Car Reviews

From the November 1982 issue of Car and Driver.
The automotive business may be topsy­-turvy these days, but there’s still no question about where the world’s best drivers’ cars come from. For sheer quantity, you can’t beat the Fatherland: Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and VW turn out more great rides than the rest of the world’s carmakers combined. Even the Japanese still think German cars are magic—and they’re working furiously to close the gap.

Best Hatchbacks of 2020

New VW GTIs Always Make Us Happy, Here’s the Mk 8

So without further ado, allow us to introduce the latest autobahn panzer to grace our roads, the Volkswagen Rabbit GTI, from—wait a minute—Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania? That’s right. Volkswagen of America is now producing a home-grown version of the little hatchback we’ve been waiting for, the GTI—the perennial benchmark of high­-performance European econoboxes. Better still, it works so well, you’d swear it came from Wolfsburg.
If you find this leap of faith a little hard to accomplish, we understand. For one thing, the German-made GTI is one killer shoe box. The intense VW engineers take the three letters on the grille very seriously, and the result of all their tuning is a poor man’s hot rod capable of running with BMWs on the autobahn and on twisty Bavarian back roads.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

Nor was there any reason to anticipate such a car from VW of America. The cars rolling out of Pennsylvania farm country have been the farthest things from Teutonic boy racers. Since opening its U.S. plant in 1978, VW has soft-pedaled its German heritage in favor of an Americanized image. Suspensions turned flaccid, seats became bench-flat, and the flash and filigree levels rose alarmingly. If you wanted a German-style driver’s car, you had to choose from one of the imported models on the dealer’s floor, like the Jetta and the Scirocco.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

That era, we’re happy to report, seems over. With sales off 45 percent from a year ago, VW of America is trying a whole new approach. Jim Fuller, then vice-president of Porsche and Audi, was shipped in last spring to get the lights turned back on, and a new corporate campaign—internally called “Roots”—has been established to foster a more vital image for the company.
This game plan, as you might guess from the name, is for VW to “Germanize” its Americanized, U.S.-built cars. Aside from the image-making GTI—which is intended to cast a glow on the whole line—the program calls for firmer suspensions, better seats, and more understated trim across the board.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

Judging by the GTI, VW seems serious enough to do it. Everything about this car is calculated to make an enthusiast salivate in anticipation. From suspension to seats, all the important parts have been uprated to full autobahn-­class standards—quite an accomplishment, considering the long arm of the cost accountants.
From ten paces, the transformation is quite subtle, though still visible enough that no keen enthusiast will miss it. A small air dam pokes out beneath the front bumper. Molding and bumpers are blacked out. A thin red molding encircles the grille, and simple red badges are stuck on the grille and the rear deck—just like on the German model. The only other giveaway to this car’s identity lurk in the wheel wells: meaty, P185/60HR-14 Pirelli P6 tires on 14.0-by-6.0-inch alloy wheels.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

Clue number two that this is no ordinary economy car comes the second you pull open the door and slide behind the soft, molded, four-spoke Scirocco wheel. The driving environment is aggressively businesslike, but also pleasantly luxurious—more like what you’d expect in an Audi. The highlight of the interior is a pair of deeply sculptured sport seats like those found in the Scirocco, upholstered in heavy-weight corduroy—deep blue with red stripes in the case of our jet-black test car. A somewhat misshapen center console contains a clock, an oil-temperature gauge, and a voltmeter, which supplement the tach, the speedo, the fuel gauge, and the coolant-temp gauge in the instrument cluster. The final touches are a golf-ball shift knob and the substitution of pseudo brushed aluminum for pseudo wood on the dash and console faces.
What you key to life on the other side of the firewall is also something you won’t find in any normal Rabbit: a 1.8-liter four-cylinder that packs more power than any other U.S.- spec Rabbit ever has—90 horsepower at 5500 rpm, to be exact. This 16-hp improvement over the stock powerplant is the result of a variety of revisions. The engine has been bored out from 1715cc to 1781, and compression has been bumped from 8.2:1 to 8.5. The breathing has been improved by opening up valve sizes and adding a low-restriction exhaust system with a 3mm-larger-diameter pipe.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

The 1.8-liter’s 22-percent power improvement is still 16 horses shy of the 1.6-liter German GTI’s power peak—something the engine engineers claim is intentional. The cam from the stock 1.7-liter four was retained, they say, to fatten up the midrange for better around-town response, which is sadly lacking in the high-winding German edition.
Before you roll your eyes at what sounds like an excuse, you should know that this powerplant is a delight to live with. It’s spunky down low and pulls hard for the redline. The new motor muscles the 2100-pound GTI to 60 mph in a brisk 9.7 seconds, nearly two seconds faster than the standard Rabbit five-speed—and nearly a second faster than a 5.0-liter Trans Am four-speed. There’s even enough power to push the VW’s boxy body through the atmosphere at 104 mph.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

The new engine is more than just stronger, it’s more refined as well. VW’s engine team used this opportunity to reduce piston weight by twenty percent and to lengthen the connecting rods by ten percent—two key changes that combine to make this engine one of the world’s most velvety fours. A portion of the GTl’s improved noise-and-vibration control can be traced to a most unlikely source—a new slip-joint connection between the exhaust header and the tailpipe. The upgraded system eliminates the tinny exhaust note of Rabbits past, replacing it with a mellow, expensive-sounding hum.
Another measure of driving pleasure comes through from the gearbox: a GTI unit imported from Germany. The ratios are the closest you’ll find this side of a race car, and they make it easy to keep the free-revving engine in the choice section of the power band.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

Of course, an equal portion of the European GTI’s prowess is derived from the poise its chassis shows under pressure. Here, too, VW of America has come through. Since the U.S. car is about 140 pounds heavier than its German counterpart, U.S. spring rates and shock valving had to be revised. They were chosen specifically to match the European car’s handling characteristics, however. To maintain the best possible quality control, the front struts come from VW’s European supplier, and the rear shocks are Sachs units. The U.S. car does benefit from the same front and rear anti-roll bars used on the German GTI, as well as the foreign car’s ventilated front disc brake rotors.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

The first thing you notice when you put all these gourmet pieces into motion is what they don’t do to our old friend the Rabbit. The new GTI is not a hard-edged street racer. The engine isn’t shrill or peaky; the suspension doesn’t jiggle or crash over the bumps. The GTI is far more sophisticated and refined than that. It will stick like glue—0.78 g is available for cornering work—but excellent roadholding is only half the story. It’s almost as composed and supple as the high-dollar brands are over bad pavement, always on its toes through mountain switchbacks, and quick to answer your right foot at any speed. It never seems to breathe hard.
Despite short gearing—4300 rpm shows on the tach at 80 mph—the GTI is a quiet and comfortable long-distance cruiser. For long hauls or short, the front seats work wonders—this despite being handicapped by having only fore­-and-aft and backrest-angle adjustments. Even the new, optional four-speaker AM/FM-stereo/cassette radio sounds plenty good.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

Next to all-around performance like this, a Scirocco pales. This once-humble Rabbit, in fact, now qualifies as a full-fledged GTI hatchback. What ultimately makes the GTI truly significant, however, is that it’s the first car sold in the U.S. to marry this level of driving satisfaction with the utility, compact dimensions, and fuel efficiency of an economy car. Our test GTI returned an impressive 26 mpg during five days of leadfooted road testing—including a morning of instrumented track tests. That happens to be exactly the same real-world mileage we netted with a stock five-speed Rabbit three-door we tested recently. What’s more, if driving enjoyment in a small car is your paramount concern, you’d be hard pressed to beat the cost-benefit ratio inherent in the GTI’s eight-grand admission price.
For that sum you will not be overwhelmed by clever features, a component sound system, or infinitely adjustable seats. In true German fashion, VW equips the GTI only with what’s needed to get the job done, thank you. When it comes to sheer driving enjoyment, though, the new GTI currently stands in a class of one. True to its pedigree, it can make you feel great—and that’s the best thing any car can do for its driver.
Counterpoint
Listen, we ought to give this car a medal or something. Partly because it’ll put the hurt on so many so-called sports cars in the stand-on-it-and-steer-it mode. But mostly because the GTI isn’t another one of those dumb boy racers that ride like produce wagons and make power like blenders stuck on purée.
I mean, even a fast car should live up to certain minimum standards. So I don’t mind that the GTI rides like a Jaguar. I can live with first-class furnishings in the passenger cabin. I can stand a smooth, powerful engine that squeezes a bunch of miles out of every gallon of gas. If this is the sacrifice I have to make for a car that does business as good as the C/D performance specs say the GTI does, I’m ready to bite the bullet.
Like everybody else, I expected a kind of Porsche Speedster—an uncivilized, fast little car. Imagine how lucky we are that this Eighties-style Speedster is civilized as well as fast. It’s a fast little car without the nonsense. —Michael Jordan
As a self-proclaimed forward thinker, I’m sent into a quasi funk every time I think of what the GTI could have been. With Euro horsepower (110 DIN) and fewer black-speed decorations, this box could have left for dead every other performance car in the country.

View Photos

Robin RiggsCar and Driver

But I am sheered back up again by thinking of what it is. This car just down-the-road drives better than any other box I’ve tried in the past year. The suspension has the right resilience, and the steering has the right feel. There’s a wonderful sense of balance. Balance is the hardest quality to engineer in—harder by far than horsepower—and VW has done it right. You can really make some moves in this car.
Seats are nearly as difficult. For my anatomy, the GTI’s buckets fit better than the best that can be done with all the knobs and squeeze bulbs in Camaros and Supras. For around $8000, I don’t know of a friendlier place to sit and drive. —Patrick Bedard
Universal esteem for anything—automobiles, moving pictures, jelly doughnuts—is unheard-of in this office. Yet everybody loves the Rabbit GTI, including me. But let me enter a short list of this car’s deficiencies into the record for the sake of objectivity. The clutch pedal vibrates underfoot at times. It’s difficult to heel-and-toe. The steering is too slow for my tastes. Lastly, the Rabbit is by now an old car, a condition I’ll mention in passing without actually holding it against the GTI in any way. Let us instead say the car is mature.
The most interesting thing to me about the GTI is that it’s a true original even though the idea of a sport box has been bandied about for years. The Japanese have nothing of the sort. Chevrolet can only dream of such a car. The Ford Motor Company is working hard on the Escort GT, but the fruit of its labor is not yet ripe. Now that VW has done the definitive econoracer, copying it should be easy. This is one case where cribbing is encouraged, at least by me. —Don Sherman
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

View Photos
Michael SimariCar and Driver

Don’t get hung up by the new nameplate on the redesigned 2021 Kia K5. This is very much the shapely mid-size sedan formally known as the Kia Optima. We’re a little sad to see a perfectly good vehicle name fall to alphanumeric nonsense, but the Optima has always been known as the K5 in the Korean market. The badge on the trunklid takes nothing away from its family sedan goodness. Like its predecessor, it upholds Kia’s increasingly impressive ability to balance upscale execution, design, and value.

2021 Kia K5 Drops Optima Name, Adds Sporty Options

Good-Looking 2021 Kia K5 Starts under $25,000

At the center of the Optima-to-K5 metamorphosis is the latter’s adoption of the Hyundai-Kia conglomerate’s latest N3 platform, which also underpins the similarly fresh 2020 Hyundai Sonata. We had a brief drive of the new K5 last year around Kia’s home market of South Korea. Compared to the outgoing Optima, the new sedan is 2.0 inches longer, 1.0 inch wider, and 0.8 inch lower. Its 112.2-inch wheelbase also is up 1.8 inches, with that growth primarily going to expanding rear-seat space. Even with the K5’s sloping roofline, six-footers can easily sit behind six-footers.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The Optima was always a looker, and the K5 arguably is even more so with its strong character lines, balanced proportions, and intricate detailing. We’ll leave it to you to decide if the K5’s sharper lines, zigzag LED running lights, and “sharkskin-inspired” grille treatment work better than the Sonata’s demurer look, but there’s no denying this Kia pushes style and design further than what’s expected of the segment.
Driving the Change
Things are comparably tame under the K5’s hood, although the GT model will address that when it arrives later this year with a 290-hp turbocharged 2.5-liter inline-four and an eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. The front-wheel-drive GT-Line and EX models that we drove in Michigan featured the standard 1.6-liter turbo-four—180 horsepower and 195 pound-feet of torque—mated to a conventional, smooth-shifting eight-speed automatic. In our testing of a similar 2020 Sonata, this setup was good for a zero-to-60-mph run in 7.3 seconds. That car also returned 36 mpg on our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, although some competitors such as the Toyota Camry can top 40 mpg in that measure. For the K5, its EPA estimates top out at 29 mpg city, 38 mpg highway, and 32 mpg combined.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The K5 breaks from the front-drive-only Sonata by offering all-wheel drive. That system will be available later this year as an option only on the volume LXS and GT-Line trim levels. The upgrade won’t come cheap, though. Bundled with a host of otherwise optional equipment, all-wheel drive will add $2100 to the price of the LXS and $3700 to the GT-Line.
Kia says the K5 was tuned separately from the Sonata, yet both share a similar characteristics on the road. The K5’s steering is precise but numb in feel, there’s an initial softness to its brake pedal that firms up when you stand on it, and it goes around corners with reassuring competence and stability. The relatively soft suspension returns good overall ride comfort and moderate body roll in corners, but we would like more insulation from the road. Both of the cars we drove rolled on 18-inch Pirelli P Zero All-Season tires (16s are standard on lesser trims) that provided reasonable levels of grip. Yet, despite a standard acoustically laminated windshield and increased sound-deadening material, road noise is prominent on most surfaces and the big wheels thwack loudly over bumps and pavement seams.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The K5’s 1.6-liter is content with being worked lightly, doling out its peak torque at just 1500 rpm with a subdued thrum. Sport mode energizes things a touch by prompting the eight-speed to hold on to lower gears longer and pumping slightly more engine noise into the interior through the stereo speakers. It also firms up the steering effort a little, albeit with no change to its tactility. But only the K5’s GT model gets paddle shifters, and the standard transmission will upshift on its own well before the engine’s 6500-rpm redline, even with the shift lever slotted into its manual mode.
Interior Evolution
Kia has significantly upped the Optima’s interior game with excellent fit and finish and a thoughtful sprinkling of not-too-shiny bits. The K5 succeeds in incorporating various styling elements from both Kia’s sportier Stinger hatchback and the Telluride SUV, along with exemplary functionality and ease of use. GT-Line models can be optioned with jazzy red leatherette upholstery with GT-Line logos emblazoned on the front headrests, but we preferred the cooler ambiance of the more luxurious EX model with its greater feature count and its convincing fake-wood detailing. While we would’ve liked to lower the front seats even more in their tracks, the K5’s thrones don’t feel perched as excessively high as the latest Sonata’s.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

There are some budget-minded elements to be found, including hard plastics on the door panels, center console, and lower dash. EX models add more soft-touch points and a few niceties that we wish were standard across the range, such as rear climate-control vents. But all K5s come with dual-zone automatic climate control, a crisp (albeit small) 4.2-inch instrument cluster display, and an 8.0-inch center touchscreen. A 10.3-inch touchscreen is optional. Wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connectivity are standard, but strangely, you’ll have to use a power cord to sync with the larger 10.3-inch touchscreen. Kia says it may address that discrepancy with wireless connectivity in a future technical update. Other tech highlights include an optional 12-speaker Bose stereo and wireless device charging.
Even the K5’s competitively priced $24,455 LX base model comes with loads of standard safety gear and driver aids, including forward-collision avoidance with pedestrian detection, automatic high beams, a driver-attention monitor, and lane-keeping assist. Moving up through the lineup unlocks additional assistants, such as navigation-supported adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go capability, rear cross-traffic detection, and blind-spot monitoring. Fully loaded, the front-drive Kia K5 GT-Line costs about $28K, while the more indulgent EX tops out around $32K. That’s slightly less than a new Sonata Limited yet a bit more than you’ll pay for a similarly equipped Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

The new Kia K5 may not be as engaging to drive as the Accord, which remains our top pick in the segment. And had it been around for our most recent comparison test of family sedans, it probably wouldn’t have improved upon the Sonata’s second-place finish. To be sure, we will let the Kia and the Honda duke it out soon enough. But what the K5 does offer is an impressively styled and smartly executed package that’s studded with features and technology. Optima still has a better ring to it than K5, but Kia’s redesigned mid-sizer is good enough that we don’t really care what it’s called.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Kia K5
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, front- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
BASE PRICE LX, $24,455; LXS, $25,455; GT-Line, $26,355; EX, $28,955; GT, $31,455
ENGINES turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 1.6-liter inline-4, 180 hp, 195 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter inline-4, 290 hp, 311 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION 7-speed dual-clutch automatic, 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 193.1 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger volume: 102–105 ft3Trunk volume: 16 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 3100–3400 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 5.2–7.4 sec100 mph: 17.8–20.1 sec1/4 mile: 13.5–15.7 secTop speed: 135 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 29–32/26–29/35–38 mpg

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

View Photos
Michael SimariCar and Driver

Hyundai’s 2020 Ioniq Electric isn’t all about the range. If you want an EV that will go more than 200 miles on a charge, a Hyundai salesman will walk you over to the $38,330 Kona Electric SUV with a 258-mile EPA range. And the Kona isn’t the only alternative. There are plenty of other choices for just a few thousand more than the Ioniq EV’s $34,020 base price. A Chevrolet Bolt and its 259-mile range starts at $37,495, the Nissan Leaf Plus offers 215 miles of range for $39,125, and the 250-mile range Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus opens for $39,190.

HIGHS: Exceedingly energy efficient, surprisingly classy cabin, strong value versus rivals.

But, let’s say you don’t want to spend the extra dough and that the refreshed Ioniq’s 170-mile EPA range works for you. That range is an improvement over the first Ioniq Electric, which traveled 124 miles on a charge, and it beats the smaller-battery $32,525 Nissan Leaf’s 149-mile range. Credit the new and larger battery (28.0 kWh to 38.3 kWh) for the added range. Charging can also happen faster thanks to a slightly upgraded onboard charger that goes from 6.6 kW to 7.2 kW to help speed charging times for the Ioniq’s larger battery.

Hyundai Ioniq Offers an Alternative to the Prius

Best Lease Deals for July 2020

Fully Electrified Hyundai Ioniq Driven

Enough with the EPA talk; we have our own range test, one where we drive at a steady 75 mph on the highway. We didn’t subject the previous Ioniq to the same methodology, so there is no direct comparison for the 150 miles of highway range we observed in the updated Ioniq. That makes its freeway legs longer only than the 2017 BMW i3 and both the Bolt and Leaf can cover 180 miles, so don’t expect to road trip. But it is worth noting that the 12 percent drop from it’s EPA range is among the least we have seen, meaning Hyundai is very honest in its own test practices and reporting.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

Trucklike Braking and Flappy Paddle Fun
The 2020 Ioniq Electric also comes with a more powerful permanent-magnet synchronous AC motor than last year. While it zaps the same 218 pound-feet of torque to the front wheels, the motor now generates 134 horsepower (up from 118). The additional electrified ponies don’t change the acceleration times much compared with the last Ioniq we tested back in 2017. A run to 60 mph takes a tepid 8.3 seconds, while a Bolt EV does it in 6.7 ticks, and the smaller-battery Leaf does it in 7.4 seconds. The Hyundai still feels punchy around town, especially for anyone who isn’t familiar with the sensation of an electric motor’s instant torque. However, the Ioniq feels particularly languid at highway speeds. It needed 4.9 seconds to make it from 50 and 70 mph, again trailing both the Chevy and Nissan’s EVs.

LOWS: Meh acceleration, 170-mile range puts it a class below the Bolt and Model 3, tires aid efficiency but hurt braking distances.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

As reluctant as the Ioniq was to speed up, it was even less willing to slow down in a hurry. We measured a long stopping distance of 191 feet from 70 mph. That’s longer than a 5602-pound GMC Sierra 1500. The Hyundai’s braking performance isn’t an outlier, though. The Bolt EV and Leaf recorded equally long 70-mph-to-zero stops. Blame the low-rolling resistance tires, selected for their ability to stretch every electron, not for grip. Despite the slipperiness of our Ioniq’s narrow 205-section-width rubber, which registered an SUV-like 0.79 g of grip on our 300-foot skidpad, we like how Hyundai gives the driver control over regenerative braking. Controlled via paddles on the steering wheel, it’s possible to select between three different levels of deceleration, or you can hold the left paddle to activate the full potential of regenerative braking. It’s strong enough to bring the car to a complete stop. Never having to touch the brake pedal and maximizing regenerative braking is a fun distraction from the electrified Ioniq’s otherwise commuter-car driving behavior.

View Photos

Michael SimariCar and Driver

Classier Inside and Cheaper Than Rivals
A larger battery and longer range aren’t all that’s new. The 2020 Ioniq Electric also receives a lovelier interior. The redesigned instrument panel benefits from richer materials and a more stylish aesthetic that’s set off at night by the blue glow of ambient lighting. The cabin is also modernized with a new high-res digital gauge cluster and touch-sensitive climate controls, and on our high-spec Limited model, you also get a larger 10.3-inch touchscreen that’s standard on Limited models. Too bad many of the updates are prettier than practical. Hyundai replaced most of the physical buttons with touch controls that don’t offer the same feedback or reliable responses as a button.
Our gray Ioniq Electric Limited arrived with an as-tested price of $39,590, but if you forgo some features like blind-spot monitoring and power front seats, you can get into the SE-trim Ioniq for just $34,020. We’d recommend the SE, since the Limited doesn’t add any range, and if you’re willing to spend nearly $40,000 on an EV, you should get one of the aforementioned ones with longer legs.

Specifications

Specifications
2020 Hyundai Ioniq Electric
VEHICLE TYPE front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE AS TESTED $39,590 (base price: $34,020)
MOTOR TYPE permanent-magnet synchronous motor, 134 hp, 218 lb-ft; 38.3-kWh lithium-ion battery pack
TRANSMISSION 1-speed direct drive
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/torsion beamBrakes (F/R): 11.0-in vented disc/11.2-in discTires: Michelin Energy Saver A/S, 205/60R-16 92H M+S
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 176.0 inWidth: 71.7 inHeight: 58.1 inPassenger volume: 94 ft3Cargo volume: 23 ft3Curb weight: 3433 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 8.3 sec100 mph: 26.1 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 3.1 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 4.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.5 sec @ 84 mphTop speed (governor limited): 108 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 121 MPGe75-mph highway driving: 127 MPGeHighway range: 150 miles
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 133/145/121 MPGeRange: 170 miles

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

View Photos
DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

From the April 1985 Issue of Car and Driver.

The Honda Civic CRX is one of our favorite cars, but we’re never sure how to categorize it. With comfortable accommodations for two, low cost, and superior fuel economy, it’s an outstanding commuter car. But with its sporty two-seat design, excellent performance, and nimble handling, it can also be viewed as the reincarnation of the low-priced sports car.

For the 1985 model year, American Honda has tipped the balance decisively in the sporty direction by importing a new version of its two-seater, the CRX 1.5Si. The Si is equipped with several features that CRXs for the Japanese and European markets have enjoyed for more than a year.

Best Hatchbacks of 2020

Honda Civic Coupe Dead, New Sedan and Hatch Coming

The Greatest Cars of All Time: The Eighties

The most important upgrade is fuel injection. Honda engineers have fitted their own electronic fuel-injection system and a new tuned-runner intake manifold to the existing all-aluminum 1.5-liter engine. An associated change is the deletion of the CVCC prechambers with their tiny intake valves; the fuel injection offers no easy means of providing the richer mixture burned in the prechambers. Modern three-way catalysts and feedback fuel-air-ratio controls, however, have made the CVCC system largely unnecessary for emissions-control purposes.
Sources at Honda tell us that this engine was delayed for America to ensure its durability and reliability. Whereas those aspects of the engine will only be proved in time, the new motor’s energetic output is immediately apparent. Power has increased from 76 bhp at 6000 rpm to 91 bhp at 5500 rpm, and torque is up from 84 pounds-feet at 3500 rpm to 93 pounds-feet at 4500 rpm. To bolster performance further, the Si’s final-drive ratio is four percent lower.

DAVID DEWHURST

These measures improve the CRX’s already healthy performance by a good margin. The 0-to-60-mph sprint is covered in just 9.1 seconds, compared with 10.4 seconds for a standard 1984 1.5-liter CRX. In the standing quarter-mile, the Si stops the clock in 16.4 seconds at 81 mph, compared with 17.4 seconds at 77 mph. The margin widens further at higher speeds as the injected car attains 100 mph in 36.3 seconds, about eighteen seconds quicker than a standard CRX, and its top speed jumps from 103 to 112 mph. At the same time, the injected motor is every bit as smooth and torquey as the standard one and is much easier to start and operate in cold weather.
The added thrust makes the CRX even more of a blast on winding roads than it was before. Although the injected car comes with the same sport suspension and wheel and tire sizes as the other 1.5-liter CRXs, the twenty-percent power boost makes it easier to exploit its capable handling. Entry and exit speeds in corners can be closer to the car’s limits, and the extra power allows the handling balance to be adjusted with the throttle over a broader speed range than before.

DAVID DEWHURST

On a jaunt through the Angeles Crest Forest on our way to a desert test site, we found the injected CRX remarkably capable. Even on the steep uphill stretches, it had plenty of power. The sure-footed chassis was unflustered by the varied switchbacks and occasional slippery sections. The chassis is so well balanced, in fact, that it could benefit from larger or stickier tires, which would improve its middling 0.75-g lateral grip. Such a change should be accompanied by more supportive seats, because the existing buckets are already marginal for hard driving.
Although the tires and the seats are unchanged, the CRX 1.5Si is equipped with several features that, like the injected engine, were previously withheld from the American market. One is a unique power sunroof. Unlike a conventional sunroof, which slides backward between a roof s inner and outer panels, the Si’s moves upward and then backward over the roof, taking a smaller bite out of headroom and allowing a much larger panel than would be possible with a conventional design.
Also included are a rear wiper/washer, 5.0-inch-wide aluminum wheels, and a new rear spoiler that’s molded of soft urethane. (The rear wing on regular CRXs is molded of hard plastic.) In addition, the CRX Si has an exclusive metallic-black paint option, supplementing the standard choice of red, white, or blue.
Otherwise, the Si has the same excellent layout and features as other CRXs. The additional goodies boost the base price of an Si to $7999, more than a grand higher than the standard CRX, but we think sporting drivers will find their money well spent. Honda should have no trouble selling the 18,000 units it intends to import in 1985.
Perhaps such success will encourage Honda to continue in this vein and import the CRX DOHC Si, which has recently been introduced in Japan. Its 1.6-liter engine, four valves per cylinder, and 135 JIS horsepower would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the CRX is a sports car, not a mere commutermobile.

Specifications

Specifications
1985 Honda Civic CRX 1.5Si91-hp 4-inline, 5-speed automatic. 1840 lbBase/as-tested price: $7999/$8799C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.1 sec1/4 mile: 16.4 @ 81 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 209 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g C/D observed fuel economy: 32 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 July 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
Yes, yes, we know—we wouldn’t have compared a Corvette with a Mustang back in 1968, because the Ford’s primary rival was the Chevrolet Camaro. But we thought it would be fun to see how the antecedents of the current Corvette and GT500 shaped up.
The two most charismatic cars from Ford and Chevy have retained much of their ’60s DNA. Today, the Corvette is a relatively sophisticated two-place sports car with a honking big V-8 up front, a car that provides lots of performance and style for the money. Back in 1968, the Corvette did the self-same thing. The big difference, one could argue, is that today’s car looks a little tame, whereas Bill Mitchell’s styling was sexier than anything the Europeans could manage this side of a Lamborghini Miura.
The ’68 GT500KR, like the newest GT500, was the ultimate Ford pony car, sporting a big bad V-8 and scoops and spoilers aplenty. Unlike the Corvette, the old car doesn’t look that dissimilar from its modern counterpart, which slavishly apes the ’68 Mustang’s iconic styling. Then as now, the Ford is a relatively crude device, the KR having a live rear axle compared with the Corvette’s independent rear suspension and rear drums as opposed to all-around disc brakes.

View Photos

TOM DREW

Our GT500KR was supplied by Chris and Karen Burkhart, who are the third owners of this 41,000-mile example. The panel work and the interior are totally original, but the Highland Green color has been reapplied and Burkhart has fitted more modern BFGoodrich Radial T/A tires, a hotter cam, and a freer-flowing exhaust in his 28-year ownership.
The KR—for “King of the Road”—was a development of the ’68 GT500, with the so-called Cobra Jet 428-cubic-inch engine in place of the Police Interceptor unit. The GT500 was nominally rated at 360 horsepower, whereas the KR was down to 335. “This was done for insurance purposes,” says Chris Burkart. “Everyone knew that was a joke and the real number was somewhere slightly north of 400 horsepower, with 440 pound-feet of torque.” Compared with a stock ’68 Mustang, the GT500 gained a plethora of scoops and vents, a fiberglass hood and trunklid, a front-strut brace, wider rear brake drums and shoes, an 8000-rpm tach, a 140-mph speedometer, and a rollover bar. The heavy-duty Mustang suspension, as well as power brakes and steering, were standard on all GT500s.
Before we tested the car at nearby Michigan Dragway, Burkhart was frank about the car’s strengths. “It’s a green-light car. It’s good in a straight line, and that’s about it.” He’s right about the straight-line part. Burkhart advised test driver Dave VanderWerp to leave the selector for the three-speed automatic transmission in D, “put your foot on the brakes, keep the rpm up, and hope for the best.” The best was a strong 13.9-second quarter-mile, a 0-to-60 in 5.4 seconds, and a 30-to-50 mph acceleration that’s comparable with that of some AMG Mercedes.

VanderWerp came back grinning: “That thing bangs it home, just like you want for the drag strip. It’s a hoot, man,” he said, getting into the period lingo. What the numbers fail to convey is the noise the GT500 makes as it blasts down the strip, the V-8 roaring like the soundtrack from Bullitt, its progress punctuated by chirps from the tires as the brawny V-8 broke traction in all three gears. On the street, the torque, power, and insane noise dominate the driving experience. This is just as well, because the brakes, handling, and roadholding are pretty hopeless. The car feels clumsy when you start hustling it, in part because it wants to understeer like crazy and in part because the incredibly light steering has almost no feel. It rides quite nicely, but just like modern Mustangs, it never feels as if the front and rear ends are totally in sync. In fact, we were surprised by how the new car has adopted the old car’s demeanor: great in a straight line, but a bit wayward when the road starts curving.
Barry Davison’s 1968 Corvette coupe is a big-block 427 rated at 435 horsepower and fitted with the LS9 aluminum-cylinder-head option and a four-speed manual transmission. Davison, who has a garage full of Corvettes, is only the second owner of this 26,000-mile car. Original owner Dave Sullivan drag-raced it, eventually putting in a 454 engine, replacing the frame, and running elapsed times as low as 10 seconds. “I decided to restore it,” Sullivan said, “when the cars started to become valuable.” He had the original frame in his garage and entrusted the work to Werner Meier, a former GM engineer who runs Masterworks Automotive Services in the Detroit ’burb of Madison Heights. The car has been restored to factory standard, down to the skinny Goodyear Speedway bias-ply tires. The tobacco interior is completely original and is a ’60s vision in vinyl and plastic.

View Photos

TOM DREW

Meier, who still looks after the car, and Davison took turns running the strip for our tests, in between some carburetion issues. “The three double-barrel Holleys weren’t called triple double for nothing,” Meier said. In the end, Davison’s Vette set the better times, with a stout 13.8-second quarter-mile and a 0-to-60 in 5.3 seconds. Those times are fast for a 1968 car.
The Corvette is much more complete than the Mustang, like the current machine. It feels like a sports car from the moment you sit in it, low down as opposed to high up. The brakes have more power and feedback, the steering has more weight and road feel, and it rides more stiffly over broken pavement. The Corvette demonstrates that handling and roadholding are very different things: Although the Vette generates a feeble 0.65 g on the skidpad, the balance is sweet. You can enter a turn with mild understeer, then use the gas pedal to shift the attitude from neutral behavior to oversteer in a gentle, progressive manner. It simply feels lighter on its feet, a corollary of its 259-fewer pounds. You expect the Corvette to be a rorty beast, but the noticeable Detroit backbeat is muffled compared with the Mustang’s. The four-speed manual shifter needs positive efforts but adds to the sports-car experience.
In the same way the new Corvette competes with the best European sports cars for less money, so the ’68 car stacked up favorably against its rivals of the time—Porsches, Jaguars, and even Ferraris. The Mustang, on the other hand, feels bigger, heavier, and clumsier, even if its performance and character are just as endearing, a uniquely American take on the sports coupe. Just like today, in fact.
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 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
This magazine unashamedly panders to car lust. Just name your passion. Be it come-hither styling or pulse-quickening horsepower or exotic machinery, we deliver your fix every month.
So who asked for a Hyundai Sonata, you’re wondering?

Sonata Hybrid Weds Style and Fuel Efficiency

Compared: Accord, Camry, Altima, Sonata, Legacy

It just so happens that Hyundai specializes in the single feature most wanted by the majority of new-car shoppers, more important even than sexy fenders, twin turbos, or a glut of valves. Hyundai features low price.
Low price is the thing everybody wants and nobody lusts after, which means that this limousine of the Hyundai line, the Sonata, needs to be viewed a little differently than the normal road-test candidate. After all, most folks still think of South Korea as a Third World country. Moreover, the company didn’t build its first car until 1967 and didn’t export to the U.S. until 1986. So nobody expects an automobile wearing the Hyundai label to be a great car. The question is, is it good enough?

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

That question has to be answered with another question: what’s really important to you in a new car?
If you’re looking for the utmost in sophistication, there are other cars of comparable size that do better, although the difference is surprisingly narrow. But if the top three items on your list are price, price, and price, the Sonata is probably unbeatable.
Hyundai offers cars of two sizes. The smaller of the two is the Excel, now in its second generation. There’s not a grin in a boatload of Excels: they’re specialists in cost-efficient transport.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

The four-door Sonata, new last year, aspires to much more. lt’s sized up into the smaller end of the intermediate range, close to the 1990 Honda Accord, about two inches longer than a Toyota Camry, about four inches shorter than a Ford Taurus. A 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine is standard. A 3.0-Iiter, 142-hp V-6 (with automatic transmission only) is optional. This size and power, along with a reasonable list of convenience options, puts the Sonata squarely in competition with the no-excuses brands.
Yet the Sonata’s price is clearly lower. Exact price comparisons are difficult because of equipment variations on the base cars. But let’s take the least costly four-door version of each car and add a V-6 engine, an automatic transmission, air conditioning, and destination charges. The Sonata works out to $12,464, compared with $15,468 for the Camry, $14,547 for the Taurus, $14,340 for the four-cylinder-only Accord. As you can see, the price-conscious have a good reason to consider the Sonata.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

And when they do, they’ll find a car that seems a whole lot closer to the others than price would suggest. Staffers of average weight and height find easy comfort in this car. In the base version, the only adjustments on the driver’s seat are fore and aft and seatback angle, but nothing more is necessary. The steering column tilts. The motorized shoulder belt does its thing and you’re ready to go. The Sonata is reasonably quiet on the highway: mostly you hear air rushing past the windows. The ride (if you avoid the 60-series tire option) is about normal for this class of car. The controls respond appropriately. The passenger seats are quite comfortable. In all, there’s nothing significant to complain about.
In fact, a trip in the Sonata is perfectly forgettable, which is a compliment for this relative newcomer. That means no annoyances, no bad habits.
Real car guys, of course, expect more of their car than simply the absence of bother. They want accurate controls, quick responses, and the general feeling of quality. How does the Sonata do on that score?
Well, it’s mostly forgettable there, too. Nothing stands out. While that’s not much of a recommendation to an enthusiast, it’s certainly an impressive accomplishment for a company that’s been making cars for only 24 years, in a country where driving is a luxury beyond the means of most citizens.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Already the Sonata has features of special interest to some professionals. The styling is must-have stuff for bank robbers. The look is pleasing enough; it has very little bright trim, and the curves are soft, rather in the aero mode. But turn away and, “Darn, what did that car look like, anyway?” Again, the word “forgettable” comes to mind.
The instrument panel is busy territory, with more switches, buttons, and dials than you’d expect. While Honda makes the driver’s compartment simple, Hyundai makes it look complicated. Our test car was equipped with a fine-sounding AM/FM/cassette system using six Polk loudspeakers, a $795 option. The radio’s digital display on the dash was too faint to read in the daytime, though. And the dashboard clock was the only electronic clock we can remember that was a hopeless timekeeper: it lost about two hours a day.
While the cloth-upholstered interior is quite comfortable, the eye notices details that are a bit behind the times. The map pockets, for example, are plastic moldings attached to the door panels in the fashion of a patch rather than being integrated into the shape. Also, the console and some of the dashboard trim seem tentatively fastened.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Still, nobody can accuse Hyundai of avoiding the hard jobs. A leather interior is optional. The alliance with Polk to produce a special sound system is a move you’d expect of a mainline carmaker, and the result is much superior to, say, the Bose system in the Nissan Maxima SE. There’s an even better sound option—it includes a CD player, a 160-walt amplifier, and twelve Polk speakers—that we did not hear.
Mechanically, Hyundai relies on licenses from Mitsubishi for some of its components. The engine, for example, is a Mitsubishi design, although it is not exactly the same as the one used in Mitsubishi and Chrysler cars in the U.S. The Sonata’s V-6 has two valves per cylinder and a single overhead cam per bank. Multipoint fuel injection, also a Mitsubishi-licensed system, is standard equipment. The engine runs quietly and teams happily with the electronically controlled four-speed automatic. Shifts are notably smooth, and the computer knows its business: it didn’t get confused when we accelerated hard in one of the lower gears and then eased back just when it was getting ready to shift.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Two sizes of Michelin Sport EPX tires are offered as options: 195/70SR-14 and 205/60HR-15. The 70-series option coordinates well with the Sonata’s intrinsic suspension response. The 60-series choice is less pleasing. This tire’s quickness seemed out of phase with the suspension, producing small darting motions in defiance of the driver’s steering inputs. The Sonata has a relatively soft suspension, good for comfort, unsatisfying for aggressive driving. So the avowedly sporting 60-series tires make about as much sense as ketchup on ice cream.
After numerous conversations around the water cooler, we’ve decided that the Sonata’s best feature—after price—is roominess. It’s not as big inside as a Taurus, particularly in width, but there’s more space inside for five passengers than you’d expect from the exterior dimensions. The trunk is reasonably large, too, with a low lift-over.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

Because Hyundai is an emerging carmaker specializing in low prices, we cast a critical eye on the details. Overall, the Sonata is a reasonably well put together car. Our two test examples had no rattles, structural shakes, or wind leaks. The textures of the cloth and the vinyl used inside were pleasing. And yet, when you look at the basics‑the finish inside the trunk and under the hood, the hinges, the stampings, and the like‑you see rudimentary executions. Moreover, when driving we hear small, unidentifiable sounds that are uncarlike, little reminders that this is not a Honda.
That’s okay. All cars needn’t be the same. The Sonata’s prices aren’t in Honda’s league either. Yet Hyundai is obviously crowding its prices up about as fast as it dares. The leather interior and the twelve-speaker stereo are ways to raise the gross price without lifting the advertised base. Which leads us to the final water-cooler consensus. We’re impressed how quickly this South Korean company learned to produce a car of distinctly middle-class capabilities, and we’re equally impressed with its pricing ambitions.
Counterpoint
In 1962 my father bought his first new car, a six-cylinder Ford Galaxie, for about 2600. It was the bottom­-of-the-line full-sized Ford, with industrial upholstery and no power assists. It didn’t even have carpeting.
Cheap as it was, my father’s Galaxie was a serviceable unit: reasonably economical, reliable, and able to carry our family and all of our detritus on long trips. Not once, however, did we forget we were traveling in a bare­bones transportation appliance.

View Photos

Ken HannaCar and Driver

The Sonata V6 is spiritually akin to that old Galaxie. It’s big and roomy, and it offers a healthy powertrain and a reliable reputation. And, compared with other similarly equipped cars, it’s cheap. Of course, the passage of a quarter-century has endowed the Sonata with far more sophistication than any lowball sedan of the sixties. It has attractive upholstery and carpeting and an efficient climate-control system. It also offers features that didn’t exist in 1962. Still, like my father’s Galaxie, the Sonata V6 is a transportation tool, nothing more. —Csaba Csere
You can imagine reading a classified ad in your Sunday paper detailing Hyundai’s new Sonata V6: 1990 Hyundai Sinatra, vry cln, nvr titled, FM/cass, A/C, V-6, auto, pwr evrythng, nice car, must sell, $14,500.
Farther down the page, you could find similar descriptions of Mitsubishis, Nissans, and Toyotas, but those cars would cost at least $2300 more than the Hyundai. To find a similarly equipped car at the Hyundai’s price, you’d have to look for year-old Toyota Camry V-6s or used Nissan Maximas.
I’d prefer the used cars. Though the Sonata is roomy and well equipped, it lacks the refinements in noise and vibration control that you find in the Japanese sedans. Of course, if you go with a used car you have to worry about the previous owner’s maintenance habits and his pets and whether the warranty will transfer. Big worries. I still wouldn’t buy the Hyundai, but I wouldn’t laugh at anyone who did. —Phil Berg
The Hyundai Sonata is not my kind of car. But keep reading if you’re in the market for some decent, if unexciting, transportation. Our test example of the Sonata cost just over $14,500, erasing any thoughts of the Sonata being a bargain-basement steal. But it is V-6 powered. And the V-6 is matched to an automatic transmission that gives true meaning to the word “smooth.” It’s a driveline that Ford would kill to have in its Tempo.
When I sat down in the Sonata, my first thoughts were, in order, that it felt surprisingly large inside and that it looked more American than Japanese in the areas of fit and finish. The too-soft velour seats, in particular, clearly spoke American.
During the many miles I drove the Sonata, the car worked with a smooth dullness made to order for claims adjusters and health-food junkies. Practical Pig would love it. —William Jeanes

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
1997 Hyundai Sonata V6
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$15,504 (base price: $11,684)
ENGINE TYPESOHC 12-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 181 in3, 2972 cm3Power: 142 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 168 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): struts/trailing armBrakes (F/R): 10.1-in vented disc/9.0-in drumTires: Michelin Sport EPX Plus M+S, P205/60HR-15
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 184.3 inWidth: 68.9 inHeight: 55.4 inPassenger volume: 104 ft3Trunk volume: 14 ft3Curb weight: 2986 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.9 sec100 mph: 36.6 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 5.0 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 6.9 sec1/4 mile: 17.2 sec @ 79 mphTop speed: 114 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 18/16/22 mpg

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

From the June 1989 issue of Car and Driver.
The Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1, unless we miss our guess, is going to cost some people at General Motors their jobs.

The 13 Quickest Cars of the 1980s

The Quickest Cars We’ve Tested, From 1955 to Today

You ask, how can that be? After all, is this not the Corvette from hell? The King of the Hill? The Ferrari-fighting world-class two-seater from the Motor City? A legend-to-be? Yes, it is that and more. But it still may cause heads to roll.
To anyone who’s ever been a part of the corporate world, such a situation is familiar. In all corporations, only one person can do no wrong. That person is the boss — the chairman or president or chief executive officer or maximum leader or whatever the top man is called. A second group, friends of the boss, can do some wrong. A third contingent, those not a part of the power structure, can quite easily commit perceived transgressions against the entrenched moguls. In short, everyone but the boss is at some risk.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Friends of the boss get in trouble by doing something that doesn’t work out. The Outs, those not basking in the shared glow of power, get in trouble by doing something that turns out so outrageously well that the Ins become jealous. Once that happens, the Ins will be out for some heads, determined that no one will make them look bad ever again.
The whole process of carrying any project — a car, for example — to its conclusion has been reduced to a six-step progression that, once set in motion, is as inexorable as the sunrise: (1) unbridled enthusiasm, (2) sudden disillusionment, (3) total confusion, (4) the search for the guilty, (5) punishment of the innocent, and (6) rewarding of nonparticipants.
But what has all this to do with the ZR-1? Just this: the car is so good that those who didn’t want it to happen and those who made it happen anyway have both put their livelihoods on the line. Nothing this good can come out of a large American corporation without causing some shock waves. And we all know what some companies — GM, in particular, has been publicly vocal on the issue — think about anything that rocks the boat. Well, the folks up there on the fourteenth floor had best plan on getting wet feet, because if any car can slosh saltwater over the gunwales of the corporate lifeboat, it’s this one.

View Photos

TOM DREW

“If you don’t keep pushing the envelope, the limits of what’s technically feasible,” Chevy’s chief engineer Fred Schaafsma told us, “you’re going to fall behind.” Hear, hear. If General Motors engineering could — or would — improve upon a basic sedan to the extent that the Corvette engineering team improved upon the existing Corvette, the crowds at GM dealerships would cause a nationwide traffic jam.
Dave McLellan, Corvette chief engineer, says, “The ZR-1 makes the statement that we can do things today that no one even dreamed could be done ten or twenty years ago. We’ve achieved a spectacular level of performance and are still able to meet or exceed all government standards for fuel economy, safety, noise, emissions, and so on.” The ZR-1 engineering team has done nothing less than prove that Detroit can indeed run with the big dogs. The car is, and deserves to be, a source of pride to U.S. enthusiasts.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

The new ZR-1 can provide the best driver in the world with all the slam-bam power that he could ask for, yet its personality and demeanor are such that drivers who are less than world-class — a group that, by our observation, includes a great many owners of high-performance cars — are remarkably well protected from themselves.
Does this mean you can’t get yourself in trouble behind the wheel of a ZR-1? No. Does it mean that you have to be suicidal to fall victim to its power and speed? Yes. Left to its own devices, the ZR-1 is at once the most exciting and responsible high-performance car ever conceived in Detroit, let alone ever built. It feels glued to the pavement, and it goes as if it were powered by equal parts lightning and solid rocket fuel. It even looks tough, if you stand behind it so you get the prime view of the rear tires — tires so fat that only the differential housing seems to prevent their meeting in the middle. The ZR-1 is the kind of machine that will send the safety Nazis to their daybeds with the vapors, even as it brings car lovers to their feet clapping and cheering.
The last of the ZR-1’s umpteen auto-show introductions (Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago) took place in Geneva, Switzerland, of all places, and — at long last — involved a long-distance drive in the car we had only driven for a limited distance on the test track. The choice of Europe as an introductory venue permitted us to experience the Corvette in the arena dominated by Ferraris, BMWs, and big, whistling Mercedes sedans — an arena otherwise populated by small, nimble cars that run fast on the autobahns and autoroutes and almost as fast on the twisting, sometimes rough secondary roads. Would this American beast still pound its chest after such an encounter?

View Photos

TOM DREW

Certainly it has the equipment, on paper and in fact, to compete anywhere. To review, the Corvette ZR-1 is a rear-drive sports car powered by a 32-valve, 5.7-liter, port-fuel-injected V-8 engine with an aluminum block and aluminum heads. The engine was designed by GM’s Group Lotus Division, was further developed by GM, and is built under contract by Mercury Marine in Oklahoma, a facility with more than a passing familiarity with high-muscle aluminum engines.
The 32-valve V-8 engine, “LT5” on the options sheet, has two camshafts on each of its aluminum heads. Maximum horsepower — achieved at 6200 rpm — is 380. The torque curve shows a maximum of 370 pound-feet at 4200 rpm, and the band feels about as wide as, say, Utah.
The engine’s performance is best described as otherworldly. Its power just plain warps the mind. The ZR-1 has the ability to take you from 0 to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds and from a stop to 100 in 10.4 seconds. We also recorded a 0-to-150-mph time of a tick under half a minute. Top speed, for the adventurous, is a sizzling 175 miles per hour.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Behind the engine is a six-speed manual transmission that’s as sweet as anything mechanical you’re likely to lay a hand on. Capable of withstanding 425 pound-feet of torque, the six-shifter is the same manual gearbox used in all 1989 Corvettes, but it’s heaven sent for the Corvette from hell.
Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen AG, usually referred to simply as ZF, designed the six-speed transmission especially for the Corvette. The fully synchronized unit derives much of its slick operation from an internal-rail shift mechanism and a hydraulically actuated, 280mm-diameter pull-type clutch. Because GM has a severe allergy to seeing the gas-guzzler tax applied to any of its cars, the Corvette team softened the fuel gluttony by installing a system known as computer-aided gear selection. Rich Ceppos explains the system’s intricacies in his accompanying Corvette convertible review; we’ll just add that the CAGS-equipped six-speed transmission is infinitely more pleasurable to use than the old Doug Nash 4 + 3 manual overdrive transmission.
Transmission particulars aside, you should know that shifting could not be easier. The clutch-pedal effort is mild, and the gearbox is as at home under city driving conditions as it is on mountain roads taken at speed.
Though the driveline comes from across the water, the exterior remains pure American. There are no significant differences between the standard L98-powered Corvette and the LT5-powered ZR-1. But a close examination of the rear reveals that the ZR-1 is some three inches wider in the fanny, with the smooth flaring-out process beginning at the front edge of the doors and ending in a square-lensed taillamp fascia. The ZR-1 distances itself from its lesser compadres with the kind of subtlety dear to the hearts of Q-ship lovers.

View Photos

TOM DREW

The added width is there for a purpose: to provide shelter for a pair of tires that the word “humongous” was surely coined to describe. The ZR-1 carries 315/35ZR-17 Goodyear Eagle unidirectional gatorbacks in the rear and 275/40ZR-17 Eagles up front. Wheel width is 9.5 inches in front and 11.0 inches in the back.
The only drawback we found with the tires, which are loosely based on Goodyear’s Formula 1 rain tires, was an oversupply of road noise. Their benefits, which come in the form of limpetlike adhesion to the earth’s paved surfaces, go far toward minimizing the negative effects of the noise. As big as these tires are, we may see bigger yet. Goodyear says that size-405 tires are now practical to build — for the next Corvette, perhaps. Meanwhile, the current tires are protected and monitored by low-tire-pressure warning sensors that light up an alert on the dash whenever any tire’s pressure falls below a preset level. The result of a ten-year, ten-million-mile testing program, the low-tire-pressure warning system (option-code “UJ6”) can sense variations of plus or minus 1 psi.
Behind the wheels are vented disc brakes developed by PBR Automotive, an arm of Brake and Clutch Industries Australia, Pty, Ltd. — yet another group of outlanders. The big 13.0-inch front discs (the rears are an inch smaller in diameter) reflect lessons learned during Corvette Showroom Stock endurance racing and are as good to the touch as any we’ve set a toe to. The brakes will haul the ZR-1 to a stop from 70 mph in an impressive 170 feet, and fade is not a part of the ZR-1 braking equation.
The suspension is the same sporting combination of Z51 heavy-duty suspension and FX3 selective ride control that can be ordered on garden-variety Vettes. That is, moderately stiff transverse fiberglass springs, thick anti-roll bars, and adjustable Delco/Bilstein gas-filled shock absorbers. The only departure from the standard setup is a thicker rear anti-roll bar, which is needed to cope with the ZR-1’s added weight and power and larger rear tires.

View Photos

TOM DREWCar and Driver

Inside all is reasonably familiar, but if you scrutinize the console between the seats you’ll see two unfamiliar objects: a lock with a key in it and a three-position switch.
First, the lock, or kiddie key. This gives the operator a choice of full or reduced engine power, sealing off the high-rpm end of the induction system and reducing peak output by about 150 hp. This means that young drivers can be sent to play in traffic with at least some comfort to a parent. The switch has been incorrectly called a valet key — incorrect because any parking-lot attendant unable to cause an owner grief with the 230 or so remaining horses just isn’t trying.
The other switch, which operates the FX3 Selective Ride Control system, makes a real difference in the ZR-1 — and, indeed, in all Corvettes so equipped. Its three settings — Touring, Sport, and Performance — allow the driver to tailor the suspension to meet variations in road conditions, levels of driver aggression, and comfort requirements. Within each mode, there are six gradations of shock-absorber damping; they vary with speed to maintain a constant level of ride control. The Performance setting will rattle your fillings over rough roads, but the other two are useful in adapting the car to differing roads and driving styles. A rough road can be tamed by switching to the Touring setting, and the Sport setting can draw real cornering performance — and surprising comfort — from the ZR-1 on a smooth, twisting surface. Without the FX3 system, the ZR-1 would not be the grand tourer it is.
We drove the ZR-1 first from Geneva to southwestern France and later from Montpelier to the principality of Andorra, a tiny dot in the Pyrenees Mountains. Altogether, we spent somewhere between 700 and 800 miles in the car. A number of observations resulted. First, the ZR-1 makes every previous Corvette seem antediluvian. It also makes you wonder why anyone would spend more than $50,000 on a two-seater — given that the ZR-1 will be available for about that. But the best news of all is that the Corvette standard-bearer is not some overpowered, noisy (well, not too noisy) rattler that feels as if its engine were trying to escape its body.
Driving the ZR-1 reminds you that it is possible to create a car that is bewilderingly fast but that maintains an air of civilization about it. Unlike previous Corvettes, the ZR-1 doesn’t subject its driver to corporal punishment in the form of a head-rattling ride quality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Twice, after driving hard all day on French roads that ranged from challenging to hostile, we emerged unscathed and unbrutalized by the ZR-1. This feeling of freshness after a long and difficult drive is stuff of which great grand-touring cars are made.
Twice, once through poor planning on our part, we were forced to stand hard on the brakes. They stopped us short of disaster with the sureness of a racing car. Innumerable times we called on the engine for extra effort in passing situations. The effort was given freely and without incident. Despite the constant stream of brute strength that surges through the seat and into your body, we never had the feeling that we were in anything but a finely tuned example of true automotive craftsmanship.
The car takes mountain turns—hard mountain turns—with a neutrality that would do credit to the Swiss banking industry. The clutch action and the shifter throw make power application pleasurably smooth, and the amount of power available, as we’ve noted, simply exceeds the expectations of sane persons.
Were there complaints? A few. The road noise has already been mentioned, and some of the test cars we drove had considerable wind whistle at both the A-pillars and the C-pillars. After the hard run to Andorra, we finally coaxed some familiar squeaks from the fiberglass body, but nothing that would ruin your day. The garish electronic dash neither pleases nor works properly. Time after time we came to a full stop and waited for the electronic speedometer to catch up — or, more properly, wind down. There seems little excuse for that.
The seats are just fine and can be adjusted to an almost limitless number of driving positions. Even the seat wings and lumbar supports are power controlled. The overall look of the dash and other plastic-clad surfaces stops short of being cheap, but it stops even further from richness. A redo of the interior is due for the 1990 model year, however, so we’ll hope for improvement.
Meanwhile, we will lust after the ZR-1. Only a few hundred will be built during 1989, and production — which is limited by engine availability — will likely not exceed 4000 units annually.
Persistent rumors of engine problems, primarily overheating and oil-system malfunctions, dogged the ZR-1 during the first quarter of 1989. Chevrolet denies them categorically, and, indeed, we watched a dozen journalists and engineers flog thirteen ZR-1s for three solid days in France — including time on Goodyear’s Mireval test track—with nary a misfire. We’re therefore willing to believe that the rumors stemmed from normal developmental teething pains and not from product irregularities.
We’re also willing to hope (we’ll believe it when we see it) that the ZR-1 will spark other units of General Motors to produce cars equal in their class to the ZR-1. The single-minded effort toward a common goal—performance excellence—put forth by the Corvette engineering team should be an example to the entire American industry. Will the industry follow? We’ll see.
Meanwhile, we’ll look forward hungrily to more time in the car that, for now, is the best thing yet seen from an American manufacturer—and we’ll hope that the wrong people at Chevrolet don’t lose their jobs because the ZR-1 they created is so good at its job.

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

We at Car and Driver are sadly aware that younger readers view several editors here as, well, old farts, hopelessly mired in the automotive past as new trends threaten to pass us by at speeds that would twist our turtlenecks and wrinkle our Sansabelt slacks.

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

The Ultimate Mustang vs. the Ultimate Camaro

Mustang GT PPL2 vs. Mustang Shelby GT350

This point is driven home by confoundingly frequent reader letters and e-mails—some containing correct spellings, giving us all hope for the future of public schools—that point accusing fingers at those of us who actually remember the name of that backup group Paul McCartney used to play with. We can picture you there at the keyboard of your iMac, forefinger tapping your nose ring for inspiration, as you whip out a pithy note insisting that your nitrous-sniffing slammed Honda Civic is the future, and that the gas-guzzling V-8s we hold so dear are dinosaurs.

But on this V-8 thing—we gotta agree to disagree. Several of us sitting around at lunch were talking about great exhaust sounds (our lunches really are as exciting as you imagine!) when we almost unanimously agreed that we grew up listening to the American V-8, and to us, that was the sound of power.

Unanimously, except for a fresh-faced road warrior who drives an old Acura Integra. “When I think of the sound of fast cars,” he offered, “I think of, you know, like, really tuned four-cylinders.” Ah, youth.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All this introspection turned our attention to the trio of throwbacks, the keepers of the flame: the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird. They meet the LAF criteria—loud, affordable, fast. We felt it was time to revisit these pony cars and see how well the idea of rear-wheel-drive V-8s has fared.
So we ordered up the hottest stuff: Ford’s new-for-’99 SVT Mustang Cobra, the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS, and the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am. Send us the fastest models available from our local dealers, we said. Manual transmissions, we demanded (they still make those, right?). And while you’re at it, chop the tops. We want to feel the wind rushing through (what is left of) our hair. It’ll make us feel young again!

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

As long as we can get home by 10 p.m., and be in bed by 11.
We drove the trio down to Honda’s Transportation Research Center in Ohio for testing, which included top-speed blasts around the 7.5-mile oval. Then we went to GingerMan Raceway in western Michigan, an 11-turn road course where we spent the better part of a day thrashing the three cars.
And then we summoned a fellow old fart, a literal graybeard, who graciously set aside his walker and lapped the three cars for us. That particular graybeard was Paul Gentilozzi, 49, the 1998 Sports Car Club of America Trans-Am champion, who started 1999 with a win at the Long Beach Grand Prix, resoundingly kicking the collective butts of a bunch of snot-nosed youngsters.
Sound interesting? Read on.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
A former staffer once assigned to write a Pontiac Trans Am road test mentioned to his associates that he wished he could hang a sign out the window that read, “This is not my car!” Invariably dramatic, the Trans Am’s styling has crossed over to the snarkily garish, and the limited-edition 30th-anniversary package is just slightly beyond garish.

HIGHS: Unmistakable styling, 163-mph top speed, monster motor.

For an extra $1575, that package gives you 17-inch aluminum wheels with a blue clear-coat tint sprayed on, a blue cloth top, white leather seats with anniversary-edition embroidery on the headrests, and several other trim pieces. We could not help feeling we were about to be arrested by Starsky or Hutch.
That said, when the three cars were parked together, invariably the attention of civilians turned first to our Firebird, No. 0052 according to a dash plaque. When we took the car to a McDonald’ s drive-through, the pimply slacker who waited on us could scarcely contain his bubbling hormones, immediately summoning a half-dozen fellow slackers to drool all over our Quarter Pounders. “Odd,” wrote one tester. “This car is absolutely coveted by people who can’t afford it.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It was by far the most expensive of the three, topping out at $37,092, a price bolstered by the non-anniversary $595 trunk-mounted, 12-disc CD changer, which was in addition to the in-dash CD player that comes with the potent Monsoon sound system. Mostly, though, you’re paying for exclusivity, as only 500 anniversary convertibles and 1000 anniversary coupes will be sold in the U.S.
If you’re looking for the fastest car of the trio, your search stops here. The Trans Am matched the Camaro with a 5.3-second 0-to-60-mph time, but then the Trans Am pulled away, hitting 100 mph 0.2 second quicker, 130 mph 1.8 seconds quicker, and finally a governed 163 mph, whereas the Camaro ran out of steam at 160.

LOWS: Unmistakable styling, awkward trunk layout, poor rear visibility, handling less precise than Camaro’s.

Why? We aren’t certain. The Trans Am has the heavily advertised Ram Air, fed to the air filter through a baffled snout. The Camaro has a more circuitous system—its hood scoop feeds a little air to the air cleaner through two long ducts that route from the middle of the hood to the rear and back to the front. Although we doubt the Pontiac’s Ram Air system is sealed up against the air cleaner well enough to pressurize intake air, we suspect it does, at least, deliver more cool air. We also suspect the Trans Am’s engine may be just a hair stouter than the SS’s. Or maybe the Trans Am’s flip-up headlights, although clunky when operated, are aerodynamically slicker. Regardless, this was a waaay quick car.
On the test track and the racetrack, though, the Pontiac had the sloppiest handling. It weighs a scant 43 pounds more than the Camaro, but nearly all of that extra weight is on the nose, making it understeer more. The suspension also allowed excessive body motions. “Twitchier than the Camaro,” wrote one tester after the lane-change maneuver, “requiring a delicate touch.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

At GingerMan Raceway, “there’s more body roll than in the Camaro,” wrote another tester, and under hard cornering, “I can hear the tires hitting the wheel wells.” The Hurst shifter—also on the Camaro—received criticism: “It’s the only one I ever miss shifts in.” There was substantial brake fade after extended lapping, slightly more severe than the Camaro’s.
On the road, though, the Trans Am was an entirely competent cruiser. “I love the way it lopes along in sixth gear at 85 mph,” wrote one tester. When introduced in the 1997 Chevrolet Corvette, the LS1 engine’s exhaust note seemed slightly sterile. On the Trans Am and SS, it’s as sweet as the old LT1 ever was.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Inside, the Pontiac’s front seats drew the highest marks, mostly because of the adjustable side bolsters and lumbar support, but its thinly padded steering wheel drew the lowest. Instruments and controls were where they should be, and the Trans Am was the only one of the three with steering-wheel-operated sound controls.

VERDICT: Your only choice if you wanna go fast and be noticed.

Like the two other cars, dropping the top requires unlatching the windshield header before powering the top down. It’s a fifteen-second job on all three. Still, we think the GM twins make slightly better convertibles than the Ford. Wind buffeting at speed is lower in the Pontiac and Chevy, and chassis stiffness seemed slightly better, too. All the tops were watertight in the carwash, and none suffered any flap or flutter at maximum speed. The Mustang had the best, easiest-to-use tonneau cover—it’s a soft one-piece unit, whereas the GM cars use a hard three-piece unit—but we’d leave all of them at home, as they dominate the already minimal trunk space.
Given the fact that the Pontiac and the Chevrolet are built on the same assembly line, GM has done a reasonably effective job of giving them unique identities. If you like the Trans Am’s identity—and are among those admirers who can actually afford to buy one—we sure won’t try to talk you out of it. From the suspension up, though, Chevy’s version is more our kind of car.
1999 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3617 lbBase/as-tested price: $34,255/$37,092C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.61/4 mile: 13.9 @ 104 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra
Speaking of throwbacks, we keep wondering when Ford’s exalted upper management will discover that the Special Vehicle Team exists and appears to be having fun, and therefore must be eliminated. This little group of in-house skunkworkers is currently responsible for three very potent, very limited-edition hot rods: the SVT Contour, the F-150 Lightning pickup, and the Mustang Cobra.

HIGHS: Freshest styling, high-tech powerplant, independent rear suspension, killer brakes when flogged, cheapest of the three.

Going into this comparison test, the just-released Cobra convertible had to be seeded the favorite. It’s the freshest makeover of a moderately dated platform and has the new, SVT-exclusive independent rear suspension. The standard Mustang, as well as GM’s Camaro and Firebird competitors, still use a rigid rear axle.
The Cobra’s engine is also the most up-to-date, with the 4.6-liter V-8 sporting four valves per cylinder and double overhead camshafts, while the GM entries have two-valve pushrod technology in their 5.7-liter V-8s. This modernized technology allows the Cobra to pump out an advertised 320 horsepower for 1999—exactly matching the GM motors’ although it spots them 65 cubic inches. The displacement deficit explains the Ford’s 18 less pound-feet of torque. At least the Ford can rev much higher—to 6800 rpm vs. the 6000 rpm of the GM twins.
The Cobra was the least expensive of the three, with an out-the-door price of $32,190. Although hardly bare-bones, it ranked lowest on our “features” scale, but only by a few points. Whereas the GM cars had leather on all seating surfaces, the Cobra had leather up front and leather-look vinyl in the rear. The rather heavy hood was held up by a balky prop rod, whereas the GM cars used hydraulic shocks. The manual transmission was a five-speed, whereas the GM twins had six-speeds. Relatively minor points, perhaps, but this was a comparison test that was, in the end, decided by minor points.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

One thing in the Cobra’s favor was its rear quarter-windows. It’s more work to build a convertible with four side windows instead of two, but having that little bit of extra glass back there provides the car with considerably better rearward visibility. Measured from the front edge of the convertible top to the outward edge of the back window, you’d find a 32-inch blind spot on the GM cars. That blind spot is 22 inches on the Mustang, thanks mostly to the extra glass those rear side windows provide.
“A very quiet ride for a convertible at 90 mph,” one tester noted in the logbook. “A very high, upright driving position, even with the power seat adjusted all the way down.” The driving position seemed even more so after stints in the Camaro and Firebird, where the seating position is largely butt-on-the-floor.
Although none of the front seats drew raves, the Mustang’s drew only complaints for their lack of lateral support and their puny headrests. And although none of these cars is noted for rear-seat room or access, the Mustang’s was the least roomy, with less kneeroom and far less headroom. In any of these cars, the rear seat is best left for groceries and small people.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Despite the plasticky dash, the Cobra’s controls were the easiest to use, except for the button-happy sound system. The black-on-white-face instruments had a pleasant green glow at night, an SVT trademark. The Mach 460 sound system—an AM/FM/cassette with a separate in-dash CD player—was a close second to the Monsoon system in the Trans Am, but to our aging ears, all three stereo systems were excellent. Although these three cars each have eight cubic feet of trunk space, the Mustang’s is in a far more usable configuration.
On the road, the Cobra seemed the most buttoned down, especially on rough pavement, where the independent rear suspension shines. We still found room for improvement, however. “Well balanced, but steering feel is minimal,” a tester wrote. “The wheel is simply a directional dial. There’s also a soft, somewhat disconnected sense here, although the car is very well behaved.”

LOWS: Five-speed transmission could use another gear, smaller engine means less torque, mediocre seats.

The Cobra offered the best roadholding and was the clear winner in the lane change. “The easiest to drive in this exercise by far,” we noted. “Steering response is gradual and accurate, and when the tail does break away, the slide is smooth and controlled.”
Although the Cobra’s beefy brakes took 189 feet to stop from 70 mph, compared with 175 for the Camaro and 178 for the Firebird, once they heated up at the racetrack, they were superb. “After a long lapping session at the racetrack,” a tester wrote, “the Mustang is the only one of the three that still has brakes.”
In a straight line, though, the Cobra suffered. Zero to 60 mph took 6.0 seconds in the Mustang and just 5.3 seconds in both GM cars. The quarter-mile time for the Cobra was 14.6 seconds, with the Camaro and Firebird doing it in 13.9. Surprisingly, the independent rear suspension made the Cobra slightly more prone to wheel hop and consequently more difficult, rather than easier, to launch smoothly off the line. We’d expected the opposite.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

In top-speed times, the Mustang really suffered, due mostly to the gearing. Its 149-mph top speed was reached in fourth gear with the engine screaming along at 6550 rpm, well above the Cobra’s 6000-rpm power peak. Shift into fifth, and speed dropped to 140 mph. The Camaro and the Trans Am didn’t have this problem. Their gearing allows top speeds much closer to the power peaks of their engines.
On paper, the Cobra convertible’s numbers appeared to be in the ballpark. When we tested the Cobra coupe (C/D, April 1999), our 0-to-60-mph time was 5.5 seconds, with a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds and an identical top speed. Given the fact that our convertible weighed about 300 pounds more than the coupe we tested in April, that seemed plausible.
But to several of us, the Cobra did not have the punch we were expecting or have experienced with other 320-hp Cobras. We called SVT about our test results, and it said, indeed, that was slower than expected.

VERDICT: Competent, quick, and exclusive, but you’ll lose every drag race to the two others.

And when SVT got its car back, this was confirmed. In fact, that led SVT to look at the batch of engines produced when our Cobra convertible was built, and according to a commendably candid spokesman, the engines might have a problem. But at this writing, SVT doesn’t know what it is. We’re confident SVT can and will correct any problems, not only in future cars, but also in those already shipped to dealers.
SVT promptly sent over a Cobra convertible with an engine from a different batch, and it was indeed quicker—0 to 60 mph in a more-like-it 5.6 seconds instead of 6.0 seconds; a quarter-mile run of 14.2 seconds at 100 mph instead of 14.6 seconds at 98 mph. Top speed remained 149 mph. If we’d had that car for the whole test, the Cobra might have scored slightly higher, but it’s doubtful it would have passed the Camaro.
1999 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra320-hp V-8, 5-speed manual, 3588 lbBase/as-tested price: $31,995/$32,190C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 15.31/4 mile: 14.6 @ 98 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

First Place: Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS
When the SS arrived at Hogback Road, we were slightly disappointed. Rather than a dynamic black like the Cobra, or a sparkling white like the Trans Am, the SS was an understated pewter with a black top. We were expecting perhaps arrest-me red.

HIGHS: Clean looks; torquey, great-sounding engine, thorw-it-around handling; attractive price for a convertible.

But the longer we had it, the more handsome it seemed. It has nice, almost elegant lines, complemented by the quiet color. In the end, we gave it the highest marks in styling. And we also appreciated that this was a 160-mph convertible that did not shout its presence to ticket-hungry cops.
It took us less time to appreciate the way the SS went quietly about its business. As fast as the Trans Am up to about 90 mph, the SS bested the two others in general drivability, but only marginally. Much that was said about the Camaro applied to the Firebird, such as: “Every time I get into one of these F-body cars, I’m amazed by their ponderous feel. Although the Camaro is very responsive, I feel as if I’m maneuvering the Queen Mary.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

“The steering seems quick off-center,” wrote a tester. “This will take some getting used to.”
That sensation dissipated at the racetrack, where the Camaro’s tighter suspension was obvious. “More composed, responsive, cleaner out here. Not as much steering correction is required for tail-out slides. You can really throw this thing around, and it just hangs on. Amazing, considering the price, and the fact that it’s a droptop,” a tester noted.

LOWS: Arguable less prestigious, same trunk and rear-visibility problems as in Trans Am.

The SS could slither through the emergency-lane-change maneuver as quickly as the Trans Am, but more slowly than the Cobra. “The Camaro has faster, more delicate steering than the Mustang,” recorded a driver. “You must turn in with your fingertips, or you wash out the front end instantly. And when the tail goes, it goes with a big wiggle.”
Both the GM cars wore the same tires—Goodyear Eagle F1 GS P275/40ZR-17s—and they drew few complaints for their performance on wet and dry pavement. The BFGoodrich Comp T/A 245/45ZR-17s on the Mustang worked very well in the dry but skated more than we’d anticipated in the wet.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The SS’s leather-trimmed interior was undistinguished but thoughtfully executed. The Delco stereo sounded fine and contained an AM/FM/cassette/CD player in one unit. It was the only stereo with a speed-controlled-volume feature.
As with all the F-body cars, there were two inherent problems: The incredibly steep windshield rake means a picnic-table-size dashboard beneath it, and the presence of a catalytic converter beneath the passenger-side floor means a big hump that, when covered with a floor mat, appears as if you’re trying to conceal contraband.

VERDICT: The utility infielder—a race car disguised as daily transportation.

All things considered, though, the Camaro is the car we’d be the most willing to drive on a daily basis. As with the two others, traction control and ABS make the SS nearly a year-round car as long as the snowfall is light and infrequent, but unlike the two others, the Camaro seems less like a midlife-crisis car and more like an opportunity to sensibly recapture a little of the past.
And get you home by 10 p.m., and in bed by 11.
1999 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3574 lbBase/as-tested price: $32,085/$33,995C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.81/4 mile: 13.9 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg
How a Pro Rates These Pony Cars
The Chevrolet Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird, and the Ford Mustang make up most of the field in the Sports Car Club of America’s BFGoodrich Trans-Am Series. Although 1998 champ Paul Gentilozzi dominated the series with a Chevrolet Corvette, for 1999 he has switched to Ford. The new-for-’99 SVT Cobra came out of the box a winner. Gentilozzi drove it to victory in the Long Beach Grand Prix, the first race of the year.
Of course, as is typical with many of the professional racing series, Gentilozzi’s Mustang Cobra has comparatively little in common with the civilian version. It uses a tube-frame chassis and a 625-hp V-8, but Trans-Am race cars still have more in common with roadgoing pony cars than do the cars in any other racing series—a front engine, rear-wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a honking V-8.
We asked the current champ to weigh in on the latest Camaro, Mustang, and Firebird ragtop performance versions. After Gentilozzi agreed, we rented GingerMan Raceway, the 1.88-mile road course in western Michigan where we tested his championship-winning Corvette (C/D, November 1998), and turned him loose. Several staffers also drove multiple laps in the cars, and our observations were quite similar to his.
As far as credentials, Gentilozzi’s win at Long Beach came in his 138th Trans-Am race. He had seven wins last year en route to the championship, leading 438 of the 674 laps run in 1998. He has also won the Rolex 24 Hours of Daytona and finished third in his class at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. At 49, he believes he’s driving better than ever, and his results back that up.
We timed Gentilozzi, and for a baseline, we also timed senior technical editor Don Schroeder, who more than held his own. Worth noting: Gentilozzi’s Trans‑Am Cobra laps GingerMan about 20 seconds faster than the quickest of our cars.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Ford SVT Mustang CobraGentilozzi: 1 minute, 41.6 seconds at 66.6 mphC/D: 1:42.0 at 66.4 mph
Even though Gentilozzi drives a Mustang and his racing program gets some help from Ford, we’ve spent enough time around the real-estate tycoon to know that, if he doesn’t like something, he’ll say so. We were confident he wouldn’t sugar-coat any criticism of the Mustang if it deserved criticizing. And it did, but it also deserved praise.
“The brakes and the gearbox are the best part of the car,” Gentilozzi said. “The power is down compared to the other two, so you can’t just get on the gas and control the balance of the car. If they’re going to build a four-valve engine, it ought to be the 5.4-liter, so they can get back some of the torque they’re giving up to the other two.”
The Cobra is deceptive. Gentilozzi said that even though the lack of torque kept the car from squirting out of the corners the way the GM twins do, he felt he was turning quicker lap times with the Cobra because of the handling—”Less entry oversteer with this independent rear suspension,” he said—and the excellent brakes. “You aren’t going to win drag races with this car, but it’d hold its own in a road race.”

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Pontiac Firebird Trans AmGentilozzi: 1:41.2 at 66.9 mphC/D: 1:40.6 at 67.3 mph
That’s right—our guy knocked out a quicker lap time in the Trans Am than did the Trans-Am champ. Gentilozzi said it just didn’t suit his driving style. “There’s a lot of entry roll coming into the corners,” Gentilozzi said. “You unload the back end, and that causes oversteer.”
As we all did, he praised the stout engine. “There’s plenty of power, and the gearbox is nice, and the driving position is good. But this steering—you get no feel for the road. You hold the steering wheel in a certain position, and you feel you should be getting a certain amount of turn-in, but you don’t.” Under hard braking, Gentilozzi noticed some rear-axle hop—”The last car I had that hopped like this was my ’68 Camaro Z28. It’s disconcerting.”
Gentilozzi could not resist a comment about the Trans Am’s styling. “This one’s Penthouse,” he said, pointing to the Camaro SS. “And that one’s Hustler,” he said, pointing to the Trans Am.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SSGentilozzi: 1:39.7 at 67.9 mphC/D: 1:40.3 at 67.5 mph
“It doesn’t fight you as much as the Firebird,” Gentilozzi said, dirt-tracking the Camaro SS through a sweeper. “And it’s definitely more forgiving.” He found the Camaro to be more precise in the entry and exit of turns. “I know this is basically the same car as the Firebird, so the differences must be just general calibrations on the suspension. But this one seems like the best hot rod of the bunch.”
Gentilozzi praised the chassis rigidity of all three cars, and the fact that while they’re capable of cranking out very respectable lap times, they’re also able and willing to serve as daily transportation.
Still, “I don’t drive as many street cars as you do,” he said, “so I guess I’m not as tolerant of some of the crap they make you put up with.” Case in point: Although the timed laps were taken with the traction control turned off, Gentilozzi took some casual laps with the traction control engaged, and he was particularly put off by the invasive nature of the GM system, which kicks back on the accelerator pedal. He was also annoyed by GM’s first-to-fourth shifter, which eliminates second and third gears as a fuel-saving measure when driven leisurely.
You might be interested to learn that Gentilozzi’s daily driver is a chrome yellow Ferrari 550 Maranello. That will just have to do until the new Ferrari 360 Modena he has on order arrives. —SCS
What Does the Future Hold for Pony Cars?
Let’s face it: it was much easier for Ford and General Motors to justify building these three cars when they shared platforms or assorted bits and pieces with existing products. They don’t anymore. The one with the most promising future, though appears to be the Mustang, which continues to sell nearly twice as many cars as the Camaro and Firebird combined. The 1999 Mustang benefited from an extensive freshening, so we’re guessing it will be around at least through 2002. After that, rumors are that if it is to continue, it could be built on the Lincoln LS platform that will serve as a basis for the 2001 Ford Thunderbird.
As for the Camaro and Firebird, the Canadian plant will definitely cease production of the two. There will be 2001 models, we hear. Beyond that, their fate is murky.
Several possibilities loom at GM, though, for a rear-drive V-8 car. One is to adopt the Holden platform currently being developed in Australia but that, for various reasons, is not expected to happen. Another presented to us by one GM exec is to keep the Firebird name but drop the Camaro, making the Firebird a semiluxury four-passenger coupe on the Cadillac Evoq platform, and leave the Corvette to Chevrolet.
A final scenario has the Camaro being moved upscale, sharing a platform with the Corvette, built in the underutilized Vette plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky. We might see some movement in that direction as early as this fall. Rumor is that Chevy is building a show car for the Specialty Equipment. Market Association trade show that is, in essence, a four-seat Corvette, possibly testing the water.
And a final, fanciful scenario was broached at a press event for the new front-drive Monte Carlo. “You know,” said one Chevy exec, “this platform could be made rear-wheel drive quite easily.” —SCS
Shooing the Breeze
In the good old days, wind in the hair was the allure of convertibles, but in this era of cell phones, digital stereo sound, and $60 hairdos, wind-reducing devices are all the rage. Most high-end ragtops offer custom-fit clear-plastic or mesh-screen wind blockers that fit just behind the front seats to prevent backdrafts from entering the cockpit.
Chevy, Ford, and Pontiac do not offer such devices, but Wind Baffle (888-266-WIND) sells a product for $249 (plus shipping) that can be mounted in most convertibles on the road today. The Wind Baffle’s polycarbonate panel is 30 inches wide by 20 inches high. It installs like a tension rod for curtains. Two spring rods adjust laterally to fit the width of the car, and each fits into a small plastic cup that mounts to the side trim panel with adhesive-backed hook-and-loop fasteners. A third vertical rod presses down onto the rear seat or package shelf for stability. A safety cable tethers the unit to the front seat. With the Wind Baffle installed, the rear seat can’t be used but the top can be raised and lowered.
The Wind Baffle dramatically reduced backdrafts and wind noise in all three pony cars, although wind still tickled the tops of our heads. It rendered the more aerodynamic Camaro and Firebird cockpits nearly still with the windows up—even at speeds of 110 mph. The Cobra was transformed from tornado-watch gusty to merely breezy, and the backdraft was nearly eliminated. Reducing cockpit turbulence improves the effectiveness of the climate controls, so this product should help to extend the convertible driving season. For the acid test of the Wind Baffle’s mounting system, we logged 1600 miles in a buzzy, rattly, flexy vintage British roadster, and it only popped loose twice. At the price, the Wind Baffle seems like a must. —Frank Markus
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