Car Reviews

From the February 1997 issue of Car and Driver.For 44 years now, Chevrolet has been mistakenly building the Corvette. This is absurd because any dictio­nary will tell you a corvette is not a car, but a small, lightly armed, fast warship. Well, last year, GM finally wised up and licensed the Corvette name to Malibu Boats. Located not in beautiful Malibu but in bucolic Merced in California’s central valley, the boatmaker has a three-year license to build the Corvette Limited Edi­tion Ski Boat (Limited Edition Wet Vette was somehow not considered). The Corvette is based on Malibu’s Ech­elon tournament ski boat, except that virtually everything but its hull shape was changed, including the fiberglass deck, the floor, the seating, the interior panels, the dashboard, and the instrument panel. With the approval of GM, the Torch Red boat was also given a C4-style rear-fascia treat­ment (using the taillight openings as bilge vents), instrument panel, glove box, and shifter and a dozen (count ’em) Corvette and Collector Edition emblems. Luxo touches include dash heater vents, a leather-covered tilting steering wheel, a 12-CD changer, a driver’s air lumbar adjuster, and—something the car needs badly—an in-dash ice chest. A tandem trailer, dressed up with Corvette wheels and P225/45ZR-17 tires, is also included. Callaway soups up a GM Vortec engine to give the boat Corvette-quality performance. In Old Lyme, Connecticut, the engine is stripped and reconfigured with a 3.75-inch stroker crank and a 0.030-inch overbore to bump displacement from 350 cubic inches to 383 cubic inches—the same as Callaway’s SuperNatural Cor­vette. The engine retains its roller cam fol­lowers but gets stiffer valve springs, forged rods, 10.5:1 pistons, four-bolt mains, and remapped ignition and electronic-fuel­-injection programs. Callaway refers to the engine as the SuperNatural 383 Marine. “We knew we wanted 400 pound-feet for acceleration and 400 horsepower for speed,” Malibu president Bob Alkema says. “We went to Callaway and said, ‘Four hundred and four hundred, please.'” What they got was exactly 400 horsepower at 5200 rpm and a stump-pulling 415 pound-feet of torque at 4200 revs. We wondered where we could test the boat in Merced, which is farm country. As it turns out, Malibu knows a very rich man who built his own ski lake nearby. This seemed to have possibilities, not the least of which was that he might have a very rich and bored daughter with her own boat and motor. The lake is nearly a half-mile long by 275 feet wide but just five feet deep, which means when a skier does a header after jumping the wake, his noggin strikes the bottom. Unless it strikes a catfish first. In which case you’ll be billed separately because they also raise catfish for sale here. “I smell a tax deduction,” I said to photographer Lorentzen as we drove from the airport. “I smell a fish farm,” the photographer said as we turned into the driveway. We already knew the boat wasn’t going to put any Corvette LT4 on the trailer in terms of top speed, but we weren’t so sure about acceleration. Stalking the boat with radar proved we were half-right. From 0 to 20 mph, the boat outgunned the car by a slim margin—about a 10th of a second—­testimony to the boat engine’s low-end torque. From 20 to 40 mph, the car pulled even and then forged ahead by about a half-second. But above 40 mph, the LT4 was simply gone. The crucible of street performance, 0-­to-60-mph acceleration, was thus no con­test. The LT4 romped to 60 mph in 5.1 sec­onds, whereas the Malibu Vette took 11.6 seconds to reach 57 mph, its top speed. The boat held this speed for the rest of the quarter-mile, which it covered in 18.5 sec­onds. This is unheard of in a production ski boat. Most ski boats won’t hit 50 mph. The LT4 dispatched the quarter-mile in 13.7 seconds at 104 mph. As sobering as the drag-strip compar­ison turned out to be, the top-end differ­ence was even greater. The Corvette LT4 convertible can storm to 160 mph—some 103 mph faster than the boat. But why? Das Boot weighs 960 pounds less than the car and has 70 more horsepower. For starters, ski boats have a one-speed trans­mission and a single-pitch prop that essentially serve as governors. Tournament ski boats also carry their engines amidships to generate minimal wake, but this creates copious hydrodynamic drag. In short, boats need to get up and out of the water to go fast, which also means they tend to handle spookily at speed. (This does not bode well for the weekend warrior tanked on margaritas.) A much as the wet stuff holds the Malibu back at its top end, it doesn’t seem to contribute anything to stopping the craft. Whereas the LT4 can grind to a halt in 166 feet from 70 mph, the boat is relatively helpless at scrubbing off speed. Deceler­ating from 50 to 10 mph—the only mean­ingful range our Stalker radar gun could record—takes 231 feet. There is another way. Turns out that if no tort attorneys are looking, a ski boat can be made to spin like an AMC Pacer on black ice. (We did not, repeat did not, learn about this from anyone at Malibu Boats.) First, apply throttle until the boat achieves a velocity that seems vaguely dangerous. Then crank in full left rudder, chop the throttle, and pop ‘er into neutral. The boat snaps left in a neat 180 (picture Roberto at Indy), leaving your spleen and any other unnecessary organs on the marine-grade carpeting. There is no purpose to this, except that it drives spousal units insane and makes them vow never to ride in a boat with you and your stupid friends again. Indeed, cornering is the Malibu’s baili­wick. Running a 300-foot “skidpad” around buoys on nearby Yosemite Lake, the boat was limited by power rather than adhesion, unlike the LT4. The car aver­aged 0.87 g on the skidpad; the boat was just a click behind at 0.83 g—the equiva­lent of a Volvo 850R, which is not bad territory. And whereas the car has to be carefully balanced with the steering and throttle, the boat can be cornered at full throttle. The nose drops, the hull tilts inward, and the Malibu just sticks. Following a skier’s slalom course is a good measure of overall handling. The official ski slalom uses an entry gate, six turn buoys, and an exit gate. In ski com­petitions, the boat drives straight through the middle of the 850-foot-long course while the skier zigs and zags left and right around the buoys. At Catfish Lake, the Malibu Vette followed the skier’s zigzag course in a best time of 19.5 seconds. The steering is massively heavy when you’ve fed in lock, but it’s feather light on-center. You’d be excused for complaining that this kind of feel belongs in a million-mile Checker, not a $45,000 boat. But that’s the nature of inboards: Prop thrust is forever trying to straighten the rudder. We thought it would be interesting to run the car through an identical slalom marked by cones instead of buoys. It was. The car ran through the slalom at 21.69 seconds, or about 3 mph slower than the boat (albeit braking for the turns). This shows that in low-speed, tight maneuvers, at least, the car and the boat are close to equal. More Corvette Reviews From the ArchiveWith testing completed, there remained only one question anyone really cared about: Can you ski behind a car? It was Alkema who suggested that someone try. Shane Stillman, a Malibu product researcher and national-caliber skier, was perfectly willing to grab a ski and join the 50,000 catfish in 55-degree water the color of your Morgan’s engine oil after the head gasket blew. Alkema drove down to the water’s edge and attached 75 feet of ski rope. He hit the throttle, and when the chocolate spray set­tled, water skier Stillman sat in six inches of water, sporting a bright, new gravel rash on his legs. The LT4 had yanked him ashore. No matter. With a bit of practice, Stillman got up and skied, only to reach the end of the frontage road before he dropped back into the soup. He did this over and over—mostly because the photographer begged him, but also because it was fun.At least, he said it was. SpecificationsSpecifications
1996 Chevrolet Corvette Collector Edition ConvertibleVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $46,671/$51,067
ENGINEpushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 350 in3, 5733 cm3Power: 330 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 340 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/control armsBrakes, F/R: vented disc/vented discTires: Goodyear Eagle GS-CF: 255/45ZR-17R: 285/40ZR-17
DIMENSIONSLength: 178.5 inWidth: 73.1 inHeight: 47.3 inCurb Weight: 3460 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.1 sec60 mph: 5.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.7 sec @ 104 mphTop Speed: 160 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.87 g850-ft Water-Ski Slalom Course: 26.7 mph
–
Malibu Boats Corvette Limited Edition Ski BoatVehicle Type: mid-engine, 5-passenger boat
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $45,000/$45,000
ENGINEpushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 383 in3, 6276 cm3Power: 400 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 415 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION1-speed
CHASSISBrakes: reverse prop thrust; single anchorProp: 13-inch stainless steel
DIMENSIONSLength: 240.0 inWidth: 90.0 inHeight: 36.0 inCurb Weight: 2500 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.4 sec57 mph: 11.6 sec1/4-Mile: 18.5 sec @ 57 mphTop Speed: 57 mphBraking, 50–10 mph: 231 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g 850-ft Water-Ski Slalom Course: 29.7 mph  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

The 2024 Nissan Rogue and the 2024 Kia Sportage are not our favorite compact SUVs—we prefer more engaging offerings, such as the current and former 10Best-winning Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5. But these two mundane models aren’t without their appeal, and Nissan and Kia moved 271,458 and 140,780 units of each in 2023 alone.The Nissan is the elder statesman of this duo, with the current SUV dating back to the 2021 model year. A light refresh for 2024 adds revised front and rear fascias and an available 12.3-inch touchscreen infotainment system with the Google built-in interface.Following a complete redesign for 2023, the Sportage carries over largely unchanged for 2024. The latest model is physically larger than its predecessor. It also now offers hybrid and plug-in-hybrid powertrains, though a gas-only setup serves as the default option.What We TestedUnlike the Sportage, the Rogue comes strictly in gas-fed form. All variants, from the entry-level $29,810 S to the $40,090 Platinum, rely on the same 201-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter three-cylinder that mates to a continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT). The triple incorporates Nissan’s variable-compression tech that slightly alters the pistons’ stroke to raise or lower the compression ratio from 8.0:1 and 14.0:1, optimizing the engine for greater torque or fuel economy as needed. Although the Rogue comes standard with front-wheel drive, the Platinum example we tested included all-wheel drive for $1500. A $350 black-painted roof, $445 worth of floor mats, and the $990 Platinum Premium package, which added a third climate zone for those in the back, rear sunshades, heated rear seats, a motion-activated liftgate, and a head-up display, brought this Champagne Silver Metallic SUV’s as-tested price to $43,375. View PhotosAndi Hedrick|Car and Driver2024 Nissan Rogue PlatinumOur Sportage was likewise a gas-powered model in flagship form. The $39,365 X-Pro Prestige combines the tougher-looking exterior decor, all-terrain tires, and heated windshield of the less expensive X-Pro with the amenities of the SX Prestige, such as its ventilated front seats, power-operated passenger’s seat, and 360-degree camera. All-wheel drive is standard, as is a 187-hp 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and an eight-speed automatic gearbox. With just $665 in extras (an X-Pro-exclusive coat of Wolf Gray paint with a contrasting Ebony Black roof for $395, floor mats for $175, and a cargo mat for $95), our Kia compact SUV rang in at $40,030.View PhotosAndi Hedrick|Car and Driver2024 Kia Sportage X-ProHow They Drive and PerformBoth the Rogue and Sportage prioritize a cushy ride and quiet cabin, and the pair hit their strides on long stretches of clear and open highway. The Nissan was the quicker of the two off the line—no surprise, considering its engine packed an additional 14 horsepower and 47 pound-feet of torque. Getting to 60 mph took an acceptable 8.0 seconds, and the quarter-mile blew by after 16.1 seconds at a speed of 87 mph. Meanwhile, the Sportage needed a wheezy 9.1 seconds to reach 60 mph and 16.9 seconds to complete the quarter-mile at 84 mph.Neither SUV fared well passing slower-moving traffic, and the Rogue’s languid 4.6-second run from 30 to 50 mph put it 0.1 second behind the Sportage’s. Both took 6.3 seconds to go from 50 to 70 mph. Kia SportageHIGHS: Quiet cabin, cushy ride, solid value.LOWS: Sluggish acceleration, frustrating climate and infotainment controls, drab cabin.VERDICT: Not great in any way but good enough in many.Whereas the linear throttle response and amenable gearbox of the Sportage made passing maneuvers slow but steady affairs, the Rogue suffered from a laggy throttle and a sluggish CVT. This left it accelerating leisurely until the transmission lackadaisically engaged a lower ratio, at which point the SUV would finally hit the peak of its powerband—often right around the time we no longer needed the extra oomph.Bringing the Rogue to a halt was no less frustrating due to its spongy brake pedal. It suffered from an initial dead spot and only started adding adequate stopping force at the far end of its travel. The Sportage’s binders, meanwhile, applied stopping power proportional to the stroke of its squishy pedal. View PhotosAndi Hedrick|Car and Driver2024 Kia Sportage X-ProWith its 19-inch wheels shod in asphalt-friendly Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S all-season tires, the Rogue came to a stop from 70 mph in 177 feet and circled the skidpad at 0.83 g, besting the 182-foot and 0.81-g figures the Kia achieved on its BFGoodrich Trail-Terrain T/A all-terrain rubber and 17-inch wheels. Despite its additional grip, the Rogue was the worse of these compact SUVs to wring around twisting tarmac.With more pitch and dive than the Summer Olympics, and steering that often required midcorner corrections, the Rogue struggled to maintain any semblance of cohesion in most off-highway settings. The Sportage was no dynamic darling either, but its body motions were less excessive, its chassis offered greater composure at the limit, and its steering was linear and responded accurately to inputs. It may be a bore, but unlike the Rogue, the Sportage at least avoided making spirited driving feel like a chore.Interior ComparisonNissan pulled out all the stops inside the Rogue, and its cabin looked and felt the part of an SUV with a price tag north of $40,000. Quilted leather covered the seats’ comfortable cushions, while soft-touch textiles adorned the dashboard and door panels. Scant use of silver and piano black plastic was a refreshing change of pace, adding a bit of interest to the interior without making the cabin look too busy.The inside of the Rogue offers more than just visual and tactile appeal, and Nissan’s compact SUV featured a number of generously sized storage cubbies too. This included a sizable space just below the center console and a two-position cargo floor. Nissan RogueHIGHS: Interior worthy of an Infiniti, convenience features of an Infiniti, ride quality of a Range Rover.LOWS: Laggy throttle and lazy CVT, a brake pedal spongy enough to live in a pineapple under the sea, cluster and infotainment screens’ UX.VERDICT: Easy to love in the showroom, hard to like on a test drive.Comparatively, the Sportage’s cabin was more austere and less richly appointed. Its faux-leather seats looked and felt as fake as the wood that decorates the driver-oriented dashboard and door panels. Large swaths of black plastic failed to add much in the way of visual interest, and the liberal use of piano black trim was prone to attracting fingerprint smudges and dust. The back seats in both offered plenty of room for two passengers but struggled to fit three comfortably. Unlike the Rogue, the Sportage lacked a separate rear climate zone and integrated rear sunshades.View PhotosAndi Hedrick|Car and Driver2024 Kia Sportage X-ProRegardless, the Sportage’s dual-zone climate-control system proved itself an ergonomic disaster. Rather than utilize separate climate and infotainment controls, Kia integrated both into one capacitive panel that’s bookended by two knobs. Those knobs control either the interior temperature or adjust infotainment settings, such as audio volume and tuning, depending on the mode the panel is in, effectively eliminating the muscle-memory benefits of tactile controls that allow drivers to keep their eyes on the road. After a couple of incidents wherein we cranked up the stereo volume when attempting to turn up the heat, we eventually found ourselves temporarily taking our eyes off the road to look down at the control panel to make sure it was in the correct operating mode.The Rogue may have a superior climate-control setup, but it suffers from an inferior infotainment system. Blame the 12.3-inch touchscreen’s delayed responses to inputs and the 12.3-inch cluster’s poor user experience. Rather than place the vehicle settings’ menu within the center-mounted touchscreen, Nissan hid it within the clunky cluster display.The Sportage also included separate 12.3-inch displays for its touchscreen infotainment system and digital cluster. While Kia’s user interface looked a bit dated next to Nissan’s, its overall operating experience was—for the most part—straightforward.Which Is BetterNissan knows how to create an appealing compact SUV, and the sumptuous interior and lengthy feature list of the Rogue evince this. But looking past its fancy features revealed weaknesses, chiefly the disharmonious dynamics and infotainment issues. More on the Nissan Rogue and Kia SportageThe Sportage, on the other hand, proved itself an earnest machine that was poised, predictable, and eager to please. We appreciated its lower cost of entry too, even if we felt Kia could improve the vehicle by fitting a more powerful engine under its hood and sprucing up the cabin with a less austere look and better ergonomics.Is the Kia Sportage the best vehicle in its segment? No. But you already know that. It is, however, a better compact SUV than the Nissan Rogue.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Kia Sportage X-Pro Prestige AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $39,365/$40,030Options: Wolf Gray body and Ebony Black roof paint, $395; carpeted floor mats, $175; cargo mat, $95
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2497 cm3Power: 187 hp @ 6100 rpmTorque: 178 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.6-in vented disc/11.8-in discTires: BFGoodrich Trail-Terrain T/A235/65R-17 104H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.5 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 66.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/50 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 69/37 ft3Curb Weight: 3737 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.1 sec1/4-Mile: 16.9 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 25.6 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.3 secTop Speed (C/D est): 120 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 440 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 26/23/30 mpg
–
2024 Nissan Rogue Platinum AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $41,590/$43,375Options: Platinum Premium package (motion-activated power liftgate, heated rear seats, head-up display, three-zone automatic climate control, rear-door sunshades), $990; floor mats, $445; two-tone paint, $350
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve variable-compression inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 90–91 in3, 1478–1498 cm3Power: 201 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 225 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.7-in vented disc/11.5-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S235/55R-19 101V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.5 inLength: 183.0 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 74/32 ft3Curb Weight: 3729 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.1 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.3 sec120 mph: 41.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.3 secTop Speed (C/D est): 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 26 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 440 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 31/28/34 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDespite their shared last name, Greg Fink is not related to Ed “Big Daddy” Roth’s infamous Rat Fink. Both Finks, however, are known for their love of cars, car culture, and—strangely—monogrammed one-piece bathing suits. Greg’s career in the media industry goes back more than a decade. His previous experience includes stints as an editor at publications such as U.S. News & World Report, The Huffington Post, Motor1.com, and MotorTrend. More

The sun is setting on convertibles, which is poignant because sunset is the best time to experience one. At Mercedes-Benz, recent years have seen the SLK roadster and the big S-class cabrio dip below the horizon. Now, the C-class convertible and the venerable E-class cabrio are saying their goodbyes, with both being replaced by a single model, the new CLE-class. Fret not, however, because the CLE cabriolet is a creamy confection, one that’s better looking than either of its two antecedents. The new droptop stretches 191.0 inches from nose to tail, over six inches more than the 2023 C300 and even eclipsing the ’23 E450 by nearly an inch. Its wheelbase falls between its two predecessors: an inch greater than the outgoing C-class droptop and 0.3 inch shy of the last E-class convertible. That stretch between the axles, however, exactly matches the latest C-class sedan, which is no coincidence. Pleasure CruisersLike the CLE coupe, the convertible is available as the CLE300 and the CLE450, planting a tire in the C and E camps. The CLE450’s powertrain largely mirrors that of the outgoing E450 cabrio. A turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six makes 375 horsepower and an effortless 369 pound-feet of torque. It’s paired with an utterly unobtrusive nine-speed automatic and all-wheel drive. Light throttle inputs bring a measured response—push deeper, and the CLE presses confidently ahead, accompanied by a muted growl. Working with the same downstream hardware, the CLE300’s turbocharged 2.0-liter four is the engine we know from the C300, making 255 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. Naturally, it doesn’t have the high-end muscle of the sweet six, but it’s plenty adequate in low-key driving and even sounds pretty refined for a turbo four. Both integrate a 48-volt starter-generator that’s able to recuperate brake energy and contribute 23 horsepower and 151 pound-feet of torque to the proceedings, helping to mask any turbo lag. Mercedes estimates zero-to-60-mph times at 6.2 seconds for the CLE300 and 4.2 seconds for the CLE450 drop-tops.Both models offer drive modes, but they don’t mess with the smooth ‘n easy vibe. No matter the setting, the accurate steering has just enough effort, perfect for a winding climb up the corniche or whatever coastal switchbacks you find yourself on. Brake-pedal inputs are equally well managed, suffering none of the squish we called out in the C-class sedan. That car had a brake system wherein initial pedal travel activated recuperation, then further travel triggered the hydraulic system; the CLE employs a revised design that activates both systems simultaneously rather than in sequence, and the result is greater assurance underfoot. (These revised brakes are being introduced as a running change on the sedan.)Unfortunately, the two CLEs we drove were equipped with the Dynamic Body Control suspension with adaptive dampers—we say unfortunately, because the U.S. won’t be getting that option. Instead, our cars will have passive dampers and steel springs, with the CLE450 getting a firmer setup. We’ll be interested to try the U.S.-spec version, and chief engineer Oliver Metzger says the convertible was tuned to allow a bit more body motion than the C-class sedan to deliver more of an E-class feel. C-Class CabinThe interior design is essentially that of the C-class, with a 12.3-inch digital instrument display and a 11.9-inch vertical central touchscreen. For cabriolet duty, the latter can be positioned more upright to reduce sun glare (a trick borrowed from the SL). Below the display is a thin band of touch buttons, including one for drive modes and a touch slider for audio volume. The UI minimizes menu-diving in that pods for various major functions are always displayed. Augmented reality for the navigation system and a head-up display are optional. The forward-facing camera can act as a dash cam, and the 360-degree-view cameras can monitor the parked car’s surroundings. Additionally, the system can be programmed with customized series of actions: setting combinations of climate control, audio, and ambient lighting, for instance, that can be automatically activated at certain times, under specific conditions, or when called up under the “My Routines” menu.There are still physical buttons to open or close the roof, a fully automatic operation that takes 20 seconds and can be performed on the move at speeds up to 37 mph. In between the buttons to raise and lower the top is one to deploy the standard Aircap. This consists of a wind deflector that rises from the windshield header and a mesh wind blocker that powers up from between the rear headrests. The thing is, wind buffeting already is so well managed, particularly when the side windows are raised, that the Aircap is largely unnecessary and actually makes the cabin noisier. In open-top driving without it, the excellent Burmester audio system with Dolby Atmos raises its volume just enough as speeds rise, but the driver and passenger needn’t raise their voices in conversation.The front seats come standard with Mercedes’s Airscarf warm-air outlets at the base of the headrests; a massage function is optional. Mercedes claims the rear seat has 0.6 inch more legroom and nearly a full inch more shoulder room than in the outgoing C-class convertible. It’s adequately spacious—a just-barely six-footer can fit behind a similar-sized driver without having to splay their knees—but a too-upright backrest means they won’t be comfortable. The rear seat does fold 60/40, and when the top is raised there’s a pass-through to the trunk.The CLE adopts the latest Mercedes-Benz steering wheel, an unfortunate design whose dual side spokes feature touch sliders for audio volume and other touch-sensitive buttons that respond to swipe motions, which means that errantly brushing against a spoke can call up the phone menu or skip a music track. Mercedes needs to step back from the touch madness.Related StoriesOur drive of the CLE convertible took place in Tenerife in the Canary Islands. It’s the kind of warm-weather destination that draws planeloads of pasty Europeans who fly down on discount airlines and are disgorged onto waiting busses for their package holiday. Was the choice of locale an indication that the new CLE similarly democratizes behind-the-wheel sun-seeking? Sorry, no. Pricing for the CLE300 convertible starts at $65,500, while the CLE450 opens at $75K. But an open-top glam-mobile like this was never going to be cheap. And with the latest SL—now a sibling to the AMG GT—having gone all sports car, it’s nice to see that Mercedes is still interested in making this type of convertible. If it appeals to you, better make haste while the sun still shines.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-Benz CLE CabrioletVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
CLE300 4Matic Cabriolet, $65,500; CLE450 4Matic Cabriolet, $75,000
ENGINES
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 255 hp, 295 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve 3.0-liter inline-6, 375 hp, 369 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.8 inLength: 191.0 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 56.0-56.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/34 ft3Trunk Volume, Top Down/Up: 10/14 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4400-4600 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.0-6.0 sec100 mph: 11.2-13.2 sec1/4-Mile: 13.1-14.1 secTop Speed: 130 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 26/23/32 mpgJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

Although the Toyota Camry has been usurped by the brand’s RAV4 crossover as the bestselling vehicle in the U.S. that isn’t a pickup truck, nearly 300,000 of Toyota’s family sedans still found homes last year. We’re clearly not alone in preferring the lower starting price, greater fuel efficiency, and tidier driving dynamics that sedans generally hold over their utilitarian kin. But radically altering the Camry’s formula is something Toyota doesn’t take lightly, which meant cautious evolution led the way for its ninth-generation redesign. If you don’t glimpse the 2025 Camry’s chiseled front end and gaping maw, it easily can be mistaken for the outgoing model that it mirrors in almost every dimension. As before, SE and XSE trim levels are billed as the sportier versions, featuring black grille accents and a more responsive chassis versus the LE and XLE’s chrome trim and softer setup. The big changes are under the surface, where all grades feature Toyota’s fifth-gen hybrid powertrain. An Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter four-cylinder continues to be the hybrid’s prime mover, gaining an extra eight horsepower for 184 in total, bolstered by 163 pound-feet of torque. Likewise, a more powerful traction motor (134 horses, up from 118) works with a second motor that choreographs the hybrid system’s planetary gearset so it ultimately acts like a continuously variable transmission. Total output climbs from 208 ponies to 225. Opt for the $1525 electrified all-wheel-drive system—a first for the Camry hybrid—with its own 40-hp rear-axle motor shared with the Prius AWD, and that combined figure creeps up to 232 horsepower. A lithium-ion battery with an estimated usable capacity of 0.6 kilowatt-hour sits under the back seat, and Toyota figures a combined fuel economy range of 44 to 51 mpg depending on the model (EPA estimates aren’t available yet). That’s 2 mpg worse on the low end for an all-wheel-drive XSE versus an outgoing XSE hybrid that lacked AWD and 1 mpg below the thriftiest front-drive version. But considering the last Camry hybrid we tested, a 2018 XLE model, returned 44 mpg on our 75-mph highway test and averaged 40 mpg overall, any version of the new car will be far stingier at the pump than previous gas-only models, which topped out at 32 mpg combined. The extra spring in the Camry’s step is most evident around town, where the shove of its stronger electric motor can be felt in low- to mid-throttle applications, boosting responsiveness. And with estimated curb weights held a good amount below two tons across the board, 60-mph times should remain in the seven-second range. Sadly, the sub-six-second 60-mph sprints of the outgoing 301-hp V-6 models are a thing of the past. Additional sound insulation better isolates the new Camry from wind, road, and powertrain noise, while slightly firmer suspension tunes lend all versions tighter body control when plying twisty switchbacks, all without impinging on their cushy ride (the base LE has 16-inch wheels, with higher trims getting 18s or 19s). The four-banger still tends to drone under heavy loads, but our main dynamic gripe is the steering, which seems decidedly artificial in its numb on-center feel and lack of increased effort when rounding corners. Smudge-prone piano-black trim is splashed across the Camry’s dashboard, but the rest of the interior brings pleasant upgrades throughout, including attractive, trim-specific upholstery, plus revised seats that provide ample support and long-haul comfort. Depending on the trim, digital displays range from 7.0 to 12.3 inches for the driver, while the center touchscreens running Toyota’s latest infotainment software span 8.0 or 12.3 inches. A 10.0-inch head-up display is available on XLE and XSE models. Overall cabin space remains generous, as do standard convenience and safety features, though you’ll have to pay extra for a surround-view camera system, lane-change assist, and parking assist with automatic braking. More on Toyota CamryValue has long been one of the Camry’s strengths, and the 2025 model starts at $29,495, which is nearly $2000 more than the ask for last year’s base four-cylinder LE yet $455 less than the previous entry-level hybrid model. Combined with its updates, the new Camry should be a stronger match for its longtime rival, the Honda Accord, when we stage the inevitable comparison test. A return to the top of Toyota’s sales charts is far less likely. But for the sedan faithful, this is a better Camry.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Toyota CamryVehicle Type: front-engine, front- or front- and rear-motor, front- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
FWD: LE, $29,495; SE, $31,795; XLE, $34,495; XSE, $35,695 AWD: LE, $31,020; SE, $33,320; XLE, $36,020; XSE, $37,220
POWERTRAINS
FWD: DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 184 hp, 163 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, 134 hp, 153 lb-ft (combined output: 225 hp; 0.6-kWh lithium-ion battery pack); continuously variable automatic transmission AWD: DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 184 hp, 163 lb-ft + 3 AC motors; front: 134 hp, 153 lb-ft; rear: 40 hp, 62 lb-ft (combined output: 232 hp; 0.6-kWh lithium-ion battery pack); continuously variable automatic front/direct-drive rear transmissions
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.2 inLength: 193.5 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53–54/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3500–3800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 7.3–7.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.4–15.6 secTop Speed: 115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 44–51/44–53/43–50 mpgMike Sutton is an editor, writer, test driver, and general car nerd who has contributed to Car and Driver’s reverent and irreverent passion for the automobile since 2008. A native Michigander from suburban Detroit, he enjoys the outdoors and complaining about the weather, has an affection for off-road vehicles, and believes in federal protection for naturally aspirated engines. More

From the July 1975 issue of Car and Driver.The “Longer, Lower, Wider” philosophy of car design is up for grabs. Detroit has reluctantly had to give up that approach or suffocate in its own padded bulk—and who should take over the well-used ploy but Toyota, the company we’ve come to know as small-car specialists.As incriminating evidence, we have the 1975 Corolla—long­er, wider and a prime example of Detroit’s old gambit of mod­el maturation. From most standpoints, this new Corolla is a better car: more civilized, roomier, even better looking. But the crime Toyota has committed has to do with the cost of it all—and not just the list price, although that has taken a fat hike as well. What is most worrisome is a generalized soften­ing of the Corolla’s metabolism: In maturity, it has become a substantially slower car.That is especially tragic in the SR-5 version. Here is an arrow from Toyota’s quiver aimed right at the heart of the driving enthusiast. It bristles with a five-on-the-floor (just like a Lotus or Porsche), fat tires, fender flares and enough instru­ments to monitor a space launch. Past Corolla SR-5s left their mark as rare have-your-cake-and-eat-it cars: cheap to buy, fun to drive, and remarkably efficient with fuel.But a lot of the fun is gone for 1975. Even with the old optional 1588-cc four-cylinder engine moved up to standard duty, there is a severe horsepower deficiency. The basic de­sign hasn’t been changed; it’s still a pushrod cross-flow hemi with an aluminum head. The camshaft has lived in the cast-­iron block from inception, and this engine got along just fine with such a handicap. Formerly it was an undisputed over­achiever, strong right up to the redline, pumping out nearly one horsepower per cubic inch in spite of its pushrods. But now it seems old age has set into the Corolla’s hemi. Its health chart lists a horsepower peak down a debilitating 13 hp since the 1973 SR-5, and in the current California version (subject of this test), the atrophy is even worse at 15 hp. The problem stems from the techniques Toyota has stooped to for a clean exhaust. Valve sizes remain the same but intake passages are sized down in the head and intake manifold. In addition, the carburetor’s air-flow rating is down by three percent compared to 1973, so high-speed breathing is off accordingly. Low-speed snap is wilted by a centrifugal spark-advance curve that waits until 5200 rpm to deliver full advance. Exhaust timing has been shifted for more overlap, resulting in a natural EGR (or incoming-charge dilution by spent exhaust gases) for NOx control. A large thermal reactor plenum-type exhaust manifold is new for 1975 for external combustion of pollutants. To feed it with substantial volumes of oxygen, the air pump drive ratio has been geared up. This all combines to sap 12 to 15 hp from the little engine, in which the only change beneficial to power output is a compression ratio bumped from 8.5 to 9.0 to one.Compounding this decline in engine-room productivity is the car’s escalating weight. With a wheelbase longer by 1.4 inches and overall length stretched 1.7 inches, curb weight has increased by 200 pounds since last year. It’s the same obesity that has crept up on most domestic machinery. In the Corolla, the result is a 10-percent weight gain with a softer engine to pull it down the road. Quarter-mile times are off a full second from the SR-5 we tested two years ago, and that makes the Corolla fair game for anything on wheels. You can almost stomach that slowdown if you don’t let yourself notice the SR-5’s five-speed transmission. The basic pleasure of a car like this is meant to be mechanical harmony: an eager power-generator up front matched perfectly to its task by an able driver and their trusty gearbox. The tight ratios of a five-speed are essential to smoothly slice off speed while spiraling down entrance ramps, and with such a small motor you need a constant handful of gears on the exit side to keep the revolutions up for whipping into the straights. But none of this clicks together if the engine is as soft as the ’75 Corolla’s. When you nail it, first gear is reasonably energetic, but as you slide the shifter into second, the fun starts to fade. Above 40, it takes so long for the engine to crawl up its rev range that you aren’t snicking through the gears any more but just sitting back waiting—and hoping to squeeze out a few more rpm. The sagging acceleration curve effectively deflates the Co­rolla’s aggressive character. It’s no longer the scrappy pocket rocket that used to love being driven flat-out. Now it’s a young adult, complete with a few correspondingly more mature apti­tudes. Instead of the old bouncy SR-5 ride, the Corolla now rolls down the freeway with poise. Its response over bumps and dips is smooth and supple—good enough to comfort for­mer owners of big American cars through the trauma of switching to compact transportation. In fact, the Corolla SR-5 now has the capable handling that was the single failing of earlier models. Track width is up two inches in front and 1.6 inches in the rear, and the tires are upgraded one size to 185/70HR-13s. It’s enough to make the Corolla SR-5 the best-handling Toyota ever. Since there is no grinding understeer at the limit (as there is in the Celica), steering effort needed is moderate. You can pitch the SR-5 into a tight bend, get way over your head, let the tail swing wide and hold it there with your foot flat on the throttle. The car hangs on like a racer, its body roll well in check. Since there is plenty of front tire grip left in reserve, you can dive toward the inside for a quick pass if necessary. If the bend is tight enough, inside rear wheel spin limits forward progress to an extent, but this is nowhere near the speed limiter it was in the old narrow-tire Corolla. So if you enter this SR-5 exclu­sively as a downhill racer where tire-smoking torque is not a factor, you should have an even shot at the competition. Part of your unfair advantage will come with late-braking techniques. It’s an easy edge to develop because the Corolla has the finest stopping equipment in its class. Proportioning is adjusted so that the front tires lock first—as they should—and pedal feel through the vacuum boost system is first rate. Good brakes are not only a valuable speed advantage but a comforting safety device as well. If you jump into a turn really over your head, the front disc/rear drum system will haul you down without twitching the tail around or catapulting you off into the hostile wilderness. The blend of performance attributes you get in this new Corolla SR-5—soft acceleration but great handling and brak­ing—means it is no longer the vibrant street-racer it once was. The engine is not a willing partner when you feel like a hard run. But if you work hard and guide the car with a deft hand, keeping the revs in the high range and not losing an ounce of speed to excessive tire scrub or premature braking, the Corol­la can be quick on a twisty road. It’s low on cheap thrills when you stand on the gas, but it can still deliver fun. At least it’s a good deal easier to live with when your needs are strictly transportation. The new body carries its five-mph bumpers without the tacked-on look of last year’s cars, and frivolous trim has been stripped away, leaving the well-propor­tioned body clean and functional. Even the accent items have been given a purpose: The black mesh hood vent exhausts heat from the engine compartment while similar grilles on each rear fender duct interior air out of the car. If you’re after the feisty secret-racer image the SR-5 used to signify, the 1975 edition will not be your kind of car.The real justification for the new body, according to Toyota, is a roomier interior. But the gains are small: an extra inch of elbowroom front and rear, and 1.5 inches of additional front headroom. The latter comes largely through the use of a molded headliner, which unfortunately adds no rear head­room over last year’s car. Somehow, the product planners in Japan also forgot about a hatchback body style for the Corol­la, which may turn out to have been a big mistake in today’s highly competitive little-car market. The instrument panel may be the nicest part of the Corolla package. Toyota has always been the master of the plastic interior. There is no pretense: no attempt to emulate mahogany, engine-turned aluminum or sewn leather. Just straightforward molded plastic. There are no phony seams to waver out of alignment or fake stitching to challenge your detection. From the steering wheel forward, every contour is smoothly cloaked in a molded skin. When automo­tive plastic finally becomes respectable, the SR-5 will be eligible for an industrial design award. Furthermore, the panel is efficient to use. The driver is clearly given top priori­ty: an array of seven dials sweeps be­fore you with the information needed to keep all systems on line. Nothing is hid­den behind the wheel rim, and crucial speed and engine rpm readouts lie directly ahead. Controls are moved off the panel, so you operate the wipers, wind­shield washer and headlights from fin­gertip stalks on the steering column. More Corolla Reviews From the ArchiveAll of this is proof of the careful thought lavished on the new Corolla to make it a good transportation device­—and, of course, primary evidence of the Longer, Lower, Wider philosophy. The LLW reasoning admittedly works well if you focus on the basic Corolla. It starts out as America’s least expensive auto­mobile and also enjoys the distinction of 24-mpg fuel economy (in the Car and Driver Mileage Cycle). Once that bottom line is nailed down, you can afford to yield to the pressures of the LLW theory, which serves to flesh out what might otherwise be stark transport. It does so at a price, though: less fuel economy, compactness and performance.If you’re after the feisty secret-racer image the SR-5 signifies, however, LLW just won’t do. If more room is the plan, there are efficient front-wheel-drive packages. If creeping weight is a prob­lem, there are plastic/aluminum radia­tors, alloy engine blocks, and whole new families of high-strength materials. If old engine designs resist emissions control, there are stratified-charge approaches and Mazda’s rotary record of annual emissions cuts along with performance boosts. Technology, not the LLW stra­tagem, is the ultimate salvation of per­formance cars like the SR-5. SpecificationsSpecifications
1975 Toyota Corolla SR-5Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $3680/$4065Options: air conditioning, $385
ENGINE
inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 97 in3, 1588 cm3Power: 75 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 83 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 9.0-in disc/9.0-in discTires: Bridgestone RD-105185/70HR-13
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 93.3 inLength: 165.2 inWidth: 65.0 inHeight: 53.5 inCurb Weight: 2380 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.960 mph: 13.9 sec1/4-Mile: 19.4 sec @ 69 mph90 mph: 51.0 secTop Speed (observed): 90 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 194 ftRoadholding: 0.85 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the May/June issue of Car and Driver.Engine downsizing in the name of fuel efficiency has been the order of the day for some time, and the Porsche Cayenne S has not been immune to this trend. The burly 4.8-liter V-8 it once offered was displaced by a twin-turbo 3.6-liter V-6 partway through the second generation, and the shrinkage continued with a twin-turbo 2.9-liter V-6 when the third-gen 2019 Cayenne S debuted. Power nevertheless ratcheted up during this progression (as did combined fuel economy), but the S moniker steadily lost mojo and meaning along the way.The 2024 Cayenne S brings all of that to a halt with the return of a V-8. This time it’s a twin- turbo 4.0-liter, a less powerful version of the Cayenne Turbo E-Hybrid and GT’s V-8, yet it makes a still-hefty 468 horsepower and 442 pound-feet of torque. That makes this Cayenne S the most powerful to date. But with a rating of 17 mpg combined (15 city/21 highway), it’s also the thirstiest—a bit of EPA backsliding that Porsche found tolerable by planning various E-Hybrid range improvements elsewhere in the Cayenne cavalcade.Our inner child revels in the engine change as the swole V-8 emits the guttural burble and vibratory brap that typically come hours after one consumes the vegetable juice of the same name. The car busts ass at the track too, racing to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds, blasting to 100 mph in 10 seconds, and powering through the quarter-mile in 12.4 seconds at 111 mph. Sound registers at 41 decibels at an entertainingly lumpy idle before rising to 77 decibels at full beans and then fading to a 65-decibel background hush during highway cruising, which should allow wee ones to sleep in the back.HIGHS: V-8 sound and fury, improved ride even on 22s, sleeker design. LOWS: V-8 thirst, interior collects fingerprints, coupes should have two doors.VERDICT: A small hit to fuel economy pays dividends everywhere else.The Cayenne also rides more smoothly than before, even though the basic layout of the suspension is unchanged. Porsche’s new dual-adjustable adaptive dampers are standard on even the base model, and 20-inch wheels are the smallest fitment. The bigger news pertains to the larger outer diameter of all Cayenne tires, which now stand approximately 31 inches tall instead of 30 inches. For any given wheel-and-tire combination, raising the aspect ratio increases the sidewall height to improve road isolation, but this also allows for lower tire pressure, which increases the taller sidewall’s ride benefit. Our Cayenne S rolled on optional 22-inch wheels, but the effects of the extra sidewall, lower tire pressure, and optional air springs meant there was no comfort penalty. Road isolation was unexpectedly competent, as the tires smoothed over most cracks as if they were troweling grout into the joints. These were Pirelli P Zero Corsa PZC4 gumballs that were previously kept to the Turbo GT, but they’re now on the S options sheet for just $630 if you’ve already spec’d the 22s. This track-ready rubber delivered 1.03 g’s of lateral stick for our 5108-pound SUV, and it teams up with the bigger front and rear brakes (made possible by the standard 20s) to deliver panic stops of just 152 feet from 70 mph and 310 feet from 100 mph. The fun won’t last long on account of the PZC4s’ paltry 80 treadwear rating, but once they’re used up, you can revert to the standard P Zero PZ4 tires.More on the CayenneAll of the above comes as part of a mid-cycle facelift that gives all new Cayennes updated front and rear end caps that bring sleek Taycan design language to the head- and taillamps. The structural sheetmetal is all carryover, but Porsche has subtly altered the shape of the hatch frame and the glass within it. In our Coupe, the standard panoramic glass roof gracefully blends into the reshaped hatch glass as if it were one continuous piece, with the spoiler neatly concealing the break at the upper hinge point. The result is a very attractive look we couldn’t appreciate during an earlier drive of a camouflaged prototype.The Taycan influences continue inside, where a curved instrument display sits next to a center touchscreen, which sits next to a piece of trim or an optional screen for the passenger. Dedicated physical climate controls and hand-adjustable HVAC vents are two welcome changes. The prominent central touchscreen is largely the home of the infotainment system, with only lesser-used vehicle settings buried within. For a touchscreen-based setup, it strikes a good balance, but the 911 may represent a better mix of new and old thinking. On the other hand, this Cayenne has a V-8. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Porsche Cayenne S CoupeVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $103,750/$133,720Options: Black/Bordeaux red leather seat and interior trim, $4180; Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control, $3590; Sport exhaust system with dark bronze tailpipes), $3220; 22-inch SportDesign Wheels, $3180; Arctic Grey paint, $3150; adaptive air suspension, $2390; 18-way adaptive front sport seats with memory, $1710; surround view with active parking, $1620; Porsche Torque Vectoring Plus, $1500; adaptive cruise control, $1420; rear axle steering, $1280; Exclusive Design taillights, $1140; ultra-high performance tires; $630; front and rear heated seats, $530; ambient lightning, $430
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 468 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 442 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 16.1-in vented disc/14.1-in vented discPirelli P Zero Corsa PZC4F: 285/40R-22 (110Y) Extra Load NC0R: 315/35R-22 (111Y) Extra Load NC0
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 114.0 inLength: 194.1 inWidth: 78.6 inHeight: 66.1 inCurb Weight: 5108 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.9 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4-Mile: 12.4 sec @ 111 mph130 mph: 18.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.5 secTop Speed (mfr claim): 169 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 152 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 310 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.03 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/15/21 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

From the June 1989 issue of Car and Driver.The lap of luxury is especially cushy in Eagle’s latest Premier ES, the Limited. No bad thing, because the ES—new last year—remains one of the best-behaved sedans on the road. Alas, due to the ac­claim heaped upon Ford’s Taurus/Sable and the rapture piled high onto the road­puckering Taurus SHO, the Premier ES remains an underground delight buried in the sales charts. The Limited wears standard ES bodywork covered exclu­sively in startling ultrawhite, putting on a far-flashier show. This Eagle also takes heart from mechanical and interior refinements that enhance its natural-born coordination, livability, and likability.Likability figures high in the ES’s ris­ing stock here at C/D. We find everybody voicing, almost word for word, the same first thought: “I like it.” We like its steering, tracking, han­dling, ride, comfort, and all-around per­formance. We like Ford’s Taurus and Sa­ble, too, but their quirks are beginning to nip away at their likability. Their steering feels numb and artificial. They don’t brake with silky linearity. Their engines need smoothing—especially at high rpm. Ford had its better idea—modern aerosedans—first among domestic mak­ers, but amid record profits it’s been slow to update its brainchildren. Car and DriverThe boxy Premier looks less futuristic than the oval Fords (though it sports a comparable drag figure). It also checks in as something of a half-breed orphan. Created by Renault and American Mo­tors, developed in Europe and America, and built in Canada, the Eagle was adopt­ed by Chrysler when it bought out the Franco-American partnership. In a lucky twist, the Premier turned out to be by far the best sedan among Chrysler’s other­wise ordinary four-doors. Chrysler realized its luck, and now it’s made the ES more noteworthy. Certainly the exterior has become more noticeable. In one fell swoop of paint and plastics, the ES comes up whit­er than midday sun in the Sahara. Follow­ing the monochromatic trend set by AMG, Germany’s speed king among Mercedes tuners, Eagle even finishes the ES’s alloy wheels in white. Their starkness highlights an increase in diameter from fourteen to fifteen inches. The wheel width remains 6.0 inches, but this ES Limited’s wheel wells pack 205/60HR-15 Goodyear Eagle GT+4s. Compared with the regular ES’s 205/70HR-14 Eagle GT+4s, the slim 60-series 205s—still good for low drag and good tracking­—squat down for added responsiveness. These lower-profile Eagles fly right: cor­nering power soars from 0.75 to 0.81 g, yet without the flap of high drama. Noth­ing to it. Amazingly, the compliant ride provided by the ES’s cunningly beefed front coil-sprung struts, rear torsion-bar-­supported trailing arms, and anti-roll bars reveals an absence of added harshness but improved bump absorption. Car and DriverPotential customers who walked out of Eagle showrooms without buying a Pre­mier often cited the lack of leather uphol­stery. We prefer cloth for hard driving (no slippery sliding, and it’s considerably comfier when hot or cold), but leather now comes standard in the Limited—and it looks absolutely great. Not so the Eagle’s plastic dash and console. They glare inexpensively amid the mostly classy fitting—classy, but smooched with the French kiss of Gallic design. The instrument layout is fine, the seats facing it are roomy and receptive, and patience will one day allow your fin­gers to tamper effectively with the con­trol pods perched behind the wheel. But you’ll never forget that you’re in an angle-edged, Franco-filed interior. More Eagle Reviews From the ArchiveThe ES’s Renault-built 3.0-liter V-6, humming through a four-speed auto­matic transmission wisely revised for smoother shifting, makes 150 hp. That’s obviously not enough to imitate the Yamaha-built, 220-hp SHO V-6. The Ea­gle runs from 0 to 60 mph in 9.5 seconds, nearly three seconds slower than the Taurus SHO. Due to lesser Eagles’ lesser tires, a top-speed cutoff steps in abruptly at 109 mph. (Remembering the old ES’s 126-mph top end, our Doctor Dragway, Mr. Bissoon-Dath, says the new model’s initials must stand for “Extra Speed” Limited.) Braking feel remains good. Thanks to better balance, stops from 70 mph shrink from 218 to 195 feet. We’d be happier, of course, if the stops were shorter still.The Taurus SHO, potent and hard­-edged, and the ES Limited, polished and refined, wear prices within a grand or two of each other. Each offers clear virtues, confusing our instincts. But if the choice were between their less expensive sib­lings, the Premier ES and the Taurus LX, we might be inclined to chance the wings of a promising Eagle rather than the horns of a half-bullish Ford. SpecificationsSpecifications
1989 Eagle Premier ES LimitedVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $19,181/$19,631
ENGINESOHC V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 182 in3, 2975 cm3Power: 150 hp @ 5000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.0 inLength: 192.8 inCurb Weight: 3156 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.5 sec1/4-Mile: 17.2 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 28.1 secTop Speed: 109 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Much has been said about the death and rebirth of the Toyota Land Cruiser, which left the U.S. market after the 2020–21 Heritage Edition. But it was all a ruse, a necessary step in a model realignment that Toyota’s North American arm had planned all along. Instead of moving in lockstep with the rest of the world to the new 300-series Cruiser chassis, Toyota Motor North America hit pause and waited until the closely related 250-series chassis was ready. From what we now know and have experienced, the collective internet hand-wringing over the move to the so-called Land Cruiser Prado configuration (as it is known worldwide) is woefully misplaced. The new 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser is the best Land Cruiser in years because of this change.Massively Downsized PricesFor proof, all you need do is look at the Lexus LX600, a bloated and expensive six-figure behemoth (the base model you’ll never see is $93,915; all other trims exceed $100,000) that is the Lexus interpretation of the global 300-series Land Cruiser. A similar fate would have defined the Land Cruiser if it had adopted the 300-series and succeeded a model that already had a base price of $87,030 back in 2021. Instead, the 2024 Land Cruiser represents a change the faithful have been demanding. It has tidier dimensions and an attainable price of just $57,345 for the base 1958 model (so-named for the nameplate’s North American debut year), while the nicely equipped volume-selling Land Cruiser grade is a reasonable $63,345. The First Edition, a limited-time-only model with exclusive bits, will set eager beavers back $76,345.But is it really a Land Cruiser? Absolutely, not least because it, the LX600, and the Lexus GX are all built on the same TNGA-F chassis. And when we say same, we mean the same. The trio all share a wheelbase of 112.2 inches. Their control arm front and live axle located by four link and panhard rear suspension layouts match, and their track widths differ by mere tenths of an inch due to styling- and tire clearance-driven variations in wheel offset, not some underlying mechanical difference. All of them have full-time four-wheel drive with a lockable Torsen center differential that essentially turns pavement-friendly all-wheel drive into off-road-ready four-wheel drive at the press of a button. Basically, their differences have more to do with the powertrains within and the body above than the chassis below.Downsized but RightsizedAmong the three, the Land Cruiser is by far the shortest from nose to tail, with a 193.8-inch length that is 6.8 inches stubbier than the LX and 3.3 inches shorter than the GX. Much of this is due to a shorter front overhang, which delivers an approach angle of 32 degrees instead of the GX’s middling 26 degrees. Meanwhile, the LX scores a pitiful 21 degrees that precludes it from further mention.Measuring 77.9 inches wide, the Land Cruiser closely parallels the others. But the TLC and GX share a basic 250-series body styling that is markedly narrower than the LX/300-series at the doors, which makes for easier entry in parking lots and garages. Their hoods and front fenders are sculpted to offer better forward visibility, and the door side glass is cut low to enhance the downward view to the side. Combine this with an upright driving position, and you get a commanding view of road and trail alike, with enough head clearance inside to keep your pith helmet on, if that’s your jam.The Land Cruiser is strictly a two-row, five-passenger machine. That’s not a consequence of moving to the 250-series body, because you can get a three-row GX. Aside from general cost reduction and the desire to appeal to active off-roaders, there’s a practical reason that’s surprisingly related to what’s under the hood.Torquiest and Most Efficient Land CruiserThe Land Cruiser does not use the twin-turbocharged 3.4-liter V-6 found in the LX and GX, nor does it employ their 10-speed automatic. Instead, it’s powered by Toyota’s i-Force Max hybrid powertrain, consisting of a turbocharged 2.4-liter inline-four with a potent electric motor sandwiched between it and a conventional eight-speed automatic. A Tacoma TRD Off-Road with the 278-hp turbo four sans electric boost impressed us mightily, but the added Max e-motor cranks the Cruiser’s output up to 326 horsepower and 465 pound-feet—the latter representing more torque than any prior North American Land Cruiser. It’s the same engine that powers the TRD Pro and Trailhunter Tacomas, and the abundant torque was on full display as we barreled up freeway off-ramps or sauntered up steep off-road climbs that might’ve needed the torque multiplication of low range in prior years but didn’t here.If you’re thinking the i-Force Max makes the new Cruiser some kind of ersatz Prius, think again. The Max is not like a two-motor Toyota hybrid designed to maximize fuel economy. Instead, it’s engineered to bolster output. That said, fuel economy will improve any time you can recapture energy while slowing and redeploy it later because the electric motor’s supplemental power is paid out even if you’re taking it easy. As a result, the new Land Cruiser is EPA rated to deliver 23 mpg combined (22 city/25 highway), a massive 64 percent improvement over the old 5.7-liter V-8’s 14 mpg combined rating.We expect the new Cruiser to be a few tenths behind the 6.2-second 60-mph acceleration time we measured on the GX550 because the GX’s output pips it with 349 horses and 479 pound-feet—and that’s with the GX being about 100 pounds heavier. The powertrain and other differences do take a bite out of maximum towing capacity, however, where the comparatively fleeting effects of the hybrid system limits towing to 6000 pounds on the Cruiser, while the pure internal-combustion GX can manage nearly 9100 pounds.All of this links back to why the Land Cruiser doesn’t have a third row and isn’t likely to grow one unless Toyota fits a different engine. The nickel-metal hydride battery pack that collects and redeploys energy is mounted under the cargo floor. The load floor is a couple of inches higher than a GX’s as a result, and cargo space behind the rear seat is down accordingly. The hybrid system does allow for a 2400-watt 120-volt outlet back there, though, while the GX’s tops out at 400 watts.Running Gear Differences Favor ModdingEven the cheapest 1958 model has an electronically controlled rear differential lock, Downhill Assist, and Crawl Control, items that are only available on the Overtrail version of the GX. All Cruisers likewise roll on standard 18-inch wheels and tires with a healthy amount of sidewall. The 1958 wears 245/70R-18 tires that stand some 32 inches tall, while the Land Cruiser and First Edition grades have 265/70R-18 tires that amount to 33 inches tall. You can get 20-inch rolling stock on the Land Cruiser grade if you must, but intentionally taking away sidewall and paying $1240 for the privilege seems out of character here. Compared to the GX, certain suspension differences put the Land Cruiser in a favorable light if you squint hard enough. The dampers on the $69,250 GX550 Overtrail (the closest parallel to the $63,345 Land Cruiser) are fancy Adaptive Variable Suspension (AVS) units, whereas the Land Cruiser uses simple passive dampers. The Cruiser’s ride is generally well composed on this hardware, yet those looking to mod their Cruiser’s suspension won’t waste money by tossing them aside (and won’t have AVS malfunction lights to deal with).Likewise, the Overtrail’s impressive E-KDSS anti-roll bar defeat mechanism system doesn’t appear on the Land Cruiser, which uses a push-button front anti-roll bar disconnect instead. Standard on the Land Cruiser and First Edition models but not available on the 1958, it’s a simpler and potentially more robust alternative that absolutely keeps the price down. Prior KDSS systems always came with concerns over how much of a lift kit they could tolerate, but that’s not an issue here. What this change means for maximum articulation isn’t yet clear, but we will measure that as soon as we get one for a full workup.Interior DifferencesInside, the Land Cruiser’s dash and driver environs are made of slightly less sumptuous materials than the GX’s, but they still look attractive. Most of the switchgear is similar in location and operation, but everything is styled and positioned slightly differently—this is not parts-bin stuff. The main infotainment screen on the Land Cruiser and First Edition trims measures 12.3 inches (1958 gets an 8.0-inch screen) and has less screen height than the GX’s 14.0-inch setup, but the viewable area for things like maps and smartphone mirroring is essentially the same. In fact, the reduced screen space is a boon for the Land Cruiser, whose climate controls are physical buttons and knobs set below the air vents instead of the largely virtual GX switchgear that occupies the lower edge of the Lexus’s screen.The Land Cruiser has six USB ports to the GX’s four, and the Cruiser and First Edition grades have dual-color fog lights (switchable between white and amber) instead of the single-hue ones, power tilt and telescopic steering instead of manual, and driver’s seat memory. The GX Overtrail doesn’t get that stuff unless you spring for the far more expensive Overtrail+. The 1958 Land Cruiser doesn’t have those upgrades either, but that’s to be expected for a base model with manual cloth seats (that are quite comfortable, by the way.)More on the Land CruiserIn short, the Land Cruiser isn’t as sumptuous as the GX, but its tidier dimensions and more focused hardware equate to more off-road potential and an attainable price. First owners are far more likely to use it as intended because it didn’t cost an arm and a leg to start with. That was, after all, the whole point of reconstituting the Land Cruiser, which arguably lost the plot years ago. The reset represented by the 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser sets things right. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Toyota Land CruiserVehicle Type: front-engine, mid-motor, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Land Cruiser 1958, $57,345; Land Cruiser, $63,345; First Edition, $76,345
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 278 hp, 317 lb-ft + AC motor, 48 hp, 184 lb-ft (combined output: 326 hp, 465 lb-ft; 1.4 nickel-metal hydride battery pack [C/D est])Transmission: 8-speed automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 193.8 inWidth: 77.9 inHeight: 76.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 59/50 ft3Cargo Volume: 38 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5450 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.1 secTop Speed: 105 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/22/25 mpgDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More