Car Reviews

From the Archive: More power, but at a price. More

The BMW 3-series is without question one of our favorite cars, reigning on our yearly 10Best Cars list for the past 16 years. The current and much-praised, fifth-generation E90 version is no doubt the best, and is among the most rewarding cars to drive at any price. For 2008, and to no one’s surprise, BMW is adding a convertible version, just as the company has for the past 20 years.

Best Convertibles of 2020

Convertibles for $5000: Window Shop with C/D

The BMW M850i Droptop Outdoes the 6-Series

But, this is BMW’s first foray into the expanding, hardtop-convertible parade. Other notable features are a much-improved, rapid-shifting six-speed automatic; special reflective leather to keep the seats cool (up to 30 degrees cooler than conventional leather) when the top is down; and, of course, the spectacular 300-hp twin-turbo inline-six that was introduced in last year’s 335i coupe. In the U.S., the convertible will be offered as the aforementioned 300-hp 335i—the model we got an early drive in—as well as a 230-hp 328i when it goes on-sale at the end of March. Pricing isn’t yet finalized, but the convertible premium will likely not change much from the outgoing model’s, so expect to pay about $7000 more than comparable coupes; roughly $43,000 for the 328i and $48,000 for the 335i.
Changes from convertible to coupe in 23 seconds
Hardtop convertibles offer numerous advantages over their soft-top competitors, including coupe-like quietness and excellent visibility when the top is up. BMW reports that the rear side windows have grown 30 percent in the new 3-series convertible, while overall visibility is up 38 percent. To our eyes, visibility out of the convertible is essentially equivalent to that of the coupe.

View Photos

Looks-wise, you probably won’t spot the new convertible by its 3-series-coupe-like front-end, but rather from the rear, where the coupe’s flowing roofline is replaced by a distinct line where the convertible’s roof meets the trunk.
BMW’s new top is a three-piece unit and, at the push of a center-console button or the key fob, stacks the front panel on top of the center panel, then the rear panel on top of both of those before disappearing into the trunk in 22 seconds. It takes a second longer to reverse the process, which is about seven seconds quicker than its closest competitor, the Volvo C70.

View Photos

The downside of folding hardtops is that they’re heavy and that the top can hog most of the trunk space when down. In the 3-series’ case, the top itself adds 300 pounds, while the extra chassis reinforcements pack on another 150, so expect a 335i convertible to weigh about 4000 pounds. To BMW’s credit, however, the convertible retains a 50-50 weight distribution and is claimed to have 50-percent stiffer torsional rigidity than the previous 3-series convertible. From the driver’s seat, we can tell you that the new 3-series is among the stiffest in its class, with almost no perceptible quivers felt through either the seat or steering wheel.

View Photos

The convertible’s 12-cubic-foot trunk is actually one cube larger than the coupe’s, but shrinks to 7 with the top down; still leaving usable space beneath the panels. That also compares favorably with the Volvo C70’s 13 cubic feet top-up and 6 top-down. However, the Volvo has a nifty loading feature that electronically motors the roof panels out of the way for easier access to the trunk space with the top down. On the BMW, that feature is optional (part of the $500 Comfort Access, which also includes keyless unlocking/locking and starting) and doesn’t work as well as there’s no button (instead you must click the key fob twice), and even then doesn’t make loading as easy as the Volvo does. However, the 3-series has a folding rear seat and a 16-inch-wide trunk pass through to accommodate the must-have set of golf clubs under the folded roof.
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 November 2003 issue of Car and Driver.
Before we delve into the new Morgan Aero 8 roadster, let’s get something, uh, prominent out of the way first. The nose. It’s a unique-looking snout with a deeply recessed grille and a pair of pontoon fenders that are capped with flush-mounted, offset headlights. To some, “unique” doesn’t do it justice-it’s been likened to a cross-eyed Pekinese, or a frog drawn by the Merry Pranksters.

2020 Morgan Plus 4: Unchanged since 1950

Morgan Plus Four Sets Course for America

2018 Morgan Plus 8 50th Anniversary Edition

However you see it, the Aero 8 is the first entirely new car the little company in England has introduced in 50 years. Its previous model, the Plus 8, appeared in 1968, and it was little more than a lengthened version of the Plus 4, which had its debut in 1950. Although the Plus 8 has been regularly updated, it has remained about as modern as a VW Beetle, but customers nonetheless endured six-month waiting lists and a $65,000 price to snag one of the 200 Plus 8s produced each year, of which maybe 50 trickled into the U.S.
If there were no crash or emissions regulations, Morgan probably would have continued on with the Plus 8 for eternity. But these regulations got tougher with each passing decade, and the grim reaper finally had his eyes firmly locked on the Plus 8.
Imagine the dilemma at Morgan’s Malvern Link headquarters: Precisely how do you make a new car without turning off the loyal cadre of customers who are attracted to the classic, creaky British roadster that is the Plus 8?
So you try designing a new, modern car that retains the old, classic look of the Morgan. The task fell to Charles Morgan, grandson of the company’s founder, H.M.S. Morgan. The chassis emerged from a Plus 8 race car that Charles had built in the mid-1990s. In 1995, Christopher Lawrence (“The Mad Monk of Malvern Link,” June 1999), a 61-year-old race engineer, vehicle designer, and fabricator, joined Morgan to help turn that chassis-and body-into the Aero 8.

Highs: Light weight yields excellent performance; precise, easily controllable chassis; strong brakes; looks like nothing else on the road.

In 2000, a completed Aero 8 made its debut at the Geneva auto show and soon after went on sale in Europe. Since then, the company has reportedly invested $1 million to certify the car for the U.S. Interestingly, the company’s chairman, Peter Morgan, was once quoted as saying the firm could “lose [the U.S. market] tomorrow and never notice.” Obviously, that statement is no longer operative, and Morgan would indeed be grateful for U.S. buyers, whose purchases could recoup the cost of developing the new car.
The first Aero 8s should arrive next spring at a price of about $95,000. We got an early drive and test courtesy of Morgan’s East Coast agent, Cantab Motors. The blue car you see here is the sixth Aero 8 built and served as a prototype and test mule. Although its interior and trim bits are crude and unfinished, mechanically, it’s the real deal.
Morgan has never built its own powertrains. The 4.4-liter V-8 and six-speed manual transmission are from BMW. Plucked from the 540i, the DOHC aluminum V-8 produces 282 horsepower at 5400 rpm and 324 pound-feet at 3600 rpm.
The engine is mounted well behind the front axle for good weight distribution, and from the appearance of the tightly fitted frame rails, it looks as though the car were designed around the motor. The frame is an interesting combination of rectangular aluminum tubes that are reinforced with bonded and riveted aluminum panels. The skin is also made from aluminum.
The Aero 8 is a small car. It’s only 6.5 inches longer than a Mazda Miata. Its wheelbase, however, is 10.4 inches longer, so the Morgan doesn’t have that little-roadster look to it. Say what you will about the nose, but the guy’s got the eye. The Aero is without a doubt a Morgan, and although it appears to have the aerodynamics of a barn door, the drag coefficient is a poor but not horrendous 0.39 (the slippery Corvette has a much better figure of 0.29).
We’ve seen other aluminum cars with only small weight savings, but the Aero 8 is decidedly a featherweight. With a full tank of fuel, it weighs only 2476 pounds, which is about 50 pounds more than the four-cylinder Miata and 700 pounds less than the 405-hp, $52,000 Corvette Z06 (not to mention about 1300 pounds less than the 540i sedan the engine was designed for).
The Z06 has the power-to-weight advantage (7.8 pounds per horsepower versus 8.8 for the Morgan) and is quicker, but not by much. The Morgan scampered to 60 mph in only 4.2 seconds and through the quarter in 12.7 seconds at 110 mph. The Vette can hit 60 in 4.0 seconds and does the quarter in 12.4 seconds at 116 mph.
There are plenty of high-dollar sports cars the Morgan can dust off, including the Porsche 911 and Mercedes-Benz SL500, and some-such as the $119,000 Porsche 911 Turbo-that would direct the Morgan to the weeds. But the main point is the Morgan can suck you into the seat in any gear. It’s a pleasure to row through the six-speed box, the shift lever is well placed, and the clutch takeup is smooth.
Like a Dodge Viper, which rockets forward regardless of the gear it’s in, the Aero is joyously responsive. Left in sixth gear, this Morgan needs 5.4 seconds to go from 30 to 50 mph and 5.7 seconds to leap from 50 to 70 mph. Those are extremely good times, better than the Corvette’s at 9.5 and 9.4 seconds, respectively.
Part of the credit goes to the low-geared rear end (3.08:1) and a sixth gear that isn’t as tall as the Vette’s, but the big reason is that the engine doesn’t have much mass to pull around. We did our testing at Summit Point Raceway in Summit Point, West Virginia, and after using the straightaway for our acceleration testing, we did some hot laps to see just how sporting this Englishman with the German heart is.

Lows: Goofy-looking nose; manual top operation; getting in and out makes you look dorky or, worse, burns you.

That’s where we learned that downshifting is not required to keep the Aero 8 cooking. The V-8, as we’ve reported before, is creamy smooth and redlines at only 6100 rpm. The engine feels underworked and effortlessly whips the car around. After a few laps we found it was just as quick to skip downshifts and let the flexible engine do its work.
The chassis felt extremely strong and is completely up to modern stiffness standards. Bumps or road irregularities did not send the steering column shaking, and the cowl stayed put. That stiffness lends an alacrity and precision to the performance that we had not expected.
We got on the track thinking we’d do five laps for the photographer and get a feeling for the car’s handling balance. But five grew to 10, then to 15, then 20. The Aero 8 rocked out there.
The word that kept coming to mind: modern. The Aero 8 suspension uses unequal-length control-arm geometry at all corners and imparts amazing trackside grip and confidence. The low-profile tires are mounted on trick center-bolt magnesium wheels.
It’s an interesting setup because there are no anti-roll bars, which most other sports cars in production today have. Perhaps it is Morgan’s desire to be different, but the suspension delivers fantastically lively handling and loads of grip (0.96 g). We never expected to feel so comfortable sliding the car through corners and probing the limits of adhesion on the unfamiliar track.
We shouldn’t forget how the brakes and steering contribute to the good vibes. The front brakes use 13.0-inch rotors and four-piston calipers; the rears have 12.0-inch rotors and two-piston calipers. These are big brakes that would be suitable for a much heavier car. On the lightweight Morgan, we didn’t experience any fade. Anti-lock control is not available, but the firm pedal offers excellent feedback and is easy to modulate. We measured 178 feet to stop from 70 mph. (The Corvette Z06, with anti-lock brakes, stops in 160 feet.)
The steering uses variable power assist that is a little lacking in the feedback department, but it has no slop and firms up nicely as cornering forces build. Production cars feature a tilting and telescoping steering column not on our prototype, which had a steering wheel that about rubbed against the top of our thighs and made getting in somewhat undignified. The pedals are offset to the left in a small footwell that doesn’t have enough room for a dead pedal. The brake and gas pedals are too far apart for easy heel-and-toe maneuvers. There was plenty of legroom, though, and even with the seat moved all the way rearward, the seatback was still reclined at a comfortable angle. It’s intimate inside, with only six or so inches separating the shoulders of pilot and co-pilot.
There’s solid wood trim at the base of the upright windshield that continues onto the tops of the tall doors. That handsome trim and the view over the long elegant hood impart a vintage feel that was completely at odds with the Aero’s strong, modern performance and sharp handling. We were recalibrating ourselves over the entire drive, trying to rectify that old-time look with the modern chassis dynamics.
That recalibration continued on public roads. Admittedly, in Virginia and West Virginia, we never encountered the kind of crater-laden surfaces that we love to hate here in Michigan, but the bumps we did hit were soaked up just fine.
We did not detect any harshness filtering through the chassis, and despite the lack of anti-roll bars, there wasn’t a lot of lean in the corners. The prototype exhaust pipes that drooped below the rear suspension on their way to the dual rear outlets hit the road a few times, but production models have a system with more clearance.
Heat from the exhaust was one of our biggest gripes. The catalytic converters reside underneath the fenders and at a point next to the doors. These fenders look like running boards but are about eight inches wide and won’t support any weight. They make for wide sills that you have to hurdle while getting in and out. You end up looking dorky as you maneuver awkwardly to get out without cooking your calves on the fenders.

The Verdict: A surprisingly modern—and fast—performance car from the last purveyors of the wooden British roadster.

The prototype only had the removable hardtop, so we didn’t experience the manual softtop. Reports we’ve read from British car magazines suggest it’s far from perfect and not weather tight.
A convertible top that must be raised and lowered by hand is tough to accept in a $95,000 car. Still, the Aero 8’s combination of vintage looks, excellent performance, and rarity–only 50 or so will make their way here in 2004–makes it undeniably cool. Which is good, because this new Morgan may not see any changes for another 50 years.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2004 Morgan Aero 8 Roadster
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster
ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED $95,000
ENGINE TYPE DOHC aluminum 4.4-liter V-8, aluminum block and heads, port injectionDisplacement: 268 cu in, 4398ccPower (SAE net): 282 bhp @ 5400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 324 lb-ft @ 3600 rpmRedline: 6100 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 99.6 inLength: 162.2 inWidth: 69.7 inHeight: 47.2 inCurb weight: 2476 lb
C/D-TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 secZero to 100 mph: 10.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 4.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 110 mphTop speed (drag limited, est ): 155 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA city driving: 15 mpgEPA highway driving: 31 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 September 2000 issue of Car and Driver.
Picture some future explorers digging up the preserved remains of a Dodge Durango R/T. They will have no problem dating the specimen to the height of an epoch when herds of behemoths with similar body-on-frame skeletons and voracious appetites roamed the continent of North America.

Most Powerful Crossovers and SUVs on Sale Today

Best SUVs and Crossovers of 2020

These Are the Quickest SUVs We’ve Ever Tested

Like most of them, the Durango R/T has five hinged orifices, a prodigious interior cavity, and a standard full-time four-wheel- drive system. That seems to slot it into a genus of docile leviathans known for nesting around soccer fields and shopping malls. However, the Durango also has 17-inch alloy wheels and a brooding 360-cubic-inch V-8 with a menacing snarl. Perhaps the Durango R/T was a predator that used its swiftness to run down the larger creatures of its habitat.
Either conclusion would be valid. The new-for-2000 R/T version of the Dodge Durango shares enough of its vital specs with Dodge’s more family-oriented Durango SLT to remain useful as a kiddy carpooler. But it also packs enough tweaks of both the shiny and dirty variety to inch up the Durango’s otherwise modest entertainment quotient.
Amazingly, the performance angle of the proletarian sport-utility segment is still largely untapped. Remember the bumptious GMC Typhoon of 1992-93, of which just 4601 were built? It reached 60 mph in less than six seconds and needed just 14.1 seconds to cover 1320 feet driving all four wheels (C/D, March 1992). Mercedes and BMW both build high-powered, high-dollar utes, but so far nobody in Detroit has dared step forward to fill the breach.

Highs: Slick duds, rumbly exhaust, proven DNA.

Unfortunately, nor is Dodge. It is using a fairly restrained formula in the latest attempts to leverage the historic R/T moniker. The equation behind the Durango R/T, Dakota R/T, Neon R/T, and Intrepid R/T goes like this: base vehicle plus top trim-level package plus largest available engine plus special R/T equipment group. The latter varies from car to car and includes some sporty interior and exterior trim plus a dash of spice sprinkled on the engine and suspension.
For the Durango, this means a snortier exhaust, a reprogrammed engine-control module, fatter tires, and revalved shock absorbers. It’s hardly 1967 all over again, and the factory mods won’t even make the R/T the hottest Durango ever to grace these pages. That title belongs to the Shelby SP360 Durango (C/D, October 1998), a $54,000, 360-horsepower tuner rocket with a Kenne Bell supercharger strapped to its iron block.
For those who prefer a factory warranty and a price south of a BMW’s, the Durango at least looks good in its R/T costume. It has handsome five-spoke alloy wheels ringed by bulky P275/60SR-17 Goodyear Wrangler HP street radials and chromelike embossed “Durango 5.9 R/T” logos on the front doors. Body-color running boards are part of the package.
The interior treatment is somewhat skimpy: R/Ts feature suede door-panel bolsters and two-tone front and rear leather-faced seats. The front buckets have suede inserts bearing a small, embroidered “R/T” logo. From behind the wheel, payment makers will be hard pressed to identify their Durango R/Ts from lesser models. One more bauble on the otherwise school-bus dash, such as off-color gauges or an R/T dash plaque, would nicely rein-force the message.

Lows: More sound than substance, swills gasoline.

Underneath the R/T’s styling lies a thin but noteworthy layer of substance. At the core is the familiar 5.9-liter Magnum V-8 puffed up in the R/T by 5 hp and 15 pound-feet of torque to 250 hp at 4200 rpm and 350 pound-feet at 3000 rpm. The power increase is due mainly to some software rewrites in the engine module with the end result being more aggressive ignition timing. It’s basically the same controller Jeep used on the ’98 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited (the one with the hood louvers). With this controller fitted, the Durango R/T demands premium fuel. It also comes with a freer-flowing muffler wearing a chrome tip.
The muffler plays a thumping concerto lifted directly from the Hemi gold album. Better like it, because the four-speed automatic transmission is one overdrive short of being able to quiet down the cabin on the highway. There, the 3.92:1 final drive forces the big pushrod motor to turn almost 2100 revs at 65 mph-enough so that the niblets in back are sure to whine if they’re trying to watch videos.
The R/T pounces off the line when all that torque is sluiced through the low-geared rear end, but forget hazing the spectators with tire smoke. The driveline, which doubles as the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s base Selec-Trac system with a lock-able low range, has a fixed 48 percent front and 52 percent rear torque split that keeps all the paws firmly planted on the bitumen.
The 5.9’s extra juice helped the R/T clip one full second off the 9.1-second 0-to-60 time of a Durango SLT tested with the base 5.9 engine and 3.92:1 axle ratio (C/D, January 1998). It also sheared 0.7 second off the quarter-mile, running it in 16.3 seconds at 84 mph, three more mph than the SLT’s trap speed.
The R/T handily outcircled the SLT on the skidpad, pulling 0.77 g to the SLT’s 0.69. By the way, that’s just a whisker off the hunkered-down Typhoon’s 0.79-g skidpad performance. Thank the R/T’s jumbo tires and firmer shock absorbers, which help eliminate any wild body mambo. Also give credit to the rack-and-pinion steering system new this year to four-wheel-drive Durangos. It telegraphs messages from the front tires more succinctly and helps place the Durango’s broad snout more confidently in turns.
It will also steer it confidently toward gas pumps. The EPA claims a Durango R/T averages 12 mpg in the city and 16 on the highway. Our 4926-pound test vehicle ingested a gallon of premium on average every 13 miles over 600.

The Archive: Steep price won’t make you the terror of Colorado Boulevard.

A loaded Durango SLT with most of the R/T’s equipment, including the un-modified 5.9 V-8 and full-time four-wheel drive, will vacuum $32,695 out of a bank account. The extra whiffs of R/T fairy dust run an additional $1645 and don’t include the optional third row of seats ($550) or four-wheel anti-lock brakes ($495–rear-wheel ABS is standard).
History will be the judge of whether this sporty ute was the start of a new species or just an evolutionary dead end.
Counterpoint
The major ingredient of this Durango 5.9 R/T is exclusivity. Sport-utes are every-where you look these days, so you’ve got to have something to separate you from the pack. In this case, a throaty exhaust, some suede on the seats and doors, some aggressively styled R/T labels, and a few other bits are what you get. Unfortunately, the performance promise behind the R/T tag isn’t as dramatic. Yes, it’s a few ticks quicker, but driving this macho sport-ute is still less than thrilling. The ride is smooth, and the R/T has a high level of quality, but “performance” and “sport-ute” are two terms I don’t see being happy next to each other. —Brad Nevin
The Durango’s mid-size-Dakota origins keep it compact compared with other SUVs in its class—it slots in size between an Explorer and an Expedition—yet it’s endowed with 5.9 liters of full-size-Ram power. Add a 5-hp boost and 15 more pound-feet of torque, as well as the rest of the R/T goodies, and power-hungry truck lovers may forget all about the 88-cubic-foot maximum cargo capacity—especially when under the influence of the rumbling exhaust and the flared fenders. That would be a good time to fork over the extra five grand for the R/T 5.9—before you can calculate how much it will cost to keep that 25-gallon tank full. —Cora Weber
I don’t advertise this around here, but I sort of enjoy muscled trucks because I’m frequently towing or hauling something and I like the added zip. If Ford’s SVT Lightning were available as a crew cab, I’d be begging to make one a longtermer. I’m no fan of the Durango R/T sport-ute, however. It holds the road better than the SLT model and it’s quicker in all acceleration tests, but it’s still not among the truck elite in its performance. And I found the booming exhaust note cool at first but tiring after 20 minutes. The R/T package needs to offer more of a performance gain before I’d degrade the base Durango’s comfy, refined manner. —Larry Webster

Specifications

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 May 1988 issue of Car and Driver.
We at Car and Driver don’t need a lot of encouragement to road-test a Corvette. As America’s highest-performance production car and one of the world’s great supercar bargains, the Corvette is a constant topic of discussion in our office. Which is not to say that the discussions are always friendly. The arguments between staff members who are smitten with the Corvette’s speed and those who are discouraged by its deficiencies never stop.

Tested: 2020 Corvette Z51 vs. Cayman GT4

Tested: Five-Way 1990 Sports Car Shootout

Complete History of the Chevy Corvette

Chevrolet has fueled the debate by continually honing, tuning, and otherwise improving the current-generation Corvette, which first appeared as a 1984 model. The 1985 version introduced a port fuel-injection system, which increased the engine’s power and responsiveness, and a thoroughly recalibrated suspension, which largely tamed the car’s buckboard ride. A lovely convertible edition and standard-equipment Bosch anti-lock brakes were the highlights of the 1986 lineup. Last year’s crop of improvements included the Z52 suspension package, which spanned the gap between the base calibration and the Z51 competition setup, and aluminum cylinder heads, which reduced weight and helped add ten horsepower to the engine’s power rating.
The 1988 Corvette continues the tradition of annual progress. This year’s news includes revised front and rear suspension geometry, bigger brakes, yet another engine upgrade, and optional seventeen-inch wheels and tires. There are a host of minor changes as well: a quieter and lighter air-conditioning compressor, an improved ventilation system, and the addition to the standard-equipment list of power locks, cruise control, and an AM/FM/cassette stereo system.
Of the running-gear changes, the most obvious are the larger wheels and tires, which are standard with the racetrack-oriented Z51 package or the similar Z52 street setup. Except for such boutique machines as the Porsche 959 and the Lamborghini LM002, the 1988 Corvette is the first car in modern times to be outfitted with seventeen-inch wheels and tires. The tires are 275/40ZR-17 Goodyear Eagles—a wider, lower-profile development of the 255/50ZR-16 gatorbacks that are still fitted to the base car.
Surprisingly, the racy-looking rubber does not—and was not intended to—improve the Corvette’s absolute cornering power. But the Corvette had plenty of grip already. Our Z52-equipped test car circled the skidpad at 0.87 g, a performance identical to that of the Z52 we tested last June, and as high as that of any production car we’ve ever tested. Corvette and Goodyear engineers developed the new tires not to increase the ultimate grip but to improve controllability at the limit and performance on wet pavement.
Sure enough, the 1988 Corvette with the Z52 option—a bargain at $970—handles more benignly than any other Corvette we’ve ever driven. The chassis’s moderate understeer and the tires’ gradual breakaway encourage flirting with the Corvette’s outstanding cornering limits. You can slide all four tires a bit, or flick the tail out with a touch of throttle if you prefer. You can play Mario Andretti all day long without fearing that the chassis will snap into oversteer the first time you make a little mistake.

Chevy Corvette: A Brief History in Zero-to-60-MPH

Corvette Chronology 1980s

Tested: 1963 Chevrolet Corvette Reshapes the Icon

And when the weather turns against you, the Corvette won’t. Despite their steamroller width, the new Goodyears work amazingly well in the wet. Not only is their wet grip impressive, but they resist aquaplaning at any sensible speed. The new rubber even works well in the snow. You’ll never mistake the Z52 Corvette for a Jeep, but neither will a three-inch snowfall transform your drive to work into a nonstop skid-control session. In fact, the biggest problem with driving a Corvette in the snow is its sensitive throttle linkage, which translates the first tiny increment of pedal movement into a sizable fraction of the engine’s generous torque. An overaggressive throttle is usually intended to create the impression that a car has more power than it really has. The Corvette requires no such fakery.
Some of the credit for the improved handling belongs to the suspension changes. Although the components and their basic layout are unchanged, the new front geometry produces a scrub radius of zero, rather than the slightly negative figure of earlier Corvettes. This change eliminates the tendency of braking forces to steer the front tires, thus increasing stability during braking when the tires are on surfaces of different traction.
In the rear, the engineers repositioned several of the suspension pivots to reduce the camber change that occurs as the suspension moves up and down. The result is that the tires maintain better contact with the ground as the suspension reacts to bumps, improving straight-line stability on uneven pavement.
We can’t say we noticed more stable braking in the new car, though we didn’t try any hard stops on split-traction surfaces. The new geometry definitely improves steering feel, however, The Corvette’s overall steering effort is about perfect for a sports car, and the steering has a very positive on-center groove. And unlike some steering systems that have strong on-center feel, the Corvette’s doesn’t feel artificial. On the negative side, the meanderings of the front tires as they follow longitudinal grooves and ridges still come through unfiltered.
The revised rear suspension does help to settle the back end of the car on rough pavement. Road crowns and bumps now cause fewer disturbances in the rear, so the Corvette darts around less. Fast driving on back roads demands less attention than it did before.
Although these suspension changes sound like simple realignments, their implementation required redesigned control arms, hubs, pickup points, shock mounts, and spring and anti-roll-bar links.
Such extensive revision presented an ideal opportunity to upgrade the Corvette’s brakes, which were a little too small to resist fade during hard use. Part of the solution is two-piston front calipers instead of the single-piston design used before. The new calipers have larger pads, too; because they heat up more slowly, they are more resistant to fade and should last longer. The engineers also enlarged the 0.8-inch-thick brake rotors, from 11.5 to 12.0 inches in diameter, increasing their heat capacity as well. The Z51 competition package gets 13.0-by-1.1-inch rotors in front.
We know from racing experience that the Z51 binders are up to the hellish heat generated in a 24-hour endurance race, and even the standard brakes are now up to the hardest street driving. Formerly, a single hard stop from a triple-digit speed produced noticeable fade. Now, repeated hard use will not diminish the brakes’ effectiveness.
That’s a substantial benefit, because the 1988 Corvette is faster than ever. The latest version of the fuel-injected, 5.7-liter V-8 benefits from freer-flowing ports. Although the aluminum heads became standard equipment last year and were given credit (along with a new camshaft) for raising the engine’s output to 240 horsepower, the ’87 models were actually slower than earlier Corvettes with only 230 rated hp. This year’s upgrade has increased the rating to 245, for an engine that is demonstrably as strong as that of any Corvette we have ever tested.
Our test car, equipped with the four-speed automatic transmission and the optional 3.07:1 axle ratio (a 2.59 ratio is standard with the automatic), needed a mere 5.6 seconds to hit 60 mph and covered the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 95 mph. Those figures set no Corvette records, but the 154-mph top speed we measured makes the new car at least 3 mph faster than any of its predecessors. The revised engine indeed seems to breathe more deeply at high rpm.
Complementing this performance are the perfect drivability and eager response we’ve come to expect from automatic-equipped Corvettes. The symbiosis of the automatic and the torquey V-8 sets a highwater mark for performance powertrains. No matter the circumstance or the speed, this combination translates pressure on the throttle into smooth, powerful thrust. The engine handles most demands from the accelerator with is own deep power reserves; and when it can’t answer the call, the transmission contributes a fast, firm, and extremely smooth kickdown. Upshifts are equally crisp and seamless. Few luxury cars shift so slickly. We far prefer this automatic to the Corvette’s manual transmission, with its intrusive, computerized overdrive and clunky linkage.
Although the changes for 1988 have strengthened the Corvette’s strengths and weakened its weaknesses, our office arguments rage on. We all agree that the Corvette has always been an outstanding performer on the racetrack, and that the new car is a more stunning road performer than ever. But those who want refinement with their performance remain troubled by the Corvette’s plasticky interior, its loud and rumbly exhaust, its numerous (though fewer) squeaks and rattles, and its less-than-stunning reliability record. Some of these shortcomings are inevitable results of the Corvette’s nature. As long as Chevrolet’s sports car is built with a separate fiberglass body, it’s unlikely to feel as solid as a Porsche.
Which brings up a final point: the Corvette doesn’t cost as much as a Porsche, either. The Z52 on these pages—equipped with power leather seats, a deluxe sound system, and other options—wore a sticker price of $33,593. A plain-Jane 924S, without an automatic transmission but otherwise comparably equipped, costs about $35,500—and for that extra two grand you get a car that does not offer anti-lock brakes and is about two seconds slower to 60 mph and 20 mph shy in top speed. For most of us on Hogback Road, that makes the Corvette an unbeatable bargain. To convince the office holdouts, we’ll just have to keep testing every new Corvette we can get our hands on.
Counterpoint
Don’t expect many Corvette criticisms from me. I adore Chevy’s plastic beauty. I’m not blind to its spotty reliability record or to its propensity for squeaks and rattles, but I am convinced that no other car on earth offers more raw performance or sculptured pulchritude for less than $50,000. The 1988 edition is the best year. Yes, the Corvette group has more work to do before its sports car is as tight and rattle-free as a Porsche. But then, to buy a Porsche that can run with a Vette, you’ll have to shell out at least $65,000. That ought to pay for a few trips to the Chevy service department. What’s more, with the exception of any Ferrari and maybe the new Lotus Esprit Turbo, there isn’t a better-looking sports car built. Standing tall on its new seventeen-inch wheels, the Corvette has never looked more stunning. Oh, one more thing. To all those highbrows who wouldn’t be caught dead in a Corvette because of its “image,” I say: Kiss my taillights! —Arthur St. Antoine
Because a beautiful woman once picked me up in a silver Corvette that belonged to her father, I’ve never been able to criticize these machines rationally. This seems altogether fair, however, given the Corvette’s record of continuing improvement. The red bahnstormer we’ve been driving for the past weeks showed me nothing but a good time. The staff spoke freely of ills that plagued earlier Corvettes, maladies best summed up by the words “quality control.” Or lack of same. Happily, I escaped such inconveniences and have only laurels to place on the Corvette’s roof. Well, almost. The more I think about it, I wonder why the Corvette has to be made from fiberglass. Were it bodied with aluminum or steel, it might not squeak like an old man’s knees when it gets old. There’s also a stone to be cast at having to use a wrench to get the removable hard top off, and no small amount of irritation attaches to having to get the car absolutely level before you can wrench the top back into place. That degree of flexibility has no place in a world-class grand-touring coupe. —William Jeanes
You might as well know my biases going into this counterpoint: I love Corvettes. I love winging them around road-racing circuits in endurance races, and I love zinging them around on public roads. I’m proud to say I backed the Vette in our Ten Best voting. I stop short of blind devotion, however. The Corvette’s faults are as obvious as its strengths. Building a sports car with a pop-off roof and a fiberglass skin makes as much sense as trying to dance in cement shoes. You can’t produce a rigid, tight-fitting car that way. So, despite a host of structural Band-Aids, the Corvette still shivers over bumps and creaks its way through life. This car deserves to be as solid as the Porsche 944s and Toyota Supra Turbos it trounces in performance. I’d settle for something close, even. There’s no excuse for a 30-grand car with less than a world-class body. That said, I’d like to answer the only question that really matters in a discussion like this: Make mine red. —Rich Ceppos

Specifications

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

AMG’s entry-level 302-hp A35 sedan fuels the urge to step up to one of its more powerful and expensive models. More

This isn’t Jeep’s first diesel-powered pickup. In fact, it’s the brand’s third oil burner with a bed. The 2021 Jeep Gladiator EcoDiesel follows the 1986 to 1987 Comanche, which was available with Renault’s unloved turbocharged 2.1-liter four-cylinder diesel that produced only 82 horsepower and 132 pound-feet of torque. Before that, in 1964, Jeep also sold the United States Marines two Forward Control models equipped with a two-stroke diesel. Supplied by the Cerlist Diesel Company of North Carolina, that supercharged 2.8-liter inline-3 delivered double the fuel economy of Jeep’s flathead-six but just 85 horses and 170 pound-feet. Less than 500 were produced, and fewer than 50 are known to exist.

2020 Jeep Gladiator Is a More Functional Wrangler

We Test the Diesel-Powered Jeep Wrangler

Jeep is expecting more success this time around. It anticipates 15 percent of Gladiator buyers will choose the new EcoDiesel V-6, which is the same percentage of Wrangler Unlimited customers that have paid handsomely for the turbocharged 3.0-liter engine in 2020. Just as it is on the Wrangler, the diesel costs an additional $4000 and requires the $2000 eight-speed automatic transmission option.

View Photos

Jeep

Built by Fiat Chrysler’s Italian engine subsidiary VM Motori and now in its third generation, the engine features a compacted-graphite-iron block, aluminum cylinder heads, and a variable-geometry turbocharger that produces up to 31.9 pounds of boost. Although it makes 480 pound-feet of torque in the Ram 1500, where it has a slightly higher compression ratio, it isn’t quite as strong in the Jeeps. In the Wrangler and Gladiator, it’s rated at 260 horsepower at 3600 rpm and 442 pound-feet at just 1400 rpm. That’s still the highest torque rating in the mid-size pickup segment, and it’s substantially more than the 260 pound-feet that the standard 3.6-liter gas V-6 provides.
Pick your hackneyed cliché to describe the EcoDiesel’s low-down grunt and ultra-flat power curve, which makes it great for off-roading. Our Rubicon test vehicle chugged up steep hills and over frame-twisting obstacles with the engine lumbering at 2000 rpm or less. Its responses are snappy both around town and at higher speeds, and the transmission does a good job of keeping the V-6 on top of its torque plateau. Along with the more robust 8HP75 eight-speed automatic, the diesel also necessitates the Rubicon’s tougher Dana 44 axles with 3.73:1 gears. While the transmission generally upshifts early when accelerating hard, flicking the shifter over into its M position moves the shift points up to the diesel’s 4500-rpm redline. Despite weighing about 400 pounds more than the gas model, the EcoDiesel Gladiator feels just as quick and should hit 60 mph in the seven-second range.

View Photos

Jeep

Fitting the necessary 5.1-gallon diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank for emissions compliance meant Jeep had to shrink the pickup’s 21.5-gallon fuel tank down to 18.3 gallons. But the EcoDiesel still manages to offer a considerable improvement in range versus the gas V-6, which may be its most compelling selling point. The diesel carries a 24-mpg EPA combined rating versus 19 mpg for the gas V-6, and its potential highway range is more than 500 miles.
The EcoDiesel’s additional mass also meant retuning the Gladiator’s suspension without altering its articulation or ground clearance. Spring rates are up about 10 percent, and its dampers are stiffer, but the pickup’s ride quality hasn’t suffered enough to matter. Its towing capacity has, however. As a result of cooling restrictions imposed by Jeep’s signature seven-slot grille, the EcoDiesel can only tug 6500 pounds to the standard model’s 7650. A four-wheel-drive Chevrolet Colorado with its optional 2.8-liter inline-4 turbodiesel is rated to pull 7700 pounds, despite having 73 fewer foot-pounds of torque. The Jeep’s payload capacity also changes slightly depending on the configuration. On the Rubicon, it actually increases slightly from 1075 pounds with the gas V-6 and automatic transmission combination to 1160 pounds.

View Photos

Jeep

To reduce noise, diesel Wranglers get additional sound-deadening material on the hot side of the firewall and foam on the backside of the infotainment screen. The Gladiator gets the same treatment. The engine is still considerably louder than the gas V-6, but it doesn’t disturb the peace with big-rig levels of diesel rattle. Compared to the optional Cummins turbodiesel six found in Ram’s heavy-duty pickups, it’s practically silent. But dip into the throttle and you can hear the clatter over the wind noise, and that’s saying something considering our test vehicle had a soft top. There’s also a bit of vibration in the throttle pedal, which you don’t get with the standard gas V-6.
We’ll go out on a limb and proclaim this to be Jeep’s best diesel pickup ever. It isn’t without its drawbacks. The turbocharged V-6 adds considerable weight, cost, and complexity, as well as noise and vibration, to a truck that made our 2020 10Best List. But the EcoDiesel’s big torque, greater fuel economy, and additional range are real advantages over the standard gas V-6, especially for Gladiator buyers planning to trek deep into the wilderness with a load of gear.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Jeep Gladiator EcoDiesel
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
BASE PRICE Sport, $41,040; Overland, $47,890; Rubicon, $51,370
ENGINE TYPE turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve diesel V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 182 in3, 2987 cm3Power 460 hp @ 3600 rpmTorque 442 lb-ft @ rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 137.3 inLength: 218.1 inWidth: 73.8 inHeight: 73.1–76.1 inPassenger volume: 104–109 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 5200–5500 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 7.2–8.0 sec1/4 mile: 15.5–16.0 secTop speed: 100–115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 24/21–22/27–17 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: Cadillac’s upstart Allanté challenges the old guard of heavyweight convertibles, the Mercedes SL. More