More stories

  • in

    2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer: Lots of Show, Not Much Go

    Small SUVs started out as off-road-capable beach cruisers. But as the smallest cars die out, the little SUV has taken on the entry-level role in many showrooms. Since they are replacing cars, it makes sense that they drive, handle, and act more like cars and less like, say, a Geo Tracker.

    HIGHS: Sharp exterior styling, spacious and comfortable cabin, nimble around town.

    Perhaps you’re wondering where the $19,995 Trailblazer will fit in a Chevrolet showroom that already has the Trax. Good question. The Trailblazer is slightly larger than the Trax but has a lower base price. Still confused? Well, as the smallest-SUV class grows, brands have started to double dip in the segment, effectively splitting it. Buick has the Encore and Encore GX, Hyundai sells the Venue and the Kona, and Mazda throws the CX-3 and the CX-30 at the same segment.

    The Chevy Trailblazer Returns as a Crossover

    2021 Chevy Trailblazer Full Pricing Announced

    We drove the top two trim levels: the Activ and RS, and both examples carried identical $30,580 price tags that are far beyond the very basic base Trailblazer. They’re also far more stylish than the base version and its wheel covers. Activ is intended to convey a rugged vibe, and the RS is supposed to be the sportier alternative. Both come standard with 17- or 18-inch aluminum wheels and an 8.0-inch infotainment display. Both of our test vehicles came equipped with the $1720 Technology package, which adds wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, an inductive smartphone charging pad, adaptive cruise control, and LED headlights.

    View Photos

    Chevrolet

    Upgrade to a Three
    Under the hood of every Trailblazer is a turbocharged three-cylinder engine. There must be some shame in a three-banger since Chevy has gone to great lengths to scrub all mentions of the phrase “three-cylinder” from its press and marketing materials. Buyers won’t even find that phrase on the Trailblazer’s dealership window sticker. Base versions get a turbocharged 1.2-liter that makes a meager 137 horsepower, while a 155-hp turbocharged 1.3-liter three-cylinder serves as the upgrade. A continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT) comes standard with both engines. Opting for all-wheel drive means stepping up to the 1.3-liter, and that combination swaps in a nine-speed automatic for the CVT.

    LOWS: The acceleration and power delivery you expect of a tiny three-cylinder engine, harsh ride, doesn’t make much sense at $30,000.

    We tested an all-wheel-drive RS model and can both subjectively and objectively conclude that the Trailblazer is slow. The turbo-three offers a decent amount of low-end grunt, but it quickly gives up as revs climb and speeds increase. The 50-to-70-mph merge onto a freeway is a 7.0-second affair, plenty of time to gesture to your fellow motorists to please let you in.

    View Photos

    Chevrolet

    Hitting 60 mph takes a leisurely 9.4 seconds, and the quarter mile passes in a yawn-inducing 17.1 seconds. These numbers aren’t the worst we’ve recorded in the subcompact-SUV segment—that dishonor belongs to the Toyota C-HR and its 10.9-second zero-to-60-mph time—but they’re disappointing. At the other end of the performance spectrum, the similarly sized Kia Seltos’s turbocharged four-cylinder motivated it to 60 mph in just 6.6 seconds. And don’t forget: The 1.3-liter is the upgrade engine.
    A downsized three-cylinder engine theoretically improves fuel economy, but the Trailblazer’s mpg ratings aren’t much better than many four-cylinder rivals. The Trailblazer managed a thrifty 31 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, but the Seltos returned 30 mpg, and the Subaru Crosstrek achieved 32 mpg.
    The Trailblazer RS’s exterior might be inspired by the Camaro and its big brother, the Blazer, but its moves are anything but. Quick steering gives it an agile feeling around town, but the RS and Activ models we drove were darty at highway speeds. It takes some getting used to, particularly on the highway when attempting minor course corrections to keep the Chevy on track. The quick steering is more appreciated on a twisty road, but the Trailblazer doesn’t impart a feeling of eagerness in the same way that the sportier-feeling Mazda CX-30 does. What’s more, the Trailblazer RS’s 18-inch wheels lead to a rough ride. And we didn’t find the Activ’s 17-inch wheels and taller tire sidewalls to provide much more compliance.

    View Photos

    Chevrolet

    Comfort and Space
    The Trailblazer shines as a people mover and offers over five more cubic feet of interior space than the Trax. There’s plenty of space inside and good rear-seat legroom, and four adults fit comfortably under its high roof. The 25 cubic feet of cargo space behind the second row is seven cubes larger than the Trax, and the cargo floor can be adjusted to create a flat surface when the rear seats are folded. The front passenger’s seatback can also fold forward, allowing the Trailblazer to accommodate longer items.
    The Trailblazer is one of the best-looking vehicles in its class. But while the design inside and out hits the mark, the three-cylinder engine lets down the driving experience. We can see why Chevy appears to want to keep quiet about it. There’s also the matter of the high as-tested prices of the Activ and RS trim levels. A more powerful engine would certainly make us more forgiving of the high as-tested price. Rivals like the CX-30 and Hyundai Kona offer a superior driving experience and better value.

    Specifications

    Specifications
    2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer RS AWD
    VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
    PRICE AS TESTED $30,580 (base price: $27,895)
    ENGINE TYPE turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 82 in3, 1338 cm3Power 155 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque 174 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
    TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic
    CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/torsion beamBrakes (F/R): 11.8-in vented disc/10.4-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT, 225/55R-18 98H M+S TPC SPEC 3139 MS
    DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 173.7 inWidth: 71.2 inHeight: 65.7 inPassenger volume: 98 ft3Cargo volume: 25 ft3Curb weight: 3323 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 9.4 sec100 mph: 31.9 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 10.2 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 4.8 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 7.0 sec1/4 mile: 17.1 sec @ 80 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g*stability-control-inhibitedStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 31 mpgHighway range: 400 miles
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 28/26/30 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

  • in

    2021 Alpina XB7 Throws a Three-Ton Haymaker

    As proof that Germans have a sense of humor, Alpina invited us to drive the new X7-based Alpina XB7 exclusively on a racetrack. And the track Alpina chose wasn’t even big and spacious; it was the tight Bilster Berg circuit near Paderborn, a course that been likened to a miniaturized Nürburgring Nordschliefe. There are 19 corners and more than 650 feet of elevation change in only 2.6 miles. It’s not the most obvious place to make acquaintance with a 5900-pound SUV. There was supposed to be a road-driving part of the program, but global pandemic restrictions meant cars couldn’t be readied in time.

    2019 BMW X7 vs. 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class

    Our 2020 BMW X7 M50i Garners Few Complaints

    Alpina remains independent from BMW, but the relationship is sort of like the one between a remora and a shark. Alpina began as a manufacturer of office equipment, diversifying into tuning parts for BMWs in the 1960s. The corporate friendship has deepened over the decades, to the extent Alpina sees BMW’s future plans well before they become public and has official sanction to produce its own versions of the larger company’s models complete with a BMW warranty. To avoid overlap with M-division products, Alpinas are usually softer-edged and more luxurious than the M cars. Or, as with the XB7, they are aimed at niches BMW doesn’t think are right for M.

    View Photos

    Alpina

    To distinguish the XB7 from the 535-hp X7 M50i required a significant power upgrade. Both cars share the same base twin-turbocharged 4.4-liter V-8, but the Alpina adds larger twin-scroll turbos, additional cooling, and a freer-flowing exhaust with switchable acoustic flaps. Output shoots up to a mighty 612 horsepower. Impressive as that number is, Alpina’s engineers are prouder of the 590 pound-feet of torque that’s available from 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm. Alpina claims a 4.0-second punch to 60 mph. Our long-term BMW X7 M50i reached the mark in 4.1 seconds, so expect the XB7 to land somewhere in the mid-3s. Should you feel the need to hurl nearly three tons of SUV down the road at 180 mph, the optional Pirelli P Zero summer tires meet such needs. The XB7 comes with 21-inch wheels, but buyers will be able to upgrade to 23-inch wheels with Alpina’s classic narrow spokes for $2600.

    View Photos

    Alpina

    Considering its $142,295 price, the XB7 is a subtle beast, certainly when compared to showier seven-seat ultra-luxe SUVs like the three-row Bentley Bentayga and both AMG and Maybach variants of the Mercedes GLS. The Alpina gets new bumpers, with the front incorporating the company’s name in capitalized letters and the rear featuring four large exhaust pipes. Buyers in some markets will be able to add the intricate pinstriping that has been one of the brand’s visual hallmarks since the 1970s, but this won’t be offered in North America, sadly.

    View Photos

    Alpina

    The cabin is predictably close to the interior of any other high-end X7. The noticeable changes are the arrival of a thick-rimmed steering wheel that bears Alpina’s logo instead of the BMW roundel, Alpina branding on the circular iDrive controller and digital instrument pack, a plate giving the car’s number on the center console, and a smattering of other Alpina logos. Buyers will be able to choose between a six-seat layout with second-row captain chairs or a bench and room for seven passengers. Beyond the special bits, the cabin is, of course, as spacious and comfortable as any other X7.
    On the tight track, the big SUV is every bit as quick as its official numbers claim. Bilster Berg’s modest straights are devoured to the beat of a muscular V-8 soundtrack. But the combination of huge torque and a smart-shifting eight-speed automatic transmission means there’s no need to work the engine to 6500 rpm to experience uncomfortable levels of acceleration.

    View Photos

    Alpina

    The Alpina also corners well for something so big and heavy, turning keenly, biting its way to apexes, and finding impeccable traction even in tighter bends. A number of dynamic aids work to make this assault on physics seem effortless. There’s an active anti-roll system and rear-axle steering to sharpen low-speed responses. But from the lofty perch of the driver’s seat, it all felt stable, secure, and calm.
    The XB7’s standard air springs drop it by 0.8 inch in Sport mode, with Sport Plus taking it another 0.8 inch closer to the ground. It automatically drops the full 1.6 inches at speeds above 155 mph, regardless of the mode it is in. Even as low as it will go and with the dampers in their firmest setting, the ride remains compliant in Sport Plus, a point proved by some strategic use of Bilster Berg’s serrated curbing. Alpina models have always prioritized comfort and high-speed stability over the rock-hard suspension German automakers often associate with sporting aspirations, and although we will need to get the XB7 on road to confirm, we suspect it will cope well with the real world.

    View Photos

    Alpina

    One thing Bilster Berg did demonstrate, to little surprise, is that the XB7’s brakes struggle with racetrack use. Despite being fitted with the optional upgrade of drilled rotors and higher-performance pads, and having to follow a pace car, our XB7’s brakes were clearly suffering at the end of a stint on track. The pedal stayed firm, but stopping distances began creeping up and pungent smells started entering the cabin. It’s an issue we suspect very few owners are likely to encounter under everyday use.
    With no prospect of an X7 M, the XB7 effectively represents the top of the X7 range. The XB7 will be produced alongside the regular-grade X7s at the Spartanburg plant in South Carolina and sold alongside the existing B7 sedan by BMW dealers in the United States and Canada. Few will have actual need of the increase in performance over the already potent M50i version, yet the $28,000 supplement doesn’t look outrageous for the extra urge, top-dog status, and exclusivity of the Alpina badge.

    Specifications

    Specifications
    2021 Alpina XB7
    VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 6- or 7-passenger, 4-wagon
    BASE PRICE $142,295
    ENGINE TYPE twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement 268 in3, 4395 cm3Power 612 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 590 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
    TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
    DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 122.2 inLength: 203.3 inWidth: 78.7 inHeight: 70.7 inPassenger volume: 142 ft3Cargo volume: 12 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 5950 lb
    PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 3.6 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.1 secTop speed: 180 mph
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 16/14/20 mpg

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

  • in

    Tested: 1995 Supercar Olympics

    From the July 1995 Issue of Car and Driver.

    In 1897, Captain S.A. Swiggett wrote a book called The Bright Side of Prison Life. It occurred to me to take a copy to southern Ohio, where we were testing five supercars, any one of which could get me arrested while cruising in second gear on eastern interstates. Our assault on Ohio’s scenic Hocking Hills would be swift and inter­national in flavor. In total, we had 1745 horsepower on tap, from $472,000 worth of exotica. And our five supercar contes­tants represented five countries: America (Dodge Viper RT/10), Germany (Porsche 911 Turbo) Great Britain (Lotus Esprit S4S), Italy (Ferrari F355), and Japan (Acura NSX-T). Think of it as the Olympics of supercars.

    European Supercars Comparison Test (2010)

    From the Archive: Supercar Comparison Test (2005)

    The newest weaponry on the supercar scene—the Porsche and Ferrari—triggered this comparison test. In making our other selections, there seemed no good reason to include anything with a price higher than the Ferrari’s $128,800, and all five voting editors agreed it wouldn’t have changed the outcome anyway. Before the Anglo­philes complain, remember that the McLaren Fl is not legal here. Subscribers enamored of Italian machinery should note that the Ferrari F50 isn’t ready yet, and no Bugatti EB110 has yet been sold in America. Red-white-and-blue patriots should similarly recall that the Corvette ZR-1, which admittedly would have been a better-rounded ambassador than the Dodge Viper, went the way of the pas­senger pigeon one month before this story would appear.

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    Our vehicles thus assembled, it was curious to discover that, quite without trying, we wound up with no similar engine architectures. The engines include a single-turbo inline four, a twin-turbo flat-six, a DOHC V-6, a 40-valve V-8, and a pushrod V-10. The Lotus, the Ferrari, and the NSX are mid-engined. The Porsche is rear-engined. The Viper is front-engined. From a styling standpoint—at least according to Ohio and Michigan citizens who rushed us at every fuel stop—not one of these vehicles looks very much like any other.
    So what did we hope to discover in one week of driving? We, needed to know which was the fastest, and we found out after just one day at Ohio’s sprawling Transportation Research Center. The intangibles were trickier. Which car is eas­iest to drive at nine-tenths on public roads? Which impresses onlookers most? Which is the most fun to drive, never mind its per­formance envelope? Which is the most potent and comfortable long-distance tourer? Which is the most passionate? Which feels the least likely to spend its life atop a service hoist?

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

    It took a week of nonstop driving and late-night arguing to find out, during which interval we pushed the vehicles hard enough that both the NSX and the Viper had to be retrieved from ditches. Said C/D godfather Brock Yates, as he brushed pieces of hemlock bough and sandstone grit off his vest: “At about 90 percent of their capabilities, all five of these cars are hugely competent and benign, lulling their drivers into Fangio-like confidence. But put one toe over the edge and there’s an excellent chance you’ll get to help refur­nish your insurance agent’s new home in Grosse Pointe.”
    Or, to put it another way, begin memorizing passages from The Bright Side of Prison Life.

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    Fifth Place: Lotus Esprit S4S
    Twenty years ago, our first test of a Lotus Esprit offered this keen insight: “The factory is frank about the Esprit’s unsuitability for grand touring . . . the twin tanks should be filled with gas des­tined to be burned in bursts of back-road berserking.”
    Not much has changed in two decades, although thanks to a larger Garrett turbo and larger inlet valves, the Lotus’s mani­acally peaky 2.2-liter four-banger now delivers an even more berserk steady-state 285 hp and briefly as much as 300 hp, if the weather on Route 595 near Logan, Ohio, is sufficiently cool and dry. When the turbo kicks in at around 2700 rpm, it’s like being smacked in the back of the head with a warped nine-iron. A kind of blurry trauma ensues. Full boost in the rain will light up the rear tires in first, second, and third gears. At which point, the Esprit’s tail yaws right on crowned roads, the driver countersteers like Damon Hill, then the whole mess straightens out after a vicious snap that leaves onlookers wondering if you’ve lost your mind or are just insanely rich. Or both.
    The 60-mph barrier topples in 4.4 seconds, making the Esprit quicker in a straight line than a 405-hp Corvette ZR-1, which possibly did not amuse Detroit engineers back when GM owned Lotus.
    There is much about the Esprit that is race-car-like. The pedals are skewed inboard and are so close together that Simpson’s best Nomex booties are recommended. The steering is knife-like and fast, although it is a great match for the car’s flat, neutral cornering stance. Once you push through the surging andsucking power assist for the Brembo brakes, you have exactly the pedal feel you’d want in Turn One at Long Beach.

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    Far less race-ready is the Renault-based gear linkage, a high-effort yet mushy affair. “It’s like making a long-distance call to Paris to make a gearchange,” says Kevin Smith. It is also fragile, not a good trait in turbo cars, which encourage quick shifting to keep the boost on the boil. This may explain why second gear was no longer with us at the end of this test. Similarly unrefined is the Esprit’s powerplant, which bangs and bucks as if it were a 2.2-liter K-car engine forced to produce the highest specific output of any in-line four in America. Not a far-fetched analogy.
    Still, the Esprit’s cuneiform figure—its waist-high profile, even its gaudy wing that overreaches the rear bumper—makes onlookers gawk and chase, although they rarely know what they’re looking at. They mouth the word “Lotus,” then say, “Oh, the Pretty Woman car.” But they always assume that it costs more than its $80,340 base.
    Cranky, quirky, and as breakable as Waterford crystal, the Lotus finished last but by only two points. It is eccentric (hell, when did you last hear of a supercar get­ting a 27-mpg EPA highway rating?), a lean point-and-squirt machine for nasty, unpredictable roads. Such as the wicked little lanes around Norwich. Think of it as half Formula Ford made street-legal, half Barbara Woodhouse on PCP.
    1995 Lotus Esprit S4S300-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2969 lbBase/as-tested price: $80,340/$87,904C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.4 sec1/4 mile: 13.0 @ 108 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg

    Fourth Place: Dodge Viper RT/10
    The Dodge Viper is the antithesis of the Lotus. Where the Lotus is a kind of .22-caliber Olympic target pistol, the Viper is simply an 16-inch cannon yanked off the deck of the USS Missouri. The Lotus is the lightest car in the group, the Viper is the heaviest. The Lotus has the smallest engine in the group, the Viper’s 488-cube thunderbox is the most mammoth passenger-car powerplant in production. The Lotus offers the fastest lane-change capa­bility, the Viper possesses the slowest.
    Yet in this comparo, the Viper occu­pies fourth place rather than fifth. Here are three reasons: (1) big torque exists at any engine revolution, (2) its shape evokes involuntary seizures among all onlookers, and (3) it has the lowest sticker price in all of supercardom.
    Of course, there are good reasons for the Viper’s bargain-basement $62K tariff. No roof, for instance. And a hose-it-down plasticky interior with low-rent switch-gear. And a ride like a Ford F150’s. And a full-throttle exhaust blat that sounds like a tornado ripping out the seams of a Holy Rollers’ revival tent. All of which we gra­ciously accept, because it’s precisely what Chrysler promised back in 1992. What we didn’t count on was this car’s spooky steering and villainous handling.
    The Viper hunts and darts under braking. It resolutely follows even minute irregularities in the road. Its rear end steps out when you poke the power. And, as Csaba Csere describes it: “There’s a moment where nothing happens between turn-in and when the tires actually hook up. It saps your confidence if you’re hustling.”

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    The snaky handling (“This is the only car I’ve ever spun on the skidpad,” notes Don Schroeder) is likely a result of unfin­ished development. God knows, the Viper has all the rubber it could ever want, and its weight bias is the closest to perfect in this group—an astounding claim for a car whose nose carries an engine the size of John Madden’s refrigerator.
    In many ways, owning a Viper is like owning a powerful motorcycle. “Without a real top, it’s too reliant on the weather,’ says Kevin Smith, who also noted that removing and replacing those rudimentary canvas pieces is a tedious, fussy, two-mar job. “Yeah, it’s the world’s largest Fat Boy Harley,” added Yates, “and you might even want to put your feet down roaring into turns—this is the only non-ABS – equipped car in the bunch.” Also the only one without even a single airbag.
    Although it’s tied with the 911 Turbo in the horsepower wars, the Viper accel­erates to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile half a second slower. Put 400 horsepower in nearly any street car and you might want to think about four-wheel drive, a concept that was implemented in Weissach but not at the New Mack Assembly Plant.
    The Viper is like using a Louisville Slugger to play ping-pong. You wind up with drastic, if clumsy, results. It is big, crude, deafening, and something of a car­toon. “On the other hand,” noted Yates in the logbook, “every time we’d show up in a small town, the locals clumped around one car and one car only: the one built in Detroit.”
    1995 Dodge Viper RT/10400-hp V-10, 6-speed manual, 3534 lbBase/as-tested price: $61,975/$61,975C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.3 sec1/4 mile: 12.8 @ 109 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 180 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 gC/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

    Third Place: Ferrari F355
    For Ferrari, the F355 is a radical departure. Don’t believe us? Consider one entry in its logbook: “This car has a climate-control system that really works; in fact, it works better than the Porsche’s.”
    C/D has traditionally been slow to praise Ferraris, in part because the manufacturer’s performance claims tend to be inflated, in part because the cars have been imprac­tical and unreliable, in part because their sticker prices gave us nosebleeds.
    So check out the stats on the company’s newest and cheapest offering: 0-to-60 and quarter-mile times only 0.2 second behind the 400-hp Viper’s. A stopping distance so close to the Porsche’s that Stuttgart’s engineers may pull a full Jonestown Kool-Aid klatch. And skidpad grip that, at 1.02 g, not only surpasses everything in this comparo but also bests the company’s own street-legal racer, the F40.
    Add to that terrific steering with power assist as nearly perfect as the NSX’s, not to mention better visi­bility. Plus a ride that is taut without becoming harsh, not what you’d expect from a one-g suspension. Plus an 8500-rpm redline that produces an engine howl so sonorous, so much like a lightly muffled F1 car, that the driver doesn’t really miss the optional radio. (Hey, you want everything for only $128,800?)

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    “In the details of this car, Ferrari has done a lot of what Acura did to define itself, way back when,” wrote Kevin Smith. Indeed, the F355 offers adjustable shocks, unique in this group. It has firm seats that can be twisted into a wide variety of supportive shapes, plus a sophisticated exhaust bypass that meets emissions regs without strangling the 375-horse V-8.
    Although it’s on such a clear course to modernizing its cars, Maranello ought to continue improving them. The gated, metallic shifter is still a chore and a gratuitous anachronism. The steering wheel, although adjustable, gives you the choice of either a good driving position or viewing the instruments, but not both. Moreover, this is the second F355 we’ve tested whose sticky throttle made it impossible to pick up the power smoothly in mid-corner. And this engine’s 24 inlet valves are so deft at swallowing accel­erants that the F355’s cruising range (when the fuel light began to glow) averaged just under 200 miles. (Yes, we were driving like Gerhard Berger, though not as neatly. But fuel economy worse than a 488-cubic-inch Viper? Don’t tell the Vatican.)
    Only two points out of second place, the Ferrari was the Big Surprise in this comparo. “If the thing just cost a little less—say, the same as the Porsche,” noted Kevin Smith, “it would easily have been in second place. In fact, I might have voted it the winner.”
    1995 Ferrari F355375-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3270 lbBase/as-tested price: $128,800/$128,800C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.5 sec1/4 mile: 13.0 @ 110 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 165 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.02 gC/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

    Second Place: Acura NSX-T
    For the last five years, we’ve regularly gushed and spouted and pontificated about the essential goodness, the quintessential purity, of Acura’s NSX. So don’t be shocked that this, the least powerful car in our super five (and also the slowest to 60, mph and through the quarter-mile), fin­ished only three points behind the fastest, most powerful car in the group.
    How can this happen? Here’s how: track numbers tell you zip about a car’s usable performance in Ann Arbor traffic, and they tell you little about making nine‑tenths passes on the blind, downhill, off-camber turn just outside Burr Oak Lodge.
    The Acura NSX is as user-friendly as the tumblers on a Mosler vault. Check out the expansive view from its low, forward cockpit. Try finding a clutch and shifter combo that so telepathically slides gears into place. See if you can locate any seats that are both this com­fortable and this adept at dis­tributing side forces. Locate a steering rack that delivers this much feedback sans kickback. Identify a removable targa top that can be stowed onboard without reducing cargo-carrying capacity by one cubic inch.

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    Built with the same monumental attention to ergonomic detail as a Honda Accord, the NSX sometimes takes a knock or two for being too familiar, at least inside, where some of the switchgear is pedestrian and the cockpit is an unnecessarily dour arena in which to celebrate so much fun underfoot. On this trip—for the first time—editors fantasized openly, if not vociferously, about obtaining more power, especially when the car was asked to launch itself out of tight uphill esses and switchbacks. One editor suggested a supercharger, another wanted a 3.0-liter V-8, a third asked whether a streetable version of Honda’s racing V-10 might fit. Which, in turn, made us wonder whether a six-speed gearbox, rather than the mandatory five, might also make life easier.
    At $86,642, the NSX is no longer the striking bargain it was 60 months ago. Still, where the Viper offers a huge bang for the buck, the NSX is big civil subtlety or the buck. This is the brain surgeon’s approach to go-fast operations. From its bird-bones Suspension bits to its lacy aluminum skin, the NSX delivers supercar precision without beating up its owner.
    But beware: Although you can throw it around; you can also throw it away.
    1995 Acura NSX-T270-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3110 lbBase/as-tested price: $86,642/$86,642C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.2 sec1/4 mile: 13.8 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 173 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

    First Place: Porsche 911 Turbo
    It’s the kind of formula you’d concoct in high-school study hall. Take a chassis four inches shorter than a Jeep Wrangler’s, then install a twin-turbo engine with, say, 400 horsepower hung way the hell behind the rear wheels. The result should be something akin to a golf cart powered by two General Electric turbines—the sort of car that would crash as you backed it out of your driveway.
    Instead, the outcome is the most obscenely fast and sophisticated Porsche since Weissach loosed upon civilized society the all-wheel-drive 959 nine years ago. The new 911 Turbo is our choice as this planet’s most eminently practical supercar, the quickest A-to-B four-wheeled transport to alight on American highways.
    About now, you’re probably muttering, “What about the Ferrari F40 or Lamborghini Diablo VT?” Forget ’em. If you’ve got 3.7 seconds to spare, the 911 Turbo will hand you 60 mph. That leaves the F40 half a second in the dust. Or, if you’ve got some empty road near your house, this Porsche will swallow 1320 feet of it 1.7 seconds sooner than your neighbor’s Lamborghini Diablo VT.
    Not that those comparisons mean much anyway. The nervous F40 and the fat Diablo are 30-minute cars. After that, you’d like a cool drink and a brief nap. Not so the 911 Turbo. Cruising around town, this Porsche is more docile than a Carrera 2, partly because it’s quieter and partly because the standard luxo bits inside are more posh. And when you finally do tip into the KKK turbos, there’s no tire squeal, no exhaust roar, no darty nose. Just a seamless, silent, drama-free delivery of endless torque, accompanied by a rush of scenery that within two or three seconds takes on a vaguely hallucinatory hue, as if the nearby trees were all recently vandalized by Matisse.
    “Twice on brief straightaways,” noted one editor in the Turbo’s logbook, “I glanced down and discovered I had inno­cently dialed up 130 mph. I’d have been horrified if I hadn’t had Porsche’s brakes beneath me.”

    View Photos

    DAVID DEWHURST

    Not quite matching this machine’s warp-drive potential for effortless velocity are the clutch and steering—one is uncom­municative, the other is simply too light. Porsche intentionally removed 25 percent of the clutch-pedal effort, plus 15 percent of its travel. And as for the feathery steering, well, maybe it’s those new 8-by-18-inch front wheels or the GT2’s racing power-assist. Whatever the reason, the more rudimentary Carrera 2’s steering remains the best sports rack in the world, and we wish the engineers hadn’t messed with it.
    Ditto the Turbo’s security system. An ignition bypass is triggered by pressing a button on the key fob. It sounds simple enough, but you can’t imagine the driver’s fury when he inserts the key, twists it for liftoff, and absolutely nothing happens Can you say “gimcrackery”?
    We dubbed the Porsche “the lazy man’ supercar,” at least on the roads of southern Ohio. Although the Turbo is the second-heaviest car in this quintet, Porsche ha. pretty well masked its traditional tail-wagging-the-dog handling. Give out drivers 400 horsepower plus astounding wet-weather grip and they will—using one hand and half a head of concentration—keep up with any other supercar in this group. “It’s ‘almost like cheating,” wrote Kevin Smith.
    We’ll come back to this wonderment, in part to report more definitively on some un-Teutonic assembly glitches. Our test car suffered an inoperative “Litronic” low-beam lamp, a snapped-off hood latch, a sunroof that ate fuses like popcorn, and a glovebox that randomly flopped open and spilled its considerable guts.
    Still, no piece of machinery producing 400 horses has any right to feel so tame and violence-free. Said one editor, “I can’t explain it, unless this car is powered by dilithium crystals.” The new Porsche 911 Turbo is the German engineers’ 176-mph answer to whatever the ques­tion was, or will be. Captain Swiggett should be told.
    1995 Porsche 911 Turbo400-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3362 lbBase/as-tested price: $106,465/$106,465C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 3.7 sec1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 114 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 162 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 gC/D observed fuel economy: 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

  • in

    Tested: 1979 Datsun 280-ZX

    From the November 1978 Issue of Car and Driver.
    When Datsun introduced its 1979 model to the press, the joke of the meeting was that these cars would be competing head-on with Buick and BMW by Christmas—not because of a massive overhaul in the Japanese company’s marketing philosophy, but rather because of the plummeting value of the dollar relative to that of the yen. Datsun would not be building Buick-style cars; it would simply be offering its weight-watcher compacts at Buick prices.

    Best Coupes of 2020

    The Greatest Cars of All Time: The Seventies

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

    But driving the new 280-ZX coupe suggests that Nissan has been anticipating exactly this sort of repositioning in the market all along and has already dialed in the appropriate correction. The new Z-car (ZX-car?) is strongly biased toward the luxury side of life. It’s longer, lower, and wider than the old version; quieter and more vibration-free on the inside; calibrated for a mashed-potatoes ride underneath; and just itching to be dolled up with all sorts of packages and gadgets, which the option list cheerfully offers. What was once an appealingly lean sportster has been transformed into a plush boulevardier, a personal cruiser not altogether different from what you’d expect of Buick if it took up a position in the two-seater and 2 + 2 market.
    All of this probably makes perfect sense from a hit-’em-where-they-ain’t marketing point of view. The closed-roof-sports-car business-once the almost exclusive province of Datsun-has become a hotbed of activity in the last few years. Porsche now occupies the high end of the middle-price class with its sleek and nimble 924, an automobile that places great emphasis on handling and driver participation. Mazda is putting the squeeze on from the bottom of the price range with its RX-7, a two-seater that’s winning friends everywhere for its agility and sparkling performance. The TR7 has been brought to its knees temporarily because of labor problems in England, but it will be back in full strength by spring, bringing along with it the V-8 powered TR8, which will surely set the performance pace for this class. So what was Datsun to do? The only space left uncontested is the comfort-and-luxury slot. The old Z-car always was a bit more of a tourer than its competitors, and the product planners apparently decided to aim its replacement even more in that direction.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    The term “replacement” is used intentionally here because the new ZX is essentially an all-new car. It retains certain visual characteristics of the Z-the scalloped headlight tunnels, the powerbulge hood, and the large, multi-cell taillights-and the powertrain is carried over with only minor recalibrations, but the body and the chassis are altogether different. The greatest dimensional change is in width, the new car being 2.3 inches wider overall and having an extra inch of wheel track (more with the optional alloy wheels). The wheelbase has been increased by 0.6 inches, and although the new model looks considerably longer, the actual increase is less than an inch. Apparently what happened here is that the sheetmetal is longer but the bumpers don’t stick out as far, resulting in an appearance of greater length with little real change. Some similar optical illusion must also affect height, because, while the new model looks lower, the company specifications list both the Z and the ZX at 51.0 inches. But even these relatively minor dimensional changes are viewed with great significance in certain quarters. Dick Roberts, head of the competition department, was very pleased indeed with the new body shape. He observed that the greater overall width of the car would let the racers get by with smaller fender flares. That, combined with the more steeply raked windshield, would go a long way toward eliminating the Datsun’s considerable top-speed deficit in GTU racing.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    The street value of the new shape is less obvious. In profile, the ZX brings to mind the Ferrari Daytona. While the fastback of the old Z-car dropped away quite rapidly, the roof angle of the new car is shallower, and its high tail combined with a long, thrusting nose gives it an unmistakably Ferrari-like silhouette. Yet side by side with the Z, the ZX does not make it look dowdy or obsolete. The short, truncated tail of the old car provided a highly functional appearance that is absent in the replacement. Probably the biggest tip-off as to which car is newer can be seen in the crisp lines of the ZX. The original Z was designed in the days when Pininfarina was doing soft, rounded Ferraris. The Datsun didn’t have the full, molded-Jell-0 look of, say, the Dino 246GT, but the sheetmetal of its roof and fenders was formed with rather large-radius curves. Since that time, fashion has swung in the Giugiaro direction-sharply creased and folded shapes such as those of the Scirocco and the Lotus Esprit. The ZX doesn’t go wholeheartedly in that direction either, but its curves have been tightened considerably, particularly at the roofline and where the body sheetmetal ends at the tail. So Datsun’s new skin does seem more modern while retaining at the same time a strong family resemblance to the original Z.
    The mechanical resemblance between the new and old cars is equally strong. The engine of the ZX is rated at 135 horsepower, down 14 from that of the Z, but Nissan spokesmen claim that the only changes are the addition of a catalytic converter and the associated recalibration of the ignition and fuel-injection systems. This, they say, should increase both economy and performance. Backing up the engine is a standard-equipment five-speed gearbox, the same transmission that was previously optional. You may also order a three-speed automatic if that is your pleasure. Axle ratios have been shuffled to no great consequence, a 3.70-replacing the previously standard 3.54 on five-speed cars. Disc brakes are now fitted on all four corners of the car, vented in front and solid in back. Power steering is standard equipment on the 2 + 2 and optional on the two-seater. In addition to the obvious benefit of easier steering, the power gear also speeds up the steering ratio from 3.5 to 2.7 turns lock-to-lock, with only a small loss in road feel.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    All of this is minor stuff compared with the changes that have been wrought in the suspension. At first glance the pieces appear to be little changed from the old Z, but in fact they are altogether different and very similar to those of the 810 coupe and sedan. The front still uses the MacPherson-strut configuration, but the lower control arm of the ZX is positioned in the fore-and-aft direction by a tension rod ahead of the arm (the Z had a compression rod behind the arm). This is a significant change from a body-structure point of view, but it doesn’t necessarily affect handling. The same cannot be said of the new semi-trailing-arm rear suspension that replaces the MacPherson-strut arrangement of the Z. Semi-trailing arms are everywhere these days. Mercedes-Benz and BMW use them, they’ve been adopted by GM for the new Riviera-Toronado-Eldorado body, and Datsun had them on the original 510 and the discontinued 610, and continues them on today’s 810. But this system would seem to offer no practical advantage on the Z. It still requires two large spring towers in the trunk area, and the parts underneath are not significantly simpler or cheaper. Moreover, it has some clear disadvantages from a handling standpoint. Semi-trailing arms have a great deal more camber and toe change than MacPherson struts and therefore a greater potential for tricky handling. We’ve had plenty of opportunity to explore these limits because Datsun previewed its new models for the press well before public introduction and, to maintain security, our driving was confined to Portland International Raceway. For normal driving, typical of what you’d do on public roads, the ZX is well behaved. As with the old Z, the rear squats on acceleration. There is also a minor amount of self-steering over bumps and during hard braking. In general, the ride quality is plush and underdamped, more along the lines of a luxury car than a sporting machine.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    And typical of luxury cars, the ZX is not very interested in hurrying around racetracks. By nature, the car understeers. Under power, it will widen the radius of a turn in direct proportion to how far the driver has opened the throttle. But getting into the turns is the tricky part. Any driver input that changes the pitch attitude of the car-putting on the brakes, getting off the brakes, lifting off the power encourages the rear to come unstuck. Probably what’s happening here is that the change in the height of the rear suspension produces a corresponding change in the camber and toe of the rear wheels. When the back end of the ZX goes up, the rear wheels toe out and move more positive in camber. They may as well yell “Surprise,” because you are now in a whole new party. In this regard, the ZX is very much like an old Porsche 911, except that the Porsche was blessed with very accurate controls that allowed the driver to keep on top of the situation. The ZX feels rubbery at all times, and even experienced drivers can find themselves sideways at speeds that should be well below the cornering limits. Curiously, we noticed considerable variation among what were supposedly equal cars. Datsun had four two-seaters and three 2+2s on hand for evaluation. One of the two-seaters was quite noticeably worse than the others, but we could detect subtle differences-in both ride and handling between all of them. Generally, the 2 +2s seemed more manageable for fast driving. They are 7.9 inches longer in wheelbase and weigh 150 pounds more, and their reactions to pitch changes were less dramatic. But, to be honest, we really didn’t like how they behaved during hard driving.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    For sedate touring, however, the ZX is easily more comfortable than its Porsche, Mazda, and Triumph competitors. The interior is wider than before, giving more elbowroom. The seats are wider also, gently curved for reasonable lateral support, and adjustable in every conceivable direction. The cushion can be tilted up in front, the backrest angled back, and the lumbar area made firmer. The driving position is fine, and the convenient footrest for the driver’s left foot has been carried over from the Z. The pedals are located perfectly for heel-and-toe work. The gauge placement has not changed, but the instrument panel is all new: still molded plastic but now rather Mercedes-like in appearance. The steering wheel will be a source of frustration for those who have learned to hook their thumbs over the spokes at the three-and-nine position in the Bob Bondurant’s School of High Performance Driving manner, because the ZX’s spokes angle down toward five and seven. Fortunately, the rim section is fat and textured enough to allow a good, firm grip without hooking the thumbs.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    A frequent complaint about the old Z was high steering effort. With power assist, of course, the ZX is easy to maneuver, but even the manual version requires less muscle than before. The new car does not have the fine lightness of the Mazda RX-7 or the Porsche 924, but neither is it ponderous in the manner of the old Z. That is a net improvement.
    The Z always was a slick shifter, and that virtue continues in the ZX. Likewise the sensation of more allowable engine revs than you’ll ever use. The redline is still marked at 6400 rpm on the tachometer, but by the time the needle reaches 5500, the noise is high enough and the acceleration is low enough to suggest that an immediate upshift would be in order. And although the engine still turns raucous at high revs, it does not produce such a din as before. As a consequence of this and all the other detail improvements, the ZX is a much quieter and more refined tourer than its forerunner.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    Still, it’s only in the package-and-gadget department that the ZX truly breaks new ground. Datsun has gone over to the Buick side in offering one all-encompassing Grand Luxury option (price not available at press time). Included are six-inch-wide alloy wheels (5.5-inch steel rims are standard), a rear-window wiper-washer, raisedwhite-letter Bridgestone tires, cloth upholstery, door map pockets, power steering, power windows, a central warning system (which tells you such useful bits of information as whether or not you have enough water in the windshield-washer bottle), a four-speaker stereo radio, an electrically adjustable passenger-side mirror (power mirrors are standard on the driver’s side), cruise control, and a dual fuel gauge. That’s a load of stuff, and some of it is clever enough to merit special mention. Take the driver’s-side power-window control, for example. You have two buttons, one of which works in the normal manner. The other button is like a trigger: touch it once and the window goes all the way down (or all the way up if it was already down). You don’t have to hold the button until the window arrives at its destination. Even Cadillac can’t match this. The only thing wrong with the system is that the control buttons are positioned low on the door, just where the old left knee hits during hard right turns.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    The four-speaker radio also has a neat gadget. Called a “surround-sound” control, it’s a stubby lever that can be moved in any direction, much like what is commonly used to adjust remote mirrors. This one acts as a single control to adjust the balance among the four speakers. The radio, by the way, produces a fine sound.
    The final item of note in the Grand Luxury package is the dual fuel gauge. The idea here is to provide a highly accurate measure of the last quarter of the tank for all you guys who stay away from gas stations as long as possible. This is accomplished with two needles. One reads full-to-empty in the usual manner, while the full-scale travel of the second is from one-quarter to empty. This should enable you to worry about running out of gas with far greater accuracy.
    Apart from the gadgets, the Grand Luxury package also has a few elements of trim that spruce up the interior. The standard ZX is very much like the old Z in that the upholstery is all-vinyl and very little bright-metal decor is used on the dash. But the Grand Luxury models get the full treatment, right down to home-stereo-style knobs on the radio. And finally, Datsun is offering fully color-coordinated interiors, so you no longer have to look at a black instrument panel unless you really want to.

    View Photos

    Car and Driver

    If all this emphasis on luxury seems to dilute the sporting nature of the two-seater, it only enhances the appeal of the 2 + 2, a model that we’ve shied away from before because of its curiously stretched appearance and isolation-chamber rear seat. But the ZX 2 + 2 makes sense. The proportions are happy—perhaps even more pleasing than those of the two-seater—and while the back is a bit too cramped for adults, it’s plenty big enough for grade-school children. And best of all, its extra length and weight in no way make it less fun to drive than the two-seater.
    The message here is that Datsun has made a bit of a side step. The old Z has grown up to be a 2 + 2 sort of car-a sporting carriage rather than a hell-raiser-and it’ll haul your body around with a minimum of abuse. This is not the specialty of the other cars in the class, and it’s not what made the Z famous, but there is room in the market for a car of this sort and Datsun once again would appear to have a corner all to itself.
    A Onceover, Not So Lightly
    The ZX gets a styling critique from a not exactly disinterested party.
    Considering the population density of the island of Manhattan, there are maybe only a thousand people who live four blocks up and just around the corner from C/D’s Park Avenue office. But as coincidence would have it, one of them just happens to be Albrecht Goertz, the man who, as a consultant to Nissan, designed the original Datsun 240-Z. Because he can be counted upon for strong opinions on-automobiles-and a fair dose of personal charm besides-we couldn’t resist inviting him around for coffee, opening up our file of still-secret 280-ZX photos, and asking him what he thought.
    Our neighbor goes back a ways in the history of automotive design. He was born Count Albrecht Goertz in Brunkensen, Germany, in 1914, but since the royalty business is usually a bit slow for the second son, he came to the U.S. just before WWII. After various jobs and some design study, he joined Raymond Loewy to work on the l950-through-1953 Studebakers. But his most notable project by far, prior to the 240Z, was the beautiful BMW 507 sports car, an open two-seater that stands today as a high point of Fifties design.
    The 240-Z was actually the second car Goertz did for Nissan. The first (not exported to the U.S.) was the Sylvia coupe, a smooth, well-organized shape not unlike the Opel Manta of the early Seventies. “When that was finished, they wanted to do something different, maybe a sports car. They really didn’t know what,” Goertz says. “And because they didn’t know what, I had a free hand. The two-seater concept wasn’t really my idea, but I liked it. I had just finished a stint at Porsche. If you look closely, you’ll see that the dimensions of the original 240-Z and the Porsche 911 are about the same. Designs have to start somewhere and the Porsche seemed right.
    “As I look at this new car here, I can’t tell what they were trying to achieve. Apparently, they wanted to ride on the success of the old one, not change it too much.
    “The original was a very lean car-exact, taut lines. If you look at it, there really wasn’t a hell of a lot you could leave off. Everything was nothing; the grille was nothing, the back was nothing.”
    In this, Goertz is absolutely correct. The old Z grille was a masterpiece of simplicity. It was a rectangular opening bounded on the sides by the inner edges of the fenders and on top by the hood. There were no surround moldings and no mesh. Just a few bars inside and a bumper. It was, in effect, nothing.
    “They didn’t even bother to integrate the bumpers on the new car,” he says. “I think you have to do that on any car today.” However, the ZX does follow the modern sportscar pattern set by the Porsche 924 and 928, the TR7 and the RX-7 in that its grille is located entirely below the front bumper. Would Goertz have done it that way? “Probably not,” he says. “You need something to look at, some opening or something. The center emblem, as on the Porsche, is not enough. The car is just a big blob out there.”
    The original Z had a power bulge on the hood, which is continued on the ZX. But that was not decoration, according to Goertz; it was necessary to clear the engine. He would have preferred to add interest to the hood by channeling in a pair of air scoops, one on each side of the center, but the bulge took precedence.
    Perhaps Goertz’s greatest disappointment with the ZX is centered on the side-windowandbeltline area. The Z beltline swept up into the rear pillar, unifying the side windows into what appeared from a distance to be a single opening. “This area was the Z’s biggest characteristic and they should have noticed it. When they brought out the 2+2, they changed it and something happened. Now, on the ZX, the two windows are not in harmony and they’ve tried to hide that by sticking that clinker on the door post. Actually, the new 2 + 2 looks better than the twoseater. The window shapes are more compatible there.”
    Overall, Goertz sees the ZX as inconsistent. “Would you do that kind of steering wheel on a sporty GT?” he asks. And he ticks off other details: the tricky hood cutlines around the headlights, the front bumper that rises up in the middle to meet the hood, the two-tone paint separated by pinstripes, the chrome decoration on the door pillar. “This gets gooky,” he says, “an American look rather than imported. I wonder, when you do an imported car for here, how American should it be. I’ve always believed it should appeal to Americans but not be American. The old Z was like that.
    “On the ZX, it really depends on what they were trying to accomplish. It would appear that they were just trying to bring the Z up to date. That sort of rehash is really hard. The designer says, ‘1 don’t know what to do with it anymore but it really hasn’t got it.’ They didn’t ask me to work on it, but if they had, I think I would have turned them down. But when they get ready to do a new car, I hope they’ll ask me.” —Patrick Bedard

    Specifications

    SPECIFICATIONS
    1979 Datsun 280-ZX
    VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
    PRICE AS TESTED (C/D EST)$13,000
    ENGINE TYPESOHC 12-valve inline-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 168 in3, 2753 cm3Power: 135 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 144 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
    TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
    CHASSISSuspension (F/R): struts/semi-trailing armsBrakes (F/R): 9.9-in vented disc/10.6-in discTires: Bridgestone RD-106 Steel, 195/70HR-14
    DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 91.3 inLength: 174.0 inWidth: 66.5 in Height: 51.0 inCurb weight: 2900 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.9 sec60 mph: 9.1 sec100 mph: 29.6 sec1/4 mile: 17.1 sec @ 8.3 mphTop speed: 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ft

    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

  • in

    1982 Honda MotoCompo Adds a Little Kick to Your Commute

    View Photos
    George LippCar and Driver

    From the August 1982 issue of Car and Driver.
    Is this a joke or what?

    Tested: 1982 Honda City Makes a Case for Minicars

    Used Cars You Should Buy for Less Than $5000

    The Cost of Leaving the Car Behind

    You open the back of the Honda City and what do you find? Another transportation device, called the MotoCompo. You almost expect to find yet another transportation device inside this two-wheeler; perhaps you’ve stumbled on a set of Chinese boxes. But then you unlock the plastic top-cover and discover the handlebars neatly folded inside. Within seconds they lock in place and you’ve got yourself a fully operational, 50cc, two-stroke motorbike.
    But why?

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    Well, the MotoCompo has a serious transportation function. Honest. In Japan, parking slots are often located miles from an individual’s place of work. The MotoCompo, a $332 option, is meant to pass the time between parking and working as quickly as possible. So far it all seems pretty reasonable. Then you realize what it’s going to be like lifting that 92-pound motorcycle out of the back of the City; only sumo wrestlers need apply. And there’s no telling what the people in the office elevator are going to think.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    As a plain old motorcycle, though, the MotoCompo is nice enough. It has a centrifugal clutch, so once you’ve kick-started it into life, you can just gas it and go. Better wear a helmet, though. Quick steering, tiny wheels, and a tall center of gravity, and foolhardiness, tend to make mini-bikes the first step toward a lifetime of skinned knees and bruised egos.
    The MotoCompo is more than a conspiracy by the Band-Aid lobby, however. Japanese motorcycle manufacturers are convinced that mopeds and such have a future in America despite the bust of the last moped boom in 1978. You’ll be seeing a lot more little motorcycles in the near future. The philosophy behind the City: to get people interested in the big ones, first you have to make the little ones more fun and more affordable.

    Specifications

    SPECIFICATIONS
    1982 Honda MotoCompo
    VEHICLE TYPEMid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 1-passenger motorcycle
    PRICE AS TESTED$332
    ENGINE TYPE single-cylinder, aluminum block and head, 1×1-bbl carburetorDisplacement 3 in3, 49 cm3Power 2.5 hp @ 5000 rpm
    TRANSMISSION1-speed automatic
    DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 32.7 inLength: 46.6 inWidth: 21.1 inHeight: 35.8 inCurb weight: 92 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTSTop speed: 25 mph

    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

  • in

    Tested: 1982 Honda City Makes a Case for Minicars in America

    From the August 1982 issue of Car and Driver.
    Quick, Myrna, the Flit! It’s an infestation in the making. First the Medfly, now the minicar. The latest permutation of this important new species is the Honda City. With its front-fender mirrors posed ominously like antennae, it even looks like a Japanese Beetle.
    This Honda is more than just an automotive insect, however. It could revolutionize the way America travels. Unveiled at the Tokyo Motor Show last fall, the City earned universal acclaim for the way it fulfills its mission. That mission is easy to understand. If you examine the Honda City with historical perspective, you’ll see the Ford Model T far off in your time telescope. Like the Model T, the City is a minimal automobile designed strictly for utility.

    Every New Subcompact Crossover SUV of 2019 Ranked

    1982 Honda MotoCompo Adds a Kick to Your Commute

    Ford was able to sell its minimal car virtually without modification for nineteen years because other automobiles were essentially luxury items. Once easy credit and low prices made luxury affordable for everyone, the minimal automobile lost favor and Henry began cranking out “cars,” vehicles that combined utility with luxury, recreation, and status. The minimal automobile survived only on the sidelines, in the form of the Fiat Topolino, Austin 7, and Nash Metropolitan. Now that credit is tight and prices are high, the minimal automobile is again fashionable. Cars like the VW Polo, Fiat Panda, and Daihatsu Charade face up to the modern transportation realities of crowded highways, limited parking, and gas at three dollars a gallon.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    The City is in the vanguard of the minicar revolution. Even now it’s breeding in Japan at the rate of 10,000 per month. It’s only a matter of time before cars like it swarm to these shores, though the American Honda Motor Company insists that it has no plans to sell the City here.
    The question is, can minicars survive once they get here? America, after all, is a country where the cities are 60 miles apart, the people are six feet tall, and the trucks are 60 feet long. Since American Honda is as interested in the answer to this question as we are, its representatives caved in immediately when we asked to test one of two Honda Citys in the U.S. for a week.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    Right off, it’s clear that the City is a minimal car, not a miniature car. Its wheelbase is just 1.2 inches shorter than the Civic’s, its track is the same, and it’s 4.7 inches taller. Only the 15-inch difference in overall length makes the City seem smaller.
    Other than size, the City shares very little with the Civic. Honda assigned a very young team to the City project (average age: 27) because it wanted a design that would reflect the assumptions and priorities of the future instead of the past. The project engineers decided that people came first and penciled the broad outline of an egg to accommodate them. The suspension and drivetrain were designed to fit the remaining nooks and crannies.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    Just like the Model T, the City makes its passengers comfortable by allowing them to sit upright. We couldn’t locate any thyroid cases to try the City on for size, but a couple of six-foot-two Americans not only were able to get comfortable behind the wheel (despite the seat’s limited fore-and-aft travel), but had enough headroom to wear a hat besides. Rear-seat room proved to be equally good, with far more legroom than a Civic or even a Camaro/Firebird. The City makes you realize that cars like the Civic have been squashed close to the ground to make them stylish, not small. Let the human form sit upright instead, and it can be made very comfortable in a surprisingly tight space. Moreover, Honda managed to make this package aerodynamic with a low, sloping hood, flush windshield moldings, and a vestigial roof spoiler; the factory claims a drag coefficient of 0.40 and zero lift.
    Spartan appointments are supposed to be consistent with minicars, yet here again the City is much more than a breadbox on wheels. It brings a clean sense of style to space utilization, with the emphasis on utilization. There are over twenty nooks and crannies in what Honda calls its “Pocketterior,” including a clever space for storing small drink cans where they can be cooled by the car’s air-conditioning unit. There are so many storage spaces, in fact, that you run the risk of putting things away and forgetting them. Like last week’s cheese sandwich. The City’s interior volume might be close to that of the Civic, but its space utilization feels more efficient by a factor of three.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    The engine lives up to the same lofty standard set by the interior. The long­-stroke inline-four’s dimensions enable it to fit into a space Honda initially thought large enough only for a three-cylinder, and its all-aluminum construction makes it lighter than a three-cylinder with balance shafts would probably be. Yet the engine’s power rating is hardly undersized. In the test car’s sporting R configuration, the 1232cc four pumps out 67 Japanese horsepower at 5500 rpm—roughly the same as the U.S.­ specification Civic 1500.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    The engine’s secret is a cylinder head called COMBAX (compact blazing combustion axiom), derived from Honda’s CVCC (compound vortex-controlled combustion) design. In a small, secondary combustion chamber with a separate intake valve, a rich mixture lights off to burn a much leaner mixture in the primary combustion chamber. This stratified-charge design has evolved far enough at Honda to permit the under­square COMBAX engine to combine an overall lean fuel mixture, for fuel economy, with a remarkably high compression ratio of 10.0:1, for power and response. (A third-world version of this engine has a 9.0:1 compression ratio for burning low-octane fuel.) The R engine, in conjunction with the R package’s performance-oriented final-drive ratio, powers the 1660-pound City through the quarter-mile in 18.6 seconds at 70 mph while squeezing 41 miles from a gallon of gas in American driving conditions.
    The City also puts its power to the ground efficiently. Fully independent suspension and generous wheel travel with gentle ride rates swallow bumps whole. Some harshness can be felt, and the car pitches a little over freeway expansion joints, but in general the City is stable and controlled where a Civic is vague and mushy. Moreover, the City steers toward an apex almost as crisply as an old Honda S850 sports car, while torque steer is almost imperceptible. In the middle of a corner, though, the City does heel over on its tires like a seasick Citroen 2CV. The R-type’s 165/70SR- 12 rubber (with stunning aluminum wheels) stays on the ground, but too much stunt driving makes you wish you’d stored some Dramamine in one of those twenty pockets. In our brake tests, the stopping distance from 70 mph was a surprisingly short 187 feet.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    Minicar or not, the Honda gives you a tremendous feeling of well-being no matter what kind of driving environment you plunge into. In town, it slashes through traffic with the responsiveness of a sports car and the instincts of a New York taxicab. Only the drivetrain’s tendency to buck in its soft rubber mounts under a less than sensitive throttle foot (a characteristic shared with the Civic and Accord) undercuts its wonderfulness. On the freeway, you’re high enough to see and be seen, so you never feel threatened by oil-truck claustrophobia. The City lacks a little straight-line stability, but that’s its only serious freeway fault.
    When you come right down to it, the only thing that restricts this car to metropolitan use is its name. It’s as well suited to the wide-open spaces as an Escort. You just have to get used to the way it looks, that’s all. Even people at the wheel of French cars were poleaxed by the City’s appearance. But once we told them it was made in Remulac (that’s in France, you know), they seemed reassured. After a while the City managed to look loony and sensible at the same time, like a VW Beetle.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    If minicars are this good, you have to wonder why more manufacturers aren’t rushing them to market. It’s a matter of dollars and sense, as a Ford spokesman told the L.A. Times last year: “The sales potential for minicars is there, but no one knows how great it is. It would cost $3 billion to find out, and we don’t have the money to gamble. We just can’t throw that kind of money into a gap in the market that hasn’t been tested.”
    Most of the protests seem to be simple posturing, however. A 1981 survey by J.D. Power & Associates, the noted research firm, suggested that 200,000 people would buy minicars right now if they could. Minicars seem to appeal to younger drivers who are no longer interested in trading up to larger and larger automotive emblems of status. They seek utilitarian automobiles that can adapt to the varied requirements of their lifestyles—that is, they care more about what a car does and what it costs than what it represents.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    Detroit is already on the way with new cars to meet this market. General Motors’ S-car, designed by Opel and scheduled to be built by Isuzu and Suzuki, should replace the Chevette in 1985. Ford hopes to beat GM into the minicar market in 1984 with a car code­named Minx that is smaller than a Fiesta and has an engine built by Toyo Kogyo (the design bogey is the three-cylinder Daihatsu Charade). Volkswagen, Fiat, Suzuki, and Honda all are interested in bringing their minicars ashore, but they seem to be waiting to see what happens with import restrictions and, more important, with the DOT’s standards for crash tests.

    View Photos

    George LippCar and Driver

    The Honda City certainly proves that minicars need not be thought of as a retrograde step in automotive evolution, no matter how much some of them might resemble the lower forms of animal life. The City ranks with any automobile anywhere in value, utility, and driving enjoyment. Honda might indeed have doubts about the City’s future in America, but we have none. It is precisely the inexpensive, unpretentious, efficient, and fun-to-drive car that we need to put America on wheels again. Just as the Model T was the right car for the first twenty years of this century, the Honda City could well be the right car for the last twenty years.

    Specifications

    SPECIFICATIONS 
    1982 Honda City
    VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
    PRICE AS TESTED (Japan)$4707 (base price: $3299)
    ENGINE TYPE SOHC 8-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, 1×2-bbl carburationDisplacement 75 in3, 1232 cm3Power 67 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque 72 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
    TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual
    CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/strutsBrakes (F/R): 8.4-in disc/7.1-in drumTires: Bridgestone RD-116 Steel, 165/70SR-12
    DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 87.4 inLength: 133.1 inWidth: 61.8 inHeight: 57.9 inCurb weight: 1660 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 12.6 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 11.2 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 24.2 sec1/4 mile: 18.6 sec @ 70 mphTop speed: 91 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 g
    C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 41 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

  • in

    2020 Cadillac CT4 450T Suffers from a Lack of Refinement

    It only seems as if Cadillac has been struggling in the luxury compact segment since Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac founded the city of Detroit in 1701. It hasn’t been quite that long, of course, but it has been nearly 40 years since General Motors’s luxury brand introduced the Cimarron to take on BMW’s and Audi’s compacts. The gussied-up Chevrolet Cavalier was such a flop that it’ll forever be on the list of legendary automotive embarrassments along with Ford’s Edsel, Pontiac’s Aztek, and the Aston Martin Cygnet.

    2020 Cadillac CT4-V Down on Power, But Not Out

    2020 Cadillac CT4 Sedan Lineup Comes into Focus

    Bringing up the C-word in a review of the 2020 Cadillac CT4 may seem unfair. The Cimarron was such a debacle that Caddy licked its wounds for nearly 30 years, surrendering the small-luxury-car segment to BMW, Mercedes, and Audi. In 2013 it finally jumped back in with the rear-wheel-drive ATS, and that’s really where the story of the CT4 begins. Cadillac says its latest, smallest, and least expensive sedan is all new, but that’s a bit of a stretch. It’s more like a heavily refreshed ATS.
    New Mission, Same Old Chassis
    While the ATS attempted to go head to head with the BMW 3-series and Mercedes C-class compacts, Cadillac says it is ceding that role of the new and larger CT5, which replaces the CTS. The CT4 has been reassigned to take on the front-wheel-drive-based subcompacts from the premium brands such as the Audi A3, BMW 2-series Gran Coupe, and Mercedes A-class.

    View Photos

    Cadillac

    That makes the CT4 the only rear-drive sedan in the class. Its chassis is carried over from the ATS, along with the majority of its exterior dimensions, including an unchanged 109.3-inch wheelbase. Squint, and it still looks a lot like its predecessor, but Cadillac says all of its sheetmetal is new, and it has grown 4.4 inches in overall length. Its base powertrain is also familiar. Luxury, Premium Luxury, and Sport trims get the same 237-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter with eight-speed automatic transmission used in the base CT5.
    Cadillac has shelved the 3.6-liter V-6 as the upgrade engine. In its place is a turbocharged 2.7-liter four-cylinder paired with a 10-speed automatic, a combination also used in other GM models, including the Chevrolet Silverado. Rated at 310 horsepower and 350 pound-feet of torque, it’s a $2500 option on Premium Luxury models and standard in the CT4-V, where it’s bumped up to 325 horsepower and 380 pound-feet. Those are great numbers for this class. Cadillac expects about half of CT4 buyers to opt for all-wheel drive, which adds about 130 pounds to the car and is available across the range.
    Dynamically Deficient
    Equipped with the turbocharged 2.7-liter—which wears a 450T badge—and rear-wheel drive, our Premium Luxury test car had no shortage of power. Its considerable torque plateaus quickly at just 1800 rpm, so there’s no need to rev it toward its redline. The 10-speed automatic is happy to keep it in its torquey sweet spot. There are paddle shifters, but you’ll use them only for fun, not out of frustration. This is also the only car in this class that can do a John Force-style burnout through three gears. Cadillac says it can sprint to 60 mph in 5.0 seconds, just 0.2 seconds behind the CT4-V and a significant 1.2 seconds ahead of Cadillac’s claims for the base 2.0-liter. That’s quicker than the A3 and Mercedes A220 but in line with the BMW 228i Gran Coupe, which has only 228 horsepower.

    View Photos

    Cadillac

    Unfortunately, this large four-cylinder idles with the clatter of a diesel and is alarmingly boomy through the top half of the tachometer. And it sounds like John Deere—not John Force—tuned the exhaust system. Despite a noise-cancellation system and Cadillac “enhancing” the engine’s sounds through the audio speakers, it’s more noise than note. Sound enhancement is paired with the vehicle settings. Tour is the default, Sport is nearly unbearable, and then there’s Stealth. You want Stealth. Or earplugs.
    Its stop-start function also isn’t as smooth as it should be, but its EPA ratings of 20 mpg city and 30 mpg highway are in line with the class. And we averaged 26 mpg in mixed driving in Los Angeles, beating its combined rating by 2 mpg.
    According to Dave Schmidt, the CT4 lead development engineer, the structure is stiffer than before and cabin isolation is improved, but there’s still some work to do. It isn’t particularly quiet inside, and the CT4’s pedals vibrate on some road surfaces. Only the CT4-V gets the latest version of GM’s Magnetic Ride Control, and it’s missed on our Premium Luxury test car, which rides comfortably but is a touch floaty.

    View Photos

    Cadillac

    When pushed in the hills, however, a little float becomes underdamped and imprecise. Mid-corner bumps upset the chassis, and there’s more body roll than expected. It’s competent at an easy, swift pace, especially in fast, smooth sweepers, but it’s not much fun. We applaud Cadillac for mounting the battery in the trunk to improve the CT4’s weight distribution, but the all-season tires keep the limits low, and despite the rear-drive layout, it understeers reliably. For those looking for better handling, CT4 Sport models get firmer dampers, which may improve matters.
    Smarter Cabin
    The new interior is a huge improvement over the ATS’s cabin. It’s not only more attractive, it’s also easier to live with and uses the space inside better. Cadillac’s experiment with touch-sensitive panels instead of buttons and knobs is over. The normal switchgear and controls in the CT4 work better and are more intuitive. The new seats are soft but proved comfortable during a 250-mile day. It also has one of the roomiest rear seats in its class, but that’s not saying much. Legroom is still tight.
    All CT4s come with an 8.0-inch infotainment touchscreen, and Cadillac says a larger screen is on the way. Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and an onboard Wi-Fi hotspot are standard, and the CT4 is fitted with GM’s new digital vehicle platform architecture, which is faster and accepts over-the-air updates. A full complement of driver aids is available, but most are not offered on the base Luxury model and are optional extras on the Premium Luxury. Caddy’s self-driving SuperCruise is promised for later this year.

    View Photos

    Cadillac

    Prices start at $33,990 for a Luxury and $38,490 for the Premium Luxury, putting the CT4 right on top of its German rivals. With the optional powertrain and a long list of other packages that added everything from navigation and wireless phone charging to automatic emergency braking and a head-up display, our test car reached a shocking $48,065. And that price didn’t include a sunroof or a power-opening trunk. And the CT4’s hood is held up with a prop rod instead of struts, which just seems like penny pinching. There’s also the matter of badging. Cadillac says the numbers highlight its peak torque output measured in newton-meters. With the 2.7-liter engine, it’s branded a 450T, but the engine’s torque calculates to 475 Nm. That mistake could be solved with a heat gun, some dental floss, and 10 minutes of your time.
    Forty years since the Cimarron dragged Cadillac’s reputation through a Chevy showroom, the brand is still struggling to achieve small-car excellence. The CT4 offers solid performance, more interior space than most of its competitors, and its interior design is a leap forward, but it’s sabotaged by refinement deficiencies and disappointing dynamics. It is a good small sedan, but in Premium Luxury guise, it falls short of its more refined and fun-to-drive German rivals.

    Specifications

    Specifications
    2020 Cadillac CT4 450T
    VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
    BASE PRICE $40,990
    ENGINE TYPE turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 166 in3, 2727 cm3Power 310 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque 350 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
    TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic
    DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 109.3 inLength: 187.2 inWidth: 71.5 inHeight: 56.0 inPassenger volume: 90 ft3Trunk volume: 11 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 3650–3800 lb
    PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 5.0–5.2 sec100 mph: 11.7–11.9 sec1/4 mile: 13.5–13.7 secTop speed: 140 mph
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 23–24/20/28–30 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