Evelyn Reynolds

From the April 1983 issue of Car and Driver.And you thought old Carroll Shelby had fallen off the edge of an earth too flat to appreciate his talents. That hard times and high-priced fuel had squared up a once-hip populace and relegated the old Black-Hatted Chicken Farmer and his sports cars to a resting place out behind the last row of coops in Texas like roosters gone gray in the gonads. Did you really think ol’ Shel, the Snake Charmer, the Terlingua Chili Chieftain, had shot his Warrior’s Wad?Yo’ mama!The man in the black hat is back. Try this on for size: the new Shelby Charg­er, conceived, engineered, and pack­aged in three madcap months, will pin any other car in its class directly to the mat. On four very energetic cylinders, the Shelby Charger will run a whopping 117 mph, burn off quarter-miles in the sixteen-second bracket at over 80 mph, stop from 70 mph in under 200 feet, corner at a bloodcurdling 0.80 g, and return a most laudable 22 mpg even un­der giddily throttle-minded feet.Back in the days when Lee Iacocca was running Ford and Carroll Shelby was running Fords, they saw very much eye to eye. Fast was fun and perfor­mance was profit. Now, Lee Iacocca has brought the Chrysler Corporation back from the dead, and he has resurrected Carroll Shelby as the black-hatted good guy. Every other maker of performance cars will soon want to have this unholy marriage annulled. We’re talking three months from pro­posal to progeny here! This must be some sort of all-time record in the auto­mobile business. Mattel can’t even get a two-ounce toy car into production that fast. The Shelby Charger, this 90-day wonder, is the first Chrysler product in many a year that has everyone walking around with a huge smile. Chrysler is small enough to move quickly. Its quick­ness has been learned in desperate straits, and the talent has been honed by Iacocca. The program started with the formation of a Chrysler-Shelby tech center in Santa Fe Springs, California, complete with dynamometers, an eighth-mile drag strip, and a full-size skidpad. For the first month, Shelby spent a good deal of hands-on time with his new hardware, but he later was able, when corporate PR requirements cut into his time, to leave much of the fine-tuning to longtime Chrysler engineer Scott Harvey, a former national rally champion and Monte Carlo Rally participant. Says Shelby: “I laid out all the param­eters that I wanted in the car. The main parameters were to have as good a han­dling front-wheel-drive car as there is anywhere, that it be unique in appear­ance, and that it perform adequately. It’s not another Cobra, and there’s no claim for it to be. But it had to be built so that we can add certain things to it. The person who buys it can buy these parts and pieces from Chrysler’s Direct Connection to bring its performance up as high as he wants. And my last param­eter was that the base price be held to around $8000.”I wanted a car,” Shelby continues, “that was going to blow off the GTI, that would perform with the 924, and that would have the potential to equal the 944 even if it comes out with a tur­bocharger. If we build an automobile that is in the ballpark with these things and sells for $8000, then I’ve got me some sales. I am not trying to build a race car. My racing days are over. But I goddamn sure guarantee you I could blow ’em off with somethin’ I’d sell for $25,000!” This man is incorrigible. The front­-wheel-drive Charger is nifty, and Shelby knows the 2.2-liter engine is a winner. Redlined at 6000 rpm, it produces 107 hp at 5600 rpm (and he says there’s an­other 25 naturally aspirated horsepower to come). At 107 hp, it is 13 hp stronger than the standard 2.2, thanks to a block­-milling of 0.030 inch, which raises the compression ratio from 9.0 to 9.6:1. The overhead cam is retarded four de­grees for better top-end performance. Pete Gladysz, a project engineer on the Shelby powerplant who works out of Chrysler’s Engine Electrical Engineer­ing, says: “The spark is running very close to max-power advance. Premium unleaded is recommended, but not absolutely required because we’re using a detonation sensor. In 0-to-60 runs, I’d say premium allows the car to be per­haps a second quicker. “This engine is carbureted richer than the normal, federal-package 2.2. We’ve used the California-spec carbure­tor because of the emissions setup, and we’re probably 20 percent richer.”These refinements mesh with the two-barrel’s electronic controls to pro­duce generally good drivability. A warm 2.2 provides pleasing performance, de­cisive responsiveness, and total freedom from flat spots. And there is never an unpleasant letdown at the top of the rev range. The 2.2 always feels ripe underfoot. The five-speed transaxle’s final-drive ratio has been bumped from 3.56 to 3.87:1. This, along with a good cluster­ing of ratios, propels the Shelby smartly from corner to corner. Shelby noticed in hard driving that the transmission be­came unduly obstinate after a few hard shifts, but this will be corrected with re­finement and hardened shift forks be­fore the car goes into production. Sitting almost an inch lower than a bread-and-butter Charger, the Shelby sacrifices 0.6 inch to shorter springs (30 percent stiffer in front, 15 percent stiff­er in the rear), and 0.3 inch to the spe­cial-construction 195/50VR-15 Good­year Eagle GT tires. These tires—some of the best performance doughnuts in memory, providing excellent traction and feel in both wet and dry—are an amalgam of construction techniques pioneered by Goodyear in its European NCTs (which the Chrysler-Shelby équipe found to be ill-suited to its needs) and its American-developed Ea­gles. Incidentally, the inner circle of decorative holes in the wheels will soon disappear. Larry McLeese, senior vehicle-dy­namics development engineer, confirm that the shocks are considerably stiff­ened with more rebound damping and a little more jounce control. The Shelby’s ride is very firm, but not out of propor­tion to the added responsiveness and excellence of handling, and we never found a pothole that brought the car to its knees. According to McLeese, this is because new, progressive bump stops keep suspension compression from reaching the critical stage. The car rides up on the front tires’ shoulders during high-g cornering, bad­ly wearing the outer ribs of tread. Shel­by would like to crank in some static negative camber to square up the tire near the limit, but Chrysler begs the question. However, camber can easily be biased toward negative by any align­ment shop if that’s your predilection. The Shelby has straight-line stability in abundance, and its steering, in the opinion of some enthusiastic staffers, is the best power-assisted steering en­countered in any American car. It still must fend off some torque steer (un­equal-length half-shafts are partial cul­prits here, and a fix is on the way), but it never gives you the feeling that the car is going to jump off the road. Still, a firm hand is a good thing. The steering, with a ratio of 14.0:1, is highly linear and vastly superior to the wishy-washy units of the Z28 and the Mustang. Thankfully, the car’s development was not accomplished solely within the “too sanitary” (McLeese’s words) world of the proving grounds alone. “You’ve got to get into the real world,” McLeese avers, “and deal with bumps in the cor­ners and off-camber turns and other cars in your path . . .” After you’ve put them all behind you, you can sail into the next corner and lay into the brakes. They’re ridiculously easy to use, and they took a useful twen­ty feet off our last 70-to-0 Charger stop­ping distance, cutting it to 195 feet. Chrysler isn’t talking, but the add-on exterior trim (a substantial air dam, Camaro-like rocker spats, and a handsome ducktail) may have contributed to the four-cylinder’s war with the winds, although our coast-down measurements indicate the opposite. The add-on flying buttresses over the rearmost side win­dows are less than swell, but our Shelby never failed to draw admirers at every gas stop. On the road, the pretenders who tried for a closer look invariably fell away in stunned defeat. More Dodge Shelby VehiclesAn inch of road we wouldn’t give the pretenders, but the interior they can have. We like the nice cloth and the gray and royal blue, but the colors are too evenly apportioned. What’s more, the trim and the dash layout are strictly sec­ond-string, while the driving position, saddled with a towering steering col­umn left over from the taller Omni se­dan, is best suited to life forms un­known to this corner of the universe. Lateral support is less than it should be, the buckets’ cloth upholstery providing the only saving grace. We do, however, nominate the Shelby for the first annual Console Feature of the Year Award: a three-way choice of closed, open with a nice boxy space, or open with two mini dry docks for stor­ing cups of coffee or chocolate shakes and the like, as well as a graduated row of coin holders for those afflicted with tollboothitis. Kudos also to the Char­ger’s power-assisted armrest (spring­-loaded to move back when the parking­-brake lever is pulled up), the first we’ve ever encountered. Okay, so eight thousand bucks gets you no A/C. So what? Pay the extra. And plunk for an aftermarket Recaro or two. And laugh with us when you pick off all those dozens of pretenders you’ll come across every day. Nobody ever said Carroll Shelby didn’t know how to have fun, not even the flat-earth disci­ple who’d written him off, chili and all. SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Dodge Shelby ChargerVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $8290/$8775Options: AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, $485
ENGINESOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 135 in3, 2213 cm3Power: 107 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 127 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 9.3-in vented disc/7.9-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GT195/50VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.6 inLength: 173.7 inWidth: 66.7 inHeight: 50.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/29 ft3Trunk Volume: 19 ft3Curb Weight: 2400 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 34.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.9 secTop Speed: 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 34/28/47 mpg  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the August 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Let’s get this styling business out of the way right now: Chevrolet’s full­-size pickups haven’t had a major facelift since the 1988 model year, and there’s an argument to be made that with the new 1999 model, they still haven’t. Certainly, the restyled ’88 model differed dramatically from the ’87 model, just as the 1973 model was a radical departure from the ’72. So it’s fair to question why Chevrolet chose mild over wild, when wild worked great for the current Dodge Ram pickup and reasonably well for the current Ford F-150. Chevrolet insists that the Sil­verado’s looks are the result of an incred­ibly intensive series of customer clinics, which left Chevy with the overriding impression that current Chevy customers, and plenty of potential buyers, do not want a dramatic styling statement. They want comfortable and familiar.That’s what Chevy, and corporate near-twin GMC, delivered. Beginning late this summer, customers will have the oppor­tunity to vote with their wallets, which is the only kind of customer response that really matters. For now, then, let’s agree on this: Chevy’s conservative makeover is as interesting an experiment as Dodge’s still-startling redesign was for 1994. That said, we can accentuate the posi­tive, because aside from the looks, the Silverado is just short of a quantum leap in pickups. Not because of any major inno­vation, but because of a very long list of minor ones. Such as making 16-inch tires and wheels standard, even on the base model. Also standard are: huge four-wheel disc brakes with ABS; battery-rundown protection; coolant-loss protection (as on the Cadillac Northstar V-8, the engine shuts down half its cylinders, turning them essentially into air pumps, air-cooling itself as you limp home); “Dynamic Rear Proportioning,” which is a computer chip that senses minute changes in wheel speed under braking and adjusts the proportion of rear brake engaged accordingly. Also standard are hydroformed front frame rails, just like the Corvette has. The pickup’s track is wider, wheel­bases are longer. Cabs are wider, longer, and taller. In the extended-cab versions­—those will be the first to reach dealer­ships—the rear seat’s bottom cushion is extended a couple of inches, and the rear seatback is canted at a comfortable angle. There are four more inches of legroom, too. In other words, this is the only extended-cab full-size pickup on the market in which we’d agree to sit in the rear without protest for a long trip. Chevrolet did miss the boat on the four-­door craze, as the extended cab has three doors for 1999 but should get a fourth in 2000. The official explanation is that Chevy needed to reach its goal of a body and chassis that are at least 60 percent stiffer than the ’98 model’s, so the com­pany elected to wait on the fourth door to allow for additional engineering time. The unofficial explanation is that product plan­ners misjudged the demand for four doors, and the speed at which the competition, especially Ford, would move to fill it. That seeming goof is offset, however, by a rear seat in the new trucks that is worth using, and thanks to seat-mounted front belts, you don’t have to climb through a hanging web to get into the back. In fact, there’s precious little to criti­cize about the interior. The seats, even those in the base model, are very good. The controls and the gauges are where they should be, and the instrument panel has a neat little “information center” box that can read out 18 different messages, from “Trans Fluid Hot” to “Cargo Lamp On.” By depressing the trip-odometer button for four seconds, the display switches to indi­cate the total number of hours the engine has been running since the last scheduled service stop. This will allow fleet customers, whose trucks idle a lot or run power takeoff devices, to better plan their servicing intervals. You may already know that GM chose to stick with pushrod engines, as the Sil­verado’s three new cast-iron-block V-8s are based on the Corvette’s LS1 aluminum 5.7-liter V-8. Truck engines start with the 4.3-liter carryover V-6 and top out with the carryover 6.5-liter turbo-diesel V-8. The 7.4-liter gas V-8 also stays in pro­duction for heavy-duty trucks. Those new V-8 engines are a 4.8-liter (255 horses and 285 pound-feet of torque), a 5.3-liter (270 hp and 315 pound-feet of torque), and a 6.0-liter (300 hp and 355 pound-feet of torque). By comparison, the two V-8s these three engines replace are the 5.0-liter (230 hp and 285 pound-feet of torque) and the venerable 5.7-liter (255 hp and 330 pound-feet of torque). Chevrolet says the new engines have a wider power band than the old ones, meaning torque is spread out over a wider rpm range. Unfortunately, the 6.0-liter is for three-quarter-ton applications and bigger trucks—for now, anyway. It will fit in the half-ton truck (all three engines are the same size on the outside) and could even end up in a performance pickup to counter the coming Ford SVT F-150 Lightning. The 4.8 and 5.3 engines have aluminum heads; the 6.0 is all iron (alu­minum dissipates heat better, Chevy con­tends, but cast iron wears better for com­mercial customers). More SIlverado Reviews From the ArchiveThe transmissions are updated, and there’s a new AutoTrac transfer case for four-wheel-drive applications that can automatically engage four-wheel drive when the going gets slippery. The four-­speed automatic transmission also has a “tow/haul” mode. Pressing a button at the end of the shift lever engages it, altering the shift pattern to maximize pulling power in each gear. The first-to-second shift, for example, occurs at 22 mph in the tow/haul mode, and at 10 mph in normal mode. Prices should be official by the time you read this, but we’re estimating a three-to-four-percent increase over prices of cur­rent models, which isn’t bothersome when all that standard equipment is considered. Mechanically and ergonomically, the 1999 Chevrolet Silverado simply advances the cause of pickups. As for the styling—­well, it doesn’t.Driving The Top-of-the-Line LT ModelWe drove a variety of 1999 Sil­verados but selected this top­-of-the-line LT (there are also a base model and a midlevel LS model) to gather some early test data. It’s an extended-cab four-wheel-drive Sport­side (rear fenders are injection-molded plastic) with the Z71 off-road package (larger shocks, beefier jounce bumpers, bigger tires). Power was supplied by the 5.3-liter V-8, with a four-speed automatic transmission and an Auto­Trac electronic transfer case. It was dressed up inside, too—with power-operated leather seats, a pre­mium stereo, and a CD player. The LT was an exceptionally comfortable place to pass the miles, and it provided a sur­prisingly smooth ride that was quiet at highway speeds. The 5.3-liter V-8 feels and sounds a lot like the current 5.7-liter V-8, although its fuel economy should be a bit better. It also pollutes less, which was a central purpose for creating this new engine family. We averaged a not-­great 13.6 mpg for our long afternoon of driving, but it was peppered with quite a few full-throttle runs to the speed limiter, which kicks in at a modest 97 mph. On the road, the Silverado handled reasonably well, considering its rather cumbersome 143.5-inch wheelbase. Off-road, it was surprisingly nimble, and the AutoTrac system seems more intuitive than the similar system Ford uses. A 4.10:1 differential ratio certainly helped boost off-the-line performance (likely to the detriment of fuel mileage), resulting in a 0-to-60-mph time of 8.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17.1 seconds at 80 mph. That beats the Dodge Ram and Ford F-150 full-size extended-cab rear-drive pickups we tested in June 1996. The 220-foot braking distance from 70 mph is simi­larly impressive, considering that the big Firestone Wilderness radials are true dual-purpose tires. Stay tuned for the obligatory shootout of the GM, Ford, and Dodge full-size pickups, a test the Chevrolet people insist they can hardly wait to read.SpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LT Sportside 4WDVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 2+ 1-door pickup
PRICE (EST)
Base/As Tested: $28,000/$28,500Options: Z71 off-road package
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 325 in3, 5327 cm3Power: 270 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 315 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/12.8-in vented discTires: Firestone Wilderness AT265/75SR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 143.5 inLength: 227.6 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 73.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 64/50 ft3Cargo Volume: 44 ft3Curb Weight: 4650 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.9 sec1/4-Mile: 17.1 sec @ 80 mph90 mph: 23.8 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 97 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 220 ft  
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (PROJECTED)City/Highway: 14/18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

If you look at the engine specs of Chevrolet Silverado 2500HDs over the years like the back of a baseball card, the engine output of the Duramax diesel has grown like Barry Bonds’s weight during his playing days. While all Duramax V-8s have displaced 6.6 liters, they started 2001 as a doe-eyed 185-pound center fielder cranking out 300 horsepower and 520 pound-feet of torque. Bonds eventually—and notoriously—juiced his way to a pitcher-intimidating 228 pounds, but the Duramax has Bonds’s gains beat. Today, the L5P Duramax slugs diesel to make 470 horses and 975 pound-feet. In isolation, the engine is a monster. More might than any one person really needs, but where’s the fun in that when the Ford F-250 cranks out 1050 pound-feet (1200 from the High Output version) and the Ram 2500, by way of Cummins, musters 850 pound-feet (1075 in the 3500)? That the Ford has 8 percent more torque is so inconsequential, the only ones who care are those who measure themselves in ways other than height. If you’ve read all the way into this third paragraph, it’s very likely that you already own a heavy-duty Chevy and little will sway you from the brand loyalty your Calvin sticker personifies. Or perhaps you’re really in the market for an HD truck and you’re upset that we haven’t mentioned the tow ratings yet. So, here goes: For 2024, the Silverado 2500 maxes out at 22,430 pounds with a gooseneck hitch. That’s about triple the mass of the heaviest Airstream made, so it’ll likely be good for you. HIGHS: More than enough torque and tow, blue interior stands out in a sea of black and beige, luxury-car bells and whistles.The High Country Duramax Crew Cab 4WD model we tested is more show horse than workhorse, but even an Arabian tip-toeing is a force to wrangle. Nevertheless, between the Z71 package’s all-terrain tires, this truck’s four-wheel drive, and its lack of the Max Trailering package, our tester is limited to towing 18,100 pounds with a fifth wheel or gooseneck hitch, or 18,500 pounds behind the bumper. But figuring this out required at least three consultations with our tech and fact-checking departments (your author wisely set his Slack status to Do Not Disturb). It’s confusing to nail down, and if you want the highest possible tow rating, you’ll want to make sure you select that Max Trailering package and a regular cab. It upgrades the 2500’s rear springs, shocks, rear axle, and frame to 3500-level stoutness. A step up from the LTZ trim, the Silverado High Country nets body-colored bumpers, a Bose stereo, stainless beltline trim, LED taillamps, a spray-in bedliner, LED bed lighting, a wireless phone charger, heated outboard rear seats, side steps, a power tailgate, and many, many other bells and whistles, most of which are optional on other trims. The High Country’s cabin is the fanciest of all Chevy trucks with front ventilated buckets (no bench is available) and a 13.4-inch center touchscreen featuring Google built-in and Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Only a few hard plastic panels in this near-luxury-grade interior might be shared with the base WT trim. And credit where it’s due for gambling on a blue interior. It’s a lovely break from the typical black and beige. LOWS: Feels less refined than before, will lose most measuring-stick contests to the Ford F-250, nice cabin still lags the competition’s.The optional Z71 package (just $325) brings off-road-tuned dampers with a very truckish ride, as well as hill-descent control and protective skid plates. Most HD truck buyers would find the jostle pretty normal considering the capability underfoot. But the biggest trucks from Chevrolet and GMC used to be some of the lightest in their classes, and that svelteness was felt behind the wheel. This test truck is heavier than both the most recent Ford F-250 and Ram 2500 diesel we tested. GM’s HD trucks still use an independent front suspension (the only in the segment), but the Ford’s tuning is remarkably smooth. Again, HD truck drivers will find it rather normal, but it just seems like this newest Chevy 2500 took a step backward in terms of refinement. The Duramax V-8 has 32 valves and single turbocharger. The tach indicates a 4600-rpm redline, but you never make it there as foot-on-the-floor shifts happen around 3000 rpm and there is a fuel cut at 3500, should you opt for manual mode. Driving the 2500 around barely stresses the engine. From a standstill, 60 mph arrives in 6.4 seconds. Not too bad for an 8260-pound rig—that is, until the 8100-pound F-250 does it in 5.5 seconds. For the record, the last Ram 2500 crew cab we tested weighed 8060 pounds and needed 7.6 seconds to hit 60 mph. With an Allison 10-speed automatic, the Silverado gets around shuffling and skipping gears often and we can’t think of a better column-shifter application. Putting a shifter on the console occupies otherwise primo Slim Jim and pistachio real estate. There are likely already comments saying that electric pickups make more torque. Blah, blah, blah. That’s great. EV trucks are great. But until you can get a bench seat in the front of a Cybertruck or have a rear window slider to toss a soda can into the bed of a Rivian R1T or lay an eight-foot sheet flat in a Silverado EV without messing with a midgate, electric truckin’ just ain’t the same as a dad-gum diesel. And, at $85,855 as tested, this Chevrolet seems like a bargain compared to the electrics (it’s almost $10K less than a Ford F-150 Lightning we tested). Besides, tailgating in the bed of a heavy-duty pickup before a ballgame is just as American as the pastime itself. No matter what your brand is, people will notice, and some will stop to ask about torque and towing, but you should keep it interesting and make sure to show off that blue interior.VERDICT: A truckish truck with luxury trimmings that can tow a house.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD High Country 4WDVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $73,995/$85,855Options: Duramax diesel engine, $9490; power retractable assist steps with perimeter lighting, $1500; Gooseneck/5th wheel package, $545; Z71 off-road package (off-road suspension, hill descent control, oil pan and transfer case skid plates), $325
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve 6.6-liter diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 403 in3, 6599 cm3Power: 470 hp @ 2800 rpmTorque: 975 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 14.0-in vented disc/14.1-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler Trailrunner ATLT275/65R-20 126/123S M+S 3PMSF TPC SPEC 2370
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 158.9 inLength: 250.0 inWidth: 82.0 inHeight: 79.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 73/66 ft3Curb Weight: 8260 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4-Mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 97 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 203 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.70 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 640 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDK.C. Colwell, the executive editor at Car and Driver, is a seasoned professional with a deep-rooted passion for new cars and technology. His journey into the world of automotive journalism began at an early age when his grandmother gifted him a subscription to Car and Driver for his 10th birthday. This gift sparked a lifelong love for the industry, and he read every issue between then and his first day of employment. He started his Car and Driver career as a technical assistant in the fall of 2004. In 2007, he was promoted to assistant technical editor. In addition to testing, evaluating, and writing about cars, technology, and tires, K.C. also set the production-car lap record at Virginia International Raceway for C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test and was just the sixth person to drive the Hendrick Motorsport Garage 56 Camaro. In 2017, he took over as testing director until 2022, when was promoted to executive editor and has led the brand to be one of the top automotive magazines in the country. When he’s not thinking about cars, he likes playing hockey in the winter and golf in the summer and doing his best to pass his good car sense and love of ’90s German sedans to his daughter. He might be the only Car and Driver editor to own a Bobcat: the skidsteer, not the feline. Though, if you have a bobcat guy, reach out. K.C. resides in Chelsea, Michigan, with his family. More

It can be tough when you have a world-famous sibling. Just ask Jeb Bush. At Hyundai, the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 6 have been basking in the limelight; together they’ve garnered back-to-back EV of the Year wins, among other accolades. Other Hyundai EVs haven’t been so lucky. The now-defunct and just-plain Ioniq EV never got the same attention—proving it doesn’t always pay to be first—nor has the battery-powered Kona been elevated to celebrity status. The Kona Electric arrived for 2019, one year after the gas-engine subcompact SUV version joined the lineup, but buyers remained focused on the more traditional one. For 2024, the Kona—both versions—enters its second generation. It gets a new look and other upgrades, but we’re still not predicting that the Kona Electric will become a marquee name among EVs.Hyundai has has amped up the styling for both the gas and electric versions. At the front is a blanked-off fascia topped by a full-width light bar, a flourish echoed at the rear. Beyond the new look, the other major change is a bigger footprint, as the new Kona is larger than before in length (ICE Kona, 5.7 inches; Kona Electric, 5.9 inches), width (1.0 inch), and wheelbase (2.3 inches). It goes from being among the smallest of its ilk to the largest.HIGHS: Newly accommodating cabin, agreeable dynamics, solid range.One result is that the new Kona is much roomier than before. The back seat adds 3.0 inches of legroom, and passengers enjoy a flat floor, decent headroom, and seats with a comfortable H-point. Narrow door openings limit access however. The cargo hold has grown too, by seven cubic feet.The cabin now boasts side-by-side 12.3-inch digital displays, just like Hyundai’s more expensive models. The switchgear consists largely of real buttons rather than touch nonsense. And while we’re generally averse to novelty shifters, the Kona Electric’s column-mounted twist-flipper isn’t hard to acclimate to. There’s also stowage, stowage everywhere: all kinds of space in the center console, plus a tray in the dash ahead of the front-seat passenger. But nearly everything in the cabin is formed out of hard plastic.Two powertrains are on offer, a 133-hp base motor—a new addition for 2024—and a 201-horse example. Both are front-wheel drive. We drove the 201-hp version, which is quick enough for its intended mission of scooting around town, although drivers who’ve been hearing about EVs with muscle-car-beating acceleration might be left scratching their head. To wit, the Kona Electric hummed its way to 60 mph in 7.0 seconds in our testing and motored through the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 93 mph. Both figures represent some backsliding compared to the previous-gen Kona EV we tested, which along with being 98 pounds lighter, was 0.6 second quicker to 60 and half a second quicker in the quarter-mile.LOWS: Hard plastics inside, modest acceleration, Limited’s eyebrow-raising price.Buyers likely will be far more interested in a different number: the EV’s range. Here, the story is brighter. The EPA pegs the Kona Electric with its 64.8-kWh battery at 261 miles (versus 258 miles for the previous model with a similar-sized pack). In our 75-mph highway range test, the Kona Electric wasn’t far off that estimate, with a 230-mile result. Note that those figures are for the SEL and Limited; the base SE gets a smaller, 48.6-kWh battery that carries an EPA estimate of just 200 miles.The Kona Electric doesn’t share its flashier siblings’ 800-volt architecture, so it’s not as quick to charge, but it is quicker than before. At a DC fast-charger, the Kona’s 400-volt architecture can gulp electrons at up to 100 kilowatts. And the car’s L2 charger has been upgraded from a 7.2-kW to a 10.8-kW unit, which slashes the 10 to 100 percent charging time at a 240-volt source by a third (now 6 hours, 5 minutes), according to Hyundai.Related StoriesThe Kona Electric isn’t at the level of the Ioniq 5 and 6, but it’s still a pleasant EV. The chassis is also well sorted for an in-town runabout, albeit with a fair bit of lean in the corners. The steering has some artificially added weight—it doesn’t change with cornering forces—but the effort levels are fine. The Kona Electric’s braking should please drivers no matter where they fall on the regenerative braking spectrum. Paddles allow you to adjust the level of liftoff regen from none (full coasting) to one-pedal driving (i-Pedal) with several steps in between. And those who do use the brake pedal will find predictable modulation. Stopping distances from 70 mph, however, were a longish 179 feet, which is six feet worse than we recorded with the previous Kona Electric.VERDICT: Nothing that a $7500 tax credit couldn’t fix.We tested the Limited, which is generously equipped, with heated and ventilated front seats, a heated steering wheel, Hyundai’s blind-spot monitor, a 360-degree-view camera system, key fob–operated remote parking, and digital key. At $42,650 as tested, though, a wandering eye looks longingly across the showroom at the Ioniq 5 for less than $1000 more or the Ioniq 6 SE Long Range for $43,600. Perhaps, then, you’d drop down to the Kona Electric SEL, which starts at $38,070. We’d avoid the entry-level SE ($34,070), with its smaller battery and shorter range. At the high end, though, we’d be more tempted by one of the Kona Electric’s superstar siblings.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Hyundai Kona Electric LimitedVehicle Type: front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $42,440/$42,650Options: carpeted floor mats, $210
POWERTRAIN
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 188 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 64.8 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.8 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 100 kWTransmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.8-in discTires: Kumho Solus TA51 Premium All Season215/60R-17 96H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 104.7 inLength: 171.5 inWidth: 71.9 inHeight: 62.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 64/26 ft3Curb Weight: 3865 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.0 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 18.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 109 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
75-mph Highway Driving: 110 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 230 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 116/129/103 MPGeRange: 261 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDJoe 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

Typically, if you want a two-row SUV with the extra cargo-carrying capacity of a three-row, you must suck it up, buy the latter, and just live with stowed seats eating up a bit of that space. But not at Mazda. In creating the two-row CX70 hybrid, the Japanese automaker took its largest SUV, excised the rearmost seats, and—well, actually, that’s about it. But just as the 2025 Mazda CX-70’s provenance is one of compromise, the result feels equally full of concession.Fewer Seats, Same PerformanceThe Mazda CX-70 is, quite literally, a CX-90 without the extra seats. The mid-size hybrid’s body is no different—even inside, where cargo capacity is an identical 40 cubic feet behind the second row and the same 75 cubic feet with the rear seats stowed (that’s compared to a CX-90 with a two-seat third row; next to a CX-90 with a three-seat third row, the CX-70 has one more cube). Heck, even the cabin’s cargo-hold panels still retain the third-row cupholders. After all, groceries and baseball equipment must have their thirst quenched on occasion too. Thankfully, aside from that oddity, the CX-70 interior is delightfully upscale and full of materials that are interesting to both gaze upon and touch. Par for the Mazda course there.It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the CX-70’s copy-paste job extends beyond its hard-plastic inner walls. Our top-trim CX-70 test car also relies on the same plug-in-hybrid powertrain as its sibling. A 189-hp 2.5-liter inline-four pairs with a 173-hp electric motor nestled between the engine and its eight-speed automatic transmission. Net output is the same as the CX-90 PHEV: 323 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque. Even the battery is the same, with an estimated usable capacity of 14.8 kilowatt-hours.HIGHS: Loads of cargo space, good looks inside and out, CX-50-rivaling economy.Expunging the third row has a negligible weight difference—the CX-70 is just 52 pounds lighter on our scales—and thus the two Mazdas are nearly equally matched in performance as well. Both models required 5.9 seconds to reach 60 mph in our testing, and both crossed the quarter-mile mark at 97 mph, although the CX-70 got there 0.1 second quicker (14.4 seconds versus 14.5). The CX-70’s 0.82-g skidpad run is within a rounding error of the CX-90’s 0.83 g. Braking is nearly even too, with the CX-70 adding five feet to the CX-90’s 166-foot result.What these numbers translate to is a two-row hybrid SUV that feels more than a little porcine. The CX-50, by contrast, is a true two-row mid-sizer, and its properly proportioned footprint makes it way more rewarding to drive than the CX-70. The PHEV’s bulk is down low, so it doesn’t feel top-heavy, just regular heavy. Throw Mazda’s surprisingly overweight steering tuning into the equation, and at no point is a CX-70 driver unaware of the mass hulking underfoot.Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to run the CX-70 through our usual highway fuel economy test. But given the CX-70’s near-copycat job of the CX-90, we expect roughly the same performance. That would mean about 26 miles of electric-only range and about 28 mpg at a steady 75 mph. That’s the same fuel economy we clocked in a CX-50 Turbo, which is smaller and carries less cargo, so moving up to the CX-70 won’t make one’s time at the pump any worse on the wallet.A Puzzling PowertrainMazda’s plug-in-hybrid arrangement isn’t as smooth as others. Some of that comes down to packaging. In the CX-70, the electric motor lives between the engine and eight-speed transmission. That means e-motivation must go through the transmission, a largely uncomfortable experience that ruins the consistent, effortless, off-you-go vibe a single-speed electric motor provides. You don’t know when the EV gear changes are coming, but they will, and they’re all bad.LOWS: Clumsy PHEV powertrain, unavoidable mass, CX-90-matching price.We also discovered a strange powertrain interplay in one specific scenario. As you wrap up second gear at wide-open throttle, the cabin will fill with a deep, loud resonance just before shifting to third, but only sometimes, and never outside that situation (as far as we could determine). And unlike our sense of self-importance, this isn’t imaginary: The clamor registered at 85 decibels on our microphones, a far cry from the 79 decibels we reported during normal WOT sound testing. The pedals could use a little bit of tuning too. The throttle is a tricky one. Tip-in behavior is too jumpy, but it’s better to have the internal-combustion engine kick in sooner; if you need to call it up mid-drive under EV operation, the whole process takes about two Mississippis, so you spend far too much time with the throttle buried and nothing to show for it. The brake is also touchy at the top end, but it blends friction and regeneration nicely later in the throw, and we found it easy to modulate in traffic past the initial bite.In general around-town driving, like what we imagine most CX-70 buyers will do with their cars, it’s a perfectly fine conveyance. The dynamic power gauge makes it easy to stay in EV mode as desired, and it shows you the exact point where your right foot will engage the internal-combustion engine. The changeover is far from graceful, but once every part of the powertrain clocks in for work, things don’t feel as clumsy.Some PHEVs don’t let you charge the battery an appreciable amount while out and about. Which is fine—plugging in is really the way to go—but having the option doesn’t hurt, and Mazda is happy to oblige. All it takes to do so is a quick press of a center-console button. And, unlike others, Mazda even lets you set a max charge percentage, so if you only need the last half of the battery to make it home from the highway, you can ask the system to charge and hold only that much in reserve. Don’t expect speedy charging though; since the engine still has to motivate the CX-70, it only siphons off a bit of power to juice up the battery, which means you might only add a few miles of EV range in an hour of highway driving. Dollars and SenseIf you were hoping that the CX-70 PHEV would split the price difference between the CX-50 and the CX-90 hybrid, consider your hopes dashed. As of this writing, the most expensive CX-50 starts at $44,720, while the cheapest CX-90 Preferred PHEV will set you back $51,400. But the CX-70’s two available plug-in trims—the $55,855 Premium and $58,905 Premium Plus—cost the same as the commensurate CX-90 PHEV trims. C’mon, Mazda, you can’t even throw us 50 bucks for skipping the extra seats? (The CX-70 has five gas-only trims between $41,900 and $57,405.)VERDICT: While neither a clown nor a joker, this PHEV answers a question we’re not sure anybody asked.Mazda’s marketing department may have won the war to make the CX-70 its own model, instead of a simple option box for the CX-90. No matter, the CX-70 is sort of a weird in-betweener. It’s a two-row SUV with the space of a three-row, and that extra capacity could be a huge boon to families who haul things more often than people. However, the CX-70 is more unwieldy than a properly sized two-row, and deleting the third row doesn’t free up any appreciable storage space, although it does limit you to five occupants max. For better or for worse, there’s nothing quite like it.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Mazda CX-70 PHEV Premium PlusVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, all-wheel drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $58,905/$59,355Options: Melting Copper Metallic paint, $450
Powertrain
DOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter inline-4, 189 hp, 192 lb-ft + AC motor, 173 hp, 199 lb-ft (combined output: 323 hp, 369 lb-ft; 14.8-kWh [C/D est] lithium-ion battery pack; 7.2-kW onboard chargerTransmission: 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.7-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Falken Ziex CT60A A/S275/45R-21 107W M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 122.8 inLength: 200.8 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 68.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 57/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 75/40 ft3Curb Weight: 5184 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.9 sec1/4-Mile: 14.4 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.2 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 MPGe
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway (C/D est): 25/24/27 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 56 MPGeEV Range: 26 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

From the July/August issue of Car and Driver.It was big news when Nissan revealed the latest Z. After years of seemingly ignoring its iconic sports car, Nissan brought it back with a 400-hp twin-turbo V-6. The excitement didn’t last, and the redesigned Z finished last in its first C/D comparison test. The “new” Z simply felt like a reskinned version of the old car but with a bit more power.Enter the Z NISMO. A thorough redo by Nissan’s performance division, the Z NISMO impressed us at our Lightning Lap competition at Virginia International Raceway. With 420 horses and 384 pound-feet of torque—gains of 20 and 34, respectively—as well as wider tires on forged wheels, stiffer anti-roll bars, larger front brakes, and bigger dampers with firmer springs, the NISMO felt in its element racing against the clock. Tracks usually expose weaknesses, but this one actually masked the NISMO’s flaws. In the real world, where the streets aren’t freshly steamrolled, the added stiffness becomes tiresome, and the tight body control that feels so nice at 1.02 g’s shakes you silly in the NISMO’s standard Recaro seats. The brakes that performed so well when pushed to their limit at VIR are grabby and inconsistent, making it impossible to come to a complete stop smoothly.More on the Z NISMOChassis shortcomings aside, the model-specific Sport+ drive mode and launch control for the automatic transmission deliver drama-free 3.9-second blasts to 60 mph and 12.4-second trips through the quarter-mile at 114 mph. Those numbers are within striking distance of the more powerful BMW M2 and Ford Mustang Dark Horse.While BMW and Ford offer manuals, Nissan makes the NISMO only with a nine-speed automatic. And then there’s the $66,890 price and the HVAC controls from the George W. Bush era. We’re happy a vehicle like the NISMO exists, but it could be a better road car. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Nissan Z NISMOVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $66,890/$69,095Options: Brilliant Silver Metallic and Super Black two-tone paint, $1295; floor mat package (NISMO floor mats, trunk mat, first aid kit, cargo net, owner’s manual branded portfolio) $410; illuminated black metallic kick plate, $500
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2997 cm3Power: 420 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 384 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION9-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.0-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT600F: 255/40R-19 100Y Extra LoadR: 285/35R-19 103Y Extra Load
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 100.4 inLength: 173.2 inWidth: 73.6 inHeight: 51.8 inCurb Weight: 3673 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.9 sec100 mph: 9.4 sec1/4-Mile: 12.4 sec @ 114 mph130 mph: 17.0 sec150 mph: 26.6 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.4 secTop Speed (C/D est): 165 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 153 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 305 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.02 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 27 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 440 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 19/17/24 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDavid 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

At the launch of the 718 Spyder RS, Andreas Preuninger, the man in charge of all Porsche GT cars, was asked which non-GT 911 is his favorite. There are after all some 20 models between the 911 Carrera and whatever is the current most expensive variant (at the moment, the Turbos). He said the Turbo S, because he can make calls at high speed and it’s comfortable and very quick. Then he posed the question to me, and I said, “Whatever is the cheapest one with a manual transmission. The 911 T, right?” At which point he slapped me on the shoulder, affirmed that was the correct answer, and changed his. So, I’ve got that going for me.The point of that story is that he knows the bones of the cars he molds and that the greatness of a GT3 RS or an S/T wouldn’t be possible if the starting point were anything but exceptional. This holds true for the newly refreshed 2025 911 Carrera. A manual transmission may not be in the cards at the moment, but the incremental changes to the rest of the car are an improvement. Power comes from a lightly breathed upon but otherwise carryover 3.0-liter flat-six. Unlike the new GTS, which utilizes a single electrified turbocharger, the Carrera carries on with two turbos, but they are from the outgoing GTS, and the intercoolers are from the previous-gen 911 Turbo. These changes net efficiency gains that contribute to a small power increase of nine horsepower for a total of 388 horses at 6500 rpm. Peak torque remains 331 pound-feet, though that’s available at 2000 rpm, 100 rpm higher in the rev range. Redline is unchanged at 7400 rpm. Response is good. Not the lag-free experience of the new Carrera GTS, but not much is. More on the 911 CarreraThe exterior shape is unchanged—why mess with a shape that’s worked for eight generations?—though typical of a mid-cycle refresh, the bumpers have been revised, and there’s more standard content. The LED Matrix headlights with auto high beams constitute the most noteworthy addition. HD LED Matrix lights are also available, but as we’ve seen with other automakers’ dynamic high-beams, their 16,384 light sources per side work in unison rather than illuminating specific parts of the road to keep bright lights from shining on oncoming traffic. Active cruise control is available and so is night vision, which displays in the now 100 percent digital instrument cluster, but avoid those options as they come with unsightly sensors in the grille.That’s right, not only does the 911 not have an analog speedometer, it doesn’t have an old-timey tach either. The 12.6-inch curved screen can display up to seven different views, depending on how the car is equipped. Every Carrera also gets the steering-wheel-mounted drive-mode switch as standard. (It was previously reserved for models equipped with the Sport Chrono package.) Added to the list of no-cost options, which also includes the Smoking package (an ashtray insert for the cupholder) and a storage net in the passenger footwell, is the small back seat. The back seat may add a bit of weight, but its versatility is mandatory, in our opinion. A base Carrera should weigh just under 3400 pounds, and Porsche says the car is 0.1 second quicker to 60 mph, but the last Carrera we tested hit 60 in 3.2 seconds, which is 0.5 second quicker than Porsche’s estimate for the new model (with the Sport Chrono package). So don’t be too shocked if it ties the outgoing car in terms of acceleration. From behind the wheel the experience is all but unchanged. The steering is communicative; the eight-speed dual-clutch behaves like a professionally trained German shepherd and never barks back or ignores a command. The 911 is a cohesive round pod that brings joy to each mile. That’s a difficult thing to price, but Porsche has, as you expect. The 911 has gotten more expensive, now starting at $122,095. There isn’t a lot of competition at that price point. You can get a V-8 by either undercutting it with the much less pricey Chevrolet Corvette or spending a good bit more on a Mercedes-AMG GT55. Or try to find a Lotus Emira or one of the few remaining Jaguar F-Types. All these cars try to capture the 911’s magic, because the Carrera remains the gold standard by which all other sports cars are judged. SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Porsche 911 CarreraVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2- or 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe or convertible
PRICE
Base: Carrera, $122,095; Carrera Cabriolet, $135,395
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 182 in3, 2981 cm3Power: 388 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 331 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.5 inLength: 178.8 inWidth: 72.9 inHeight: 51.2 inTrunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3400–3550 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.2–3.3 sec100 mph: 7.9–8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 11.5–11.6 secTop Speed: 183 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 20/18/24 mpgK.C. Colwell, the executive editor at Car and Driver, is a seasoned professional with a deep-rooted passion for new cars and technology. His journey into the world of automotive journalism began at an early age when his grandmother gifted him a subscription to Car and Driver for his 10th birthday. This gift sparked a lifelong love for the industry, and he read every issue between then and his first day of employment. He started his Car and Driver career as a technical assistant in the fall of 2004. In 2007, he was promoted to assistant technical editor. In addition to testing, evaluating, and writing about cars, technology, and tires, K.C. also set the production-car lap record at Virginia International Raceway for C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test and was just the sixth person to drive the Hendrick Motorsport Garage 56 Camaro. In 2017, he took over as testing director until 2022, when was promoted to executive editor and has led the brand to be one of the top automotive magazines in the country. When he’s not thinking about cars, he likes playing hockey in the winter and golf in the summer and doing his best to pass his good car sense and love of ’90s German sedans to his daughter. He might be the only Car and Driver editor to own a Bobcat: the skidsteer, not the feline. Though, if you have a bobcat guy, reach out. K.C. resides in Chelsea, Michigan, with his family. More

From the May 1986 issue of Car and Driver.Svenska Aeroplan AB, commonly known as Saab, was formed in 1937. Despite its background, this famed Swedish aircraft producer, which branched out into auto­mobile production in 1949, has recently built fairly blunt-looking cars. The new 9000 (C/D, December) may ruin that repu­tation, but even in the face of that sleek se­dan, Saab continues to bluff the winds of change with the relatively upright 900. It survives because it’s practical and because Saab’s engineers regularly sneak the dev­il’s work under its hood. When the Saab Turbo appeared, its hissing exhaust spoke with a forked tail. Then Saab loaded it with twin cams and sixteen valves, and its clo­ven hoofs scrabbled to put the power down, spelling out its personality in black strips, the most lurid of highway hieroglyphics. But not everybody wants to sell their soul to the devil for eternity, and to the bank for 48 months, and that’s where the new 900S comes in. By offering sixteen­-valve responsiveness without the expense of the turbo package, the S splits the whop­ping $6000 difference between the saintly 900 and the satanic 900 Turbo.Dick Kelley|Car and DriverThe S boots up on 195/60HR-15 steel-­belted radials and alloy wheels and high­-pressure gas shocks, but lacks the Turbo’s anti-roll bars. Nevertheless, its cornering, even at the 0.76-g maximum, feels flatter and better controlled than that of past mid-market Saabs. Luckily, the Turbo’s firmly contoured seats have made the tran­sition to the S, and the accommodations all around are couched in velour. The picky driver may note the proximity of pedals to seat and may wish the accurate steering were heavier, but their complaints will be drowned by huzzahs from happy passen­gers, who have for themselves and their luggage plenty of room and comfort. Any dunce who absconds with your stereo, however, will be genuinely unhappy about the steal-me, junk-me electronic AM/FM­-stereo/cassette unit, which takes a perma­nent nap unless the correct code is fed back into its memory after any interruption of power. Of the 100,000 cars built by Saab last year, America snapped up 38,000—enough to qualify the U.S. as a major piece of Saab’s automobile action. Americans hanker for cars that can flat scat across an intersection at the drop of a light. We like to get to the far side first, so we need torque down low, where it rolls out in our favor like doctored dice. More on SaabSaab figures its sixteen-valve four­-banger will roll sevens all night long. At 2.0 liters, the upgraded normally aspirated four produces more than one horsepower per cubic inch, and fifteen horsepower more than the eight-valver in the base 900; the 900 makes 110 hp at 5250 rpm, while our S puts out 125 hp at 5500 rpm. The torque peaks at 123 pounds-feet at 3000 rpm for the S, a handy 500 rpm lower than the 900’s 119 pounds-feet. Like all four-valve-per-cylinder layouts, Saab’s is aimed at increased efficiency and flexibility through improved breathing and combustion. The S’s fuel charge arrives with the impetus of Bosch LH­-Jetronic fuel injection behind it, and air travels into the engine via ram-tuned in­take tracts. Saab tech director Gunnar Larsson chose not to provide two small and symmetrical intake ports per cylinder, but instead developed one round and one D-shaped tract to feed each combustion chamber. This causes a valve-to-valve ve­locity difference that helps generate useful turbulence inside the chambers.Dick Kelley|Car and DriverFuel economy hovers at 20 mpg, 1 mpg less than the 900’s. The sixteen-valve en­gine produces clearly superior drivability; because it’s boxed inside such a tall, rela­tively weighty shell, however, it makes the S no Krakatoa among factory-souped se­dans. Even so, it cures the breathlessness that straps the 900, noticeably lightening its load and transforming the selection of the five gears in the somewhat clunky box into headier steps. At 10.0 seconds, the S does reasonably well from 0 to 60, though its towering façade, which ranks behind only that of Yosemite’s El Capitan, turns a 0-to-100 test into a 51.8-second enduro and quells the top speed at a ho-hum 104 miles per hour.Even without Saab’s turbocharger to huff and puff in assistance, the sixteen valves pump their little hearts out. Fortu­nately, they’re covered by Saab’s new three-year/36,000-mile warranty, which lasts for the full duration even if the car is resold to other owners. By next summer, 900-series Saabs will scamper ashore with optional convertible tops. Topped or top­less, the 900S will hit it off with those who crave practicality as much as performance, at a base price of $16,095. The S feels faster than the 900, and it is, just as the devil intended, but its middling performance may still leave you on the horns of his dilemma.SpecificationsSpecifications
1986 Saab 900SVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $16,095/$16,401
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 121 in3, 1985 cm3Power: 125 hp @ 5500 rpm 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 99.1 inLength: 186.6 inCurb Weight: 2776 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.0 sec1/4-Mile: 17.4 sec @ 77 mph100 mph: 51.8 secTop Speed: 104 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 209 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 20 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More