Car Reviews

From the December 2000 issue of Car and Driver.We are not afraid of Ohio. No way.We zipped right past the signs warning of “Amateur Karaoke Night” and beyond “Terry’s We-Grind-Our-Own-Hamburger Drive-In,” where even our commander in chief recently risked a basket of fried chicken. We steered smack through Circleville—home of the international pumpkin fest—whose main street was on fire and thus closed to all civilians except those driving F-150s with pulsating strobes. We cruised deep into Hitler country—first Huber Hitler Road, then Martha Hitler Park. We remained composed even as we idled past the Wampus Tribe’s intergalactic meeting hall in South Bloomingville.We sustained this courageous clip in order to sample two Ohio routes that, among this seven-SUV group, would separate the men from the toys. First, there was our traditional, top-secret Hockingheim Ring Road—a challenge to MR2s and M3s, never mind a bunch of designer utes. Second, there loomed the off-road rigors of a trail more deeply rutted than Willie Nelson’s forehead—a trail that a forest ranger promised “might like to kill them bitty trucks dead.” He pronounced that last word “DAY-idd.”This was fine with us. We had already perfected several southern-Ohio off-road techniques to successfully extract ourselves from axle-deep muck holes whose ejecta have been known to weld shut rural mailboxes for upwards of three months.In fact, we went out of our way to select a trail whose 30 percent grades and nose-grinding creek crossings would place it on the “Don’t Even Try” list for all but a handful of America’s sport-uting faithful. Frankly, we reckoned only one or two of our enlistees would trample the trail’s terminus. This was, after all, the $40,000 designer class—mid-size SUVs one luxurious cut above the mainstream Chevy Blazers and Ford Explorers clogging grocery-store lots nationwide. With the exception of the Land Rover, the seven in this group were not so much SUVs as WOTTs—”wagons on tall tires”—with each borrowing more from sedate sedans than from tough trucks.But you know what? They all made it. All seven. No kidding. With a little taunting, even the Lexus RX300 completed the trail, and it’s, well, you know, essentially an all-wheel-drive Camry. Which meant we could judge all seven by standards more regularly imposed by mainstream purchasers—the vehicles’ behavior at felonious speeds, for starters, rather than their potential for inducing random whooping.One more thing. We had hoped to inflict this abuse on a few other candidates: a current-model Isuzu Trooper and a spanking-new Olds Bravada, for instance. We couldn’t get our hands on either. We might also have included a loaded Toyota 4Runner and a heavily optioned Jeep Grand Cherokee, but several nail-biting editors, whose names are now lost to us, eventually vetoed that duo for failing to achieve levels of luxury deemed appropriate to the class. If you are outraged by this, write a forceful note to the president of Eritrea. We’ve temporarily misplaced his ZIP Code.7th Place: Land Rover Discovery If you want your SUV to look like an SUV, buy one nearly a decade old. Back then, the SUV paradigm was a lightly madeover truck. That meant an upright windshield; live axles fore and aft; big-boulder-busting weight; and angular, flat-faced farm-boy styling. That’s the Disco’s résumé, you bet, a vehicle that, despite an upgrade to “Series II” trim (C/D, June 1999), is becoming the Hula Hoop of the class.Although the little Rover offers the smallest wheelbase, it is the tallest and heaviest vehicle in this group. Its V-8 boasts the largest displacement—along with the loudest idle and most dismal fuel economy—yet produces the fewest ponies and, not surprisingly, the worst 50-to-70-mph acceleration time. Not good.HIGHS: The vehicle to own if you live along a former Camel Trophy route.LOWS: Directionally challenged. sloppy handling, inconsistent ergonomics and build quality. VERDICT: An aging uncle who can’t summon modern levels of SUV refinement.Its handling doesn’t set the planet alight, either. Once the Disco’s ladder-frame chassis is upset, it takes ages to settle, and the steering’s unpredictable gain forces the driver to take a series of cuts, hacks, and stabs at turns. Path control is so poor you’ll want to invest in a border collie, although even he will find that most corners still represent a frightening experiment in physics. Adding insult to injury, the Disco required the greatest distance to stop from 70 mph.Where this Rover best roves, of course, is across scabrous goat tracks. As a trail hopper, it emboldens its driver with a commanding view, beefy low-range gearing that allows tortoise-slow descents, and velvety throttle tip-in that enables it to creep over rocks rather than assault them. When we initially explored an off-road route for this comparo, the Disco was the designated trailblazer, and when the Mazda photo van oozed hip-deep into fetid muck, it was the Disco that yanked it to shore.There remain plenty of folks who don’t mind searching for window switches and seat controls, folks who suspect they’ll unexpectedly become Camel Trophy enlistees on the way home from the office, folks who find cachet and personality in British eccentricity. Hell, even John Travolta made the most of disco madness. Difference is, John moved on.2000 Land Rover Discovery II188-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 4853 lbBase/As Tested: $36,850/$40,375C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 11.4 sec1/4-Mile: 18.4 sec @ 74 mph90 mph: N/ABraking, 70­–0 mph: 211 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.74 gC/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg5th Place (tie): Infiniti QX4Yeah, yeah. We know. It’s a Nissan Pathfinder daubed liberally with lipstick and mascara. And sure, it commands a couple grand beyond what the snazziest leather-laden Pathfinder fetches. On the other hand, Infiniti’s version boasts an elegantly switchable transfer case that offers four-wheel high, four-wheel low, full-time four-wheel drive, or rear drive only, thus precluding the drag of an idling all-wheel-drive system when it isn’t needed. Which, frankly, is pretty much always.Well, that’s not fair. The QX4’s V-6 was recently enlivened by 72 newfound ponies, so it doesn’t huff and puff anymore while scooping up mud in its three-spoke wheels or when climbing steep grades. And once it noses over Annapurna’s summit, its low-range gearing doles out a usefully cautious descent. What’s more, its off-road ride is simply sumptuous: Ruts, rocks, ridges—you won’t even know they’re there. Even when you’d like to know.HIGHS: Fine ride, elegant cockpit, Nissan reliability. LOWS: Vague steering, brakes, and handling. VERDICT: A cushy, comfy SUV eager to surmount the rigors of interstate cruising.That enviable ride—surprise, surprise—comes at the expense of handling. When pushed, the QX4 leans, yowls, and squirms, its tires surrender like Grenadian rebels, and it slams into its bump stops as if to ask, “Excuse me, but have you become insane?” Around our handling loop, third gear was too tall, second too short. And throughout, the QX4’s steering and brakes acted like the world’s sternest secret agents: Under even the harshest questioning, they revealed little information.More QX4 Reviews From the ArchiveWhat cost the QX4 more points—hey, it surprised us, too—is that it’s small inside. Whether for two passengers or three, its back seat was not only the least spacious but also the least comfortable. On the other hand, it sure is pretty in there: gathered-leather door inserts, convincingly real bird’s-eye-maple trim, a cool-looking clock, a chrome-trimmed shift gate. Every tuck, roll, and pleat is classy and warm, too.On interstates, the Infiniti is a cushy cruiser, a long-distance pal. Think of it as the Lincoln of SUVs. Oh, wait. Forget that. More like the Cadillac of SUVs. Hell. Never mind.2000 Infiniti QX4240-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 4361 lbBase/As Tested: $36,075/$39,025C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.3 sec1/4-Mile: 17.0 sec @ 80 mph90 mph: 23.1 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 209 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg5th Place (tie): Mercedes-Benz ML320Back in the stone age—as much as 37 months ago, in fact—the ML320 topped a comparo in which it faced a previous-generation Jeep Grand Cherokee, a Land Rover Discovery, and a Toyota 4Runner. Back then we said, “It stakes out the middle ground between sport-utes and minivans.” That wasn’t a bad call.Although it can’t match the Acura’s cargo capacity, the Benz is utilitarian. In fact, it is tied with the BMW for offering the longest wheelbase, and its back seat, at least for two, is a thoroughly comfortable perch from which to view Ohio’s Wampus Tribe.HIGHS: Terrific back seat, packed with features, silver-star cachet. LOWS: Toylike brake feel, a V-6 that struggles to keep up, ergonomically defeated stereo. VERDICT: Satisfactory in all respects, superlative in none.The ML320’s V-6 still strains, labors, and roars to keep this SUV on the boil, however, as its 10.3-second 0-to-60 time attests. The steering is still numb on-center. Its brake pedal offers an initial false resistance making it tricky to modulate. And although the ML320 can be forced to hustle along the Hocking Hills’ byways—indeed, it logged the second-best lane-change velocity—it goes to great lengths to resist it.The Benz completed our half-mile off-road torture test, but it lost points for its poor approach angle, pedal-activated parking brake, and occasional reluctance to climb loose-surface grades. Instead of using limited slip or locking diffs, the ML320 relies on its brakes to grab any wheel that starts to spin. That sometimes cancels momentum at the outset of a serious climb. It’s like having one pedal fall off your bike just as you begin your most furious pumping—not necessarily defeating but always disconcerting.More ML Reviews From the ArchiveThe Benz lost more points for its imbecilic stereo. The dime-size volume knob is on the upper right-hand corner of the LCD screen, as far from the driver as possible. The cassette player is tucked behind the hinged screen, whose readouts, by the way, are often illegible in sunlight. And the cargo-mounted CD player—the object of many festive treasure hunts—is buried behind a hinged rack that must be unscrewed and pivoted out. If listening to a stereo is a deadly pastime, this Benz is the safest SUV on the road.The ML320’s logbook began to stutter with the descriptors “midpack,” “mediocre,” and “satisfactory.” It is a curiously standoffish, unengaging device, despite the cachet the silver star reliably engenders.2001 Mercedes-Benz ML320215-hp V-6, 5-speed automatic, 4585 lbBase/As Tested: $35,945/$41,665C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.3 sec1/4-Mile: 17.7 sec @ 78 mph90 mph: 22.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 198 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg4th Place: Mitsubishi MonteroWith this new Montero, Mitsubishi had hoped to become the “value intensive” competitor to V-8 luxo-utes, notably the Lexus LX470 and the Land Rover Discovery. That the funky Montero can’t keep up with either is an ominous start. This SUV logged the worst 0-to-60 time and tied with the Land Rover for the tardiest 30-to-50-mph pass. On country roads, you’ll want to memorize this mantra: “Precise planning precedes perfect passing.”The problem is the Montero’s embarrassing 4813 pounds. It is also the longest SUV here, but at least that stat enables it to deliver the next-to-greatest interior passenger volume and a third row of seats. If it’s slow, it’s at least usefully slow.HIGHS: Gobs o’ personality, supple ride, powerful packet of off-road skills.LOWS: Bottom-feeder handling, dismal acceleration, plasticky interior.VERDICT: Great value in a package nonetheless crying out for a V-8.This SUV is also useful in the dirt. With its two-speed transfer case, lockable center differential, limited-slip rear diff, gnarly Yokohama tires, terrific suspension articulation, 9.3 inches of ground clearance, and 42-degree approach angle, the Montero quickly became our off-road champ—as muck-ready as the Land Rover but without the Land Rover’s inclination to snap heads. The Montero also offers a cushier 10-to-20-mph ride over rutted terrain. So cushy that we never felt compelled to lunge for any of its 10 grab handles.That colossal suspension travel, alas, draws notice on pavement, too. At speed, the Montero heels over like a stricken icebreaker, recovering slowly from rapid transitions before its progressive-rate springs can impose some discipline. Skidpad grip? Some, but it’s the slimmest in the group at 0.65 g.More Montero Reviews From the ArchiveStill, with an as-tested price of $36,717, the Montero represents good value, and it’s simply dripping with personality. From the front, it resembles a bloodhound, nose scrunched up in olfactory bliss, hot on the trail of an escaped felon. Its shift knob looks like the business end of a Big Bertha club. Its side-view mirrors are evidently lifted from a Kenworth. Its emergency flasher button is the size of a computer mouse. And its manumatic is the only shifter in this group to reliably do what it’s told, when it’s told, every time.”The Montero’s for the guy who cherishes originality,” said one editor. “The more I drive it, the more I like it.”2001 Mitsubishi Montero200-hp V-6, 5-speed automatic, 4813 lbBase/As Tested: $35,817/$36,717C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 11.8 sec1/4-Mile: 18.6 sec @ 74 mph90 mph: N/ABraking, 70­–0 mph: 206 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.65 gC/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg3rd Place: Lexus RX300Since we first drove the Camry-derived RX300 in 1998, we’ve fallen in love with the car. Er, SUV. Er, tall wagon. It has changed little since then, although the 2001 model now includes standard electronic skid control and brake assist.That this vehicle feels so carlike should puzzle no one. In this group, the RX300 is the shortest, narrowest, lowest, and lightest entry. If most of your driving is conducted in heavy traffic, this is the SUV to buy. It is agile, quick to duck into small places, easy to back up, and surpassed in braking competence by the BMW only. Heck, it even delivers the best fuel economy.HIGHS: Enviable ride-and-handling trade-off, pinpoint steering, the most comfortable seats in the business.LOWS: The off-road skills of an all-wheel-drive Camry.VERDICT: Light and agile, the most sedanlike SUV on the planet.Although its shrink-wrapped exterior constricts its cargo capacity, the Lexus repays its owner with ergonomically stellar biscuit-colored seats that we judged the best in SUV-dom. Not only was the RX300 a winner in our driver-comfort category, but it nabbed a trophy for two-person rear-seat comfort, too.In Ohio, the RX300’s logbook began to percolate with accolades: “rock-solid platform,” “stable,” “super-low wind and tire noise,” “silky V-6,” “steering that is linear,” “a ride so good you’ll swear you’re in a car.”There remain, however, a few un-Toyota-like details: a parking brake that intrudes on the dead pedal, an overdrive switch clinging like an afterthought to the side of the shift lever, and four identically sized climate-control and radio knobs.More RX Reviews From the ArchiveNot surprisingly, the Lexus also lost points as it whimpered along our off-road trail: no dedicated low range, no usable engine compression for braking, and passenger-car tires. With the least ground clearance of this bunch, the RX300 had difficulty stepping over a felled tree the others climbed easily. Still, it completed the route, although throughout it resembled a poodle in the midst of a coon-hound trial.This is a quiet, ingratiating vehicle whose on-road poise and wholesale absence of truckishness do much to overcome its paucity of off-road skills. And if your daily agenda includes no rock hopping, opt for the $34,440 front-drive RX300. Talk about great value.2001 Lexus RX300220-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 4023 lbBase/As Tested: $35,100/$41,124C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.6 sec1/4-Mile: 17.4 sec @ 79 mph90 mph: 23.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 188 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.68 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg2nd Place: BMW X5 3.0iIt will surprise only Salingeresque recluses that the square-shouldered BMW emerged the sports car of the bunch—more activity than utility. It boasts almost perfect weight distribution, the best skidpad grip, and an emergency-lane-change velocity of 58.6 mph. Further, the X5 halted from 70 mph in 177 feet, a feat few automobiles can duplicate.Little need be said of BMW’s fast-revving 3.0-liter six, either. Not only was the X5 the second quickest to 60 mph, but it tied for the greatest speed in the quarter-mile and had no trouble besting our top-gear acceleration tests. Then there’s this: No SUV here was quieter at full throttle or at a 70-mph cruise.HIGHS: Teutonic fit and finish, astounding brakes, athletic grip.LOWS: Tiresome low-speed steering, limited cargo capacity, inflated sticker.VERDICT: The SUV for persons who, above all else, value velocity.Speed, silence, grip—how come the X5 didn’t win? First, it’s no cargo queen. Although it’s tied with the Benz for longest wheelbase, the BMW offers the next-to-worst interior volume and is capable of hauling fewer vital cases of beer than our editors deemed advisable. Second, its steering is annoyingly heavy and sluggish at low speeds, making this SUV feel porcine and ponderous in traffic. Third, its accelerator pedal clacks like an office stapler and delivers throttle tip-in that is sports-car abrupt. Finally, the X5 is just plain expensive, with base and as-tested sums sure to induce lower-GI cramping.More X5 Reviews From the ArchiveMoreover, the X5 was about as comfortable off-road as Eminem in La Bohème, hobbled initially by stiff springs and too little suspension travel, then by its lack of dedicated low-range gearing, although it does at least include “Hill Descent Control,” which automatically shepherds it at less than 6 mph down precipitous grades. Going uphill is another matter. Like the traction-control system in the Benz, the X5’s directs power to the wheels that have grip by individually braking the wheels that don’t. This sometimes aborts momentum. Moreover, if you’re facing a long stretch of loose surfaces, it’s a system that can cook the brakes. Despite all of its electronic braking circuitry, the X5 was the most prone to spin its tires as it scrabbled for purchase during our festival of filth.Still, this BMW—with the smoothest-shifting automatic ever connected to an SUV—was voted the ute in which you’d most likely be cruising unwittingly at 80 mph and get a ticket. That’s usually a good sign. The easy speed, not the ticket.2000 BMW X5 3.0i225-hp inline-6, 5-speed automatic, 4696 lbBase/As Tested: $39,470/$43,695C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-Mile: 16.7 sec @ 83 mph90 mph: 20.7 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg1st Place: Acura MDXHoo-boy. In this comparo, the Acura’s list of conquests began to resemble Wilt’s. It carries the most stuff, is the quickest to 60 mph, offers the best back seat for three, comes close to matching the Montero’s rock-bottom sticker, and—check this out—even meets California’s ULEV standard.Like the Montero, the Acura boasts a pop-up third bench that can satisfy two kids. But the real revelation manifests only when you flatten every seat in the house: a cargo bay measuring 82 cubic feet. It looks like a small bus station in there. The MDX can swallow 34 cases of beer, as many as can some C/D editors. You can slide a 130-inch length of pipe in back. Between the wheel wells, you can flatten a piece of plywood four feet wide.HIGHS: Potent V-6, seven-passenger capacity, a cargo-carrying king.LOWS: Noisy at speed, looks like a minivan, requires a cautious off-road captain.VERDICT: Just enough sport, plenty of utility; Honda integrity, Acura luxury.What’s more, the MDX is confident, stable, and poised on difficult roads. Its steering encourages you to nail apexes, and it holds a steady, predictable arc through turns. On interstates, it tracks like an Accord. It evinces minimal body roll, and its ride—again like an Accord’s—is satisfactory though firm, more at home on byways unmolested by frost heaves.Off-road, you push a button to deliver maximum torque to the rear wheels—as much as 56 percent, but this works only in first or second gears and below 18 mph. Although the MDX completed our dirt-dog test, it offered the worst departure angle, no hand brake, and scant engine braking. More troubling, it felt as fragile as the Lexus, insisting on a cautious, inch-by-inch pace. Its off-road salvation, in fact, may well be Honda’s steering, which transmits all you need to know about surfaces and grip. More MDX Reviews From the ArchiveThere remain other flaws. The MDX is a heckuva big box, pushing aside so much atmosphere that it tied with the Discovery for creating the most racket at a 70-mph cruise. There’s no comfy place to stash your left foot. The manumatic shifter is not disciplined about holding a gear. The front seat cushions are as narrow as the BMW’s. The in-dash nav screen eats so much real estate that the HVAC switches are banished to an eyebrow shared with a digital clock, and you’ll have to fuss with the TV screen to alter the fan’s speed.With its vast, sloping windshield, the MDX sometimes looks like a minivan—more than once did we saunter to the Mazda MPV photo van thinking it was the Acura—although it carries extraneous basketball teams like a minivan, too. Not by coincidence will it be produced on the same line in Ontario that churns out Honda’s Odyssey. If such soccer-mom associations scare off buyers, well, that’s a shame. Although the MDX’s driving dynamics and cockpit furnishings are not as engaging as the X5’s or RX300’s, it is certainly more practical, imbued with the “ute” that all SUVs promise but so few deliver.2001 Acura MDX240-hp V-6, 5-speed automatic, 4399 lbBase/As Tested: $34,00/$38,500 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4-Mile: 16.6 sec @ 83 mph90 mph: 19.8 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 205 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.74 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg More

Since the beginning, 4×4 pickups have been fodder for modification. Armed with a stack of aftermarket catalogs and a robust pile of disposable cash, the average enthusiast could craft one heck of an off-road monster in the relative comfort of their own carport. Manufacturers took notice and started hawking their own off-road trims, packages, and accessories with varying levels of integrity and stylistic expression. Then, in 2010, Ford took things to another level, releasing the F-150 Raptor. Toyota jumped into action with the TRD Pro Tacoma, Jeep launched the Gladiator Mojave in 2020, Ram busted out the 1500 TRX shortly thereafter, Chevrolet served up some ZR2 Bison, and boom—factory direct, high-speed desert-running pickups were suddenly and inexplicably a genuine automotive segment. The latest to join the high-flying pack is the 2024 Ford Ranger Raptor, which was previously available overseas. We acquired a 2020 Gladiator Mojave for a long-term test a few years back and came away with mixed feelings. To see how the Gladiator Mojave has been faring since then, we slipped behind the wheel of the 2024 model in Moab, Utah, just as the 58th annual Jeep Safari was gathering steam. Hardware WarsThe hardware rundown for the Gladiator Mojave stacks up thusly: Dana 44 axles (the rear featuring thicker tubing for added strength), 4.10:1 axle gears, a part-time transfer case with a 2.72:1 four-wheel-drive low ratio, a 1.0-inch front suspension lift, 2.5-inch Fox internal bypass shocks with remote reservoirs, Fox front hydraulic jounce bump stops, rock rails, 33-inch tires on 17-inch alloy wheels, and few other sundry items. This year brings a few additions, notably a standard 12.3-inch infotainment system running Uconnect 5, standard side curtain air bags, and adaptive cruise control. There’s also a fresh interpretation of the seven-slot grille, and the antenna is moved to the windshield. New is the Mojave X model, which we didn’t drive but which includes a full-time four-wheel-drive transfer case, an integrated off-road camera, standard steel front and rear bumpers, and, critical for navigating the most torturous off-road scenarios, 12-way power seats. Jeep says the Mojave can ford water up to 31.5 inches deep. Our drive meandered about Moab’s trail system and subjected the Mojave to a combination of slickrock, ledges, some slightly muddy washes, and several miles of sandy two-tracks where we could let the Mojave off its leash to run a little wild. Wipeout Hill—an appropriately named, wholly natural, rock-strewn incline—was also on our route. The Mojave delivered plenty of thrills on the sandy bits. While the rest of our pack ran primarily in four-wheel high with the Off-Road+ drive program engaged through this terrain, we left it in two-wheel drive, traction control off and in rally mode, the Mojave responding with a delightfully tail-happy performance. With four-wheel drive virtually ubiquitous these days, it’s fun to remind oneself just how capable a rear-drive vehicle can be in the silt with proper tires, a skosh of ground clearance, and the driver’s willingness to stay in the throttle. We played in confidence across the sandy expanses knowing we had 4WD, low range, and a locking rear differential to help extricate the Gladiator should we stuff it in a dune. Conquering Wipeout Hill, however, required all of the above. But with the guidance of an experienced spotter, the Gladiator Mojave walked up it with little wheelspin. Not a Rocker, No Front LockerNotably, the Gladiator Mojave doesn’t offer a disconnectable front anti-roll bar or front locker—those are reserved for the Gladiator Rubicon, which costs the same as a Mojave. What the Mojave does have, however, are those Fox shocks and hydraulic jounce bump stops. Basically, when the dampers are at full compression and the axle is getting ready to give the bump stops a love tap, the Mojave’s hydraulic jounce stops smoothly absorb that energy via the magic of hydraulics. Listen attentively when landing a jump or traversing a series of whoops and you can hear the fluid traveling inside the jounce stops’ internal matrix; the sound is not unlike that of stepping on a saturated sponge. While they do lessen the harshness of impacts, they can’t reel in the Gladiator’s wild bucking action attributed to the high unsprung mass of its solid front axle. It’s for this reason that many competitors use an independent front suspension for their desert-running pickups. While the aging 285-hp 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 serves dutifully, its 4400-rpm torque peak (260 pound-feet) isn’t ideal for off-roading. Its machismo shrivels even further when compared to the twin-turbo V-6 in the Ranger Raptor that produces 405 horsepower and 430 pound-feet at a lower 3500 rpm. Comparing ripe apples to mature ones, the Ranger Raptor blazed to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds, while the last automatic-equipped Gladiator V-6 we tested required 8.3, a three-second gap that feels even bigger on the road than it looks on paper. Does it matter when blasting across loose sand at 60 mph? Not really. The grins are still wide, the laughs plentiful, and end-of-day exhaustion still omnipresent. But the current reputation of any performance vehicle is informed by its spec sheet, and the buying public can be fickle.The Inside StoryThe Gladiator’s interior continues to be a friendly place with easy-to-read instruments, supportive sport seats, and a logical switchgear layout. The updated 12.3-inch infotainment screen is long overdue and enhances the experience significantly. It’s standard across the lineup, with navigation included on the Mojave X and Rubicon X and optional elsewhere. We also played with the Jeep Adventure Guide function created in cahoots with Trails Offroad. It comes loaded with a fair amount of Jeep Badge of Honor trails, and a subscription unlocks the full catalog of over 3000 trails. More than just simple mapping software, it lets users update data with closures and changes, rates trails by level of difficulty, and occasionally includes background history or details regarding the area. Plus, you can download the data for local storage when traveling outside of cellular communication range. It works seamlessly, but it did take a few tries to get the hang of the commands and to properly track our progress. Still, we preferred looking out the windows at the majesty of the region rather than looking at a screen; we can think of worse places to get lost than Moab. The Gladiator Mojave has changed very little since its 2020 introduction, largely because it didn’t need to. But with the more powerful Ranger Raptor entering the chat well equipped for under $60K, our Mojave’s $66,810 as-driven price seems a bit optimistic. Though its base price is $54,890, the automatic transmission adds $2500, the three-piece hardtop with a folding front panel costs $1595 (plus another $655 for the headliner), the nav and premium audio set you back $2295, and so on. Related StoriesThe Gladiator and its Wrangler sibling have built their personalities on their unique attributes, including their removable roof and doors. For now, at least, that makes the Gladiator Mojave the only factory-built desert-running pickup than can go alfresco. Even in a now-crowded field, for some people, that’s more than enough.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Jeep Gladiator MojaveVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door convertible pickup
PRICE
Base: Mojave, $54,890; Mojave X, $64,890
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 220 in3, 3605 cm3Power: 285 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 260 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSIONS
6-speed manual or 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 137.3 inLength: 218.1 inWidth: 73.8 inHeight: 73.1-75.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54-57/50-53 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5000-5100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.4 secTop Speed: 97 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 18-19/16-17/21-22 mpgAndrew Wendler brings decades of wrenching, writing, and editorial experience with numerous outlets to Car and Driver. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including Car and Driver, Esquire, Forbes, Hot Rod, Motor Trend, MPH, MSN, and Popular Mechanics, among others. A Rust Belt native and tireless supporter of the region, he grew up immersed in automotive, marine, and aviation culture. A lifetime of hands-on experience and a healthy dose of skepticism provide him the tools to deliver honest and informative news, reviews, and editorial perspective. Of note, he once won a $5 bet by walking the entire length of the elevated People Mover up track that encircles downtown Detroit. More

The generation gap is alive and well in the compact-SUV segment. Take the Dodge Hornet and the Ford Escape: Both hit all the compact-crossover requisites: four doors, seating for five, all-wheel drive, turbocharged four-cylinder engine. But 23 years the senior and well into its fourth generation, the Escape is an elder statesman. The Ford’s buttoned-down, respectable image and calmly capable virtues exist in stark contrast to the new-for-2023 Hornet, which displays all the nervous energy and bravado you’d expect from a brand known more for the pathological hawking of horsepower than for providing sensible, efficient family transportation—and we mean that in the best way possible. Our Ford Escape ST-Line Elite would sticker at $43,355 as tested (based on 2024 pricing); skip the sunroof, the Premium Technology package, and a few minor items, and you’re at $39,455. The top step in the three-rung ST subline (ST-Line, ST-Line Select, and ST-Line Elite), it sits above the base Active trim ($30,990 for the front-wheel-drive version and $33,160 for all-wheel drive for 2024) and up near the Platinum ($38,610 FWD and $40,110 AWD) but below the front-wheel-drive-only plug-in hybrid ($41,995). The ST-Line Elite treatment includes the usual bits such as a unique mesh grille and rear “skid plate,” a larger rear spoiler, 19-inch wheels, and a monochromatic exterior treatment; ours was rendered in a coat of Atlas Blue Metallic paint that perfectly complements its refreshed-for-2023 exterior. Interior touches include a flat-bottom steering wheel with red stitching, the latter extending to the doors, seats, center armrest, and floor mats. It’s not a bad place to spend time, but the vibe is undeniably understated. The GT Plus Dodge Hornet is similarly positioned and was priced at $44,725, with $6730 of options. The GT Plus sits above the base Hornet GT ($32,995) but below the Hornet’s plug-in-hybrid variants, which start at $42,995. Ours arrived finished in an attractive Gray Cray paint ($495) and equipped with the GT Blacktop and Track Pack bundle ($3990) and Tech Pack Plus ($2245). That means gloss-black mirror caps and window moldings, dark “Hornet” and “GT” badging, 20-inch wheels, and red brake calipers. Black faux-leather eight-way-adjustable sport seats with red accents, a leather-wrapped steering wheel and bright-finish pedals highlight the interior. Cosmetically speaking, it’s a lively and style-rich effort inside and out. The pair find some common ground in engine displacement, with both using a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder. The Escape is good for 250 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque, while the Hornet has a touch more muscle at 268 ponies and 295 pound-feet; both deliver full torque at 3000 rpm. In addition to packing slightly more power, the Hornet has a nine-speed automatic transmission, while the Escape has an eight-speed. Though their powertrains appear similar on paper, our testing revealed distinctly different personalities. 2nd Place: Dodge Hornet The Hornet is a bit of an outlier in this segment, its Alfa Romeo DNA imparting a lively and sporty disposition that the Dodge logo doesn’t try to hide. Though its profile and marketing materials say “compact crossover,” its personality is more hot hatch than family hauler. It’s not surprising when you consider the Hornet is assembled alongside the Alfa Romeo Tonale in Italy and shares with its continental cousin, among other items, its suspension, dampers, and all-wheel-drive system. (The Jeep Compass is built on the same platform, so you know where to look for a ruggedly styled albeit less speedy alternative with a significantly lower MSRP.)HIGHS: Youthful attitude and styling, quick reflexes, supportive sport seats.LOWS: Limited passenger volume, personality has no “off” switch, overly firm ride.VERDICT: With edgy style and the manners to match, the Hornet loves to romp, but its firm ride and aggressive throttle tip-in never take a break.Though its elevated ride height helps the Hornet identify as a crossover, it looks a little forced, given its otherwise youthful and mildly aggressive appearance. Its dynamics reinforce that overt sportiness with a stiff suspension tune fond of communicating the details of every pothole, accurate but artificial and overly flinty steering in any setting, and aggressive throttle tip-in with a hint of torque steer that arrives quickly enough to surprise not only the driver but also the vehicle’s traction-control system. Dodge has a performance reputation to maintain, and we get that—hammering this on a track would be fun. But our crew of C/D staffers opined in near unison that we would trade a bit of its edginess for a more linear and refined response in nearly every metric. As one editor noted, “It’s still a tall crossover, and the red brake calipers can’t do anything to change that.” Those calipers also can’t imbue the Hornet with class-leading braking, as it required 177 feet to stop from 70 mph, 11 feet more than the Escape. Refinement aside, the Hornet’s 5.7-second 60-mph time bests the Escape by one-tenth of a second. However, the Dodge’s 14.5-second quarter-mile time trails the Ford’s by a tenth, so it’s a wash. The Hornet returned a decent 25 mpg over our 600-mile test route, but the Escape topped that with 28 mpg. The Hornet improved slightly on our 75-mph highway fuel economy test with a figure of 28 mpg. With a 13.5-gallon fuel-tank capacity, the Hornet can cover 370 highway miles between fill-ups. More on the Hornet and its Italian CounterpartObjectively, the Hornet’s 103.8-inch wheelbase and 178.3-inch overall length translate into a cabin that’s among the coziest in the compact-crossover segment. The cargo room also reflects its small footprint, with just 27 cubic feet behind the rear seats and 55 with them folded, measurements that trail the Escape by 11 and 10 cubic feet, respectively. Interior comfort is notable, and the sport seats received almost universal praise for comfort and support with the caveat that larger folks may feel a bit pinched. Headroom is limited. The 10.3-inch infotainment screen looks thoroughly modern, and the images are high resolution, but the software sometimes needs to catch its breath after several rapid-fire inputs. The screen, dash, and console are angled toward the pilot in the snug, driver-focused cabin. Anomalies worth mentioning are the turn-indicator stalk’s distant position in relation to the wheel and the confounding logic of the rear-wiper control. 1st Place: Ford Escape We’ve established what the Escape isn’t: flashy, extroverted, or new. But it carries a big stick, metaphorically speaking, in the form of its 250-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine. Yes, the Ford’s four-pot is slightly enervated compared with the 268-hp Hornet’s, but it’s clearly superior in terms of comportment and linear response. Its torque, 280 pound-feet, falls a bit shy of the Hornet’s 295, but again, the Escape’s power delivery is so drama-free that we’ll gladly trade a lower spec-sheet number for improved refinement. HIGHS: Speedy, linear power delivery, impressive highway fuel economy and range.LOWS: Acres of cheap-feeling black plastic inside, front seat bases are a little short, unsupportive backrests.VERDICT: Quick, practical, and versatile, but free of frills and short on personality.Just as its styling is low-key, so too is the Escape’s dynamic modus operandi. At 1.9 seconds to 30 mph and 15.2 to 100 mph, it’s 0.2 and 0.9 second quicker, respectively, than the Hornet. Yet the Ford just digs in and gets the job without a hint of torque steer, or an extroverted exhaust note to draw attention to itself. True, the Hornet has a bit more grip (0.85 g on our 300-foot skidpad), but it wears 20-inch ZR-rated Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 tires; the Escape rolls on slightly skinnier 19-inch Bridgestone Ecopia rubber and posted just 0.82 g. And while it takes a genuinely seasoned derrière to ascertain a difference of 0.03 g, nearly every tester commented on the Escape’s superior ride quality—a worthy trade-off. Plus, the Escape’s 71-decibel interior noise level at 70 mph registers two decibels quieter than the Hornet’s din, making the Escape a more pleasant environment for highway travel. C/D staffers agreed that neither the steering nor the brakes lived up to the engine’s promise, with one tester referring to the handling as “lazy,” while most agreed the brakes were a bit grabby. Still, one driver noted that the Escape was “surprisingly fun” and that Ford could “almost get away with calling it a true ST with a more aggressive wheel-and-tire setup.” Pushed hard through the winding roads of Ohio’s Hocking Hills region, it delivered more precision and usable grip than nearly every driver anticipated. Crucially, the Escape takes the trophy in numerous metrics critical to the compact-crossover class. Compared with the Hornet, it provides more overall interior volume (104 cubic feet versus 98), more headroom (40.0 inches front and 39.3 rear versus 38.8 and 38.2, respectively), better outward visibility, and a far more comfortable and usable rear seat with nearly three additional inches of legroom. While the Escape is dynamically fit for its age, its basic-black pebble-grain interior looks like it hasn’t been updated since Kanye West bumrushed Taylor Swift at the VMAs. The Hornet uses similar materials but infuses plenty of style, accents, and shapes to give it a more contemporary feel. The Escape’s infotainment system follows the fundamental blueprint; it lacks any gee-whiz gimmickry, but the 13.2-inch touchscreen’s home view can simultaneously display a map, an audio source, and another app. It’s a shame Ford couldn’t authorize the expenditure to place a physical control for the drive modes near the shifter, but at least they are only one button input away from the home screen. A row of climate commands permanently resides along the bottom of the screen. Helping to swing the pendulum in the Escape’s favor is the 28-mpg fuel-economy number it posted on our 600-mile trip. Furthermore, the Escape returned 32 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test. Those results best the Hornet’s by 3 and 4 mpg, respectively. With its 15.7-gallon gas tank, the Ford has an impressive highway range of just over 500 miles. In the compact-crossover segment, utility and versatility, rather than flash and razor-sharp handling, appeal to most buyers. Here at C/D, we’ll take performance where we can get it. But in this matchup, the Escape manages to meet or beat the Hornet in nearly every metric for a similar price. It just hides that capability behind a mature personality and demure wardrobe.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Dodge Hornet GT Plus AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $37,995/$44,725Options: GT Blacktop + Track Pack bundle (gloss-black exterior trim, red brake calipers, 235/40ZR-20 all-season tires, dark-finished 20-inch wheels, dual-mode suspension, leather sport steering wheel, pedal and doorsill trim), $3990; Tech Pack Plus without parallel-parking assist (ParkSense Parking Assist, Active Driving Assistant, surround-view camera system, Intelligent Speed Assist, drowsy-driver detection), $2245; Gray Cray paint, $495
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1995 cm3Power: 268 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 295 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.6-in vented disc/12.0-in discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4235/40ZR-20 96Y M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.8 inLength: 178.3 inWidth: 72.5 inHeight: 63.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/46 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 55/27 ft3Curb Weight: 3844 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.7 sec1/4-Mile: 14.5 sec @ 95 mph100 mph: 16.1 sec130 mph: 40.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.5 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 140 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 370 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/21/29 mpg
–
2023 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $39,455/$43,355 (2024 pricing)Options: Premium Technology package (HD Radio, head-up display, Active Park Assist 2.0, 10-speaker Bang & Olufsen audio system), $1910; sunroof, $1595; front and rear floor liners with carpeted mats, $200; 19-inch Ebony-painted aluminum wheels, $195
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled, DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1999 cm3Power: 250 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 280 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.1-in vented disc/11.9-in discTires: Bridgestone Ecopia H/L 422 Plus225/55R-19 99H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.7 inLength: 180.1 inWidth: 74.1 inHeight: 66.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/52 ft3Cargo Volume, behind F/R: 65/38 ft3Curb Weight: 3697 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.8 sec1/4-Mile: 14.4 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.2 sec120 mph: 24.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.0 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 127 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 500 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 26/23/31 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDAndrew Wendler brings decades of wrenching, writing, and editorial experience with numerous outlets to Car and Driver. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including Car and Driver, Esquire, Forbes, Hot Rod, Motor Trend, MPH, MSN, and Popular Mechanics, among others. A Rust Belt native and tireless supporter of the region, he grew up immersed in automotive, marine, and aviation culture. A lifetime of hands-on experience and a healthy dose of skepticism provide him the tools to deliver honest and informative news, reviews, and editorial perspective. Of note, he once won a $5 bet by walking the entire length of the elevated People Mover up track that encircles downtown Detroit. More

From the April 1987 issue of Car and Driver.Mercedes-Benz manufactures more than just cars: it builds the rolling aristoc­racy of the roads. From New York to Nai­robi, from Brussels to Budapest, the nou­veau riche, the riche, and the almost riche all agree on one thing: arriving in a Mercedes-Benz is about the best way to say you’ve arrived.The new 190E 2.6 embodies every last iota of Mercedes tradition. Daimler-Benz is a technological tortoise inching indefat­igably forward, often managing to stay a half step ahead of the car industry’s hares. Each new M-B model evolves logically from its predecessors; no great leaps are encouraged or sought. Thus everything that makes Mercedes-Benzes the objects of both reverence and puzzlement is present in the 190E 2.6. You’ll recall that the four-door 190, Mercedes’ smallest model, was conceived during the darkest moments of OPEC’s last fuel shut-off. In the three years since its arrival on these shores, the 190 has benefited from the slow but steady flow of improvements enjoyed by all M-B prod­ucts. Its handling balance was improved with fresh suspension calibrations. Larger wheels and tires strengthened its once-­feeble grip on the road. Its engines were fortified. Mercedes even made a model for hard-charging enthusiasts: the 190E 2.3-16, a winged autobahn screamer with a Cosworth-designed 16-valve cylin­der head. This year’s twist on performance en­hancement is the introduction of six-cylin­der refinement. Even as the 190 was going from computer console to reality, M-B’s studious engineers foresaw an end to the fuel-crisis hysteria and looked forward to the day when their car would require an engine larger and smoother than its four­-cylinder. They left just enough room un­der the 190’s hood to shoehorn in a com­pact six-cylinder powerplant. The new engine, which also powers the just-introduced 260E mid-size sedan, is the smaller relative of the creamy 3.0-liter inline-six that whirs contentedly under the hood of the impressive 300E. Reduc­ing the six’s displacement by 363 cc was merely a matter of decreasing its cylinder bore by 5.6 millimeters. The size of its valves was also reduced slightly, but that’s about it for major changes. Like its 3.0-liter big brother, the 2.6-liter is a deep breather. Although the smaller engine’s 158-hp maximum output is 19 hp lower than the 3.0-liter’s, it still compares well with the most potent two-­valve-per-cylinder motors in its size range from anywhere in the world. The 2.6-liter sounds as if it were made out of money when you call for all the horses.The marriage of little prince and big en­gine couldn’t be happier. Our 190E test car was fitted with M-B’s four-speed auto­matic, the right transmission for the job. The Daimler-Benz automatic, with its su­perlative gated shifter, is a model of re­finement, preferable to M-B’s wide-ratio five-speed in almost all conditions.The new drivetrain works almost as well as the 300E’s. The 2.6-liter six is only nine horsepower shy of the output of the hot­rod 2.3-16’s sixteen-valve four, and it de­livers equal torque. You expect brisk per­formance and you get it, with 60 mph arriving 8.1 seconds after liftoff and the quarter-mile going by in 16.4 seconds at a racy 84 mph. Around town there is always plenty of torque on call when you need to squirt ahead of traffic. Hold your foot down and the transmission lets the engine fly right to the redline—and beyond. We’re fairly sure our car’s gearbox calibrations were off, because they let the engine rev well past the 6200-rpm red zone in both second and third gears. Very un-Mercedes-like. Not that the silky six protests such treat­ment. The 2.6-liter sounds as if it were made out of money when you call for all the horses, and it settles back to a well­-oiled hum when you’re just cruising. An enthusiast could live on the sound alone. Thanks to a reasonable 0.35 drag coef­ficient and just-right gearing, the 2.6’s ac­celeration doesn’t plateau until 128 mph. It’s only when you get well up in the triple­-digit range that you can appreciate the full measure of the 190E’s breeding. The air­stream rushes by in a hushed whoosh, the suspension keeps a firm grasp on the ride motions, and the tracking is straight and true. A hundred twenty mph is inspirational. The other changes made over the years do their part, too. The steering is now di­rect and accurate, and the improved chas­sis serves up enough agility and grip to keep a serious driver involved when the asphalt ribbon tries to tie itself in a knot. If only the 190E were as accomplished at pampering its passengers. Daimler­-Benz’s stubborn insistence on clinging to a rear-drive layout puts a serious dent in this car’s practicality. The 190E is about the size of a Honda Accord, but it offers no­where near the spread-out room. Six-foot­ers won’t be comfortable in back for long. The rear seat itself is outstanding, but what good is a comfortable perch if your head hits the roof and your legs are locked in by the front seatbacks? The driver, too, could be made more comfortable. Legroom is limited by the bulky knee bolster that is part of the stan­dard Supplemental Restraint System (which includes a driver’s-side air bag), and the steering wheel is too low, too far away, and too big in diameter. The cabin may be tight, but it is tidy. True to tradition, the quality of the 190E, inside and out, is past great and headed for awesome. How can vinyl upholstery look so luxurious? How is it that Benzes fit together better than anything else in the world? How does Mercedes get the doors to thunk with that bank-vault authority? And how can it keep a straight face while charging so much for such a small car? More Mercedes 190E reviews from the archiveIt’s all part of the Mercedes-Benz mystique—the irresistible force that mes­merizes people into parting with huge sums of money for cars wearing the three-­pointed star. Even considering the 2.6’s wealth of standard features—including ABS brakes—its $32,200 base price strikes us as going, going, gone. A host of larger, more comfortable se­dans with equal or better performance are available for the same money or less, and for not much more, you could even have a 260E. We know that royalty has its price, but even for a little prince with a big heart, $32,000 is a king’s ransom.SpecificationsSpecifications
1987 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.6Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICEAs Tested: $32,200
ENGINESOHC 12-valve inline-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 159 in3, 2599 cm3Power: 158 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 162 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 10.3-in vented disc/10.2-in discTires: Michelin MXV185/65VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 104.9 inLength: 175.1 inWidth: 66.1 inHeight: 54.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/34 ft3Trunk Volume: 12 ft3Curb Weight: 2922 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.1 sec1/4-Mile: 16.4 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 27.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.7 secTop Speed: 128 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 19/22 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 20 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata, and he appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More

From the moment we laid eyes on the Maserati MC20’s striking curves, we couldn’t help but imagine a more aggressive version. After some seat time, thoughts of a street-legal track machine competing with the downforce behemoths from Chevrolet and Porsche raced through our heads. Maserati clearly had similar thoughts but instead skipped the road-ready version and went right to track-only mode. After all, before the latest iterations of Corvette Z06 and Porsche 911 GT3 RS came to be, the C8.R and 911 R traded paint on the track.Maserati won’t say if a similar trajectory is in the cards, but since then, they’ve created the MCXtrema, a rolling work of aerodynamic art exclusively for track use. Now, with a few elements borrowed from the MCXtrema, we have the aptly named GT2—successor to the MC12 race car and homologated to go racing in the Fanatec GT2 European Series.Not Just an MC20 with Extra AeroThe GT2 begins life on the same production line as the MC20 before being pulled aside and massaged for track duty. The intent of returning to racing weighed heavily in Maserati’s decision to fit the MC20 with a carbon-fiber monocoque, which required only slight modification to incorporate the GT2’s FIA-approved roll cage. Very few body pieces are shared between the MC20 and the GT2, save for some bits of the door, the headlights, and the taillights. The front bumper and splitter assembly, louvered hood, engine cover, rear bumper, and diffuser all have latches for hasty removal, in case of any on-track incidents. Holes in the carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic body panels feed air to the brakes and various coolers. The roof snorkel delivers a steady breeze to the engine and transmission coolers. Intercoolers from the production MC20 live within the GT2’s hindquarters, and because the engineers get their way when it’s race time, they’re mounted a bit more upright here.Nestled under the GT2’s engine cover is the same Nettuno twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6 that powers the MC20. Maserati claims the engine is about 80 percent the same as the street car, sans GT2-specific exhaust manifolds and larger turbochargers plucked from the MCXtrema. Despite the larger turbos, the GT2 won’t outdo the MCXtrema’s 724-hp rating. In its most aggressive engine mapping, the 3.0-liter produces the same 621 horsepower as the street car. So, why the bigger turbos? The engineers say the new snails help with tuning when balance-of-performance rules inevitably force Maserati to dial back the power in order for the pack to stay competitive. The GT2’s motive force is sent to the rear wheels through a HÖR Technologie six-speed sequential racing transmission and an adjustable limited-slip rear differential. The Nettuno’s prechamber ignition and two spark plugs per cylinder remain in place for the GT2. Fuel economy in the GT2 European Series isn’t critical, but with the possibility of endurance racing in the future, Maserati hopes the trick combustion process allows it to calibrate an engine map capable of stretching a gallon of fuel further than the competition can. On the suspension front, beefy billet-aluminum unequal-length control arms reside at all four corners—whereas the street MC20 utilizes a multilink setup. You won’t find any pliant rubber in this configuration; the arms attach to the body via rigid ball joints. Öhlins coil-over dampers feature adjustable compression and rebound, and both anti-roll bars offer three adjustment positions.Track TimeForeign tracks and unfamiliar cars—prototype versions, at that—can deliver an overload of anxiety. Since nobody likes flying blind, we strapped into the passenger seat alongside decorated racer and Maserati reference driver Andrea Bertolini for some familiarity laps of Autodromo di Modena’s 1.3-mile configuration before being given the opportunity to thrash the GT2 ourselves. Thanks to the MC20’s butterfly-style doors, it’s one of the easiest supercars to enter and exit. Much of that feeling carries over into the GT2; just get a leg through the roll cage and slide into the Sabelt fixed bucket seat. Once you’re settled in, all the controls and buttons on the steering yoke and center console are intuitive and clearly labeled. On the latter, any buttons with related functions are in the same row and given the same color—lights are green, rain-related controls are blue, and so on. Should one option the GT2 with air conditioning and a passenger seat, the brave soul riding shotgun gets their own vent and fan control. The engine’s vitals and just about any other sensor’s data can be displayed on the Bosch digital instrument cluster. With the pedal box adjusted and the six-point belts pulled tight, we turn on the fuel pump that audibly whirls its way to life. With the ignition switch flipped on and the clutch depressed, the V-6 crackles to life. A race engineer gives the thumbs-up. The GT2 drops off the air jacks. It’s go time.We ease off the clutch, and the GT2 exits the pit box with the mechanical orchestra of a race car. All the drivetrain’s whoop-whoot-whoops and weee-we-weeees echo through the cockpit. To keep the tires at the right temperature, the out lap needs to be tackled with mild aggression. Every gearshift activates the air pump that feeds the gearbox. It always sounds broken. Race car noises are fun.As the GT2 accelerates up to 135 mph on Autodromo di Modena’s front straight, each gearshift is immediate. Respecting the braking zone and still sussing everything out, we stand on the center pedal sooner than normal. There’s a lot of travel underfoot and there isn’t much feel to it—or, for that matter, any indication the 11-position-adjustable anti-lock-braking system is doing anything. But as the laps accumulate and the brakes and Pirelli P Zero race slicks reach a proper operating zone, the 15.4-inch iron rotors and six-piston calipers up front and 14.0-inch, four-piston units in the rear really start to show their force. Brake bias is easily adjusted with a big knob to the right of the driver’s seat. Bertolini has the brake bias set so roughly 60 percent of the force applies itself rearward, and it feels just right to us. We might like a firmer pedal, but it’s easy to adapt to and modulate the setup as-is. Entering Turn 1, the steering is seriously quick with a tremendous amount of feel and feedback. The electronically assisted steering rack even offers five settings of assistance, controlled by a dial on the center console. Initially, the Pirellis deliver massive amounts of grip, but if a driver pushes just a touch too hard, understeer arrives and is transmitted through the yoke instantaneously. As the lateral bite goes away, it doesn’t feel like a leap off a cliff, but rather a linear buildup to that event. If only street cars drove like this. Turns 2 and 3 comprise a slower left-right section. Admittedly, we’re probably being too timid with the throttle application. However, even with the three engine maps set to their most powerful positions and the six-position traction-control dial set to one of the less intrusive settings, the rear tires are hooked up. Taking big stabs at the throttle doesn’t throw the tail out, but it will send terrific turbo whoosh and wastegate-purge sounds into the cockpit.Flying down the back straight, the straight-piped V-6’s soundtrack is basically the only reminder you’re in something that was briefly an MC20. Whereas the V-12-motivated MC12 was a symphony, the GT2’s twin-turbo six is more of a thrash-metal concert. It’s not bad, just different. There’s a slight hump over a blind crest where the track’s configurations intersect. In the MC20, that spot is enough to upset the traction control as the car gets light on its feet at full throttle. The GT2 and its downforce-generating dive planes, three-position adjustable front splitter, and 10-position rear wing force the Pirellis into the tarmac, and the GT2 feels unflappable. The final portion of this brief circuit awards patience. In these slower corners, if there’s any body roll, it would take medical-grade instrumentation to detect it. After just a dozen laps, we already feel at home in the GT2. The fact that this car is so approachable and so much easier to drive quickly than an MC20 is exactly how Maserati intended it to be. They’ve built a race car that even a mildly experienced driver will feel comfortable in.More on Maserati ContentWhen the GT2 competes in its first full season of the Fanatec series, five customer cars are set to line up on the grid. For those not interested in traveling to Europe to race, Maserati will deliver a car to the United States for $522,000 to use for track days. That’s a lot of coin, but to stand out among the hordes of 911s and Corvettes, and given how approachable the GT2 is for drivers of all kinds, there are certainly far worse ways to spend it. David Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More

In the case of the 2024 BMW X5 M60i, it’s not hard to see why Bimmer pilots earn disrepute among car folk. When a large luxury SUV can deliver this much power this smoothly and consistently across the speedometer, it’s not hard to overshoot your targeted velocity, nor is it difficult to keep pulling water from that well until flashing red and blue lights appear in the rearview. But raw motive force is only part of the appeal; this longtime favorite manages to do everything with grace, landing in the sweet spot between the need for speed and daily-driving compliance.In these times of cylinder downsizing, there’s comfort to be found under the X5 M60i’s hood. The twin-turbo 4.4-liter V-8 hiding in there produces a meaty 523 horsepower and 553 pound-feet of torque, which in our testing was enough to shove this 5360-pound SUV to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds. That puts it three-tenths ahead of the latest Porsche Cayenne S Coupe, which also rocks a V-8 (albeit one that makes just 468 ponies) and boasts a curb weight advantage of about 250 pounds. The BMW’s still that far ahead at the quarter-mile mark, as well, which it reaches in 12.1 seconds at 113 mph.But stoplight drags only cover a part of what makes the X5 M60i’s powertrain so rewarding. Combined with a quick-shifting eight-speed automatic transmission, there’s never a bad spot in the rev range; even though we found some response delay in our 4.7-second run between five and 60 mph, the X5 still outperformed the Cayenne S Coupe in all three of our passing tests. In commuting situations, it means the only thing standing between a late departure and an early arrival at the office is your tolerance for scofflaw behavior. And, again, the engine practically begs to push the envelope at any opportunity.HIGHS: Effortless V-8 power, cushy accommodations, more supple than the X5 M.Thankfully, braking is equally strong, with stops from 70 mph taking 157 feet and from 100 mph needing 325 feet. Here, the Cayenne S Coupe has the Bimmer beat, but not by much, and that’s to be expected given the mass delta. Fuel economy exceeds expectations, with the X5 achieving 24 mpg on our 75-mph highway test loop, 2 mpg higher than the EPA highway estimate.The X5 M may still be the track star of the family, but the M60i has some pretty good moves around town. Handling is as flat as any other performance-oriented BMW, but the steering’s quickness might catch a driver off guard, especially if their second vehicle is something a bit lazier; it’s easy to dial in a bit too much angle and point the nose more severely than desired. LOWS: Twitchy steering around town, too few physical buttons, disappointing skidpad results.However, the X5’s commuting athletics don’t really translate to the skidpad, where we recorded an underwhelming 0.86 g and a wave of excessive understeer that stands in stark contrast to the Cayenne S. Perhaps it’s alignment, perhaps there’s something else afoot with the X5’s combination of big wheels—22 inches, in our test car’s case—and Pirelli P Zero PZ4 summer tires (275/35R-22 front, 315/30R-22 rear). But either way, disappointing skidpad results are a trend we’ve noticed on several X5s over the last few years. Despite those Italian rubber-band tires, the X5 exhibits a surprisingly comfortable ride in daily driving. There’s a hint of stiffness making its way through the electronically controlled dampers that make up the standard Adaptive M Suspension, but the manifold road imperfections around our Ann Arbor office never rise to the level of bothersome. Moving through the drive modes will bring more of that feel to the driver, but we think everything is best left in its default Comfort setting; there’s still plenty of fun to be had within those limits.Even if your passengers aren’t wowed by the M60i’s performance chops, they’ll dig the interior. The seats are comfortable, and every single inch of real estate looks and feels like the near-six-figure (for starters) cabin that this is. BMW refreshed the X5 for 2024, but some unfortunate vestiges remain—namely gesture control, which is frustrating to use intentionally and easy to activate accidentally. Performance Out the WazooThe biggest cabin update is that the 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster combines with a 14.9-inch central touchscreen in one giant curved installation rising from the dashboard. We love the latest iteration of iDrive, which is info-dense but easy to learn over time, but we dislike that nearly all climate functions require a trip through on-screen menus. The wireless device charger, which is tucked inside the center console behind a sliding lid, could use some additional ventilation, we think; your author’s phone heat-bricked itself in there while running wireless Apple CarPlay. Thankfully, time in the open air hooked up to a nearby USB-C port allowed us to juice up while keeping the volume up.VERDICT: Skip the X5 M’s hefty price premium and put that cash toward your tire budget.As with most German luxo-tanks, the BMW X5 M60i is an expensive proposition even before its countless potential options are factored in. Starting at $90,295, our test car picked up frivolities like a $5000 British Racing Green paint job, a $1950 upcharge for fancier Merino leather, and $1900 for the larger 22-inch wheels. Throw another five packages into the mix that add things like surround-view cameras, four-zone climate control, and the aforementioned cursed gesture control, and we’re choking down a $105,745 pill. That’s still a far cry from the X5 M’s $123,295 pre-options price, so if you’re willing to forgo the 617-hp V-8, you can save a fair bit of scratch by sticking with the M60i, which still delivers impressive street performance with fewer comfort-related drawbacks.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 BMW X5 M60i xDriveVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase/As Tested: $90,295/$105,745Options: British Racing Green paint, $5000; Driving Assistance Pro package, $2100; Coffee Extended Merino Leather interior, $1950; 22-inch M Wheels with summer tires, $1900; Executive package (panoramic sky lounge LED roof, soft-close automatic doors, glass and gesture controls), $1650; Climate Comfort package (front and rear heated seats, heated armrests and steering wheel, 4-zone climate control), $1000; Parking Assistance package, $900; M Sport Professional package (M Sport brakes with red calipers, extended Shadowline trim, M Shadowline lights), $650; carbon-fiber trim, $300
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 268 in3, 4395 cm3Power: 523 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 553 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.6-in vented disc/14.6-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4F: 275/35R-22 104Y Extra Load ★R: 315/30R-22 107Y Extra Load ★
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 117.1 inLength: 194.2 inWidth: 78.9 inHeight: 69.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/50 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 72/34 ft3Curb Weight: 5360 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.6 sec100 mph: 9.2 sec1/4-Mile: 12.1 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 16.6 sec150 mph: 25.0 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 157 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 325 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg75-mphHighway Driving: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 520 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 19/17/22 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

From the March 1983 issue of Car and Driver.At last you can go to a Volkswagen dealer and buy one of the long-awaited turbo Sciroccos. Unfortunately, they’re available only from a few selected deal­ers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. And the cars aren’t built in Wolfsburg or even Westmoreland, but rather in Old Lyme, Connecticut.These blown Sciroccos come from none other than Callaway Turbo Sys­tems. Reeves Callaway, the proprietor, has been marketing well-respected tur­bo kits for Volkswagens—and nearly ev­erything else on four wheels—for sever­al years. In the Scirocco he saw a unique opportunity to expand his business by building on the car’s basic goodness and offering complete package up­grades through Volkswagen dealers. This approach is meant to attract customers who desire the benefits of high­-performance modifications but lack the inclination or skill to perform them personally. It also allows the cost of the improvements to be included in the cars’ financing arrangements. There are a few catches, of course. New cars must comply with federal safe­ty and emissions requirements, and new-car buyers expect warranties with their cars. Callaway attacked both of these issues head-on. To satisfy the neb­ulous EPA requirements for aftermarket manufacturers, he refined his turbo kit to work with the stock catalytic convert­er until he could demonstrate that it had minimal effect on the standard Scirocco’s emissions performance. The warranty problem was even simpler. Callaway contracted with an aftermarket warranty company (one of the firms that offer extended warranties on regular new cars) to provide a twelve-month/20,000-mile warranty for his car, the same coverage offered with factory Volkswagens. The cost of the warranty is included in the package. Callaway considered the total-pack­age concept critical to the car’s success, so he upgraded the chassis to keep pace with the blown engine. Starting from the pavement up, 195/50VR-15 Phoe­nix Stahlflex tires mounted on 5.5-inch-wide Centra or ATS wheels replace the standard items. Bilstein shocks and stiff­er springs at all four corners, along with a 19mm rear anti-sway bar, keep the suspension’s motions in tune with the Scirocco’s newfound speed and grip.Inside, a classic three-spoke, leather­-wrapped steering wheel directs these components. A boost gauge, mounted in a beautifully executed housing to the right of the instrument binnacle, moni­tors the engine’s efforts. The only other interior change is special Callaway-em­blazoned upholstery fitted to the other­wise stock seats. Naturally, a trick car needs some ex­ternal identification. Callaway has add­ed four tapering stripes to each side of the car to accentuate the Scirocco’s ba­sic wedge shape, as well as “Callaway Turbo Scirocco” graphics to the hatch and rear quarter-windows. Combined with the spacy wheels, these additions clearly differentiate the Turbo from gar­den-variety Sciroccos, yet are still rea­sonably subtle and tasteful. All of these modifications aside, the heart of the car is its turbo engine. With a mere eight pounds of boost, it’s one of Callaway’s milder installations, yet it still pumps the horsepower from 74 to 117. Water injection and premium-un­leaded fuel keep detonation at bay, while a thermostatically controlled oil cooler keeps the temperature under control. This engine is hard to fault. It retains all of the stock engine’s docile and re­fined nature, yet can boot the Scirocco around with real authority. Zero-to-60-mph acceleration takes but 7.7 seconds, the quarter-mile is covered in 15.8 sec­onds at 87 mph, and 100 mph comes up in 24.6 seconds. Top speed is improved by an incredible 24 mph, to 126 mph. The Turbo does have a voracious ap­petite for water when driven this hard. But the two-quart supply, held in the windshield-washer reservoir, will last as long as a tank of fuel under anything but track conditions. Our overall water consumption was 415 miles per gallon during very hard driving. Fuel economy was an excellent 22 mpg; according to the certification tests, the Turbo deliv­ers the same 28 mpg as a stock 1982 Scirocco when driven sedately. The Turbo’s suspension nearly equals the engine’s all-around excel­lence. Cornering grip is improved dra­matically, from 0.74 to 0.79 g. Equally important, the Turbo responds more crisply and turns in harder than any stock Scirocco. The engine’s goodness comes with no compromises, but the suspension does extract a comfort penalty in exchange for its handling improvements. Particu­larly on small pavement imperfections, there is a decided increase in ride harsh­ness; still, this seems like a fair trade for the cornering capabilities. We also tried a Turbo with the optional front anti- roll bar. That car was far rougher-­riding, with no commensurate handling benefits. The only performance aspect of the Turbo that is unimproved is the brakes. While standard Scirocco brakes are very good, the Turbo’s higher speed capabil­ities can push them well beyond their fade limits. Unfortunately, there is no expedient improvement available, although GMP in Charlotte, North Caroli­na, does offer an assortment of upgraded brake components from West Germany. More on the SciroccoFor $16,495, the Callaway Turbo Sci­rocco is pretty hard to beat. It’s a well­-executed blend of Scirocco refinement, utility, and economy with outstanding performance, tenacious handling, and distinctive appearance. Our only con­cern is long-term engine durability, but Callaway offers an optional extended warranty to put customers’ minds at rest. We can’t help wondering why, if Callaway Turbo Systems can turn out such a car, Volkswagen of America still hasn’t seen fit to do so. SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Callaway Turbo SciroccoVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 3-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $16,495/$17,000
ENGINEturbocharged inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 105 in3, 1716 cm3Power: 117 hp @ 5800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 94.5 inLength: 165.7 inCurb Weight: 2300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 24.6 secTop Speed: 126 mphRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 28 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and WRL racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, 2009 Mercedes SL550, 2013 Porsche Cayenne S, and four motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

If you’re scrolling through the never-ending list of compact crossovers available today, we understand if you’re feeling overwhelmed. But two names on that list likely stand out as comforting, familiar choices, largely because the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 basically invented this segment when they first arrived in the 1990s. And they’re still going strong today, with both consistently ranking among the bestselling vehicles in the U.S.The Honda CR-V has been redesigned since the last time we visited this pair, as the sixth-generation model arrived for 2023. The fifth-generation RAV4 is nearing the end of its life cycle, but it received a small update for 2022 that brought revised styling and a few other tweaks. We figured now was as good a time as any to revisit this long-standing rivalry and choose our favorite among these popular, well-established SUVs.What We TestedAlthough both the CR-V and RAV4 are placing an increasing emphasis on their hybrid variants, the base gas-only powertrains still make up a large portion of sales, so the examples you see here have the standard setups with optional all-wheel drive. For the Honda, its nonhybrid powertrain consists of a 190-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-four with a continuously variable automatic, while the Toyota has a 203-hp 2.5-liter inline-four and an eight-speed automatic.Toyota RAV4HIGHS: Rugged look and feel, smooth-shifting transmission, lots of features.LOWS: Buzzy engine, less-than-comfy rear seat, dour interior.VERDICT: Solid bones but showing its age.More on the RAV4The RAV4 lineup includes a far wider range of trim levels than the CR-V’s does, and our 2024 example of the Toyota came kitted out in TRD Off-Road trim. This setup includes a few rugged-looking styling tweaks, all-terrain tires, and a modified suspension, and our version also came festooned with various extras and accessories that ballooned its sticker price to a steep $44,844. That’s a whole lot more than our plain-looking mid-spec 2023 CR-V EX-L AWD, which cost only $37,565 and came with but one option, its $455 Radiant Red Metallic paint. View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadHow They Drive and PerformThe CR-V and RAV4 have similar strengths and weaknesses on the road. Both have accurate steering and good ride quality, but each suffers from an unrefined engine that brings lots of noise, vibration, and harshness into the cabin under hard acceleration. The RAV4’s engine is the worst of the two in this regard, as the naturally aspirated four-cylinder is buzzy and harsh, while the CR-V’s turbo four has more torque low down in the rev range, meaning it feels more responsive and doesn’t require you to explore the upper rev range as often.One key difference between the two is transmission type, as the Honda has a continuously variable automatic and the RAV4 has a traditional eight-speed automatic. We prefer the Toyota’s setup to the Honda’s, mostly because its conventional shifts avoid the droning sensation of the CVT. But the two cars’ acceleration performance is similar, with the 190-hp Honda getting to 60 mph in 8.1 seconds and the 203-hp Toyota hitting the mark in 8.3 seconds.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2023 Honda CR-V EX-LThat said, we still prefer driving the CR-V to the RAV4 overall, as it offers a better ride and handling balance and a bit more refinement. The CR-V outgripped and outbraked the RAV4 at our test track, though the Toyota’s all-terrain tires likely hurt it in this regard. In terms of feel, the Honda’s handling is more fluid and cohesive, while the RAV4 can occasionally feel discombobulated in comparison. The Honda is also quieter in our testing and is more isolated from the road.Honda CR-VHIGHS: Spacious rear seat, nicely trimmed interior, composed handling.LOWS: Lacking in grunt compared to the available hybrid, CVT causes engine to drone.VERDICT: A well-rounded choice that will please most everyone.More on the CR-VBoth the Toyota and Honda are among the most fuel-efficient vehicles in this class, even if you don’t opt for their thriftier hybrid powertrains. In our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy testing, the RAV4 barely edged out the CR-V, hitting 32 mpg to the Honda’s 31 mpg. Either way, you’ll get more than 400 miles between fill-ups on highway trips, although the hybrids—with EPA ratings of up to 40 mpg for the Honda and 39 mpg for the Toyota—are the real choice for thrifty shoppers.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2023 Honda CR-V EX-LInterior ComparisonBecause the CR-V received a comprehensive redesign more recently, it’s no surprise that its cabin looks more modern and pleasing to the eye than the RAV4’s dated interior. We like the simple layout of the Honda’s dashboard, which incorporates an easy-to-use touchscreen plus plenty of knobs and buttons for the audio and climate controls. A honeycomb-texture trim piece over the air vents adds some visual interest, while the RAV4 features a dour array of black plastics with only a few rubberized knobs and orange trim pieces breaking up the monotony. We also didn’t like the Toyota’s infotainment system as much, as it doesn’t offer a convenient home screen and can’t display audio and navigation functions simultaneously.The CR-V is also the better choice for rear-seat passengers. We judged it to have the superior space and comfort with both two or three passengers back there. Comparatively, the RAV4’s back seat feels more cramped, and the seating position is less comfortable. To top it all off, the CR-V has more cargo space, as it fit 12 carry-on-sized boxes behind the rear seats versus 10 for the RAV4.View PhotosMichael Simari|Car and Driver2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadWhich Is Better?Although the Toyota has plenty of character and offers a wide variety of configurations to suit your personality, the Honda is the far more well-rounded choice. With its more spacious cabin, pleasant driving dynamics, and easy-to-use tech features, the CR-V is one of our favorite compact SUVs for a wide variety of reasons. We’d recommend the CR-V Hybrid even more highly than the nonhybrid due to its quieter driving experience and better fuel economy, but either version of the CR-V is a great choice.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda CR-V EX-L AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $37,110/$37,565Options: Radiant Red Metallic paint, $455
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 91 in3, 1498 cm3Power: 190 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 179 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/12.2-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/60R-18 (103H) M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 184.8 inWidth: 73.5 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 77/39 ft3Curb Weight: 3614 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.1 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.2 sec120 mph: 38.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.8 secTop Speed (C/D est): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 430 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 29/27/32 mpg
– 
2024 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-RoadVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $39,645/$44,844Options: TRD Off-Road Premium Audio package (panoramic view monitor, 12.3-inch display, JBL amplifier and speakers), $1390; TRD Off-Road Weather package (heated steering wheel and front seats, rain-sensing wipers), $1015; TRD Off-Road Technology package (front and rear parking assists with automatic braking, wireless device charging), $640; digital rearview mirror, $625; running boards, $620; dashcam $375; door sill protector, $199; mudguards, $150; black chrome exhaust tip, $120; black emblems, $65
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2487 cm3Power: 203 hp @ 6600 rpmTorque: 184 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Falken Wildpeak A/T Trail 01A225/60R-18 (101H) M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 181.5 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 68.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 70/38 ft3Curb Weight: 3719 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.5 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 460 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 28/25/32 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More