Car Reviews

From the May 2003 issue of Car and Driver.
Important question from C/D’s crack team of medical specialists: Are you getting your Recommended Daily Allowance (U.S. RDA) of adrenaline? Studies show that excessive yawning, droopy eyelids, pallid skin, loss of muscle tone, falling hair, and lack of consortium may be caused by adrenaline deficit.

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

Tested: Y2K Super Sedan Comparison

BMW M3 Will Get the Same Big Mouth as the 4-Series

May we suggest a compact adrenaline-delivery system (CADS)?
Don’t worry about installation. Due to relentless competition in the new-car market, a few automakers are now offering special models with CADS built in at the factory. For this comparison, we’ve been testing a trio of fast-acting units guaranteed to brighten your eyes before they have a chance to blink.
The gold standard of this group is surely the BMW M3, a 3-series coupe patiently transformed into a g-machine at the M spa deep in Bavaria. We chose the coupe version, although a convertible is also available. The M3 gets a lusty 3.2-liter in-line six amped up to 333 horsepower at 7900 rpm, in part thanks to six separate throttle valves, one in each intake stream, positioned down close to their respective intake valves. This arrangement, more common on racing engines, shortens throttle-response time. Throughout the M3, components from other BMW models are brought into play, either for strength or to tune for performance. For example, the M3 wears the heavier differential from the even more powerful M5.
All this tweaking costs money, of course. Our Imola Red test sample hit the pavement at $50,270, ready to run.
Another approach to adrenaline flow, fabled since the early days of automobiling, is the supercharger. It compresses intake air, forcing more flow into the cylinders. More air is more power, when done correctly. And it sure works in the C32 AMG from Mercedes-Benz. This is the small Benz, the C-class four-door, energized with 349 horsepower and all togged out for speed. The Kompressor, as the Germans spell it, is a positive-displacement type, which means no waiting for boost. Therefore, a small engine can be thoroughly convincing as it acts big.
Chassis muscles include 17-inch wheels, 7.5 inches wide in front and 8.5 inches in back, wearing low-profile Z- and Y-rated tires. The bad news is $54,370, including $655 for extra-snazzy metallic paint.
And now for the news: Minutes before we loaded up our test gear, Audi turned over a European-spec S4 for review. As before, the S4 is the sporting version of Audi’s A4 sedan line, with Quattro all-wheel drive, electronic differential locks front and rear, a six-speed manual, grippy rubber, and form-fitting driver’s quarters. But no more twin-turbo V-6. This new one inspires (compels?) adrenaline with an all-aluminum 4.2-liter V-8 that sings to 7000 rpm.
Think of this comparison as a cardiac stress test. Can you stand it?
Please fasten your seatbelt and let the adrenaline flow.

Third Place: Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG
If this adventure is a daring daylight probe into the upper reaches of a driver’s pulse rate, which it is, then it sets up the expectation that the most civilized entry will finish last. It did.
For the purest adrenaline jolt, you need a manual gearbox. The C32 AMG comes in five-speed auto only. Not a good start.

Highs: A Niagara of torque right now, on-rails handling in the daily commute, peaceful at interstate velocities, good-fitting driver’s quarters.

Still, not every enthusiast wants his juices stimulated to a full-bore gush all the time. This Benz has an appealing way of butting out of the conversation at just the right times. Planning an interstate jaunt? The C32 is easily the smoothest and quietest of the group when you need a transit capsule, with the least abusive ride. Straight-ahead stability is excellent. You can click off miles by the hundreds without pain.
And don’t forget those times when it’s your turn to drive the foursome off to dinner. Back-seaters never share the adrenaline, only the abuse. This Benz tops the others for space and comfort, and it won’t beat up on your friends (if the roads are decent).
Moreover, it’s really quite endearing in the way it goes about your daily rounds. The steering is quick and sharp, and the suspension, which resists cornering roll as if it had taken a solemn vow, resists brake dive, too. The seat is shaped exactly right to hold you in place. You find yourself grinning as you carve your path. Want to nail that Starbucks cup as it rolls toward the ditch? No problem. With the front tire or the rear? You really feel a gymnast’s confidence about maneuverability.
Just one little problem—this is a gathering of extremist cars. It’s about pushing limits, and doing so with cool aplomb. What’ll she do? And the civilized little C32 loses its poise under pressure.

Lows: Uncommunicative at the handling limits, clattering engine at idle, lengthy boot­up time on starting, dinky dashboard “PRND,” meager array of instruments.

Tire grip, as measured on the skidpad, is less than the others, 0.81 g versus the Audi’s 0.85 and the BMW’s 0.87. But that’s a minor concern compared with the way the Benz feels when pushed. First, the computer stability control won’t let you anywhere close to the edge. It kills the power in a big way when lateral g ramps up beyond “brisk.” Push the ESP button to cancel, and the previously polite C32 goes incommunicado. The brakes bring on huge understeer as you go deep into turns. And the fast-ratio steering gives very little sense of slip in the front tires. This is a car in which you cautiously edge up and up toward the limit and hope you never quite get there.
Maintaining control during our lane-change test was iffy, too, with many screaming-tire skids off the course. This car hates our test procedure, which requires ESP off. With ESP on, it’s stable and slow. With ESP off, the C32 was quicker than the Audi on a lucky run. But most runs were cone whackers. For road emergencies, we’d leave the ESP on.
When the path is straight, however, the C32 really lays its ears back. The engine is an AMG adaptation of M-B’s 3.2-liter V-6, supercharged to 349 horsepower. The crank-driven blower is a Lysholm-type using meshed screws to give positive displacement. In other words, big torque at low revs. Thrust tracks your right foot exactly.
Acceleration is as thrilling as it is easy to produce. The Benz was a fraction behind the others to 60 mph, fastest at the end of the quarter-mile, and tied with the others for time to that distance, clocking 106 mph through the eyes. You won’t confuse the C32 with a civilized car when the hammer is down. It screams a hard yowl toward the 6200-rpm indicated redline. Idle is remarkably clattery, too.

The Verdict: A sweetie when you’re running 8/10ths.

The automatic clicks off snappy shifts. It learns quickly of your moods (the computer is smart when it wants to be) and does well at anticipating when to change gears when you’re hustling. We very much like the manumatic shifter. Nudge the lever left for down, right for up, or hold right for a prompt default to D when you’re done playing.
Done? Are you ever done? The C32 ends up third because, as a playmate, it’s always a bit aloof.
2003 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG349-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3864 lbBase/as-tested price: $52,120/$54,370C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.2 sec100 mph: 12.6 sec150 mph: 34.0 sec1/4 mile: 13.6 @ 106 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg

Second Place: BMW M3
The BMW M3 is one of those legends that every car guy salutes. Even Camaro pilots give it the eye on the street. Years of heroic numbers on test tracks and torrents of superlatives from magazine scribes add up to swaggering cred.
How could a legend finish second here, back from first place by a wide six-point gap? The short answer is, competition keeps everybody honest, even legends. Audi came up with a better answer.

Highs: expert shifting seem easy, no holes in the output curve, big power when you let it rev, blue-chip cred in any crowd.

That said, the M3 remains a machine to be reckoned with, as distinct from the S4 as cabernet is from zinfandel. This is a strongly flavored choice, muscular and deliberate, ferociously powerful, and not at all shy about its performance compromises. It always acts like the automotive jock it is, every mile of every day.
The M3 checks in at a trim 3394 pounds, less than the S4 by 470 pounds, and 257 pounds under the C32. The engine is an undeniably heroic in-line six; it’s powerful and flexible, willing to rev to 8000, yet strong all the way up, with no soft spots in the output curve. Variable valve timing really works here.
What about the M3’s adrenaline output? In its 4.8-second sprint to 60 mph, it showed taillights to the others, and it stayed ahead all the way to 150 mph, albeit with a tight margin; quarter-mile time is the same for all at 13.6 seconds. You must work the six-speed to stay ahead, however, as shown by the top-gear 30-to-50 and 50-to-70 bursts, where the larger-displacement Audi had a significant advantage.

DAVID DEWHURST

Unlike other BMWs, the M3 is never the silky, whirring machine. It’s raw in its engine noises, interior booms, gear whines, tire songs, and pipe-organ resonances. Raw and quite loud. Always the jock. And sometimes rude. We noticed an odd “death rattle” from the engine room each time the ignition was switched off. And the bixenon headlights sound a bad-mannered grunt as they rotate through their alignment ritual on startup.

Lows: Raw rather than refined in its noises, pounding ride, heavy clutch, 50 grand and cloth seats?

A hormone-injected 3-series BMW sounds as if it would be a frisky, flingable sportster. In fact, the M3 feels heavy and reserved. Steering effort increases very little as you bite into a turn. Some drivers read that as “effort too low.” All agree that communication is a bit aloof. The M3 also needs more turning of the wheel than the others, so direction changes seem less eager. The clutch is a workout. Some of us complained mildly about the driving position; for example, the left-foot rest seems too close to the driver relative to the pedals.
The cloth bucket seat, with numerous mechanical adjusters including one for height, seemed rather stingy at the $50-thou mark, but it’s very effective at holding the driver in place when the scenery starts to blur. On the skidpad, grip topped all the others at 0.87 g. This car is reliable for its understeer, and it’s not at all twitchy as you probe for its limits. It always feels trusty, but hardly spirited.
Don’t expect the famous BMW ride. Few road cars are as stiff-legged as this. And the seat is alive with vibrations at interstate speeds.
Even though the M3 thankfully lacks the extroverted wings, spoilers, and spats that other makers reach for to mark their sporting cars, it’s still easy to spot. The nose-down posture and the combination of wide 45-series tires in front and even wider 40s in back, on wheels that fill the wells, along with a bit of sculpting under the front bumper and chrome vents on each front fender, are enough to tip off even Mustang men.

The Verdict: Packing a magnum caliber is not about smiles.

Interior detailing is distinctive, too, while remaining nicely understated. The dials substitute gray backgrounds for the usual BMW black. There are M Sport logos on the speedo and shifter, and red-and-blue stitching sets off the leather-covered wheel.
Look, too, for the “sport” button down near the console. It quickens the response of the electronic throttle, making the M3 seem livelier to the touch, yet not jerky in the manner of some Detroiters.
Interesting. But regardless of switch positions, the M3 is never less than intensely sporty.
2003 BMW M3333-hp Inline-6, 6-speed manual, 3394 lbBase/as-tested price: $48,195/$50,270C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.8 sec100 mph: 12.3 sec150 mph: 32.7 sec1/4 mile: 13.6 @ 105 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 161 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg

First Place: Audi S4 Quattro
A big V-8 changes everything. This new S4 makes the deep-throated rumblings you just don’t expect from smaller cars–and that famous burble on decel. Who needs Bose?

Highs: Hooray for V-8 rumble, Nureyev moves when the going gets twisty, frictionless controls, curvaceous sheetmetal pulled as tight as spandex.

Turbos, as in Audi’s previous S4, can be plenty fast, but they never have the no-waiting torque, nor do they ramp up in a trusty way as you dip into the power. And they never have the magic burble, either.
This new S4 gets the company’s 4163cc, five-valves-per-cylinder, all-aluminum V-8 rated at 340 horsepower at 7000 rpm. It has a bottomless reservoir of torque–adrenaline delivery, no waiting–and great flexibility. Nothing loafs along like a substantial V-8. This one, Audi says, is no heavier than the twin-turbo 2.7 V-6 of the previous S4.
It mates to a six-speed manual gearbox (an automatic is available) and Quattro all-wheel drive with a Torsen center differential. Lots of machinery has been tucked under the A4’s pretty-much-unchanged skin, including 8.0-by-18-inch wheels with 235/40 tires and 13.6-inch vented front brake discs.
All these details work together in tightly orchestrated harmony. The controls are light to the touch, including the clutch. The shifter snicks through its pattern happily, and the steering feels lively and quick. Effort increases nicely with speed.

Lows: Rock-hard ride, blue headlights make blotchy pattern, lots of rolling and whirring sounds when in motion.

Out on the twisty roads, the S4 quickly became the favorite. The firm Recaro bucket keeps the driver in place without straining. The stability control is so subtle in its operation that you never feel it intrude (unless you’ve made a big mistake). Chassis dynamics are simply superb. As you brake deep into a turn, the S4 puts its belly to the ground and maintains amazing stability as you pick up the arc toward the exit and squeeze on the power. Roll angles are tightly controlled. The shocks keep body motions on a short leash. You can feel the tires scratching and straining for grip as the front and rear electronic differential locks respond to the V-8 torque. The Quattro’s stern discipline keeps redistributing the driving forces, allowing you to get the throttle open early yet cling confidently to your intended line. This is a car that’ll work with you! Few sporting cars are this open in their communication, and so disinclined to mischief. Of this trio, the S4 is in a class by itself, scoring the full 10 points in our handling rating, two above the M3 and three above the C32. It also earned a 10 in fun to drive, decisively above the others. Would the throaty motor music be worth a point all by itself? It might.

DAVID DEWHURST

There is a downside to the taut chassis muscles, however. The ride quality is darn stiff. The S4 would find jolts on glass roads. Ride impacts may be marginally sharper than the M3’s, although the tires are somewhat quieter over texture. Cockpit noises are less than in the M3, but both are similar in the vibes they put through the seat on the interstate.
Interior style follows Audi’s tasteful approach, black with thin chrome bezels and textured sweeps of metal in place of the wood trim of other models. The gas pedal is tight against the tunnel, meaning that the driver’s knee gets a good polishing. The brake pedal is high, adding to the challenge of heel-and-toe operation. The HVAC controls are low, and they mostly go invisible when you’re wearing sunglasses. The fat wheel rim and high-sided Recaros work together to make wide guys complain about entry and exit. Tilting the wheel helps, of course. But a confining driver space is inherent to sporting cars. It’s a part of the S4’s authenticity. And it pays off when you’re cooking.

The Verdict: An everyday car went to the gym and came back an Olympian.

Unfortunately, the rear-seat space is sporty, too. The cushion is deeply contoured for two occupants, which means passengers three across will all be sitting in the wrong places.
But who cares? This four-door is all about mainlining adrenaline to the left front seat, and it delivers three bags full. We predict the S4 will soon become famous for the trusty way it carves up the back roads. The V-8 rumble and its generosity of torque just add to the joy.
Here’s your chance to catch a rising star.
2003 Audi S4 Quattro340-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3864 lbBase/as-tested price (C/D EST): $45,000/$45,000C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.0 sec100 mph: 12.8 sec150 mph: 34.4 sec1/4 mile: 13.6 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 168 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 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 June 1970 issue of Car and Driver.
The difference between the Datsun 240Z and your everyday three-and-a-half thousand dollar sports car is that about twice as much thinking went into the Datsun. It shows. For the money the 240Z is an almost brilliant car.

My Fair Lady: A Visual History of the Nissan Z-Car

Datsun 240Z Designer Yoshihiko Matsuo Has Died

Tested: 1979 Datsun 280-ZX Gets Luxurious

The people at Datsun balk at calling the 240Z a sports car. To them it’s a “personal” GT car. Even so, they know perfectly well who the customers will be-sports car buyers-adventuresome young Americans who were collecting their dollars for an Opel GT or MGB-GT or Porsche 914 until something better came along and changed their minds. Still, the “personal” GT car description somehow fits. It separates the Datsun from whimsical, superficial sports cars like the Opel GT and moves it off into a mature class of automobiles that has more to offer than just amusement. The Z-car, as it has come to be called, is a very real transportation automobile, meant as much for coast-to-coast journeys as it is for playing around on idyllic summer days. Datsun is probably right. The Z-car really isn’t a sports car.

1-Owner Datsun 240Z Relives Nissan’s Glory Days

Lime-Yellow 1973 Datsun 240Z Is up for Auction

It is exactly the kind of car we have come to expect from Datsun, however. You can’t really consider Datsun to be an innovator-it didn’t invent the overhead cam engine or disc brakes or independent suspension-but it is one of the most ambitious car manufacturers alive these days and it has a habit of incorporating these sophisticated systems into easily affordable cars. The budget priced PL5I0 sedan is the envy of all its competitors, and the vitality in the engine and gearbox of the 2000 sports car makes a Triumph feel like a first-round loser in the soapbox derby. With that kind of siblings, the Z-car would naturally be a gifted performer.
And it is. Curiously, a double standard has grown up through the years concerning sports cars and equivalently priced- family sedans-the sedans are always more powerful. Not so with the Z-car. It will keep right up with your neighbor’s Bonneville and leave all of the sports cars in its class scuttling along in the slow lane. At Orange County Raceway the test car ran through the quarter in 16.1 seconds at 86.5 mph more than one second and 9 mph quicker than a Triumph TR6. It is also several mph faster than a 2-liter Porsche 91IT, although the elapsed time is not quite as good because the Z-car continues Datsun’s practice of using axle ratios suitable for the Bonneville salt flats.
Of course, it should also be obvious that the Z-car continues Datsun’s practice of using exceptionally powerful engines-in this case a 2.4-liter single-overhead-cam Six. It’s a new engine for Datsun-yet not really new because it is actually one-and-a-half of the Fours used in the PL51O sedan. With the help of two SUs and a 9.0-to-one compression ratio it generates 151 horsepower at 5600 rpm, and if you are so inclined you can turn it all the way to 7000 rpm before you hit the red line. We aren’t inclined, however. Like all Datsuns, the torque curve is as flat as Nebraska and the engine noise is so unpleasant above 6500 that there is just no reason to ever go up there.

Datsun tackles the exhaust emission problem with three separate external devices: an air pump to inject air into the exhaust manifold, a valve that admits air into the intake manifold immediately after the throttle is closed to aid combustion of fuel that is already in the manifold; and diaphragm which prevents the throttle from closing for several seconds after you lift your foot off the accelerator. Only one of these is noticeable to the driver-the last item. It keeps engine speed too high, making smooth upshifts impossible, and seriously detracts from the pleasure of driving. Throttle response, particularly at low speeds, also suffers, due to subtleties of the system.
In most other ways the Z-car is kind to its driver. The steering effort is moderate; the shifting motions are light and acceptably precise; and the driving position is excellent. The brakes-discs in front and leading/ trailing shoes in finned aluminum drums at the rear-stop the car well enough, 259 feet (0.83G) from 80 mph, but very high pedal effort is required for a panic stop. In addition, the system is spongy and offers very little feel to help the driver control lock-up. In the rain things get even worse-at least in the test car. Water somehow splashes up onto the braking surfaces and sharply reduces stopping ability. In this respect the Z-car is not satisfactory.
The Datsun’s suspension system-a fully independent MacPherson strut arrangement both front and rear-also has a few quirks. The test car would understeer more in right than in left turns. You would never notice it on the road but on the test track the car was very well balanced when cornering to the left but would plow heavily when turning right. There is no reason that this should be typical of all of the Z-cars. The test car had expanders between several coils in the left front spring to overcome a sag, and the asymmetric handling can probably be blamed on that spring. We don’t know what to blame for the poor directional stability, however. When you’d like to be going straight down the road the Z-car would rather weave back and forth. The wiggles are small-and they seem to correct themselves-but they are annoying, nonetheless.
Neither Datsun nor we are entirely satisfied with the choice of tires. Bridgestone 175 SR 14 radials were selected as standard equipment because of their good handling characteristics, but they are also responsible for an abnormally high level of road noise, particularly over tar strips and small bumps. The ride quality of the Z-car is actually quite comfortable for a sporting car of its class but the noise tends to make you think otherwise. Knowing this. Datsun engineers were deeply involved in tire testing at the time of our road test and hoped to have a more compatible tire before very many Z-cars were imported.
While there are problems in the chassis that still must be worked out, it’s an altogether different story in the cockpit. At times during the test we found ourselves being very critical of the Z-car-judging harshly where it fell short of perfection and completely forgetting that it sells for $3601. It seems far more expensive than any competitive similarly-priced sports car. We are back to the double standard for family cars and sports cars again. The Z-car has certain qualities that up to now were available only in sedans or very expensive GT cars. Silence is the best example. The engine noise level in the Datsun under normal operating conditions is roughly equal to that of an American intermediate sedan, which is to say that you hardly know it’s there. That doesn’t seem like a monumental achievement except that no one else in this price class has ever done it before.

And the 240Z is very comfortable which also makes it seem more expensive. The bucket seats are elaborately contoured and wrap around you slightly to keep you from sliding around. The backrest angle is adjustable in notches through a small range so you can find a position that suits. Head room, leg room and shoulder room are ample and the final little detail that makes it just right is the dead pedal.
The feeling of getting your money’s worth is reinforced by the complete instrumentation and rather complex looking controls. The speedometer (which for some reason starts at 20 mph) and the 8000-rpm tach are directly in front of the driver, and all of the normal small gauges and a clock are angled toward him from three pods centrally located on top of the instrument panel. A curious rod projects out of the right side of the steering column which has turntype switches for lights and windshield wipers and a button for the washers on its outer end. It works quite well when you get used to it but its biggest advantage is that it can be easily reached, even when you are strapped in with the shoulder belt On the console are two levers that look like they should be for lowering the landing gear or adjusting the flaps-it turns out that one is a hand throttle and the other is the choke (the 240Z always has to be choked to start).
The 240Z is obviously well conceived by standards universal to good automobiles but there has been an East-West struggle in the interior trim. When you consider the tremendous cultural differences between the Japanese and the Americans it’s surprising that any automotive styling could bridge the two. In some areas, like the 1953 Tijuana quilted vinyl on the console and on the sides of the luggage area and yellow wood rim on the steering wheel, the difference in taste is conspicuous. The instrument panel, too, has a characteristic flavor that is found in all Datsuns. It’s a one-piece affair, molded of soft energy absorbing plastic foam, and deeply contoured in a way that suggests nothing but a Datsun instrument panel: Not GT car in the fashion originated by the Italians, not 2-ton nickelodeon in the style championed by Detroit, but just plain Datsun. Elsewhere, the Z-car seems international in its appearance. The exterior styling is smooth and appropriately GT-like, drawing remarks like, “That’s not a Datsun, is it?” and “Man, how much did that thing cost ya?” It’s obviously attractive enough to generate a little envy in everyone who sees it and that is at least half the value of any automobile other than a 4-door sedan.
But while they are envying you for having a sports car the Z-car doesn’t shackle you with the normal sports car limitations. Not only is it comfortable and quiet but it also has a generous luggage area. From just behind the seats all the way back to the rear of the car is a flat area that will easily carry enough luggage for two people. Tie-down straps have been provided to secure small objects that like to roll around. And loading is easy because of the huge tailgate. It would be handier if the seat backs would fold forward so that small things could be unloaded from the front. As it is, the headrests are so high that there is little room left for passing bulky objects around them. Even so, the 240Z sets the new standard for utility in 2-passenger cars of this price.
And it is inevitable that we should come back to price because that ultimately decides the desirability of any car. At the time of the test the Z-car followed Datsun’s typical pricing policy for its sporting cars, everything is standard equipment. Every car, as it comes from the factory, has radial ply tires and an excellent push-button AM radio with a power antenna. It’s as simple as that. There will be options in the future, however. Tinted glass and a heated rear window will soon be available.
Price is the least of the Z-car’s problems -and it does have a few problems. Although it is splendidly conceived, we have the feeling that it’s not quite done yet. There is an annoying vibration somewhere in the drivetrain that you feel under full power, and as near as we can tell it is present in varying degrees in all cars. And as we mentioned before, the brakes are sensitive to splashed-up water which is a serious deficiency. Still, we are optimistic. After the test we sat down in a truth-telling session with the key men of Datsun USA, the importer, and they were intent on hearing any criticisms that we might put forth. It turned out that they were aware of every weakness that we had found and were working closely with the main engineering department in Japan to find solutions. We are confident that they will succeed. Since they were obviously bright enough technically to bring the Z-car this far along, the final rung on the ladder is within easy reach.
Even as it is, the 240Z is worth its price. Just between you and us, when Datsun gets it all straightened around, it might be worth a little more.
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the May 1998 issue of Car and Driver.
Okay, we know the prices of these two cars are too far apart—more than 30 grand apart—to be con­sidered equal rivals in a comparison test. But let’s face it, these two have been fighting it out on the track for decades, and they have enough in common that they’re clearly on the same mission.
For one thing, both are high-perfor­mance sports cars that are sufficiently practical to be driven on a daily basis. That’s not something you can really say of a Lamborghini Diablo, or even a Dodge Viper. The Corvette and the Porsche 911 also share a long motorsports heritage, which in turn has allowed them to incorporate meaningful performance, handling, and durability tweaks.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

From previous performance testing, we knew the two cars were right on top of each other in the numbers game. Add to that the giant tires, brakes, and high-output engines that these cars share, and it’s obvious they have a common purpose, and a common appeal.
Of course, the differences are equally profound. The Porsche is a steel monocoque car with a flat-six engine mounted in the rear, and the Corvette is a fiberglass car with a V-8 engine carried up front. But the most important differences between the two remain the vast $29,677 base-price disparity and the strong partisan support each car enjoys. That’s what makes it unlikely that they’ll be cross-shopped by the same intended buyers. Frankly, Porsche fans probably wouldn’t want to be seen dead in a Corvette, and bow-tie fans probably see the Porsche as a snob’s sports car. But despite this wide divergence of price and sentiment, we wanted to know how they compare.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

Second Place: Porsche 911 Carrera
Yeah, it finished second, but let’s get this straight. The 911 is almost certainly the better car of the two in absolute terms. It enjoys a better overall perception of assembly quality and integrity. Its steering has clearer on-center feel (the Vette’s is a little vague), and its weighting is just about a perfect compromise for high-speed work. The Porsche’s engine has a broad spread of power, thanks to the VarioCam valve-timing system and variable-volume intake plumbing, and it has an exhaust note at 7000 rpm that will prickle your neck hairs faster than a werewolf’s howl at full moon.

Highs: Super quality, magnificent performance, razor-sharp responses.

Developing 296 horsepower, the 911 rips off 0-to-60-mph sprints from a standstill in less than five seconds and runs the quarter in only 13.5 sec­onds, beating the Corvette, though narrowly, in the process. It also circulates the skidpad slightly quicker, posting a neck-straining 0.93 g (the Vette scored a close 0.90 g).
In Don Schroeder’s hot little hands, the 911 lapped the tortuous Streets of Willow at California’s Willow Springs raceway some 0.9 second faster on its best lap than did the Corvette. According to his notes, the 911 feels lighter, more responsive, and more nimble on the track than the Corvette. Some of that is certainly due to a wheelbase that is 12 inches shorter and a curb weight 180 pounds less than the Vette’s, while the rest has something to do with careful chassis tuning. How­ever, the 911 also understeers with some determination on the Streets and requires a quick off/on throttle procedure to get the tail out. But in our emergency-lane-change ma­neuver, the 911’s tail end did step out slightly. It was quickly subdued with a dab of steering, and the 911 was still 1 mph quicker in this test than the Corvette. It seems safe to say that given this car’s enormous grip, these are not maneuvers most owners will need to learn.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

As we’d expect from a 911, the brakes are strong and fade-free, with a beautifully readable pedal. Stops from 70 mph require just 170 feet—three less than in the heavier Corvette, which also wears substantially larger tires.

Lows: Questionable interior design, narrow seats, high price.

As expected, the Porsche is an extreme example of a solidly built car, with con­trols and pedals that operate with palpable precision and no discernible slop. Its sounds and functions are sophisticated and expensive, and the only vice we noted was a clutch that reacted to the snap shifting necessary in acceleration testing with a slow reengagement. We also think that gearshifts with the new cable-shift mechanism feel deliberate rather than fluid. And until it warms up after a cold start, it’s actu­ally quite balky.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

On the road, the Porsche has a ride cal­ibrated for high-speed work, so it’s a little firm on uneven pavement at moderate speeds. Still, it’s a good compromise, and the cabin is fairly quiet, particularly on smooth roads. However, the tires are very texture sensitive and roar quite loudly on certain coarse surfaces.
Inside the car, you’re surrounded by expensive leather and molded surfaces, but we’re not sure that the combination of gray, charcoal, and fine-crackle platinum is as timeless a design as the original 911’s is. The ergonomics are better, that’s for sure, with an interior layout as rational as in any modern car. Broad-shouldered pas­sengers will find the seat backrests a little narrow. It’s odd not having a real glove box, but there’s plenty of stash space in the doors, and the luggage space provided by the fold-down rear seatbacks and the decent-sized front trunk compartment aren’t bad.

The Verdict: Nice, if you have the cash.

We prefer the combination of manual fore-and-aft seat adjustment with power recline to the system in the Corvette, which is the other way around. Drivers are more likely to want to modify their backrest position while driving at speed, so that’s the control to electrify. Although the Corvette has a longer list of equipment, the Porsche offers side airbags and rear seats, however vestigial, which are not available in the Vette. All in all, the new 911 is a worthy successor to its illustrious forebear. But it’s so much pricier than the Corvette.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

First Place: Chevrolet Corvette
The fable of the hare and the tortoise makes the point that you don’t have to be fastest to win a race, and so it is here. We found the Corvette’s combination of speed, handling, and driving pleasure to be enough—at its much lower price—to put the big Yank up front at the polls.

Highs: Powerful drivetrain, balanced chassis, fun to drive.

Actually, from about 100 mph, the Corvette is in front anyway. Although we couldn’t get it to launch as hard as the Porsche, or run the quarter as quickly, its brawny 5.7-liter LS1 V-8 moves it past the Porsche at the 100-mph mark, and it keeps pulling away from there. It reaches 120 mph a half-second sooner than the 911 and 150 mph 3.6 seconds sooner.
The Corvette enjoys other advantages, too. Its optional three-position variable-damping suspension provides a softer ride on the highway than does the nonad­justable 911 undercarriage, although it does add $1695 to the cost of the Vette and has to be switched to its firmest setting for high-speed work anyway, where the car rides about the same as the Porsche. Still, you have that choice.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

The seats are bigger in the Corvette and seem about as supportive, but we are annoyed by a passenger-seat backrest that flops forward during hard braking when it’s not occupied. Ironically, the Corvette’s interior design is now quite European and does not venture into the realm of ques­tionable aesthetics like the Porsche’s does, thus scoring a hit despite cheesy touches such as the crude ashtray-cover molding.
With a lower seating position than in the Porsche, the Corvette feels quite sporting, yet it’s still fairly easy to get into and out of. The analog instruments are as tidy and easy to read but more versatile in that they adjust between English and metric units, and the Vette has a standard-equipment driver-information center.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

Although the steering may not be as crisp as the 911’s, the Corvette is nonethe­less a bundle of fun to drive, with loads of grip, fairly neutral handling, predictable responses, and power oversteer just about anytime you want it. It may have gotten around the Streets almost a second slower than the Porsche, but the Vette can blast onto the straight with its tail sliding wide and with the driver wearing an even wider grin.

Lows: A few cheap touches.

It has more torque than the 911 and cranks out that famous V-8 thunder when wound up. You’re always aware of its size—we had to throw out some of our quickest runs in the lane change because a rear tire had run over a cone. It wasn’t because the car was sliding so badly, but because you kind of forget how broad in the beam this sucker is.
In other departments, too, the Vette isn’t as tightly laced as the Porsche. Its body-motion control isn’t as good, and the controls are a tiny bit more woolly to the touch. But only a tiny bit. And the levels of refinement in this latest-generation car—an area that would have instantly disqualified the previous Vette—are good enough to keep it in the hunt.
Sure, the Corvette is bigger than the Porsche, and it feels it. But there’s little handicap suffered because of it. Just look how close all the test figures are. Then look at the size of the trunk.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

The Chevy has slower responses to the wheel, but it doesn’t push as badly as the Porsche. Its neutrality is a little offset by grip that isn’t quite as prodigious as the other car’s but is nonetheless good enough to generate lots of cornering force.
It’s also fast. So fast that the right-side window was sucked away from its seal and right past the tab intended to hold it in as we approached the Vette’s top speed of 171 mph. If you run 170 mph fairly often, this could be a problem. In the Porsche, the frameless windows retract automati­cally as you shut the door, then seal tight for any speed—any speed, that is, up to 169 mph. But that stuff costs money.

The Verdict: The best Corvette ever, and better value than a 911.

At the end of the day, we concluded that, yes, the Porsche has been immacu­lately engineered and is better able to assume the 911 mantle than we’d origi­nally thought. But the Corvette is now a truly great sports car, and the fine nuances of quality and control that make the Porsche a better car do not, in our book, add up to more than 30 grand. As a result, the Corvette wins.

Specifications

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

From the September 1986 Issue of Car and Driver.

Just pulling up to Richard Templer’s driveway is enough to send quivers of anticipation up and down this reporter’s spine. Ordinary suburban houses don’t have wrought-iron gates standing guard against the riffraff. Ferrari dealer Rick Mancuso gives the 400i’s urgent horn a toot, and the formidable barrier parts by remote control.

The Quickest Ferraris We’ve Ever Tested

Tested: 1995 Supercar Olympics

Tested: Six-Way 2005 Supercar Comparison Test

As we idle up the curving drive, we imagine Robin Leach’s voice-over, thick with champagne and caviar, describing the scene: “This magnificent home, set in an exclusive northwest-Chicago suburb, was built six years ago by Richard and Diane Templer. In one of its many garages sits an American-spec Ferrari Testarossa, and we’ve been invited to borrow the fabulous redhead and drive it to our heart’s content.
“This will be something more than a road test. Please buckle up for a brush with enchantment. And stay tuned as we explore a special place where your every automotive fantasy can be fulfilled, in this installment of . . . ”
This is the real version of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” Real cars. Real people. Real money. We are about to take a peek behind the Greenback Curtain. We’ll soon see what kind of man owns a 100-grand Ferrari Testarossa.

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

Before we can ring the bell, the big front door swings open and a trim man in his early forties invites us inside. A couple of kids hover nearby. Richard Templer’s attire suggests that he realized partway through dressing this morning that he wouldn’t be going to the office today. The sleeves of his striped shirt are rolled up, his black dress pants sport fresh creases, and his black loafers are shined for success. A pinkie ring containing a diamond the size of a marble adorns his left hand, and a thin gold chain loops around his neck.
Inside, the V-shaped house seems even larger and more breathtaking than it first appeared. The living room arches three stories skyward. The center of the house is dominated by a four-sided fireplace, its brick chimney towering like a missile ready for liftoff. The rear of the Templers’ residence, mostly glass, looks out on a wooded four-acre back yard. Yes, sports fans, there are people who live like this who never get their names in the papers.

2014 Chevrolet Corvette vs 1990 Ferrari Testarossa

I Have a Huge Soft Spot for the Ferrari Testarossa

Is This Ferrari Testarossa Super Rad or Just Ugly?

We settle into a couple of designer sofas in one corner of the sunken living room. Templer and Mancuso joke easily. “Rick and I have worked some creative financing together,” says Templer. It’s apparent from the grain of his speech that he came up the hard way. “Hey, Rick, how about that time you kept calling and calling me about that Mondial?” he teases. “You finally got me down there, even though I didn’t want it.”
“And then you bought it, didn’t you?” counters Mancuso.
“Yeah, yeah.”

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

“You know,” says Mancuso seriously, “Dick has gotten into racing. He sponsored me recently in a Camel Light IMSA car at Sebring.”
The Templers’ daughter, eleven-year-old Jennifer, plops down on the couch and leans warmly into Daddy. “Paul hit me,” she whimpers.
“He did? What’d you do to him?” he asks, putting his arm around her.
“Nothing.” Just then Mom intervenes. Diane Templer, dressed in khaki shorts and a matching blouse with the collar turned up, is very young and very chic.
“How about some croissants?” she offers. “You better. I just made them.”
Over coffee and pastry in the large kitchen, Templer tells us how he came to be a Testarossa owner. “I was always a car nut, but I never owned anything exotic until 1979. I didn’t get my first good car until I got out of the service in 1968. It was a Pontiac Firebird 400. For a while I had a 1976 Corvette that I put a 454 in and drag-raced. I hardly ever completed a full quarter-mile without something breaking.” He and Mancuso both laugh.
Seven years ago, Templer got the Ferrari bug. “I saw one on TV one night and I suddenly wanted it. My first one was a 308. I’ve had a few other exoticars since. Let’s see. I had a couple of Maserati Quattroportes. The paint was bad on both of them—it got all crazed—so I got out of them. That was some catastrophe. I had a 928, and I liked it quite a bit. I also had a Mondial—very nice car, but it was a two-valve, and those were really slow. And then I had the Boxer. Real nice piece.” The Boxer was traded in at Mancuso’s classy Ferrari store, Lake Forest Sports Cars, on the Testarossa you see prancing across these pages.

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

Templer’s other passion is thoroughbred horses. “I love to play them and just to be around them,” he says. He owns a stable of twelve that race in Chicago and in Florida. “They produce a pretty steady profit,” he adds proudly.
Apparently, everything that Richard Templer touches turns to profit. About all he reveals about his past is that he learned the ropes in his father’s appliance-delivery company as a kid. Today, his ample income is derived from four sources: a truck-trailer leasing enterprise, a warehousing-and-distribution company, a trucking business, and a small company that packages real-estate deals.
Before we leave with Templer and his toy for the drive to our Ann Arbor offices, we ask him to show us the rest of his fleet—but we have to press him. “You already saw the Bronco out front?” he asks. “The rest of them are really just a bunch of beaters.”
In the three-car garage, all he has is a black Mercedes-Benz 500SEC with the full AMG treatment and “Miami Vice” blackout windows. And Diane’s Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit. And a Mercedes 560SL roadster for sunny days. Conspicuous consumption is clearly not an issue in the Templer household.

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $98,665 (base price: $94,000)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC flat-12, aluminum block and heads
Displacement: 302 cu in, 4943 ccPower: 380 hp @ 5750 rpmTorque: 354 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 100.4 inLength: 176.6 inWidth: 77.8 in Height: 44.5 inCurb weight: 3766 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 secZero to 100 mph: 12.0 secZero to 130 mph: 22.0 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 7.6 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 7.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 13.3 sec @ 107 mphTop speed: 176 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway: 10/15 mpgC/D observed: 14 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 June 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
Chrysler’s 300C SRT8 is the car we thought the American auto industry would not build again. After the muscle-car era, U.S. automakers relinquished the high-performance family-sedan formula to the Germans (who added refinement but charged elitist prices) and Japanese (who charged a little less than the Germans but somehow sterilized the whole thing).

Every Full-Size Sedan Ranked from Worst to Best

The Best Sedans of 2020

On occasion, the home industry was good for the affordable yet unrefined eye-opener that temporarily salved our pain—to name a few, the Buick Grand National and GNX, the Chevrolet Impala SS, and the Ford Taurus SHO. Those vehicles offered performance and price but lacked the refinement of the import brands. For 2004, Cadillac gave us the 400-hp CTS-V that matched the performance and refinement of the über-sedans, but at $51,485, GM charges fully for it.
What makes the SRT8 version of Chrysler’s 300C exceptional is that it’s the first sedan from anyone, anywhere, to combine the refinement and performance of the pricey supersedans with a sticker of $42,095, no incentive necessary. It’s something the U.S. auto industry should have done long ago, but it was worth the wait.

Highs: Performance shames that of most sports cars, $42,095 base price, machine-gun exhaust note, Porsche-grade stopping distances, room for five.

Without the 10Best-winning 340-hp 300C, which probably wouldn’t have gestated in its current form had it not been for the Mercedes merger, SRT (Street and Racing Technology) director Dan Knott would not have had such a superb starting point on which to perform the modifications necessary to make the car into something worthy of SRT badging. For those whose free time is completely taken up by reruns of VH1’s Strange Love, the SRT division of Chrysler and Dodge is akin to Mercedes-Benz’s AMG and BMW’s M division in that they take regular production cars and up the ante until they have about 50 more horsepower than you’d expect.
In the case of the 300C SRT8, the enhanced engine makes 425 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque from a bored-out, high-compression-ratio 6.1-liter version of the corporate 5.7-liter Hemi V-8. Tricks such as variable valve timing or a multistage intake manifold are not present. New stuff includes just a single hot camshaft sitting in the block, 16 lightened valves, and a forged crankshaft that allows the large V-8 to spin to a melodic 6400 rpm. The torque peak arrives at 4800 rpm. That may sound high for an engine this big, but the copious displacement means enough torque is available off idle to put the limited-slip differential to good use. Compared with the 5.7-liter it’s based on, the 6.1-liter feels sportier and, oddly, smaller because of its penchant for high revs.
An eager five-speed automatic modified by SRT provides immediate upshifts and downshifts and is a terrific partner to the 6.1-liter. Full-throttle shifts at the redline are accompanied by an explosive sonic boom from the exhaust. Back off the throttle, and the sound becomes mellow and unobtrusive. At 70 mph we measured 69 dBA of noise, but you don’t hear the engine as much as you hear the wind rushing around the brick-like body and the hum of the wide tires. Following the logic of AMG’s offerings, the German automaker’s American operations do not offer a clutch pedal. Manual transmissions in sedans this large and with this much power somehow feel out of place and too often suffer from high efforts that make them difficult to drive smoothly.

KEVIN WING

The SRT8 is a big sedan with 56 cubic feet of front passenger space and 51 in the rear. It isn’t light at 4212 pounds, but at just below 10 pounds per horsepower the SRT8 will bust through 60 mph in 4.7 seconds on its way to a 13.2-second quarter-mile at 109 mph. If the SRT8 had been included in the “Executive Adrenalators” comparison [ C/D, November 2004], it would have been less expensive and offered more sheetmetal and its acceleration would have been at the top of the heap. The SRT8’s ungoverned top speed of 173 mph also would have placed it on top and is especially startling when you consider the block-like drag coefficient of 0.36 and the garage-door-sized frontal area of 25.8 square feet. Better yet, the SRT8 outpaces the ungoverned CTS-V by 12 mph and all AMG products (which are governed at 155 mph) by 18 mph. Academic for sure, but if you paid more for those other cars, you’d definitely want the bragging rights.
The weight of the SRT8 is also effectively hidden by suspension changes that lower and stiffen the chassis. Striking 20-inch wheels that look nearly big enough to double as turbofan blades on a Boeing 777-200LR are wrapped by uncompromised Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires that adhere to the skidpad to the tune of 0.89 g. For those who don’t want to buy new wheels and snow tires (you’d have to buy new wheels if you wanted snows, since a 20-inch snow tire doesn’t exist at the moment), Chrysler will equip the SRT8 with all-season Goodyear RS-As that might have a better chance of getting you out of a snowy driveway. The tire sizes are staggered—smaller 245/45R-20 fronts and slightly larger 255/45R-20 rears—and on a dry, tight handling course there is some initial understeer, but it’s easily canceled by a quick crack of the throttle. Steering feel isn’t quite as award-worthy as the rest of the chassis. The power-assisted rack-and-pinion setup is predictable and never surprises, but it lacks the feedback you want in a car so willing to defy centripetal forces.

Lows: Acres of gray plastic inside, choppy bad-road ride, spongy brake-pedal feel.

Standard on the SRT8 is a specially tuned stability-control system that allows for more slipping and sliding than the regular 300C’s more intrusive system. As with Mercedes products, pushing the stability button on the dash doesn’t completely disable the control system, but you’ll be permitted even more freedom before the system finally intervenes. With the button pushed, hanging the tail out for those Dukes of Hazzard moments is as easy as cranking the steering wheel and matting the accelerator— Yee-haw!
The Duke boys might appreciate the stiff ride of the SRT8, but if you’re looking for a supple ride, the regular-strength 300C may be more your speed. In the SRT version you and your passengers will experience more bucking than Travolta did in Urban Cowboy. The dubs, the low-profile tires, and the firmer suspension increase the grip but degrade the ride over less than glassy pavement. Fortunately, even the harshest impacts don’t elicit quivers from the unyielding unibody. The strong structure imparts the SRT8 with a feeling of refinement and serenity that rivals that of sedans from das Vaterland.
The brakes are also up there with the finest from the autobahn nation. Stops from 70 mph take only 162 feet of real estate, and these brakes do so over and over again with no sign of fade. The front rotors measure 14.2 inches, and the rears are 13.8 inches tall, with four-piston calipers doing the clamping at every corner. Despite the SRT8’s remarkable braking performance at the track, after the car returned from testing, the brake-pedal feel became a bit spongy, requiring more travel than we like before biting down.

KEVIN WING

What doesn’t quite measure up to more expensive sedans is the interior of the SRT8. On the plus side there are new pseudo-suede and leather front seats that look like Viper seats let out between the bolsters. The chairs are supportive, and the wider size will fit big-and-tall shoppers with ease. An easy-to-use optional navigation system kept us from getting lost whenever we became disoriented by the SRT8’s acceleration. The nav system is part of a $1965 package that includes an upgraded and crisp-sounding stereo with Sirius satellite radio. Metallic trim adorns the center console and doors, but it doesn’t change the plastic-filled cabin to the extent that the rest of the modifications alter the character of the car. Some might call the interior understated, and it is certainly not an unpleasant place to spend time—it’s just a bit dull in light of the stellar performance.

The Verdict: AMG-like performance, Mercedes-like refinement—at a Chrysler price.

DaimlerChrysler must certainly recognize the greatness and appeal of the 300C SRT8 as it will soon be joined by SRT8 versions of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Charger and Magnum. Right now, the only other car selling in the low 40s that approaches the joy we get from the Chrysler is the lightweight, uncompromised Lotus Elise. Obviously, the two cars couldn’t be more different. So why do we want both of them in our garage so badly? Because in both cases a Ferrari-like devotion to driver happiness is the reason they exist, and no one does it as well for the money.
Counterpoint
You can call the 300C SRT8 a poor man’s Mercedes E55 AMG or a four-door Dodge Viper, but I just call it impressive. With a base price of about 42 large, the SRT8 runs right with a Cadillac CTS- V (about 10 grand more) and not too far behind a Corvette. Chrysler has built a true four-door American muscle car here—for pity’s sake, it’s a 4212-pound brick that can hit 173 mph! Perhaps more impressive is that from 70 to 0, it halts those two-plus tons in a fade-free 162 feet. This thing can stop and go better than LeBron. And it’s got mad street cred, thanks to jet-fan dubs, Bentley-esque styling, and a lowered stance. As Chick Hearn used to say, “Slam dunk!” —Ron Kiino
The folks at Chrysler’s SRT had better be careful. I doubt their German bosses paid much attention when the econobox Neon was turbocharged to within an inch of its life or when a Dodge Ram pickup truck was endowed with 500 horses. But now SRT has struck on something a bit dearer to those bosses’ hearts—the Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG. At 4.7 seconds, the 300C SRT8 is just 0.4 second slower to 60 mph. However, the SRT8 outstops the E55 by 11 feet from 70 mph and outgrips it on the skidpad. The SRT8 is also more involving to drive and less like a tool for speed. One last detail: It costs $40,000 less than the Benz. Uh-oh. —Dave VanderWerp
What a brute. The steering is nothing if not manly. The ride quality is just this side of Fred Flintstone. The interior décor is distinctly austere for a $42,095 car. I mutter about these demerits as I rumble around Michigan’s battered byways. Then I tramp on the gas, and— vroom!—a half-mile disappears before a sense of license preservation sets in. I repeated this process regularly during my travels with the SRT8 and emerged with the same conclusion every time: Horsepower is good. More horsepower is better. Not to mention habit-forming. As a child of the muscle-car era, I suppose I subscribe to the foregoing more than most. But I also suppose no one is immune. —Tony Swan

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Chrysler 300C SRT8
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$45,450
ENGINE TYPEPushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port/direct/port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 370 in3, 6059 cm3Power: 425 hp @ 6200 rpmTorque: 420 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): multilink/multilinkBrakes (F/R): 14.2-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Goodyer Eagle F1 Supercar, F: 245/45ZR-20 99Y R:255/45ZR-20 101Y
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 120.0 inLength: 196.8 inWidth: 74.1 inHeight: 57.9 inPassenger volume: 107 ft3Trunk volume: 16 ft3Curb weight: 4212 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.7 sec100 mph: 11.2 sec130 mph: 20.0 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 sec1/4 mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mphTop speed (redline limited): 173 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 162 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 16/14/20 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

You would think the nearly countless permutations of the Chevrolet Silverado and its twin, the GMC Sierra, would satisfy anyone’s needs, but you’d be wrong. For a select few, even the largest of GM’s regular pickups isn’t big enough to tow their motorhomes and trailers and boats. Fortunately, GM offers a pickup version of its seriously large GMC TopKick and Chevrolet Kodiak chassis. It’s not as big as Ashton Kutcher’s International CXT, but it’s close.

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Every Full-Size Pickup Truck Ranked

Typically, the Kodiak and the TopKick are used as dump trucks, moving trucks, school buses, and shuttle buses, but Monroe Truck Equipment of Monroe, Wisconsin, builds these over-the-top pickups in its plant in Flint, Michigan, down the road from where the Kodiak and TopKick chassis roll off the assembly line. About 750 of the beasts are built annually.
The TopKick that was sent our way was a C4500 crew cab with four-wheel drive, the least beefy of the available chassis. The optional four-wheel drive was new for 2005 in the pickup version. Pickups can be had in C4500 or C5500 garb. The really heavy-duty C6500 and C7500 don’t get the conversion. The C4500 and C5500 get the same Duramax 6.6-liter turbo-diesel that’s available in heavy-duty Sierras and Silverados, albeit in a lesser state of tune. A 325-hp gasoline-powered 8.1-liter V-8 is also available. The lone transmission with the diesel is an excellent five-speed automatic built by Allison that shifts smoothly and quickly.
With 300 horses and 520 pound-feet of torque, you’re not going to win many drag races, but the truck has no problem keeping up with traffic. The run to 60 mph takes 14.4 seconds, and top speed is governed at 75 mph, presumably to save the tires when the truck is fully loaded. The 11,300-pound TopKick is actually faster to 60 mph than an automatic-transmission four-cylinder Ford Escape. From a stop, stand on the throttle, and you’ll experience the brief hesitation of turbo lag. Once the turbocharger spools up, the truck rushes forward with decent alacrity to the sound of the optional dual-exhaust stacks that poke up through the bed. Lower the windows, and you’ll hear the chrome pipes belt out a loud sucking noise that will scare the “Calvin and Hobbes” stickers off lesser pickups. Now we’re truckin’!

Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2?

Monroe dresses up the interior of the TopKick with thick carpeting, leather seats independently suspended on air bladders—just like the truckers use—and faux-wood trim. Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2? Better yet, you’ll be able to look eye to eye with most truckers.
Unloaded, the TopKick will shake its occupants mercilessly. Two beefy solid axles with thick leaf springs up front and air bladders in the rear make it possible to carry an astonishing 5000 pounds in the bed or tow 14,300 pounds, but the truck will shake and shudder at the slightest imperfection. Aside from the ride, the TopKick drives much like a smaller truck. The turning circle is tight enough to slip easily into a parking spot, and the short, sloped hood gives an excellent view of obstacles ahead. The 95.9-inch-wide TopKick fits in parking spots, but just barely.
We wanted badly to see how the TopKick would behave on a skidpad, so at the risk of wrinkling the asphalt we circled the 300-foot-diameter skidpad at 0.61 g. Not surprisingly, there’s extreme understeer at the limit. Braking from 70 mph was drama-free as the TopKick stopped in 228 feet. C4500 and C5500 TopKicks have hydraulic brakes; the larger-series trucks (C6500 and C7500) get air brakes that go pfffft when you stop. After each 70-mph stop, the TopKick went into a limp-home mode and wouldn’t shift out of second gear for about a minute in an attempt to allow the brakes to cool off.
So what does all this mother trucking cost? Our four-wheel drive crew-cab truck cost $52,171 from GMC, add the Monroe conversion that contributes a pickup bed and almost countless options (dual exhaust stacks, rear-seat DVD, leather seats, power-folding rear bench, hitch camera, adjustable rear air suspension, power-retractable tonneau cover, aluminum wheels, chrome grille), and the TopKick can climb to about $90,000. More-basic versions can be had for closer to $70,000, which is far less than a Hummer H1 and only a bit more than an H2. Faced with those choices, the TopKick looks almost rational.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
GMC TopKick C4500
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED $90,000 (estimated base price: $70,000)
ENGINE TYPE Turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 403 cu in, 6599ccPower (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 3000 rpmTorque (SAE net): 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 169.0 inLength: 265.0 inWidth: 95.9 inHeight: 95.2 inCurb weight: 11,300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 14.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 15.5 secStanding 1/4-mile: 19.8 sec @ 68 mphTop speed (governor limited): 75 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 228 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.61 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving (C/D est):7 mpgC/D-observed fuel economy:8 mpg

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

From the April 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
In the hope of attracting more buyers, Lexus last October replaced its sales-lagging sporty-compact IS300 with two cars for 2006, the IS250 and the IS350. The more-powerful IS350 starts at $36,030 and comes with a class-leading 3.5-liter V-6 making 306 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque. But we think Lexus dropped the ball by not offering a manual gearbox on this little powerhouse on wheels.

2021 Lexus IS Gets Redesign, Handling Upgrades

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

If you wish to row your own, the lesser IS250 is your only choice. It starts at a more obtainable $30,580 and comes standard with a six-speed manual (the automatic is an $1170 option). And it needs it-this lesser 2.5-liter V-6 makes 204 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque at a lofty 4800 rpm. Math geniuses can tell you that’s 102 fewer horses than the IS350.
The 2.5-liter pulls the IS to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds, two seconds slower than the 3.5-liter. Still, that’s 0.1 second quicker than the fastest IS300 we’d ever tested. The IS250 jogs through the quarter-mile in 15.4 seconds at 90 mph (tying that old IS), compared with the 3.5-liter’s 13.7-second sprint at 104.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Straight-line performance aside, the IS250 is a pleasure to drive, even more than its big brother. The IS350 weighs 135 more pounds than the 3465-pound IS250, and with extra weight carried over its handsome nose, the 350 understeers more than we’d like. Also, the more powerful car’s suspension feels a bit overdamped and overzealous, whereas the 250’s feels composed and tight. There’s predictable understeer on corner entry, but a midcorner squeeze on the throttle is enough to tighten your line for a precise and pleasant blast to the next corner. For better balance, we’d take the IS250 over the IS350.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

The 250’s mission is to make potential buyers of a BMW 325i think twice. It’s worth a look. That Bimmer starts at about a grand more ($31,595), comes with a six-speed and a 3.0-liter inline-six that makes 215 horsepower and 185 pound-feet at a low 2750 rpm. Its specs are nearly identical to the IS250’s, but BMW seems to make better use of them-the German car gets to 60 mph a full second before the IS250 and 0.7 second more quickly through the quarter (14.7 seconds) at 94 mph. And the 325i feels right when pushed. Clutch engagement, shifting, braking, and steering all respond exactly as they should. On the other hand, the IS250’s clutch, for one, engages too abruptly at the end of its pedal travel, which can lead to embarrassing lurches from a traffic light. So although the IS250’s moves verge on those of BMW’s superb 3-series, the Lexus doesn’t feel quite as planted. For pure driving, BMW still has the edge.
The styling Lexus gave the new IS line turns the car from sharp to stunning. The body fits tight and low around the chassis with cool fender flares at each corner. Yet the overall shape remains graceful. And although BMW has a similarly tight design, its back-seat space is vastly better than the IS250’s (41 cubic feet to the Lexus’s 34, with four more inches of legroom).

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Inside, the new Lexus has a more luxurious look, and the leather and plastic seem even better than those in the original model. Lexus replaced the previous IS300’s chronograph-style gauge cluster with two easy-to-read electroluminescent gauges. And in this age of techno overkill, the dash layout is retro simple and intuitive. For example, the radio has just two knobs-one for volume, the other for tuning. Brilliant!
The IS250’s list of standard equipment includes keyless entry and start, dual-zone climate control, a 13-speaker stereo with a six-CD changer and auxiliary input, and a power sunroof. Most of those are options on a 325i. Our tester came with the $194 Preferred Accessory package (trunk mat, cargo net, and wheel locks) and the $1290 Premium package that includes wood trim and fantastic heated and ventilated leather seats.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

And for that occasional run through the woods, when you’d rather not have the electronics interfere with your tire-sliding ambitions, here’s how to shut down the stability system. Start the car with the hand brake engaged. Press the brake pedal twice and hold. Engage the hand brake twice and hold. Repeat until the “skid lights” appear on the dash. The ABS does not shut off. When the engine is subsequently turned off and then switched back on, the stability control is reactivated. (Presumably, this trick works on all new Toyota and Lexus models, and it’s easier than it sounds.)
The IS250 offers tremendous value to anyone looking for an affordable, sexy luxury car. But we strongly suggest a high-protein diet to beef up the motor.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Lexus IS250
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$32,064 (base price: $30,580)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 cu in, 2499ccPower (SAE net): 204 bhp @ 6400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 185 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 107.5 inLength: 180.1 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 56.1 inCurb weight: 3465 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 7.1 secZero to 100 mph: 19.1 secZero to 130 mph: 41.3 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mphTop speed (drag limited, mfr’s est): 142 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 170 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: -*
FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 20 mpgC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
*A snow-covered skidpad precluded this test.

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

From the April 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
The press and public reactions when Chevrolet unveiled the SSR concept at the 2000 Detroit auto show were overwhelmingly positive. The message to Chevrolet was: Build it and they will buy it. The whole idea was outrageous: a pickup truck/roadster with bulging fenders and huge wheels. It just screamed for attention.

Quickest Pickup Trucks We’ve Ever Tested

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Most observers of the car scene laughed at the notion that Chevrolet would ever build its outlandish concept truck, but to everyone’s astonishment, GM green-lighted it. For once, gearheads got what they’d wished for. Well, sort of.
The production SSR remained close to the concept. The compromises included moving the outside mirrors from the A-pillars to the doors, adding marker lights to the body, and losing in the translation the sweeping metallic band along the tailgate. We were amazed and pleased that the muscular, bulging fenders made it to production.
Then the excitement waned. The show-circuit SSR had a 6.0-liter V-8 from a three-quarter-ton Silverado pickup, but the real deal ended up with a 5.3-liter V-8 that had only 300 horsepower to motivate more than two tons of truck. And it was only available with a four-speed automatic transmission. Reviewers described the SSR as all show and not much go.
Chevy had missed the boat in the same way Chrysler had with its 1997 Plymouth Prowler, a flashy hot rod that was hampered by a wimpy V-6. The SSR also brought to mind Ford’s weak and jiggly retro Thunderbird that went on sale in 2001. In fact, the looks and the attitude were only skin-deep. To qualify as cool and desirable, these car toys need to not only look fast but also be fast, or at least quick. The Prowler fizzled out two years ago, and the Thunderbird is destined for the same fate. Things haven’t looked much rosier for the SSR since it went on sale in 2003. On December 1, 2004, GM had a 300-day supply of unsold SSRs. The corporation sold 9648 SSRs last year but had envisioned selling 13,000.

Now instead of simply waiting for the ax to fall, Chevy has taken steps for 2005 to give the SSR what it deserved from the start—a big honking engine and a manual transmission. The 5.3-liter V-8 has been replaced with a 6.0-liter LS2 V-8 that churns out 390 horsepower and 405 pound-feet of torque. It’s the same engine found under the hood of the Corvette and the Pontiac GTO, although in those cars it’s tuned to crank out another 10 horses. A four-speed automatic also found in the Corvette is the standard transmission, but for an extra $815 there’s a Tremec M10 six-speed manual. The combination of this engine and the six-speed tranny gives the SSR some rabid bite to go along with an already hairy bark. The SSR we tested in September 2003 took a leisurely seven seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. This 2005 tester, with the six-speed manual, performed that task in 5.5 seconds. The 0-to-100-mph time was even more impressive. The new SSR whacked six seconds off the previous car’s time and reached the century number in just 14.1 seconds. The quarter-mile ET and speed went from 15.4 seconds at 89 mph to 14.1 seconds at 100 mph. These are respectable numbers that put the SSR in the same league with more conventional roadsters like the BMW Z4, Honda S2000, and Nissan 350Z when it comes to straight-line acceleration.
Chevrolet also enhanced a few other things in the revised SSR, most notably the steering system, which now has a retuned valve assembly and new bearings and seals for more precise on-center feel and a reduction in steering effort. The steering does feel a bit more accurate, and it’s easier to maneuver the SSR around town, but the truck still isn’t any fun for slaloming through corners. Push the SSR, and its truck roots are quickly revealed by its bouncy ride. The SSR pulled 0.82 g on the skidpad and stopped from 70 mph in 185 feet, the same distance as the one we tested in 2003.
Amazingly, despite the added 90 horsepower, one thing that hasn’t significantly changed on the SSR is its sticker price. The first SSR we tested had a base price of $41,995; this latest 390-hp version starts at $43,180. It’s easy to pile on expensive options, though. Our tester had, among other options, the 1SB Preferred Equipment Group ($1900), which includes heated seats, a Bose premium sound system, and an engine cover insert, and the Cargo Compartment Trim package ($895) for a hefty total of $47,375.
We won’t argue with the SSR’s eye-candy value or its ability to attract lots of attention, but there are a number of roadsters out there that offer better all-around performance at the same price. GM should have put a bigger, more powerful engine and a manual transmission in the SSR right from the start. That’s what this radical, uniquely American-looking vehicle deserved.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Chevrolet SSR
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE AS TESTED $47,375 (base price: $43,180)
ENGINE TYPE Pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 cu in, 5967ccPower (SAE net): 390 bhp @ 5400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 405 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 116.0 inLength: 191.4 inWidth: 78.6 inHeight: 64.2 inCurb weight: 4746 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 14.1 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 secStanding 1/4-mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mphTop speed (governor limited): 125 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 13 mpg

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