Evelyn Reynolds

From the August 1981 issue of Car and Driver.America, in all its years of absorbing fat-cat de Villes and Fleetwoods, has never before been confronted with a Cadillac anything like the new Cimar­ron. You can forget everything you know about the softly lined cruisers of the past—the Cimarron pays no hom­age to Cadillac tradition. The new Cim­arron is not the size of a battleship. It does not coddle you like a mother’s arms. In fact, your average Eldorado owner wouldn’t recognize it as a Cadillac if he backed into one.As you can well see, the Cimarron looks like anything except what it is—a Toyota, a BMW, or a Chevy maybe, but not a Cadillac. And in this case, appear­ances aren’t in the least deceiving. The 1982 Cimarron represents nothing less than an about-face in Cadillac market­ing philosophy—one of the boldest moves ever made by a car company.Cadillac, friends, is now in the small­-car business. Along with the standard array of decadent behemoths, Caddy dealers are now selling a car that’s bare­ly an inch longer than a Honda Accord four-door sedan—which is to say, very compact indeed. Cool 80s Cars and Best-Sellers From the PastBut the plot thickens. The only thing more surprising than the new Cadillac’s diminutive dimensions is its personality. The Cimarron’s standard gearbox, for instance, is a four-speed manual unit. The cleanly styled instrument cluster houses a full set of gauges, including a tachometer. The suspension is tuned for handling as much as for ride. And if we are to believe Cimarron advertising, which is targeted at the same people who buy BMWs, Audis, and Volvos, Cadillac thinks it’s building some kind of sports sedan. The next thing we know, Ronald Reagan will turn into a knee­-jerk liberal. The sudden upheaval in Cadillac­-think stems from two sources. Cadillac desperately needed a small car to stem the tide of buyers defecting to smaller, more fuel-efficient makes. The decision to try to build a driver’s car rather than a pint-sized Seville arose from a desire to capture the affluent, upwardly mobile buyers who had been shelling out for expensive, high-quality sedans like the Audi 4000 and the BMW 320i—a group Cadillac doubted it could ever lure into the fold with its lineup of plushmobiles. A design with the potential to meet these lofty marketing goals, Cadillac found, was already under development at GM under the code name “J-car.” (The J-cars, as you no doubt know, de­buted last spring as the Pontiac J2000 and Chevrolet Cavalier, GM’s smallest front-drive sedans to date.) On paper, the J-car’s transverse-engine, front­-drive, high-efficiency design was repre­sentative of the latest in small-car think­ing, and its 101.2-inch wheelbase and 173-inch length slotted it smack in the middle of the BMW 320i-Audi 4000-Honda Accord class.What was left for Cadillac to do was to hone the basic platform to world­-class status. Making a Bimmer-baiter out of what started life as a Chevrolet is no small feat, but it’s still within the realm of possibility. Sedan de Villes, af­ter all, look and feel quite a bit different from Impalas, but share numerous me­chanical pieces. Since Cadillac latched onto the proj­ect only a year before production­—which is well into the eleventh hour in the car business—the Cimarron shares a far greater than normal number of parts with its Pontiac and Chevrolet siblings. Truth be known, the designers and en­gineers had only enough time to re­arrange the front and rear sheetmetal, redo the interior trim, retune the sus­pension, and fiddle with the standard­-equipment list. If you look closely, you might notice that the Cimarron, which is available only as a four-door sedan, shares its roof, doors, fenders, and hood with the Cavalier.Though the Cimarron bears a close kinship to other J-cars, we can say that the revisions Cadillac has made were all aimed in precisely the right direction. In fact, considering the division that’s pro­ducing the Cimarron, it’s a revelation. The restyling Cadillac did, for in­stance, couldn’t have been more apro­pos. The Cimarron looks like the clean break with the past that it is. The typi­cal-for-Cadillac bow-shaped hood and massive grille have given way to a front-­end treatment that looks like that of an Impala (which itself started looking like a Cadillac a few years back). The tail is neat and simple. The standard tires are chunky blackwall Goodyear P195/70R­-13s mounted on 5.5-inch-wide alloy wheels—also standard. Chrome is used sparingly. And, wonder of wonders, there’s not even a stand-up hood orna­ment to spoil the effect.When you pull open a door you find more of the same inside. The interior styling is conservative to the point of being nondescript. All Cimarron seats are covered with handsome perforated leather. The door panels repeat the pleated theme with some of the world’s best vinyl. There are map pockets in the front doors and more map pockets be­hind the front seats—which recline, as do all J-car front seats.The dash is standard J-car fare, with the exception of a new flat-aluminum­-look facing. Full instrumentation is standard, including gauges for oil pres­sure, water temperature, fuel level, volt level, and a pair of large round dials for the tachometer and speedo. The skinny three-spoke steering wheel looks a bit dated now that the thick-grip look is in, but it is at least wrapped in leather. And there’s not a square inch of fake wood in sight. The interior designer gets a gold star for restraint. The Cimarron’s admission price is a hefty $12,131. But for that sum, you get a fully equipped car, which is in keeping with the basic J-car policy. Along with the leather interior, the standard-equip­ment list includes such things as power steering, power brakes, air condition­ing, a four-speaker AM/FM-stereo ra­dio, electric mirrors, a digital clock, grab handles above the doors, a rear-­seat center armrest, a center console with a coin tray, intermittent wipers, and lights for the trunk and the engine compartment. You can add more, of course, although many of the full-sized Caddy’s labor-savers—like the automat­ic headlight dimmer—aren’t available. We’re also happy to report that the Cimarron appears to be put together with more care than we’ve seen in most American cars until now. We managed to score a pair of early-production Cim­arrons for this test—numbers five and fifteen, to be exact. We found their paintwork good (unlike our photo car, a pre-production prototype), the fit of the doors snug, and the body panels and trim lined up just so. In the cabin, ev­erything was battened down tightly as well. The body structure was rock solid. The overall feeling around these parts is that the Cimarron doesn’t have quite the tight-fitting look of an Audi 4000, but it isn’t far off, either—and that’s saying something. When you’re keeping company with BMW and Audi, a high level of fit and finish is expected. So are first-class road manners, and Cadillac didn’t neglect its duties on that front either. The Cimarron’s suspension—which consists of MacPherson struts and an anti-roll bar up front, with a pair of trailing arms connected by a transverse member, coil springs, and an anti-sway bar bringing up the rear—benefits from exclusive calibrations aimed at optimiz­ing ride without hurting handling. To ease the Cimarron over bumps, the en­gineers specified the soft springs from the base-level Cavalier. Body roll is held in check with the thick anti-roll bars used on the Pontiac J2000 handling package, and Cadillac worked out its own special shock-absorber valving. The most important part of the package is a new set of rear-suspension trailing-­arm bushings designed to be soft in the fore-and-aft direction to soak up pave­ment imperfections, but stiff laterally to provide quick response in directional changes. Engineering talk is all well and good, but when it comes to drivers’ cars there’s only one acid test. So we round­ed up four of the Cimarron’s world-­class competitors—the Audi 4000 4E, the BMW 320i, the Honda Accord SE, and the Volvo GL—for a day-long drive-off to see just where it stands. In the past, Cadillacs have been engi­neered to float you along the boulevard as if it were paved with clouds. About two blocks is all it takes to see that the Cimarron is a complete departure from the easy riders of yore. For the first time in a Cadillac of recent vintage, you can actually feel there’s a road down there. In fact, the ride is actually quite firm, about like the BMW’s. On smooth roads and on the high­way, though, the Cimarron proved to be almost silky—and about the best of the group. At least part of this is acoustical. Thanks to the J-car’s inherently good noise isolation, you simply don’t hear very much road rumble or tire hum. Some credit also goes to the Goodyear radials, which are ground on tire-truing machines after they pop out of the molding ovens to ensure the best possi­ble ride. On the twists and turns of our coun­try-road test loop, the Cimarron showed it could cut and run almost as well as Europe’s best. In most situations the tires stay planted securely and allow you to make good use of the 0.73-g corner­ing potential—which is well into BMW territory. The steering is quick, and the tail tracks respectfully behind when you dive for an apex or whip around your favorite cloverleaf. About the only time the suspension falls down on the job is when the road gets rocky. Over badly broken macad­am, which the foreign competition shrugs off, the Cimarron’s front end gets jumpy—not badly so, mind you, but enough to keep the Cimarron from feeling as confidence-inspiring as, say, the Audi. This last point is indicative of what our comparo drive revealed about the Cimarron: It just doesn’t feel as good to drive as the cars it’s pitted against. The Cimarron’s power steering, for in­stance, feels numb when compared with the Volvo’s superb system. And all of the Cimarron’s pedals act just slightly out of sync. It’s much the same with the drive­train, which consists of the standard J-­car 1.8-liter, 85-hp four-cylinder engine mated to a four-speed manual transmission. (A three-speed automatic is optional.) The Volvo, Audi, and Honda four-cylinder powerplants whir like sew­ing-machine motors when you press them, but the Cimarron thrashes in the upper rev ranges—though it doesn’t as­sault your ears nearly as badly as the BMW. And though the Cadillac’s 13.7-second 0-to-60 time is a match for the Honda’s, and within a tick of the Au­di’s, the wide ratios in the gearbox keep the Cimarron feeling flatfooted. If the Cimarron isn’t exactly a BMW­-killer, it’s still solidly competitive else­where. For one thing, it’s very roomy for a car so small. GM has hollowed out an impressively large cabin, big enough to seat four adults comfortably. The seats, front and rear, are commendably supportive for long-distance touring (though the front buckets could use more lateral support). The Cimarron is a first-rate Interstate sled as well—as stable as an Amtrak liner and about the smoothest and quietest 80-mph cruiser in the group. Cadillac, we can tell you, is already well aware of the ground it has to make up. The engineer and the product plan­ner who shepherded the Cimarrons through our test had their notebooks open when we reported our findings, and they claim that the division will do everything it can to close the gap. Our sources report that a 2.0-liter fuel-in­jected four-cylinder engine and a five-­speed close-ratio manual transmission are already under development for the 1983 model year. With a little polishing here and there, the Cimarron could actually make it as a world-class small sedan. (Not even Audi gets everything right the first time around.) But even as is, the Cimarron is a pretty nice piece of work. And for a Cadillac—well, it’s just plain amazing.The Making of an UnCadillacIn introducing the bite-sized Cimarron, it’s safe to say that Cadillac has done the unexpected. Everybody knows that the name “Cadillac” has always stood for prairie schooners of prodigious dimen­sion. Even a small Cadillac could be noth­ing less than a two-tonner. So when the Cimarron turned out to be not just down­sized but compacted to the volume of one of the smallest Chevrolet models in histo­ry, that was really unexpected.Cadillac planners say they did the unex­pected on purpose because they carefully examined the car market two years ago and discovered it was doing the unexpect­ed. There was a “hot spot,” 30-to-40-year-olds making upward of $35,000 a year. The planners looked at the cars these people were buying. Right off, they saw that relatively expensive cars like the BMW 320i were being purchased by peo­ple younger and earning less than they had imagined. They also saw that as buy­ers in this group aged and grew more af­fluent, they tended to upgrade their pur­chases within the same brand. And finally, to their horror, they saw that people in this market segment were not buying Cadillacs. This was bad news indeed. Detroit had always told itself that the bulk of the im­ports was being bought by poor, young folks, and when they grew older and made more money they would buy Ameri­can. But now Detroit was finding that im­port buyers, as they make more money, buy more expensive imports. Today’s Cadillac buyers, who fall into the older group, would die off and not be replaced. Adios, Cadillac. To ensure its future, Cadillac had to get a toehold in that young, affluent hot spot of the market that’s buying BMWs, Audis, Saabs, Peugeots, Volvos, and the like. If it moved fast, it might also beat the Japanese. And if it made the right move, it might even sidetrack a few current im­port owners who were planning to buy more imports. But the only way the planners could see to accomplish all of this was to build an UnCadillac. Enter Leonard I. Wanetik, product planner. Wanetik, 34, is an Easterner, trained as a lawyer, bearded, Jewish, and given to wearing leather caps. In short, the sort of guy who wouldn’t have been allowed past the lobby in Detroit five years ago. Wanetik was put on the Cimar­ron project. It was as though Cadillac re­alized it was facing a market it didn’t understand, so it compensated by giving the job to a guy it didn’t understand either. But Wanetik understood UnCadillacs. He was a twenty-year subscriber to Car and Driver. He was a confessed foreign-car freak, having owned seven of them, rang­ing from a Sprite to a Saab. He had the habit bad. He was a resident of the hot spot. And he set about leading Cadillac to the promised land.The Cimarron could have been built on the X-car or any other GM platform, but it ended up a J-car, in part because the size would be unexpected. Also, the J-­car’s newness in the market would mean that buyers would have no preconceived notions about the Cimarron’s identity. Because Cadillac was a late entry into the J-car program, and because GM doesn’t allow the divisions too much orig­inality on a given platform anyway, the Cimarron would share all of its important hardware with the Chevrolet Cavalier and the Pontiac J2000. Cadillac had primarily visual details to work with, so Wanetik went to work on that front. The goal became “a car that a BMW owner or an Audi owner would not be unhappy with.” Everything had to be consistent within that theme. The ride-and-handling bogey was the 320i. The appearance bogey was also German—and definitely UnCadillac. Blackwall tires were made standard equipment. “We’re trying to tell people this is a different kind of car than Cadillac has made before. If they see whitewalls, they might not believe us.” The whole Cadillac hierarchy is now caught up in the UnCadillac theme, but not everyone knows how to act. When Ed Kennard, the general manager, speaks of the standard-equipment manual transmis­sion, he calls it a “synchromesh,” the term that was current when manuals were dropped from the lineup back in the dark ages of the Fifties. Nor does everyone know what all of this UnCadillac stuff re­ally means. Thus far, Wanetik has been acting as Cadillac’s native guide. For ex­ample, the Cimarron will not use the roof rack offered by the other divisions on their J-cars, but will instead have an op­tional deck-lid rack unique to Cadillac. There is general agreement that this is more “within the theme” than, say, a vi­nyl roof, but for the most part, Wanetik is being trusted on this point. He knows. He had one on his Sprite. —Patrick BedardSpecificationsSpecifications
1982 Cadillac CimarronVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICEBase/As Tested: $12,131/$12,789Options: power windows, $216; power seats, $183; power door locks, $142; tilt steering wheel, $88; deck-lid release, $29.
ENGINEDOHC inline-4, iron block and headDisplacement: 112 in3, 1840 cm3Power: 85 hp @ 5100 rpmTorque: 100 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/control armsBrakes, F/R: 9.7-in vented disc/7.9-in drumTires: Goodyear Polysteel RadialP195/70R-13
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.2 inLength: 173.0 inWidth: 65.0 inHeight: 53.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/39 ft3Trunk Volume: 12 ft3Curb Weight: 2684 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 13.7 sec1/4-Mile: 19.5 sec @ 70 mph90 mph: 52.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 17.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 21.7 secTop Speed: 91 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 219 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.73 g  
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 31/26/42 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED  More

Lucid’s Air Dream is no more, but our test team’s memories of its otherworldly power and range live on. Its dual-motor powertrain cranked out a reality-bending 1111 horsepower in Performance guise, while the range-oriented variant dialed that back to a mere 933 horsepower to be a certified 520-mile bladder killer.Impressive? Absolutely. But does anyone really require that much, especially when you consider the cost? For 2023, the top-trim 1050-hp Grand Touring Performance commands over $180,000, while the 516-mile range-specialist Grand Touring hovers just south of $140K. The bigger gotcha is an unwelcome side effect of the large battery—112 kWh for the Grand Touring, 118 kWh for the Performance variant—necessary to unlock all that power and range: It occupies the rear footwells, creating a knees-up seating position that’s exacerbated by extremely little toe room under the front seats. Legroom is unquestionably abundant, so it’s still roomy back there, but the seating posture is unusual.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverThe Touring, which at 10 paces looks identical to the higher-trim variants, deviates in one crucial way that reverberates up and down the spec sheet: Its underfloor battery consists of 18 modules instead of 22. That drops its capacity to 92.0 kWh, but the loss of those four modules gives back rear-seat footwell room and provides a considerably more luxurious experience for passengers. In fact, Lucid was able to flatten the Touring’s bottom cushion angle slightly because the rear seat no longer needs to support legs that jut up.More on the Lucid AirLess battery capacity does reduce power and range. While the Dream and the GT have both in abundance, the Touring’s range is still a healthy EPA-rated 425 miles with 19-inch all-season tires or 384 miles with our test car’s no-cost 20-inch summer rubber. The Touring also offers 620 horsepower and 885 pound-feet of grunt. Around town, you won’t miss the absent horses, because this is still a frisky powertrain. Surging from 30 to 50 mph, for example, takes just 1.8 seconds. Even if you floor it off the line, as we do in our track tests, the difference between 1111 and 620 horsepower is a scant 0.4 second to 60 mph, with the Touring notching a still-impressive 3.0 seconds. While the Touring can’t match the Dream’s 10.1-second, 142-mph quarter-mile, buyers certainly shouldn’t feel shortchanged by 11.0 seconds at 126 mph.HIGHS: Abundantly quick, impeccably smooth ride, better rear-passenger experience than longer-range models. The smaller battery helps shed 270 pounds, and the 5012-pound Touring indeed feels lighter on its feet in corners. Its lateral grip is a tick better at 0.93 g, while 70-mph panic stops are just four feet longer at 167 feet. Our Touring’s 20-inch Michelin Pilot Sport EV summer tires are fractionally more supple than the Dream’s 21-inch Pirellis, but otherwise the two cars’ dynamics mirror each other. On the open road, the Touring makes the miles disappear, as it is an extremely calm and capable cruiser. The ride is relaxed and smooth without a hint of float or wallow, and the taller sidewalls of its 20-inch performance rubber add an extra measure of rolling comfort.The dead-ahead sense you get from the steering is quite pronounced, and it inspires enough confidence that we felt more comfortable using the steer-it-yourself adaptive cruise setting on the interstate instead of the Highway Assist lane-centering function that’s part of the $10,000 DreamDrive Pro option. A driver-monitoring system is present, but Lucid is not yet using it to allow Super Cruise–style hands-free driving, so you’ll still get the usual warning to keep your hands on the wheel if they’re absent for 15 seconds.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverWhile the Touring’s rated range is quite good, we found the actual distance to be more speed dependent than we expected. Despite a stated range of 384 miles, our test car managed just 280 miles in our 75-mph highway test. Later, the car essentially matched its estimated range on a random drive that was highway-heavy but featured an average speed closer to 63 mph. All told, our Touring averaged 107 MPGe, which falls well short of its lofty 121 MPGe EPA combined rating but is still a good showing compared to other large luxury EVs. Perhaps our Touring test car’s most noteworthy new feature was related to charging, not range. Like with a Tesla Supercharger, plug-and-charge is now fully implemented here. Nothing more than plugging in was necessary to get going at Electrify America refill stops, with charge initiation and billing happening in the background using a preconfigured account that’s set up via the Lucid ownership portal. Those of you who have futzed around getting a fast-charge going at non-Tesla sites know this is a life-changing development.LOWS: Less expensive but still expensive, highway range drops off markedly, skip the $10K driver-assist pack.During our 75-mph range test, we had plenty of time to ponder a few quirks of the Lucid Air’s instrumentation and its control interfaces, which are quite eye-pleasing in terms of design and materials. The absence of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto reportedly will be rectified with a “coming soon” over-the-air update, but until then, your phone is suction-cupped to the windshield. The turn-signal stalk is quite short, so it’s easy to trigger the end-mounted wiper button when attempting to active the turn signals. The sweeping instrument panel and central tablet are gorgeous, but a lot of screen real estate is wasted. A large Air logo occupies a prominent spot to the right of the speedometer, with a rudimentary trip odometer on the left. Marc Urbano|Car and DriverFor all of that, the Air Touring carries a more palatable price of $109,050. That figure includes a conventional aluminum roof, which means buyers in the Sun Belt won’t need the $4500 glass canopy top. Our tester stickered for $127,550, which included the glass roof, a $4000 premium audio system, and that $10K DreamDrive Pro driver-assistance option we could happily do without. Of all the Air variants, the Touring strikes us as the sweet spot where price, performance, range, and passenger comfort overlap.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Lucid Air TouringVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $109,050/$127,550 Options: Dream Drive Pro (highway assist, surround-view monitor, hardware for future semi-autonomous driving), $10,000; glass canopy roof, $4500; Surreal Sound Pro premium audio, $4000
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 620 hpCombined Torque: 885 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 92.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 19.2 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 250 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.0-in vented disc/14.8-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport EVF: 245/40ZR-20 99Y LM1R: 265/40ZR-20 104Y LM1
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.5 inLength: 195.9 inWidth: 76.2Height: 55.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 61/46 ft3Trunk Volume, F/R: 10/22 ft3Curb Weight: 5012 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.0 sec100 mph: 6.7 sec1/4-Mile: 11.0 sec @ 126 mph130 mph: 12.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 140 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 167 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 332 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.93 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 107 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 280 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 121/121/120 MPGeRange: 384 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the July 1987 issue of Car and Driver.Designer-bodied sports cars with enough power to light up a small town and more speed than the starship Enter­prise may be the flashiest things on four wheels, but the true heavy hitters of the automotive world are the more sedate lux­ury coupes. They serve their makers as corporate flagships, and they must serve their owners not only as multifariously tal­ented transportation machines but also as badges of wealth and good taste. The best of them combine the most advanced driv­ing technology, the most elegant styling, and the most extensive assortment of dec­adent creature comforts their builders can muster. Of course, luxury, styling, and outstanding driving qualities mean differ­ent things to different people. That’s why the luxury-coupe class, though relatively small, has room for cars as different as the Cadillac Eldorado and the BMW M6.Splitting the difference between the two extremes is the Lincoln Mark VII LSC. Introduced as a 1984 model, the Mark VII was a bold departure from what was probably the most overstated inter­pretation of the American luxury-coupe genre in recent history. The 1983 Lin­coln Continental Mark VI was little more than a glitzed-up, portholed variant of the already baroque Town Car. It was long on ostentation and cushy comfort but short on contemporary style and performance. The new Mark VII was instantly recog­nized as a breakthrough car for the Ford Motor Company. Even today, four years later, the Mark gives a good account of it­self. Built on a thoroughly revamped ver­sion of the old Fairmont platform, the Mark VII is reasonable in size, if a bit on the heavy side. Its styling artfully com­bines old-fashioned elegance with mod­em aerodynamic lines, in keeping with Ford’s commitment to functional design. More Historical Lincoln CoverageUnderneath the attractive skin, Ford’s port-fuel-injected 4.9-liter V-8 drives the Mark’s rear wheels through a four-speed automatic transmission. The suspension consists of struts up front and a live axle fixed by four trailing links in the rear. The chassis details are unremarkable except for the absence of conventional steel springs. In their place the Mark VII has computer-controlled, air-filled rubber bladders to support its loads and maintain a constant ride height. The system allows extremely soft spring rates without caus­ing the undercarriage to drag on the ground when the car is heavily loaded. It should also be noted that the 1985 Mark VII was the first American car with a mod­ern anti-lock braking system. The Mark VII is offered in two editions: the luxury-oriented Bill Blass Designer Series model and the performance-orient­ed LSC. The LSC is equipped with a stiffer suspension, grippier tires, sportier seats, analog rather than digital instruments, and a more powerful engine. Naturally, we’ve always preferred this model, and so has the public. Currently, the LSC outsells the Designer Series version by about four to one. Ford apparently wants to keep things that way. Both versions of the Mark have recently been upgraded, but the LSC is the more improved model. For 1987, both are propelled by the latest and greatest in­carnation of Ford’s 4.9-liter V-8, produc­ing 225 hp at 4000 rpm and 300 pound-­feet of torque at 3200. (Last year’s versions of the same engine yielded 200 hp in the LSC and 150 in the Designer Se­ries.) In addition, the LSC now rides on 225/60R-16 Goodyear Eagle GT+4 tires, mounted on restyled seven-inch-­wide wheels, and its suspension has been recalibrated to match. Other changes common to both Marks include a re-textured grille, a reworked sound-insu­lation package, and minor interior-trim revisions. The new engine certainly perks up the Mark’s performance. Although a bit slug­gish from rest, the LSC reaches 60 mph in only 8.0 seconds, and 100 mph in an im­pressive 22.0 seconds. In the process, it covers the standing quarter-mile in 16.1 seconds at 88 mph. The LSC is still no match for such gold-plated competitors as the Mercedes-Benz 560SEC and the BMW M6, but it’s actually quicker than a Porsche 944—not to mention its true rivals, like the Cadillac Eldorado, the Buick Riviera, and the Oldsmobile Toronado. Despite its impressive power, there are a few weak aspects in the LSC’s perfor­mance profile. The engine-control com­puter limits top speed to 120 mph, which Ford engineers feel is the maximum safe speed of the Eagle GT+4 tires in this ap­plication. (Higher-rated tires would solve this problem.) Moreover, reaching top speed requires some effort, because the four-speed automatic refuses to stay in top gear when the throttle is pressed to the floor. We admit that these limitations are largely academic on American roads, but they do undercut the LSC’s standing as an international-class luxury coupe. Larry Griffin|Car and DriverA third powertrain shortcoming may have been peculiar to our test car. Seem­ingly at random, our LSC’s driveline pro­duced annoying vibrations. They weren’t so strong that they threatened to shake the car apart—in fact, we wouldn’t even men­tion them if this were a review of a lesser car—but luxury coupes are supposed to have creamy-smooth drivetrains. A refined combination of ride and han­dling is also expected of high-dollar luxu­ry chariots, and in this regard, the LSC is generally satisfactory. It tracks well in a straight line and offers good on-center steering feel, and its cornering perfor­mance belies its 3834-pound weight. While no nimble sportster, the LSC re­sponds to the helm nicely and corners with agility and poise. When pushed to the limit, it understeers moderately and never threatens instability. Unfortunately, that limit is a lackluster 0.74 g. The original 1984 model managed 0.75 g on smaller wheels and tires. Perhaps the all-season Eagle GT+4s simply can’t match the grip of the previous Eagle GTs. In their favor, the slippery-road traction of the new tires is much more tenacious. Along with commendable handling, the LSC provides a remarkably absorbent ride under most conditions. Over bumps that run the width of the car (causing the wheel motions to be controlled more by the air springs than by the anti-roll bars), the LSC positively glides. If anything, the calibrations are too soft, for the car floats a bit at very high speeds. In some conditions, however, the sus­pension is unpleasantly stiff. The LSC suf­fers from a distinct lack of compliance over tiny bumps and pavement cracks. Over bumps that disturb only one side of the car (causing the wheel motions to be resisted by the anti-roll bars as well as by the air springs), the LSC is stiff enough to toss the passengers’ heads about. Undoubtedly, the mismatch of yin and yang in the LSC’s suspension is at least partly a result of Ford’s attempt to make the car appeal to both loyal Lincoln cus­tomers and the new breed of upwardly mobile, import-oriented buyers. Most of the resulting compromises are successful, but the suspension could profit from fur­ther refinement. The interior of the LSC is outfitted partly in the American luxury-car idiom, with a full complement of automatic head­light controls, trip computers, vanity mir­rors, and power assists. More European in origin are the LSC’s duster of mechanical analog instruments, highly supportive seats (with Mercedes-style power adjust­ments), and rather subdued interior styl­ing. The result is a cabin well suited to tra­ditional and modern buyers alike. The same is true of the LSC’s exterior styling. Although there is more chrome trim along the lower flanks than we like, the treatment doesn’t spoil the car’s basic lines. Even the showy grille and the vesti­gial spare-tire hump seem surprisingly appropriate. At the same time, these ele­ments are among the upmarket touches that catch the eyes of traditional buyers. The stylists in Dearborn who created the Mark VII did a masterly job of walking the tightrope between the two groups. Ford’s move toward a more interna­tional luxury coupe has paid off in strong sales for the Mark VII. Meanwhile, the lat­est editions of GM’s Eldorado, Toronado, and Riviera, after a dismal introductory year, are just starting to claw their way up the sales charts. The success of the Mark VII proves that well-heeled American cus­tomers are ready for luxury coupes designed with as much emphasis on perfor­mance as on comfort. For that reason, the LSC’s most serious competition comes from across the water. Its newest rivals are the Acura Legend Coupe, which also sells in the $25,000 bracket, and the Volvo 780, at about ten grand higher. More entries in the high-­profit-margin class are inevitable, so Dearborn should already be hard at work on the Mark VIII if it hopes to remain competitive in this market. As updated for 1987, though, the LSC is plenty good enough to hold its own for a few more years. CounterpointFord Motor is taking up where Avis left off: it’s number two and trying hard­er. In the LSC we have yet another Ford product that could have been recycled one more year without disastrous results—but the company felt com­pelled to bolt in the latest tweaks.Ford gets an A for effort but a B for execution. The LSC makes its domestic competition look lame, but there is also a world of imports in this price range that pull no punches. Cars such as the Saab 9000 Turbo, the Acura Legend Coupe, the Audi 5000 Turbo, and the BMW 325is are tempting indeed. The LSC’s bulk, its bunkerlike interi­or, and its suspension, calibrated more for touring than for hard-edged han­dling, hold it back. On the other hand, its power, smoothness, appointments, and all-around velvety feel are hard to fault. Like a number of other Ford prod­ucts, the LSC has the world-class com­petitors in sight. Before it can mix it up with the big boys, though, Ford will have to try even harder. —Rich Ceppos I applaud Ford’s decision to drop its beefy V-8 into the Mark VII LSC. Faster is better, so any time an automaker sees fit to pack more power under the hood of one of its products, it has improved that car in my book. Fleeter of foot, the Lincoln LSC is now a better car. But the Lincoln is still not ready to take on the best in its class. Its design is aging; for a big car, the LSC offers an unexpectedly narrow view out of its cockpit. The steering is sloppy and slow; the LSC doesn’t have the quick re­flexes one expects of a driver’s car. And despite the firmness of its suspension, the LSC rolls over and plays dead when it’s hurried through corners. In a world full of Acura Legend Coupes, Audi 5000s, and Volvo 780s, this lack of fine-tuning hurts. Ford de­serves plenty of credit for plumping up the LSC and heading it in the right di­rection; Lincoln devotees will no doubt be impressed with the car’s newfound muscle. Without the moves to comple­ment its power, though, the LSC still falls shy of the mark. —Arthur St. AntoineSuccessful go-getters are drawn to the LSC just as Lincoln prayed, and just as they are drawn to BMWs, Jaguars, and Mercedes-Benzes. Well, no, not just the same, actually: the LSC will never draw the same crowd drawn to the big-buck, big-sport imports. The problem lies more in the high rollers’ perception of the Lincoln’s American heritage than in perceptible problems under its skin, down in its oily, steely, gunmetal-gray guts. Nobody has a problem seeing and feeling that the Mark is far removed from its origins as a lowly Fairmont. Ford’s rehab therapy has worked a miracle akin to the second coming of Henry himself. In seeing Lincoln, of all once-isolated and isolation-oriented car companies, produce the athletic LSC, we have witnessed the once unthink­able. The Mark’s suspension remains too soft and its steering too rubbery, but only a little. In daily driving, the LSC is often nicer to live with than its grand op­ponents. The trouble is that they will eat it for breakfast on the open road, which is where successful go-getters get down to business. —Larry GriffinSpecificationsSpecifications
1987 Lincoln Mark VII LSCVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $25,540/$27,466Options: moonroof, $1319; Ford/JBL sounds system, $506; limited-slip differential, $101.
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 302 in3, 4942 cm3Power: 225 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 300 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/live axleBrakes, F/R: 10.9-in vented disc/11.3-in vented discTires: Goodyear Eagle GT +4P225/60R-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.5 inLength: 202.8 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 54.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3834 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.1 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 22.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.4 secTop Speed: 120 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 200 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.74 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 17/24 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

It’s easy to love the Honda Accord, a consistently solid and likable family sedan that deftly manages the trick of combining frugality, functionality, dependability, comfort, and driving enjoyment in one affordable package. The new 11th-generation 2023 Honda Accord absolutely lives up to those longstanding high expectations, and an earlier drive led our editorial staff to name it to our 10Best list for, get this, the 37th time.Greater LengthDrawn out 2.7 inches longer than before, the Accord’s sleek and fresh styling hides the fact that it shares many of its other dimensions with the outgoing model. Both ride on a 111.4-inch wheelbase, stand 57.1 inches tall, and span 73.3 inches wide. Trunk volume is unchanged at an impressive 17 cubic feet. But it’s not all samesies. Subtle yet consequential rear suspension tweaks have expanded the rear track width by 0.4 inch, and that translates into a matching increase in rear hip room. What’s more, the old model’s limo-like rear legroom of 40.4 inches has grown to 40.8 inches, making the Accord’s child-seat- and adult-friendly back seat a touch more spacious. Of course we will miss the turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine that didn’t make the cut this time around—it made the previous-gen Accord a rocket—and the manual transmission, dropped in 2019, isn’t coming back either.Turbo Base EngineThe LX and EX kick things off at the low end of the trim spectrum, and they’re expected to represent half of Accord sales. They come with cloth seats, a 7.0-inch touchscreen, and 17-inch wheels and tires. They are also the lone offerings with the turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine. It makes the same 192 horsepower and 192 pound-feet of torque as before, but it’s not a direct carryover. Strategic revisions, including a new catalyst that utilizes less rare-metal content, have been applied to help the 1.5T meet ever-tightening emissions regulations. More on the 2023 AccordIn the bargain, peak rpm for horsepower and torque waft slightly upward. EPA estimated fuel economy, on the other hand, slumps by 1 mpg to 32 mpg combined (29 city/37 highway) owing to some 90 pounds of added weight. Still, that’s a decent showing for what is an increasingly large sedan. This lightly massaged turbo engine is less gruff than in the CR-V, and its CVT transmission has been retuned to better simulate upshifts and reduce belt noise. It’s a generally pleasing combination around town, but any amount of growl or residual CVT drone stands in contrast to the more refined hybrid powertrain.Enhanced HybridA new fourth-generation hybrid powertrain will motivate the upper portion of the lineup. It’s much the same as the hybrid system we first fell for in the 2023 Honda CR-V, with a 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder engine (making 146 horsepower and 134 pound-feet in Accord guise) paired with two electric motors. One motor contributes 181 horsepower and 247 pound-feet to propulsion while the other is a generator driven by the engine. Total combined output is 204 horsepower and 247 pound-feet, which is 2 horses and 15 pound-feet more than before. The EX-L, which rides on 17-inch tires, is rated at 48 mpg combined (51 city/44 highway), while the Sport, Sport-L, and Touring earn 44 mpg combined (46 city/41 highway) on 19-inch rolling stock.Three invisible drive modes work behind the scenes. From rest, a small 1.1-kWh battery enables electric drive until about 20 mph by deploying previously harvested braking energy. As speed increases, series-hybrid mode pairs the engine and generator to feed the electric motor in real time, giving the Accord the smooth, effortless torque (but not the sound) of an EV. At cruising speed, the engine is seamlessly clutched in to directly power the wheels, with vehicle speed and engine rpm in lockstep. The Accord only does this at moderate highway speeds—the CR-V hybrid’s additional low-speed lockup has been omitted because the sedan is lighter, sleeker, and not rigged for towing.HondaAccelerate hard (or climb a hill) and the system reverts to electric-motor propulsion, with the engine once again powering the generator instead of the wheels. Engine revs during such spirited acceleration sweep through a series of simulated upshifts, even though forward drive remains a steady pull from the electric motor. The apparent shifting is an intentional bit of misdirection that adds normalcy and avoids unnatural engine droning on the way to what we reckon is a 7.1-second run to 60 mph. Like all hybrids, the Accord uses its main drive motor to convert deceleration energy into battery electricity. There are six (!) driver-selectable regeneration levels that range from normal to nearly one-pedal driving. Oddly, although we prefer high regen in EVs, here, applying the brakes the usual way seems more natural. It’s a satisfying way to go too, because Honda’s engineers did a masterful job of blending the regenerative and friction braking systems to deliver consistent brake feel. It’s not an unsatisfying pedal you’d be happy to avoid.Refined ChassisRide and handling are smoother and better regulated than ever. This is especially true of the models with 19-inch wheels, as each engine/wheel-size combo gets its own damper tune to offset such inherent differences. Credit also goes to the enlarged and realigned rear trailing-arm bushing, which reduces impact harshness without adding lateral squishiness that might screw up the Accord’s cornering prowess. In fact, the steering feels even more clear thanks to low-friction ball joints and a revised upper-strut mount. But there is a caveat. Hybrids have Normal and Sport settings that alter throttle sensitivity and steering effort, among other things. Steering feels far more authentic in Normal, whereas in Sport it seems artificially heavy (there are also Econ and mix-and-match Individual settings).Hybrids also get another desirable standard upgrade in the form of a 12.3-inch touchscreen that supports wireless phone mirroring (the 7.0-inch system needs a cable). It’s a thoughtful implementation, with a broad finger rest that makes selections easy and a welcome volume knob (that could be larger). Honda expects people to mirror their phones and use familiar apps, so factory navigation and satellite radio are absent. The Touring adds Google Built-In, which offers Google Assistant and a full integration of Google Maps. You can also “Hey, Google” your way to climate control and other in-car adjustments that a paired smartphone can’t match, but we’re not sure it’s a must-have. It is complimentary for three years, but the re-up price is TBD.HondaZooming out, the overall interior look and feel is eye-catching and features the same sort of attractive cross-cabin matrix trim that conceals the adjustment fins of the good-size air vents, just as it does in the Civic and CR-V. The climate-control interface itself is likewise clear and logical, and many of the other controls are so obvious and straightforward that the manual may never get unwrapped. As for the seats, beyond kudos for their ability to hold fast in corners, our notebook is largely devoid of comments because they absolutely do the job without making any kind of unwanted, shall we say, impression after a day in the saddle. Pricing ranges from $28,390 for an LX with the turbo engine, cloth seats, and no sunroof up to $38,985 for the decked-out Touring. In between, our favorite is the $34,635 EX-L, which is the fuel-economy champ owing to its 17-inch rubber. But the Sport-L is priced nearly the same at $34,970, and it trades a few mpg, heated side mirrors, rear air vents, and rear USB-C charge ports for 19-inch matte black wheels and Sport appearance bits. And that’s just it: There are no wrong answers with this latest Accord, and it’s been that way for decades.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda AccordVehicle Type: front-engine or front-engine, front-motor; front-wheel-drive; 5-passenger; 4-door sedan
PRICELX (1.5T), $28,390; EX (1.5T), $30,705; Sport (hybrid), $32,990; EX-L (hybrid), $34,635; Sport-L (hybrid), $34,970, Touring (hybrid), $38,985
POWERTRAINSturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 1.5-liter inline-4, 192 hp, 192 lb-ft; DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 146 hp, 134 lb-ft + AC motor, 181 hp, 247 lb-ft (combined output: 204 hp, 247 lb-ft; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmissions: continuously variable automatic; direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 inLength: 195.7 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53–56/50 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3250–3550 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5–15.7 secTop Speed: 116 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 32–48/29–51/37–44 mpg More

From the January 1979 issue of Car and Driver.If we had a collective pinch of sense among us, we’d organize a cooperative fund and buy up all the 1979 Trans Ams we could lay our hands on, like maybe every one that comes off the line. We’d put the everyday ones in storage and sell them for a fortune a few years down the pike, and we’d drive the hell out of the WS6 cars because they run like there’s a gun-toting husband ten feet back and breathing heavy. We’d keep them forever, firing them up to vacuum the leaves of autumn into vortexes that would chase us down little-known paths of pavement through deserted woods. We’d let them slither and slew a little on the pavement sometimes, nattering with morning dew, evening showers, and midday torque, because that’s how big, heavy thrash-around cars are supposed to behave, but we’d also enjoy the fine line a WS6 can describe when a prac­ticed hand is on the wheel. We’d talk about the wonderful thing Pontiac did for us when it brought something into the world that, indeed, runs as if there were no tomorrow. Here and now, in 1979, there is no tomorrow for the big-engined Trans Am. For the 400 T/A Pontiac engine, this is the last year. The likes of the mighty Trans Am, as we’ve known it, won’t be seen from General Motors again. The engine is too big and too inefficient to make the government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy grade for GM, and it’s out. So we’ll get misty-eyed and the value will skyrocket. Whatever replaces the WS6 will doubtless be a better car, more in step with the times. But never again will it be really, truly the same. Pontiac is playing its cards close, not telling just how many of its own 400-cubic-inch engines are on the shelf, ready to go into Trans Ams. No more will be built. The vast majority of Trans Ams in 1979 will come with tamer 403-cubic­-inch Oldsmobile engines, basic utility devices that lend low-end oomph to other basic utility devices such as Catalina and Bonneville Safari station wag­ons. That’s not much of a recommenda­tion for employment as a hauler of your automotive ashes. Trans Am Driven, Tested, and ComparedThe redlines of the two engines are the same. Other than the V-8 configura­tion, that’s about the end of the similari­ties. Pontiac finally got serious a couple of years ago about making the 400 will­ing to go around corners as fast as the chassis, adding a windage tray to the oil pan, which liked nothing better than voiding its pickup of oil in hard corners. With that problem solved, the 400’s newly gained semi-rasty camshaft, more spark advance, and improved breathing (through a single-catalyst, dual-resona­tor, no-muffler exhaust) bumped the horsepower up from 200 SAE net to 220. The Trans Am became something more than just a contender in the get­-down-and-grunt corner-exiting contest.Corners are where the WS6 option comes in. It takes over at the point where Trans Ams have always been good. Wrap a Trans Am body around the WS6 suspension and brake pieces, and you discover maybe the best-han­dling production car ever from an American manufacturer. That’s what the driver can feel all the time and what onlookers can imagine if the driver has any idea at all what the car is for and how to use it.Onlookers don’t need to imagine the looks. The budget portion allotted to engine and chassis development last year was siphoned into a nose job this year. The snoot of the car has been ex­tended still further and completely re­shaped. The strong Corvette similarity is not accidental. For the sake of styling, the quad headlights are still rectangular. The ra­diator intake has sunk beneath the lead­ing edge of the deformable front end, divided by a vertical, plowlike center molding. The horizontal grilles are inset and house the turn signals at their outer edges. The screaming-chicken­-emblazoned hood slopes forward into the drooping beak nose, and the air dam and the front tire spats have been reshaped for better integration with the schnoz. The lower lines of the psuedo front flares are nearly horizontal, and the trailing edges are less rounded, more pointed. The Bird’s tail feathers have been ruf­fled, too. The license-plate receptacle has been pressed lower, into an extrud­ed, flat-faced bumper. Looping up from the bumper is the familiar rear-deck spoiler. Separating the two is a dramatic black horizontal taillight treatment. The taillights themselves are only visible at night or under braking. Otherwise, they’re secreted beneath horizontal black lines; the gas cap is also out of sight, under a central panel. The same shaker hood scoop looms, but nobody who cares is about to confuse a new Trans Am with an old one.Although the basic shape of the Trans Am has remained the same, the new front and rear treatments garner lots of stares. The same shaker hood scoop looms up out of the hood, the same exhaust vents punctuate the front quarter panels, and the same walrus-mustache tailpipes droop below the rear quarters, but nobody who cares is about to con­fuse a new Trans Am with an old one. Pontiac has also done some work on the interior, making its fast-moving pouch more comfortable for its occu­pants. Sitting in the Trans Am is a lot like peeking out of a mama kangaroo’s front pocket. The seats are right on the floor, so you kind of scrunch way down inside next to the furry carpet, all warm and cozy from the transmission tunnel, and peer out over the top of the pouch past an inoperative hood scoop such as no ‘roo has ever had. The seats have been reworked, their padding increased and shifted around for improved lateral and lower-back support. The side bolsters could be still larger, but the seats are a considerable improvement over last year’s. They’re quite comfortable for long hours of touring and adequate for three-fourths of the serious driving you’re likely to do, but it’s when you’re hard after the final 25 percent that the solid support of Recaro- or Scheel-type driving seats would help you get the most out of the willing chassis. View PhotosHandling as you like it: understeerLarry Griffin|Car and DriverYou would probably also find your own chassis considerably more willing after a really long day if the seats re­clined. They don’t, so you’ll have to content yourself with the optional plush velour upholstery, which keeps your seat in the seat. The standard vinyl doesn’t look bad, but a quick run down through Pine Hollow will smoothly transfer your buns from one corner of the car to another no matter how snugly you’ve tugged the harness. The steering wheel is the same tilting, padded three-spoker that, when tilted too low, has hidden the important parts of the tach and speedometer in the Trans Am for years. A telescoping fea­ture would be nice, but at least the tilt usually allows a reasonable compromise in arm and leg reach. Ergonomically, the gear-shifting mo­tion is hindered by an encroaching con­sole that promises tennis elbow with ev­ery shift to the far side of the four-speed pattern. The console’s sole saving grace is that it’s narrow and deep enough to keep a couple of chocolate malteds from belching their contents all over your heel-and-toe loafers. The heel-and-toe­ing is another thing that works well. Here’s a car with the pedals set up for heel-and-toeing, a nice change from the pedal mismatch so common in all kinds of iron, both domestic and foreign. The shiny, engine-turned dash fascia confuses instrument legibility, but the layout and the selection of white-on­-black gauges are good, offering oil pressure, water temp, voltmeter, clock, speedo, and a 6000-rpm tach that’s or­ange-zoned at 4500 rpm, redlined at a comparatively low 5000. View PhotosHandling: Neutral Larry Griffin|Car and DriverThere’s an intermittent mode for the supremely efficient windshield wipers, a potent rear defogger, and, at long last, a column-mounted headlight-dimmer stalk integrated with the turn signals. The Trans Am’s back seat is still as silly as always, a fit place for neither man nor beast, unless it is a relatively small beast and one untroubled by claustrophobia. If you’re really serious about putting people back there, you’ll need a shoehorn for getting them in and a winch for getting them out. The trunk is no better than the back seat. If you sell thimbles, a small sample case may fit, but if your market is in bowling balls, try a Vespa with saddle bags. Pontiac has somehow stuffed in a best-solution-in-the-face-of-adversity Space-Saver spare, but maybe the designers should’ve knocked out the rear bulkhead, eliminated the back seat, and given us a tremendous trunk.Maybe that’s not important. If all cars did everything well, there’d be no need for arguments or road tests anymore. The Trans Am is supposed to be a run­ner, pure and simple. That’s important to us, and we’re as impractical as the next guy, so we left air conditioning off the order form. It would’ve added 108 pounds, most of it over the front wheels, and it would’ve dragged on the engine like a lifetime of tar and nicotine, three packs a day. Our WS6 runner came through gold in color, and that’s the way it drove, all sparkle and shine. The heavy-usage WS6 option puts the legs of a mara­thoner under the Trans Am’s sheetme­tal torso and V-8 lungs.View PhotosHandling: OversteerLarry Griffin|Car and DriverThe package includes the Pontiac high-output engine; eight-inch-wide, snowflake-spoked aluminum wheels, in­stead of the Trans Am’s normal sevens; special steel-belted P225/70R-15 Good­years; a 1.25-inch front anti-roll bar with plastic bushings; a 0.75-inch rear bar; stiffer rear-shackle bushings; firmer shock valving; and special steering gear. And this year, finally, the frosting on the cake is four-wheel disc brakes.Other than for its refinement, the sus­pension is thoroughly unremarkable: in­dependent, unequal-length control arms and coil springs in front; a live axle sprung by semi-elliptic leaf springs in back. The magic 400 engine uses un­leaded gas, pumped into its 8.1:1 compression-ratio combustion chambers by a single Rochester Quadrajet four-bar­rel. It makes 220 brake horsepower at 4000 rpm and a hefty 320 pound-feet of torque at 2800 rpm. It lives and breathes in the low and middle rpm ranges, disdaining high revs through the gears but capable of pulling past its recommended 5000-rpm limit to no less than 132 miles per hour at 5400 rpm. The EPA estimates that it will consume a gallon of gas every twelve miles, about what we got. It’s tennis elbow from an encroaching console, and taillights hidden from a quickly receding world. This year’s geartrain is different on one count: The final-drive ratio has been changed from 3.42:1 to 3.23. The bone­-snapping Muncie M-22 “Rock Crusher” transmission favored a few years ago has long since been dropped in favor of the smoother Borg-Warner Super T-10. The new gearing allows the car to top out 4 mph faster, and the Super T-10 with updated linkage doesn’t require a bionic arm to ram it into the next gear. The new linkage makes the drag strip all sweetness and light instead of the prelude to a visit to the chiropractor. The V-8 hustles its 3700-pound load through the quarter in 15.3 seconds at 96.6 mph. The high torque requires feathering the throttle off the line to avoid excess wheelspin, then standing on the gas when the revs begin to climb a somewhat normal curve. Third gear is good to 99 mph, so the Trans Am doesn’t want fourth until just after a quarter-mile of pavement has been in­haled. First gear is good to 50 mph, 60 coming up in 6.7 seconds. In really hard driving and on bad roads, Trans Ams (and Camaros) have always felt as if they have a big hinge at the base of the windshield. They do. The front of the car is supported by an add-on subframe that extends forward from the unit body. The mating of the two isn’t really up to the rigors of back­road bashing; it’s a culture shock for the coupe that began life as a cruiser and graduated to the big time. Herb Adams, of Pontiac racing fame, has some add­-on stiffening members that help mini­mize the problem, but without them, kick-ass romps and washboard roads turn into a motorized Chubby Checker session and general rattle-counting fest. Beyond that, it’s the land of the free and the home of the brave. The only excuse you have for not making good time is bad eyesight or the cops. A weak heart is no excuse: The car’s too stable and too forgiving for that to hold up. The four-wheel discs live up to their advanced billing in fade resistance and stopping ability, arresting your 70-mph forward progress in a mere 179 feet. The booster can have a slight feel of fighting back, of trying to outthink you, but stop you do. The new brake system is very well co­ordinated with the suspension. Braking in corners, over elevation changes, or when crossing irregularities has little ef­fect on your direction of travel, and your rate of travel can be halved or eliminated in a trice. Pedal pressure is fairly high, but with a system like this, it should be. Call them adrenaline brakes, because they work superlatively when yours is up, yet they help keep it as low as possible. Driving a Trans Am fast is nothing to get excited about. The Tran Am is easier to drive really fast than any American car has ever been. But its stability is not to be fooled with, not to be taken lightly. The fail­safe point at which it begins to come un­stuck is so high that, if something goes really wrong, the interest will com­pound very rapidly: the interest of the police, the interest of the doctors, the interest of the judge, the interest of the insurance company. The steering is quick, progressive, direct, and talkative, describing to your hands the bumps the suspension is handling better than a 3700-pound rear-leaf-sprung car has any right to.If that happens, the car won’t have done it to you, you’ll have done it to yourself. It will forgive you til hell won’t have it. It understeers slightly, its attitude firm, poised, ready to defend against the unexpected. The steering, at 2.4 turns lock-to-lock, is quick, progressive, direct, and talkative, describing to your hands the bumps the suspension is handling better than a 3700-pound rear-leaf-sprung car has any right to. The back end dances a little over the worst of it, but the bad bumps are usual­ly so visible you can drive neatly around them, crisply rearranging your line as you go. And all the while it rides well, not beating your noggin on the headlin­er, your shins on the radio, or your kid­neys on your spine. On smooth or mildly lumpy pave­ment the sensations are awesome for a street car: skating at 100 or 110, adjusting in increments with throttle and wheel, balancing, playing a slick nib­bling ragtime on the tires, calling up a reservoir of power oversteer to expel yourself from the classroom of one cor­ner to the next, always learning but nev­er left behind. If you go in too hot and lift, the tail won’t come around unless you’ve been woefully ignorant. All four tires react in coordinated patterns, free­ing you from the necessity of overseeing an unruly and domineering machine. You need only look where you want to be in a few moments’ time, and if you have taken the time to learn the car, it will have you there in very short order.That’s what a Trans Am is for. It’s a short-order specialist and it will feed a need. It would be nicer if it could carry more, if it were smaller, if it were easier to see out of, if it were less thirsty. But none of that matters. This is not the time to be practical. This car is here and now, and it will not pass this way again.SpecificationsSpecifications
1979 Pontiac Firebird Trans AmVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICEBase/As Tested: $6299/$7285Options: WS6 Package, $434; 400 T/A engine, $90; custom interior, $150; hood decal, $95; AM radio, $86; tinted glass, $64; floor mats, $25; custom seatbelts, $23; lamp group, $19.
ENGINESOHC V-8, iron block and headsDisplacement: 400 in3, 6550 cm3Power: 220 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 320 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/11.1-in  vented discTires: Goodyear Polysteel Radial225/70R-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.2 inLength: 197.1 inWidth: 73.0 inHeight: 49.3 inCurb Weight: 3700 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.9 sec60 mph: 6.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.3 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 16.9 secTop Speed (redline limited): 124 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ft 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the November 1986 issue of Car and Driver.Raising Corvettes for a living isn’t all sweetness and light—just ask the Corvette development group. Every now and again, this dedicated band of engineer-enthusiasts bumps into a problem that won’t stand aside. Like workmen everywhere, they’re always on the lookout for the tool that will break the logjam and help them get their job done. Sometimes they find it. In the case of the Corvette-chaser wagon, though, they had to build it themselves. Longtime Corvette development wiz Jim Ingle is the wagon’s keeper. Ingle is the kind of resourceful engineer the brass assign to special projects, and he can drive the wheels off of a Corvette to boot. Often as not, Ingle has the latest trick part in his briefcase, and he owns a bad-boy laugh that tells you he’s up to no good even when he’s playing dumb. More wagon weirdnessIn a carefully worded letter sent along with the white behemoth, Ingle explains that the situation was getting desperate. When the development engineers take a group of Corvettes out for a test trip, they usually bring along a support vehicle to haul spare parts, tools, and extra luggage. Such bullets as diesel-powered Suburbans, Ingle writes, “fell rapidly behind the evaluation vehicles and out of radio range on even mildly challenging curves or grades.” Not to mention on Interstates, on-ramps, off-ramps, two-lanes, downhill grades, and mountain switch­backs. The word is that these guys don’t exactly tiptoe through the tulips on evaluation runs, so the feeble chase cars of yore were a permanent thorn in the side of speedy progress. Car and DriverThe solution appeared back in 1983, when a batch of prototype Corvette L98 port-fuel-injected V-8s were installed in a few Caprices—one of them a wagon—for field testing. Here was the makings of a mother ship that could haul both parts and ass in company with 150-mph Corvettes. At the end of the engine test, the Corvette development troops skimmed the L98 Caprice wagon off the top and set to work making “additional modifications to suit our needs, whims, and desire for distinction,” notes Ingle. With the GM spare-parts bins there for the raiding, Ingle and company mixed, matched, and patched together the white whale as time and manpower allowed. The only changes to the driveline were the addition of a free-flowing dual-exhaust system and a 3.23:1 limited-slip differential. The mechanics buttressed the front suspension with a pair of Bilstein shocks and a Cadillac-limousine anti-roll bar the size of your thigh.Since a Corvette can go around corners as if hooked to a tether, any Caprice that was meant to keep up would need to learn some fancy footwork. Dance class was administered in the C-P-C development garage at GM’s Milford, Michigan, proving grounds. The mechanics buttressed the front suspension with a pair of Bilstein shocks and a Cadillac-limousine anti-roll bar the size of your thigh. The rear suspension was pumped up for action with a reworked anti-roll bar from a Caprice F41 handling package and a pair of air shocks to keep the tail from dragging once the spares were hefted on board.Two more tweaks were made to the steer-and-stop equipment before the chassis was pronounced ready. First, a quick­-ratio, high-effort steering gear from a pre-1982 Z28 was installed to improve feel and agility. And since it’s only proper that a Corvette chaser wear Corvette running shoes, a set of Vette wheels and tires (255/S0VR-16 Goodyear Eagle VR50s on 8.5-inch-wide wheels) were socked into the wheel wells. Now that the chaser had more grip and more zip than the typical sleepy Caprice wagon, improving its driving environment was a must. To keep the chase pilot from collapsing from overwork, the Caprice’s sofalike bench seat was tossed in favor of a pair of deeply pocketed Corvette sport buckets, complete with power-adjustable everything. A thick, leather-covered Corvette steering wheel added the right look and feel. The two slickest additions were the tachometer and the oil-pressure gauge, which were transplanted into the dash so neatly that they look as if they came straight from the factory. Car and DriverThe mother ship could easily be accused of looking like the world’s largest boy racer; it sure won’t be confused with anything that normally pulls Little League duty. Then again, its job is considerably more difficult. It spends winters at the GM proving grounds in Mesa, Arizona, and summers at the Milford proving grounds, attempting, Sisyphus-like, to keep up with Corvettes while loaded to the gunwales. And it looks it. “As the interior shows,” notes Ingle, “this is a working vehicle, not a show car. It has hauled toolboxes, floor jacks, chains, tires, convertible tops, and excess luggage over many miles of mountain roads.” After 35,000 hard ones, the chaser’s cabin is scruffy and its body squeaks and groans, but its spirit is still willing. Around town, the exhaust note is pure ski boat, and when you belt the throttle, the mellow bellow is enough to tum heads. And so is this car’s speed. On the run, big mamma will charge to 60 mph in a very respectable 7.2 seconds and will huff and puff all the way to 121 mph. That’s well shy of a Corvette’s terminal velocity, but it’s light-years ahead of your average diesel Suburban’s. The Corvette troops couldn’t be happier.Car and DriverAs for handling, peeling off all the chrome and slapping a Corvette nameplate on the tailgate can’t disguise the fact that the chaser is a USS Enterprise among PT boats. Still, it’s hard to believe that anything so big can be so agile—even if it does take a couple of extra tries to wedge it into a parking spot. It’s also difficult to believe that anything so big can be so much undiluted fun. No wonder the Corvette development gang relishes its latest tool. Chasing down a pack of wild Corvettes was never easier. And until you catch up, there’s always the odd Porsche to menace—eh, Mr. Ingle? SpecificationsSpecifications
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Chaser wagonVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 350 in3, 5733 cm3Power: 230 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 330 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 11.9-in vented disc/11.0-in drum
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.0 inLength: 215.1 inWidth: 79.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 59/52 ft3Cargo Volume: 50 ft3Curb Weight: 4287 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.4 secTop Speed: 121 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 232 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Toyota added the TRD Off-Road trim to the RAV4 lineup in 2019, giving this down-to-earth family crossover a chance to get a little closer to said earth with a host of dirt-friendly upgrades. The hybrid didn’t receive the same treatment, but the 2023 RAV4 Hybrid Woodland Edition seeks to span that familial gap, although it comes up short in a few key areas.Off-Road KitBefore you start dreaming about tackling Moab on the way to Meijer, it’s worth noting that the Woodland Edition isn’t a pixel-perfect adaptation of the TRD Off-Road. You don’t get the TRD’s extra half-inch of ground clearance, nor do you receive its specific all-wheel-drive system, since all hybrid RAV4s power their rear axles using a single, 54-hp electric motor without any mechanical connection to the engine.HIGHS: Looks almost as cool as the TRD Pro, a softie over potholes, still eminently practical. What you do get in the Woodland Edition is a melting pot of form and function. The TRD Off-Road lends its 18-inch bronze alloy wheels wrapped in 225/60R-18 Falken Wildpeak A/T Trail 01A all-terrain tires. The Woodland Edition also borrows the TRD’s springs, dampers, and bump stops. Otherwise, this RAV4 gets a few mild aesthetic tweaks, including a roof rack and mud flaps, as well as a 120-volt outlet in the cargo area.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverFuel-Economy HitThe RAV4 Woodland Edition, unfortunately, takes a hit to its fuel economy, which poses an existential threat, as that undercuts a major reason to buy a hybrid in the first place. But, if you want your hybrid bedecked in roof racks and higher-rolling-resistance tires, a sacrifice must be made. In our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, the Woodland’s 32-mpg result was a full 5 mpg below that of the last RAV4 hybrid we tested and 3 mpg below its EPA estimate, which is specific to the Woodland. More on the RAV4 and How Roof Racks Affect Fuel EconomyAll-terrain tires may confer additional grip on loose surfaces, but they are generally not as strong on pavement. On our 300-foot skidpad, the RAV4 Woodland Edition managed 0.78 g, less than the 2019 RAV4 Hybrid Limited’s grippier 0.81 g.Braking and acceleration tell a slightly happier tale. It took the Woodland Edition just 179 feet to stop from 70 mph, besting the standard hybrid by three feet. Sprints end in a dead heat, with both variants requiring 7.3 seconds to reach 60 mph and 15.6 seconds to pass the quarter-mile mark. No matter the RAV4 hybrid trim you select, the powertrain remains the same, pairing a 2.5-liter inline-four with three electric motors—including the aforementioned one that motivates the rear wheels on its own, and only when additional traction is needed. The system combines for a total of 219 horsepower. Another high-water mark comes by way of interior noise. You might think that the Falken Wildpeaks would add demonstrable clamor, but nope—at 68 decibels at a 70-mph cruising speed, the Woodland Edition is actually 1 decibel quieter than the RAV4 Hybrid Limited. In more subjective experiences, you’d be hard-pressed to find a difference. The planetary transmission that blends the electric and gas propulsion and mimics a continuously variable automatic transmission does a good job hunting out the efficient segments of the rev range without adding any drone. That’s good because the engine note isn’t pleasant at any speed.Smooth RiderToyota claims that the Woodland’s TRD-specific suspension components are tuned to mitigate bumps and dips of all shapes and sizes, and that rang true in our experience. Southeast Michigan’s roads feel like glorified dirt trails most of the time, and the RAV4 Woodland sailed across them with aplomb, providing competent mitigation without feeling wishy-washy.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverIf your idea of adventuring includes towing things out in the middle of nowhere, it may behoove you to stick with a gas-powered RAV4. An unchanged powertrain means the Woodland Edition carries the same 1750-pound tow rating as the other hybrids, while the TRD Off-Road and Adventure trims can manage double the mass out back.On the positive side, no amount of beefcake doodaddery can mess with the outright practicality baked into the RAV4. Visibility is good, and all three mirrors are twice as large as they need to be. The passenger-side dashboard storage tray is a nice touch, and there’s plenty of space to dump tchotchkes under the center armrest and in the tray ahead of the gear lever. Out back, the cargo area can handle 10 carry-on suitcases behind the second row or 22 with the rear seats folded down.LOWS: Subpar fuel economy, no relief from ice-cold seats, hybrid powertrain isn’t exactly tow-friendly.Looking to crank some tunes? Rejoice in the fact that Toyota has sent its crappy old Entune infotainment software to the shadowlands. In its place is the same upgraded setup you’ll find in other new Toyota models, and it’s a vast improvement. Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard on the 8.0-inch touchscreen, and Google-based navigation is available. A 10.5-inch touchscreen is available on higher trims but not on the Woodland.Missing FeaturesYou know what else isn’t available on this off-road-oriented model? Heated seats. In fact, the options packaging on the RAV4 Woodland Edition is utterly confounding. The SE, which is less expensive than the $34,860 Woodland, can be optioned with packages that add heated front seats, a heated steering wheel, rain-sensing windshield wipers, a power liftgate, and a sunroof, none of which are available on the Woodland Edition, but all of which sure sound nice to have when taking a break from civilization. Maybe it’s always 75 degrees and overcast in whatever forest is closest to Toyota headquarters.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverTherein lies the rub. The 2023 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Woodland Edition is a simulacrum that offers a little pageantry but sacrifices much of the hybrid’s raison d’être. Adding variety to a lineup is good, but the Woodland Edition’s drawbacks make it hard to recommend when every other variant seems more fully baked.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Woodland EditionVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $34,860/$36,104 Options: running boards, $620; door-sill protector, $199; frameless HomeLink mirror, $175; door-edge guard, $150; fog-light accent trim, $100
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 176 hp, 163 lb-ft + 3 AC motors, 118 and 54 hp, 149 lb-ft and 89 lb-ft (combined output, 219 hp); 1.6-kWh lithium-ion battery pack

TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in disc Tires: Falken Wildpeak A/T Trail 01A225/60R-18 100H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 180.9 inWidth: 73.0 inHeight: 67.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 70/38 ft3Curb Weight: 3817 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4-Mile: 15.6 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 20.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 460 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 37/38/35 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the March 1984 issue of Car and Driver.The Mazda people are different. Unlike the powers that be at most car companies, they seem genuinely to like sports cars. What’s more, they like them enough to understand them. They reject the assumption that two seats, a low-slung body, and a strong engine are all it takes to make a sports car. The RX-7 certainly has these features, but it also has that all-important sports-car magic. It sings an irresistible song, begging to be revved to its redline and thrown into corners, and it communicates the joys of the sports-car experience to its driver.The first RX-7, in 1978, had the magic, but we couldn’t help wondering whether Mazda’s intentions were honorable. After all, several companies have sprung exciting new sports cars on us, only to dilute their sporting appeal in search of broader markets once their image-building potential was fully exploited. We’ve watched for such signs of degeneracy from Mazda, but as the RX-7 enters its seventh year of production, our worst fears have yet to be realized.In fact, the RX-7, in its new GSL-SE incarnation, is more sports car than ever. The SE designation heralds the arrival of a long-awaited power increase, provided by a fuel-injected, tuned-induction, six-port version of Mazda’s 13B rotary engine. With its 1.3-liter displacement and new technology, the 13B develops 135 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 133 pound-feet of torque at 2750 rpm, both healthy increases from the 101 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 107 pound-feet at 4000 rpm of the 1.1-liter 12A engine, which is still standard in other RX-7s. Moreover, although the power peaks are identical in both engines, the SE motor’s much lower torque peak represents a considerable flattening of the rotary’s traditionally peaky torque curve. Newfound thrust is present at all rpm. Many manufacturers would have exchanged some of the new engine’s performance potential for better fuel economy by harnessing it to taller gearing, but such thinking is antithetical to the mission of a serious sports car. Mazda’s powertrain engineers kept the faith, leaving the RX-7’s overall gearing essentially unchanged. Fifth gear is a bit taller, but not enough to compensate for the thirstier engine; the new SE returns 18 mpg (EPA city), while the lesser RX-7s are rated at 19. Neither figure is particularly impressive, but the SE’s penalty is modest relative to its power increase. Having chosen not to hamstring the new engine with tall gearing, Mazda wasn’t about to shortchange its potential with weaknesses in the chassis. Four-wheel disc brakes, which have been fitted to all GSLs for the past three years, are upgraded on the SE with rotors that are nearly an inch larger and vented in the rear as well as the front. In addition, a larger master cylinder and a bigger brake booster firm up the braking action. The SE’s clutch is stronger, more heat-resistant, and damped by 10 percent more force to transmit the increased torque reliably. Power steering is offered for the first time in an RX-7, as an option on the SE; the amount of assist decreases with speed. Recognizing the importance of the tire-road interface, Mazda’s chassis engineers fitted the SE with top-­class Pirelli P6 tires, in a generous 205/60VR-14 size, on wheels one inch larger in diameter than before. In addition to these SE-exclusive features, all 1984 RX-7s benefit from several improvements. The chassis mounting points for the rear axle’s lower trailing links have been dropped by 0.8 inch to provide some roll understeer in the rear suspension. New slits in the front air dam increase cooling airflow to the front brakes. Inside, the instrument cluster, the steering wheel, the heater controls, and the minor switches have all been revised, and the storage bins behind the seats now have locking lids and interior illumination. To the serious sports-car buyer these are extraneous details, mere trimmings around the main course, which in the SE’s case is its engine. The special flavor of the big rotary is not readily apparent, however, even to the sports-car gourmet, for the SE doesn’t seem drastically stronger than previous RX-7s. There is no violent kick in the back, no uncontrollable wheelspin, no primeval noises. Nor is there any of the loss in agility or the subtle increases in control efforts that so often accompany substantial power increases. The SE does cover ground quickly, though. Dialing up high speeds on the speedometer requires little effort, the car going about its brisk business with little prodding from the shifter. Top gear suffices easily for most normal driving situations. And legging the throttle through the gears to the 7000-rpm redline quickly produces license-threatening speeds. Despite weighing 110 pounds more than our last RX-7 GSL, our test SE sprinted from a standstill to 60 mph in just 7.8 seconds, 2.6 seconds quicker than the earlier car. Its quarter-mile performance of 15.9 seconds at 86 mph was 1.5 seconds and 7 mph better. It hit 100 mph more than ten seconds sooner, in 23.9 seconds. The SE’s low-rpm muscle was evidenced just as clearly, with times of 10.5 and 11.0 seconds in the 30-to-50-mph and 50-to-70-mph top-gear runs, about three seconds better in each case. Top speed climbed from 118 to 125 mph. Such performance easily puts the SE into the ranks of seriously fast cars, yet it feels hardly quicker than a good four-banger sports sedan. The reason is that Mazda’s engine engineers spread their torque out as flat as frosting on a cake. It’s an engineer’s dream that’s seldom realized: The big rotary produces very nearly the same torque at all engine speeds, so no sudden surge is felt when the torque curve peaks. This even temperament, combined with the rotary’s silky smoothness, kitchen­-blender hum, and consistent throttle response, results in a flow of power so linear that it’s deceptive. The driver need only use the gearbox to dial up the proper rpm between 1000 and 7000 for any desired thrust. Without the response glitches, holes, and rushes common in most other power curves, the SE’s engine is a model of predictability.George Lepp|Car and DriverIt’s a good thing the engine is so forgiving, because it enables you to control the chassis’s traditional penchant for hanging its tail out at the limit. When the car is first pitched into a corner at speed, the tail steps wide and then catches a grip on the pavement. The cornering response is then linear, with a noticeable bias toward oversteer that encourages tail-out driving. Total grip does benefit from such chassis balance, since the cornering effort is quite evenly divided between the front and rear tires. Indeed, with the help of the Pirellis, the SE generated an impressive 0.82 g on the skidpad, balanced on the fine edge of oversteer. This balance is easy for a driver to achieve, because the SE communicates its every move through a suspension biased more toward information than plushness. Small imperfections are absorbed surprisingly well, but medium-size bumps don’t seem to deflect the suspension at all. The new power steering also helps keep the SE pointed in the right direction: It has good feel and a much faster ratio (3.1 turns lock-­to-lock instead of 4.3) than that of previous RX-7s, although on-center precision is still lacking. The upgraded brakes are improved in every respect, with better balance, feel, and fade resistance.These characteristics may not sound like the ultimate in handling sophistication, but the SE is actually a ball to drive hard. The strong engine lets you kick the tail out at will, and the linear throttle response and the predictable chassis behavior let you hold it at any desired attitude without trauma. On wet pavement the SE can make quite a scene, lighting up its tires in the first three gears if you so desire. Entire blocks can be covered sideways. Despite the SE’s sporting orientation, it shares all the luxury amenities introduced in GSLs three years ago. The driver is pampered with cruise control, electric mirrors, electric windows, air conditioning, a good stereo system complete with an equalizer and a joy-stick balance-and­-fader control, and a sunroof. The comfortable driver’s seat now offers a height adjustment; leather is available as an option. The new instruments provide the necessary information in a more logical array than before, the steering wheel is a proper three-spoke unit, the visibility is panoramic, the control layout is admirably handy, and the driving position is excellent in every respect, down to a welcome dead pedal. Our only interior quibble concerns the bright surface finish of the vertical panel in the central console; a matte-black finish would be more appropriate for a car of such sporting persuasion. George Lepp|Car and DriverWith a complaint list so short, it’s clear to us that the RX-7 GSL-SE is the best and sportiest RX-7 ever offered to the American driver. At a base price of $15,095, it’s also the most expensive. That’s a full two grand more than a regular GSL, and quite a sum for a car that made its reputation on exceptional affordability; at this RX-7’s price level, there are now Supras, Starions, 300ZXs, and well-equipped V-8 Mustangs and Camaros to choose from. The GSL­-SE, however, will handily outrun every import in its price class, and it’s much smaller, nimbler, and more economical than its big-­motored American rivals. What makes the GSL-SE so good is that Mazda has kept the sports-car faith. For the money, there still isn’t a better fling-about, redline-hungry, tire-smoking sports car to be had. Technical HighlightsThe RX-7 GSL-SE’s 13B rotary engine is only 14.1 percent larger in displacement than the 12A powerplant (1308 versus 1146 cc), yet it develops 33.6 percent more power and 24.3 percent more torque. Obviously, Mazda has done more than shoehorn wider rotors into the bigger motor.Car and DriverBetter breathing accounts for the additional difference; a rotary’s output, like a piston engine’s, is limited by its airflow. Most of the improvement comes from a new intake system and port fuel injection, a combination that allows great flexibility in manifold design. The proven system of primary and secondary ports controlled by staged throttles is retained, maintaining high port velocities even at part throttle. Primary air is inducted through its own tuned passages, entering the front and rear combustion chambers through the center plate that separates the two rotors. Secondary air goes to the front rotor through the front-end plate and to the rear rotor through the rearmost end plate. In the 13B, the engineers have split the secondary flow path in two, so a total of three (one primary, two secondary) passages deliver air to each rotor. Fuel is sprayed in by one solenoid-type injector in each primary air passage. The new third ports are opened by exhaust back pressure at high rpm. Their additional area and altered timing ensure efficient full-power breathing, allowing the main ports to be optimized for low-rpm performance. Car and DriverIn addition to its three-stage porting, the intake manifold was designed to take maximum advantage of the rotary’s very strong intake pulsations (stronger than a piston engine’s, because the ports open more quickly and are not obstructed by valves). Two different pressure pulses are used to boost intake charging: The first occurs when an intake port has just dosed and the rapidly flowing intake-air column runs into a dead end; the second pulse is generated by the residual pressure escaping from the combustion chamber when an intake port first opens. Careful tuning of the dimensions and configuration of the intake manifold can harness these positive-pressure pulses to force more air into the combustion chambers; in the SE rotary, the tuning was optimized for low-speed breathing. The result is abundant torque, peaking at 2750 rpm in the 13B, far below the 4000-rpm peak of the 12A. Oil is injected into the intake-manifold plenum in conventional Mazda fashion, but the 13B receives additional apex-seal lubrication from oil injected directly into the trochoid chambers. The rotor-housing surfaces are chrome-plated, like the 12A’s, but have a harder finish and improved porosity for better oil retention, giving the 13B durability to match its muscle. —Csaba CsereKenichi Yamamoto: A talk with the stepfather of the rotary engine.”I felt a genuine surprise when I first saw a running prototype of the rotary engine in 1961. It was so compact and turning so smoothly. Like any engineer, I was impressed by the novelty, because there was so little variation in internal-combustion engines at the time. I felt a passionate desire to challenge and perfect the rotary engine.”These days, we hear a lot about the strength of the Japanese character. Kenichi Yamamoto, Mazda’s 61-year-old senior managing director in charge of advanced technology, research, and development, is a living example of what all the talk actually means: commitment to ideals, perseverance, and personal sacrifice for the greater good. Yamamoto may not be the natural father of the rotary engine, but he did act as a loving foster parent in developing Dr. Felix Wankel’s invention to the high level of refinement it enjoys today. Car and DriverLest we forget, the Wankel is this century’s only new automobile engine. The Rankine (steam), Otto cycle, and diesel engines were all patented before 1900; since then, the Wankel is the only new­comer to earn commercial success. It’s equally remarkable that both the rotary engine and Mazda have blossomed in only a quarter of a century. Felix Wankel’s engine first ran in 1957, while Mazda was struggling to regain a footing after the war by manufacturing three-wheeled trucks. The firm’s first four-wheeled vehicle wasn’t rolling until a year later, and its first automobile—a 900-pound, two-seat coupe powered by a 360 cc piston engine—didn’t go on sale until 1960.Yamamoto explains: “Mazda was a latecomer to the passenger-car field. We needed new technologies to challenge some very severe international competition. The late Tsuneji Matsuda, who was Mazda’s president during the birth of our first automobiles, had always been receptive to new ideas, and he saw the rotary engine as an advance investment in Mazda’s future. I was then an assistant manager of automobile design, and, frankly speaking, I was a bit skeptical at first about the engine’s practical potential. My experience had been exclusively with reciprocating engines. I had learned the hard way how complex the mechanical requirements of automotive engines could be.” The “hard way” is an apt description of Yamamoto’s early career. He graduated from Japan’s Imperial University (later renamed Tokyo University) in 1944, with a degree in mechanical engineering, only to be snapped up by the navy to supervise the production of kamikaze aircraft. After World War II, he returned to his hometown, Hiroshima, and found most of it leveled by the atomic bomb. Luckily, his home was spared, along with one major industrial firm: Toyo Kogyo, the company that would later build Mazda automobiles. Jobs were few and far between in Hiroshima, so Yamamoto took what he could get, a laborer’s position on Toyo Kogyo’s assembly line. He bolted together truck transmissions for a year and a half, work that was physically and mentally taxing. Finally, his technical talents were noticed, and he escaped the factory floor for a job in the engine-design department. There Yamamoto quickly filled his portfolio with one successful engine design after another. Mazda began studying the Wankel engine’s potential in 1960 and signed a technical agreement with the patent holders a year later. Believing the engine would help the firm to establish an identity quickly, president Matsuda asked Yamamoto to form a new rotary-engine division at the end of 1962. Out of admiration and respect for his president, Yamamoto pledged his support to the unproven engine. “In the beginning, we experienced lots of difficulties. Some were technical, others were not. Since we had announced to the world that we were undertaking rotary-engine development with the intention of building and selling engines, many people, both inside and outside the company, voiced strong criticism before they saw any results. Therefore, whenever the young engineers were discouraged by technical problems, they were also disappointed by outside criticism. I had to not only spur them with technical ideas, but I also had to keep their morale high and give them hope. Fortunately, Toyo Kogyo management had decided the new technology was indispensable. The challenge was difficult, and I was forced to work more than the young people in my division to stay ahead. In fact, I made a point of placing a notebook beside my pillow at night so that when any new idea dawned on me I could write it down. Almost every evening I woke up and jotted down some note; then the next day I’d call a meeting and challenge the young people with a new or better idea. If the engineers saw an enthusiastic leader, they responded with greater passion. I challenged each one to come up with at least one new idea every day, and I promised that I would do likewise.” Yamamoto also insisted that his staff learn English and use it in group discussions so that every engineer would get the most out of international technical meetings. “In the beginning, the Wankel family was made up of an international group that exchanged information. Our common competitor was not another company, but rather the piston engine. I clearly remember once when the enthusiastic president of NSU, Dr. Ing. von Heydekampf, called out to all of us to band together and create a new engine that would go down in history. While I knew there were difficulties ahead, I was deeply touched in that room of engineers from all over the world, and I felt certain the project would succeed. “As time went on, however, many of the rotary-engine proponents dropped off, and I started to feel lonely and disappointed. Nevertheless, we received many letters from engineers around the world interested in our work. We felt we were being watched. That gave us pleasure and encouragement, and we made up our minds to live up to those expectations.” In 1967, after less than five years of rotary-engine development, Mazda introduced the 110S (a.k.a. Cosmo Sports) two-seater with a 110-hp, two­-rotor powerplant. Since then, 1.3 million rotary engines have been manufactured by Toyo Kogyo. There have been ups and downs. The RX-7 is an unqualified success today, but O-ring-seal failures were common during the early Seventies, and there was a crash program after the first energy crisis to improve the rotary’s fuel efficiency. Yamamoto is now a senior member of the board of directors and as eager as ever for the rotary to prevail against stronger competition from gas and diesel piston engines. “We would like to perfect TISC [timed induction with supercharge] for production. This uses a compact compressor combined with inherent rotary­-engine characteristics to improve low­- and mid-range torque. Of course, we are also engaged in several step-by-step developments: improvements in gas seals, reduction of internal friction, and better cooling, to name three. The rotary is still quite attractive to us, because there is so much potential for improvement. An engineer can maintain his dream of finding out new things.” —Don ShermanSpecificationsSpecifications
1984 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SEVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 3-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $15,095/$16,125Options: leather interior, $720; power steering, $310.
ENGINE
2-rotor Wankel, electronic fuel injectionDisplacement: 80 in3, 1308 cm3Power: 135 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 133 lb-ft @ 2750 rpm 
TRANSMISSION
X-speed [automated] manual/[dual-clutch] automatic/continuously variable automatic/direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 9.8-in vented disc/10.1-in vented discTires: Pirelli P6205/60VR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 95.3 inLength: 170.1 inWidth: 65.7 inHeight: 49.6 inPassenger Volume: 46 ft3Trunk Volume: 8 ft3Curb Weight: 2590 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.8 sec1/4-Mile: 15.9 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 23.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.0 secTop Speed: 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 199 ftRoadholding, 200-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 22/18/29 mpg  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More