Car Reviews

From the August 1989 Issue of Car and Driver.
Nissan should rename itself “the Phoenix Motor Corporation.” Like the wondrous bird of ancient legend, the Japanese automaker has burned the weary persona of its past and arisen from the ashes bold, revitalized, and supremely competitive. Consider the sleek new 240SX, the rejuvenated Maxima, the daring Axxess minivan—all proof of Nissan’s newfound talent and awareness. Or scan these pages and drink in the most convincing evidence of all: the breathtaking, all-new 300ZX.

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

Twin-Turbo 400Z Will Revive Nissan Z-Car’s Legacy

This is not the flabby, disco-poseur’s 300ZX of old. That tawdry beast is gone, laid to rest in a special graveyard reserved for stretch slacks, musk colognes, and slap-on chest hair. In its place is a car created by designers who understand design, engineers who grasp the needs and wants of enthusiasts, and, perhaps most important, management with the guts and the savvy not to stand in the way of its creative corps. New from the ground up, the new 300ZX is, quite simply, one of the most alluring cars to appear on the United States market in years.
But that’s obvious, isn’t it? Let your eyes wander over the Z’s sensuous form for a moment. The shape is lean, low, and provocative—and, unlike the previous edition, it’s restrained and sophisticated. This is not a flashy, boy racer’s strutmobile. Some viewers say the nose (which houses new flush headlights instead of the old model’s pop-up units) looks heavy, and others find the overall shape derivative and unoriginal. But we aren’t among the naysayers. The new 300ZX is stunning in the metal, a beautiful and exciting car that looks exotic without being quirky. That Nissan designed the car entirely in-house is further proof that it is a company with the resources and audacity to push bold programs into production.

View Photos

At present, Nissan offers the new Z only in naturally aspirated form; a twin-turbo version will appear this fall. Two body styles are available: the two-seater pictured here and a slightly longer two-plus-two. Both are shorter, wider, and lower than their respective predecessors. And both body styles are available in the U.S. only with T-tops. The Z’s T-roof is one of the best we’ve ever encountered—tight, leak-free, and easy to remove—but we’re still bewildered and bothered by Nissan’s decision not to offer the even-more-solid Japanese-market fixed-roof coupe in the States.
Under the new Z’s T-roof glass sits perhaps the most beautiful and efficient cockpit in the sports-car kingdom. The instrument panel blends seductive curves and handsome materials. The gauges are clear, conspicuous analog dials. Ancillary controls nestle on easy-to-reach pods surrounding the wheel. The steering wheel itself is a meaty three spoke design that feels hefty and reassuring in your palms. The leather-wrapped shifter sits close at hand. Tasteful fabric trims the doors, the console, and the dash. And the seats are deeply sculptured, easy to adjust, and extremely comfortable. (Our test car’s thrones were covered in optional leather—part of a $1000 option package—but natty-looking cloth seats are standard.) Trust us: sports-car cockpits don’t get any better than this.
We still have a couple of gripes, though. The first concerns the optional automatic climate control system. Designed to be a set-and-forget unit, this system instead behaves as a set-and-reset-and-override-and-get-annoyed unit. It offers only two manual fan speeds, and there is no way to channel the airflow where you want it. Although we didn’t have a chance to try the standard, manual climate-control system, which offers four fan speeds and five options for air routing, it should be far more accommodating.

View Photos

We also have a few complaints about the optional Bose sound system. We don’t claim to be audio experts, but we agree as a group that this system, like some other Bose units we’ve sampled, sounds undistinguished. And it has no fade or balance controls whatsoever, obviously implying that Bose knows better than the users of its systems how these parameters should be set. Happily, there is an easy solution to both of our cockpit gripes: skip the optional electronic power package. You’ll give up the heated rear-view mirrors and the power controls for the driver’s seat, but you’ll bypass the automatic climate-control system and the Bose stereo—and save $1600.
Enough talk of sound systems and cabin accouterments. You want to know the serious stuff, the power and the glory, the fury and the dust.
The power is provided by a version of Nissan’s fine 60-degree 3.0-liter V-6, but it’s been so thoroughly reworked that you wouldn’t recognize it. The new engine sports twin cams, 24 valves, pent roof combustion chambers with centrally located spark plugs, electronic fuel injection, new intake and exhaust manifolds, and a variable intake-valve-timing system for improved performance throughout the rev band. Horsepower is up to 222 at 6400 rpm—more than in last year’s Turbo—and torque is increased to 198 pound-feet at 4800 rpm.
The power flows to the rear wheels via a short-throw five-speed manual transmission (a four-speed automatic is available as an option) and a viscous limited-slip differential. Does it ever flow. The 300ZX storms from zero to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds and rips through the quarter-mile in 15.0 seconds at 93 mph. It doesn’t feel that quick: the engine always sounds smooth and unstrained, even when tearing up to its 7000-rpm redline. And the big, solid body (the Z weighs s 3341 pounds) insulates the cabin from the furor. In fifth gear, the engine winds to 6100 rpm—good for 143 mph. That means that only a handful of dedicated competitors can outgun the new 300ZX. (Fewer still will measure up to the 300-hp twin-turbo edition when it arrives.)
A new suspension puts that performance to good use. Each front corner sports unequal-length control arms and an additional articulating hub. At the back is a four-element multilink design based on the rear-suspension layout found in Nissan’s 240SX. Coil springs are used all around, and an anti-roll bar is fitted to each end.

View Photos

Thanks to clever tuning, this suspension combines stability, control, and a reasonably compliant ride. Shod with 225/5OVR-16 Michelin Sport XGTV tires mounted on attractive 16-inch alloy wheels, the Z turned in an outstanding 0.86-g skidpad performance. As you reach the limit the front tires slide first, but the rear end can be coaxed out with a sudden move on or off the throttle, making the Z easy to balance through turns. The fat Michelins offer progressive, predictable handling characteristics, but on some surfaces they howl out enough road noise to scare a Peterbilt pilot.
Beefy four-wheel vented disc brakes with four-piston front calipers and standard ABS stop the Z from 70 mph in 171 feet. We observed no signs of fade during repeated hard trials.
The test track numbers tell you plenty about the new 300ZX, but they don’t tell you nearly enough. Good as it looks to a stopwatch, the 300ZX is even more impressive from behind the wheel. No spec page figures, for instance, could describe the smooth, satisfying feel of the Z’s new variable assist electronic power-steering system. Nor could a bar graph express the sheer pleasure of running the stubby five-speed shifter up through the gears. Nor do we know of any data sheet that is able to convey the stirring sound of the 300ZX’s 24-valve V-6 in full-throttle crescendo.

View Photos

And so we arrive at the bottom line. The new 300ZX is not an entry-level GT. The base two-seater wears a $27,300 sticker, and our fully optioned test car carried a $30,160 price tag. But consider the returns on that investment:
1. We can think of no other car that offers more style and sculptured, buttoned-down beauty for the money. The established automotive objects d’art—the Italian exotics—start at twice the price.
2. The 300ZX offers standard amenities galore, decent luggage space, superb seats, and a cabin with an appeal quotient that is second to none.
3. Even the naturally aspirated Z has enough brawn and handling prowess to hold most of the competition at bay. Granted, the 300ZX’s profile reads “performance GT” not “bare-bones sports car,” but only the most dedicated sportsters will be able to defeat it in a straight fight.
4. Our 300ZX test car emitted nary a squeak or rattle during its extended stay with us. And past experience with other Nissans has convinced us that this car will stay tight and trouble-free for the long haul.
Or look at it this way: $30,160 is an awfully small price to pay for a phoenix missile you guide yourself.

Specifications

1990 Nissan 300ZX
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED $30,160
ENGINE TYPEV-6, iron block and aluminum headsDisplacement: 181 cu in, 2960ccPower: 222 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 198 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 96.5 inLength: 169.5 inWidth: 70.5 inHeight: 49.2 inCurb weight: 3341 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 6.7 secZero to 100 mph: 18.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.0 sec @ 93 mphTop speed: 143 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway: 18/24 mpgC/D observed: 17 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

JEFFREY G. RUSSELLCar and Driver

From the September 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
During the ’80s, when the news section of this magazine was called FYI, it included a semi-regular subcategory called Diesel Clatter. In the era that followed the fuel hysteria of the ’70s, diesels were offered by a number of automakers, and we dutifully passed the info along to you. This included the first-ever Jeep smoker, a 2.1-liter Renault turbo-diesel option offered for the Jeep Cherokee from 1985 through ’87.
Without wishing to be unkind, this latest Jeep Liberty engine option reminds us of that old FYI heading. In an era when most compression-ignition engines are almost as smooth and quiet as their gasoline counterparts, the Liberty’s 2.8-liter turbo-diesel four takes us back to those innocent days when exceptional fuel economy could make us overlook drawbacks, particularly the racket that went with any oil burner. Light up the Liberty’s engine, close your eyes, and suddenly you’re riding in a Mercedes diesel taxi, Stuttgart, circa 1985. Clatter spoken here, Dieter. Jawohl.

Every 2020 Small SUV Ranked from Worst to Best

Best SUVs and Crossovers of 2020

A little background. With the development of common-rail fuel systems, diesels have changed dramatically in the past two decades. Thanks to massive system pressures-more than 20,000 psi is not uncommon, compared with 50 to 80 psi for gasoline port-injection systems-the fuel is more finely atomized, promoting a more complete and controlled burn, and that pays off with higher efficiency and reduced emissions. Supplied by DDC Cento (previously VM Motori), a subsidiary of Detroit Diesel in Cento, Italy (and 49 percent owned by DaimlerChrysler), the Liberty’s turbo-diesel is consistent with most of the common-rail parameters. The iron-block, aluminum-head DOHC 16-valve four has a compression ratio of 17.5:1, with fuel-rail pressure pegged at 1600 bar-about 23,000 psi. With its Garrett turbocharger blowing at max boost-26.5 psi-the engine develops 160 horsepower at 3800 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at 1800 rpm.

No one would characterize this little Jeep as fast, but the turbo motor spools up quickly and holds its own in urban traffic.

This is considerably less horsepower than you get from the Liberty’s optional 210-hp, 3.7-liter V-6, but considerably more torque: 60 pound-feet, peaking 2200 rpm lower. And it’s this trait-low-down grunt-that makes this or any other diesel appealing: grunt, plus relatively high fuel economy. In the case of the Liberty diesel, you get distinctly higher EPA fuel-economy ratings than those of the gas V-6-21 mpg city, 26 highway versus 17/22 (or 18/22 with a manual transmission). Jeep expects the diesel will get about 25-percent-better fuel economy than the V-6 in real-world driving. We got 20 mpg with the diesel, which was exactly a 25-percent improvement over the 16 mpg we achieved with the V-6.
You also get the same towing capacity as that of the 3.7 V-6-5000 pounds, heftiest of all the cute utes. And you get similar acceleration. Our turbo-diesel tester rattled to 60 mph in 10.1 seconds compared with 10 flat for the Liberty Limited Edition we tested in January 2002 (“Canyon Cubs”) and was quicker in the quarter-mile: 17.3 seconds versus 17.5.
No one would characterize this little Jeep as fast, but the turbo motor spools up quickly and holds its own in urban traffic. The engine’s power traits match up well with the five-speed automatic transmission, the latter yielding smooth up- and downshifts, and it lopes along at freeway speeds without undue strain.

There’s something uniquely appealing about the Liberty diesel—appealing, we should add, almost exclusively to guys, particularly guys living in the wide-open West, according to DaimlerChrysler.

But there’s the clatter problem. From the moment of light-off, the Liberty’s four begins emitting a symphony of rattles and growls, richly varied, depending on throttle position, but incessant. We’ve seen numerous recent diesels that allowed us to ignore the nature of their ignition systems. This is not one of them. The Jeep folks cite a number of reasons for the extra racket, namely, the simple fact that the four-banger has large 694cc cylinders that create a lot of noise. Plus, the engine sits close to the Liberty’s passenger compartment, and the exhaust system exits from the back of the engine between the motor and fire wall.
Like other sparkless engines, you pay a premium for this cheerfully raucous powerplant: $3695, including the required five-speed automatic and a more sophisticated four-wheel-drive system with a four-high open mode. The V-6 option in the same model costs only $850, and you don’t have to upgrade to the automatic. This, along with the fact that No. 2 diesel fuel is currently more expensive than gasoline, makes it hard to see an advantage to the diesel. On the other hand, for those who appreciate internal combustion, there’s something uniquely appealing about the Liberty diesel. Appealing, we should add, almost exclusively to guys, particularly guys living in the wide-open West, according to DaimlerChrysler. This probably proves, once again, that women have better sense. But there are enough of these guys to account for about 6000 sales per year, a little beyond DaimlerChrysler’s expectations.
One cautionary note: If you find the notion of a Liberty diesel appealing, buy soon. Barring some dramatic change in technology, passenger-car diesels will disappear by 2007, when Tier 2 emissions regs come on in full force. No current passenger-car diesel meets this new standard.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Jeep Liberty Sport 4×4 Diesel
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICE AS TESTED $26,675 (base price: $25,245)
ENGINE TYPETurbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve diesel inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 169 cu in, 2776ccPower (SAE net): 160 bhp @ 3800 rpmTorque (SAE net): 295 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 174.4 inWidth: 71.6 inHeight: 70.2 inCurb weight: 4324 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 10.1 secZero to 100 mph: 39.1 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 11.3 secStanding ¼-mile: 17.3 sec @ 77 mphTop speed (drag limited): 111 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 206 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 21 mpgC/D observed: 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

View Photos
Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

To wake the daydreamers, a high-school teacher of mine would slap a broken goalie stick on the desk of the offender and shout, “A picture is worth a thousand words!” In addition to learning to pay attention, we learned that visual aids are indeed very helpful—and the photos you’re seeing of the 2021 Chevy Tahoe are indeed visual aids. But the headlights, giant grille, and design look better in person than they do in photos.

2021 Chevy Tahoe/Suburban Get Bigger, Add Diesel

How 2021 Chevy Tahoe Measures Up to 2021 GMC Yukon

Besides, the big news is hidden away in the back and beneath the skin. General Motors engineers finally put an independent rear suspension into Chevy’s large, three-row human haulers, the Tahoe and Suburban, as well as the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL. The independent rear suspension—a trailing-arm design—requires less space than a live axle, allowing for a lower floor. In previous Tahoes, third-row riders sat close to the floor, beach-chair style. Chevrolet has also extended the new Tahoe’s wheelbase by 4.9 inches, and overall length is up by 6.7 inches.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

HIGHS: Librarian-approved interior ambience, adult-approved third row, can tow four tons.

These changes mean that, for the first time, the Tahoe’s third row is a great place to sit. Legroom increases by more than 10 inches, and it will now be tolerated by full-grown adults for more than five minutes at a time. The second-row seats move and fold forward to provide good access to the third row. And to ensure that the third-row riders’ knees aren’t crunched when the second row is re-erected, the second row automatically returns to its most forward position. From there, second-row occupants can decide whether or not to kneecap the third-rowers with the seats. It’s a smart design that makes the third row that much better.
Other convenient ideas include the five USB-C plugs as well as a rear window that opens independent of the hatch, something that’s dying out in today’s SUVs. Popping the window can make it easy to load smaller items, and leaving it open can help maximize the 25 cubic feet of available space behind the third row should you want to haul something long, like a ladder. GM tells us that there are 10 more cubic feet back there than before. To put that in perspective, we found that it’s possible to carry six carry-on-size bags back there, two more than the old Tahoe.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Unlike its cousin, the Silverado pickup, Chevy went further with the Tahoe’s interior. A large 10.2-inch touchscreen infotainment interface blends cohesively into the dash, and the column shifter is now a push-button-and-slider setup to the right of the gauge cluster. There’s a motorized, retractable center-console lid for those who enjoy a bit of theater before storing their purse or men’s European satchel. It is odd that it’s motorized and perhaps stranger that the control switch for it is on the roof. The rest of the ergonomics are better. Chevy has blended physical controls (buttons, knobs, etc.) with screen inputs. There are some uncouth plastics, but you really have to be out to find them. Otherwise, the touch points have a richness commensurate with the Tahoe Z71’s $76,175 as-tested price.

LOWS: Isn’t the fleetest of foot, benefits from an in-person inspection, Chevys are getting pricey.

Sticker shocked? Tahoes cost how much? That’s enough money to purchase a base BMW X7, and it is within a grand of the Mercedes-Benz GLS’s starting price. We think that the most likely cross-shopped vehicle will be the Ford Expedition. In its most basic and rear-drive form, a Tahoe LS is a little more than $50K. Our Tahoe Z71 tester comes with a 5.3-liter V-8, a 10-speed automatic transmission, and an on-demand two-speed all-wheel-drive transfer case. The Z71 specific skid-plate-styled front bumper protects a real skid plate behind it from scratches.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Our Z71’s air springs are part of a $2450 Off-Road Capability package that also includes magnetorheological dampers. With them, the ride has the firmness and control you expect of a body-on-frame sport utility with off-road ambitions. It jolts you just enough to remind you that there is some actual off-road hardware between you and the speed bump in the Lululemon parking lot. The air springs can increase ground clearance—to a max of 10.0 inches from 8.0—in their tallest setting.
The familiar 355-hp 5.3-liter V-8 adequately carries the 5866-pound Z71. Adequate in this case means a 7.5-second time to 60 mph. We’d expect the High Country trim level’s 420-hp 6.2-liter to be able to lop two seconds off that time, and all non-Z71 Tahoes with the 5.3-liter V-8—LS, RST, LT, and Premier—should be quicker. GM’s excellent light-duty inline-six diesel will be available early next year, too. What you trade for speed in the diesel you should make up for in fuel economy. With the 5.3-liter, the EPA labels the new Tahoe with four-wheel drive with an 18-mpg combined estimate. That’s 1 mpg thriftier than the ’20 model, and part of that is surely due to the adoption of a more sophisticated cylinder-deactivation system. We averaged 14 mpg with the Z71 and suspect that, as with acceleration, the non-Z71 versions will perform a bit better in this metric.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Remarkably, those Goodyear Wrangler TrailRunner AT tires don’t produce the drone we’ve come to expect from knobby off-road-friendly tires. The rushing wind, rather than the hum of tire and road noise, are the predominate soundtrack. In our 70-mph sound-level test, the Tahoe’s cabin registers a luxury-car-like 66 decibels. Skidpad grip is Jeep Wrangler-like at 0.63 g, but we should note how we extracted that, err, performance. The only way to permanently disable the very protective stability-control system is to engage low range. In rear-drive mode, we couldn’t get the truck to corner harder than about 0.44 g. This is a low enough threshold that we suspect some owners will encounter it on a cloverleaf. Keep it within its low limits, and the truck goes down the road quietly and competently. The steering tracks arrow straight, and the brakes inspire confidence with both a 184-foot stop from 70 mph and firm feel.
Tahoes have been on sale since June, so it’s possible you’ve seen one or even two on the road. If you have seen it in person, we think you’ll agree that it’s better than how it looks in photos. And if you’re daydreaming about Tahoes in photos, it looks better in person.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Chevrolet Tahoe Z71
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE AS TESTED $76,175 (base price: $60,495)
ENGINE TYPE pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 325 in3, 5327 cm3Power 355 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque 383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm
TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): control arms/trailing armsTires: Goodyear Wrangler TrailRunner AT, 275/60R-20 115S M+S TPC Spec 2369MS
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 120.9 inLength: 210.7 inWidth: 81.0 inHeight: 75.9 inPassenger volume: 178 ft3Cargo volume: 25 ft3Curb weight: 5866 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 7.5 sec100 mph: 20.5 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.4 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 sec1/4 mile: 15.8 sec @ 89 mphTop speed (governor limited): 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.63 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 18/16/20 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

JEFFREY G. RUSSELLCar and Driver

From the July 2003 issue of Car and Driver.
You might have noticed that periodically we find occasion to be unkind to a vehicle. The introduction of the Mercedes-Benz C230 Kompressor “sports coupe” for the 2002 model year was one such occasion (C/D, October 2001).

Best Sports Cars of 2020

$60K Sports Car Showdown

Forget for a moment our skepticism about the feasibility of any luxury automaker introducing a hatchback model to the small-car-phobic American public. BMW tried precisely the same thing with the 318ti between 1995 and 1999-with spectacularly poor results.
Forget, too, that this Mercedes looked, with its bulging bum and two-pane glass backlight, like a modern Renault (a company that was shamed out of America after foisting the Alliance on our fair country).

For the 2003 model of the C230, Mercedes has largely addressed our engine complaint with an all-new 1.8-liter, all-aluminum supercharged four-cylinder.

No, we were not rude to Mercedes for these reasons. Our real concerns had to do with the function of the automobile: (1) The engine, a 2.3-liter iron-block supercharged four-cylinder, was a far ruder thing than your humble author is on his worst days; (2) the standard-issue six-speed manual transmission was described by us as ropy, rubbery, and uncertain, not to mention just plain poor; (3) despite its “sports coupe” moniker, the C230 was not very sporty.

Even better, with this engine the C230 is, if not exactly transformed, at least a more pleasant thing to use.

For the 2003 model of the C230, Mercedes has largely addressed our engine complaint with an all-new 1.8-liter, all-aluminum supercharged four-cylinder. On paper, this engine would seem to be a step backward for Mercedes. It’s down about a half-liter of displacement compared with the old engine, and it makes less peak horsepower and torque. And it makes those peaks at higher revs. The old 2.3-liter-still the base engine in the SLK hardtop roadster for 2003-makes 192 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 200 pound-feet of torque at 2500 rpm. The new 1.8-liter engine makes 189 horsepower at 5800 rpm and 192 pound-feet of torque at 3500 rpm. Indeed, the sprint to 60 mph for the 1.8-liter 2003 model is an unremarkable 8.1 seconds-more than a half-second slower than the 2002 model. We attribute this, in part, to an engine-management system that will not allow for abusive standing starts. Try as you might, the engine will not rev above 4000 rpm with the clutch pedal in. This is not something most owners-the majority of whom we don’t anticipate will go bracket drag racing-need worry about.
On the other hand, the new motor allows the hatch to go another four or five miles on each gallon of gas, depending on whether you get the six-speed manual or the $1325 optional five-speed automatic.
Even better, with this engine the C230 is, if not exactly transformed, at least a more pleasant thing to use. The previous engine felt weak at low revs, despite its power advantage and greater displacement. Higher in the rev range, the 2.3 was rough. Worse, it sounded as if it had an acute and chronic case of gastrointestinal distress.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2003 Mercedes-Benz C230 Kompressor
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$27,860 (base price: $25,670)
ENGINE TYPE Supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 4-in-line, aluminum block and heads, SIM 4 engine-control system with port fuel injectionDisplacement: 110 cu in, 1796ccPower (SAE net): 189 bhp @ 5800 rpmTorque (SAE net): 192 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 106.9 inLength: 171.0 inCurb weight: 3290 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 8.1 secZero to 100 mph: 21.0 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 8.9 secStanding ¼-mile: 16.0 sec @ 88 mphTop speed (governor limited): 131 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 161 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city driving: 21 mpgC/D observed: 22 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 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 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

From the January 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
Ford’s GT could be the most overhyped car of the decade. We admit we’re in part to blame, paying tribute with 12 pages in this magazine to date, covering every square inch of the reprised Le Mans champion, every engineering iteration, every development Ford threw our way. We’ve driven early mules with nonspec engines, and unfinished prototypes, but up until now, we’d never strapped our test gear onto the car to find out what we all want to know: How fast is it?

2021 Ford GT Gets Heritage and Studio Editions

Ferrari 812 Superfast: Fast as Its Name Implies

Look Back at 20 Years of the Porsche 911 GT3

It’s a simple question. Here’s another: How does the $150,000 supercar stack up against the newest European repli-racers, the $101,965 Porsche 911 GT3 and the $193,324 Ferrari Challenge Stradale?
You’re going to find out, but we should explain why we’ve brought these three cars together. First, all of them are meant to give a race-car-like experience in a street vehicle. The race-car theme has been taken to almost ridiculous extremes both to save weight and to provide the perception of saved poundage.
Race cars don’t have sunroofs or navigation systems or satellite radios, and neither do any of these cars. The Ferrari and the Ford have bare floors. Lightweight and extremely cool carbon-fiber panels adorn the insides of the Ferrari’s doors. You won’t find a spare tire in the group.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Even driver aids that wouldn’t add much weight have been left off. Although each car has anti-lock brakes, none has the software and sensors that turn ABS hardware into stability-control systems. Computer bytes weigh nothing. Will the Stradale be that much faster without its optional radio? All these cars have air conditioning, however, despite the pounds it adds. The race-car fantasy would sour quickly if you were sweating all over your date.
Second, each of these cars has a significant racing heritage. The 911 GT3 shares its engine and gearbox with the racing-version GT3 that won its class at Le Mans last year. The Ferrari shares its internal components with two race cars: the 360 GT, which races in the same class as the GT3, and the 360 Challenge, which runs in the single-make Ferrari Challenge series. The Ford GT is a modern interpretation of the GT40 that finished one-two-three at Le Mans in 1966 and went on to win again in ’67, ’68, and ’69.
The third point is that after devoting so much space to describing the GT, it’s high time we put it up against some worthy opponents, and the GT3 and the Stradale are the newest gunslingers on the block. Plus, at about $100,000 for the Porsche and roughly $200,000 for the Ferrari, the Ford GT’s expected base price of $150,000 neatly bisects the two.
Since these are performance cars, we spent most of our time on the 1.9-mile GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan. We also performed our standard testing regimen, in addition to driving the cars on a very bumpy public-road loop. Along the way to frying three sets of tires, we found a winner.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Porsche 911 GT3
The GT3 is an overachieving sports car. On paper, it should have trailed its two competitors in every performance test. It has the poorest power-to-weight ratio here, with each of its 380 ponies burdened by 8.5 pounds, 15 percent more than the Ferrari’s 425 horses are saddled with. But this is one scrappy car.
It shadowed the more powerful and lighter Ferrari in nearly every acceleration test. The two ran side by side to 60 mph (4.0 seconds) and to 150 (23.9) and were just about equal in the quarter-mile with the Porsche hitting 114 mph in 12.3 seconds and the Ferrari at 115 mph in 12.4.

Highs: Flexible engine, the least expensive of the pack, the most features, lively handling.

We loved the GT3’s aluminum flat-six engine. Its guttural growl provided a wonderful race-car soundtrack, and it revved freely to its 8200-rpm redline. Even though the peak torque of 284 pound-feet occurs at a fairly high 5000 rpm, there’s still plenty of grunt at lower rpm, and the throttle response is prompt.
We weren’t so thrilled with the shifting action of the six-speed manual transmission. Our test car had a rubbery linkage that didn’t provide a clear path through the gears. We had to be very deliberate with the shifts, and that extra effort probably cost the GT3 a 10th or so in the acceleration times.
No time was lost on the skidpad as the GT3 pulled an astonishing 1.03 g, a figure that’s been bested by only one other street car, the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo. The Stradale and the GT trailed the Porsche by 0.05 g.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Using all that grip on the racetrack took some practice because the GT3 likes to swing its tail. If we entered one of GingerMan’s long corners a little too fast and lifted off the gas to tuck in the front end, the tail would immediately swing wide. But it didn’t snap—we always caught the slide—although we found ourselves countersteering quite a bit.

Lows: To some, lively means evil; flat, unsupportive seats.

Regardless, it was great fun. If we wanted, we could dirt-track through the corners Dukes of Hazzard-style. The problem was there didn’t seem to be a happy medium in the handling. It was a case of powering through the turns and dealing with the front-tire slide that would put it wide of the intended arc, or backing off a little and trying to catch the inevitable flick-out of the rear end. As a result, you are always correcting something in the GT3.
We would have had an easier time if the seats held us in place better. While cornering at the GT3’s very high limits, we were sliding all over the seat, which made it hard to work the pedals precisely.
Still, that willingness to rotate did help the GT3 polish off the corners with ease and post a 1:34.15 lap time, 0.04 second ahead of the more highly powered, lighter Ferrari (see track map above). Our car also had the optional ceramic brakes, which refused to fade.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All three cars have stiff suspensions, so even though the Porsche was the best-riding car of the bunch, it was still a roughrider. It also displayed quite a bit of bump steer and tended to dart around the road as the tires followed any new groove they encountered.
The Ferrari costs almost twice what the Porsche does and isn’t quicker, so what’s the GT3 doing in third place? As good as it was, those unsupportive seats cost it some points, as did the balky shifter. In addition, it came down to the cachet of the two others. If ever a 911 could feel plain, it does in the company of the Stradale and Ford GT. It did have the most features, including cruise control, a CD player, even a trip computer.

The Verdict: The return of the bad-boy Porsche—fun, fast, and with a real kick.

Before you castigate us and opine that clearly we should have opted for the 477-hp Porsche 911 GT2 for this test, keep in mind that its $192,000 price tag would have evaporated the high value here, and based on previous experience, we doubt it would have been fast enough to offset its higher price.
2004 Porsche 911 GT3380-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3219 lbBase/as-tested price: $101,965/$120,965C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 114 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.03 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ferrari Challenge Stradale
You won’t find another car here that gets your heart thumping like this Ferrari. But you pay for the pleasure, and we’re not just talking about the price.
Stripped of sound insulation and carpeting and with noise-amplifying carbon fiber in place of the usual leather door panels, this Ferrari doesn’t simply let the noise in, it invites it. When the aluminum 40-valve V-8 sings its primal scream, no one cares that it blows 93 on the decibel meter (a Honda Accord hits about 74 dBA). When you’re cruising, the predominant sounds of the suspension thumping over every road imperfection and the carbon-fiber trim bits squeaking against one another get tiresome almost immediately. How much could a radio weigh?

Highs: A primal engine note that leaves your knees wobbling, fantastic seats.

The Stradale is the most powerful and lightest roadgoing 360 ever built. The 425-hp V-8 has 30 more horses than the 360 Modena. Credit a slightly higher compression ratio (11.2:1 versus 11.0:1) and freer-flowing intake and exhaust systems for the new juice.
Ferrari saved 139 pounds (the Stradale weighs 3152) via the aforementioned missing radio, carpet, and sound insulation; the use of carbon fiber for the rear hatch, door skins, center tunnel, and seat buckets; and ceramic brake rotors.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Stradales are only available with the F1 gearbox that automatically operates the clutch and performs the shifts. All the driver has to do is pull on one of two steering-column-mounted paddles: right for upshifts, left for down. There is no fully automatic mode, but the F1 gearbox will automatically select first gear at a complete stop. Our car also had a launch-control system that greatly helped standing-start acceleration runs.
Once you’ve pressed the right buttons to turn on launch control, you simply bring the engine revs to the desired level and lift off the brake. The computer then performs a perfect burnout on your behalf. After some experimenting, we found that about 3000 rpm produced the quickest runs.

Lows: Every thump makes it through the interior, choppy ride, $200K won’t get you a radio.

We think we could have gone a little quicker with a fully manual system, but still, the Stradale’s 4.0-second blast to 60 mph was 0.6 second quicker than the last 360 Modena we tested.
Ferrari says its cars are not about the numbers. Considering that the Ferrari finished ahead of the Porsche in voting while costing so much more and not being quicker, we’d have to say the company’s right. On the track, the Ferrari was the easiest of the group to drive.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The handling balance is the opposite of the Porsche’s: The Stradale only wags its tail when wildly provoked. Yet it doesn’t clumsily push through the corners, either. It didn’t feel like the lightest, nimblest car here—that’s the Porsche’s terrain—but it did feel the most solid, the most planted. We did our top-speed testing on a windy day, and with the Porsche jumping around dramatically, we didn’t have the cojones to bring it to its claimed 190-mph top end. The Ferrari was just the opposite—buttoned down, secure, undramatic. We ran it to 176 mph with nary a white knuckle. The steering, too, is precise and communicative.
The seats are fantastic and prove once again that thinly padded deep buckets are good both at the track and on the street. We did have some trouble locating the right shift paddle while cornering, but we got used to it. And we never grew tired of hearing the engine. It really is the sweetest-sounding motor available. Every time we headed off on a lapping session, crowds formed at the starter’s stand.

The Verdict: Presses automotive buttons we didn’t know we had.

Any complaints? Well, there’s a lot of road noise, and the suspension is harsh. It soaks up big bumps fine but reverberates over small holes and cracks. Still, although the Ferrari couldn’t outrun the less-expensive Porsche, we’d sell our homes if it meant we could hear that engine every day.
2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale425-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3152 lbBase/as-tested price: $193,324/$193,324C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 115 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg

First Place: Ford GT

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It wasn’t even a contest. The Ford GT so completely dusted off its two highly recognized competitors that if we had wanted to make this a real challenge, we would have had to go way up the “supercar” price ladder. The $401,000 Saleen S7 is about as quick as the Ford GT, and we know of only one car that would surely outrun the Ford–the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo.
Rocketing the GT to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and to 150 in 16.9 (that’s an incredible seven seconds quicker than the Porsche and the Ferrari) was a cinch. Unlike some other supercars that have hair-trigger clutches with monstrously heavy pedal efforts, the GT’s clutch was as easy to operate as a Honda Accord’s.

Highs: Fantastic performance, updated vintage skin is Jack Nicholson cool.

It’ll do burnouts until the tires disintegrate, but we found that gently spinning the tires at the launch with careful throttle modulation produced jack-rabbit starts. The Ferrari and the Porsche both require an upshift before 60 mph, but the Ford does not, which accounts for some of the huge sprint-time advantage.
But Ford can use a tall first gear because the engine has an enormously wide power band. In this comparo, it had the crispest throttle response. In the rolling-start test to 60 mph, where the gas pedal is floored at 5 mph, the GT hooked up and simply bolted, reaching 60 in 3.7 seconds, a full second quicker than the GT3 and 0.7 second faster than the Ferrari.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The rear tires do a fantastic job of turning the engine’s mighty 500 pound-feet of torque (besting both the others by more than 200 pound-feet) into forward motion without losing traction. Although lots of rear traction sounds like a recipe for an understeering car, that was not the case.
The Ford tied the Ferrari for skidpad grip (0.98 g), and it handily outran the others in the lane-change test (70.1 mph versus the Porsche’s 67.6 and the Ferrari’s 67.2). The GT’s handling neatly combined what we like best about the two other cars: It had the rock-solid stability of the Ferrari with less tendency to understeer, and although its tail could be gradually swung out, it wasn’t as eager to do so as the Porsche.

Lows: Somehow, could use more mechanical soul.

What really made for the GT’s stunning two-second-per-lap advantage–it ran a lap in 1:32.13–was its ability to put the power down while exiting a corner. A tire that’s cornering is more likely to spin if you give the car too much throttle. In the Porsche and Ferrari, sloppy throttle work resulted in a power slide. The GT hunkered down and dug out of the corners with impressive verve. Its corner-exit speeds were almost always higher than the others’. And even though the Ford did not have fancy ceramic brake rotors, its brakes never faded, and it stopped from 70 mph in the shortest distance (153 feet versus 167 for the GT3 and Stradale).

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Ford said it had not completed top-speed development and asked us not to go faster than 170 mph, so we can’t answer the top-speed question yet. The projections in Dearborn are for more than 200 mph. Considering how mightily it was accelerating at 170 mph (it got there in only 23.0 seconds), we’d have to say Ford is right.
Shortcomings? The GT rides about as stiffly as the Ferrari. The wide A-pillar blocks some of your vision. We’d like more steering feedback. The ratio and the turn-in response are fine, but you don’t get any sense of what the tires are up to. The whole car has a kind of robotic feel to it when compared with the lusty Ferrari. There’s no supercharger whine, none of the classic V-8 burble, and the cable shifter feels lifeless. Plus, the seats in our test car were hopelessly flat and uncomfortable. Ford says a change is in the works.

The Verdict: A worthy successor to the original.

Maybe we’re being too picky here, because for the money, you get not only one of the coolest shapes on the road but also one of the best-performing new cars you can buy. Period. It’s gratifying to know at last that the heavily hyped Ford GT does indeed deliver the goods.
2005 Ford GT500-hp supercharged V-8, 6-speed manual, 3429 lbBase/as-tested price: $150,000/$150,000 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 3.3 sec1/4 mile: 11.6 @ 128 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 153 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 gEPA city/highway fuel economy: 14/21 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More