Car Reviews

From the Archive: A wheeled skiff on pavement, a mountain goat on the trails. More

From the September 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
Cheap speed is like free beer or two bonus Presidents’ Days that land on successive Fridays. It’s always, always good. The only way it could be better is if you combined the beer part with, say, King Mswati III’s parade of bare-breasted maidens, held in the King’s honor annually in Swaziland, where we have never tested even one automobile. But the female members of our production team, one voting in this comparo, reminded us that rampant immaturity in grown men is a trait they do not often seek, so we let it slide, opting instead to spend one hour per night devoted exclusively to poop jokes.

Every New Compact Car You Can Buy in 2020

20 Best Cheap Performance Cars, Trucks, and SUVs

2020 Editors’ Choice: Best New Cars, Trucks, SUVs

This feels like maybe the 23rd installment in our series of cheap-speed comparos, but that’s okay, because we’ve made quite a prosperous little career out of repeating ourselves. For this test, we demanded that each car produce 200-or-more horsepower with a base price not to exceed $25,000. Cheap speed isn’t so cheap these days. We eventually came up with six qualified combatants, which immediately dwindled to five when Volkswagen couldn’t supply a Jetta GLI.
Unfortunately, that’s when the squabbling broke out, fueled mostly by assistant art director Dan Winter, who provoked us into lengthy Other Car negotiations throughout what he calls “Milwaukee Beer Night,” a weekly ritual that Wisconsin native Winter pursues much as Catholics pursue high-stakes bingo. Ever generous, he trotted out his personal premium stock—Schlitz, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and Blatz in cans—and our first order of business wasn’t making a list of potential comparo cars but making a list of really cranky chicks who unfairly dumped us in high school. Copy editor Cora Weber was no help in this matter, concentrating instead on her Blatz and often asking what time it was.
That’s why we got around to talking about cars on some other day, probably at noon or 2 o’clock. First, we summarily excluded any Ford Focus, Hyundai Tiburon, or Mini Cooper on account of not making enough power. The latest Mitsubishi Eclipse GT came close to making the cut, but the only staffer who’d driven the thing told us it was “more like a softly suspended tourer than a racer” and would thus be humiliated. Maybe. But notice that the gentleman didn’t want his name to appear here.
“What about a V-6 Mustang?” blurted Winter, when no one had asked the art department’s opinion on anything. “Twenty grand, 210 horses,” he pointed out. We cursed and laughed, reminding Dan that a heavy rear-drive muscle car was totally at odds with the character of this group. Later, a civilian in Ohio asked, “So where’s your V-6 Mustang?” and we wished we’d included one.
And then someone, possibly Weber, asked, “What about an Audi A3? Less than $500 beyond the price cap and 197 horsepower, which is close enough.” We scoffed and threw pizza crusts, assuring her that the A3 couldn’t possibly keep up. Later, when we looked up its test results, we realized we were wrong, but we’re men and she’s just a girl, so we didn’t say anything, and the Audi wasn’t invited. Sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, which usually entails some Schlitz in a paper cup. Then Winter mentioned that a Jeep Wrangler might almost qualify, so we had to hurt him.

AARON KILEY

And that’s how we wound up with one coupe (the Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged), one hatchback (the Acura RSX Type-S), one pseudo-coupe with rear half-size suicide doors (the Saturn Ion Red Line), one four-wheel-drive sedan (the Subaru Impreza WRX), and one front-wheel-drive sedan (the Dodge SRT4 ACR). We’re not sure if this sets a record for the most tacked-on initials in comparo history, but it might.

If you’re still reading at this point, direct your letters of outrage to managing editor Steve Spence. The 18th letter to arrive will earn its author a pair of embarrassingly red Ferrari sneakers, size unknown, or $35,000 in cash, whichever Spence feels like mailing that day.
Some bathrobes may have been involved in this comparo. “It was real hot outside,” explained Winter. “Like a steam bath.” It was Winter’s idea that we thus dress appropriately. Which meant we could claim expensive monogrammed terry-cloth robes on C/D’s expense account. Winter was not even drinking Blatz when he made this suggestion. Schlitz, possibly.
Plus: Three cost-free things that will improve your autocross performance

Fifth Place: Saturn Ion Red Line
For years and years, we’ve tried to love Saturns. Really, we have. But the division’s products continue to lack a pound of passion and an ounce of refinement. The Ion Red Line is Saturn’s most earnest effort to enrapture, starting with a supercharged Ecotec producing 205 horses. Combine that with the $1375 Competition package, and SoCal import tuners suddenly have a reason to stop snickering. Sort of.

Highs: Confident chassis, strong brakes, manageable price.

There’s plenty here to like. For starters, the Ion Red Line offers the lowest base and as-tested prices in this group. It required a mere 164 feet to stop from 70 mph, with glory due its performance pads and 11.6-inch front rotors. Power delivery was smooth, unlike the on/off whipsawing of the turbocharged cars. There wasn’t a trace of torque steer. The Ion resembles a coupe, but its rear suicide doors proved a godsend for the two (not three) back-seat riders. It was faster than the Chevy Cobalt—with which it shares an engine and platform—in our autocross and emergency-lane-change maneuvers, where it felt extraordinarily well planted. And its Recaro seats accommodated all keisters.
In the end, though, those selling points were drowned in a whirlpool of minor misjudgments. The clutch and the steering were slightly too heavy and leaden, and the shifter was too ropy—beefs leveled at the Cobalt, too. The interior was notable mostly for acres of tacky black plastic, and the dash appeared to have been assembled from 40 pieces. The engine wanted to hang onto revs after we’d lifted, introducing driveline snatch. There was still too much engine thrash above 4000 rpm. Instead of a dead pedal we found only a wad of spongy, squishy carpet. And the optional $390 decklid spoiler wobbled and shimmied like an epileptic hula dancer.

Lows: Thrashy above 4000-rpm, plasticky interior, say-nothing steering.

What’s more, no one ever warmed to the column-mounted shift lights, whose warnings glow at 4400 rpm (peak torque), at 5600 rpm (peak horsepower), and finally at 6200 rpm (300 revs shy of the redline). Actually, the idea is good—you can’t help noticing the lights in your peripheral vision, a cool thing during an autocross. But our testers unanimously ached for a large, simple tach instead, a tach not mounted in the middle of the dash, we might add.
We’d like to tell you that C/D’s editors are free of “historical momentum”—a euphemism for prejudices. But, hey, we’re human. (Well, at least four of us.) During this contest, the Ion may have suffered from the kind of pent-up residual animus that voters reserve for politicians who try to appeal to every constituent on every issue. In one corner of Saturn’s parts bin you’ll find a bunch of super-cool Honda engines, and over in another corner are some Euro-sourced Opel chassis, and over in a third is—hey, what’s this?—a rebadged Chevy minivan that the division advertises as “all-new.” And now we’re to think of Saturn as our performance company?

The Verdict: We want so much to love thee, Saturn, but you’re still not ready to commit.

In truth, Saturn has a couple of thoughtful offerings in the pipeline—chief among them the Sky roadster—although there’s reportedly nothing in the pipeline invented by Saturn uniquely for Saturn. For the nonce, the division remains the car company for people too timid to haggle with salesmen, and a mission statement like that must surely mess with Saturnalians’ minds.
2005 Saturn Ion Red Line205-hp turbocharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2962 lbBase/as-tested price: $19,990/$22,115C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 15.61/4 mile: 14.6 @ 98 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg

Fourth Place: Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
We began referring to the Cobalt SS as the “Chevrolet Ion Red Line,” which was probably unfair. But neither was it a gross exaggeration. The Chevy and the Saturn share identical aluminum engines; they share the same Recaro seats and Quaife limited-slip differentials; and both at least begin with the same Delta chassis, although tuning differences now differentiate them. The Cobalt, for instance, always felt like the longest and heaviest car in this group (it was neither), especially on the freeway, where its superb tracking and overall solidity made it a long-distance all-star.

Highs: Solid and rattle-free, three-passenger rear seat, accom­plished long-distance cruiser.

But the Cobalt also evinced a few too many of the Saturn’s Delta blues. The steering often felt heavy, artificial, and far less fluid than, say, the Acura’s or Subaru’s. That, combined with the heavy clutch and shifter—whose reverse lock-out ring was as fiddly as a nine-speed electric can opener—lent the car a moribund countenance, especially around town. Like the Saturn, the Cobalt also sported a rickety decklid spoiler that obscured the view of trailing Crown Vics and threatened to fly to pieces every time the trunk was slammed. And apart from its easy-to-read gauges—a huge improvement over the Saturn’s—the interior was as dark as February in Reykjavik, at odds with the car’s putative mission.
All voters remarked on a weird scraping noise that the Cobalt’s Ecotec inline-four—and the Saturn’s, too—emitted under light load and steady throttle. It sounded like a serpentine belt rasping across a tensioner or like pennies vibrating in the bottom of Uncle Morty’s cigar tin.

Lows: See Saturn Ion Red Line.

The long, heavy doors—remember the Camaro’s?—require your full attention in tight parking spaces, but they do make entry to the rear seat easier, a seat that is, by the way, suitable for three. Here’s a case, though, where the Saturn’s suicide clamshell doors might have been worth stealing.
Around our Ohio Hocking-heim loop—home of Grandma Faye’s convenience store and six varieties of vegetarian beef jerky—the Cobalt proved as quick as any car in this group, save the SRT4. But to maintain that pace, it also required more stern-willed shepherding. At its limits, the Cobalt was never unpredictable or snaky. Just, well, raggedy .
Our cobalt Cobalt wasn’t a victor in any of our many voting categories, and a car has to do at least one thing well before it has the remotest shot at fame. Instead, the little Chevy apparently aspires to be everyman’s cheap-speed coupe, lacking the refinement of the Acura, the brute force of the Dodge, or the passion of the Subaru—three models that have generated actual cults.

The Verdict: Competent and fun but not likely to launch a cult.

Nothing notable to hate, nothing notable to love. Apart from maybe Dan Quayle, no one has ever become famous like that.
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged205-hp supercharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2936 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,990/$24,580C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 15.31/4 mile: 14.6 @ 99 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 169 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

Third Place: Dodge SRT4 ACR
The Dodge SRT4 ACR—we were asked not to use the Neon designator here, lest readers conjure a wimpy, dental hygienist’s car—represents a kind of descent into acronymic nirvana. SRT stands for Socially Regressive Thinking [ It stands for Street and Racing Technology – Ed.], and ACR stands for Alabama Canine Registry [ It stands for American Club Racing – Ed.]. The $1195 ACR package includes an even firmer suspension—yeah, that’s what it needs—as well as 225/45-16 BFG g-Force T/As instead of the standard 205/50R-17s.

Highs: Big dirty speed, astounding brakes, an autocrosser ready for tire immolation.

Thus equipped, this smiley-faced Dodge is not so much a bull in a china shop as a tyrannosaur in a maternity ward. Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking.
What’s more, the SRT4 offers intergalactically powerful brakes, shedding 70 mph of velocity in 161 feet—supercar territory. If you’re beginning to think of the SRT4 as more race car than street car, we wouldn’t talk you out of it.
Race cars make a lot of noise. The SRT4 was far and away the noisiest car in this group—at idle, at wide-open throttle, and at a 70-mph cruise. Racing engines don’t have to be smooth. The SRT4’s produces a riot of vibration and is so lumpy at idle that our testers couldn’t write clearly in the logbook.

Lows: Noisy at all speeds, vibration at all speeds, overly aggressive front seats.

Race-car seats aren’t designed to be comfy. The SRT4’s hold your legs almost at belt level, as if you’re in a Formula Ford, and the bolsters were apparently designed to clutch onto Steve Kinser. The struts and anti-roll bars groan and gronk. The throttle-return spring is so heavy it could close a screen door. The rear windows are operated via manual cranks. And the spare tire is directional, as if the Dodge guys assume it’s the first thing buyers will discard on the garage floor.
While autocrossing, the Dodge felt right at home but was also the easiest to overdrive, with boost manifesting as early as 2000 rpm. Curb your right-foot enthusiasm, or the SRT4 will smoke its front BFGs out of every corner, even in third gear, plowing wide of your intended line.
This feisty little brute might have placed higher (an SRT4, in fact, won our May 2003 “Serial Thriller” comparo) were it not such a one-trick pony. The Dodge was a perfect marvel on our Ohio handling loop and a perfect nightmare on the drive down—hobbled by the omnipresent lawn-mower exhaust drone, the let’s-get-it- on ride, the rock-hard brake pedal, the torque steer off the line, the dense steering at low speeds, and the onlookers who assume you’re a sociopath looking for a school bus to ram.

The Verdict: A one-trick pony you’ll want to save for SCCA weekends.

Pulse-pounding velocity is dandy, until you want to sip an espresso latte while commuting to work at 6:30 in the sleet. Then all the boy-racer stuff becomes cloying. Still, if there’s pavement in front of your house that needs to be torn up, buy your SRT4 now. This mobile monster disappears in 2006.
2005 Dodge SRT4 ACR230-hp turbocharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2973 lbBase/as-tested price: $22,390/$24,058C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.6 sec100 mph: 14.51/4 mile: 14.3 @ 99 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 161 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

Second Place: Subaru Impreza WRX
It seems as if there’s been a hot Impreza or a WRX in our sign-out fleet about one week of every four since 1995, and the awfulest, rudest example among them would still score an easy nine-point-nine in the smiles-per-mile department. When we think of WRXs, we think of Rex, the cute little Boston terrier who licks and kisses his master but also occasionally bites the FedEx guy’s ankle just for fun. The growl of the 227-hp boxer does nothing to spoil that illusion.

Highs: Long-travel suspension, four-wheel grip, superior sightlines.

What you notice first about the WRX is that everything feels in the right place—the optional short-throw shifter ($345), the height and angle of the cloth seats, the secondary controls. “It’s the only car here that doesn’t need an adjustable steering column,” noted six-foot-five Dave VanderWerp. What you notice next is that the steering is by far the lightest, most sensitive, most telepathic in this group, the sort of steering you’d expect on, say, a sporty Lexus. And the brake pedal is firm but with considerable travel, clearly announcing the onset of anti-lock.
Outright grip isn’t great—the WRX is fitted with the least racy tires in this bunch—but if you enter a turn too fast, the chassis offers up a charming little four-wheel drift, then scrubs speed reliably and neutrally. That’s not the quickest way around a corner, just the funnest. Because it makes it so hard to get into trouble, the WRX inspires confidence. You drive it fast all the time—nine-tenths in the 7-Eleven parking lot feels about right.

Lows: Wait-till-tomorrow turbo lag.

The boxy body still rolls and squirms too much, but that’s likely the upshot of what feels like huge suspension travel, which, in turn, imbues the WRX with the cushiest ride in this group. Even if you didn’t know the WRX’s rally history, you’d know its suspension was designed to work on rough, diabolical byways.
The biggest knock against the WRX is that its 227 horses are so slow to emerge from their turbocharged barn. Glance at little Rex’s rolling-start and top-gear accel times — all the worst by a wide margin. Compared with the Dodge, the Subaru subjectively evinces twice as much turbo lag. You quickly learn to linger in the 4K rev region and to apply power way, way before you exit a turn. Left-foot braking helps a little but not a lot. Despite being the second-most-powerful car in this group, the WRX finished fourth in our autocross, a victim of its weight, family-man tires, and lag. On the sharpest of the autocross turns, we’d almost stop on entry so that full throttle could be applied immediately after turn-in — that’s how much you have to anticipate.

The Verdict: An endearing, confidence-inspiring hunting dog that never lets you down.

It sounds funny to say this, but of the cars in this group, the WRX felt the most grown-up, the most utilitarian. You sit bolt upright and are surrounded by the clearest view in all directions. The WRX offers the only back seat that comfortably accommodates three adults without jamming their knees into their chins. And four-wheel drive makes the WRX the obvious choice for those who dwell in the solid-precipitation belt.
Rex, boy, go bite the mailman.
2005 Subaru Impreza WRX227-hp turbocharged flat-four, 5-speed manual, 3117 lbBase/as-tested price: $25,620/$26,364C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 18.01/4 mile: 14.6 @ 94 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

First Place: Acura RSX Type-S
Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap.
Go ahead and write letters. We’re used to it.

Highs: Luxurious cockpit, world’s slickest front-wheel­-drive shifter, balance and agility of a ballerina.

It’s not that we’re so into the whole stone-shot-from-a-sling Philistine scene. But what makes this car a Goliath beater is that it’s an 8100-rev-ripping steroidal slot car on weekends and an intellectually sophisticated upscale six-jewel commuter on weekdays. Plus, when your neighbor asks what car you bought, it sounds way cooler to say Acura than Dodge—another reason why Acura’s offerings so firmly hold their resale values.
Acura’s recipe is worth copying. The engineers created the lightest and lowest car in this group, then added the highest-revving engine but with the least vibration, which they then mated to a six-speed box that shifts so fluidly that it’s like working the Tiptronic levers on a Porsche 911. It feels as if the shift linkage, the throttle, and the short-stroke clutch were magically interconnected and giving one another instantaneous instructions and heartfelt advice.

Lows: Always revving, always shifting, always busy.

In this quintet, the Acura proved the most neutral in the hills and was the only car whose tail could be rotated with a dash of trail braking, thus avoiding the dreaded plow endemic to everything else in this group. On the skidpad, the RSX beat all comers.
What’s more, its trunk is the largest—okay, so it’s a hatchback, but it’s hard to tell from most angles—and the RSX simply embarrassed the pack with its built-in-Japan fit and finish. The dash is covered in a fetching rubberized grain that resembles expensive fabric, and the standard perforated-leather seats look like those in the tip-of-the-flagpole RL. The tiny, leather-wrapped wheel is just the right thickness and is as gratifying to grasp as a new Rawlings softball. Even the door inserts are swathed in delicate, pale cow skins, lending the cockpit a bright, luxurious feel. Why don’t the rest of the cars in this group offer cockpits as airy and fun? Why don’t they offer decklid spoilers as subtle and tasteful?
The RSX isn’t perfect. The seat cushions are a bit too flat and slippery, encouraging butt migration. The suspension feels as if it offers the least travel, occasionally crashing over Michigan potholes. The engine’s predilection for revs is so serious—note the astounding 4.77:1 final drive—that the drone can be annoying after a couple hours of freeway slogging. There’s still too much wind whirlpooling around the A-pillars. And an RSX driver will be rowing the gears at a rate that would impress even the Andretti family.

The Verdict: A showcase of engineering, style, speed, and grace.

Who cares? Around town, the RSX is so agile, so light on its feet, so neatly balanced, so crisp at step-off that we voted it Most Likely to Carve Traffic into Invisibly Thin Slices. Close your eyes, and the RSX Type-S is like driving a Honda S2000. Okay, so maybe you shouldn’t close your eyes too long. Just long enough to sign a check for $24,240.
2005 Acura RSX Type-S210-hp inline-four, 6-speed manual, 2843 lbBase/as-tested price: $24,240/$24,240C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.4 sec100 mph: 16.61/4 mile: 14.9 @ 95 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 gC/D observed fuel economy: 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 July 2001 issue of Car and Driver.
We always thought we knew what Mustangs were all about: reasonably quick coupes that, despite being slower and less sure-footed then Camaros, still outsold the Chevy pony car by a margin of four to one. How could this be? Some say the Mustang looks better, or that the Camaro’s bulked-up body turns off potential buyers.

Which Ultimate Pony Car Is the 1/4-Mile King?

Camaro ZL1 1LE vs. Challenger SRT vs. Shelby GT500

Best Muscle Cars for $10K: Window Shop with C/D

Even though Ford is clearly killing Chevy at the showrooms, the Dearborn automaker made a variety of refinements to its SVT Mustang Cobra that it hoped would finally produce a Mustang that equaled a Camaro’s quickness and agility. The Cobra’s crude solid rear axle was replaced with an independent rear suspension in 1999, and the engine’s output was boosted by 15 horses to 320—the same as in the killer 1998 Camaro Z28SS.
But Ford’s hoped-for glory never materialized because, oddly enough, the enhanced horsepower didn’t make the Cobra any quicker. The 1999 Cobra needed 5.5 seconds to get to 60 mph, about a half-second slower than the Camaro. We figured that although the Cobra had equal horsepower, the 5.7-liter pushrod Chevy V-8’s significant torque advantage (345 pound-feet versus 317) over that of the revvy 32-valve DOHC Cobra V-8 gave the Camaro an edge at the drag strip.
It turns out that many of the Cobra’s 15 new horses had jumped the fence—and it wasn’t just our test car. About midway through the 1999 model year, Cobra owners, who thought their cars just didn’t feel 320 horses strong, started taking their cars to dynos and testing them. Some Cobras were missing as much as 20 of the advertised horsepower. These guys were miffed. And they got on the horn in big numbers and began howling, “Where’s the beef?”

Highs: V-8 snarl, first-class punch, refined new chassis.

By the time Ford discovered its horses weren’t where its mouth was, then figured out a fix for each of the cars already sold and also designed new parts for production cars, there wasn’t enough time to get the new parts into 2000 Cobras. As a result, Ford did not produce any for that model year. Ford now says 2001 is the first production year that all Cobras make 320 horsepower.
As you can imagine, we were quite eager to get into the latest Cobra model. We received the Mineral Gray 2001 model pictured here. The car felt strong, but it still didn’t seem to have Camaro punch. Perhaps 320 horses was still optimistic.
Then we strapped on the test gear and made a few runs at the track. The results were staggering—the Cobra’s acceleration time matched a Camaro SS’s. The Cobra scooted to 60 mph in only 4.8 seconds and through the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 105 mph. Our last Z28SS (a particularly quick model we tested in October 1998) hit 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and did the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 107 mph.
“Must be a ringer,” somebody offered. Had Ford slipped us an especially strong one? We asked for a second Cobra, and soon a white convertible arrived. We quietly drove both cars to the chassis dyno at Automotive Performance Engineering (APE) of Clinton Township, Michigan (810-954-3181; www.ap-engineering. com).

Lows: Fix the understeer. Please.

The technicians at APE strapped our gray coupe onto the dyno rolls and recorded 272 horsepower at the rear wheels. If you correct for driveline losses (about 15 percent), the rear-wheel dyno number correlates to 320 crankshaft horsepower, exactly as advertised. We then put the white convertible Cobra onto the dyno, and although we expected to see some typical production variation, we did not. It too made 272 rear-wheel horsepower. So you can take it from us: At least two 2001 Cobras produced the advertised 320 horsepower.
The newfound quickness and consistent engine performance are only part of the story as the Cobra has left its crude pony-car roots and joined the ranks of competent sports coupes. The floaty, not-sure-what-the-tires-are-doing feeling that has plagued Mustangs is gone. Now you can point the Cobra exactly where you want and assume it will go there. The car feels appropriately firm without being harsh, and it never bounces off bumps or potholes.
You can thank the independent rear suspension for the Cobra’s buttoned-down, confidence-inspiring behavior. According to Art Hyde, chief program engineer for the Mustang, the new independent rear suspension achieved three significant things: It slashed unsprung weight by 100 pounds, reduced lateral compliance, and allowed an inch more of wheel travel.
The result is nothing short of a Cobra transformation that, along with some of the other 1999 detail changes (new seats and an inch more of front legroom) and the always alluring exhaust snarl, has turned the Cobra into a car that’s a superb all-arounder. There’s really nothing the Cobra can’t do either well or extremely well. It’s quick, it stops from 70 mph in 179 feet, and it claws at the pavement with 0.86 g of lateral grip (the Camaro Z28SS stops in 174 feet and pulls 0.85 g on the skidpad).

The Verdict: A genuine match for the Camaro SS. Too bad Chevy doesn’t have the cojones to respond.

Matching a Z28SS’s quickness will cost you, however, as our well-equipped Cobra (power driver’s seat, in-dash CD changer, traction control, anti-lock brakes, and leather trim are all standard) stickered at $29,600. A Camaro SS, which now has 325 horsepower, starts at $26,400.
Even so, we’re glad to know that once the Camaro leaves us next year, the last pony car left standing won’t be the slowest one.
Counterpoint
It is somewhat irritating to know that a standard Mustang can be had for about 18 grand, but to get one that is going to get your blood in motion, you have to ante up another 10 large. Once I enter the realm where the price tags even approach 30 grand, the word Mustang is no longer on my mind—I’m thinking Audi and BMW, and could I possibly swing the payments for a C-class Mercedes? Call me cheap. And although I’ll admit that this is an exceptionally handsome paint job and a superb new color, and the seats are a huge improvement over the standard chairs, count me out. Even a full-second edge to 60 mph wont entice me. —Steve Spence
This Cobra is probably as good as this generation of Mustang is going to get. It’s really quick. It sounds tremendous. And sans rear wing and painted a tasteful color, this is a pretty good-looking car. But the Cobra is going to cost you. Am I greedy to think that I should be able to get a Mustang GT that feels like this for six grand less? And although SVT changed the rear fascia to read “Cobra” instead of the 1999 Cobra’s fascia that read “Mustang,” its origins can’t be hidden. There is a limit to what even 320 horsepower and an independent rear suspension can do. This Cobra feels slightly heavy and ponderous as do all Mustangs —Daniel Pund
Lots of snort here, and I’m sure the SVT people are sleeping better as the product finally measures up to the 320-hp promise. Now they should get busy and fix the elements that really need fixing. This or any other Mustang is out of step with the times in terms of chassis, comfort, and control layout. Specifically, the relationships among the wheel, seat, and foot pedals just don’t work for taller drivers. There’s not enough fore-and-aft seat travel, and the seats rate a B-minus at best. The plain truth is that the Mustang is rapidly becoming antique. A fast antique, for sure. But antique nonetheless. —Tony Swan

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2001 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
VEHICLE TYPEfront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED$29,600
ENGINE TYPEDOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 281 in3, 4601 cm3Power: 320 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 317 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): struts/control armsBrakes (F/R): 13.0-in vented disc/11.6-in vented discTires: BFGoodrich Comp T/A, 245/45ZR-17
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 101.3 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.1 inHeight: 53.2 inPassenger volume: 82 ft3Trunk volume: 11 ft3  Curb weight: 3472 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.8 sec100 mph: 12.0 sec130 mph: 23.3 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.5 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 9.5 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 10.2 sec1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 105 mphTop speed (drag limited): 148 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 20/17/25 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

Toyota’s special-edition Corolla benefits from stickier summer tires but a harsh suspension and carryover powertrain don’t move it into sport-compact territory. More

From the November 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
Hummer is still a novelty brand. The mammoth H2 is the vehicle to buy if your neighbor heads up the local Sierra Club chapter and you don’t like him at all. It sells more on its affectations than its abilities, but with sales drooping, the novelty of those affectations is fading. The challenge for GM is for Hummer to earn some street cred for genuine ability before launching the next, smaller SUV-and it’s expected to be the line’s bestseller-so it can confront Jeep head on. And the way to do that is to get as far away from the street as possible.

Every Off-Road-Ready Truck and SUV for 2020

Best Off-Roaders for $10K: Window Shop with C/D

It’s a Great Time to Go Off-Roading

So they brought five prototypes of the 2006 Hummer H3 to northeast California’s spectacularly beautiful Rubicon Trail—Jeep’s semiofficial proving ground, namesake of the Wrangler Rubicon—and invited four automotive writers along on a two-day development trek up the legendary granite-and-dust nonroad. Both camping and seeing GM engineers without their shirts on were among the program’s unique features.
The five H3s were culled from a group of 78 “integration vehicles” built with “production intent” parts and used for final tuning and safety testing (half of the 78 were destroyed in barrier crashes). They’re dang close to the production H3s that will be in Hummer dealers’ Quonset huts next summer wearing a base price of about $30,000, even though the interiors lacked some trim and graining on the plastic and the exteriors wore dorky camouflage. The four gray H3s varied slightly in gearing and equipment, but all ran GM’s 4L60-E four-speed automatic transmission. The sole yellow H3 had a five-speed manual transmission.

View Photos

Derived from the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon pickups, the H3 shares those trucks’ body-on-frame construction; double-A-arm and torsion-bar front and leaf-spring rear suspension systems; and 220-hp, 3.5-liter DOHC 20-valve all-aluminum inline five-cylinder Vortec engine (the only engine offered).
At 186.7 inches long, the H3 is 4.9 inches shorter than a GMC Envoy; its 111.9-inch wheelbase is only 1.1 inches shorter than that mid-size SUV’s. Compared with the H2, the H3 is 16.8 inches less lengthy overall and rides on a wheelbase that is 10.9 inches shorter. The slab-sided H3 may superficially resemble the old slab-sided 1984-to-2001 Jeep Cherokee, but it’s 19.2 inches longer. And although GM is still paring down the H3’s heft, it weighs well over two tons. This is a smaller Hummer, but it’s not small.
The H3’s most important components on the Rubicon were 33-inch-tall LT285/75R-16 Bridgestone Dueler A/T tires, part of the ZM6 Off-Road Adventure package carried by all five vehicles (base H3s will get 31-inch-tall P265/75R-16 Goodyears); the electronically controlled dual-range transfer case; and the electronically engaged locking rear differential. As was incessantly made clear to the engineers on hand, a locking front diff would also be a boon for rock crawlers, but they’ll have to learn to work with the traction-control system instead.

View Photos

The Rubicon Trail is only about 11 or 12 miles long (depending on who’s measuring and route variations), starting in the western Sierra Nevada Mountains and running to the western shore of Lake Tahoe. It’s thoroughly rugged, and the parts of it that don’t require crawling over granite boulders usually include crossing granite outcroppings. It’s literally the standard against which other off-road routes are measured.
Starting at Wentworth Springs with tires running 20 pounds of inflation, we immediately put the H3s in low range to begin the two-day crawl and stayed there throughout the trip. With speeds rarely exceeding 5 mph, the H3s truly are adept and nimble climbers. There’s a lot of travel in the suspension, the approach angles are generous, the steering is precise but doesn’t buck much when pounding into rocks, the five-cylinder engine’s throttle is progressive just off idle, and the four-wheel-drive and traction-control systems work seamlessly together under most conditions. The structure of the H3 is impressively stiff, which is particularly evident as the truck slides off rocks to slam down hard on the skid plates with solid thunks and few shudders.

View Photos

Even in its incomplete and unfinished state, the H3’s five-passenger interior is a big step forward from that of the H2 in that it’s cleanly styled, with straightforward controls, and lacks the H2’s frippery and overwhelming self-consciousness. The squat window line and long hood limit visibility a bit, but on the Rubicon all that really matters is that you can see your spotter’s hands.
For most Hummer buyers, off-road ability means something like easily trudging out of the muddy parking lot at a horse show; that the H3 can conquer the Rubicon is impressive, reassuring, and ego swelling but ultimately academic. There’s nothing on the Rubicon that simulates parallel parking, commuting along I-5, or climbing the speed bumps at Target. In fact, the trail doesn’t even offer a chance to rev the H3’s engine much beyond its torque peak of 225 pound-feet at 2800 rpm or get the transmission out of first gear. Nor can we tell you how the truck rides on fully inflated tires.
So the big test for the Hummer H3 still lies ahead when it confronts the everyday world of its potential buyers, a world in which the appeal of overall competence never fades.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Hummer H3
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
ESTIMATED BASE PRICE $30,000
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 20-valve inline-5, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 211 in3, 3464 cm3Power (SAE net): 220 bhp @ 5600 rpmTorque (SAE net): 225 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual, 4-speed automatic
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 111.9 inLength: 186.7 inWidth: 85.5 inHeight: 74.5 inCurb weight: 4800 lb
PERFORMANCE RATINGS(4-SP AUTO, C/D EST)Zero to 60 mph: 9.3 secStanding 1/4-mile: 16.9 sec
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (MFR’S EST, 4-SP AUTO)EPA city driving: 15 mpgEPA highway driving: 18 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

Five XXXL go-getters—Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram, Ford F-150, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra— that never say no to any task, except parking in small spaces. More

From the August 2002 issue of Car and Driver.
It doesn’t rain much in Baja California, but when a good storm blows through, bad things can happen. You can get flash floods that make that business with Moses and the Pharaoh’s goons at the Red Sea look like nothing more than a problem with excessive humidity.

Every Off-Road-Ready Truck and SUV for 2020

It’s a Great Time to Go Off-Roading

Best Off-Roaders for $10K: Window Shop with C/D

Ruined as it is, the “road” we’re on is nothing more than a minor inconvenience for the original Hummer. With its 16.0 inches of ground clearance and fully independent suspension, the H1 requires less attention to tactics than the new H2. Instead of fretting about the terrain, usually one simply glances, aims, and drives. Wherever.
The H2, with about six fewer inches of ground clearance, requires a bit more reflection when the going gets really rough. Concerns about raising the center of gravity kept GM engineers from adding more ground clearance. That means that even though an H1 could straddle a large rock with impunity, the wise H2 driver may wish to place a tire on the rock and drive over it instead.

The H1 also has less front overhang and will approach a far steeper bank than the H2 (47.0 degrees with a winch on an H1 versus 43.6 degrees for a winchless H2). Meanwhile, the 19.8-degree approach angle of the H2’s cousin, the Tahoe, means the Chevy driver had better back up and find another way around. It can’t come close to the H2, much less the H1. Coming back down those humps into the Arroyo San Javier, the winding, occasional river that divides—and in a heavy rain probably conquers—our dirt-road trail, the H2 is no more likely to suffer butt burn than the H1.
Day after day we work through Baja’s most remote and spectacular areas. For hours we thump, slide, and scramble along, rarely seeing other vehicles or people, at most passing a few scraggly cattle. We pick our way through mountains, scoot past abandoned mines, and run along the top of a 2000-foot mesa that provides a roof-of-Baja view.
Evenings we reluctantly emerge from the splendid Baja nowhere and grab hotel rooms and cervezas—not necessarily in that order. Sometimes we chat with locals who are honestly puzzled about why we shun perfectly good paved roads.
Most of the land here is harsh and dry in that scary, empty, desolate way. Cactuses and thorny bushes make for a prickly look-but-don’t-touch landscape. Along sandy trails through this terrain the Hummers cover ground comfortably at 40 mph, slowing only a little when the surface hardens and turns to washboards.
Unlike the H1, the H2 doesn’t get an independent rear suspension. Instead, it comes with a live-axle, coil-spring, five-link arrangement with optional air springs. But the H2 is remarkably resistant, if not totally immune, to skittering over such ripples and ridges. Hit a good bump with a rear wheel, and the H2’s tail does a delicate little hop but nothing nasty.
Rounding a corner, a windshield-breaking bush intrudes on the trail, but the H2’s reasonably weighted recirculating-ball steering is quick enough to play dodgem. Meanwhile, the H2’s ride is surprisingly comfortable for a serious truck, and the GM engineers did an impressive job of balancing everything from impact harshness to control over body motions. For those who want better handling, Hall is developing a special performance suspension expected to be sold, with GM’s approval, through Hummer dealers.
Meanwhile, the H1’s steering is far lighter and more vague and the ride is harsher, with its GI Joe suspension being more eager to share impacts.
The H1 relies on the 6.5-liter turbocharged diesel V-8 rated at 195 horsepower at 3400 rpm and 430 pound-feet of torque at a wonderfully accessible 1800 rpm. But GM found packaging problems with getting a diesel into the H2. So, it uses a 6.0-liter V-8 rated at 325 horsepower at 5200 rpm and 385 pound-feet of torque at 3600 rpm, with a four-speed automatic.
The powertrain is GM’s version of the psychic connection, quick to figure out what the driver wants, relatively quiet, smooth, and big-displacement strong. The H2 also likes gas stations: EPA fuel economy is 10 mpg city and 13 highway, although a 32-gallon tank allows reasonable range.
In tests in Michigan it took 10.7 seconds to reach 60 mph and 27.1 seconds to reach 90 mph —those are well down from the 8.3- and 18.8-second figures of the 5.3-liter Tahoe in “Living Large” on page 52.
As a public service, the wise driver should consider the issue of stopping the H2’s considerable mass. The H2 does have four-wheel discs and a four-channel Bosch anti-lock system. However, our 6700-pound test car took 244 feet to stop from 70 mph. That compares rather poorly with the 197 feet required by our petite 5520-pound Tahoe.
One of the challenges for automakers is providing anti-lock brake systems that are suitable off-road. GM says the H2’s Bosch ABS has been specially calibrated to detect and compensate for loose or rough surfaces. On Mexican grit and gravel, the H2’s system seemed clever enough to know when and how much to intervene.
Five leisurely days after leaving Tijuana, we reach La Paz. Three days after that—mostly following paved two-lanes along the largely undeveloped, magnificent coast of the Sea of Cortez—we reach Mexicali. We cross back into California, having knocked off close to 2000 Baja miles with the Hummer family.
When it comes to performing radical, silly, and apparently ill-advised off-road maneuvers, the H1 is probably the best vehicle in the world. “It is kind of ‘no compromise, no nonsense,’ a heavy-duty military vehicle underneath,” acknowledged GM suspension engineer Thad Stump, who worked on the H2.
The H1 is also the classic Hummer, the most expensive and charismatic. For some buyers, only an H1 will do. However, the military genesis demands the H1 driver spend time learning its quirks, which include dealing with its lifeless steering and putting up with its ergonomic and packaging shortcomings.
Meanwhile, our Mexican mileage has created deep respect, fondness, and admiration for the H2. It is golly-gee easy and reassuring to drive, but it is not a Hummer poseur. It handles serious off-road chores with ho-hum ease, leaving its occupants marveling at the comfort in which they can travel through rough country. For most folks, that will make it the perfect Hummer.
Counterpoint
Every time I jot down impressions of the H2, a left-handed compliment pops out: “It’s surprisingly drivable for how gigantic it is.” “The interior looks pretty distinctive for sharing so many parts with the Tahoe and Suburban.” “Wind noise isn’t bad, given all the upright, nearly flat glass on the thing.” “Off-road credentials are decent, considering AM General didn’t make any of the parts.” Let’s face it, this is one gargantuan styling statement, designed to intimidate every other SUV, save for its big brother, the H1. But trust us—those most intimidated by the H2 will probably be its drivers, whenever they attempt to park in tight quarters. —Frank Markus
A mysterious metamorphosis occurs during the climb into the cockpit of this most militant of all Tahoe/Suburbans. The driver begins experiencing Mittyesque visions of El Alamein and Desert Storm. What we have here is a shameless appeal to latent male adolescence, with exterior styling that cries out for camo paint and machine-gun mounts. Although far more civilized than the original H1, it has few other redeeming virtues, aside from plentiful ground clearance. The love of my life called it “the male equivalent of a push-up bra,” and I find it hard to argue otherwise. But in the secret depths of my psyche, ruled by my inner 12-year-old, I love this thing. —Tony Swan
The original Humvee has always been great at two things, off-roading and drawing attention. Otherwise, the H1 is unpleasant to drive or ride in and impractical as a daily driver. The H2, on the other hand, is everything the H1 isn’t: comfortable, spacious, and fun to drive on-road and off-. Two days of off-roading and rock crawling outside Moab, Utah, convinced us the H2 can overcome obstacles almost as well as the H1 can (we know because we had an H1 chase vehicle) but in a much more civilized manner and for half the price. GM has done a great job of capturing the look and off-road prowess of the H1 and making the H2 a practical vehicle. —André Idzikowski

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2003 Hummer H2 
VEHICLE TYPEfront-engine, 4-wheel-drive, X-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE AS TESTED$52,935 
ENGINE TYPEpushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 in3, 5967 cm3Power: 316 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 360 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): control arms/live axleBrakes (F/R): 12.8-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: LT315/70-R-17
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 122.8 inLength: 189.8 inWidth: 81.2 inHeight: 82.0 inPassenger volume: 147 ft3Cargo volume, rear seats in/out: 4/40 ft3Curb weight: 6700 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.7 sec60 mph: 10.7 sec90 mph: 27.1 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 11.3 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 6.9 sec1/4 mile: 17.6 sec @ 78 mphTop speed (governor limited): 99 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 244 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.62 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 10 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 11/10/13 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

Kicking up dust and taking names in five heavy-hitters in the light-duty pickup segment: Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram, Ford F-150, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra. More