Car Reviews

By all accounts, Mini’s new fourth-generation 2025 Cooper hatchback should feel like an entirely different vehicle than last year’s model. Mini’s ground-up redesign puts the focus on refinement and modernity—a risky endeavor considering how delightful the previous-generation Cooper was. After spending time hustling a two-door Cooper S through the mountains in New Mexico and Colorado, we walked away impressed with what’s new (and pleasantly surprised by all that’s been retained) in the makeover.Our test route was part of the first leg of Mini’s biennial Mini Takes the States road rally event, in which thousands of owners show up to geek out over their cars and cover hundreds of miles per day enjoying scenic views and good driving roads. The cult following the Cooper has cultivated since its 2002 rebirth is still in full effect. Even with a host of changes, the new Cooper S is still the nimble, punchy little rascal it ought to be. Handling is frisky, and the steering is responsive enough that it borders on darty. The turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four under the hood pumps out only 201 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque, but in this diminutive package it feels like more. The four-pot revs freely, and even at higher speeds, there’s plenty of torque to keep the Cooper S pulling toward triple-digit speeds. Mini says 60 mph will arrive in 6.3 seconds; we think it’ll do it in a little less than that. The exhaust emits a nice little burble when driving in the normal Core driving mode, but switch it into the Go-Kart mode (a nod to its handling), and it sounds a little ruder. All models come with a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic—that’s right, there’s no manual option—and it downshifts quickly when you put your foot down to pull out for a passing maneuver. There are no paddle shifters here, though, which seems like an oversight in this sporty variant.Previous-Gen Cooper S ReviewsStep on the brakes and you’ll feel an immediate bite, followed by a reassuring linearity as you sink your foot farther. High-speed stability is mostly good, although we did feel an occasional rear-end wiggle when encountering midcorner bumps while hustling the Cooper S over some particularly twisty pavement. At a more leisurely pace, the Cooper S has a planted feel that belies its small footprint. Here, you can truly appreciate the extra refinement that went into the new model. The cabin is hushed at highway speeds, and there’s less chrome and more textiles throughout the design, lending it a more upscale vibe. There’s plenty of whimsy too, which is expected from Mini. For example, the fabric-covered dash panels are backlit and project an ambient-lighting pattern at night. We drove a top-spec Iconic model with the Classic appearance package. At $37,295, our Sunny Side Yellow Cooper S came with plenty of desirable options, including a Harman/Kardon stereo system, adaptive cruise control, 18-inch wheels with summer tires, dual-zone automatic climate control, heated front seats and steering wheel, a wireless smartphone charging pad, parking sensors, in-dash navigation, and a dual-pane sunroof.MiniA circular infotainment display resides in the middle of the dashboard and features a virtual canine assistant called Spike. The display itself is a high-resolution OLED panel, and it looks quite fetching. The software, however, needs a little more time to cook. We noticed some intermittent lag throughout our day with the Cooper S; we also found the climate control’s temperature adjustments to be fussy and difficult to adjust, both for the driver and passenger. Luckily, Mini says the system is capable of accepting over-the-air updates, which in theory gives the company’s software team a chance to address such issues. Modernization can inadvertently lead to a loss of character, but Mini has carefully balanced the improvements here to keep the Cooper a Cooper. Being among the throngs of Mini enthusiasts while sampling the new one only served to underscore the importance of getting the new one just right.MiniSpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Mini Cooper SVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base: S Signature, $33,195; S Signature Plus, $35,595; S Iconic, $37,295
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1998 cm3Power: 201 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 221 lb-ft @ 1450 rpm
TRANSMISSION
7-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 98.2 inLength: 152.6 inWidth: 68. 7 inHeight: 56.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 47–49/32 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 34/9 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.0 secTop Speed: 130–150 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 32/28/39 mpgDrew Dorian is a lifelong car enthusiast who has also held a wide variety of consumer-focused positions throughout his career, ranging from financial counselor to auto salesperson. He has dreamed of becoming a Car and Driver editor since he was 11 years old—a dream that was realized when he joined the staff in April 2016. He’s a born-and-raised Michigander and learned to drive on a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am. His automotive interests run the gamut from convertibles and camper vans to sports cars and luxury SUVs.       More

From the April 1983 issue of Car and Driver.As you drive beneath the raised gate and into Ferrari’s Maranello compound, Enzo Ferrari’s office sits immediately to the left. The room is large but not enormous, furnished sparingly, and painted a dark shade of grayish blue. To the right of the wide desk, carefully placed among other mementos, is a picture of Gilles Villeneuve, and high above, indi­vidual lights bathe the room softly like the God-rays that highlight fields of grain beneath towering thunderheads. To the left of the desk, the rear door opens and quickly Enzo Ferrari is in the room, shaking hands with the U.S. press expeditionary force that has come to sample his new quattrovalvole engine. Ferrari’s hand is warm and firm, 84 years old. In an obviously good humor, he leads us through a question-and-answer session lengthier than his assistants have anticipated. His answers are sharp and wary, his wit as bright and shiny as the light haloing through his white hair. His phone jangles. The afternoon is waning and Mauro Forghieri is calling with re­sults of F1 testing in France. Ferrari re­moves his dark glasses and puts on a pair for reading, and begins to take notes with a fine-tipped marker on a lined pad. His handwriting is small and fluid. His questions are regular and pointed. For the moment we have been forgotten. Ferrari thanks Forghieri, hangs up, and motions for the book he will autograph for us. He will leave us free to have dinner with his right-hand man. He knows his meeting with us has had remarkable impact. Stars have a way of always knowing things like that.Over dinner, Eugenio Alzati, Ferrari direttore generale, is afire with enthusiasm. A small, trim, smiling man with dancing brown eyes, Alzati is telling our table that a Car and Driver test of the Mondial (which was a genuine stone in its original, underpowered configuration, need­ing 9.3 seconds to reach 60 mph) was responsible for the decision to go ahead with the quattrovalvole engine. Ferrari, as the story goes, called Alzati into his of­fice, waved a copy of our November ’81 issue around (accompanied by appro­priate invectives), flung it across his desk, and declared that something had to be done. (To be honest, Road & Track, which also took issue with the Mondial’s performance, is also given credit for Ferrari’s leap into action.) The four-valve Ferrari engine proba­bly would have happened anyway. Even since the company’s move under the mighty wing of Fiat for better or for worse, the powers that be at Ferrari have never entirely lost sight of that fi­nal necessary ingredient called speed. And what better way to get more speed than by adding sixteen additional valves to Ferrari’s proven, electronically fuel­-injected, double-overhead-cam V-8s? Says C/D technical editor Csaba Csere: “The basic advantage or four­-valve heads is that they breathe better than two-valve heads. It isn’t because of valve area per se, it’s because of curtain area, which is the mathematical product of the perimeter of the valve and the valve lift. Curtain area is significant even at relatively low valve lifts, so it’s not entirely a racing phenomenon. Be­cause a four-valve engine has very good breathing inherently, you don’t have to use wild camshaft timing to get good flow at high rpm, so you can produce an engine that has a very broad power band, with good low-end and midrange power. Four valves also allow placing the spark plug in the center of the combustion chamber, which is very desir­able for rapid combustion because it shortens the maximum distance the flame has to travel to reach the edges of the chamber. Using four valves also al­lows a shallower chamber with less of a peak in it than is possible with two larg­er valves, again promoting faster, more even burning. And four valves create lots of good turbulence—with airflow coming from two sources, there’s lots of intermixing—which contributes to rapid combustion. Basically, for a street car, four valves have no disadvantages. They’re better for power at all speeds, for emissions, for fuel economy, and octane requirements. Of course they do cost more money because of their complication.” All of which sounds good and runs better. Loosed on the Fiorano test track, the American-specification four-valve Mondials and 308s we set foot to were transformed by their newfound energy. Their throttles proved just as effective in steering the cars as their steering wheels. Less throttle? Big understeer. More throttle? Big oversteer. The Mondial in particular had a tendency to swap pendulum-like between push and loose, its bulky, mid-engine guise even more handling-sensitive than the small­er 308’s. This is the Mondial’s price for its added bulk and its most modest, child-sized back seats. More Ferrari’s From the ArchiveAs to whether Enzo Ferrari will be happy after we get a chance to run a full set of instrumented tests on the new quattrovalvole Mondial, we can only wait and see. We can say already that the en­gines are a complete success in feel, very full of willing and eye-opening performance. Tell us again about how Enzo Ferrari is too old to know what he’s doing. Ha! And mark our words, the Japanese will be hot on his tail with a whole bundle of four-valve technology in the coming years. But Ferrari has beat them to the punch: His quattrovalvole will hit the American market first.SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Ferrari Mondial QuattrovalvoleVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICEAs Tested: $70,000 (est.)
ENGINEDOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 179 in3, 2927 cm3Power: 227 hp @ 6600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 184.3 inCurb Weight: 3550 lb 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the July/August 2024 issue of Car and Driver.Pushing 93 mph on a broken and battered trail through a northern Michigan forest should be a terrifying experience. Trees flash by. Wildlife peers through the dense growth. One midcorner miscalculation could trigger an epic rally-style barrel roll. Yet blurring the scenery in a 2024 Can-Am Maverick R isn’t a big deal.The Maverick R’s high-speed off-road capability starts with beefy suspension arms and links. Big suspension packages aren’t uncommon in this high-strung segment, but what sets the Maverick R apart are the extra-tall front knuckles and spider-leg upper control arms that meet above the tire. With the upper and lower ball joints in line, considerable deviations in the scrub radius during vertical motions are virtually removed. The setup also eliminates massive camber changes during full compression, keeping the tires flat on the ground. Topping it off are Fox Live Valve adaptive dampers, part of an X-RS package, that adjust compression and rebound damping on the fly. With a terrain-gobbling amount of suspension travel—25.0 inches in front, 26.0 in the rear—the enormous dampers brush off impacts with any bump, hump, or jump in their path. Fully compress the front end, and the upper control arms peek through the bodywork like a Whac-a-Mole.Not long ago, these machines were prone to rollovers, but the Maverick R never threatens to go belly up. Being nearly as wide as a Ford Ranger Raptor helps, but the ability to firm up the outside dampers during lateral loads keeps the body surprisingly flat.The Maverick R’s driving force is a turbocharged 1.0-liter inline-three huffing 21.0 psi of boost. Its 240 horsepower makes it one of the most power-dense engines you can buy off a showroom floor. Whereas belt-driven continuously variable transmissions are the norm in side-by-sides, the Maverick R bangs off gears through a seven-speed dual-clutch transaxle. The automatic gearbox does an outstanding job on its own, and paddle shifters add a level of engagement uncommon in the segment.The Maverick R reaches 60 mph in 4.2 seconds on pavement and 5.1 in the dirt. While the suspension might be the Maverick’s high point, the engine’s Sport+ mode contains the coolest bit of tech: Advanced Response Technology (ART), otherwise known as anti-lag. With ART active at idle, the turbo roars like a taxiing jet plane. The engine sounds broken during off-throttle moments. That’s just the center cylinder shut down and the ignition timing changed to keep the turbo spooled and the boost at the ready. And it’s no gimmick. Typically, turbocharged engines are sluggish during our 5-to-60-mph rolling-start test. Not the Maverick’s. Its 4.4-second showing is just 0.2 slower than its sprint to 60 mph. Out on the trail, the acceleration is relentless. The rear differential is always locked, enabling huge powerslides. In the four-wheel-drive Trail Active mode, the automatic front-axle engagement quickly reacts, sending torque to the front wheels to rocket you out of turns. The turbo three, though, is comically inefficient. Over 200 miles of good times, we averaged just 8 mpg.The Maverick R X-RS isn’t just for high-speed antics. Its low-range gearing, electronically locking front differential, beadlock-capable wheels, and 17.0 inches of ground clearance make it perfect for rock climbing. The Maverick R starts at $36,484, and the X-RS with adaptive dampers commands $45,284. That doesn’t include a windshield or even speakers connected to the 10.3-inch touchscreen. It will, however, provide the most entertaining off-road experience we know of on four wheels.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Can-Am Maverick RVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door buggy
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $36,484/$45,284
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 61 in3, 999 cm3Power: 240 hp @ 8000 rpmTorque: 170 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION7-speed dual-clutch automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.0 inLength: 140.0 inWidth: 78.1 inHeight: 71.5 inCurb Weight: 2375 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS (PAVEMENT/DIRT)
60 mph: 4.2/5.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.4/14.1 sec @ 93/91 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4/5.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 93 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 180/233 ft 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 8 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDavid Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More

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

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

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

It can be tough when you have a world-famous sibling. Just ask Jeb Bush. At Hyundai, the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 6 have been basking in the limelight; together they’ve garnered back-to-back EV of the Year wins, among other accolades. Other Hyundai EVs haven’t been so lucky. The now-defunct and just-plain Ioniq EV never got the same attention—proving it doesn’t always pay to be first—nor has the battery-powered Kona been elevated to celebrity status. The Kona Electric arrived for 2019, one year after the gas-engine subcompact SUV version joined the lineup, but buyers remained focused on the more traditional one. For 2024, the Kona—both versions—enters its second generation. It gets a new look and other upgrades, but we’re still not predicting that the Kona Electric will become a marquee name among EVs.Hyundai has has amped up the styling for both the gas and electric versions. At the front is a blanked-off fascia topped by a full-width light bar, a flourish echoed at the rear. Beyond the new look, the other major change is a bigger footprint, as the new Kona is larger than before in length (ICE Kona, 5.7 inches; Kona Electric, 5.9 inches), width (1.0 inch), and wheelbase (2.3 inches). It goes from being among the smallest of its ilk to the largest.HIGHS: Newly accommodating cabin, agreeable dynamics, solid range.One result is that the new Kona is much roomier than before. The back seat adds 3.0 inches of legroom, and passengers enjoy a flat floor, decent headroom, and seats with a comfortable H-point. Narrow door openings limit access however. The cargo hold has grown too, by seven cubic feet.The cabin now boasts side-by-side 12.3-inch digital displays, just like Hyundai’s more expensive models. The switchgear consists largely of real buttons rather than touch nonsense. And while we’re generally averse to novelty shifters, the Kona Electric’s column-mounted twist-flipper isn’t hard to acclimate to. There’s also stowage, stowage everywhere: all kinds of space in the center console, plus a tray in the dash ahead of the front-seat passenger. But nearly everything in the cabin is formed out of hard plastic.Two powertrains are on offer, a 133-hp base motor—a new addition for 2024—and a 201-horse example. Both are front-wheel drive. We drove the 201-hp version, which is quick enough for its intended mission of scooting around town, although drivers who’ve been hearing about EVs with muscle-car-beating acceleration might be left scratching their head. To wit, the Kona Electric hummed its way to 60 mph in 7.0 seconds in our testing and motored through the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 93 mph. Both figures represent some backsliding compared to the previous-gen Kona EV we tested, which along with being 98 pounds lighter, was 0.6 second quicker to 60 and half a second quicker in the quarter-mile.LOWS: Hard plastics inside, modest acceleration, Limited’s eyebrow-raising price.Buyers likely will be far more interested in a different number: the EV’s range. Here, the story is brighter. The EPA pegs the Kona Electric with its 64.8-kWh battery at 261 miles (versus 258 miles for the previous model with a similar-sized pack). In our 75-mph highway range test, the Kona Electric wasn’t far off that estimate, with a 230-mile result. Note that those figures are for the SEL and Limited; the base SE gets a smaller, 48.6-kWh battery that carries an EPA estimate of just 200 miles.The Kona Electric doesn’t share its flashier siblings’ 800-volt architecture, so it’s not as quick to charge, but it is quicker than before. At a DC fast-charger, the Kona’s 400-volt architecture can gulp electrons at up to 100 kilowatts. And the car’s L2 charger has been upgraded from a 7.2-kW to a 10.8-kW unit, which slashes the 10 to 100 percent charging time at a 240-volt source by a third (now 6 hours, 5 minutes), according to Hyundai.Related StoriesThe Kona Electric isn’t at the level of the Ioniq 5 and 6, but it’s still a pleasant EV. The chassis is also well sorted for an in-town runabout, albeit with a fair bit of lean in the corners. The steering has some artificially added weight—it doesn’t change with cornering forces—but the effort levels are fine. The Kona Electric’s braking should please drivers no matter where they fall on the regenerative braking spectrum. Paddles allow you to adjust the level of liftoff regen from none (full coasting) to one-pedal driving (i-Pedal) with several steps in between. And those who do use the brake pedal will find predictable modulation. Stopping distances from 70 mph, however, were a longish 179 feet, which is six feet worse than we recorded with the previous Kona Electric.VERDICT: Nothing that a $7500 tax credit couldn’t fix.We tested the Limited, which is generously equipped, with heated and ventilated front seats, a heated steering wheel, Hyundai’s blind-spot monitor, a 360-degree-view camera system, key fob–operated remote parking, and digital key. At $42,650 as tested, though, a wandering eye looks longingly across the showroom at the Ioniq 5 for less than $1000 more or the Ioniq 6 SE Long Range for $43,600. Perhaps, then, you’d drop down to the Kona Electric SEL, which starts at $38,070. We’d avoid the entry-level SE ($34,070), with its smaller battery and shorter range. At the high end, though, we’d be more tempted by one of the Kona Electric’s superstar siblings.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Hyundai Kona Electric LimitedVehicle Type: front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $42,440/$42,650Options: carpeted floor mats, $210
POWERTRAIN
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 188 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 64.8 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.8 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 100 kWTransmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.8-in discTires: Kumho Solus TA51 Premium All Season215/60R-17 96H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 104.7 inLength: 171.5 inWidth: 71.9 inHeight: 62.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 64/26 ft3Curb Weight: 3865 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.0 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 18.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 109 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
75-mph Highway Driving: 110 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 230 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 116/129/103 MPGeRange: 261 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

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