Car Reviews

From the August 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
The problem with buying one of today’s supercapable sport-utility vehicles—such as the Nissan Pathfinder or the Jeep Cherokee—is it makes so much sense that your neighbors are probably planning to do exactly the same thing. Modem SUVs are roomy, durable, and incredibly versatile. They’ll make you forget you’ve been sitting at a desk all day and keep you from watching the World Wrestling Federation championships on Saturday. Everybody seems to want one.

Every Off-Road-Ready Truck and SUV for 2020

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

It’s a Great Time to Go Off-Roading

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

David DewhurstCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

C8 Corvette Is More Than the Best Vette Ever

2020 Cayman GT4 Elevates the Sports Car Species

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

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

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

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

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

Specifications

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

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

View Photos

KEN HANNA

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

View Photos

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

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

View Photos

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

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

View Photos

KEN HANNA

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

View Photos

1990 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 FX3 interior.
KEN HANNA

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

View Photos

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo interior.
KEN HANNA

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

View Photos

KEN HANNA

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

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

Hermès-Edition Bugatti Chiron Took 3 Years to Make

1500-HP Bugatti Chiron Pur Sport Is an Apex Hunter

See How Customers Are Ordering Their Bugatti Divos

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

View Photos

Bugatti

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

View Photos

Bugatti

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

View Photos

Bugatti

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

View Photos

Bugatti

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

View Photos
Michael SimariCar and Driver

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

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

2021 Honda Odyssey.
Michael SimariCar and Driver

2018 Honda Odyssey.
Brad FickCar and Driver

2021 Toyota Sienna Looks Wild, Goes Hybrid-Only

For 2021, Chrysler Pacifica Gets All-Wheel Drive

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

2021 Honda Odyssey.
Michael SimariCar and Driver

2018 Honda Odyssey.
Brad FickCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

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

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

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

Specifications

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

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

From the August 1991 issue of Car and Driver.
Jonathan Winters and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf may be the sort of look-alikes you’ll find in Spy magazine’s “Separated at Birth?” section, but we’d like to present a more strikingly similar duo.

Tested: 2003 Nissan 350Z Returns to Its Roots

Tested: 1979 Datsun 280ZX Gets Luxurious

A Visual History of the Nissan Z

Consider: the Nissan 300ZX Turbo is powered by a twin-turbocharged and intercooled, 24-valve 3.0-liter V-6 that produces 300 horsepower. The Mitsubishi-engineered Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo is powered by a twin-turbocharged and intercooled, 24-valve 3.0-liter V-6 that produces 300 horsepower. The ZX Turbo comes with anti-lock brakes and four-wheel steering. The Stealth comes with anti-lock brakes and four-wheel steering. The Z sports a two-mode suspension that is controlled by a switch in the cockpit. The Stealth does too. The Z flaunts arresting bodywork and a handsome, luxurious interior—complete with driver-side air bag. Ditto for the Stealth. The Z can top 150 mph with ease. The Stealth? Take a wild guess.
When two cars with such comparable qualifications shoulder into the same market niche, the clock inevitably strikes “High Noon.” Which is why we decided to bring these near-twins together for a little tea party, a C/D-chaperoned showdown.

View Photos

DICK KELLEY

Though not even two years old, the 300ZX Turbo is already the established top gun in the sports-coupe class. Since its introduction in late 1989, it’s earned a spot on two straight Ten Best Cars lists and has even beaten the mighty Chevrolet Corvette in a C/D face-off (February 1990). But the new-for-1991 Stealth R/T Turbo (like its mechanical twin, the Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4) brings to the duel a staggering array of hardware—there’s even a variable-note exhaust system on board. (Incidentally, though the Dodge and the Mitsubishi are essentially the same car, we opted to include the Dodge in this test because, well, everybody seems to respect the name “Stealth” nowadays).

1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo

Tested: 1990 300ZX Aces Form and Function

1984 Nissan 300ZX Turbo

Our evaluations began with a two-day road drive. We rounded up four editors and once again journeyed south from our Ann Arbor headquarters to the clear country highways and tricky switchbacks of central Ohio. Below Bowling Green, we barreled along barren back roads through Bascom and Brokensword and Bucyrus and Butler, breaking only for a breather and burgers in Bellville. But by and by, as bed beckoned, this bounty of Bs became boring. And so we went to Mansfield. Lucky visitors to this slumbering metropolis near Mid-Ohio racetrack are hereby advised to dine at the creaky Oak Park Tavern, nestled in the woods just down the road a piece. Happily ensconced in the Oak Park’s dimly lit dining room, we each ordered a solid “tuck-in” of beer, bread, soup, salad, steak, hash browns, vegetable, pie, and coffee. That’s one of the rewards of taking a road trip in the Midwest: you get to eat like a serial killer.
Our road drives complete, we returned north to the Chrysler proving grounds in Chelsea, Michigan, for a full battery of instrumented tests. Rounding out our analyses were a series of hot laps around the Chrysler PG’s beautiful new roadcourse—a fast and challenging test circuit commissioned by Chrysler’s foot-to-the-floor president, Robert Lutz.

View Photos

DICK KELLEY

Not surprisingly, the final scoring was close. But, as usually happens with duels, the victor was clear. You’ll note that, this being Car and Driver, we’re actually going to reveal which car that is.
Up Close and Personal
Similar as they are, these two ninja coupes aren’t clones. The biggest difference: the 300ZX Turbo is a rear-driver while the Stealth R/T Turbo sports a full-time four-wheel-drive system employing a planetary-gear center differential in-unit with a viscous coupling. The basic torque split is 45/55 front/rear, but when one end begins to lose traction the system can apportion power as needed to the other axle.
There’s a notable size difference between the two coupes, too. The Z rides on a 96.5-inch wheelbase and measures 169.5 inches from nose to tail. It doesn’t look it, but it’s a hefty car, weighing 3570 pounds—about 200 pounds more than a Corvette. The Stealth is even heftier. Mounted on a 97.2-inch wheelbase, it’s about two inches wider and a full eleven inches longer overall than the Z. And it’s more than 250 pounds heavier—the price to be paid for carrying the extra length and four-wheel drive.
Each car has a comfortable and businesslike cockpit, with large analog gauges and handsomely contoured panels. The Stealth’s dashboard, however, drew criticisms for its layout; some of the controls are hard to reach, some are mounted out of sight behind the wheel. And gauge illumination is either too much or not enough: the Stealth’s turn signals are distractingly bright at night, yet its pictograph climate-control display is too dim during the day. More troubling, the Stealth is marginal on headroom. The six-footers on our staff fit inside but complained of an intrusive headliner. Taller drivers had to recline the seat just to get behind the wheel.
The Z’s cockpit, in contrast, is almost flawless. The materials are pleasing. The controls are easy to reach. The seats are supremely comfortable. The driving position is superb. The Z’s headroom isn’t exactly abundant, but there’s noticeably more than in the Stealth. In short, when it comes to modern sports coupes, the Oscar for Best Cockpit in a Leading Role goes to the 300ZX.
Road Runners
When choosing a weapon for long-distance touring, you could pick either of these cars and come out a winner. With their sophisticated suspensions and bounteous power, these machines can suck up the miles at an astonishing rate without breaking a sweat.
Neither car delivers a creamy ride, but in touring mode both offer good control while cushioning road shocks reasonably well. Each car’s sport mode, therefore, seems to exist only to placate “serious” drivers who must have a stiff ride to feel that their car is “handling.” On the road, none of our drivers engaged either car’s sport mode for long—the resulting hard ride did more to jar our bones than to improve handling in any appreciable degree.

View Photos

DICK KELLEY

In cruise, the Stealth suffers a bit from its extremely tall gearing. At 80 mph in fifth, the engine is burbling along at just 2850 rpm and can’t immediately catch breath if you prod the throttle. Also, the gearbox itself was a source of some criticism—though light and smooth, the cable-linkage shifter feels loose when moving from gear to gear.
Through the ups and downs and twists and turns of hilly rural Ohio, the Z’s variable-speed power steering proved spectacular—well weighted, accurate, and honest. The Stealth’s steering earned good marks, too, though in slow corners it felt overly light.
You’ll note that the Dodge’s engine edged the Nissan’s in the voting. Close as the two powerplants are, the Stealth’s Mitsubishi-built six feels smoother, livelier, and more responsive. Indeed, it produces more torque than the Z’s engine—307 pound-feet versus 283—and the torque peak occurs lower in the rev range. The Z’s six suffers from a bit more turbo lag and needs to be revved harder for maximum results, but it’s a beast once the boost is up.
Our road drives gave us plenty of time to measure public reaction to the cars’ provocative shapes. To a man, our editors prefer the Z’s clean, uncluttered form, an inspired design penned in Nissan’s California studio. But if the Z is Miss Universe, the Dodge-designed Stealth is Lady Godiva. “Yow! Dude! That’s the baddest ride on the face of this earth!” exclaimed a young University of Michigan scholar as our red test car idled through campus. Clearly, if this is the sort of commotion caused by a “Stealth,” you’d never want to get behind the wheel of a Dodge “Brazen.”

View Photos

DICK KELLEY

Potent Testees
A day at the test track proved that these two ninjas are as powerful as they look—fast enough to dispense with anything but the world’s costliest supercars.
Despite the Stealth’s weight (about as much as a BMW 735i), it charges to 60 mph in just 5.2 seconds and trips the quarter-mile lights in 14.0 seconds at 98 mph. That’s even better than the performance we measured with a pre-production car last October; our technical director attributes the progress to a strong production car and a more aggressive launch during testing.
The lighter 300ZX Turbo is even quicker. It reaches 60 mph in just 5.0 seconds and flashes through the quarter-mile in 13.7 seconds at 102 mph. This car proved to be the fastest Z we’ve ever tested.
Both ninjas, incidentally, are quick enough to leave a standard Chevrolet Corvette sucking dust.
These cars have legs, too. The Stealth doesn’t stop accelerating until it hits an aerodynamic wall at 155 mph. The Z, sleeker and shorter-geared, is fitted with an electronic limiter designed to kick in at 155 mph. Our test car cut out early—153 mph—but got there quicker than the Stealth. Without the limiter, the Z would probably climb to 165 mph.
Both cars, fitted with ABS and four vented disc brakes, are capable of spleen-wrenching stops. The Stealth claws to a halt from 70 mph in only 163 feet. The Z needs just five feet more. Awesome. Still, it’s here that each maker has the most work to do. Despite their power, the brakes in both cars suffered from noticeable fade during our brisk road drives. In fact, we noted rotor warpage on the Stealth after only a few minutes of really hard running. Before these ninjas can lay claim to having beaten Porsche at its game, they need to offer brakes commensurate with their speed.
The two cars tied on the skidpad, each hugging the circle with a whopping 0.87 g of grip. The Z, lighter on its feet, won the slalom contest handily, proving amazingly responsive and controllable. Careful readers will note, though, that the Nissan’s speed through the cones was down from that of the Z Turbo that fought in last year’s Corvette comparo. We attribute the change to our new test car’s Goodyear Eagle ZR tires, which delivered predictable breakaway at the limit but didn’t feel as grippy as the last tester’s Michelin MXX’s.
Beat the Clock
As evidence of how well matched these cars are, they turned in identical lap times at the new Chrysler racetrack. How each car went about its business, though, was telling.

DICK KELLEY

Running full bore, the Z felt supremely composed and responsive. The steering was superb, allowing surgically precise turns and transmitting plenty of information from the front tires. The chassis followed inputs from the helm without a ruffle. The drivetrain never stuttered. After being put through five hard laps, only the brakes showed signs of fatigue.
The Z displayed mild understeer in most corners, but we found we could break the rear end loose with power or a sudden move off the throttle. The breakaway was always easy to control, too. The 300ZX Turbo is a terrific track car.
The Stealth achieved the same result with less grace and more sheer guts. Its brakes suffered on the track, but more troubling was its steering, which in some corners felt disconcertingly disconnected from the front wheels. The Stealth never made any untoward moves, mind you, but the precision found in the Z was noticeably absent. We suspect the problem may have something to do with the manner in which the four-wheel-drive system apportions torque as the load shifts from front to rear and back again.
Where the Stealth shined was in the track’s quick esses. Transmitting its power through all four wheels, the Stealth simply exploded from corner to corner on the series of short straights. And its stability allowed us to brake deep into turns without worrying about the tail
The Envelope, Please
And the winner is . . . the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, taking eight of twelve categories and tying in three.

DICK KELLEY

The Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo is a most worthy challenger—fast, versatile, and stunning to look at. Its polish and sophistication are somewhat less than the Z’s, but at a base price of $29,595 the Stealth is an undeniable value. Its showing at the test track speaks for itself.
At $35,357, the 300ZX Turbo lists for almost $6000 more than the Stealth, but its strengths make it a fair buy. Such performance, refinement, and poise simply cannot be had anywhere else at anything near the price. Indeed, to find another sports coupe with as fine a brew of civility and speed, you’d have to move all the way up to the $62,000 Acura NSX.
You could do that, but only if you were “Loaded at Birth.”
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

Internally, Volkswagen calls them GTX models. There’s the GTI, the turbo-diesel GTD, and the plug-in hybrid that Europe dubbed the GTE with the Audi A3 e-tron’s hybrid powertrain. Now VW is launching the eighth-generation Golf, and the new GTE version makes a GTI-matching 242 horsepower. In Germany, it costs 4000 euros (about $4,800) more than a GTI. We’ve driven both cars now and are ready to answer whether the GTE is worth the extra money.

Future EVs: Every Electric Vehicle Coming Soon

2022 Volkswagen GTI Thrives in the Modern Era

2021 VW Golf GTE is a Hybrid Performance Golf

The GTE comes with a turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder good for 148 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque paired, which is paired with an electric motor that can add 107 horses and 243 pound-feet. The hybrid powertrain sends its power to the front wheels through a six-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. The powertrain is largely carried over from the previous GTE, although it is electronically tweaked to produce 242 horsepower instead of the previous 204. Should you be feeling nostalgic for the old GTE, a 204-hp version called the e-Hybrid is available, but you don’t get the GTI looks.

View Photos

Volkswagen

City dwellers may find that the plug-in hybrid powertrain has its merits. It’s possible to drive up to around 40 miles on an electric charge, although such a distance requires an extremely light foot. In the European cycle, the GTE is rated at 138.4 mpg due to its ability to run the test in EV mode. The electric motor also offers lightning-quick throttle response. By comparison, a GTI needs a blink of an eye for the turbo to wake up and provide meaningful boost. But what happens with the GTE after the initial accelerator response is less impressive.
VW claims the sprint from zero to 62 mph takes 6.7 seconds, a mere 0.5 second more than the GTI. In our last test of the 204-hp powertrain, the heavier 2016 A3 e-tron Sportback hit 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. Beyond 60 mph, the gap begins to widen. The GTE very noticeably loses steam in the 60-to-90-mph range, and finding the 140-mph top speed requires patience and a long stretch of road. The GTI, by contrast, hustles its way relentlessly up to a governed 155 mph. Blame the weight of the GTE’s motor and battery; they add a claimed 361 pounds to the roughly 3200-pound GTI.
On curvy roads, the heft of the plug-in hybrid system (which also eats into cargo space) is obvious. Compared to the GTI, the GTE rolls more, has a lazier turn-in, and the car just feels softer. Brake feel is good for a hybrid but mediocre when compared to the GTI. The GTE doesn’t blow us away in a straight line, nor does it impress in corners. There are many reasons to go for a plug-in hybrid—subsidies, tax incentives, a perception of environmental friendliness—but there will be a trade-off in vehicle dynamics, as (not just) the Golf GTE amply illustrates.

View Photos

Volkswagen

Inside, the Golf GTE is dressed like the GTI: same fantastic seats, generous space, and the futuristic dashboard that graces every new-gen Golf. Sadly, there are still teething problems with the user interface. In two of the three Golfs we drove at the hybrid event, we couldn’t get the navigation to work, and one of them couldn’t execute all of the heating and cooling options. When it works, it is a good system, and we are confident VW will iron out the proverbial wrinkles by the time the GTI comes to the United States in late 2021.
Barring any massive regulatory changes or a big spike in oil prices, the GTE won’t be making it stateside. Volkswagen is keeping the Golf lineup in the U.S. to the GTI and the Golf R. Considering its mediocre handling, we are not surprised that Audi has opted to keep its new A3 e-tron away from the States as well. We’d be more excited about a new GTD, but diesel and Volkswagen aren’t going together for the foreseeable future.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Volkswagen Golf GTE
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door hatchback
BASE PRICE (GERMANY) $49,770
POWERTRAIN turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 1.4-liter inline-4, 148 hp, 184 lb-ft; permanent-magnet synchronous AC motor, 107 hp, 243 lb-ft; combined output, 242 hp, 295 lb-ft; 13.0-kWh lithium-ion battery pack
TRANSMISSION 6-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 103.5 inLength: 168.8 inWidth: 70.4 inHeight: 58.4 inCurb weight (C/D est): 3500 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4 mile: 15.0 secTop speed: 140 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 36/34/39 mpgCombined gasoline+electricity: 83 MPGeEV range: 35 miles

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 March 1982 issue of Car and Driver.
New Blue trails respectfully as the short chute spirals up and over, feeding into Willow Spring’s twisty-turny roller coaster. Old Red has amassed a commanding lead by tiptoeing around a couple of sweepers and rocketing down the straightaways in bursts of close-rationed, ram-inducted, fuel-injected frenzy. Its keening climb to the redline is an orchestra of solid-lifter clatter, half-civilized exhaust bark, and the vigorous snorting of air through one hungry venturi. New Blue’s battle cry is a less threatening induction moan, the edge knocked off its exhaust note by the catalytic converter crammed between its dual pipes.

Corvette High-Performance Models’ Specs Leaked

Chevy Corvette C8 vs. C7 Racetrack Throwdown

C8 Corvette vs. GT500 on the Drag Strip

Even though the new Chevy Corvette speaks more softly, it soon proves that it’s hauling the bigger stick. New Blue bites ten yards out of its disadvantage on hard braking, then closes in several feet more as the pairs arcs into the left-hand entry to the uphill ess-section. Old Red stumbles momentarily over the brow, where an elevation change unloads its chassis, while New Blue oversteers adroitly into contention. The pair of Corvettes rushes down to a right-left combination, where New Blue capitalizes on its superior stability to nip by on the inside, as Old red takes a pause to collect itself. Blue seizes the perfect late-apex line through the left-hander and its turbo Hydra-matic snaps a two-three upshift to keep engine rpm in an effective range down the long back straightaway. The new Corvette reaches a stride that will eventually run up a five-second-a-lap advantage over Old Red.
It’s the eve of the Corvette’s 30th birthday and the car world needs to know: Can the Corvette be trusted any longer? Is it still a sports car, or has Chevrolet’s power-assist program massaged this machine into some sort of two-seat Monte Carlo? Is it roadworthy, or just a personal preenmobile?

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

In less than a year, the Corvette will turn 30, shedding its 20-year old chassis and 15-year old body like a lobster in molting season. What better time for a blast to the past to measure progress to date in hopes of seeing where the 1983 Corvette could and should be going?
We’ve picked two plastic Chevys to run through our full road-course, race-course, test-track wringer before we draw any conclusions: a stunning 1962 fuel-injected roadster from yesteryear and a hot-off-the-assembly-line 1982 T-top coupe to stand up for today’s state of the Corvette art.
A 1962 model is apropos to this exercise because it’s similar to the ’82 in a surprising number of ways. Each is a last-of-its-kind Corvette, from the final year of production before a major redesign. Each is powered by a fuel-injected, small-block V-8. And in each case you’re talking $20,000 to own one of these gems, whether it’s a pristine ’62 or a fully decked ’82.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

A paltry total of 14,531 Corvettes were manufactured during the whole 1962 model year, so it’s not hard to understand why major redesigns were (and still are) few and far between. The ’62 chassis was essentially the same X-reinforced ladder frame that Chevrolet’s directory of research and development, Maurice Olley, had sketched in the spring of 1952. The original Blue Flame six-cylinder engine was long gone, and a manual transmission had been added, but the 1962 Corvette still suffered through life with crudities shared with the ’52 Chevys: slow, heavy steering and an archaic kingpin-type (no ball joints) front suspension.
There were few complainers back then because the ’62 Corvette had so much to offer in compensations. The stylists had their act together with the bodywork, having given up on most of the chromium furbelows tacked here and there on earlier Corvettes. A lovely aluminum-cased four-speed transmission was in place with a choice of closely or widely spaced ratios. And every 1962 Corvette was a roadster, pure and simple, with a soft top that could be locked from sight to reveal the sun and stars in all their glory. The whole Western world waned to sell the farm and ramble down Route 66 in one of these machines.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

Early Corvettes were most revered for their engines. Big-blocks, of course, came later, and in retrospect they seem superfluous. The 327-cubic-inch displacement was new for the small-block in 1962, and a few bucks in the right place paid off handsomely in optional horsepower. There were two hydraulic-lifter four-barrel engines producing 250 and 300 horsepower (SAE gross). Or, if you were up for the fuss of solid lifters, you could specify a hotter 340-hp mighty-mite crowned with Rochester fuel injection. Delicious stuff, then and now.
The ’62 in this test is owned by Jim Mederer (a founding father of Racing Beat, the rotary-engine tuning firm) of Anaheim, California. As luck would have it, his car was a fuelie from the factory. Even though the chassis has racked up well over 100,000 miles in its time, Mederer has been through every bushing and ball bearing in a top-to-bottom restoration. You purists will of course spot the liberties taken. The original generator is now an alternator, Mederer has added an oil cooler, modern Sears radial tires have replaced original 6.70-by-15.0-inch bias-ply rubber, and ignition-wire shielding is missing in action. The intention was not to build a 100-point concoursmobile, but rather to rejuvenate a strong performer so that it could be enjoyed on a daily basis. Once our powers of persuasion were brought to bear on Mary Lou Mederer (Jim’s mother, who uses Old Red on her work commute), we were off to the races with this fine early-sports-car specimen.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

To shore up the modern half of the bargain, we borrowed one of the first-built 1982 Corvettes from Chevrolet engineering. Freedom of choice is not part of the plan this year, so you either take the 5.7-liter (350 cubic inches) small-block, fed by dual throttle-body fuel injection (TBI) and fitted to GM’s 700-4R turbo Hydra-matic, or wait for something better to come along next year.
TBI is the last attempt to inject life into America’s oldest car line. Now that we’ve seen new and old ways to build fuel injection in the same comparison test, we’re convinced that Chevrolet (and the other GM divisions) should take a break from “progress” and examine its own 25-year-old system. The ’62 Corvette has a torque curve as flat as the horizon in no small part because of the combination of low restriction and long ram tubes offered by the “Ramjet” injection. Across the 2000-to-6000-rpm effective power band, torque never drops more than 20 pound-feet.
This Rochester plumbing is in many ways similar to Bosch’s K-Jetronic continuous-flow system. It was doubtless expensive to build, but the advantages in cylinder-to-cylinder distribution and ram tuning for enhanced torque are simply too great to pass up. TBI is a great alternative to a carburetor, particularly on GM’s 2.5-liter four-cylinder, where it even affords a cost saving, but it’s clearly not what you’d call high-performance hardware.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

TBI does pump up both horsepower and torque for ’82, but speediness is off a bit with the new four-speed turbo Hydra-matic. Even so, once the sorrow of having no clutch pedal to play with has passed, the new Corvette can actually be entertaining. You may manually lock the transmission in second or third if you like, and the fact that the torque converter will lock up in second, third, or fourth makes it feel as though you’re managing a seven-speed at times. There is plenty of torque multiplication off the mark (much more than with the close-ratio-manual-transmissioned ’62), and fourth is so tall that you roll down the road at the legal limit with the tachometer reading an unbelievable 1400 rpm. This has nudged EPA highway fuel economy up by 5 mpg this year, at least enough to give the Corvette one more reprieve from the insidious gas-guzzler tax. (In case you were wondering, it was that tariff from our now moribund Department of Energy that scotched stick-shift Corvettes for 1982. Thankfully, they’ll be back next year. The DOE we’re not sure about.)

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

In some ways, the four-speed automatic is an aid to handling. On the tight and twisty sections of the Ortega Highway and Willow Springs, we locked the lever in second. Third works fine for the straightaways and high-speed sweepers. Since there’s so little shifting to be done, you can brace your left foot solidly against the floorpan and keep both hands on the wheel to make best use of the Corvette’s 0.82-g adhesion and excellent overall balance. The steering still feels disconnected at times—during an initial dive-in toward the apex, or running straight over low-frequency-sine-wave pavement at high speeds—but this is the last impractical-to-remove foible in a 19-year-old chassis. The natural tendency is to steer, then correct when the car points ten feet off the mark you were aiming for. A far smoother approach is to ride through that queasy off-center instant and let the tires take a bite into the pavement before you dial in a course correction.
This occasional lapse of linearity is a trivial fault compared with the nasty kinks baked into the 1962 Corvette. It will go straight if the road is flat and true. With a little muscle on the big steering wheel, it will corner on a smooth skidpad to an impressive 0.77 g. And it’s better in braking than plenty of new cars on the road today. Combinations of the above, however, invariably tripped up the ’62 Corvette in this test, making it a nasty beast to drive anywhere near its limit. Old Red was so cantankerous over the high-speed wavies that co-driver Csaba Csere blanched every time he saw one of the Ortega Highway’s steep precipices lurching into sharp focus. Changing throttle position and steering lock at the same time was a definite no-no at Willow Springs. And if any attempt was made to mix late braking with the turn-in maneuver, it was strictly all-hands-on-deck time. Either you’re ready and waiting to windlass in handfuls of opposite lock, or the woolly rear axle is likely to wiggle you toward a whole new perspective on life.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

Old Red’s steering was slow, heavy, and insensitive, while its chassis featured several Bermuda Triangle zones that had to be avoided at all costs. This is what separated the men from the boys back when cars weren’t so refined. If you could tune in on the Corvette’s idiosyncrasies and use them to advantage, you were a racer, or at least a very fast driver. If you couldn’t, you ordered 4.56 gears and made your point peeling out from the Dairi-Freeze.
These days, anybody can drive a Corvette flat out. Even through the TBI V-8 and turbo Hydra-matic powertrain will pull you to a higher terminal speed than we registered at Old Red’s redline, it takes so long to get there, you’ll need Nebraska. The handling and braking offer more security than the good hands of Allstate. You can drive out of almost any misfortune you’re likely to stumble into just by keeping paws at nine and three and steering away from the more massive fixed objects. If you’re talented enough to keep pavement under the flat Goodyear tires, the whole U.S. is Road America and you’re qualified just a few rows back from the pole.

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

The answer to the riddle that set this adventure rolling is, yes. The 1982 Corvette is still a sports car. The Flash Gordon fenders are a bore, the curb weight needs a 10-percent chop, and a five-speed transmission would be a joy, but we’ve got to hand it to the old girl: New Blue could inhale pavement when its pedal was pushed.
And we found Old Red more fun than a high-school class reunion. It’s not every day we get to work with a 6300-rpm redline and launch ourselves to 60 in six seconds. Car-nut heaven had better be stocked with machinery like this, or we’ve all been wasting our time being good. What more could you ask for than a chestful of that big “competition-type” steering wheel, a handful of close-ratio shifter, and the solid-lifter serenade rattling in your eardrums?

View Photos

George LippCar and Driver

David E. Davis, Jr., summed up the experience twenty years ago when he wrote, “Some guys have it tough.” Little did he know how well those words would also fit the engineers at Chevy today, as they toil away on 1983’s edition of the legend.
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