Car Reviews

From the February 1985 issue of Car and Driver.Ever since the rebirth of the GTO, Ferrari fanatics have been pushing and shoving to queue up for the new supercar. None that we know of have actually succeeded in lay­ing hands on one as yet. The process seems to be a lot like waiting for campaign prom­ises to come true: the factory in Maranello is known for talking big and delivering lat­er, if at all.An alternative worth considering is the injection of some of the GTO’s twin-turbo magic into a current Ferrari Quattrovalvole (308GTSi). This requires doing without the GTO’s other exotic performance ac­couterments, but the prospect of old-fash­ioned twelve-cylinder muscle in a car wear­ing the rampant-stallion insignia is usually enough to make the faithful salivate in anticipation. We recently tested such a double-blown car, a 308 Quattrovalvole supplied by Prancing Horse, Inc., a Ferrari service and high-performance emporium in Campbell, California. Although Prancing Horse supplies and installs its own kits, this particular development was undertaken jointly with now defunct Pfaff Turbo, in nearby San Jose. As turbo kits go, this is one of the most straightforward installations we’ve ever seen. Each bank of the V-8 feeds an IHI RHB52 turbocharger via a special exhaust manifold. Each compressor mouth is pro­tected by a K&N air filter, and the twin streams of compressed air produced by the turbos are gathered and then routed through the K-Jetronic fuel-injection sys­tem’s metering unit on the way to the origi­nal intake manifold. Peak boost pressure is 7.0 psi, regulated by the turbo’s integral wastegates. Minor modifications to the fuel-pressure regulator provide a slightly richer mixture whenever manifold pres­sure rises above atmospheric. On the ex­haust side, Prancing Horse has fitted a Eu­ropean, catalyst-free system to minimize back pressure. There are no internal changes to the 32-valve engine, no major intake-system revisions, and no complicat­ed engine-control systems. According to Rick Brady, the proprietor of Prancing Horse, this simplicity is made possible by the inherent stoutness of the Ferrari V-8. The good combustion and detonation resistance inherent in a four­-valve combination chamber are also help­ful, and the modest, 8.6:1 compression ra­tio doesn’t hurt. There’s no denying that this turbo instal­lation really brings the 308 engine to life. As a matter of fact, it transforms the mid-­engined machine into one of the fastest road rockets going. The twin-turbo 308 sprints from a standing start to 60 mph in just 5.6 seconds, to 100 mph in 12.3 sec­onds, and then claws to 130 mph in 23.0 seconds. In the process, it devours a quar­ter-mile in 13.5 seconds, achieving 107 mph through the traps. Top speed is limit­ed to 147 mph by gearing and the engine’s redline, but with an estimated 350 horsepower, it doesn’t take long to get there. Any 308 driver should be able to appre­ciate the benefits of a major boost in horse­power. The turbos trim nearly two seconds from zero-to-sixty and quarter-mile times, so the homemade GTO should never have to sneak around, fearing encounters with Porsche 911s or 928s, Chevrolet Cor­vettes, or the current domestic pony cars. In fact, the double-blown 308 reminded us of the much revered Ferrari Daytona. Ex­cept in top speed, its performance almost perfectly matches the older twelve-cylin­der’s, putting the 308 at the overachieving end of the speed spectrum, exactly where Ferraris belong. In exchange for this vast improvement, the modified engine extracts little penalty in everyday, nonfrenetic driving. One rea­son is the essentially stock intake system, which keeps low-speed response respect­able. In top gear, the modified 308 goes from 30 to 50 mph in 9.5 seconds and from 50 to 70 mph in 8.1 seconds—versus 8.7 and 8.8 seconds, respectively, for the stan­dard car. Obviously, in the 1500-to-3500-rpm range used in this test, there’s not much boost available; but once the engine is turning 3000 rpm, the boost gauge is on the rise and there’s a full 4000 rpm worth of engine operation left. The engine’s sound is also thoroughly refined. At the upper end of its rev range, the well-known Ferrari shriek is very much in evidence. At the low end, however, the twin-turbo V-8 is surprisingly silent and docile. Indeed, at a steady 70 mph, we mea­sured a sound level of 78 dBA, 3 dBA lower than a standard car. Our impressive C/D fuel economy of 17 mpg is another indica­tion that this car is a capable cruiser. The 308’s chassis accepts the extra pow­er with eagerness. Our test car, equipped with Goodyear NCT tires, retained the ba­sic combination of initial understeer and terminal oversteer, but the transition could be prompted a bit sooner with the stronger engine. The 308’s handling characteristics are still quite manageable, as long as the driver doesn’t get carried away with the extra horsepower. More FerrariObviously, this twin-turbo installation eliminates all the emissions controls, and it’s unlikely to enhance the engine’s lon­gevity. Still, the system did withstand the rigors of our performance tests, and Brady says he’s seen excellent reliability in several similar installations. The complete pack­age costs $6000, but you can save a grand if you bolt the hardware on yourself. Consid­ering that some dealers are demanding $10,000 for a highly dubious GTO “reser­vation,” $6000 for a pair of turbos to tide you over sounds entirely reasonable.SpecificationsSpecifications
1985 Ferrari 308 Twin-TurboVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa
PRICE
Kit: $6000
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 179 in3, 2927 cm3Power (C/D est): 350 hp @ 6500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 92.1 inLength: 174.2 inCurb Weight: 3350 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.6 sec100 mph: 12.3 sec1/4-Mile: 13.5 sec @ 107 mph130 mph: 23.0 secTop Speed: 147 mph 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and LeMons racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, and trio of motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

Now in its fourth model year, Volvo’s battery-powered XC40 Recharge—the brand’s spearhead into the EV market—sees its first major change with the arrival of a rear-drive, single-motor model. Until now, the XC40 Recharge—and its slope-roofed, EV-only sibling, the C40—has been available exclusively with a muscled-up, dual-motor powertrain boasting 402 horsepower. The XC40 Recharge Single Motor, as it’s called, trades a bunch of those ponies for better range and a lower price point, but those benefits prove modest indeed.The 248-hp Single Motor makes 310 pound-feet of torque, and it drives the rear wheels (just like a classic brick 240!). That horsepower figure may be well shy of the Twin Motor, but it’s fully competitive with rival single-motor electric SUVs. The Volvo’s output bests the Mercedes-Benz EQB250+, Audi Q4 e-tron, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Nissan Ariya, and Lexus RZ300e, but it’s short of the top-spec versions of the Volkswagen ID.4, the Ford Mustang Mach-E, and the mechanically related Polestar 2. HIGHS: EPA range increases to 293 miles, improved ride versus earlier models, six-year-old styling still looks fresh.At the test track, 60 mph arrives in 6.5 seconds, while the quarter-mile passes in 15.2 seconds at 91 mph. That effort leaves this XC40 in its dual-motor sibling’s proverbial dust—the beefier brother stormed to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds in our testing and zoomed through the quarter-mile in 12.9 seconds at 108 mph. But the Single Motor Volvo is hardly a laggard. It’s quicker than the 238-hp front-drive Ariya and (just barely) the rear-drive Kia EV6, even if it’s not as spry as the also newly rear-drive Polestar 2. That said, the XC40 isn’t some hard-edged machine that fosters Max Verstappen fantasies. And whereas foot-to-the-floor acceleration in the Twin Motor version can feel frenetic—particularly with the rather casual body control afforded by this chassis—the Single Motor XC40 seems brisk and confident as it easily squirts through traffic or merges onto the freeway. Skidpad grip is a modest 0.83 g, and the steering offers a choice of reasonable or slightly higher effort. Stops from 70 mph take just 166 feet, and brake modulation is fairly good. For liftoff regen, drivers can choose none (the standard setup) or a one-pedal driving mode. The Single Motor benefits from the same chassis revisions that were visited upon the Twin Motor version: softer springs, revised dampers, and a new rear subframe. Although our test car rolled on 20-inch wheels with 235/45R-20 front and 255/40R-20 rear tires—up from standard 19s—ride quality seemed markedly better than the last XC40 Recharge we tested, with the car thumping firmly but not harshly over broken pavement. With a curb weight of 4559 pounds, this XC40 is 232 pounds slimmer than the last dual-motor version we tested; combine that with a slight battery upgrade—now 79.0 kilowatt-hours, versus the previous 75.0-kWh unit (still found in the dual-motor XC40)—and you get an EPA range estimate of 293 miles, a 39-mile advantage over the 2024 Twin Motor XC40. With same battery pack, the single-motor Polestar 2 gets a 320-mile EPA estimate.LOWS: Real-world highway range falls short, only modest cost savings over Twin Motor models, purchase not eligible for federal tax credit.The XC40 Single Motor may well achieve 293 miles in urban driving, but in our 75-mph highway range test, it fell well short at just 190 miles, a disappointing result that was only 10 miles better than we achieved with the dual-motor 2021 XC40. It was also surprising given that the Polestar 2 with this same battery managed 250 miles in this same test, a huge difference for these corporate siblings.Looking further at that result, we should acknowledge that the raw, unadjusted number for the XC40 was actually 198 miles, but as with all EVs, we round down to the nearest 10-mile increment so as not to overstate the number (most drivers aren’t going to wring out the very last mile of range on the highway, particularly since they can’t magically conjure up an EV charging station at the exact point where the battery runs dry). Significantly, the Polestar was rolling on 19-inch wheels versus the Volvo’s 20s. If you compare the automaker-supplied coast-down data, the XC40 on 20s requires 23 percent more energy to maintain 75 mph than does the Polestar 2 on 19s (34.0 horsepower vs. 27.6), which is very close to the difference between the two range results. With EVs, aerodynamics and wheel size really matter.Volvo says the XC40 Recharge Single Motor can slurp electrons at a max rate of 200 kilowatts (against 150 kilowatts for the Twin Motor XC40), but that also didn’t quite pan out in our testing. The max rate we saw was 150 kilowatts, and to add 100 miles of highway range would take 20 minutes. Again, the Polestar 2 fared better with the same battery pack, reaching a peak charging rate of 205 kilowatts.Related StoriesThe rest of the XC40 is largely unchanged, and it’s a testament to Volvo’s current design language that the car still looks and feels this fresh in its sixth model year (the gas-fed XC40 debuted for 2019). The XC40 is spare and modern, if not quite as futuristic as the Kia EV6. Natty gray wool-blend seat upholstery is available in the top-spec Ultimate. Faux-leather and a suede-like material are the other two choices. The absence of a front motor does not make for a larger frunk; the small space is sized about right to carry the charging cable but little more.The XC40 Recharge pioneered Volvo’s latest infotainment and its Google-based operating system, which is lag-free. The screen is on the small side, however, and having most climate-control functions on-screen is poor ergonomics. Wireless device charging is on hand, as are Android Auto and Apple CarPlay.The Single Motor XC40 is available in the same three trim levels as its extra-motor sibling: Core, Plus, and Ultimate. In each, bypassing the Twin Motor upgrade will save buyers $1750. We might have hoped for greater savings—Single Motor base prices range from $53,745 to $60,095, and the model is not eligible for the federal EV tax credit unless the car is leased.VERDICT: We don’t mind trading away some quickness but wish there was more upside.The XC40 Single Motor’s driving demeanor strikes us as a better fit for the EV-intending Volvo faithful than the muscular Twin Motor model. But this car would make a stronger case if it better delivered on its more parsimonious promise. SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Volvo XC40 Recharge Single MotorVehicle Type: rear-motor, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $53,745/$60,095
Options: Ultimate trim (panoramic sunroof with power sunshade, heat pump, heated rear seats, Harman/Kardon premium sound system, heated steering wheel, power seats, air purifier, 20-inch wheels), $6350
POWERTRAIN
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 248 hp, 310 lb-ft Battery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 79.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 200 kWTransmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.6-in vented disc/13.4-in vented discTires: Pirelli Scorpion Zero All Season ElectF: 235/45R-20 100H M+S VOLR: 255/40R-20 101H M+S VOL
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.4 inLength: 174.8 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 64.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 58/22 ft3Curb Weight: 4559 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.5 sec1/4-Mile: 15.2 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 19.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 69 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 190 miAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 85 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 48 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 106/118/95 MPGeRange: 293 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Lucid has won plenty of praise from us for the range and performance of several Air sedan variants. The Air Grand Touring managed 410 miles on a charge in our 75-mph highway test, the best of any EV, and ripped to 60 mph in just 3.0 seconds. The new rear-wheel-drive Air Pure can’t match its grander siblings on those two metrics, but it adds a fresh virtue: value. At $78,900, the rear-wheel-drive Pure is $5000 less than the all-wheel-drive version and looks enticingly priced against rivals that include the Porsche Taycan and the Tesla Model S.HIGHS: Brisk performance, more agile than the all-wheel-drive version, spacious and luxurious cabin.The entry-level Pure is the only rear-driver in the Air lineup and is not nearly as quick as its multi-motor counterparts. But it’s still plenty swift by mortal standards, zipping to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 12.7 seconds at 113 mph (numbers nearly identical to the ones we extracted from the V-10-powered E60-generation BMW M5). Although there’s little drama from the rear tires during a hard launch, the traction-control system is working hard to get all 430 horsepower to the ground; for comparison, the 480-hp all-wheel-drive Pure managed a 3.5-second 60-mph run and an 11.7-second quarter-mile. One reason for the rear-drive Pure’s lower price is its smaller 88.0-kWh battery pack. It doesn’t deliver the huge range claimed for the Air models fitted with the 112.0-kWh pack, but even so, this Pure boasts an EPA-estimated range of up to 419 miles on the standard 19-inch wheels. With the optional 20s, we went 300 miles in our 75-mph highway range test—still an impressive figure—during which the Air averaged a frugal 109 MPGe.Beyond efficiency, rear-wheel drive brings dynamic benefits. On the road, this Pure feels more agile than the all-wheel-drive versions. One gets the sense of the rear end rotating under power, although stability control prevents significant oversteer. There’s also a useful weight reduction. At 4536 pounds, our test car was 415 pounds less portly than the all-wheel-drive Pure and 676 less than the Grand Touring. Steering feel is limited, but the rear-wheel-drive Pure responds keenly and grips impressively. Its 0.94 g of lateral acceleration on Michelin Pilot Sport EV rubber is 0.04 g better than its all-wheel-drive counterpart managed on the same tires. The 164-foot stop from 70 mph was four feet better too.Braking, though, is not without issues. The Pure’s brake pedal has a dead spot at the top of its travel; it takes an uncomfortable amount of movement before the sense of slowing increases above that delivered by the always-present regenerative braking. There are only two regen settings, Standard and High, the latter serving as an aggressive one-pedal mode. We would appreciate a coast function.LOWS: Awkward ingress under the low roofline, lack of physical switchgear, could use a coast mode.Refinement is excellent, as the rear-wheel-drive Pure’s ride stays smooth over bumps and highway ridges despite our test car’s upsized wheels, and yet there’s little lean when cornering. At highway speeds, the most noticeable disturbance was the whisper of wind around the driver’s door mirror. As before, the Air’s cabin is impressively spacious, especially in the back seat, where the smaller battery pack allows for a lower floor, enhancing rear legroom. But the rakish roofline makes getting in a squeeze, with taller occupants often bumping their heads. More on the Lucid AirThe Pure lacks the more expensive variants’ standard glass roof, making the cabin seem darker but also less like an oven on sunny days. The materials feel plush, and the 34-inch curved display screen looks great. At the risk of sounding like Luddites, using a touch-sensitive panel to control the wipers and having to use the touchscreen to adjust mirrors and the steering wheel is deeply annoying. VERDICT: Marginal sacrifices to range and performance are worth the boost in affordability.The rear-drive Air Pure doesn’t flex with the EV overkill of its high-dollar siblings. But in its least expensive and basic form, the Air is a true luxury car and a value.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Lucid Air Pure RWDVehicle Type: rear-motor, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $78,900/$81,450Options: 20-inch Aero Lite wheels, $1750; Fathom Blue Metallic paint, $800
POWERTRAINMotor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 430 hp, 406 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 88.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 19.2 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 250 kWTransmission: direct-drive  
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.0-in vented disc/14.8-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport EV245/40ZR-20 99Y Extra Load LM1
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.5 inLength: 195.9 inWidth: 76.2 inHeight: 55.4 inPassenger Volume: 101 ft3Trunk Volume, F/R: 10/22 ft3Curb Weight: 4536 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.3 sec100 mph: 9.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.7 sec @ 113 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 127 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 164 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 327 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.94 g  
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 89 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 109 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 300 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 130/134/126 mpgRange: 394 mi 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDOur man on the other side of the pond, Mike Duff lives in Britain but reports from across Europe, sometimes beyond. He has previously held staff roles on U.K. titles including CAR, Autocar, and evo, but his own automotive tastes tend toward the Germanic: he owns both a troublesome 987-generation Porsche Cayman S and a Mercedes 190E 2.5-16. More

From the November 1995 issue of Car and Driver.”Is it fun? Is it a real BMW? More to the point, am I gonna look cool in it?” These are the questions presented by the BMW 318ti, a car that turns on its charm even before you can grab the keys. Largely, that’s due to its initials. In the past, we’ve measured our driving fun in BMWs in nautical miles. Naturally, the prospect of a $20,000-something Bimmer with its pedigree intact looked like the pro­file of a future leader of the pack. Only one problem. The 318ti shows up ready to rumble on turf already claimed by some intimidating hot hatches and sports coupes. At the forefront is one Acura Integra, a car knighted by comparison tests so frequently that Kenneth Branagh is looking into film rights. With a couple of bouts under its belt, the 170-hp Integra GS-R just might knock the 318ti’s strut down to a stroll. Sound like trouble? Sounds like a com­parison test. Aaron Kiley|Car and Driver”Wait just a minute, Sparky,” you pipe in, breaking the mood. “What about the VW GTI?”Granted, the BMW hatch does look an awful lot more like its German compatriot than its Japanese fencing partner. But the GTI finished last in its most recent com­parison test (C/D, March 1995) largely because of its soft handling. Stay with us here. Both the BMW and the Acura have 1.8-liter four-cylinder engines. Both are hatchbacks with flip-fold rear seats. Their base prices open on either side of the $21,000 bookmark. After hours of knitting our eye­brows together until we looked like that guy in R.E.M., we decided the 318ti was more closely matched in configura­tion, performance, and price to the Integra GS-R than to any­thing else. So, exactly what happens when you throw two toughs into the same shark tank? You get to blaze across southeastern Michigan in the duo, sample the narcotic effects of spaetzle at the German restau­rant in Stockbridge, and choose a favorite speed thug. In the end, one wins and the other gets to play Miss Congeniality in the ever-growing ranks of “Nice, but . . .” Here’s how these two settled their dif­ferences. 2nd Place: BMW 318ti If you read magazines like Details, watch NBC’s “Friends,” or listen to any radio station with an “X” in its call letters, you’ve probably already been assaulted by a tempting numerical come-on for BMW’s 318ti: “$19,900.”Allow us to gently disabuse you of that notion. First, you’ll have to pay to get your vehicle off a ship and to your dealer ($570). Which means the baby Bimmer will run at least $20,470, including two airbags, anti-lock brakes, and power win­dows. Bargain hunters who crave Euro credentials can and should stop there. HIGHS: Unblemished handling and mechanical verve . . . LOWS: . . . but we’ll get back to you on its speed and looks. VERDICT: A real BMW for slightly tighter belts.If you want your Bavarian-built bahn­stormer to handle like an SCCA sprinter, it’ll cost you more. You’ll need the lim­ited-slip differential ($580) and the $2400 Sport package, which includes trick 15-inch wheels and tires, a sport suspension, grippy seats, and extremely groovy fabric upholstery. A minimum of $23,450 by our HP calculators. Add a premium stereo, a power sun­roof, a security system, and cruise control, and you’re talking $25,200. That many dead presidents would also buy you a nifty VTEC Prelude or a Ram Air Firebird. It would almost get you into Audi’s new A4. And BMW’s own 318i two-door sedan is just a grand more. No surprise, really, because the two have much in common—at least in front of the firewall, where the 318ti is a dead ringer for the 318i sedan. Aft of there, even the lookalike parts are subtly different. Look at the doors: those windows are framed, dude, and a little of their flame-red paint shows through into the cabin. The 318ti’s dash is a simpler, streamlined affair with big push-pull knobs for the headlights and foglamps. Its rear seats split and fold to reveal a cargo area that’ll swallow a Sears lawn mower. Try that in an M3. If you could take an X-ray of the 318ti’s internals, you’d notice more. The heart of this matter isn’t the stout inline six common to the 325i and M3; rather, it’s the 138-hp 16-valve four that’s been around since the last-generation 3-series. It’s still a sweet-revving engine, especially coupled to the slick-shifting stylings of BMW’s five-speed. But after living with Bavaria’s senior statesmen, we’re not used to waiting 8.4 seconds to get to 60 mph. And with 170-hp GS-Rs running around, we’re used to more energy from 1.8-liters. Another BMW 318ti Review From the ArchiveKeep going. Under that low-liftover hatchback floor you’d find a semi-trailing-­arm rear suspension. The various 3-series 10Best champs each have an indepen­dent multilink rear suspension, but the 318ti reverts to the setup of the previous­-generation 3-series cars. Theoretically, it’s a little less adept at handling single-wheel bumps. In practice, the handling tradeoff, in exchange for a usable trunk and low base price, seems reasonable.This melding of old and new leaves the traditional BMW virtues—like light, pre­cise steering and an uncompromised sense of stability at speed—in place. Handling is balanced; it tends toward mild understeer, but you can rotate the tail in low­-gear, high-rpm corners. The pedals are tightly grouped so that even narrow feet can execute deft heel-and-toe maneuvers. We’re intrigued by the possibility of a bargain BMW, even with the minor com­promises made to the rear suspension and interior. It’s a great deal of fun and a rea­sonable value, but we’d be more enthusi­astic if the 318ti, with the handling goodies, really could be ours for just $19,900. 1st Place: Acura Integra GS-R Handling or utility? Speed or ride quality? The face-off between the Integra GS-R and the 318ti is a Gordian knot of practicality and comfort versus fun. We’ll take the latter. The Integra may be a smaller, less useful package than the 318ti, but it spits out the objective num­bers and insinuates the subjective percep­tions that once were the sole province of expensive sporting machinery. Like BMWs. HIGHS: Top-gun motor and shifter, slick steering. LOWS: Concedes ride quality and roominess to speed, sounds less happy as the revs build.VERDICT: A bully with a heart of gold.A dazzling powertrain is chief among the Integra’s many delights. The GS-R gathers a head of steam like no other sports sedan—except of course, the four-door GS-R. Its 1.8-liter VTEC four charges full­-tilt for 8100 rpm at the slightest provoca­tion, burning only 7.1 seconds as it claws to 60 mph on its way to an unfettered 134 mph. Playing around in the upper reaches of its power band is more fun than playing around in a sandbox is to a five-year-old­—without the itchy aftermath. The yang to this yin is a short-throw shifter that clicks in and out of gear over bare inches of travel like a toggle switch. It’s mounted a little low, but the shift lever feel wouldn’t be better if it were made by Nintendo. Even if you prefer the steer-here, power-there feel of rear-wheel drive, the GS-R’s benign understeer is anything but offensive. This is a very balanced chassis, one that remains unflappably poised as it dashes from crest to crown. The steering response is fast and fluid, if a little heavy. The only penalty for its razor’s-edge pre­cision is a slight arthritic feel as it dances over irregular surfaces, transmitting some harsh impacts a little too directly. In a narrowly won contest, we decided that the Integra is more handsome than the BMW. Its proportions are leaner. And though the projector-style headlamps are at the zenith of their trendiness, the face isn’t something you see everyday—unless you drive a Lexus coupe or a del Sol.Other complaints we could muster were typically small. The Integra isn’t the roomiest sports coupe, while the BMW is essentially as large inside as any other 3-series. Predictably, the Acura suffers in compar­ison. It does have a tilt wheel and the BMW doesn’t, but the Integra’ s front seats are a little less commodious. The back seat is much tighter, requiring contortions and goodwill far and above that asked by the 318ti. The dash styling is cooked clean of any imperfections in the same autoclave as the rest of Honda’s ergonomically faultless offerings—maybe a little too sterile. More Integra GS Reviews From the ArchiveIf you can’t feel the intent of the GS-R through its mechanicals, you will certainly hear it. It registers 6 dBA more noise at full throttle than the BMW, and the Acura’s cockpit throbs with exhaust boom above 4000 rpm—coincidentally, the point where the VTEC mechanism switches from the lower-lift set of valves to the higher-lift variety. Last, despite some minor fade from the brakes, the Integra stopped just as quickly as the BMW did ­in a short, controllable 185 feet. Toe to toe, the Integra GS-R out­muscles and outhustles BMW’s newest trick pony. Deft handling is on both agendas, but the Acura’s bonus ponies and punchier feel nudge it ahead of the BMW’s superior package and probably its resale luster. The prestige of a whirling propeller might look good in prep school, but in this neighborhood, an attitude counts for some­thing, too. SpecificationsSpecifications
1995 Acura Integra GS-RVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,070/$21,870
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 110 in3, 1797 cm3Power: 170 hp @ 7600 rpmTorque: 128 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.2 inLength: 172.4 inWidth: 67.3 inHeight: 52.6inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/28 ft3Cargo Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 2649 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 19.1 sec120 mph: 34.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.3 secTop Speed: 134 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 25/31 mpg 
— 
1995 BMW 318tiVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $20,470/$25,200
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 110 in3, 1796 cm3Power: 138 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 129 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 165.7 inWidth: 66.9 inHeight: 54.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/36 ft3Cargo Volume: 11 ft3Curb Weight: 2789 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.4 sec100 mph: 24.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.4 sec @ 84 mphRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 114 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 22/32 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.In 1902, a miner named William “Burro” Schmidt began digging a tunnel through a mountain in California’s Mojave Desert. He continued, by hand, for three decades, despite that a road was built during that time, and his tunnel came out on a ledge above the valley. You can visit Schmidt’s work down a silty dirt road. It’s a slidey, sandy journey, but it’s so easy in the Chevy Colorado ZR2 that if Schmidt had had one, he wouldn’t have bothered trying to make a shortcut. HIGHS: Well sized for trails and parking garages, mulelike off-road ability, stout turbo four.Much like the burros that gave Schmidt his nickname, the Colorado is stubborn and sure-footed. It’s easier to house than a draft horse, although for 2023, the mid-size Colorado grows in width, wheelbase, and ground clearance. A simplified powertrain lineup means all versions come with a turbocharged 2.7-liter inline-four and an eight-speed automatic transmission. The engine comes in three strengths, and the ZR2 gets max burro power: the high-output 310-hp version that makes 430 lb-ft of torque. That’s enough to tow 6000 pounds (1000 more than the previous generation), but unladen acceleration is no quicker, with a trot to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds. On the road, the ZR2 brays loudly when spurred, but off-road, it scampers up hills and over loose surfaces. All that pulling and climbing makes it hungry—its fuel economy is slightly worse than the previous V-6, with an EPA combined rating of 16 mpg. LOWS: Interior is basic, rear seat is child-size, engine is loud and thirsty.The ZR2’s off-road prowess comes by means of a 3.0-inch lift and more suspension travel, as well as Multimatic DSSV spool-valve dampers. Larger 33-inch tires on 17-inch wheels also help soak up the rough stuff, and a redesigned front fascia and a better-packaged spare tire enable steeper ups and downs. An exclusive Baja drive mode holds gears longer and encourages slides in either two- or four-wheel drive. All of these goodies raise the price, of course—the ZR2 is now a $48,295 proposition.More on the Colorado ZR2Marc Urbano|Car and DriverInside, the ZR2 is dark and rubbery. Off-road features like the drive modes and locking front and rear diffs are easy to find and use—not so the headlights (those controls are tucked into the 11.3-inch touchscreen). The front seats are heated and optionally ventilated, but the rears may have your riders wishing for a full-size workhorse. For most loads and trails, though, the Colorado ZR2 is all the truck you need.VERDICT: No mere show pony.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $48,295/$53,280 Options: Technology package (adaptive cruise control, rear pedestrian alert, surround-view cameras), $950; ZR2 Convenience package (perforated and ventilated leather front seats, driver’s-seat memory settings, heated steering wheel, wireless charging, rear center armrest), $1490; power sliding-glass sunroof, $1000; Bose 7-speaker stereo system, $500; underbody cameras, $500; removable assist step, $495; yellow seatbelts, $50
ENGINE
Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 166 in3, 2727 cm3Power: 310 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/13.3-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler Territory MT285/70R-17 116/113Q TPC Spec 2808 POR
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.4 inLength: 212.7 inWidth: 76.3 inHeight: 73.8 inCurb Weight: 4926 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 23.3 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 100 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.73 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/16/16 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDLike a sleeper agent activated late in the game, Elana Scherr didn’t know her calling at a young age. Like many girls, she planned to be a vet-astronaut-artist, and came closest to that last one by attending UCLA art school. She painted images of cars, but did not own one. Elana reluctantly got a driver’s license at age 21 and discovered that she not only loved cars and wanted to drive them, but that other people loved cars and wanted to read about them, which meant somebody had to write about them. Since receiving activation codes, Elana has written for numerous car magazines and websites, covering classics, car culture, technology, motorsports, and new-car reviews. In 2020, she received a Best Feature award from the Motor Press Guild for the C/D story “A Drive through Classic Americana in a Polestar 2.”  In 2023, her Car and Driver feature story More

From the August 1998 issue of Car and Driver.After more than six years on the market, Jeep has redesigned the Grand Cherokee to keep the pop­ular sport-ute’s body looking up-to-date and stylish and in the process has fixed a long-running complaint about the location of the spare tire. For the new vehicle, two optional V-8s are replaced by one that is more fuel-efficient (but less torquey), and a better four-wheel-drive system is now a part of the package. Many Grand Cherokee owners said the location of the spare—bolted to a panel on the left side in the cargo area—hogged valuable hauling space and blocked the view out the back. The full-size spare still resides inside the vehicle, but it’s now tucked tidily beneath a floor panel. This took some doing—the load floor had to be raised three inches and the rear of the body stretched another three inches. Engineers also had to shrink the fuel tank, located just in front of the new spare-tire location, by 2.5 gallons to 20.5. JeepNew sheetmetal raises the roof two inches, giving an inch more front head­room and allowing the seats to be raised an inch heavenward for a better view. The track is an inch wider, the body is 1.5 inches wider. Newly configured seats are said to provide rear passengers with an extra three inches of hiproom. It’s easier to get into this Grand Cherokee, as the step-in height of the floors has been brought down an inch. The new body rides on the same 105.9-inch wheelbase, and the approach, departure, and breakover angles, as well as ground clearance, remain the same. Jeep says the Grand Cherokee’s off­-road skills had to remain high, since the company claims that owners take this sport-ute off-road more often than do buyers of other luxury SUVs. The standard 4.0-liter six-cylinder pushrod engine gets a stiffer block, and new intake and exhaust manifolds, along with other noise-reducing tweaks. (This engine descends from one that dates back to 1971 for Jeep, which inherited the six then from new owner American Motors.) Power output of the six is up 10 horses (but just 5 in states that have adopted California’s standards), and emissions have been reduced. The 1998 Grand Cherokee’s two big, brutish pushrod V-8s are replaced by a new 4.7-liter SOHC two-valve-per­-cylinder V-8 that will be exclusive to the Grand Cherokee in its first year. Rated at 230 horsepower, it slots between the out­going V-8s, which made 220 and 245 horsepower. Its 295 pound-feet of torque trails that of both its predecessors. The good news is that the new engine promises better fuel economy and is 54 pounds lighter than even the 5.2-liter V-8. And for the first time, both engines get a five-speed automatic transmission. This new gearbox splits the second gear from the previous four-speed into high-second and low-­second ratios, allowing a higher-ratio first gear and five ratios total. JeepThe standard four-wheel-drive system with the six-cylinder engine is the selec­table rear- or four-wheel-drive Selec-Trac, with a lockable center differential. Quadra-Drive is a new full-time system that features limited-slip front, center, and rear differentials. It’s optional with the six and standard with the V-8. (A rear-wheel­-drive-only version will be available later in the model year.) Since Toyota removed the front lock from its Land Cruiser, the Jeep is now the only widely available SUV with a high-traction front axle. The lim­ited-slip units use rotary oil pumps that mechanically sense speed differential and apply pres­sure to small multiplate clutch packs. Says Dan Knott, development man­ager of the Grand Cherokee: “Intuitively, we believe we want to transfer engine torque to the wheel that needs it, not brake the wheels that don’t. The suburban driver will feel it. The hard­core off-roader will feel it.” Our major complaint about the previous Grand Cherokee was numb steer­ing. Body engineers promise that a stiffer front structure and engine cradle will improve that steering feel. Jeep hired Porsche’s engineering-services divi­sion to help make the body stiffer and to keep weight low by using thinner metal in unstressed areas. The engine-cradle area and the frame members behind the rear axle are stiffer. The gaps between the panels are smaller, too. JeepThe suspension remains live axles front and rear, although the Panhard rod in the rear was ditched in favor of a center-­mounted triangular trailing link. The turning circle is a foot smaller than the current car’s 36.8 feet. The optional Up Country suspension increases ground clearance an inch. The front rotors are two millimeters thicker. Larger, optional 245/65-series 16-inch tires are 20 mil­limeters wider than the largest ones avail­able on the ’98 vehicle. The body is little-changed. Exterior design manager John Sgalia says: “Cur­rent customers told us, ‘Please don’t change the body design.’ But we rounded the corners to improve aerodynamics.” More Grand Cherokee Reviews From the ArchiveThe new big Jeep goes on sale at the end of August. Its price is likely to rise slightly, to about $30,000 for the popular Laredo four-wheel-drive version, with the Limited model running about $36,000. We’re happy Jeep didn’t make this nimble wagon larger or compromise its leading-edge off-road ability, and we like the new-found refinement of the structure.SpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Jeep Grand CherokeeVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4 or 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICE (EST)
Base: $30,000-$36,000
ENGINESpushrod 12-valve 4.0-liter inline-6, 190–195 hp; SOHC 16-valve 4.7-liter V-8, 230 hp, 295 lb-ft 
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 181.2 inWidth: 72.2 inHeight: 64.9–65.9 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 3900–4100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph, inline-6/V-8: 9.7/8.1 sec1/4-Mile, inline-6/V-8: 17.3/16.5 sec100 mph, inline-6/V-8: 35.0/26.0 sec
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)City/Highway, inline-6/V-8: 16/20 mpg; 15/18 mpg More

It’s embarrassing to be upstaged by a little sibling. Just ask the Chevrolet Trailblazer, a subcompact SUV that’s been around since 2021. The underachieving Trax sitting next to it in the showroom never really gave the Trailblazer cause for concern, until the redesigned 2024 Trax showed up with a whole new outlook on life. The new Trax promises more space, appealing style, and new features—all for significantly less money—and we just awarded it a 10Best Trucks and SUVs trophy. It is already encroaching on the Trailblazer’s sales numbers, too, outselling it in the third quarter of 2023.HIGHS: Cheeky looks, refined ride, strong brakes.The Trailblazer is doing its best to stay relevant, and a refresh for the 2024 model year brings bigger screens inside, freshened looks, and new colors. But the Trailblazer is facing an uphill battle against its significantly cheaper stablemate—and against other vehicles in this competitive segment.One might wonder why Chevrolet bothers to sell both the Trax and the Trailblazer. These two models are an example of a split that’s evident within the subcompact-crossover segment. The Trax is meant to compete with the smaller, front-wheel-drive-only pseudo-hatchbacks that exist on the lower end of the price spectrum—think Kia Soul, Hyundai Venue, and Nissan Kicks—while the taller Trailblazer is meant to be a “real” SUV (in that it offers optional all-wheel drive, at least) that costs a bit more and has a more upright shape.LOWS: Sluggish acceleration, cheap interior materials, questionable value.It’s not entirely an illusion, either, as the Trailblazer has a higher seating position than the Trax by more than two inches, according to our measurements. And, if you select all-wheel drive, the Trailblazer does offer a more compelling optional powertrain, a 155-hp 1.3-liter turbocharged three-cylinder with a nine-speed automatic transmission (as opposed to a CVT in other Trailblazers and a six-speed automatic in the Trax). There is a bit more refinement to be found in the Trailblazer, too, as its heavier curb weight creates more of a planted feeling on the road. We like the way the Trailblazer steers, and its brake pedal exhibits good feel, bringing the SUV to a rest from 70 mph in just 166 feet.But when you look more closely at the numbers, paying more for the Trailblazer starts to make less and less sense. The Trax’s longer wheelbase means it offers slightly more passenger room, and it even has a bit more cargo room with the seats folded, swallowing 21 carry-on suitcases in our testing compared with the Trailblazer’s 19. Plus, the Trax’s 1.2-liter engine is barely at a disadvantage next to the heavier Trailblazer’s 1.3-liter. The Trax gets to 60 mph just 0.1 second slower and had a slightly better performance in our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy test (30 mpg, versus 29 mpg for the Trailblazer).More on the TrailblazerThe price difference is what really makes the fight seem unfair. The Trax’s base price sits at just $21,495, while a comparable Trailblazer is nearly $3000 dearer. The disparity grows when you start piling on options, as our loaded Trailblazer RS AWD—admittedly thick with desirable extras such as a panoramic sunroof and a power liftgate, neither of which the Trax offers—stickered for $34,470. A loaded Trax, on the other hand, barely crests $27,000.VERDICT: The Trailblazer suffers from the existence of the more compelling Trax.If you’re merely looking to spend as little money as you can on a satisfying crossover-esque small car, the high-value Trax is a no-brainer. But if you’re willing to shell out more for things like all-wheel drive and interior niceties, several more attractive options exist within the Trailblazer’s price range, including the Mazda CX-30 and the Kia Seltos. That leaves the Trailblazer stuck in an awkward liminal space, with little to recommend it unless you manage to snag an attractive discount.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Chevrolet Trailblazer RS AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase/As Tested: $29,995/$34,470Options: power panoramic sunroof, $1495; Convenience package (automatic climate control, rear type-A and -C USB ports, wireless device charging, 120-volt outlet, auto-dimming interior mirror, driver and passenger illuminated vanity mirrors, power liftgate), $1195; Adaptive Cruise and Sound package (7-speaker Bose sound system, adaptive cruise control), $995; Fountain Blue paint, $395; Driver Confidence package (blind-spot monitoring, rear-cross-traffic alert, rear park assist), $395
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 82 in3, 1338 cm3Power: 155 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 174 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION9-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 11.8-in vented disc/10.4-in discTires: Continental ProContact TX245/45R-19 98H M+S TPC Spec 3178
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 173.5 inWidth: 71.2 inHeight: 65.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/45 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 54/25 ft3Curb Weight: 3390 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-Mile: 16.7 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 28.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.5 secTop Speed (C/D est): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 380 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 27/26/29 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

Crossover SUVs have usurped mid-size sedans as the go-to family car, with some companies, such as Ford, vacating the sedan segment altogether to concentrate on higher-riding vehicles. But a contingent of holdouts still sells in sizable numbers. While the Nissan Altima trails the perennial frontrunners—the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord—it remains Nissan’s second-bestselling model after the Rogue crossover. The Altima’s sixth generation launched for 2019, with a refresh for 2023 bringing sharper styling and a larger touchscreen. But with Honda and Toyota treating their sedans to major overhauls for 2023 and 2025, respectively, the Altima’s upgrades aren’t enough to move the needle, with the Nissan falling even further behind. HIGHS: Cosseting ride, good fuel economy, comfortable cabin.We tested a 2024 Nissan Altima SL AWD, which sported an eye-watering $37,030 window sticker. The Garnet Pearl Metallic paint—a new color for 2023—was a no-cost option, but the sedan was fitted with several add-ons that raised the price. An all-wheel-drive Altima starts at $29,145, but to step up from the base SV trim to our top SL tester is a $5900 upcharge and includes things such as leather seats, 19-inch wheels, a larger 12.3-inch center touchscreen, and upgraded Bose audio. Our car also added floor mats, exterior ground lighting under the side sills, a rear spoiler, and illuminated kick plates. The 2023 refresh didn’t include any mechanical changes, so the Altima soldiers on with the same standard 2.5-liter four-cylinder—making 182 horses in SL AWD form—paired with a continuously variable transmission. The unrefined powertrain is the Nissan’s biggest flaw, with unsettling vibrations shimmying through the steering wheel at rest that only worsen at highway speeds. A low rumbling reminiscent of agricultural heavy machinery is always present in the background, and asking for even moderate acceleration brings a cacophony of engine noise as the 2.5-liter groans and the CVT sends revs skyward.The Altima is sluggish relative to its peers. Hitting 60 mph from a standstill takes 7.6 seconds, three-tenths behind a front-wheel-drive Accord EX and a half-second behind a less powerful front-wheel-drive 2023 Hyundai Sonata. It matches the outgoing Camry (we’ve yet to test the new hybrid-only 2025 model) but feels slower, the lethargic acceleration exacerbated by the engine’s strained aria and the clunky, confused CVT that always allows a beat to pass before responding to throttle inputs. While the Altima feels a bit perkier at highway speeds, the numbers once again disappoint. The 50-to-70-mph passing test takes 5.5 seconds, four-tenths adrift of the Honda and the Camry and eight-tenths behind the Sonata. The Altima shines brighter in the corners. The sedan is fairly nimble, with minimal body roll contributing to a sense of stability. We recorded 0.89 g on the skidpad, better than both the Accord and Camry, but the Altima is let down by its steering, which is completely devoid of feedback. This detracts from the confidence instilled by the suspension—in spirited driving on curvy roads, the detached feeling from the steering wheel makes the Altima seem less surefooted than it actually is. The Honda, meanwhile, feels more balanced and can even bring a grin to your face when you dash through a series of esses.LOWS: Unrefined powertrain, lethargic acceleration, numb steering.The brakes also lack communication, although they hauled the Altima from 70 mph to a stop in an impressive 164 feet. That’s 20 feet shorter than the Accord and 12 feet better than the Camry, but the absence of feel and the short, grabby pedal travel can make smooth braking tricky.While the Altima lacks the driving enjoyment of its rivals, the sedan is a comfortable partner for tootling about town. It isn’t quite luxury-car plush, but the ride is excellent for the segment. The suspension absorbs the harshest impacts, even over particularly brutal potholes, so while bumps are still present, they aren’t jarring. The Altima also makes for a solid road-trip companion, returning 35 mpg on our 75-mph highway test. But that’s slightly worse than the highway mileage we recorded with the Sonata and the all-wheel-drive Camry and falls well short of the Accord’s 40-mpg highway test result.Moving inside, the cabin looks essentially the same as the pre-refresh Altima. You won’t mistake it for an Infiniti, but this SL model was well appointed with comfortable leather seats, high-quality wood trim, and cushy armrests that feel well suited for a long drive. Underside lighting along the door sills, a $565 option, elevates the Altima and ensures good footing at night.The big upgrade is the new 12.3-inch screen, standard on the SL and SR VC-Turbo and optional on the SV and regular SR trims. The screen certainly modernizes the cabin, but it’s undercut by the backup camera, which displays a fuzzy image and is overexposed at night. The bird’s-eye view is a useful parking tool, although the video feed that looks like a VHS tape being played on an old CRT box TV really cheapens the effect. That’s All-tima, FolksOtherwise, the bigger screen is a handy upgrade, but we’re also glad there are still physical buttons to poke and prod for essential functions, intuitively arranged and within easy reach. For $37K, it’s surprising that the rear-seat passengers don’t get climate controls, but there are USB-A and USB-C ports. The back seat is spacious and comfortable, however, even if the bench sits a tad high, slightly cutting into headroom for taller occupants.VERDICT: The Altima is comfortable and decent to drive, but it’s outclassed by fresher rivals.As the sedan market dwindles, the Altima’s flaws appear more stark next to the remaining well-rounded choices. The Altima’s base price of $26,845 slips in under that of the Accord and Camry, but this SL AWD example can’t really be considered a value play, and both competitors offer hybrid powertrains at similar prices. The Altima’s latest update feels like too little for a sedan that was already playing second fiddle to its fellow Japanese competition.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Nissan Altima 2.5 AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,145/$37,030 Options: SL trim (19-inch wheels, moonroof, leather seats, 12.3-inch touchscreen, 9-speaker Bose audio), $5900; external lighting with logo, $565; rear spoiler, $420; illuminated kick plates, $400; floor/trunk mats, $355; splash guards, $245
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2488 cm3Power: 182 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 178 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.7-in vented disc/11.5-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/40R-19 92V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.2 inLength: 192.9 inWidth: 72.9 inHeight: 57.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/43 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3500 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 35 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 560 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 30/26/36 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCaleb Miller began blogging about cars at 13 years old, and he realized his dream of writing for a car magazine after graduating from Carnegie Mellon University and joining the Car and Driver team. He loves quirky and obscure autos, aiming to one day own something bizarre like a Nissan S-Cargo, and is an avid motorsports fan. More