Car Reviews

From the January 2008 issue of Car and Driver.
Steerage class has suffered a bad rep ever since the Titanic sailed. But if you’re prowling the lower decks of the new-car market, at least one company thinks you shouldn’t have to curb your enthusiasm.

Every New Compact Car You Can Buy in 2020

Best Hatchbacks of 2020

2008-2009 Compact Car Comparison

Neither tinny, tippy, nor asthmatic, the 2008 Suzuki SX4 Sport starts undoing expectations at a base price of $15,395. Corollas, Civics, and Mazda 3s are strippers at this price. Hyundais and Kias are no match for the SX4’s firmer suspension tune, quicker steering, tighter shifter, and more abundant fun.
The front-drive SX4 Sport, a sedan spin-off of the SX4 all-wheel-drive hatchback, is a true Suzuki, not a Korean-made pretender like the Daewoo-sourced Forenza and Reno. The genetic ties are to the plucky Swift hatchback, a hit in hot-hatch-crazy Europe. The SX4’s standard equipment includes 17-inch alloy wheels inside 205/50 V-rated Dunlop SP7000 Sport tires. A/C, ABS, curtain airbags, power windows, and remote entry are also baked into the base price. The SX4’s options include a $500 convenience pack of cruise, auto climate control, and leather-wrapped wheel.

HIHGS: Smart handling, comfy back seat, the cure for the common Corolla.

The four-speed auto transmission is $1000, and a Touring package with stability control, upgraded stereo, spoiler, and keyless ignition is also $1000.
The SX4 Sport comes sporty only. It’s solid-feeling on the road and notably refined inside, the low-gloss plastics and metal-like trim giving a deluxe feel. Aside from owing its shape to a British bowler hat (and supplying enough headroom for a Texan 10-gallon hat), the SX4 has only one potentially deal-busting flaw: The back seats don’t fold. Suzuki opted to plug the tunnel with chassis braces for body rigidity. At least the trunk gets 15 big cubic feet, and the inert rear seatback is pitched at a comfortable 27 degrees with lots of knee- and legroom.

LOWS: No folding rear seats, looks like a bowler hat on roller skates.

The SX4 ran the skidpad at 0.83 g and stopped from 70 mph in 174 feet. It pulled five successive stops without breaking 180 feet, better than decent performance in this dollar class. Acceleration takes slightly more patience, the 143 horsepower of the 2.0-liter twin-cam four carrying this Sport’s 2762 pounds to 60 mph in 9.2 seconds. The lighter Honda Fit does it quicker, but with no more driving satisfaction.
A leap forward for the brand, the SX4 Sport upgrades Suzuki to well above the water line.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2008 Suzuki SX4 Sport
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED $16,895 (base price: $15,395)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement 122 in3, 1995 cm3Power (SAE net)143 bhp @ 5800 rpmTorque (SAE net) 136 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 98.4 inLength: 177.6 inWidth: 68.1 inHeight: 60.8 inCurb weight: 2762 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 9.2 secZero to 100 mph: 28.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 9.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 16.9 sec @ 82 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city/highway driving: 22 mpgC/D observed: 25 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the February 1974 issue of Car and Driver.
The tachometer needle is closing in on the fourth gear redline. The speedometer indicates 105 mph. Bobby Allison is feeling the Porsche 911 into the wide, banked Turn One of Pocono’s short road course. He has driven this section of the tri-oval dozens, maybe tens of dozens, of times before, always in a stock car . . . and always in the other direction. But that doesn’t matter. Now he is turning right instead of left.

Defining the Porsche 911: New vs. Old

Tested:1969 Porsche 912 vs. 911T Targa, 911E, 911S

Tested: 1984 Porsche 911 Carrera

“You could really hang up your spare parts in this corner if something went wrong.”
At this speed, the Porsche is toeing an awkward threshold. Aerodynamic forces have lifted its front enough to make the steering light and vague, yet very twitchy. The rear has lifted too and the tires are light enough to want to break out into a drift.
“I can feel it trying to hang but it can’t quite do it.”

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

Each time the tail comes loose, Alli­son catches it with a microscopic correction of the steering and an adjustment of his foot on the gas. But almost as soon as it’s caught, the rear comes unstuck again. And each time it does, the on­rushing boiler-plate wall seems to click into even sharper focus.
“It’s telling me to expect something bad, it doesn’t say how bad. It’s not real­ly a strain at this speed . . . we might even be able to run right to the mat in a few laps . . . but I just know better than to crowd it too soon. Porsches are quite a bit different from anything else I’ve driven . . . except maybe a Volkswagen and I’ve only driven VWs a minimum number of times.”
Bobby Allison, successful driver and equally successful race car builder, feels no reverence toward the name Porsche. Which makes him the perfect driver to test the 1974 line-up of 2.7-liter Porsch­es. It’s easy to find someone who has raced Porsches successfully, someone with a factory deal . . . or someone try­ing to carve out a factory deal . . . who will be more than happy to help out on a test such as this. And you’ll get a glow­ing report. But Allison is non-aligned. With him, the chips fall where they may. And he points out exactly where that might be in a precise, deep, gentle drawl that does not leave room for misinterpre­tation. To be sure, Bobby Allison is a stock car driver, and, with more than for­ty NASCAR wins, an exceedingly com­petent one. But he is much too diverse to be categorized in that narrow pigeon hole. He has also won on road courses—Riverside this past summer to name a recent one—and driven open-wheelers for Roger Penske at Indy. He has even raced Porsches, at the Lime Rock Trans-Am last season and most recently as one of the select field of 12 at the International Race of Champions at Riv­erside just before this test. In fact, he even bought a new 911T to drive on the street in preparation for the IROC.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

Like many of today’s best drivers, Alli­son turns out to be more than just a driv­er. He is also a car builder. His shop in Hueyton, Alabama turns out parts and completed stock cars, as many as a hundred a year, for serious racers. So Bobby Allison knows about automobiles from both sides of the steering wheel. With credentials such as these, Allison’s assignment for Car and Driver was to probe the performance and personality of Porsche’s newest collection of road cars as represented by three models: a 911, a 911S Targa and a Carrera, $42,940 worth of rear-engine machinery.
Porsche’s model line-up has under­gone a substantial overhaul. The T and E models are gone. At the bottom of the new heap is the no-suffix 911 which lists for $9950 POE East Coast, plus every­thing. Up from there is the 911S. And that, in turn, is topped by the Carrera at $13,575, at that price as naked as the Venus de Milo.
There is bound to be confusion over the Carrera. You’re probably thinking—or at least hoping—that it has much in common with the Carrera RSRs that have been mowing down the opposition around the world in GT racing and that made up the field for the IROC. It doesn’t. It’s a 911S overlayed with a few of the RSR’s accoutrements: Carrera side stripes, the upturned rear deck spoiler (a “mandatory option” at $285), slightly flared rear fenders and wider (seven inches compared to six in front) rear wheels mounted with appropriately fatter tires.
This is in bold contrast to the Europe­an Carrera, known as the RS, which is strictly a stripped homologation special. It is very light—just under 2000 lbs. dry—with a high compression engine and is strictly verboten on public roads here because of smog and safety laws. Upon special order, the factory will con­vert the RS into the RSR, which is a pure racing car, the kind that ran in the IROC. These cars have 3.0-liter engines that produce 330 hp (DIN) at 8000 rpm, fiber­glass bumpers and widely flared fend­ers, special suspensions, brakes from the 917, wide wheels (9.0-inch in front, 12.0-inch in back) and all the racing equipment you need, right down to a 6-point seat belt, roll bar and on-board fire extinguisher. The RS and RSR have about the same relationship to the U.S.-market Carrera that Bobby Allison’s number 12 Chevelle has to the one you’ll find covered with shipping wax in your local Chevy dealer’s lot.
All of the new Porsches have 2.7-liter 6-cylinder engines, big-bore versions of the 2.4-liter powerplant introduced in 1972. They also have a new fuel injec­tion system from Bosch known as the K-Jetronic, a continuous flow type with nozzles directed at the underside of the intake valves. It determines fuel flow by measuring the quantity of intake air, the same principle as the original Rochester device introduced on 1957 Corvettes.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

For 1974, the engines come in only two stages of tune. The regular 911 has what is basically the old “T” engine, but with 300cc additional displacement. It has an 8.0-to-1 compression ratio and is rated at 143 hp (net) at 5700 rpm. The S and the Carrera share a similarly en­larged “S” engine. It has a higher (8.5-to-1) compression ratio, larger intake ports and a cam with more lift and duration on the intake lobes. It is rated at 167 hp (net) at 5800 rpm. Though, in com­parison to the old T and S, quarter-mile acceleration of the new models is virtu­ally unchanged, the new engines are clearly less fussy to drive. The increased displacement and less overlap in the cams (for emission control) has made them both highly tractable. The S still has a noticeable rise in the torque curve as you approach 3500 rpm, but even it will slug through traffic without trauma. In past models, we felt the output curve of the S was too peaky for U.S. driving conditions and, in fact, the E was quick­er at speeds below 100 mph. But the new S is at least as flexible as the old E and we no longer have reservations about it. To compliment the two larger engines, fourth and fifth gear ratios in the 5-speed transmission have been slightly changed—lengthened for quieter cruising and better fuel economy.
The new 911s have undergone other changes to make them more compatible with Uncle Sam’s requirements. The new bumpers with wide aluminum face bars add 5.0 inches to overall length. For the American market they are mounted on hydraulic shock absorbers (another “mandatory” option at $135) so that they will be self-restoring after a low-speed crash. Surprisingly, this has been done without adding much weight. The new models are only about 50 lbs. heavier than their predecessors. And at least half of that can be charged off to the enlarged fuel tank (21 gallons, up from 16.4).

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

There are other changes beneath the surface and some of them do not seem like progress. To help weight distribution, Porsche has for years fitted the 911 with two small batteries, one on each side just forward of the front wheels. This year, there is just one, a large one, located at the left front. In 1972 the dry sump oil tank was moved forward of the right rear wheel, also to improve weight distribution. A year later it was moved back behind the axle into the engine compartment. The front anti-sway bar has also been redesigned for 1974 to a less costly, but also less efficient, arrangement.
All of these moves give the appear­ance of being cost reductions . . . ex­cept that you’d never know it by the price, which has gone up about $2500 in two years with the blame being laid on fluctuations in the international money market and inflation in Germany. Per­haps some of the changes in weight dis­tribution are made up for by the new, cast light-alloy semi-trailing arms in the rear that replace the previous steel suspension components. On the other hand, perhaps small differences in weight distribution make very little differ­ence. That’s why we went to Pocono. To find out. And that’s why we summoned Bobby Allison, as a non-aligned driver, to give us an impartial view.
It is a tribute to Porsche that we find it necessary to test its models on the race track. It all comes down to the fact that the Porsche 911 is one of the very few truly high performance street cars in pro­duction today. Because of its racing suc­cesses, its capabilities are legend. But reputations cut no ice in road tests. What the car actually does is what counts. And at Pocono we explored the extremes of three new 911s.
The 911’s uniqueness looms up as soon as you fit yourself into the seat. Allison discussed the difficulties he found in adapting: “Compared to the pedals, the steering wheel is way too far away. The height and angle would be fine if it were about two inches closer. All the stock car guys at Riverside complained about that. Petty, who is used to driving right up on top of the wheel, really had a problem—when he got somewhere close to what his arms wanted he had to work the pedals with his knees.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

“The pedal position and the shifter are all so very strange. I never missed the clutch at Riverside, but I did originally in that first Porsche I drove at Lime Rock . . . and even in my street car. It’s over so far to the right compared to a normal car I had to work to get used to it.
“I’ve found the shifter itself to be a problem in the car I bought as well as the race cars. It’s very mushy in feeling. At Lime Rock I only got a couple laps of practice before the race and had to start at the rear of the grid. In the race I had come from 33rd to tenth in like ten laps. Then there was a spin out. In order to miss a spinning car, I tried to make a quick shift while I was in a turn. Instead of going from fourth to third, I went from fourth to first. It blew the engine up. That showed me right there that I’d better find out where the gears were.”
With that as motivation, Allison bought his own street Porsche a few months lat­er when he committed to run the IROC. But he still doesn’t find shifting easy.
“On a road course, with any kind of cornering pressure on the car—which transfers into your body also—you can’t find the detent for the gear you want.”

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

Allison is not the only one to have this problem. At Riverside, Petty, Johncock, McClusky and even Denny Hulme were having trouble finding the gear they wanted when they wanted it. And at Pocono we discovered that the problem is not confined to the RSR. The stock cars work well enough on the street where, even though the linkage might be somewhat imprecise, you’ll probably never miss a gear. But on the track, sometimes you move the lever and you can’t find anything. Or worse yet, you get the wrong gear. And while it’s possible that the driver is hurrying the operation under those circumstances, driver error is only partially responsible. We strongly sus­pect that certain combinations of corner­ing, braking and acceleration loads on the car, in conjunction with high engine speeds, produce distortions somewhere in the long shift mechanism that prevent it from working properly. Allison agrees and considers this to be one of the ma­jor problem areas in the car.
When it comes to handling, Allison ap­proaches the Porsches from years of professional experience and quickly sights in on their uniqueness. “Compared to American cars that have a good, positive front end feel and a back end that just trails along meekly, the Porsches are very much more aggressive. They are very quick reacting, al­most squirrelly, in what would be a nor­mal maneuver in any other car. I’ve driv­en my car pretty fast on interstate high­ways and, when you get it up to speed, it’s pretty comfortable. But you better not move the steering wheel very much. If you want to change lanes at 70 mph, you learn quickly to do it very carefully. The cars are heavy in the rear and very light in front—which makes the steering light. It’s a feeling you really have to get used to.”
Allison’s point is that, unlike an Ameri­can car, the Porsche’s back end doesn’t trail meekly behind the front. And it’s this feeling that convinces so many street drivers that they are in the world’s best handling car. At low speeds, city traffic and brisk marches through winding lanes, a 911 is supremely agile. The steering is quick and the car instantly changes direction with only the lightest touch. It feels for all the world like a civilized formula racer and gives great plea­sure. But the Porsche’s personality changes drastically as you approach its limit. Then the tail swings heavily, and the car responds to an unpracticed and unsubtle touch with a vengeance. Moderate street drivers never learn of this; the venturesome ultimately will find out. Allison, of course, has already served his apprenticeship on the race track.
“The hard thing to really get used to in the race cars at Riverside was, when you go too deep into a corner and lifted, the car would begin to spin. And if you went ahead and did the natural thing, lifted—or put on the brakes—the car would spin. But if you could make yourself put your foot back on the gas pedal, the car would drive out of the spin. That was how (Emerson) Fittipaldi crashed—he knew he had to get back on the gas, but while he was doing it he went too deep and ended up with his front—rather than back—end against the wall. Naturally, Mark (Donohue) and George Follmer knew this. The rest of us just had to kind of find out. It’s a completely opposite re­action to a stock car. When you lift in a stock car, it tends to straighten out.
“The other thing is that Porsches tend to oversteer very badly at first, and then correct. When you would expect it to be either lost or in a controlled broadslide, it snaps back straight, sometimes even over center toward the other direction. Which I feel would get an inexperienced driver into trouble.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

“These cars react the same way the race cars do. Naturally the RSR with the racing suspension and the big, fat racing tires will corner better. But these cars at 50 mph feel exactly the same as the race cars do at 70 or 80.
Curiously, the factory engineers speak of neutral handling as the reason for the Carrera’s tire set-up: 185/70 radials on 6.0-inch wheels in front and 215/60 radi­als on the 7.0-inch rims in back. Intuitive­ly, this sounds like the right approach—bigger tires on the end with the most weight. But in practice, we found no cir­cumstance in which any of the 911s fit our, or Allison’s, definition of neutral. In skid-pad testing, they all understeered heavily when under power. And if we lift­ed abruptly without correcting the steer­ing, they all spun in little more than the length of the car. It was like having a choice of power-on understeer, lift-throt­tle oversteer and nothing in between. Moreover, the consistency of this reac­tion in all three cars indicated that the Carrera’s wide rear wheels and rear tires make no noticeable difference.
The brand of tire, however, does make an enormous difference in cornering power. The basic 911 and the Carrera had identical suspension set-ups: optional Bilstein shock absorbers (which are very harsh for street use) and front and rear anti-sway bars (standard on the Carrera, optional on the 911). The 911 also had the optional 6.0-inch wide wheels (5.5-inch wide is standard). The only difference was tires—Michelin XWX on the 911 and Dunlops on the Carrera—and of course the Carrera’s wider rear wheels. The Michelin-shod 911 was far quicker on the skid pad, generating 0.83 G in cornering force compared to 0.80 G for the Carrera. The 911S Targa, also on Dunlops but burdened with air conditioning and lacking the optional rear anti-sway bar was a distant third at 0.74 G. The basic 911, contrary to all that is right, also managed to be easily the fastest on the road course. The high-back bucket seats—new this year—provide excellent lateral support, the Miche­lin tires are clean and clear in their re­sponse, and the optional suspension un­derpinnings are well suited to track driving. Allison was able to circulate easily at 1:22.0 (78.9 mph).
He did not, however, find the Targa’s road course behavior to his liking and his running commentary shows it. “Boy, this thing is top heavy compared to that oth­er one . . . very soft suspension. We’re way slower through here than we were in the other car. I guarantee you, you’d have to drive this thing all the way around . . . Yeah, now see, right here the car begins to mush over and pick up oversteer or understeer, depending upon where my throttle pedal foot is.”
Six laps of that was enough and he parked it, having recorded a best of 1:23.9 (77.2 mph). The conclusion was that the Targa’s extra weight and the Dunlop tires were more than enough to offset the extra power of the “S” engine. In addition, the lack of a rear anti-sway bar on the Targa increased the roll angle considerably which, besides making the car awkward to drive, also presented the tires to the road at a less favorable cam­ber angle (one of the intricacies of the Porsche order form, to wit: A 16mm front bar is standard on the 911 and 911S. But if you order the optional rear sway bar you also get a larger-20mm front bar—so that the understeer/oversteer nature of the two set-ups will be approxi­mately the same). So the standard sus­pension Targa was slower, by a lot.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

Of course, everyone had high hopes for the Carrera. It’s price tag says it’s the best, right? But Allison just takes them as they come. “. . . this one doesn’t handle as bad as the Targa (911S) and its engine runs nice and strong. But it’s still very mushy compared to the 911. In handling, I’d say this one is about one-third better than the Targa and two-thirds poorer than the 911. I can feel the spoiler at high speeds, it pushes the nose up. But on the infield it’s just some­thing I can see in the rear-view mirror.” The Carrera finished the road course tri­als in a reasonably close second place at 1:22.8 (78.3 mph). It was agreed that the wide rear wheels and tires made no noticeable difference and that Dunlops in general were less sticky than Miche­lins. The spoiler is a mixed blessing. In the critical high speed banked turn it def­initely discouraged the rear end from its nervous tendency to hang out, but at the same time it increased the vagueness of the steering (See sidebar on aerodynamics, page 6).
Allison is emphatic about Porsche handling. “The most unnatural thing is, when you see that you are in a little bit of a problem and you lift off the gas, the problem increases. Then you’re in trou­ble. What do you do next? With the race cars we found out you stomp your foot down and start steering like a wild man. But I don’t think an inexperienced driver is going to do that. These cars do have a strong reputation . . . but I don’t see why. I’d guess it comes first of all from the racing versions, and then from its quickness at well under its limit.”

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

On the subject of handling, at least, we are in agreement. When you get used to a Porsche, you can make it do some pretty amazing things. But the idea of evading emergency situations by ap­plying power is so unnatural for most drivers that it is unreasonable in a car intended for street use.
“The dealer where I bought my car happens to be a personal friend and I suppose he’ll be greatly disturbed by my comments about his little Kraut wagon.” Allison grins and continues, “To be fair, the car has unique characteristics and some people may like it. I don’t. I think they are $12,000 imported Corvairs.”
Allison, it turns out, sold his 911T with­in hours after he finished up at the Riverside IROC. And his reactions, we think, are typical of the general sports-car-driv­ing public. There is no middle ground, you either like Porsches or you hate them. But in all cases, you consider yourself among the fortunate few if you can afford one.
You’ve laid out the extra money to insure that the facto­ry will inscribe “Carrera” across the rocker panels of your new Porsche. And as a $285 “mandatory option,” your 911S will sport the boldest aerodynamic device to land on a street car since the awesome stabilizers of Plym­outh’s Superbird. But does that ski jump built into the Carrera’s deck-lid really do anything? Or is it simply a stylistic lure? Here is the answer.
The Carrera’s rear spoiler will indeed do more than turn heads at every stoplight. It does, in fact, coerce air molecules rushing over its gelcoat surface into doing gen­uinely useful work. Namely, the creation of substantial vertical down forces at the rear of the car.
To precisely measure the effects of the spoiler, we in­strumented our test Carrera and ran countless high speed laps on the tri-oval at Pocono International Race­way. An onboard strip-chart recorder plotted the informa­tion we were after: first of all, car velocity; and secondly, changes in wheel loadings—exactly how much force was pressing the tires to the pavement.

View Photos

CHUCK BOONE

A fifth wheel trailing behind the rear bumper delivered forward velocity data to the recorder. Tire loadings, on the other hand, came from a position transducer. It was actually capable of measuring suspension deflections while the car was moving. That information could be translated into “weight on the tires” only after the follow­ing pit-side calibration procedure. With the aid of a Turner wheel scale and a floor jack, we cycled the Carrera’s height up and down, plotting wheel weight indicated by the scales versus suspension deflation on the chart re­corder. With this base-line data, we then knew exactly what force linked the rubber to the road at any speed from zero to the all-out maximum.
The results show that without the spoiler (the test Carrera had been fitted with the Targa’s decklid for this com­parison) airflow begins lifting the rear of the car at 30 mph. And by 100 mph, the rear of the car is “lighter” by 200 lbs. But with the Carrera spoiler, weight loss stabi­lizes above 65 mph at only 35 lbs. As a result, the rear tires can develop more cornering force with the spoiler, because they have more vertical load forcing them to the pavement. And you don’t have to peg the speedometer before those benefits are delivered. The spoiler begins working to your advantage at 30 mph.
Front wheel weights are also affected—to a lesser ex­tent. With or without the Carrera decklid, the front tires’ weight loss due to airflow is approximately 200 lbs. be­tween 60 and 100 mph. But by 120 mph, the rear spoiler is actually a disadvantage, because it unloads the front end by an additional 60 lbs. over the non-spoilered car. Clearly, some sort of snow plow is needed in the front to match the effectiveness of the ski ramp in the rear.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
1974 Porsche 911143-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2470 lbBase/as-tested price: $9950/$12,225C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 18.0 sec1/4 mile: 14.7 @ 92.1 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 180 ftFuel economy: 17-20 mpg1974 Porsche 911S Targa167-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2605 lbBase/as-tested price: $12,725/$15,670C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.9 sec100 mph: 16.9 sec1/4 mile: 14.6 @ 94.1 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 186 ftFuel economy: 16-21 mpg
1974 Porsche 911S Carrera167-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2480 lbBase/as-tested price: $13,575/$15,045C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.8 sec100 mph: 16.0 sec1/4 mile: 14.4 @ 95.4 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftFuel economy: 16-19 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the February 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
One shift into our driving experience with the all-new S40, and we realized Volvo’s second-generation small car had taken a big step toward becoming a driver’s machine. That’s because now it can actually be shifted by the driver. Unlike its predecessor, which came only with a four-speed automatic teamed with a 170-hp, 1.9-liter turbo four-cylinder, this latest Swede can be equipped with a five- or six-speed manual transmission, or a five-speed automatic, and a pair of inline five-cylinder engines making 168 and 218 horsepower, respectively.

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

Tested: 2004 Volvo V50 T5 AWD

Tested: 2003 Volvo S60R AWD

We knew the new S40 meant business even before we got behind the wheel. A ringer for a stubbier S60, the S40 looks as if it had spent many a long winter’s night at a Swedish gym. Examine the fresh next to the stale, and the new car appears more athletic, highlighted by short overhangs and bulging fenders. It is aggressive where the previous car was timid. More important, it now looks like a Volvo. Perhaps it bears too much family resemblance to the S60, but overall, it’s a sportier, welcome guise.
Compared with the previous S40, the new car is 1.9 inches shorter, yet is 2.1 inches wider and 1.5 inches taller. It rides on a wheelbase that is 3.1 inches longer and has wider front and rear tracks. As a result, every interior dimension-sans rear headroom, which remains 37.2 inches-has increased, including a much-needed 1.7-inch hike in rear legroom.

View Photos

Volvo’s “smaller without getting less” philosophy not only resulted in an interior that is bigger but one that is more stylish and functional. Bissecting the dash is a unique, aluminum-covered center stack that is less than an inch thick. It looks like a chic Nambé platter, and it houses all the audio, telephone, and climate controls, while also shielding a convenient storage bin behind it. Ergonomically, the button-and-knob-infused stack isn’t immediately intuitive, but a few minutes of study make it a quick learn. Once mastered, the controls become a second thought to the appreciation garnered from the top-level fit and finish and high-quality materials. Despite being an “entry level” car, the S40 feels as refined and luxurious as the upper-echelon S60.
Although Volvo designed the S40, it can’t take full credit for developing the car, which shares architecture with the Mazda 3 and next-generation Ford Focus. Engineers from Ford, Mazda, and Volvo collaborated on the C1 platform, contributing to and drawing from the development pool. The fruits of this labor came to be known as “global shared technologies,” or the basic components-underbody, suspension layout, steering, etc.-utilized by the three brands. According to a Volvo engineer, the shared components consist of “everything that doesn’t make the brand.” In other words, Ford and Mazda couldn’t grab everything they wanted from Volvo’s safety bag.

View Photos

As with all Volvos, that bag is full of comforting things, including front, side, and curtain airbags; collapsible pedals; seatbelt pretensioners; whiplash protection; and four grades of steel for the frontal structure to create optimal crumple zones. Volvo even went so far as to simulate frontal crash tests without the engines installed, forcing engineers to shave 7.8 inches from the width of the transverse motors so they’d fit within the space that remained after the test. Moreover, the S40, whose body is 68 percent stiffer than its predecessor’s, gets standard traction control and four-wheel disc brakes with ABS and emergency brake assist, as well as optional dynamic stability control.
Our favorite preview example-a front-wheel-drive T5-came with the turbocharged 2.5-liter inline five-cylinder used in the S60, S80, and XC90, mated to the six-speed manual from the S60R. Featuring short throws and light, effortless action, the gearbox makes it easy to enjoy and maximize the T5’s 218 horsepower and 236 pound-feet of torque. Volvo says the T5 can hit 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and produce a top speed of 149 mph. With all that torque available from 1500 to 4800 rpm, the T5 not only launches off the line but also quickly gets out of its own way on the highway, exhibiting no noticeable turbo lag. There’s also little torque steer evident, which is impressive considering all the twist being delivered through the front tires. An all-wheel-drive T5, using the V70 AWD’s Haldex system, will be available, but it almost seems superfluous given that the front-driver performs so well.

View Photos

The other, less favorable example we sampled was a base 2.4i automatic that featured a naturally aspirated 168-hp, 2.4-liter five mated to a five-speed Geartronic. Judged against the harelike T5, the 2.4i felt like a tortoise on Xanax. Volvo estimates 8.4 seconds for 0 to 60, more than two seconds slower than the T5 manual. The 2.4i’s available five-speed manual would likely liven up the car, but not enough to make us even think of exiting the T5’s driver seat.
Both S40s use struts up front and a multilink setup in the rear, tuned for a firm ride that manages to be both comfortable and compliant. Our cars’ Euro settings felt ideal, making us wishful that Volvo wouldn’t tinker with them for the U.S. cars. Complemented by communicative and linear steering-the best of any Volvo to date-and the optional 205/50R-17 tires on our T5, the able suspension made short work of the winding roads around Málaga, Spain.
Built at Volvo’s Ghent factory in Belgium, the base and T5 S40s go on sale this spring, available only with the automatic transmission and front-wheel drive. Manual models and all-wheel-drive T5s will follow in the summer, when they’ll receive 2005 monikers. Volvo says pricing should start at about $24,000 for a base 2.4i and top out at roughly $30,000 for a loaded T5. To us, that’s reasonable pricing for a car that quantum-leaps its predecessor. Is it a big enough leap to reach Volvo’s sales target of 28,000 units for 2004? We think so.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2004 Volvo S40
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, front- or 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
ESTIMATED BASE PRICE$24,000
ENGINE TYPE 2.4-liter DOHC 20-valve inline-5, 168 hp, 170 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled 2.5-liter DOHC 20-valve inline-5, 218 hp, 236 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION 5- or 6-speed manual, 5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 175.9 inWidth: 69.7 inHeight: 57.5 inCurb weight: 3200-3400 lb
PERFORMANCE RATINGS (MFR’S EST., T5 6-sp)Zero to 60 mph: 6.3 secTop speed (drag limited): 149 mph
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA city driving 22-24 mpgEPA highway driving 30-32 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the April 1965 issue of Car and Driver.
No contest. This is the Porsche to end all Porsches—or, rather, to start a whole new generation of Porsches. Porsche’s new 911 model is unquestionably the finest Porsche ever built. More than that, it’s one of the best Gran Turismo cars in the world, certainly among the top three or four.
Porsche enthusiasts used to insist that the 356 model was as nearly-perfect an automobile as had ever been designed, an immutable classic that couldn’t be im­proved upon. Oh, no? Put a familiar 356 up alongside a 911. Only yesterday, the 356 seemed ahead of its time. Today you realize its time has passed; the 356 leaves you utterly unimpressed and you can’t keep your eyes off the 911. The 911 is a superior car in every respect … the stuff legends are made of.

Golden Anniversary: 50 Years of The Porsche 911

The Evolution of the Porsche 911 in the U.S.

Defining the Porsche 911: New vs. Old

Let it be understood at the outset that the 911 does not replace the 356, according to the factory. In the catalog, it replaces the fussy, little-appreciated Carrera 2 while the 356C (ex-Super) and 356SC (ex-Super 95) still roll off the assembly lines at about their normal rate. However, we can’t believe that Porsche will con­tinue making two entirely different cars, side-by-side, beyond the immediately foreseeable future. And let it also be understood that the 911 is not readily available. The first six month’s production is completely sold out and there’s a line of expectant owners going halfway around almost every Porsche agency in the country.
General
The 911—so-called because it is the 911th design project since Porsche opened its doors in 1931—is also the first all-Porsche Porsche. The 356 was the first car to carry the Porsche name, although when it was con­ceived in 1948 it was little more than a souped-up, special-bodied version of an earlier Porsche design, the Volkswagen. The 911, while true to the 356’s basic configuration, is an entirely new and different car. The engine is again air-cooled, again hung out behind the rear axle, but it’s a single-overhead-cam six-cylinder where the 356 was a pushrod four-cylinder (and the Carrera a four-cam four-cylinder). The new body is far more handsome—the work of old Professor Porsche’s grandson, Ferry, Jr. The 911’s 5-speed gear­box, already in service in Porsche’s 904 GT racing car, is probably the new car’s best single feature. Even the suspension is new, though tried-and-true torsion bars are retained as the springing medium.

JULIUS WEITMANN

The 911, or 901 as it then was, was introduced at the 1963 Frankfurt Auto Show. It was very much a prototype and its debut may have been premature. More than a year was to pass before it went into pro­duction, during which time the model number was changed (to indicate that it was a later model than the Frankfurt car and also because Peugeot reportedly had a lock on three-digit model numbers with zero in the middle), the price estimate dropped, the performance estimate rose, and a demand built up that the current four-a-day supply won’t be able to satisfy for some time to come.
The 901/911 was not the “best” car Porsche could have made. Porsche could have put the storied flat-eight engine into production, bored out to, say, 2.5 liters and tuned up to 240 horsepower. That would have put the 901/911 into the Ferrari-Corvette-Jaguar performance bracket. It also would have raised the price considerably, and Porsche was understandably nervous about entering the No-Man’s-Land market for $9000 GT cars. On price alone, it would have been beyond the reach of anybody but the Very Rich, and the V.R. are noted for such capricious perversity as preferring a $14,000 car to a $9000 car simply because it costs $5000 more. The four-cam flat-eight also would have had the same kind of maintenance and reliability problems the Carrera engine had; problems that are hopefully nonexistent in the 911’s sohc six-cylinder.
Considering what the Stuttgart design office has turned out in the past, Porsche could have come out with a supercharged six-liter 550-hp V-16 GT car to sell for $30,000 and not lose a drag race to anybody but Don Garlits, but their production facilities are hardly geared for that sort of thing, and it would be getting pretty far away from the Porsche image, wouldn’t it? In fact, Porsche had a full four-seater on the drawing boards at one point, but Ferry Porsche felt that his company’s business was not selling super-duper sedans or ultra-ultra sports/racing cars but optimum-priced, optimum-size, optimum-performance Gran Turismo cars, which is exactly what the 911 is.

JULIUS WEITMANN

At $6490 POE East Coast (or $5275 FOB Stuttgart), the 911 isn’t what you’d call cheap—no Porsche ever was—but then, quality never is. Porsche’s kind of quality cannot be had for less, viz. Ferrari 330GT ($14,000) or Mercedes-Benz 230SL ($8000). It’s of more than ordinary interest that the 911 costs a whop­ping thousand dollars less than the Carrera 2 it re­places. A Porsche is either worth it to the prospective buyer or it isn’t; he can’t justify the price tag by the way the body tucks under at the rear or by the way the steering wheel fits in his hands or the way the engine settles in for a drive through a rain-filled afternoon. But let’s see what he gets for his money.
Body
The 911’s eye-catching body is distinctive—slimmer, trimmer, yet obviously Porsche. While not as revolu­tionary as the original 356 design was in its day, the 911’s shape is far less controversial and slightly more aerodynamic. Though frontal area has grown, a lower drag coefficient (.38 vs. .398) allows it to reach a top speed of 130 mph on only 148 hp. It ought to weather the years without looking dated. Compared to the cur­rent 356 body, the 911 is five inches longer (on a four-inch longer wheelbase), three inches narrower (on a one-inch wider track) and just about the same height. The body structure is still unitized, built up of in­numerable, complicated steel stampings welded to­gether (with the exception of the front fenders which are now bolted on for easier repair of minor accidents). The glass area and luggage space have been increased 58% and 186%, respectively, and the turning circle is a bit tighter. The fully-trimmed (with cocoa mats) trunk will hold enough for a week’s vacation for two; additional space is available in the rear seat area. The trunk and engine lids can be opened to any angle and held by counter-springs and telescopic dampers—a nice touch. These lids, as well as the doors, are larger than the old Porsche’s, making access to the innards much less awkward. The gas filler cap nestles under a trap-door in the left fender, and the engine lid release is hidden away in the left door post.
The generous expanse of glass area does wonders for the rearward vision; all-around visibility is comparable to a normal front-engined car. The bumpers are well-integrated with the body, though provide barely adequate protection from those who park by ear. The standard appointments are lush and extensive: two heater/defrosters, padded sun-visors with vanity mir­ror, map and courtesy lights, 3-speed windshield wipers, 4-nozzle windshield washers, chrome wheels, belted tires, two fog lamps, a back-up light and a beau­tiful wood-rim steering wheel. About the only options we’d like are seat belts (for which massive, forged eye­bolts are provided), a radio and a fender mirror. Fitted luggage and factory-installed air-conditioning will be available shortly, we’re told.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
1965 Porsche 911
VEHICLE TYPE rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED$6,490
ENGINE TYPE flat-6 engineDisplacement 121.5 in3, 1991 cm3Power 148 hp @ 6100 rpmTorque 140 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 87.1 inLength: 164.0 inWidth: 63.4 inHeight: 51.9 inCurb weight: 2376 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 7.0 secZero to 100 mph: 20.0 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.6 sec @ 90 mphTop speed: 130 mph
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city/highway: 16/24 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the January 2001 Issue of Car and Driver.
Why be cold when you can conjure up your own warm front? Five speeds or maybe six. Horsepower upwards of 200, or at least close. Tires made for grabbing the pavement, and seats cupped to hold you against the g-force. Then cloak the good stuff in four-door bodywork, just to throw off suspicion. Conspiracy to drive?
“No, sir, officer, just hurrying to get the kids from the 4-H meeting.”

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

Sports sedans. It’s a loosely defined category, at the crossroads where fun meets functionality. There’s no DNA test. Trust the seat of your pants. You know ’em when you drive ’em.
You can pay a little, or you can pay a lot. How warm do you want to be? Given the chills of January, let’s pay up. Thirty grand? At least. Thirty-five? We tried to hold it there. But the options have a way of defying gravity.
In any comparison of sports sedans, the first question becomes, “Which BMW?” You can’t fight it. The Munich maker has the reputation, and the cars have the moves, sweet enough to capture two spots on our 2001 10Best list. Moreover, every automaker from around the world, when trying to wedge itself into the sports-sedan class, targets a BMW model. Bimmers are the gold standard.
You might find a stripper 330i in our price range. With its in-line six stroked 5.6 millimeters to 3.0 liters for 2001, it’d be a strong performer. But the idea this time is well-rounded cars, and a 325i, at a base price of $27,560, allows more room for optional equipment.
In our sports-sedan comparisons of recent years, BMWs and Audis usually end up duking it out for the top spots. An Audi A4 Quattro powered by the 2.8-liter, five-valve V-6 would fit our price range—and our driving expectations—just fine.
Thus far, this looks like a roundup of the usual suspects. So where’s the Saab? A 9-3 SE, turbocharged to 205 horsepower at 5500 rpm, is an obvious choice.
Now for the new guys. Lexus put BMW in its crosshairs with its latest model, the IS300. This is a compact four-door measuring within an inch of the BMW 3-series in nearly every dimension. Conveniently, the 3.0-liter six from the larger GS300 was available for immediate transplant, thereby loading a smooth-revving 215-horsepower into the compact’s breech. Said powerplant just happens to be an in-line six. Call it the BMW formula. And call it promising.
New for 2001 is the S60 from Volvo, a pared-down version of Volvo’s big S80 sedan. Talk about family resemblance. Betcha can’t tell them apart without checking the badge on the tail. Volvo is touting the sports-sedan nature of the S60 to all who will listen. Talk flows easily. But one detail grabs our attention. It’s spelled T5, and it indicates a turbocharged five-cylinder engine rated at 247 hp. That’s a megadose of horsepower, far more than in any other compact sports sedan at this price. The T5 outguns the 325i by 63 hp. BMW the underdog? The numbers look overwhelming.
Like Volvo, Mercedes-Benz also keeps reminding us that “sport” was a priority during the design of its new C-class sedan. And it backs up the promise by offering a six-speed manual behind the base engine, a 12-spark-plug, 18-valve V-6 of 2.6 liters rated at 168 horsepower. This is a sleek little four-door with the smooth, muscular look of an Olympic swimmer, only the fluid it was trained to slip through is air. The aerodynamic drag coefficient is 0.27. Take that as a promise of effortless speed.
That makes six sedans: two front-drivers, three sending their power rearward, and one that divvies up its torque among all four of its wheels. Six different propositions pitched to the lusts of the sporting driver. Sure, the calendar says January, but you know how the temperature rises once the scenery starts to blur. Let’s see what these little scooters can do.

Sixth Place: Saab 9-3 SE
This car is getting old. Based on the Saab 900 introduced in 1994, it underwent “more than 1000 improvements” in its transformation to Saab 9-3 in 1999. But this is model year 2001, the competition is better than ever, and this old warrior’s lurchy, stiff-legged stride over the back roads is no longer satisfying. The ride is hard-edged, and when you hurry over the humpy-bumpies, the suspension bottoms, the steering snatches from side to side, and the adventure quotient gets inappropriately high.

Highs: Cockpit’s aroma of leather, the hydraulic rush of turbo torque, lots of useful space inside.

In Saab fashion, the turbo four still delivers the thrust—second best of the bunch to 60 mph (6.8 seconds), second fastest through the quarter (at 93 mph). The boost comes on at relatively low revs with a hydraulic press to your backside. Hang on! You’ll feel the torque steer—a squirmy sort of fishtailing at the front end—even more jiggly over less-than-perfect surfaces. Just a few years back, we downplayed such rudeness as the cost of packing power in a small car. But it’s a front-drive problem. Curious, we think, that the two turbos in this group are attached to the drive systems least able to cope with turbo torque.
By a small margin, this Saab ranked highest in back-seat room. It has just a bit more space for three across. Still, if you habitually carry that many, we’d advise a bigger car. None of these cars can accommodate three adults in back for any distance. The Saab’s five-door hatchback layout also topped the others’ for cargo-hauling flexibility.

Lows: Torque steer, truculent handling on unsmooth roads, wind roar from closed sunroof. It’s a rough rider, too.

At 196 feet to stop from 70 mph, this Saab ranked last in braking, and it was fifth of six on the skidpad at 0.77 g. Part of the deficit can be attributed to the all-season tires (the Mercedes wore them as well), which give up dry-weather grip in exchange for better winter traction.

The Verdict: The geezer of the group, with lots of memories, not much future.

The cockpit is welcoming with its rush-of-leather aroma, but it lacks the intimacy we look for in a sports sedan. The shifter is vagu—”ropy” in the parlance of one test driver. The seat is rather flat, the console is low, and the door panels are plain, tending toward the featureless. You have the sense of a big room with a lofty ceiling. It has all become very familiar over the years since 1994. We have the sense of an old friend who hasn’t learned anything in too long.
2001 Saab 9-3 SE205-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3427 lbBase/as-tested price: $33,170/$34,015C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec100 mph: 17.8 mph1/4 mile: 15.4 @ 93 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 196 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpg

Fifth Place: Mercedes-Benz C240
Here’s a new friend whose greatest mistake was poor preparation for the meeting. We’ll shoulder a share of the blame. We were unable to find a C240 with the optional Sport package, which includes stiffer springs, high-control shocks, and lower-profile 225/50R-16 tires (205/55R-16s are standard) to improve handling, plus numerous appearance details. So we invited a six-speed (not available with the 3.2-liter V-6) C240 with a typical array of luxo options. After all, DaimlerChrysler keeps saying that “sport” was baked into this new model from day one.

Highs: Plush leather interior, low wind noise, aero-slipper styling.

Well, not that we could notice. The demeanor is mild and luxurious, just right for painless transit: good isolation of road noise, very little ride harshness, even less wind roar. But where’s the muscle toning? The body rises and falls on the suspension, long excursions up and down, all the time up and down. Steering inputs are followed by quick, tippy roll angles. The moves are way too nautical for a sports sedan.
The Sport package should eliminate those complaints. But we have more. The clutch engages abruptly. The brakes have a long, squishy entry followed by powerful retardation, all taking place with too little change in pedal effort. About half our drivers disliked the steering feel as well; the buildup of steering effort, and motion at the wheel rim, fail to produce the expected change in path. You steer, rethink the result, and steer again. So the C240 feels uncoordinated, uncooperative. There’s no reward for driving here.

Lows: Abrupt clutch, uncooperative brakes, flabby chassis muscles, tach cowers in shadowy of the cluster.

Two more driver complaints: The aero-optimized outside mirrors are small and oddly angled, and the tachometer has the size and commanding presence more typical of a gas gauge.
The passengers get a much better deal. The interior is rich and plush and beautifully colored in pastels. The leather has just the right puckers and gathers. The seats are firmly supportive but not hard. Comfort and space in back nearly matched the Saab’s, and topped all the others.

The Verdict: A compact luxury sedan in compact-luxury-sedan clothes.

All in all, we’re left with the feeling of a passenger car, not a driver’s car.
2001 Mercedes-Benz C240168-hp V-6, 6-speed manual, 3389 lbBase/as-tested price: $30,595/$35,560C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.8 sec100 mph: 23.8 mph1/4 mile: 16.7 @ 85 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 183 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 gC/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpg

Fourth Place: Volvo S60 T5
Two hundred forty-seven horses and not a shy one among them. This Volvo pours out the power. It makes the others get small in its mirrors as it rushes to 60 mph in 6.6 seconds, quickest in the group. The quarter-mile comes up in 15.1 seconds at 96 mph — also quickest. That’s 0.3 second and 3 mph quicker than the next-best Saab. Top speed, with the horses held back by the governor, is 129 mph.

Highs: Three bags full of horsepower, cushy cockpit, frosted metal sculpture on display in the interior.

These heroic numbers are the work of a high-pressure turbocharged and intercooled 2.3-liter five-cylinder engine (those seeking moderation can opt for a different turbo: a low-pressure system sans intercooler rated at 197 horsepower).
Compared with the Saab, the Volvo is less ornery in its handling. Torque steer is relatively tame, and the suspension almost never bottoms. As in the Benz, there’s lots of up and down in the suspension motions, and lots of roll angle, but the S60 has more damping, which gives better control. Road adhesion is quite good, in the top half of the group at 0.81 g, but the subjective impression heads in a different direction. On a trip through the twisties, understeer dominates, accompanied by the thought that ride comfort and noise isolation—not athletic ability are the S60’s strong points.

Lows: Touchy brakes, edgy clutch, five-cylinder thrum when the boost comes up.

The interior makes a strong statement. All eyes immediately zero in on the “space ball” shifter centered in the console, a large ball-and-socket pivot sprouting a lever, rendered in a frosty finish that looks too cold to touch without mittens. The door-latch handles are carved from the same mystery metal. Simulated walrus hide covers the dash. The large speedometer and tach dials have beveled edges in the manner of those black Porsche chronographs. And the seats have a plush surface feel that makes the S60 seem five grand more expensive than all others in the group, the result, we think, of a thin layer of cushy foam beneath the leather cover. In back, the cushion is deeply contoured and shaped superbly for two passengers, but space is no better than in the Audi/ BMW/Lexus bunch, which, by a small fraction, ranks equally at the bottom half of the group.

The Verdict: As sports sedans go, this is a small smile, not a big grin.

The S60 is a powerful tourer, but never a frisky one.
2001 Volvo S60 T5247-hp inline-5, 5-speed manual, 3410 lbBase/as-tested price: $32,375/$35,675C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.6 sec100 mph: 16.3 mph1/4 mile: 15.1 @ 96 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg

Third Place: Lexus IS300
Of the six contestants, this spunky Lexus is the one that keeps digging us in the ribs and saying, “Let’s play.” There’s an irrepressible spirit here, with a switchblade quickness that’s the essence of motoring sport.

Highs: Silken powertrain, eager control responses, spunky style, holding power of the grippy suede seats.

There’s also the five-speed automatic as the only choice for now. It’s a slick execution, fully automatic, or you can select the manual mode, thereby activating two sets of upshift-and-downshift buttons on the steering wheel’s horizontal spokes, one set for each hand. Still, it’s an automatic, and that puts the lid on all hopes for a high finish in a C/D sports-sedan runoff.
The IS300 is a small box of a car with its sheetmetal drawn tightly over fat Goodyear Eagle GS-D 215/45ZR-17 tires. The tall wheels, silvery taillights, and big-bore exhaust pipe add a West Coast swagger. Inside, the beltline is low, letting in lots of light and a great view. The door sills, pedals, and left-foot rest are finished in brushed metal — racing style! — punctuated with rubber buttons to keep your shoes from slipping off. The firm buckets have plenty of contour to keep you from sliding around, and the suede inserts finish off the job, gripping your backside like Velcro. Whereas the Volvo and the Benz feel plush inside, the Lexus is thinly padded, with its coverings tightly stretched over the essentials. The steering and the suspension pick up the theme. Everything about this car is pulled taut.

Lows: Automatic only transmission, too much texture noise from tires, chrono-style speedometer difficult to read.

Responses are instantaneous. No slack. The steering cuts quickly; we rated it best of all. The brakes respond right now. Body roll is minimal, and the tires read the road, with a bit more noise and ride harshness than you’d expect of a Lexus.
Skidpad adhesion, at 0.82 g, is second best behind the BMW, with dependable understeer. Braking performance tops all others’ at 164 feet from 70 mph. Acceleration is just a tick behind the group’s average at 7.6 seconds to 60 mph, held back by the automatic. Top speed is 142 mph, just 2 mph short of the high mark set by the Saab.

The Verdict: Born to frolic.

Numbers, though, don’t capture this car. But we can paint its portrait with one seldom-used word. Think frolicsome. Because that’s how this Lexus thinks.
2001 Lexus IS300215-hp inline-6, 5-speed automatic, 3392 lbBase/as-tested price: $30,995/$34,635C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.6 sec100 mph: 20.0 mph1/4 mile: 15.8 @ 89 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg

Second Place: Audi A4 2.8 Quattro
Thinking of a vacation for your eyes? Give ’em a week inside this A4. They’ll come back rested and inspired. The cockpit appointments are so perfectly shaped. The leather is so richly colored, gray with a hint of coffee, and just the right wrinkles at the seams, like the handiwork of Bottega Veneta. And the wood — your living room should have such furniture.

Highs: Cleanly chiseled exterior, richly appointed cockpit, composed handling at all times.

The driving position fits, too, like a suit from Savile Row, thanks to instant tailoring by the power seat and the tilt-tele column. Best of all, the bucket is firm enough, and cupped enough, to hold you in the heat of the chase.
This is a confident car, confident enough to shun the spoilers and add-on gestures that shout “Sport!” at the younger set. But the car feels sporty. The ride has a hard edge to it. There’s lots of impact and texture noise up from the tires. Ride motions are quick. You feel connected to the road. The controls play along, communicating, always reassuring that you have control.
The confidence stays with you over the back roads. You feel just enough push as you enter turns that you don’t worry about the tail coming around. The balance turns broadly neutral the rest of the way through. The Audi hangs on, shrugging off the sudden changes in throttle position that upset others. Thank the all-wheel-drive system for such imperturbability. It’s all so composed, so meant to happen, the spirited driving in this car.

Lows: Sharpish ride with lots of tire noise, engine coarse at high revs, brakes fade.

Performance, in all the tests, ranks at the middle of the pack. Acceleration fades a bit toward the high end—0 to 100 mph takes 20.8 seconds, behind all but the Benz. Top speed is governed at 130 mph.
The V-6 is, frankly, unstimulating, delivering reasonable torque in the midrange and fretful notes when pushed to the 6200-rpm redline. The shift lever is short and the motions are slick, although this car, unlike all other A4s we’ve driven, had an awkward clutch engagement very high in the pedal travel. We also noticed some fade in the brake test, but pedal feel otherwise was up to the Audi’s standard of easy controllability.

The Verdict: Good-looking, easy to talk to, likes to dance.

While your eyes are vacationing in an A4, the driver in you will be charmed as well.
2001 A4 2.8 Quattro190-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3382 lbBase/as-tested price: $31,540/$36,110C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.4 sec100 mph: 20.8 mph1/4 mile: 15.8 @ 89 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 181 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpg

First Place: BMW 325i
Water runs downhill. And another BMW rises to the top of a sporting-car test.
The pleasures of this car flow almost entirely toward the driver, not the passengers, from an epicenter located near the midpoint between the clutch and the gear lever. The clutch hooks up like velvet, right where you think it should. The shift lever stirs cream. The right pedal tapers up the power, so easy and natural to control. You make smooth, expert shifts the first time you drive. Yeah, we’re earlobe deep in talent here at C/D, but this BMW never stops flattering.

Highs: The joy of five-speeding, vibration-free power, harsh-free ride, fumble-free handling.

And that’s the story of its handling, too. This car flows over the back roads, like a liquid following the contours of the road. Instantly, you’re a great driver. Up-and-down suspension motions are so perfectly damped they almost escape notice. Body roll is controlled, a liquid that never sloshes. Pour it on. You have a stable platform from which to give your best. And the steering, the brakes, and the clutch and shifter convey your messages to the machinery exactly as you intend them.

Lows: Low-aspiration interior appointments, bare-bones equipment list, seat adjuster awkward for heavy drivers.

You could get the wrong idea from the $30,110 price of this car, lowest of the bunch. Despite our plan for well-rounded machines, this BMW is, in fact, a stripper 325i with only a sunroof and the Sport package, the latter being a critical contributor to this car’s winning ways. It includes grippy 225/45WR-17 “summer” tires on eight-inch-wide rims, a stiffer “sport suspension,” and a set of front buckets with excellent lateral support — on manual-adjust tracks. A lot of sport per dollar, nothing for luxury. No cruise control. The seats are covered in vinyl.
In a sports-sedan comparison, it’s a winning formula. Road grip is excellent, measuring 0.86 g on the skidpad, yet the ride is pleasing, too. Braking fell behind that of the Lexus by only three feet. Acceleration hangs into the top half of the group, but only just barely. Engine sound, a smooth hum, is always present, particularly at interstate speeds. It’s accompanied by wind roar that is louder than average. Torque is a bit weak, lower for 2001 than for last year, reduced in exchange for 14 extra horsepower, up to 184 now.

The Verdict: Pours itself down back roads like liquid poetry.

Less torque, more reason to work the lever. This car loves that kind of work.
2001 BMW 325i184-hp inline-6, 5-speed manual, 3248 lbBase/as-tested price: $27,560/$30,110C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.0 sec100 mph: 19.9 mph1/4 mile: 15.4 @ 90 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the Archive: The new Park Avenue eschews embellishments in favor of the reserved, upscale plushness that has long defined the Buick brand. More

From the Archive: Among near-luxury sports sedans with stick shifts—Acura TL, Audi A4, BMW 325i, Infiniti G35, Jaguar X-type, Lexus IS300, Saab 9-3—surely something is better than a BMW. Or is it? More

Dodge installs a 710-hp Hellcat engine into its three-row SUV to ensure that no one will ever be late to soccer practice. More