Car Reviews

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

From the April 1999 issue of Car and Driver.

Who ever thought a factory Mustang would command a price of $28,000? More surprising, who could have imagined that a Mustang would have an independent rear suspension (IRS)? Well, the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra lays claim to both those surprises and makes a strong case that the latter (abetted by a new 320-horsepower version of the four-cam, alloy-block 4.6-liter V-8) justifies the former.

Camaro ZL1 1LE vs. Challenger SRT vs. Shelby GT500

Tested: 1999 Drop-top Muscle Cars

Certainly, the new IRS lends real credence to the Cobra as a serious performance car, taming the old car’s occasional tail-happy tendencies, improving the ride (mainly by reducing pitching motions), and reducing the transmission of road noise into the cabin. It also looks cool on the stand.

Consisting of a welded-up tubular sub-frame that cradles an aluminum diff housing (borrowed from the late Lincoln Mark VIII), assorted steel and alloy control arms, toe-control links, and a pair of coil springs and gas-pressure shocks, the IRS module bolts directly to existing pickup points on the Mustang unibody. All it takes to retrofit this item to a solid-axle Mustang is a special bracket on the GT’s normal shock mount. That and the considerable sum Ford’s Special Vehicle Team (SVT) will undoubtedly charge for all the IRS components soon to appear in its catalog.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The new IRS module provides the Cobra with a slightly wider track (by 1.2 inches), more suspension travel, and less lift under braking, which translates to less perceived dive at the front end. The IRS setup also provides a 125-pound reduction in unsprung weight, despite being 80 pounds heavier than the old live-axle suspension.

At least the increase in mass improves the car’s weight distribution and motivated SVT engineers to lighten the front end, where they trimmed 50 pounds. Of that, 20 pounds came off the engine, six from the adoption of a coil-on-plug direct ignition system. Whereas the previous car had a 57/43 fore-to-aft relationship, the Cobra now shows a 55/45 split. In the end, this test car was 110 pounds lighter than our last Cobra.

Highs: Willing engine, gnarly exhaust note, improved chassis dynamics.

The engine gets a new tumble-port cylinder-head design that improves combustion efficiency and helps bump output to 320 hp at 6000 rpm and 317 pound-feet of torque at 4750. That’s an increase of 15 hp and 17 lb-ft over last year’s Cobra. Given its 7.5-percent power-to-weight advantage relative to our last identically geared Cobra, we expected to hit 60 mph in about five seconds flat, but 5.5 was the best we could do—0.1 second slower than the previous model. Top speed was also down, from 153 to just 149 mph in the slightly more aerodynamic car, all of which confirms that our low-mileage prototype test car wasn’t making a full head of steam.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

1994 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra Road Test

1980 Ford Mustang Cobra Road Test

Ford’s Hot ‘Stang: ’95 SVT Cobra R

Straight-line performance may have missed the target, but more important to sporty drivers is the feel of the Cobra on twisty pavement. The IRS makes the car feel more supple and thus more readable in corners. The rear end is less susceptible to bump steer than before, and as the geometry has been set up for a touch of toe-out as the car begins to heel over, then for toe-in (and safe understeer at the rear axle) at full lean, its off-center steering response is better, and its handling is more neutral at the limit. Hence, 0.03 g better skidpad performance at 0.88 g.
Even power-induced oversteer through Turn Three at Willow Springs raceway could be easily modulated at the throttle, allowing the driver’s right foot to control rotation through the corner. This kind of handling finesse was not available from the solid-axle car.
On smooth California pavement, it was hard to discern any comfort gained from the IRS based on our distant memory of the previous Cobra. Obviously, corrugated surfaces no longer produce the yaw found on solid-axle-equipped cars, and the new Cobra also handles two-wheel bumps with little tail hop.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The IRS seems to put the power down well, too, although it shudders a bit during full-power wheelspin starts of the kind needed to generate good acceleration times. Few owners will subject their cars to this treatment, and indeed, most will drive around with the standard-equipment full-range traction control switched on. This device (supplied by Bosch) detects wheel-speed disparities and intercedes by first retarding the ignition, then manipulating the fuel regime, cutting off cylinders to reduce torque. If the condition persists at speeds up to 62 mph, it will also apply a brake to direct torque to the other wheel.

Lows: Dated ergonomics, balky shifter.

The neat part about the Cobra’s traction control is that it has a so-called power-start feature that allows the driver to make wheelspin starts as long as both front wheels are spinning at the same rate. That’s how it knows the car is going straight-ahead. The rear axle incorporates a Traction-Loc limited-slip mechanism, and all Mustangs now run the same 3.27:1 final-drive ratio.
Naturally, the new Cobra inherits the slightly blocky styling of the 1999 Mustang, but it has is own unique features. The front fascia for one thing, and the Cobra R—like hood, for another. New forged alloy wheels are fitted, and they wear 245/45ZR-17 BFGoodrich Comp T/A tires that do a good job of keeping the Mustang on line, albeit with a fairly intrusive sound playback that starts at moderate cornering speeds as a low growl, then builds to a penetrating howl at the limit.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The engine pulls well, particularly from 3000 rpm up to its power peak at 6000 rpm, but there isn’t a rush to the redline like there is with GM’s LS1 motor, and revving the Ford V-8 beyond 6500 isn’t very productive. However, keep the Ford mill in its sweet band, and you’re rewarded with good power and one of the least inhibited exhaust notes in the business.
That power goes to ground via a new 11-inch clutch and a T45 five-speed box (now made by Tremec under license from Borg-Warner). The T45 gets the job done, but it isn’t the smoothest, most precise cog swapper around. In fact, at Willow Springs, where you rush out of a downhill left-hander in second gear into a right sweep onto the back straight, it takes real concentration to keep the car pointed and find third gear.
It’s fair to say that none of the other shifts is slick and natural-feeling, either. The best one can say is that selections are mechanically positive. But in every other way the Cobra manifests considerable refinement. The car’s structure may have retained seat, shifter, wheel, and pedal positions for enough years to accentuate their inconvenience for extremely tall drivers (for whom the seat does not track back enough and for whom the control relationships are never optimal), but it has received enough reinforcement and tuning tweaks to provide civilized levels of noise, vibration, and harshness, even at the new performance level.

The Verdict: The Cobra finally gets its independence, but we’re still not sure it makes the car better than a Z28.

Who said there’s no gain without pain?

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2 passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $28,190
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-Valve V-8 engine, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 281 cu in, 4601ccPower: 320 bhp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 317 lb-ft@ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 101 .3 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.1 in Height: 53.5 inCurb weight: 3285 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 13.8 secZero to 130 mph: 27.6 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 10.4 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 10.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mphTop speed (drag limited): 149 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway driving: 17/26 mpgC/D observed: 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

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

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Every Full-Size Pickup Truck Ranked

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

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

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

Specifications

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

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

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

2021 Lexus IS Gets Redesign, Handling Upgrades

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

Specifications

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

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