Car Reviews

View Photos
Michael SimariCar and Driver

With its raucous turbo four-cylinder and fiery performance, the compact CLA45 started off as the entry-level punk of Mercedes-AMG’s sedan range when it debuted for 2014. But much has changed as it enters its sophomore generation on Benz’s latest CLA-class platform, including the introduction of less-extreme A35 and CLA35 models at the bottom of AMG’s lineup. For the redesigned 2020 CLA45—and its 2021 GLA45 crossover sibling—evolution has allowed it to finally mature out of its adolescent hot-rod phase without losing its sports-car-like abilities.

HIGHS: Big power with little lag, charismatic engine note, improved fuel economy, greater refinement.

Keen eyes will notice that an S, which denotes the new 416-hp S model, is not included on our test car’s trunklid badge. While the S is available in other markets, buyers in the United States only get the standard tune for the hand-assembled M133 2.0-liter inline-four, which still benefits from a new twin-scroll turbocharger delivering more boost (30.1 psi versus the previous 26.1), revised internals, and a new port and direct fuel-injection system. Peak horsepower is now 382 at 6500 rpm, up from the previous CLA45’s 375 at 6000 rpm. Torque creeps up from 350 pound-feet at 2250 rpm to 354 at 4750 revs. The standard dual-clutch automatic transmission now has eight speeds instead of seven, and the updated 4Matic+ all-wheel-drive system gains a torque-vectoring rear differential to help the car rotate around corners more easily.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

AMG CLA45 S Is a Bonkers Compact Sedan

2021 GLA45 Shows AMG’s Wild Side

A new front-axle disconnect allows for tail-out antics on the racetrack, provided you opt for our test car’s $4300 AMG Dynamic Plus package. Along with redundant steering-wheel-mounted controls for the drivetrain, chassis, stability control, and the overarching AMG Dynamics vehicle management system, this comprehensive bundle adds Race and Drift modes to the standard Comfort, Sport, Sport+, and Individual setups. Dynamic Plus also brings a sportier suspension setup with adaptive dampers, larger brake rotors with red-painted calipers, a leather- and suede-wrapped AMG steering wheel, a 167-mph top-speed governor (up from 155 mph), an active performance exhaust and AMG’s Track Pace data-logging system.

LOWS: No quicker than before, still pricey with options, fussy MBUX infotainment, no S model in the U.S.

Our scales say that the second-gen CLA45 put on 180 pounds, thanks mostly to its added features and larger dimensions; it’s two inches wider than before and an inch longer both overall and in wheelbase. Yet, our 3743-pound test car posted roughly the same performance results of the last CLA45 we tested: a launch-control-enabled 3.7-second 60-mph time, 0.99-g grip on the skidpad, and a 154-foot stop from 70 mph. What’s more, despite the weight gain, our observed fuel economy jumped from 20 mpg to 24, and the return on our 75-mph highway test improved from 31 mpg to 34—a solid 5 mpg greater than the CLA45’s EPA estimate. Apparently that extra gear makes a big difference.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

Although the M133 four has a relatively high-rpm torque peak, AMG’s revisions make it impressively tractable and short on lag. Aided by the new transmission, its 5-to-60-mph time (5.1 seconds) is 0.2 second quicker than before. There’s a fair amount of clutch slippage from the transmission when setting off, as well as some clunky downshifts at low speeds around town. But the new dual-clutch box is otherwise ultrasharp and smartly programmed to downshift and hold gears when it should. Launch the CLA45 down the quarter-mile in Race mode and rapid upshifts come with firm kicks to your backside. Just don’t expect to beat an Audi RS3 in the other lane, as the CLA45’s 12.2-second pass at 114 mph can’t match the Audi’s high-11-second run.
Our test car’s active exhaust produced plenty of snorts and pops when driven aggressively, pinging our sound meter with 90 decibels at full throttle in Race mode, up from the previous model’s 88 decibels. Leave the new car’s system in the standard mode, and it calls noticeably less attention to itself. But it’s way more fun to hit the loud button and take in the sweet growl from the new AMG 2.0-liter. Compared to the flat, buzzy engine note of most four-bangers, including the previous CLA45’s, there’s a pleasing richness to the updated engine’s tone that had us constantly searching out its 7000-rpm redline.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The CLA45’s maturation is most significant in its chassis, which enjoys increased suspension travel and better isolation from the angry four-cylinder under the hood. Riding on short-sidewall 255/35R-19 Michelin Pilot Sport 4S summer tires (18-inchers are a no-cost option), AMG’s compact sedan still rides poorly on rough roads when its dampers are in their stiffer settings. But there’s now enough flexibility and ride compliance to traverse smoother pavement without smacking the bump stops. The new CLA45 will relax a little if you want it to, something its predecessor simply never did. Body control through corners remains excellent, and the direct and firmly weighted steering does convey some feel as lateral forces build. Loads of grip from the sticky Michelins results in little of the stubborn understeer in tight corners that we generally expect from transverse-engine sports sedans.
Take a seat in the CLA45’s firm, heavily bolstered AMG Performance thrones ($2690) and the new CLA’s extra width is as apparent as it is welcome. Along with a more accommodating back seat (although one that is still tight on headroom for taller riders), the overall environment feels much more inviting. No longer does every interior surface vibrate to the thrum of the engine, making it easier to enjoy a cabin fit for an entry-luxury car. You can still get your fill of red accents and contrast stitching, and red seatbelts remain standard. (Black belts are no charge.) But our example’s subdued grey-and-black upholstery and black wood trim looked restrained and sophisticated, complimenting the plentiful brightwork and vibrant 10.3-inch instrument and center displays. Benz’s latest MBUX infotainment system, with its center touchpad and tiny steering-wheel controllers, still requires more involvement to operate efficiently than we’d like. But ergonomics ultimately are not this AMG’s weak point.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The CLA45’s greatest issue remains its pricing. The second-generation’s improvements and features have increased its entry point by $1700 over last year, to $55,795. However, all of our test car’s performance options—along with the $1700 Driver Assistance package, $1150 embedded navigation system, and more—inflated its window sticker to $73,850. At which point speed junkies will be more satisfied with AMG’s $69,095 C63 sedan and its 469-hp twin-turbo V-8. Stretch and you can land the 503-hp C63 S four-door for $76,695. But go easy on the CLA45’s upgrades and you’ll find that AMG’s punk is now a compelling small sports sedan, one that demands far fewer tradeoffs for its youthful exuberance.

Specifications

Specifications
2020 Mercedes-AMG CLA45 4Matic+
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED $73,850 (base price: $55,795)
ENGINE TYPE turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement 122 in3, 1991 cm3Power 382 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 354 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed dual-clutch automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/multilinkBrakes (F/R): 13.8-in vented, cross-drilled disc/13.0-in vented, cross-drilled discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, 255/35R-19 (96Y) MO1
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 107.4 inLength: 184.8 inWidth: 72.0 inHeight: 56.3 inPassenger volume: 89 ft3Trunk volume: 12 ft3Curb weight: 3743 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 3.7 sec100 mph: 9.1 sec130 mph: 16.4 sec150 mph: 24.3 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 3.1 sec1/4 mile: 12.2 sec @ 114 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 167 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 154 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 311 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.99 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 24 mpg75-mph highway driving: 34 mpgHighway range: 450 miles
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 23/26/29 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

The best car designers are undoubtedly great artists, but ones who are closer to sculptors than musicians. They rarely get the chance to revisit past triumphs or to bust out spectacular free-form riffs on earlier themes. Yet that’s what Ian Callum has managed with an updated and heavily revised version of one of his most famous cars, the 2001-2007 Aston Martin Vanquish.
The process began a few years ago when Callum bought a Vanquish S. Up to that point, he didn’t actually own any examples of his own star-studded back catalog, and Vanquish values in the United Kingdom were rising at a rate that meant they would soon be unaffordable. He started to drive it regularly and was soon thinking, as he puts it, of how to give the car “the facelift it never had.”

Aston Martin Vanquish

Aston Martin V-12 Vanquish S

Such plans were purely personal, but around that same time Callum was contemplating his departure as Jaguar’s design director. He began to discuss setting up a new company with a small group of other JLR veterans, and so the idea of an updated Vanquish gained obvious relevance. Having decided on a name for the new business—Callum—a comprehensive makeover of the Vanquish became its first project, with a plan to build a limited run of 25 cars.
The original assumption was that well-heeled clients would send their aged steeds to be transformed, but that has only happened in a minority of cases. “For many of the buyers, it’s really not a case of either/or,” Callum’s engineering boss Adam Donfrancesco said. “They are getting one in addition to an existing Vanquish. They love the original car, but they want something a bit more special and more modern as well.” For customers who don’t already own a Vanquish, Callum will source one. The work is done at R-Reforged’s 30,000-square-foot Warwick, England, facility.

View Photos

Callum

While it is certainly justifiable to question the logic of spending roughly twice the price of a brand-new Aston DBS Superleggera on a restomod version of an older car, the up-close reality of Callum’s demonstrator is pretty stunning. Finished in Roxanne Red—Ian Callum loves ’70s pop-culture references—the car looks both familiar and new. While the core metalwork is unchanged, pretty much every external detail has been altered, from the shape of the grille and the addition of a sizeable rear diffuser (with new bumpers front and rear) to modern projector headlights and LED taillights. The updated car sits 0.4-inch lower than the original, with the wheels pushed out another 2.4 inches. And although the wheels are a very similar design to the original ones, they are larger at 20 inches front and rear.
Changes in the cabin are more obvious. Callum admits he never liked the original car’s interior, and the alterations are closer to a full remodeling than a redecoration. There is a new carbon-fiber center stack with an integrated touchscreen interface, thus losing the first-generation Jaguar XK HVAC controls of the original car. The seats are new and positioned lower, and the new metal door handles are substantial. A Bremont mechanical watch is mounted to the top of the dashboard—it can be detached to be worn outside the car—and there’s a redesigned steering wheel with a narrower rim. The standards of fit and finish are obviously high, with the “deconstructed tartan” trim referencing Ian Callum’s Scottish roots. But the most exciting change is the presence of a manual gear selector between the seats.

View Photos

Callum

That’s because the original Vanquish was built with a roboticized automated single-clutch transmission of limited refinement and frequently snappy temperament. Callum is offering Vanquish 25 buyers the option to stick with that, change to a six-speed General Motors torque-converter automatic, or install the same manual conversion that Aston Martin Works has been offering as an approved upgrade for more than a decade.
The manual gearbox brings both a heavy clutch pedal and a weighty shift action that requires careful aim to select the right gear. But it’s soon clear that accurate selection isn’t especially important given the potency of the naturally aspirated 5.9-liter V-12. The big 12 pulls cleanly from little more than idle and with the linearity lacking in a more modern turbocharged unit, muscle flexing harder as revs increase. Peak output increases by 60 horsepower over the original Vanquish S thanks to freer-flowing intake and exhaust systems and revised engine mapping, with the maximum 580 horsepower arriving at a sonorous 7000 rpm. On an empty, open road there is absolutely no desire to shift anywhere below that point.

View Photos

Callum

The Callum’s suspension actually feels softer than our distant memories of the hard-riding original Vanquish S, with the idea being to improve refinement while better managing the car’s mass with upgraded Bilstein dampers. Like the original car, this one does without electronically adjustable suspension, but the Bilsteins proved adept at keeping the car’s two-ton mass under tight discipline—even over a test route that included many of the fast but imperfectly surfaced roads frequently used by Aston and JLR’s development engineers. Stability is impressive at speed, which is fortunate because the dull-witted old traction control only intervenes after the rear axle has begun to slide. The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires help deliver more grip than the Vanquish ever had, along with more progressive breakaway when you’re playing around at lower speeds. The steering is excellent—direct and bristling with a level of feedback that most modern electric systems seem determined to filter out. The new carbon-ceramic brakes, taken directly from Aston’s current lineup, offer relentless stopping power and good pedal feel. It’s very much an analog sports car.
You will be unsurprised to hear that, in other areas, a car that was substantially developed during the 20th century is now feeling pretty old. At highway cruising speeds there is a lot of wind noise from the top of the windshield and also more road roar than would reach the cabin of a modern equivalent. Although lowered, the driving position still feels a mite too high, and taller occupants might struggle for headroom. The aftermarket touchscreen interface also lacks in smarts compared to the better OEM systems. We couldn’t stop it from admonishing us every time we transgressed a speed limit, even by a single mile per hour. It was a naggy day.
The original Vanquish S cost $255,000 when we drove it back in 2004. The reimagined version costs the equivalent of $600,000 without the cost of a donor car, but that steep price hasn’t deterred several United States buyers we’re told have already ordered cars. Of course, you’d also have to pay substantially more to listen to the Rolling Stones live than you would have needed to when “Paint It Black” was freshly written. On that basis, the Callum Vanquish 25 is the equivalent of a personal concert in your own garage.
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

If you know where to look, you can find some great unadvertised deals on luxury and performance vehicles hidden within Volkswagen Group’s vast empire. Want nearly $5000 knocked off the price of an Audi A3? Buy a Volkswagen Golf GTI. The $154,350 Porsche Panamera Turbo does a passable imitation of the $207,825 Bentley Continental GT. And the new $89,995 Audi SQ8 SUV is a sort-of bargain Lamborghini Urus. Equal parts offensive firepower and rolling bunker, Audi’s new war wagon provides 90 percent of the experience of the wild Lambo at a discount of more than $100,000.

RS Q8 is a Clumsy Name for a 591-HP SUV

2020 Audi RS6 Avant Was Worth the Wait

Both posh performance SUVs are powered by twin-turbo 4.0-liter V-8s, built on Volkswagen’s MLB Evo architecture and armed with enough high-tech chassis hardware to make a school bus turn a credible Nürburgring lap. Pedants will point out that the upcoming 591-hp Audi RS Q8 gets you even closer to running with Lambo’s 641-hp bull, albeit for another $24,000. We say check your ego and pocket the change. The SQ8’s 500 horsepower and estimated 4.1-second assault on 60 mph will outrun almost anything you’ll line up against leaving the CrossFit parking lot.

View Photos

Audi

The SQ8’s chassis is fortified with standard air springs, adaptive dampers, and rear-wheel steering. If you splurge on the $5900 Sport package that’s only available on the uplevel Prestige trim (and you probably should), Audi also includes active anti-roll bars and a torque-vectoring rear differential. All that electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, and mechanical wizardry is handling black magic. The electric motors in the middles of the anti-roll bars hold the body flat in corners. By splitting the torque distribution between the right and left rear wheels unevenly, the trick diff can make this roughly 5400-pound ute turn in like a lithe and balanced sports car. It never pushes like the nose-heavy SUV that it is, nor does it ever hesitate to turn in. With front and rear-end grip neatly in sync, the SQ8 feels neither obstinate nor unstable. It simply always feels quick—in corners, on straights, and even when parked. What’s not to like? In Dynamic mode, it feels like the steering wheel resists your efforts to wind or unwind its lock as if the rack is filled with Krazy Glue.

View Photos

Audi

The active chassis aids allow you to switch off the intensity at any time, at which point the SQ8 becomes a pleasantly mild-mannered cruiser, taking bumps and potholes in stride. Comfort mode also makes the steering feel more natural. Inside, the SQ8 is modern and techy with flat, glossy surfaces everywhere you look. However, between the digital instrument cluster and the two touchscreens, the cabin can feel a bit overwhelming if you already spend too much time staring at screens. The no-cost Arras Red leather upholstery and the immaculate diamond stitching on the seats of our test car went a long way in making the cabin feel less sterile.
Audi makes a point of not calling the Q8 (and this S version) a crossover coupe. The Q8 wears a faster roofline than the Q7 it’s based on, but Audi designers exercised restraint so rear-seat headroom remains mostly intact. You can’t say the same about the BMW X6 and the Mercedes-Benz GLE coupe. The SQ8’s frameless windows seal against the door jams well, with highway wind noise successfully kept in check. If you have more people or a pile of stuff to move, Audi will happily steer you into the $85,795 SQ7, where you can choose between using the third-row of seats or the additional six cubic feet of cargo space behind the second row. No matter which one you choose, though, you’re getting more cargo room than you would in the Urus.

Specifications

Specifications
2020 Audi SQ8
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
BASE PRICE Premium Plus, $89,995; Prestige, $95,495
ENGINE TYPE twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power 500 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque 568 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 117.9 inLength: 196.6 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 67.2 inPassenger volume: 105 ft3Cargo volume: 31 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 5400 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.5 secTop speed: 130–155 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 17/15/21 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 August 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
The problem with buying one of today’s supercapable sport-utility vehicles—such as the Nissan Pathfinder or the Jeep Cherokee—is it makes so much sense that your neighbors are probably planning to do exactly the same thing. Modem SUVs are roomy, durable, and incredibly versatile. They’ll make you forget you’ve been sitting at a desk all day and keep you from watching the World Wrestling Federation championships on Saturday. Everybody seems to want one.

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

Industry analysts predict that 800,000 people will fall for the nature-driver image and buy new SUVs this year. Many will never take their four-wheel-driver off road, but that’s just fine: today’s best SUVs arrow straight down the highway at noise levels as low as those of a Mazda 929 or an Audi 90 sedan. No wonder everybody wants in on the fun.
Such mass-market appeal spells trouble for the well-to-do, however. These folks want a four-wheel-drive wagon that is, well, distinctive. To the privileged, the Pathfinder and the Ford Explorer and the Chevy S-10 Blazer are commoner’s vehicles, no matter how capable they are.
The three SUVs you see here are anything but common. Range Rover expects to sell only about 5000 examples of its $38,000 luxury SUV this year. Jeep will sell only about twice that number of $27,800 Grand Wagoneers. And Toyota will disperse a mere 6000 or so upscale Land Cruisers, which start at $22,000 but with obligatory luxuries come closer to $27,000. The proles are not likely to be seen in these expensive machines. Jeep’s own research shows that the average Grand Wagoneer purchaser is richer than most Cadillac buyers.

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

The three players we’ve assembled from this exclusive price class all employ four-wheel-drive systems that can be used full­-time and robust live axles front and rear. All three have automatic transmissions—and only automatics; shifting is for the plebeians.
We ventured far and wide through a sometimes inclement Arizona winter to determine which of these three SUVs leads the luxury brigade. Without further ado, here’s how they finished.

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

Third Place: Jeep Wagoneer
The Grand Wagoneer is the Alfa Spider of SUVs. It’s a rolling, chrome-trimmed classic based on a design born when our president’s name was Ike and color television was rare and exotic technology.
In 1963, a four-wheel-drive J100 Wagoneer cost $3332. Today, $29,059 buys that same six-passenger wagon, fully equipped and powered by a 5.9-liter V-8. The engine produces a mere 144 horsepower, a touch less than the Toyota Camry’s 2.5-liter V-6. Still, its walloping 280 pound-feet of torque moves the 4500-pound Grand Wagoneer off the line smartly. From rest, the Jeep reaches 60 mph in 13.3 seconds—a reasonable showing, but 1.3 seconds slower than the 178-hp Range Rover. Nonetheless, the Grand Wagoneer is very stable at its 101­-mph top speed, and it can out-corner the Range Rover and the Land Cruiser on dry pavement. Our test Jeep wore all-season street tires, which helped the vehicle’s pavement handling.
The Grand Wagoneer is equipped with a full-time four-wheel-drive system whose center differential is fitted with a viscous coupling. The system can be shifted into two-wheel drive to improve fuel economy slightly. That could turn out to be important, because the EPA rates the Wagoneer at only 13 mpg on the highway, and we achieved just 12 mpg on our 500-mile trip—most of it done in four-wheel-drive mode. With its 20-gallon fuel tank, the Jeep offers a cruising range of only about 240 miles. The Range Rover can go about 60 miles farther on one tank; the Land Cruiser can outlast the Jeep by 100 miles or so.

The engine’s massive torque allows it to work well with the three-speed automatic transmission—until you reach highway speeds. Above 75 mph, the engine is noisy.

The Wagoneer’s four-wheel-drive system works very smoothly, but the leaf­-spring suspension isn’t so refined. The Jeep’s live axles jump and bounce over washboard surfaces far more than those in the Range Rover or the Land Cruiser. And our test vehicle’s hood shook badly on rough roads. One driver noted that the entire body of the vehicle shifted and jiggled side-to-side when the Wagoneer was pressed on irregular terrain.
These antics do little to improve your mood as you sit in the Wagoneer’s driving environment. The seats are diabolical—holdovers from an era when all families had six members. Average family size changes, and so does back-support technology. The Jeep has not kept pace. The cabin’s ergonomics leave much to wish for. The radio is mounted far from the driver, way down the instrument panel toward the glove box. It is difficult to reach and use. And the Jeep’s climate­-control system is woefully deficient—as we found out during a one-day drive that began in a morning snow-and-slush storm near the Grand Canyon and ended in Sunburn City near Phoenix. Mixing cabin air satisfactorily is particularly difficult; to defrost the window, you often have to endure cold feet.

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

These operating frustrations would be bearable if the Jeep’s V-8 drivetrain were more refined. The engine is carbureted, and firing it up on a cold morning brings back memories of how cars used to start twenty years ago. Once warm, however, the V-8 hums smoothly. The engine’s massive torque allows it to work well with the three-speed automatic transmission—until you reach highway speeds. Above 75 mph, the engine is noisy.
Where the Grand Wagoneer shines is on twisty pavement. It displays confident, balanced handling on the skidpad and on the road. Indeed, on dry pavement the Grand Wagoneer feels almost like a car—a 1978 AMC Matador, perhaps, but still a car.
1990 Jeep Grand Wagoneer144-hp V-8, 3-speed automatic, 4530 lbBase/as-tested price: $27,795/$29,059C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 13.3 sec1/4 mile: 19.2 @ 72 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 213 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 gC/D observed fuel economy: 12 mpg

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

Second Place: Toyota Land Cruiser
To us, the new-for-1990 Land Cruiser doesn’t offer as much value as Toyota’s smaller 4Runner, an SUV that we like a lot. The Cruiser costs nearly $27,000 with options, about $1300 more than a fully decked-out 4Runner. Still, the Land Cruiser is roomier, and it has a full-time four-wheel-drive system. (The 4Runner offers part-time four-wheel drive only.)
Although we see the V-6–powered 4Runner as the better value, Toyota sees it as simply a pickup-based hybrid for U.S. drivers. The Land Cruiser, on the other hand, is the maker’s serious off-­road vehicle for the rest of the world—the SUV that every safari leader in Tanzania lusts after.
That philosophy explains some of the features that don’t work on safari here in the United States—namely, the engine. The Land Cruiser’s carried-over 4.0-liter straight-six is in use in well over a dozen countries on five continents. Its primary mission is to be durable—to run forever on bad fuel and good luck.

Despite the engine’s shortcomings, the Land Cruiser is a fine cross-country vehicle—thanks to its neatly tailored cabin and highly refined suspension.

Designed for regions where engines are never revved beyond 2000 rpm, the Land Cruiser’s six gets rough and noisy when pushed on U.S. Interstates. And the engine’s moderate 155-hp output, combined with the Cruiser’s 4823-pound weight, means that acceleration is poorer than the Jeep’s or the Range Rover’s. The lack of power also causes objectionable hunting between third and fourth gears when the vehicle slows on highway hills. We were able to improve things somewhat by leaving the automatic locked in third gear (our technical director flagellates test drivers who do this, because it increases fuel consumption), but we’d have preferred an optional manual transmission.
Despite the engine’s shortcomings, the Land Cruiser is a fine cross-country vehicle—thanks to its neatly tailored cabin and highly refined suspension. The seats are up to the same high standards as in Toyota’s cars, and the control layout, the ergonomics, and the cockpit space are tops in this class.

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

Our only criticism of the interior is the abundance of vacant switch locations on the instrument panel—eight in all. Evidently Toyota believes that these blank spaces will come in handy when adding switches for fog lights, air compressors, winches, trailer lights, and other accouterments of the complete camper.
In all, the new Cruiser is a versatile and remarkably car-like machine. Grandma would be happy to ride to church in one.
1990 Toyota Land Cruiser155-hp 6-inline, 4-speed automatic, 4823 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,998/$26,983C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 14.1 sec1/4 mile: 19.6 @ 70 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 227 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.68 gC/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

First Place: Range Rover
By a small margin, the Range Rover is the class of this field. Our test vehicle’s $39,950 price hurt it in the value rating, but the RR makes up for that disadvantage with its overall refinement and exceptional off-road abilities.
The Range Rover is comfortable and fun to drive. Its aluminum V-8 is the most powerful engine in this group, and it revs smoothly. There is no driveline vibration at any speed. The four-speed automatic shifts cleanly and directly, and its ratios are perfectly spaced. We found no condition—from storm-socked freeways to billy-goat trails—that had us wishing for different gears.
It’s clear that much attention has been paid to the Range Rover’s suspension. Ample wheel travel is the key to outback comfort, and the Rover supplies wheel travel galore. We were seduced by the Range Rover’s smooth ride. This would be our first SUV choice for a cross-country journey.

The wheelbase is also shorter than in the other wagons, but this helps the Range Rover’s maneuverability on off-road trails.

Somehow, the interior has escaped such attention. Though it is trimmed in soft leather and looks luxurious, the cabin is marred by jutting instrument-panel pieces, an awkward steering wheel, and bizarre seat-angle adjustments. The electric adjusters can move the front seats into positions that only make sense for napping on the south slope of Mount McKinley.
The Rover is about a foot shorter than both the Jeep and the Toyota, so it can carry only four passengers comfortably (five will fit in a pinch). The wheelbase is also shorter than in the other wagons, but this helps the Range Rover’s maneuverability on off-road trails. (The short wheelbase makes the Range Rover’s smooth ride all the more remarkable.)
The Rover has commendable road manners, though on the skidpad it lacks the lateral acceleration of the other two luxovehicles. It also felt the most susceptible to crosswinds and truck wash on the freeway, forcing us to make numerous small corrections of the steering to maintain the desired heading.

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

Fortunately, the steering is both light and direct, and corrections are easy to make. Because the Range Rover is sprung softly—to use its abundant wheel travel—it displays a lot of body roll on paved corners and inclined slopes alike. At first this feeling is unnerving. But it doesn’t affect the performance of the Range Rover, and in time you learn to trust the vehicle’s exaggerated body motions.
Trust us: there’s a lot to like here.
1990 Land Rover Range Rover178-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 4473 lbBase/as-tested price: $38,025/$39,950C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 12.0 sec1/4 mile: 18.5 @ 74 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.63 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg
All three of these luxury all-terrain vehicles can handle far more than most of us will ever dish out. Their practicality is limited only by relatively poor fuel mileage and high prices. But the high cost of entering this SUV realm isn’t keeping buyers out—indeed, the luxury-SUV niche is growing. Laforza (C/D, June 1989) has launched a fully equipped, $43,000 competitor to the Range Rover (unfortunately, no Laforza was available at the time of our test). And this fall Isuzu will unveil its next-generation, V-8- powered Trooper in the U.S.
So expect to see more and more of these big, expensive wagons roaming through Shenandoah and Yosemite parks. And, Tenley, pass the Grey Poupon, would you, dear?
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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

From the September 2020 issue of Car and Driver.
For the lot of you who have yelled at and/or addressed the editors of this magazine with a stern tone because we have not compared the new Corvette with the equally new 911, we hear you and we’re choosing to ignore you.
The truth is that the Corvette’s closest competitor from Porsche’s lineup hasn’t been the 911 for some time. The German brand made its rear-engine flagship just a bit too soft right as Chevrolet got downright serious about making big perform­ance gains by relocating the Corvette’s V-8. The mid-engine 718 series of two-seaters has taken the throne at Porsche as the de facto sports-car line while the 911 has realized the 928’s goal of being the ultimate sports tourer.
Every few years, Porsche turns the knobs here and there to create a sharper 911 or a smoother Cayman, but the pointy end of performance has always been the GT cars. And the Cayman GT4 is the first 718 that Porsche clearly gave more bite than a 911.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

There are other reasons for this matchup, too: Both the V-8 in the Corvette and the flat-six in the Cayman GT4 are naturally aspirated, both cars locate their engines behind their cabins and within their wheelbases, and each has a stock chassis that gives track-day junkies no need for modification. This is the new sports-car rivalry: a battle for mid-engine supremacy in the stretch-goal price range.

C8 Corvette Is More Than the Best Vette Ever

2020 Cayman GT4 Elevates the Sports Car Species

Bone-stock brilliance from Chevrolet starts at $66,890. That will get you a base Corvette Stingray with the $5000 Z51 performance package (five-horse bump to 495, upgraded brakes and suspension, electronically controlled limited-slip diff, among other things) plus the $1895 magnetorheological dampers. The remaining $19,820 worth of options on our test car is, for the most part, window dressing. The biggest chunk of that goes to the $11,950 3LT package, which wraps the Vette’s interior in leather and microsuede. Red seatbelts and brake calipers, a roof panel with exposed carbon fiber, an engine appearance package, Competition Sport seats, and carbon-fiber interior trim account for the rest.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

The Cayman GT4 starts at $100,550, and this Guards Red example stickers for $105,230. Heated seats, automatic climate control, Apple CarPlay integration, and auto-dimming mirrors make up just over half the options cost. The other $2320 nets a navigation system. That makes this 414-hp GT4 about as close to a no-option car as it gets in the Porsche universe.
A loaded Corvette and a stripped-down GT4 costing nearly $20,000 more set up the classic conundrum of pricier import versus high-value American. Though, after spending some time with both, we can emphatically tell you there is no loser here. A day of road driving and a day at the thrilling 1.9-mile Grattan Raceway in either of these vehicles is the stuff of dreams. Sure, we’ve ranked the cars, but try to think of the results more as first and second winners.
2nd Place:2020 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Z51

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Highs: Lays down brag-worthy numbers, draws every eye, amazing value.Lows: Feels cold next to its competition, claustrophobic cabin, where’s the V-8 roar?Verdict: The best Vette ever just isn’t good enough to beat this Cayman.
If you have any doubt as to the mid-engine Corvette’s appeal, take this nugget to the bank: When an acquaintance asked us what we thought of the C8, we told him to jump in his Robinson R44—a four-seat helicopter—and meet us at Grattan to find out for himself. We offered this invitation half on a lark because we knew he had the chopper. But his response of, “You sure I can land on the property?” followed by his appearance on test day only reinforced what we already know: Everyone loves a new Corvette.
Including us. This is a 10Best car. The Corvette is quicker than the GT4 around Grattan and in a straight line—three seconds flat to 60 mph, 11.3 seconds in the quarter-mile. It pulls 1.03 g’s on the skidpad and stops from 70 mph in 154 feet. This car is definitely not the second winner because of its numbers. It earned silver because of how it feels when making those numbers.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

The mid-engine Corvette has a tendency to understeer at the limit of grip. You can overcome that tendency, though, with some very deliberate driving.

With a 9.4-inch-longer wheelbase and 5.2-inch-wider body than the GT4, the Corvette drives huge in comparison. That feeling is further exaggerated by the Stingray’s 3638-pound curb weight, which is 427 pounds more than the Cayman’s. On paper, the Corvette’s cabin is two cubes bigger than the GT4’s, yet it’s the Porsche that feels airier, likely due to its low beltline and narrow center console.
The Corvette’s impressive performance—you’ll notice a lot of highlighting on its side of the results chart—helped the Chevy run a tenth of a second quicker around Grattan, but the car also felt antiseptic on track. It’s as if the Corvette sold its soul for performance. There’s a sort of unresolved Goldilocks thing going on with the steering: We can’t find a driving mode we like, as Tour is too light, Track is too heavy, and yet Sport is not just right. Plus, there’s so little feedback that the noise from the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires is more informative than the steering feel. And while the Cayman lapped Grattan without issue in 90-plus-degree heat, the Corvette’s otherwise obedient eight-speed dual-clutch transmission suffered from a few bobbled shifts during the hottest part of the day.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

We also couldn’t ignore the Vette’s build-quality issues, although we should note that this example was an early production unit. Neither the front nor rear bumper on our test car aligns very well with the body, and the panel gaps around the frunklid are uneven.
Don’t let this criticism fool you; the Corvette is great. It is easy to drive and very quick, and it can transport two sets of golf clubs in its trunk and then beat everyone home from the 19th green. Why it is the second winner comes down to feelings. The Vette generates a lot of good ones, but the other car here generates even more.
1st Place:2020 Porsche 718 Cayman GT4

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Highs: All the feels, flat-six soundtrack at 8100 rpm, surprisingly comfortable.Lows: Nearly 20 grand is a big difference, is there a GT4 Touring without the wing?Verdict: A near perfect automobile.
Going into this test, our pre-game bench racing suggested that the GT4 didn’t have a shot. We’ve driven both cars before, and as we mentally filled out a ballot, we realized the 718 would need a clean sweep of the subjective categories to win. And there was no way the Cayman could compete with the Corvette’s luxury-car ride, we thought.
But the GT4 rides better than we remembered and the Corvette rides worse, likely due to the suspension being set up for track duty. Plus, this Vette’s Competition Sport seats have firmer cushions than the GT2 seats in the other C8 we drove, and this Cayman’s standard sport seats are softer than the carbon-fiber buckets in the last GT4 we tested. Those differences effectively narrow the ride-comfort gap to nothing.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

The GT4’s flat-six elevates the Cayman to a higher plane. This comparison-test win against the Corvette is more evidence that the 718 has taken up the 911’s mantle.

Borrowing suspension bits from the previous-generation 911 GT3 has its pluses and minuses. Metallic noise from the GT4’s ball-jointed links surely contributes to the 77-decibel cruise—four decibels louder than the Corvette is at 70 mph. It’s a trade-off we’d make most days because those precision bearings bolster the work that the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires do to haul the car down from 70 mph in 149 feet and claw around the skidpad at 1.08 g’s.
Those ball joints are also a boon to chassis feedback. The Cayman’s Alcantara-wrapped steering wheel, which has no buttons and is comfortingly round, provides the driver with terabytes of information while linking turns with surgical precision. It makes for a stark contrast with the Corvette’s squared-off, button-laden, and relatively uncommunicative helm.
There is a fundamental difference in the balance of these cars. Both hold their own on a back road, but when you get to the limit on a racetrack, the Porsche is more neutral. This is very evident on the greasy Grattan tarmac. The Corvette pushes in places where the Cayman’s tail wags with fair warning.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Anyone who tells you they prefer driving an automatic hasn’t wielded the magical six-speed in this GT4 at its 8100-rpm redline. The shifter’s short throws tuck into gear with just the right snap. The 4.0-liter flat-six doesn’t make quite the same shriek as the 4.0 in the 911 GT3, but it’s close enough to make you forget that the engine is a little dull at low revs. It’s also considerably louder than the Corvette’s V-8, which GM toned down a lot for the C8. “I guess there’s a radio in here?” said technical editor David Beard about the Porsche. “I can get lost in this thing pretty easily.” The GT4 also gets lost in the crowd, which we think can be a good thing after spending a weekend explaining to gawkers that the C8 isn’t a Ferrari.
We drive a lot of cars, and there isn’t one in recent memory that is as good in the corners as this Cayman is and still comfortable enough to drive daily. A GT4 without the boy-racer wing would be even better. Beating the cheaper, quicker, more powerful Corvette is a feather in its cap, and we suspect it’s going to collect a lot more. There is little doubt in our minds that, dollar for dollar, this is the best car of 2020, but it is also one of the best and purest sports cars Porsche has ever made.
Dead Heat
Chevrolet Corvette Z51 ……….. 1:26.4Porsche 718 Cayman GT4 ……. 1:26.5
Grattan is a tight 1.9-mile course that rewards patience. On our day of lapping, it was well over 90 degrees and the track was very greasy. Given that, these aren’t the fastest laps on record, but they are comparable.

A. The GT4 peaked on the straight at 138.7 mph; the C8, at 138.6. The greasy surface made braking into Turn 1 tricky. As we pushed the braking point a few feet farther, we found both cars nearly out of control. Backing off a few feet on the next lap felt like we had slowed way too soon. We got it right on the Vette’s fast lap, giving the Chevy an early lead.
B. In this off-camber downhill blind left, the GT4’s more neutral balance helps it turn a little better and get up the hill quicker, making up what was lost in the braking zone on the front straight. Lateral acceleration is about the same for both cars here, at 1.06 g’s, but the Cayman pulls harder on the exit.
C. After the jump, the right-left-right-left-looooong-right combination is essentially a wash. The GT4 carries a little more speed at the apexes, but that’s countered by the Vette’s thrust. And the GT4 is caught between gears before the carousel-like Turn 8. Second gear is needed, but it’d be nicer to stay in third to prevent another downshift.
D. The GT4 just barely wins the sprint to the slowest corner with a 104.0-mph peak to the C8’s 103.0. The wait through this roughly 35-mph turn is torturous; neither car feels in its element going this slow.
E. The GT4 soaks up the reverse corkscrew—a right-left climb with a big dip at the apex of the initial turn—much better than the C8. Then it’s a dead-even drag race down the straight.
F. We suspect the Corvette’s fractional lead at the finish line would widen at cooler temperatures, as its more street-friendly Michelin Pilot Sport 4S rubber felt more compromised by the heat than the Cayman’s Pilot Sport Cup 2s. We will have to wait for Lightning Lap to see which is definitively quicker on a track.

Specifications

Specifications
2020 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Z51
VEHICLE TYPE mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa
PRICE AS TESTED $86,710 (base price: $64,995)
ENGINE TYPE pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 376 in3, 6162 cm3Power 495 hp @ 6450 rpmTorque 470 lb-ft @ 5150 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed dual-clutch automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): control arms/control armsBrakes (F/R): 13.6-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S ZP, F: 245/35ZR-19 (89Y) TPC R: 305/30ZR-20 (99Y) TPC
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 107.2 inLength: 182.3 inWidth: 76.1 inHeight: 48.6 inPassenger volume: 51 ft3Cargo volume: 13 ft3Curb weight: 3638 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 3.0 sec100 mph: 7.5 sec150 mph: 20.3 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.6 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 1.9 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 2.5 sec1/4 mile: 11.3 sec @ 122 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 184 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 154 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 306 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.03 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 20 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 19/15/27 mpg
–
2020 Porsche 718 Cayman GT4
VEHICLE TYPE mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE AS TESTED $105,230 (base price: $100,550)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power 414 hp @ 7600 rpmTorque 309 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/strutsBrakes (F/R): 15.0-in vented, cross-drilled disc/15.0-in vented, cross-drilled discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2, F: 245/35ZR-20 (95Y) N1 R: 295/30ZR-20 (101Y) N1
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 97.8 inLength: 175.5 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 50.0 inPassenger volume: 49 ft3Cargo volume: 15 ft3Curb weight: 3211 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 3.9 sec100 mph: 8.8 sec150 mph: 21.9 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 6.6 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 6.7 sec1/4 mile: 12.1 sec @ 118 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 188 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 149 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 293 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.08 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 21 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 19/16/23 mpg More

From the February 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
“Ladies and gentlemen! In this corner, weighing 3380 pounds, with a 250-hp uppercut, the Kentucky killer, the main­stream mauler from Bowling Green, a squeaky-clean face we all know and love: the Chevrolet Corvette!
“And in this corner, weighing a chunky 3533 pounds, with a 300-hp jab, the Ori­ental challenger, the upstart built for the human race, the twin-turbo terror from Tokyo: the Nissan 300ZX Turbo!”
This fistfight was premeditated. Mal­ice aforethought. Just look at the evi­dence. What do you suppose the gentle­men in Tokyo had in mind when they ram-loaded the 300ZX with two water-cooled turbos, a pair of intercoolers, vari­able valve timing, four-wheel steering, driver-adjustable shocks, 8.5-inch-wide rear wheels, Z-rated rubber, and—most important of all—a $33,000 base price? Hey, we’re adults. Let’s just say it out loud. Nissan has yanked off the gloves, and the body blows are raining merci­lessly onto the fiberglass flanks of Ameri­ca’s favorite sports car.
Never has the Corvette faced a fiercer challenge. Last November, when we first tested the 300ZX Turbo, we said, “Final­ly, a Japanese sports car that can run with the big dogs.” What we really meant was, “Finally, a sports car, from anywhere, that delivers the styling, acceleration, roadholding, and top speed of the Corvette—at the same price as the Corvette.”

View Photos

KEN HANNA

Our last such showdown, in fact, pitted a Corvette Z51 against a Porsche 911 Club Sport—a car that in September of 1988 cost half again as much as the Chevrolet. And the Porsche still didn’t win. Now we’re at it again, only this time—for the first time—the combatants’ dollar-to-speed ratio is dead even.
Let the hostilities commence.
Round One: The Racetrack
Both the Corvette, with its 5.7-liter V-8, and the 300ZX Turbo, with its 3.0-liter V-6, have speed and power like Tip O’Neill has TV commercials. It would have been nearly impossible, therefore, to plumb the handling limits of either car on public thoroughfares without endan­gering civilians—and, not incidentally, ourselves. So we rented Grattan Race­way, a scenic 1.75-mile road course smack in the heart of Michigan’s cereal belt. This track’s 3000-foot straightaway allowed both cars to reach nearly 120 mph before braking for Turn One, yet the blind brows and diabolically tight 45-mph turns proved a provocative test of at-the-limit handling.
The Corvette’s engineers have eaten a lot of lunches at racetracks across Ameri­ca, and it shows. At Grattan, the Corvette was Mark Spitz in water, Perry Mason in the courtroom.

View Photos

1990 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 FX3 5.7-liter V-8 engine.
KEN HANNA

The Corvette’s progres­sive clutch made for jolt-free upshifts and downshifts, and its massive brakes were much easier to apply smoothly than the Nissan’s—scrubbing off speed without disrupting the chassis.
Both cars felt well planted and secure, even when they were unweighted at the crests of Grattan’s three hills. But their cornering behavior, surprisingly, was very different indeed.
The Corvette was as neutral as a Swiss passport. Enter a corner too hard or ap­ply a little too much V-8 and the Chevy’s tail oozed out a step or two. This move­ment, however, was so smooth and be­nign that a touch of opposite lock or a slight easing-of the throttle was all it took to restore order. When we wanted to play rough, we squeezed the throttle to point the Corvette’s nose. When we lost confi­dence mid-turn, we stabbed the brakes and said, “Oh, sorry, too fast.” The Cor­vette always obliged. Short of lapsing into a coma, you’d have a tough time crashing this car on dry pavement.

View Photos

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged V-6 engine.
KEN HANNA

The Nissan, on the other hand, initially tended toward understeer, working its front Michelin MXXs so hard that we feared for their survival. It understeered, that is, until we kicked the tail out with a ton of throttle or with some determined trail-braking. And when the tail did come out, it didn’t exactly saunter through neutrality. The transition from under-steer to oversteer was abrupt, and it was slightly more difficult to control because of the turbocharged engine. Although lag was minimal, the Nissan’s V-6 still didn’t deliver the even response of the Corvette’s rumbling V-8, nor did it pro­duce enough back pressure to work ef­fectively as a braking tool—which raised another issue. After three flat-out laps, the Corvette’s brakes were muttering, “Come on, let’s go!” while the Nissan’s had faded noticeably and were crying for a cool-down lap.
When all was said and done, the Cor­vette turned laps in the one-minute 38-second range, at an average speed of 64 mph, while the Nissan was almost a second per lap slower. “No big deal,” you’re saying? On the contrary. It is a big deal in a two-hour race. Far more important, the Corvette—with its hip-hugging seats, smooth power delivery, and neutral handling—is far easier to drive for long peri­ods at those speeds. To put the Cor­vette’s racetrack prowess into per­spective, remember that the big V-8 produces 50 fewer horsepower than the twin-turbo terror.
Round Two: The Test Track
A day spent at Chrysler’s proving grounds, with test gear in tow, proved how evenly matched the 300ZX Turbo and the Corvette really are. Haul these cars to the drag strip and a good driver could climb into either and push it through the traps in front of the other. In fact, the acceleration figures are almost dead equal all the way to 130 mph.
We are a little disappointed, of course, that the Corvette couldn’t dip into the five-second range during its zero-to-60-mph runs, as did the Corvette convert­ible we tested last July. Alas, the lazier acceleration is a consequence of a taller final-drive ratio—now 3.33:1, versus the old 3.54:1 rear end.
In top-gear acceleration, the Nissan left the Corvette for dead. This, too, requires explanation. The Corvette’s ultra-tall 0.50:1 overdrive sixth gear simply cripples the car in this test. At 30 mph in sixth, the Corvette’s engine is burping and bucking at 678 rpm. Stomp on the gas down there and you can imagine the sort of milquetoast response you get.
Sixth gear also hobbles the Corvette’s top speed. Shift into high during a banzai run (after the V-8 runs out of breath in fifth) and the engine pulls only until it hits an atmospheric wall at 3350 rpm-148 mph—far short of the V-8’s 4400-rpm power peak. Not so the 300ZX Tur­bo, which rockets aggressively to 155 mph and hangs there like a bull terrier, eager to go faster but foiled by a speed limiter. We’ll never know what extra poke remains.
The Corvette proudly reasserted itself on the skidpad, however, rounding the 300-foot circle at a viselike 0.91 g, the highest figure we have ever recorded for a production car. And in our 70-to-0-mph braking test, both cars stopped within a few feet of our all-time record. Lotus and Lamborghini would kill for stats like these.

View Photos

KEN HANNA

In our 1000-foot slalom, the 300ZX Turbo snaked through the pylons 4.8 mph faster than the Corvette. In fact, the Nissan’s slalom speed is the highest we have ever logged. The kudos, here, go in equal parts to the Z’s razor-sharp Super HICAS steering (which provides an ini­tial dollop of opposite-phase rear steer­ing), its predilection to understeer, and its astounding transient stability.
The Corvette, meanwhile, made like a pendulum, its tail wagging in ever-increasing arcs as it howled its way—admittedly at serious speed—toward the fi­nal three pylons. When the tail began to wag the dog, the Corvette took to punting pylons into Livingston County.
Round Three: The Road
Sterling on-track performance is dan­dy, but we also expect our cars—no mat­ter their pedigree—to swallow long, bor­ing stretches of freeway as gracefully as they tackle brief, spirited blasts to the 7-Eleven. In performing such day-to-day duties, the Nissan quickly nosed ahead of the Corvette.
The Corvette’s cockpit may be im­proved, but it’s still far from perfect. The hand brake remains between the driver and the door. The gargantuan rocker sills are still a major impediment to in­gress and egress. The four ancillary ana­log gauges appear microscopically small, and they are devoid of gradations. Visi­bility is still marginal. And the dark-orange numerals atop the dull-gray in­strument faces are difficult to decipher.

View Photos

1990 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 FX3 interior.
KEN HANNA

Compare that with the Nissan’s old-fashioned analog gauges, which are a paradigm of clarity. White numerals, black faces. A four-inch speedometer next to a four-inch tach. Simple. We are disappointed that Chevrolet could spend so much money on a whole new dash­board and still miss the mark by a mile.
Both cars offer spectacular steering, but the Nissan’s delivers surgically pre­cise turn-in, perfect on-center feel, no kickback, and world-class straight-line stability—no matter the condition of the asphalt. The Corvette’s is equally good on smooth pavement, but it tends to tramline and dart when confronted by scabrous surfaces. Truck grooves, in par­ticular, wreak havoc with the Chevrolet’s directional stability.
Despite their adjustable suspensions, neither of these muscle-bound cars can supply a luxurious ride. But the Nissan, even with spring rates twenty-percent stiffer than those of the naturally aspirat­ed 300ZX, is the more comfortable mount. In part, this is merely a function of isolation from road impacts. The Nissan’s body and cockpit remain com­posed as the multilink rear suspension takes the edge off blows from below. The Corvette’s body, on the other hand, tends to crash, bang, and shiver over ridges and potholes. The car performs a kind of belly dance, and its instrument panel groans and creaks. Through it all, the booming exhaust—even at idle—adds to the overall cacophony.

View Photos

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo interior.
KEN HANNA

Not everything about the Nissan left us grinning. The first 300ZX Turbo we test­ed was reluctant to produce full boost. The second was felled by loose-fitting calipers. And the third (the car you see here) shed an eighteen-inch piece of inte­rior trim, broke its heater, and then, un­der full acceleration, began intermittent­ly to spit blue haze from its four exhaust tips—an ominous matter in an engine producing 100 horsepower per liter. Have we uncovered a build-quality prob­lem? We’ll keep the maroon 300ZX for 30,000 miles and let you know.
The Checkered Flag
In our editors’ numerical ratings, the outcome is clear. The Nissan 300ZX Turbo wins a closely fought contest, sweeping to victory in the categories for styling, ergonomics, comfort, ride, room, fun to drive, and value. While the Corvette produces excellent performance figures, it thunders and pounds and approaches its business with all the subtlety of Mike Tyson. The Nissan, in contrast, is civilized and refined: the thinking man’s supercar.
To be fair, we must concede that the Nissan (the fourth generation of the Z-car) is all-new, while the Corvette is merely the latest iteration of a seven-year-old design. But until the bow-tie boys can reduce the price of the ZR-1 to, say, the mid-$30,000 range, a rematch will have to be postponed until 1995. That’s when the all-new Corvette is slat­ed to appear.

View Photos

KEN HANNA

The world’s best-selling 148-mph sports car has hardly been knocked flat on its back, but it has been dealt a blow. If this news leaves you reeling, we understand. Throughout the Corvette’s 37-year history, virtually nobody has laid a glove on its handsome, fiberglass beak. Perhaps GM didn’t see the punch coming. After all, the decisive uppercut came out of the rising sun.
You read all about the Nissan 300ZX Turbo in our November 1989 pre­view test, but you may not have heard much about the Corvette lately. For 1990, Chevrolet offers a spate of no­table improvements on America’s fa­vorite sports car.
For starters, output from the Cor­vette’s 5.7-liter engine has been mar­ginally boosted: both horsepower and torque are up five points, the result of a new speed-density engine-control system and lighter pistons that de­crease reciprocating mass.
Less obvious upgrades include a standard-equipment engine-oil cool­er, an oil-life monitor, an optional Delco/Bose “Gold” stereo system (which seems to have scotched much of the old system’s boomy bass), and lighter, 9.5-by-17-inch wheels. A more efficient sloped-back radiator has also been added—a design origi­nally wrought for the Corvette ZR-1. Similarly lifted from the King of the Hill is the Bosch ABS II-S anti-lock braking system (see Technical High­lights, October 1989).
We generally don’t turn cartwheels when a manufacturer introduces a new instrument panel, but the Cor­vette’s all-new dashboard, console, door trim, steering wheel, and ventilation system require a comment or two. Gone is the “exploding score­board,” the ugly trio of rectangles that displayed—in garish liquid-crys­tal digits—speed, engine revs, and oil/water/fuel status. That instru­ment panel, with which we have grudgingly co-existed since 1984, is replaced by a semicircular binnacle that contains a large analog tachometer and four small analog gauges for oil pressure, oil temperature, water temperature, and volts. Separating these two arrays is a liquid-crystal speedometer whose orange digits stand nearly an inch tall.
The wholesale interior overhaul was triggered by the need for air bags. The immediate effect is a fat new four-spoke steering wheel, an easy-to-grip design with neat thumb indents atop the upper spokes. A temporary side effect is a real glove box, the first in a Corvette since 1982. We describe it as “temporary” because the glove box will, by 1992, hold a passenger-side air bag.
While the interior stylists were at it, they substantially reworked the cab­in’s ergonomics. The power window and mirror controls have been relo­cated to the door panel. The windshield-wiper control (previously ab­surdly situated on the driver’s door panel) has been moved to the turn-indicator stalk. And the new picto­graphic power-seat controls are now actually understandable at a glance. Thank you, Chevrolet.
To ensure that our Corvette was equipped to do battle with the current king of Japanese sports cars, we or­dered it fitted with the Z51 perfor­mance handling package ($450). Once you’ve ticked that option, you are permitted to opt for the FX3 three-way adjustable dampers ($1695). The FX3 computer-con­trolled suspension system offers three driver-adjustable programs: Tour, Sport, and Performance. In each pro­gram, the system automatically switches between six damping levels based on speed. (Frankly, slogging through Chevrolet’s murky maze of option packages is a nightmare: “You mean, the illuminated vanity mirrors come only with the 3.33:1 axle ratio?”) Unfortunately, our Corvette was de­livered with another $4429 of options—everything from a $1050 “articulating seat” to a $615 transparent roof panel that was infuriatingly diffi­cult to remove. None of those add-ons affected the car’s performance, and not one, save the $325 low-tire-pressure warning, was an option that we would have ordered were the car ours.
The Z51 designation lays on an im­pressive bag of tricks and is intended for buyers who have serious autocrossing and Showroom Stock racing on their agendas. It includes thirteen-inch front brake rotors (rath­er than the standard twelve-inch ver­sions), stiffer springs, stiffer lower-control-arm bushings up front, Delco-Bilstein gas shocks with more aggressive valving, and a power-steer­ing-fluid cooler. Order the Z51 pack­age alone and you’ll obviously de­grade ride quality.
Thus, the Corvette that we—and the Corvette’s engineers—most ear­nestly recommend is the Z51 with the FX3 dampers. That combination gives you the best of both worlds: the more compliant springs from the base car and the aggressive shock control from the Z51—the latter on call, to be used only when needed.
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

The sight of a scaled-down Bugatti Type 35 being driven by an obviously 1:1 scale adult male is likely to set you thinking of an oversized toy. But this would be wrong, at least according to the European Union. “According to the EU, it’s too fast to be classified as a toy,” said Ben Hedley, CEO of the Little Car Company that has created this three-quarter-scale electric Bugatti and will soon be launching other shrunken classics. Having experienced the breezy charms of the Baby II’s open cockpit and 43-mph top speed, I can attest that it’s anything but childish.
As its numerical suffix suggests, the Baby II isn’t the first time that Bugatti has created a miniature. Back in 1926, Bugatti founder’s Ettore and his oldest son, Jean, created a half-scale Type 35 for Ettore’s son Roland’s fourth birthday. Powered by an electric motor, it had a top speed of around 12 mph, and the sight of Roland driving it around the Molsheim factory was compelling enough to persuade many of the brand’s affluent clientele to demand it for their own offspring.

Hermès-Edition Bugatti Chiron Took 3 Years to Make

1500-HP Bugatti Chiron Pur Sport Is an Apex Hunter

See How Customers Are Ordering Their Bugatti Divos

In total, around 500 of the Bugatti Bebe were produced, despite a 5000-franc price that made it as expensive as many cars of the period. The Bebe was popular enough for Bugatti to organize races for them at fashionable French holiday resorts like Deauville and St. Tropez. Around 100 of the originals are known to still exist, alongside many unofficial replicas, and Bugatti collectors fight hard to land them. The record auction price for an original was $110,000 at Pebble Beach in 2008.

View Photos

Bugatti

At last year’s Geneva auto show, Bugatti showed off a new version intended to celebrate the brand’s 110th anniversary. Reaction was positive enough for a limited run to be commissioned, with these being engineered and constructed by the Little Car Company in England. Bugatti previously announced that the whole allocation had been sold, but some COVID-19 cancellations have opened up some slots. So, if you have a gap in your life that only a scaled-down, battery-powered Edwardian racer can fill, you are in luck.
Prices range from $40,106 for the base version with composite bodywork, a 1.4-kWh battery pack, 1.3 horsepower in Novice mode and 5.4 horses of electrified thrust in Expert mode with a 28-mph top speed. The fancier carbon-fiber-bodied Vitesse and Pur Sang versions get a 2.8-kWh battery and as much as 13.4 horsepower when you use a Chiron-like “speed key” that unlocks a top speed of 43 mph. They also cost considerably more, with the Pur Sang’s hand-beaten aluminum bodywork bringing a $78,207 price tag.
The big difference between the Baby II and the original Bebe is one of scale. The first car was a half-scale copy of a Bugatti Type 35 and was therefore effectively limited to use by smaller children. The new one is scaled 75 percent and, although primarily designed for kids, can also accommodate adults prepared to sacrifice the dignity and knee skin necessary to squeeze into the beautifully finished cockpit. The wooden-rimmed Nardi steering wheel detaches to make access slightly easier, but the rim’s prototypical right-hand positioning dictates a slouched driving position to maximize space.

View Photos

Bugatti

Beyond physical discomfort, the Baby II is a lovely place to be. Like the original, it has a milled metal dashboard with period-looking dials, although subtly repurposed. Behind the steering wheel, where the original Type 35 had a tachometer, is a speedometer calibrated to (an only slightly optimistic) 50 mph. Smaller gauges are a clock, a battery-charge meter and a power-flow display to show how hard the EV powertrain is working. My test car came with the optional Touring pack that adds working turn signals and even a European-spec rear fog lamp. Although Hedley said the car is sold for off-road use only, he concedes it will be possible to register it under “quadricycle” rules in some places.
The 48-volt lithium-ion battery pack is positioned under the hood—held down with the appropriate leather strap—and, equipped with the larger battery pack, has up to 31 miles of range under gentle use. The smaller pack has an estimated 16 miles of range. A recharge takes about four hours from the on-board charger. Harder use will eat the range much more quickly, so there is also the option of swapping the 48-pound battery pack for another one by simply unplugging it and removing it from the car. Power comes from a single motor that drives the rear axle through a reduction gear and a limited-slip differential. Lifting off the accelerator at speed provides regenerative braking, which returns electrons to the battery.
The rest of the mechanical package sticks as closely as possible to that of the original Type 35, with the similar components and even suspension geometry. There are leaf springs and a solid axle at the front, and a live axle located by trailing arms at the back. Rotary-type shock absorbers are period appropriate, although now adjustable, and the eight-spoke alloy wheels’ wear Michelin motorcycle tires. The biggest change from the prototype is the use of hydraulically operated drum brakes. Hedley’s team tried to create cable brakes as with the original 35 but gave up because, as he put it, “They were lethal.”

View Photos

Bugatti

My drive takes place on the former RAF Bicester, a World War II airfield, which has become a hotbed for historic race-car and classic-car restoration and which is where the Little Car Company is based. Now called Bicester Heritage, the facility includes a 0.6-mile test track that’s short and tight in full-sized cars but is ideally suited to the Baby II’s scaled-down dimensions. Andy Wallace is also on hand, the one-time 24 Hours of Le Mans winner and Bugatti test driver who has acted as a dynamic consultant on the Baby II project. We don’t think that happens when Power Wheels introduces a new product.
Having experienced the Baby II’s default mode on the gentle trip from workshop to test track, we turn the speed key for the track, unlocking the full 43 mph. Bugatti claims a six-second zero-to-60 time, but that’s in kilometers, so 37 mph in six seconds. Even on Bicester’s short back straight, the Baby II has reached its gearing-limited top speed early enough to have me playing the bored race hero hunching down in the cockpit to try and reduce wind resistance. Regenerative braking is forceful, which is fortunate given the ankle dexterity required to switch pedals, but the hydraulic brakes work well. The steering is slow but accurate—apparently it uses a reconditioned steering box from an original Volkswagen Beetle—and the sight of the narrow front tires and their tip-toed, positively cambered stance is a compelling one.

View Photos

Bugatti

Grip levels are high considering how little rubber is in contact with the track, but the front axle does surrender gracefully in slower turns. Traction was never an issue; the car’s rear end stuck to an almost frustrating degree thanks in large part to the mass my own rear end was exerting on the rear axle. “It’s a shame it’s not raining,” says Wallace when I stop after my first brief stint. “It was wet earlier, and we were sliding it around nicely.” Wallace is also considerably lighter than I am. He promises that the Baby II really does drive like a scaled-down Type 35.
But would you put Baby in a corner yourself? Those of us without the wealth necessary to indulge any material whim find it a little hard to imagine a requirement for such an automotive indulgence. But there really are people out there with Bugatti collections extensive enough to make a Baby II the perfect way of touring them. It is not a gaudy trinket, and while it makes no rational sense—you could buy a Tesla Model 3 Performance for less than a Baby II Pur Sang—we are amused by its existence.
It will have rivals, too. The Little Car Company is already working on other miniaturized inspired-by EVs, with the next set to be an officially approved version of the Aston Martin DB5. It is even planning to offer a “balance of performance” mode to allow its various models to compete against each other on track. That promises to be the cutest race series of all time.
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

View Photos
Michael SimariCar and Driver

For families with young children, particularly three or more of them, a minivan is the obvious choice. In fact, other than a jumbo SUV such as a Chevrolet Suburban or Ford Expedition Max, both of which are far more expensive, it’s practically the only three-row vehicle that has a generous amount of cargo space when its third row is in use.
That’s partially why Honda sees minivan sales staying strong, despite the declines of most other non-SUV segments. That seems to be the consensus opinion, as Toyota is about to launch a new Sienna this year—now offered only as a hybrid—Chrysler is substantially updating the Pacifica and adding all-wheel drive, and Kia is readying an all-new Sedona.

HIGHS: Off-the-charts practicality, the quickest and best-driving minivan, hushed at speed.

2021 Honda Odyssey.
Michael SimariCar and Driver

2018 Honda Odyssey.
Brad FickCar and Driver

2021 Toyota Sienna Looks Wild, Goes Hybrid-Only

For 2021, Chrysler Pacifica Gets All-Wheel Drive

For 2021, the fifth-generation Odyssey, which launched for the 2018 model year, gets a light overhaul. The front end is now a cleaner execution, with a chrome strip that runs across the top of the grille rather than dipping down through the middle of it and back up either side. The rear end trades a chrome spear between the taillights for a gloss-black one with a small chrome inlay, and there are new wheel designs. Starting with the 2020 model year, all Odysseys get Honda’s excellent 10-speed automatic transmission, and as before, they’re powered by a 280-hp V-6 and are front-wheel-drive only.
That means, not surprisingly, this 2021 Odyssey turned in similar test numbers to our 2018 long-term example, accelerating to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds, stopping from 70 mph in 182 feet, and hanging on for 0.76 g on the skidpad. The Pacifica offers higher-grip tires and less overbearing stability-control programming, but the Odyssey is the swiftest-accelerating and best-driving kid shuttle. It’s also the quietest when cruising at 70 mph.

2021 Honda Odyssey.
Michael SimariCar and Driver

2018 Honda Odyssey.
Brad FickCar and Driver

The most noticeable change while driving the 2021 Odyssey is its brake pedal feel, as the stroke of the previously soft pedal has been shortened by 20 percent. Although the brakes never had an issue in actually delivering stopping power, the new setup feels more confidence inspiring. Also, the adaptive-cruise system can now handle stop-and-go driving, rather than shutting down below about 20 mph. But we found the new system to be slightly too abrupt on the brakes when it initially sensed a car ahead.

LOWS: Second-row seats don’t fold into the floor like Pacifica’s, load floor isn’t flat when they’re removed.

While not necessarily the point of minivans, superior dynamics has been a longstanding thread through the Odyssey’s lineage, one that we champions of driving have celebrated time and time again. But the real duking it out in this segment involves the one-upmanship of practicality and features that we (reluctantly) admit probably matter more to the majority of buyers.
For example, the Sienna has been the sole purveyor of an all-wheel-drive option for some time, but Chrysler is adding that to the Pacifica for 2021. Assistant vice president of Honda’s product planning, Gary Robinson, says that they’ve also studied adding all-wheel drive but weren’t happy with the required compromises to rear-seat space and believe it’s a niche desire among minivan shoppers. Our opinion is that snow-state buyers would be better off mounting a set of good winter tires than opting for all-wheel drive, anyway.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

Chrysler must think Honda was on to something with its CabinWatch rear-seat video feed that debuted in the 2018 Odyssey, as the Pacifica is adding a similar feature for 2021. The latest Odyssey gains a rear-seat-reminder feature, something that’s spreading across the market, but with a slight twist: The Odyssey automatically switches on the rear-seat camera when the warning pops up, so you can give the rear-seat area a quick visual without even turning your head.
There remain five Odyssey trim levels, from the $32,910 LX to the top $48,940 Elite like our test car, which has very few stand-alone options. The price of most trims are up by $400 for 2021, with the only exception being the Touring model, which drops by $2560 and loses the built-in vacuum and hands-free power liftgate. At $43,620, the 2021 Touring model is now positioned more equally between the EX-L and Elite. Also, half of the eight available paint colors now cost $395 extra.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The Honda Sensing suite of driver-assist features is now standard on the Odyssey’s base LX model, making it present on every model, as is becoming the norm with Hondas and in general. EX trims and above get new multicolor floor mats that better hide dirt, an issue near and dear to every minivan owner with small children. Elite models also get piping around all three rows of its leather seats to make them look more luxurious, and EX-Ls and above get contrast stitching and a lumbar adjustment for the front-passenger seat. But that seat still lacks a height adjustment.
There are also a handful of small, smart additions. The back of the third-row seats now have hooks for grocery bags, and there’s a little spot to run a phone-charging cord up and out of the center console so it doesn’t get pinched when the lid’s closed. There’s also a new USB port in the third row (on Touring and Elite models only), mimicking the Pacifica, which brings the total to five.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

By a small margin the Odyssey has the most second- and third-row space amongst minivans, and the seats in all three rows are comfortable for even taller adults. The Odyssey retains its second-row seats that slide fore and aft as well as side to side. The seatbacks on the second-row buckets now have pockets on the back and fold flat to make them less awkward to remove, while also enabling additional storage possibilities with them installed. But they’re still heavy and clumsy to take out. The Pacifica’s fold-into-the-floor second-row Stow ‘n Go seats are an incredibly compelling feature for those who regularly switch between maximum people and cargo hauling.
Competition benefits buyers, and the 2021 Odyssey is but the first of what surely will be several new excellent choices for those in need of seriously versatile passenger and cargo space. Long live the minivan.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Honda Odyssey
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 8-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE AS TESTED $48,940 (base price: $32,910)
ENGINE TYPE SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 212 in3, 3471 cm3Power 280 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque 262 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm
TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/multilinkBrakes (F/R): 12.6-in vented disc/13.0-in discTires: Bridgestone Turanza EL440, 235/55R-19 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 205.2 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 69.6 inPassenger volume: 163 ft3Cargo volume: 33 ft3Curb weight: 4574 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 6.5 sec100 mph: 16.6 sec110 mph: 20.5 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 4.5 sec1/4 mile: 15.1 sec @ 96 mphTop speed (governor limited): 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 21 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 22/19/28 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