioners (only the CR-V can match this safety claim).HIGHS: Pumped-up body, tight handling with ample grip, rev­-happy engine, tidy proportions. LOWS: Engine runs out of steam when the going gets rough, high price. VERDICT: A delightfully responsive small SUV, but you gotta pay to play.This is the leanest-feeling, most responsive wagon in this group. The RAV4’s steering is sensitive and direct, as are the brakes. There’s some roll, dive, and squat, but it never seems out of proportion. With an optional larger tire-and-wheel package ($1140), our RAV4 led the class in cor­nering grip at 0.72 g, and it took second place in braking, stopping from 70 mph in 193 feet (without anti-lock control). The Toyota was the quickest through the emer­gency lane change at 57.9 mph, doing so with the balanced controllability of a sports coupe. Had we not been sitting up so high, we might have thought we were driving a Celica. That’s another thing we like about the RAV4. Its seat height and com­manding view out remind us of the Kia, but the windows and fenders seem closer, making the Toyota feel more intimate. The interior lacks the versa­tility and spaciousness of the CR-V, but the front seats offer good support, and the dashboard ergonomics are excellent. The back seats split and fold forward separately—the better for carrying bikes and a rear-seat passenger—and their seatbacks can recline.The RAV4’s driveline is as deft as the chassis. The shifter’s throws are short and quick. Underhood is a feisty DOHC 2.0-liter four that is happy to rev. The 127 horses propel it to 60 mph in 10.2 seconds, a virtual tie with the Honda. It accelerates more strongly in fifth gear than the Honda, making for less frequent down­shifts at high speeds. The transfer case on manual-transmission RAV4s can be locked with a button on the dash. With the optional limited-slip rear differential ($375) controlling rear wheelspin, our RAV4’s dune-climbing capability was hindered only by its engine, which simply ran out of torque when the hills got steep.Costly options like privacy glass and power windows, locks, and sunroof pushed up the tab for our test car to $22,575 and cost it points in the value cat­egory. Limiting options to air conditioning, a limited-slip diff, and the fatter tires would save $2000. The RAV4 might have won this contest were it not for the power deficit, relative to the Forester, and the pricey sticker. 1998 Toyota RAV4127-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2980 lbBase/as-tested price: $17,988/$22,575C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.0 sec60 mph: 10.2 sec1/4 mile: 17.8 sec @ 76 mph90 mph: 31.7 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg1st Place: Subaru Forester L Like the Cherokee, the Forester is an oddball in this group, but for a different reason. Technically, it’s the closest of all these vehicles to a car. Tear off its outer skin, and what you’re left with is an Impreza with higher ground clearance. But car buyers seem to be accepting Subaru’s four-wheel-drive wagons as competitors to these little bruisers, so we invited it along. The advantages of the Forester’s car genes are immediately apparent. This is easily the most refined wagon in the group. It is significantly quieter at speed, and it rides more smoothly than the others by a slight margin. HIGHS: Powerful flat-four engine; comfortable, upmarket interior; smooth, refined road manners; quiet inside. LOWS: Dorky body, seating position low and carlike, cramped rear seat. VERDICT: A refined car can still make an excellent small sport-­utility wagon.The advantages continue inside. The driver’s seat offers more adjustments than the other wagons’ here, and the ergonomics (including the steering-wheel position) are faultless. The interior also has rich-looking materials and fabrics that the other wagons can’t match. (We could have done without the optional fake-wood accents with their peculiar orange-peel finish, however.) But it’s the running gear that really sets the Forester apart. Its DOHC 2.5-liter flat­-four engine makes a rousing 165 horse­power. The Forester tips the scales at just 3120 pounds, so its power-to-weight ratio is 24 percent better than the next-best RAV4’s. As a result, the Forester smokes the others in every acceleration test including the 0-to-60-mph sprint, which it knocks off in 9.5 seconds. The soft sus­pension lacks the quick reflexes of the RAV4, but the steering is accurate and the tires reach their 0.71-g cornering grip pre­dictably. “Immensely stable,” wrote Win­field. “Can be hurled into big slides, then easily caught on the throttle.” The four-wheel-drive system deserves some credit for this. Its limited-slip center differential seemed to modulate power more smoothly, front to rear, than the CR­-V could. This wagon would be the least likely to get stuck in Dumont Dunes. Those car genes aren’t always to the Subaru’s advantage, however. Its approach and departure angles are the shallowest of the group’s, which ironically means the Forester may be the least able to tackle rough forest terrain. In addition, the Forester lacks the commanding seating height of the other vehicles—one of the main reasons folks buy these vehicles in the first place. Tall windows compensate somewhat, but they make the Forester’s body look out of proportion. The rear seat is a tight, uncomfortable fit for three adults. And none of the editors was wild about the Forester’s styling. Styling doesn’t mean much when you’re trying to have fun with a practical wagon. But the RAV4 and the Forester were equally fun to drive, each in its own way. Buyers who expect to do any light off-roading should probably go for the tall­-boy RAV4. But our on-road enthusiast edi­tors found the Subaru’s quick and agile chassis and its lower price slightly more appealing, which earned it the nod by a one-point margin. 1998 Subaru Forester L165-hp flat-4, 5-speed manual, 3120 lbBase/as-tested price: $20,490/$21,075C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.5 sec1/4 mile: 17.0 sec @ 81 mph90 mph: 22.7 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 208 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg More

Toyota and Nissan have been head-to-head competitors in the U.S. market for generations, going back to the 1970s fuel crisis (when Nissan was still Datsun). As we enter the electric era, the two again face off in the emerging heart of the mainstream-EV field: mid-size crossovers priced in the $40s and $50s. Toyota’s bZ4X is slightly smaller and less expensive than Nissan’s Ariya, but they’re close enough to be cross-shopped, so we’ve brought them together here.After launching solely with a single-motor drivetrain, the Ariya lineup is now in full flower with the addition of a dual-motor, all-wheel-drive setup. The Nissan shopper also wades through four trim levels for the dual-motor version or five with a single motor. The Ariya’s $44,525 starting price is competitive, but the sticker for the top-spec Platinum+ e-4orce (all-wheel drive) balloons past $60K, where the Ariya finds itself swimming among premium-brand entries.The bZ4X lineup is comparatively simple. There are only two levels of fanciness: XLE and Limited. Either can be had with a single-motor front-drive powertrain or dual motors and all-wheel drive. Pricing starts at an enticing $43,335 for the XLE, rising to $48,035 for the Limited; with either, a dual-motor powertrain adds $2080.Ariya and bZ4X RangeToyota opted for relatively small battery packs for the bZ4X: 63.4 kWh for the single-motor version and 65.6 kWh for the dual-motor. The Ariya’s price-leader model (Engage) comes with a similar-size pack, but all other trim levels get a more substantial 87.0-kWh unit. Per the EPA, that larger pack nets the Ariya as much as 304 miles of range (for the single-motor Venture+ model); in the dual-motor Platinum+ that we had, that number is 267 miles—still substantially better than the 222-mile EPA estimate for our dual-motor bZ4X Limited. In C/D’s 75-mph highway range test, the Ariya maintained its advantage, clocking 210 miles, while the bZ4X managed just 160 miles.Ariya and bZ4X Performance ComparedThe Toyota’s two motors combine for 214 horsepower, which is barely more than the single-motor version and far behind the Nissan’s 389 ponies (the base-model all-wheel-drive Ariya makes do with 335). Weighing a burly 5087 pounds, the Ariya is considerably heavier than the bZ4X, which checks in at a comparatively svelte 4436 pounds, but the Nissan’s additional muscle easily overcomes its weight disadvantage. Michael Simari|Car and DriverWith a 2.1-second (Nissan) or 2.2-second (Toyota) time to 30 mph, both cars squirt quickly off the line. By the 60-mph mark, though, the Ariya, at 5.0 seconds, is a full second ahead of the bZ4X, and the Nissan boasts a similar advantage in the quarter-mile—13.4 seconds at 108 mph to the Toyota’s 14.6 at 94 mph. That plays out in highway passing maneuvers, where the Ariya accelerates from 50 to 70 mph in 2.4 seconds, versus the bZ4X’s languid 3.7-second stroll. And when you’re just cruising, the Nissan is a hushed 64 decibels at 70 mph, whereas the Toyota is slightly noisier at 66 decibels. Toyota bZ4XHIGHS: Affordable price, svelte for an EV, well-tuned brake pedal.LOWS: Weak range, down on horsepower, weird driving position.VERDICT: An EV that feels like a first effort. Nissan AriyaHIGHS: Comfy seats, luxe interior, available long-range battery pack.LOWS: Wonky brake-pedal action, haptic-touch controls, ambitious pricing.VERDICT: The Murano morphs into an electric.You won’t find steering-wheel paddles to control lift-off regen in either car. In the Ariya, shifting from D to B adds regen, and pressing the e-Step button on the console gets you a smidge closer to one-pedal driving. The bZ4X employs a similar strategy—a button on the console selects an additional level of regen, but that’s as far as it goes. Lessening one’s interactions with the brake pedal is particularly advantageous in the Ariya because there’s a lot of slop in its initial pedal travel. The Toyota’s brake pedal has a more natural feel. The Nissan’s 176-foot stop from 70 mph, though, is a bit better than the Toyota’s 184-foot effort.This segment doesn’t offer much in the way of driver involvement, and this pair doesn’t approach the Ford Mustang Mach-E in engagement or handling. Both ride comfortably, though the Ariya could be better damped. Both also steer reasonably well, with a fair sense of on-center and reasonable efforts, although the Ariya exhibits considerably more stick on skidpad at 0.86 g versus the bZ4X’s 0.80 g.Ariya and bZ4X Interior Design There’s much greater contrast in the two cars’ interiors. The Ariya goes full living room. The cabin is wide and tall, with a flat floor front and rear. Interestingly, the center console powers forward or rearward, allowing you to choose the amount of open space ahead of the seats. Those seats are chair-high, and with their tall seatbacks and large headrests, they recall the comfy lounge seats in a high-end movie theater. In the Platinum+, the dash and door panels have suedelike upholstered padding, and the seats feature nappa leather. The only off note, comfort-wise, is that the door armrests are so much lower than the center armrest.The Toyota cabin is more cockpit-style, with a wide center console that ramps up to meet the dash (there’s open storage underneath). The materials here are mostly variations on black plastic, a cut below the top-spec Ariya. Narrow pillars and a low cowl give the Toyota driver a slightly better view out, however. The bZ4X’s instrument screen is located oddly far forward toward the base of the windshield, meaning the driver looks over the steering wheel at it, and if you’re not comfortable with the wheel positioned low, you may find that the rim blocks the instruments. Strangely for an EV, that display doesn’t tell the battery’s percent charge—instead, there’s only a bar-graph readout.When it comes to switchgear, neither car gets a prize for ergonomics. Nissan unfortunately went all-in on haptic-touch buttons on the dash and the console, meaning nothing can be operated by feel—and the driver-attention monitor is quick to scold those whose eyes are diverted from the road. Give Nissan credit, at least, for preserving a volume knob; Toyota instead uses plus/minus buttons (who thinks this is a good idea?), but it keeps some physical buttons on the center stack. The Nissan’s 12.3-inch infotainment display can be divided into three spaces to display multiple functions on the home screen, which is a plus, but some responses are laggy. The Toyota’s infotainment system isn’t any easier to use, but its display—also 12.3 inches—looks notably sharper. On both cars, phone mirroring is wireless, as is charging. Ariya vs. bZ4X ConclusionIn this matchup, Nissan takes the win with more power, better range, and a nicer interior. The catch is that it’s considerably more expensive. Our Platinum+ test car’s $62,770 sticker strikes us as overly ambitious, but one can get this same mechanical package in the $52,525 Engage+ or $55,525 Evolve+ e-4orce models. Those would still represent a premium over the bZ4X, which starts at $45,415 in all-wheel-drive form and reached $52,439 in our Limited test car, but the extra spend strikes us as worth it.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Nissan Ariya e-4orce AWD Platinum+Vehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,525/$62,770Options: Passion Red Tricoat/Black Diamond Pearl premium two-tone paint, $995; carpeted floor mats and first-aid kit, $250
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: current-excited synchronous AC, 215 hpRear Motor: current-excited synchronous AC, 215 hpCombined Power: 389 hpCombined Torque: 442 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 87.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 7.2 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 130 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.3-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S255/45R-20 101V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 109.3 inLength: 182.9 inWidth: 74.8 inHeight: 65.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/44 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 60/23 ft3Curb Weight: 5087 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.0 sec100 mph: 11.4 sec1/4-Mile: 13.4 sec @ 108 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 128 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 342 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 79 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 74 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 210 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 90/93/87 MPGeRange: 267 mi

2023 Toyota bZX4 Limited AWDVehicle Type: front- and mid-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $50,115/$52,439Options: JBL 9-speaker premium audio, $580; two-tone exterior, $500; Wind Chill Pearl paint, $425; Limited weather package, $350; carpeted floor and cargo mats, $269; split roof rear spoiler, $200
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 107 hp, 124 lb-ft Rear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 107 hp, 124 lb-ft Combined Power: 214 hpCombined Torque: 248 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 65.6 kWhOnboard Charger: 6.6 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 100 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.9-in vented disc/12.5-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Turanza EL450 Enliten235/50R-20 100V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 184.6 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 65.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54/40 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 56/26 ft3Curb Weight: 4436 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.6 sec @ 94 mph100 mph: 17.2 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 105 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 76 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 86 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 160 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 102/112/92 MPGeRange: 222 mi
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

Just a couple of years ago, the notion of a 500-hp Cadillac would inevitably have conjured up visions of something with a “V” badge on its decklid and a Blackwing engine rumbling menacingly behind its grille. No more. The 2023 Cadillac Lyriq AWD exemplifies how the EV revolution has turned ideas about performance upside down. Like many of today’s EVs, this twin-motor, 500-hp version of the Lyriq is powerful and quick but otherwise extraordinarily normal. It doesn’t look like a car that promises to smoke its tires into the next state and doesn’t drive like one either. Instead, it evokes and updates the best aspects of Cadillacs past: their smooth ride; hushed, well-dressed cabins; and effortless power. Thank you, electrons.Other than the model number on the hatch—Lyriq AWDs get a 600E4 designation while RWD models wear 450E badging (the 600 and 450 represent rounded torque figures in newton-meters)—there’s nothing to indicate that the dual-motor, all-wheel-drive Lyriq is any different from the rear-drive, single-motor model that first hit the market. We liked that car for its absorbent ride and quiet ways but felt it needed more than its 340 horsepower to be a fully realized Caddy. The Lyriq AWD solves that with a second permanent-magnet motor driving the front wheels. Combined output rises to 500 horses and 450 pound-feet of torque—an increase of 160 ponies and 125 pound-feet over the rear-driver. That you can’t tell the twin-motor model from the single-motor version at first glance—or second or third—amounts to truth in advertising. Aside from the AWD’s extra power, its cushy driving demeanor remains fundamentally unchanged. Stand on the Lyriq AWD’s accelerator and it sprints to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds and hauls itself through the quarter-mile in 12.9 seconds at 113 mph—improvements of 1.1 seconds to 60 mph and 1.4 seconds and 14 mph in the quarter. That should be energetic enough for most people, but it’s only midpack in the EV universe. A Hyundai Ioniq 5, for instance, scoots to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds. At the other end of the size-and-price spectrum, a nearly 7000-pound Rivian R1S does it in 3.1, and there are a lot of ballistic EVs sandwiched between those two bookends. HIGHS: Tasteful good looks, Cadillac-correct driving persona, outrageous value.The Lyriq’s power delivery harks back to the big-engine Cadillacs of yore and seems purposely tuned to underscore its luxury mission. Like the Lyriq RWD, the AWD’s powertrain parses out the torque smoothly and gradually rather than bringing it on all at once with a bang like some competitors. Maximum thrust doesn’t arrive until 40 or 50 mph. The progressive pull is an integral part of the Lyriq’s soft-spoken personality, as is the barely audible synthesized hum that accompanies acceleration. The cabin is as quiet as an isolation tank, registering just 63 decibels of interior sound as the Lyriq whooshes through the atmosphere at 70 mph.A plush, composed ride nails the other signature Cadillac personality trait. The multilink suspension glides over big pavement swells, is glassy on smooth highways, and almost never bobs. The pancake-style 102.0-kWh Ultium battery bolted to the Lyriq’s belly—the same capacity as in the rear-drive model—makes for a low center of gravity. That’s likely part of the reason the Lyriq feels more agile than you’d expect for a vehicle weighing 5838 pounds, but the Caddy is far more in its element cruising than chomping up serpentine roads. Cornering grip peaks at a relatively low 0.82 g, and our test car’s Michelin Primacy all-seasons (265/50R-20s all around) howled in protest when leaned on even lightly. The steering is confident but light on feel, and the brake system blends regeneration and hydraulic action smoothly. Given the AWD’s mass and all-season rubber, stops from 70 mph are reasonable at 182 feet. Two levels of regen enable one-pedal driving, and a steering-wheel paddle delivers maximum regen on demand. LOWS: Short on features, meh highway range, doesn’t lunge like it has 500 horsepower.Our real-world testing exposed the one area where the dual-motor Lyriq suffers compared to its single-motor sibling: range. The EPA-estimated range is close between the two, with the single-motor at 312 miles and the dual-motor coming in at 307. But on our 75-mph highway range test, the rear-drive Lyriq covered 270 miles while the AWD version managed only 220. That’s a big enough difference to influence how far you dare to roam.At least recharging won’t take inordinately long. Our AWD tester came with the standard 11.5-kW AC charging module. A 19.2-kW onboard charger will be optional for 2024 AWD models and will add up to 51 miles of range per hour from a Level 2 (240V) AC charger backed by a 100-amp circuit, according to Cadillac. The battery can handle up to 190 kilowatts of DC fast-charging, which the company says will replenish the range at a rate of about 77 miles every 10 minutes. We’re lyrical on the lyriqFor 2023, all Lyriqs came only in the Luxury trim. The past tense is intentional as the production run of about 2000 units is sold out for 2023, and Cadillac is now taking orders for 2024 models. So, the only choice buyers had to make was between the two propulsion systems. Since they’re on even footing, the dual-motor has the same roomy, handsomely designed interior as the single-motor. It’s a welcoming, luxurious cabin featuring nice lines, handsome leather seating, tasteful brightwork, and good-looking wood. Convenient storage spots abound, but there are also several human-machine interface issues.The 33-inch diagonal curved display that’s home to the gauge cluster and many of the car’s functions looks slick but forces you to click through several screens to access menus and submenus controlling everything from the 19-speaker AKG audio system to the standard Google Assistant. Most climate controls are conveniently located in a row of hard buttons in the center stack area, but you must still call up the HVAC menu to sync driver and passenger temperature settings. The door-mounted switches that control front-seat massage and lumbar adjustments are fussy. GM’s usually excellent Super Cruise hands-free driving system cut out multiple times on a short stretch of interstate for no apparent reason. And we still smile at what look like exterior door handles; they’re actually large push buttons for the doors’ electric latches and are awkward to use. The Lyriq offsets those trespasses—and the fact that it doesn’t offer such features as heated rear seats or second-row HVAC controls—with a grand slam on value. Our test car stickered for $65,615, which included the lone option of $625 for its Stellar Black Metallic paint. It felt more expensive than that. Better still, the Lyriq is eligible for the government’s $7500 EV tax credit, and the price jump from RWD to the more powerful AWD powertrain is a mere $2000. Those 500 well-mannered horses are worth every penny, as is the EV that comes with them. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Cadillac Lyriq Luxury AWDVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $64,990/$65,615Options: Stellar Black Metallic paint, $625
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 500 hpCombined Torque: 450 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 102.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.5 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.6-in vented disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Michelin Primacy All-Season265/50R-20 107H M+S TPC Spec 3184MS self-seal
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.8 inLength: 196.7 inWidth: 77.8 inHeight: 63.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 58/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 61/28 ft3Curb Weight: 5838 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.6 sec100 mph: 10.2 sec1/4-Mile: 12.9 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 17.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 132 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 396 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 77 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 74 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 220 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 89/96/81 MPGeRange: 307 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDirector, Buyer’s GuideRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 19 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata and a 1965 Corvette convertible and appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More

Much of the early evolution of the automobile was driven by two ambitions: to make the fastest car and to make the cheapest. Yet now, those aspirations are by and large ignored. The first because top speeds have passed the point where they can ever be experienced—it’s hard to stretch the legs of a 300-mph Bugatti. Affordability is also increasingly neglected, especially by automakers in the U.S., which seem to have less and less interest in inexpensive models. In the States, the average price of a new car has passed $45,000, and there are only three models with stickers under $20K: the (collectively forgotten) Kia Rio, Mitsubishi Mirage, and Nissan Versa. Things are different in Europe, where Dacia, maker of the Continent’s cheapest models, has been enjoying increasing success. The Romanian automaker was founded under communism as an assembler of Renaults built under license, and after the Cold War ended the French automaker absorbed it. It was then relaunched as a value brand in 2004 and has been growing ever since, selling nearly 574,000 cars last year. More than a third of those global sales were of the car you see here, the Sandero hatchback, Europe’s cheapest car. How cheap is cheap? That depends on which market and which model. We drove a right-hand-drive version in the U.K. in range-topping Expression trim. With the optional metallic paint and full-size spare tire, it was 11,612 pounds before the application of the U.K.’s 20 percent sales tax, the equivalent of $14,480 at current exchange rates. The lowlier Essential is $13,450 before options.But elsewhere, the Sandero gets considerably cheaper. Mainland Europe gets a less powerful stripper version without air conditioning or pretty much anything else. In Germany, this truly basic Sandero SCe 65 costs just 9495 euros—that works out to just $10,330.The Sandero is cheaper than any other European hatchback, but it’s larger than most, at 161 inches long and 72.8 inches wide. And the cabin feels more spacious than the exterior dimensions suggest, especially when it comes to head- and shoulder room for front-seat occupants. Interior materials have been chosen for durability and low price rather than tactile pleasure, and the aroma of cheap plastics recalls the econoboxes of the ’80s and ’90s. Still, there are neat details, including a phone holder integrated into the dashboard. Even the stripper model gets power door locks with remote, power front windows, cruise control, six airbags, and LED daytime running lights. Plusher versions get an 8.0-inch touchscreen with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. The sound quality of the tinny four-speaker stereo is pretty dreadful though. The Sandero isn’t aimed solely at urbanites and is clearly intended for long as well as short journeys, with a good driving position and seats that are supportive over longer stints. The Expression even has a fold-down driver’s armrest. The sizable 13.2-gallon fuel tank gives a range of over 500 miles thanks to the miserly economy of the three-cylinder engines.The transverse-mounted 1.0-liter three-cylinder engine drives the front wheels and is available as a 65-hp standard version and a 90-hp turbo. The former’s stated zero-to-62-mph time is nearly 17 seconds, while the brawnier turbo manages a stated 12.2-second time. That’s the version we drove. The turbo’s 90 horses arrive at a modest 4600 rpm, but it seems unlikely many drivers will regularly encounter it, given the marked reluctance of the engine to rev and the fact that the peak torque of 118 pound-feet is available from just 2100 rpm.DaciaThe Sandero doesn’t like being worked hard, throttle response is dull, and it takes awhile for turbo boost to build. But once it has, the Sandero proved able to maintain speed up the sort of long, sapping grades that normally overwhelm smaller engines—this despite the manual gearbox having only five ratios with sizable gaps between them. By contrast, the brakes eagerly respond to even gentle pressure.The Sandero handles with a simple charm that belies its modest limits. The suspension is soft, and the steering is low-geared, with a dead patch around the straight-ahead. Attempts at quick cornering bring noticeable body lean and ready understeer. But the combination of plentiful suspension travel and effective dampers copes well with rougher roads. The Dacia proved impressively economical too. Pushed as hard as anyone is likely to regularly drive one, on both country roads and highways, we saw the equivalent of 38 mpg over a single tank. Driving more gently would easily push that into the 40s. Given the exorbitant gasoline prices in most European countries, such parsimony is a vital part of the appeal. A base Sandero can be bought outright for little more than one year’s worth of average new car payments in the U.S. Sadly, there are no plans to bring it, or any other Dacias, to the States. Too bad. The Sandero proves that cheap doesn’t have to mean nasty. Car and driverCar and driver Lettermark logoEuropean EditorMike Duff has been writing about the auto industry for two decades and calls the UK home, although he normally lives life on the road. He loves old cars and adventure in unlikely places, with career highlights including driving to Chernobyl in a Lada. More

Volvo is heading to a fully electric future, but the company’s new single-motor EV powertrain shares an obvious link with the brand’s past. This is set to be the first rear-wheel-drive Volvo since the venerable 900 series retired in 1998.In engineering terms, the choice of a powered rear axle is not a surprise. In EVs as in combustion cars, it makes more sense to split the duties of steering and propulsion. Yet Volvo has reached this rational conclusion in a roundabout way, having previously offered both the C40 Recharge and XC40 Recharge with a single front-mounted motor in Europe. The arrival of a brawnier new motor now sees this configuration reversed, and even though the C40 and XC40 still sit on the same CMA platform as before, they’ve been turned from pullers to pushers. In the U.S. we never got the single-motor Volvo EVs, so all will be fresh to American buyers when the cars arrive in the second half of the year.Volvo has designed and engineered the new motor and will build it in Sweden. The same unit will also power the front wheels of the upcoming EX90 SUV, and it is used in the all-wheel-drive XC40 Recharge as well. With just one motor, the rear-drive C40 is obviously less potent than its dual-motor all-wheel-drive counterpart, but output figures of 248 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque are still competitive. We expect the rear-drive C40 to sprint to 60 mph in the mid-six-second range, and our drive in Sweden proved that this Volvo feels plenty rapid. Acceleration off the line is keen, with the continuous flow of power making the C40 feel punchier than its power-to-weight ratio would suggest. (Volvo says the single-motor C40 is 216 pounds lighter than the two-motor version, which would put it at a porky 4550 pounds based on our last test of the latter.)More on the C40 RechargeAt higher speeds, the C40’s acceleration becomes progressively less energetic, and our sample car lost much of its mojo by 80 mph. It would take both a long straight and a determined throttle stomping to get it to the 112-mph limiter that Volvo now fits to all its cars. As in the all-wheel-drive XC40, cruising refinement is excellent at highway speeds, and Volvo sensibly hasn’t given the C40 an artificial soundtrack beyond a low-speed warning noise. Near-silence suits it well.The switch to the new motor has mostly been done to boost efficiency, and here the rear-drive powertrain excels. The rear-drive version gets a new 79.0-kWh battery pack, while the dual-motor C40 sticks with the old 75.0-kWh unit. This is expected to deliver an EPA range of 297 miles (versus 293 miles in the case of the slightly less aerodynamic XC40 single-motor). The 79.0-kWh battery is also capable of accepting peak DC charging speeds of up to 200 kilowatts should you be lucky enough to find such a potent charger, up from the 150-kW peak of the smaller pack.Although Volvo was eager to highlight the dynamic benefits of rear-wheel drive, the C40’s chassis is still tuned for comfort and stability rather than any high level of athleticism. The car steers accurately, but little meaningful sensation gets through the electric assistance of the power steering, and on standard all-season tires the front wheels washed out under even modest levels of provocation. The stability- and traction-control systems maintain order but can’t be switched to a more permissive sport mode. We suspect that few buyers of the C40 and XC40 Recharge RWD will know or indeed care which axle is powered. As before, the rest of the C40 continues to make a persuasive case to choose the XC40. The C40’s lower roofline makes it look marginally sleeker, although we defy anybody to actually confuse this four-door crossover with an actual coupe. But it also sacrifices the XC’s impressively spacious rear cabin and dramatically reduces rearward visibility through the heavily raked rear window. It feels like the answer to a question few people are asking, especially as the more practical XC40 should be marginally cheaper. The Google UI system has also managed to pass straight from feeling underdeveloped when it was new to old-fashioned now, many functions having to be mined from submenus.Despite all that, the C40 Recharge still possesses a strong likability. Given the limited dynamism of the platform, the single-motor version suits the car’s laidback demeanor better than the pricier and heavier all-wheel-drive model.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Volvo C40 RechargeVehicle Type: rear- or front- and rear-motor, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: $50,000; AWD, $55,000
POWERTRAINS
Motors: permanent-magnet AC, 248 hp, 310 lb-ft or induction AC, 147 hp and permanent-magnet AC, 255 hp (combined output: 402 hp, 494 lb-ft)Battery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 75.0 or 79.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 150 or 200 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.4 inLength: 174.8 inWidth: 73.7 inHeight: 62.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53–55/43 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 49/17 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4600–4800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.3–6.6 sec100 mph: 10.9–13.2 sec1/4-Mile: 12.8–15.1 secTop Speed: 112 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR’S EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 99–107/106–118/91–96 MPGeRange: 257–297 miCar and driverCar and driver Lettermark logoEuropean EditorMike Duff has been writing about the auto industry for two decades and calls the UK home, although he normally lives life on the road. He loves old cars and adventure in unlikely places, with career highlights including driving to Chernobyl in a Lada. More

Off-roading in a Lamborghini Huracán isn’t anything new to us. We’ve mowed the lawn at triple-digit speeds through Virginia International Raceway’s daunting uphill esses. On another occasion, we ended up behind the guardrail and in the woods of VIR’s Patriot Course. Don’t ask. Those excursions occurred involuntarily. The thought of willingly exiting the tarmac and throwing a Huracán into the dirt is insane. But nothing about the dual-purpose Lamborghini Huracán Sterrato is rational. What Makes the Huracán Sterrato SpecialJust look at the thing’s bulging fenders, the rally-inspired light pods grafted onto its angular nose, the roof-mounted snorkel and optional luggage rack, and the oddest-looking tires to be fitted to a Huracán. It’s clear this is not a typical supercar. The Sterrato is part Bruce Wayne, but mostly Max Rockatansky. A little touch of class but all badass, this is the first Lamborghini since the LM002 to wear dirt well. The Sterrato isn’t a byproduct of Porsche transforming the 911 into an off-road buggy with the Dakar. Lamborghini’s concept dates back to 2017, when the engineering team, hot off the heels of working on the Urus, realized there was more left in the LP610-4 all-wheel-drive platform. Why not fit it with longer electronically controlled dampers and softer springs to provide 1.7 inches more ground clearance than the Evo and softer anti-roll bars to enable more articulation? If you build it, they will come. And they came in droves. The Sterrato became instantly popular before anyone had driven one. The number that Lamborghini would produce increased again and again, finally reaching 1499, all quickly spoken for despite a $278,972 sticker. It was the end of the Huracán’s journey. More on the HuracánAs in all Huracáns that came before it, the heart and soul of the Sterrato remains the enthralling 5.2-liter V-10, which has a furious soundtrack as 10 pistons pump and 40 titanium valves suck and blow air. In the Sterrato, the V-10 generates 602 horsepower, down 29 horses from the same engine in the previous STO and Tecnica variants. Until now, Huracáns have drawn air into the intakes from openings ahead of the rear wheels. To no surprise, when you’re kicking up dust and dirt, low air intakes are a terrible idea. Lamborghini’s fix is the rooftop snorkel, previously used on the STO to move air through the engine bay and here serving as the Sterrato’s windpipe. Its flow path is more restrictive, resulting in the reduction of horsepower. Driving the Huracán SterratoSure, the Sterrato has enhanced approach, breakover, and departure angles, but none of that matters much at Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The off-road wedge obliterates the front straight. Stand on the firm, if a bit sensitive, brake pedal that modulates the standard carbon-ceramic brakes, and the Sterrato, fitted with Bridgestone all-terrain tires (more on those later), twerks its way into Turn 1. The tires beg for mercy under load exiting Turn 3, and Sport mode allows a copious amount of sideways playfulness. On this day, we’ll ignore turning down into Turn 4 and instead flip the steering-wheel toggle to Rally mode and drive off into the sun-baked desert. Willingly plowing the Sterrato into the sand feels unnatural, but with a left-right twist of the fuzzy steering wheel, the quick, fixed-ratio steering rack is an all-star for setting up a Scandinavian flick. For this model, Lamborghini passed on rear-axle steering as it muddied the vehicle dynamics when paired with the all-terrain tires. Even without it, the brake-based torque vectoring pivots the machine, the earth succumbs, dirt encompasses the six-figure rally car, and with a pull of the big column-mounted shift paddles, the seven-speed dual-clutch automatic snaps off a gear change, the Haldex all-wheel-drive system shuffles torque between axles, and the Sterrato exits, leaving a dust plume reminiscent of the Road Runner. Never had the thought of piloting a Huracán over lumpy terrain in third gear on an 8500-rpm redline occurred to us, but the softer dampers and spring rates, paired with longer and squishier internal bump stops, keep the uprights from ejecting from the chassis like Joe Theismann’s bones did his leg. Find the right—or maybe the wrong—path through the desert and you’ll use all 6.4 inches of ground clearance. Dirt will fly over the hood. This isn’t the stuff trophy trucks are made of, but for a pavement pounder, it’s impressive and hilariously fun. None of this would be possible without the right tires. For that, Lamborghini tasked Bridgestone to develop the Dueler All-Terrain AT002, an all-terrain tire rated at 168 mph and available only in a Sterrato fitment. The sidewall construction mimics that of a Bridgestone Potenza Sport summer tire, so it’s stiff. Aside from a tread pattern meant to evacuate rocks and mud, the Dueler features interlocking snipes and tie-bars to lock the tread blocks together to provide more stability under load. And it’s a run-flat, so in the event of a puncture, the Sterrato can carry on for 50 miles at 50 mph. And while some might be tempted to mount two spares on the roof rack, it’s only rated for 88 pounds. Bridgestone will also offer a one-off winter tire for the Sterrato. Oh, the possibilities. It’s Not Just for Off-RoadThe Sterrato’s off-road capabilities aside, Lamborghini has created quite possibly the best roadgoing Huracán to date. Its softness makes for an enjoyable ride on the interstate, and with little roar from the all-terrain tires, this is the Huracán you’d want to drive across the country. Attack mountain switchbacks and there’s more pitch and roll than any Huracán before it, and the steering is so quick and light that midcorner corrections frequently occur until you train your hands to slow down. But none of this dulls the experience. Lean on it nice and hard, and the Bridgestones deliver what will likely be the greatest amount of grip we’ve measured from all-terrain rubber. And those fender flares aren’t just for looks. The front and rear tracks have been widened by 1.2 and 1.3 inches, respectively, giving the Sterrato a touch more sure-footedness.LamborghiniOther than a digital inclinometer, a pitch-and-roll display, and GPS coordinates in the central display, the Sterrato’s interior is much the same as any other Huracán’s. Perhaps one of the coolest features is its ability to sync an Apple Watch and record your heartbeat. And your heart may skip a beat driving the Sterrato. Even more so than all the Huracán variants that preceded it, this Lamborghini is one wild ride. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Lamborghini Huracán SterratoVehicle Type: mid-engine, all-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base: $278,972
ENGINE
DOHC 40-valve V-10, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 318 in3, 5204 cm3Power: 602 hp @ 8000 rpmTorque: 413 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
7-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.5 inLength: 178.1 inWidth: 77.0 inHeight: 49.1 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 3650 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.0 sec100 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 10.9 secTop Speed: 162 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 14/12/17 mpgSenior Testing EditorDavid Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More