Car Reviews

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

The Verdict: Nice, if you have the cash.

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

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

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

Lows: A few cheap touches.

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

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

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

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

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

Specifications

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

From the September 1986 Issue of Car and Driver.

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

The Quickest Ferraris We’ve Ever Tested

Tested: 1995 Supercar Olympics

Tested: Six-Way 2005 Supercar Comparison Test

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

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

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

2014 Chevrolet Corvette vs 1990 Ferrari Testarossa

I Have a Huge Soft Spot for the Ferrari Testarossa

Is This Ferrari Testarossa Super Rad or Just Ugly?

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

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

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

View Photos

CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER

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

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $98,665 (base price: $94,000)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC flat-12, aluminum block and heads
Displacement: 302 cu in, 4943 ccPower: 380 hp @ 5750 rpmTorque: 354 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 100.4 inLength: 176.6 inWidth: 77.8 in Height: 44.5 inCurb weight: 3766 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 secZero to 100 mph: 12.0 secZero to 130 mph: 22.0 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 7.6 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 7.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 13.3 sec @ 107 mphTop speed: 176 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway: 10/15 mpgC/D observed: 14 mpg

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

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

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Every Full-Size Pickup Truck Ranked

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

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

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

Specifications

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

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

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

2021 Lexus IS Gets Redesign, Handling Upgrades

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

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

Specifications

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

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

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

Quickest Pickup Trucks We’ve Ever Tested

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

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

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

Specifications

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

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

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

From the September 2002 issue of Car and Driver.
Turns out not everyone who wants the visual vim and patriotic panache of an American sports coupe finds it necessary to personally supervise each and every gear selection by operating that lever located between the front seats. Take these three cars, which are the entire menu of sporty Big Three two-doors competing in the $25,000 neighborhood. Although two of the three (the Mustang and the Stratus) come with manual gearboxes as standard equipment, most owners prefer to leave the shifting to the car’s engine-transmission management system. (Asterisk: To their credit, about 55 percent of Mustang GT and SVT Cobra buyers want to manage gear selection for themselves. But that percentage drops to 33 when base Mustangs, with V-6 engines, are factored into the equation. The mix skews much more heavily toward minimal driver involvement with the Stratus two-door — 78 percent are automatics, and even for the sportier R/Ts, it’s 77 percent.) And since the Monte Carlo is automatic only, we specified automatics for all the players.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

We didn’t invite the Stratus-twin Chrysler Sebring, or the walking-dead Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird, since their contracts won’t be renewed for 2003, and then learned that another apparently eligible contender — the two-door version of the Pontiac Grand Prix — had also been consigned to history. The two-door Grand Prix went out of production in August, and there won’t be an equivalent car in the Excitement Division lineup until the Americanized version of the Holden Monaro makes its appearance as the 2004 GTO.
The U.S. sports-coupe hood count doesn’t increase much even when you throw a lasso around the entire category. The Ford ZX2 and Mercury Cougar both disappear at the end of the ’02 model year, making the low end of the spectrum an all-General Motors show: the aging Chevy Cavalier Z24 and Pontiac Sunfire GT, and the new-for-’03 Saturn Ion, which replaces the SC lineup. And that’s the lot.
Since we were insistent about transmission choice, you may wonder why there’s a disparity in price and, in particular, power. Here’s the rationale. The Monte Carlo SS, which wound up wearing the heaviest price tag of our trio, starts at $23,860. That’s a lot more than a manual Mustang V-6 at $18,100 ($18,915 for an automatic). Since it was possible to have V-8 power and stay within the pricing parameters, we opted for the GT. However, the Mustang that showed up for this showdown was loaded with other goodies, including some $1300 worth of audio add-ons.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

The Stratus was shortest on muscle — 200 hp and 205 pound-feet of torque are as good as it gets — but by checking enough options boxes, we didn’t have much trouble getting it into the same price stratum as its cross-town competitors.
Our flog was conducted near the small town of Coshocton, Ohio, home of Roscoe Village (and Bob Brenly, the sign said). Make that Historic Roscoe Village — a collection of restored buildings on a street paved with bricks, established during the heyday of the Ohio & Erie Canal (from 1825). And how Ohio is this? The burg’s big restaurant closes at 8 p.m. Nearby, we encountered some meandering roads in the hilly country west of town that we had not previously pillaged.
Would power prevail over sophistication and style? Only one way to find out.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Third Place: Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS
Remember Cool Hand Luke? There was that wonderful moment when the warden (Strother Martin) returned a battered Luke (Paul Newman) to the slammer and told the assembled inmates, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” So it is with the Monte Carlo SS. Chevy advertises “dual personality,” portraying a car that’s “classy with a wild streak.” There are also allusions to the cars roaring around NASCAR tracks — never mind that the real commonality between the two versions is that they both have four wheels.

Highs: Plentiful torque, excellent fit and finish, voluminous rear seat.

Where does the communications failure reside? Probably at our end, because try as we may, we find it impossible to embrace the notion that this car can satisfy the inner racer. Comfortable? Yes. Roomy? Yes, tops in this group. Solid? No question, arguably the best in this threesome. But sporty? Sorry. This car is as frisky and fun-loving as an Arthur Andersen accountant.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

So, to review: The Monte Carlo (as well as the Impala sedan) shares the same foundation as the Pontiac Grand Prix, the Olds Intrigue, and a brace of Buicks, the Regal and the Century. This is one of the best front-drive platforms in GM’s passenger-car inventory. Overall chassis rigidity is high, and we were also impressed by the fine quality of assembly fit and finish.
Chassis rigidity is a key component in good handling, but Chevy seems unwilling to take any chances in this realm. Even with the heavier anti-roll bars and bigger tires on the SS version, the Monte’s all-strut suspension is conservatively tuned to deliver smooth ride quality on most surfaces, plus the predictability of progressive understeer. Add steering that substitutes effort for feel, and you have a device that makes back-road driving more chore than pleasure.

Lows: Regressive styling, Novocain steering, absolute absence of fun-to-drive factor.

“There’s a pervading heaviness to this car that makes it feel slow-witted, slow on its feet, and generally reluctant,” opined one logbook scribbler.
The powertrain in the SS consists of GM’s deathless 3.8-liter pushrod V-6 mated with a 4T65-E GM automatic. We called the old 3800 “solid, pleasantly torquey, and nearly bulletproof” in our September 1999 road test of the Monte, and that opinion holds today. But it’s no JATO unit. Despite its advantage in torque, the SS edged the Stratus by a mere 0.1 second to 60 mph, 8.6 seconds versus 8.7, and the same was true of its quarter-mile performance — 16.6 seconds at 84 mph. Why Chevrolet doesn’t offer the supercharged version of the 3800 V-6 mystifies us, but we attribute this sluggishness to mass: at 3515 pounds, the Monte was this test’s fat guy.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

It was also the biggest. Although the Mustang is a bit wider, the Monte Carlo is distinctly longer and taller than its rivals, with a much longer wheelbase. Thus, it’s not too surprising that the Monte also delivered by far the roomiest cabin, with a back seat that can accommodate three adults in something closely resembling comfort. We were also impressed with the ergonomics, particularly the dash-mounted ignition switch, the sound system, and even the roomy leather-clad seating, although all hands wished for more lateral support.
Our test car was adorned with some $5000 worth of options, including a $2100 High Sport Appearance package that included, among other things, a “racing-inspired rear spoiler.” None of the elements enhances performance, and knocking a couple grand off the total probably makes the Monte Carlo a more attractive buy to someone, although not to us.

The Verdict: A sport two-door well-suited to the relaxed-fit era.

“If you can ignore the Martian styling,” concluded one tester, “this is a very nice car. But it’s really selling comfort and style, not sportiness.” Amen.
2002 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3515 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,860/$28,930C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.6 sec1/4 mile: 16.6 @ 84 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 206 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ford Mustang GT
Here’s a face that is nothing if not familiar. Although its visage was modestly revitalized for the 1999 model year, the Mustang looks pretty much as it has since its 1994 makeover. Nine years is a long time for a design to endure, but it’s a mere eye blink compared with the age of what lies beneath. Although subjected to numerous surgical procedures conceived to stiffen its spine and thus keep old age at bay, the bones of Ford’s pony car date more or less directly to the Fairmont sedan, circa 1978. That’s the automotive equivalent of the Lascaux cave paintings, and even though the chassis guys have managed to keep this survivor spry, the ancient underpinnings show to disadvantage within, where space and layout are defined and limited by the relatively short wheelbase and live axle.

Highs: V-8 punch. athletic character. mysterious Mustang magic.

Ford’s interior design crew did a nice job of blending now with then (i.e., 1964) during the 1994 makeover, but they were unable to entirely eliminate the awkward relationship of seat, steering wheel, and foot pedals. We never quite got comfortable in the Mustang, and the seats drew some caustic comments: “Like padded lawn chairs,” wrote one tester.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

That’s an exaggeration, but it’s fair to say the limited lateral support is disappointing in a car wearing GT badges. So was the relatively high seating position, undoubtedly designed to compensate for the high cowl. The rear seat is restrictive to the point of torment; two adults can be wedged in there for short hauls, longer if they happen to be adults you dislike.
A few other strikes against the inner Mustang: The old-line climate controls, which are being phased out in other Fords, are anachronistic; the dark-gray color scheme is almost more oppressive than the Chevy’s all-black treatment; and the Mach 1000 audio system, whose multiple amps consume a fair percentage of the trunk space, doesn’t sound like $1295 worth to us. And there’s nothing new to say about the Mustang’s exterior. You either like those chunky, muscular lines, or you don’t — our crew varies on that subject, but we’re unanimous in our opinion of the fake hood and side scoops: oh, puh-leeze.

Lows: Awkward ergonomics. low-rent climate controls. fake scoopery. iron-maiden back seat.

Dated though it is, with its live-axle rear suspension, the Mustang drew acceptable marks on the dynamic side of the ledger. There was some logbook carping about stiff ride quality and road noise transmitted through the suspension — a function, we suspect, of bushings with pretty stern durometers — but the Mustang’s cornering attitudes were the least nautical, its steering was both quick and tactile, and its braking performance (187 feet from 70 mph, with limited fade) was the best of this bunch, but unremarkable versus all sports coupes.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

The element that really kept the Mustang out of the cellar was located just under its ductless hood scoop — that “throaty V-8” so loved by William Clay Ford Jr., whose last name adorns a number of buildings in Dearborn, as well as this car. There was some unhappiness with the action of the four-speed automatic transmission — “Feels confused,” said one tester, “jerky upshifts, delayed downshifts” — but even so it motored merrily away from its rivals in almost all acceleration categories: 6.3 seconds to 60, 15.1 seconds at 93 mph in the quarter. They’re best in this test.

The Verdict: Not getting any newer, but clearly the best performance buy in this bunch.

Subtracting the $1295 audio system and the $815 automatic transmission from the as-tested price would improve our opinion of this car. Still, it’s clear that this first and last of the pony cars is overdue for the major overhaul that’s coming for 2004. If we were in the market for a Mustang, we’d wait.
2002 Ford Mustang GT260-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 3495 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,845/$27,125C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.3 sec1/4 mile: 15.1 @ 93 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

First Place: Dodge Stratus R/T

Highs: Uptown styling. unflappable deportment. AutoStick manumatic.

Dodge updated its two-door for the 2001 model year, a process that included a name change — from Avenger to Stratus — and offered two new engine choices. The R/T is distinguished by 17-inch wheels, a little more tire contact patch, a little less sidewall, bigger brakes, a bigger rear anti-roll bar, and, the key feature, a standard 3.0-liter SOHC 24-valve V-6. The engine, as well as much of the chassis, is from Mitsubishi, and it’s shared with the Eclipse sports coupe. It’s a far more salubrious propulsion system than the previous V-6, a rather asthmatic 2.5-liter, and if you must have an automatic transmission, the DaimlerChrysler four-speed AutoStick is about as good as it gets, allowing manual operation with very little of the override that goes with some manumatics. Still, it damped the Dodge’s dash to 60 mph — 8.7 seconds, more than a second slower than a manual model we acquired for comparison purposes. Only at higher speeds did the R/T’s superior aero begin to assert itself. Although its 0-to-100 time — 23.8 seconds — was almost three seconds slower than the manual R/T and more than six seconds adrift of the Mustang, it was nevertheless two seconds quicker than the Monte Carlo. It also gave a good account of itself in passing performance with the quickest time — 5.3 seconds — from 50 to 70 mph. And it sounded sweet at any speed.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Where the Stratus surprised us most was on the byways of the Ohio outback. Given its excellent ride quality, we anticipated more rock and roll in the hinterlands, but the reality was otherwise. Inevitably, there was body roll, plus some up-and-down suspension motion, but well-controlled. When it understeered, a quick lift and/or left-foot touch on the brake pedal brought the nose back on the desired line. For all its modest skidpad performance—the all-season Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires managed just 0.79 g on the black lake—the Stratus bites into corners and hangs on like a terrier grabbing a muskrat. Although we’d prefer a little less power assist, the steering is precise, and the car turns in decisively and changes direction briskly. Perhaps we shouldn’t have been so surprised, given the R/T’s decisive edge in the double-lane-change exercise—3 mph quicker than the Mustang—but it was a surprise of the pleasant variety.
It doesn’t take a very keen eye to see that the Stratus is the cosmetic pacesetter in this troika. The rakish lines that make the Dodge Intrepid so sexy look just as seductive on a smaller scale, if not more so. Moreover, it’s a shape that makes its two opponents look dated and dowdy.

Lows: Limited power. excess steering assist.

For all its eye appeal, though, the elements that make the Stratus so striking — the steeply raked windshield and even steeper rear window — create some irritating side effects inside the car. Accommodating the windshield angle, for example, required a long upper dashboard, which negates, to some degree, the advantage of the car’s low cowl. Forward sightlines are compromised. Looking aft, the rear parcel shelf slopes sharply upward to meet the backlight, requiring constant fiddling with the rearview mirror to avoid seeing a reflection of the shelf and its three inset vents.
Elsewhere, the R/T’s interior treatment — executed in tastefully contrasting dark and dove grays — got top marks. There were those who were a little uneasy with the various fighter-plane visual cues that busied the dashboard, smacking, as they did, of creeping Pontiacism. But the many plastics had a quality look, the gray leather upholstery was creamy, and if the front seats were a bit deficient in lateral support on the back roads, they were long-haul comfortable. Long-haul comfort doesn’t quite extend to the rear-seat space, but two can ride back there for short hauls without cramping major muscle groups, and it’s possible to squeeze in three without resorting to Mazola.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Like its rivals’, the as-tested price of our Status R/T was inflated by a fair amount of optional gear. An automatic transmission, for example, adds $825, and if you want the AutoStick feature—you do, you do—be prepared to pony up another $165. We’d also broom the polished-aluminum wheels ($375). However, most of the other big-ticket extras—anti-lock brakes ($740), a power sunroof ($695), the leather interior group ($1045)—make the car more desirable and seem worth the extra dough.

The Verdict: Delivers on the promise of its slick packaging.

In any case, the Stratus R/T rates a high value index. Add comfort, athleticism, and best-in-test good looks, and you have a winning recipe—at least in this all-Motor City cook-off. How the Stratus would fare versus out-of-town competitors is a story for another day.
2002 Dodge Stratus R/T200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3376 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,985/$25,955C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4 mile: 16.7 @ 85 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 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