Car Reviews

IntroductionThe Ford Maverick pickup may be small, but it’s made a big splash. The compact hauler can be quick or efficient; it instantly won over consumers and us alike, earning back-to-back 10Best awards. Initially the Maverick was nearly impossible to come by. Demand was high, and supply was low. And just as many would-be adopters, we eagerly waited for our truck to arrive after placing our order. Then in early March, our Atlas Blue Metallic Maverick was born in Hermosillo, Mexico. After a train ride north, our mini-truck arrived at headquarters for a 40,000-mile test.The process of ordering our Maverick caused a few scuffles around the office water cooler. The all-wheel-drive model’s 5.9 second rip to 60 mph, courtesy of a 2.0-liter turbo four, was appealing, as was its 4000-pound towing capacity. Still, others advocated for the front-wheel-drive hybrid version—Ford has added an AWD hybrid model for 2025—which sips fuel but can only tug 2000 pounds. When the dust settled, we agreed to go with the powertrain that has proven more popular: the 191-hp hybrid.When the Maverick launched, the hybrid was the base powertrain. Perhaps in response to its popularity, Ford did a switcheroo. Now, the turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four is the base engine, and the hybrid is a $1500 upcharge. The Maverick also has gone up a few thousand dollars in price. Although every Maverick features an 8.0-inch touchscreen infotainment system with wired Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connections, the base XL is otherwise, well, really base. Moving up a rung to the $28,015 XLT (plus the extra $1500) opens the door to more options to coddle us over 40,000 miles. Specifically, the XLT Luxury package ($2275) adds heated seats and mirrors, an eight-way power driver seat, remote start, a trailer hitch with a four-pin connector, a drop-in bedliner, LED cargo-box lighting, a full-size spare, and a 110-volt inverter with cab and bed outlets. We also tacked on Ford’s Co-Pilot360 ($650) for its blind-spot detection and lane-keeping assist, then added a tri-fold soft tonneau cover ($590) to keep our gear dry. All in, our Maverick came to $33,030.Our initial impressions picked up right where we left off. We love this little truck. The steering has just the right amount of effort, and though the ride is on the stiffer side of the spectrum and high-frequency bumps rattle the Maverick’s cage, it’s generally agreeable in most use cases. While the bed isn’t huge, it’s great for weekend projects that involve moving dirt or playing in it; a motocross bike, gear, and fuel can fit great with the tailgate down. And the fuel economy merits mention: Over the first few thousand miles we’ve averaged an impressive 34 mpg. After some miles to let the Maverick’s mechanical bits become friends, we headed for the test track. With what we assumed was a fully charged battery (there’s no gauge), the Maverick reached 60 mph in 7.4 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 90 mph, 0.3 and 0.2 second better than our test of a 2022 model. At the skidpad, it held on at 0.78 g and stopped from 70 mph in 181 feet. That’s 0.03 g less grip and a lengthy 23-foot-longer stop than our previously tested truck, which has us wondering what type of special sauce that earlier Maverick XLT hybrid was sipping.Even with all the greatness the Maverick delivers, we managed to sniff out a few dislikes. When new, the off-gassing of the recycled plastic interior bits smells a bit like a burro pasture on a hot summer afternoon. Plus, those plastics scratch too easy. The stinkiness goes away, but we’ve yet to find a cure for the scratches. Passenger space in the rear is tight, and installing rear-facing child seats forces front-seat riders to slide their chairs far forward. The tri-fold soft bed cover lacks attachment points to crossmembers, so at highway speeds it balloons up in the rearview. And we’ve noticed an occasional shudder from the powertrain during low-speed braking events, so we’ll have the dealer check into that in the weeks to come.An interesting aspect of Maverick life is the 3-D printing of interior accessories that utilize the Ford Integrated Tether System. Over the course of the next few months, we look forward to diving into the world of dimensional printing. Do you have a favorite printer? Maybe you’ve printed some Maverick knickknacks. What are the must-haves? Comment below with your favorites. In the meantime, we’ll keep piling the miles and the smiles. Months in Fleet: 1 month Current Mileage: 3772 milesAverage Fuel Economy: 34 mpg Fuel Tank Size: 13.8 gal Observed Fuel Range: 460 miles Service: $0 Normal Wear: $0 Repair: $0Damage and Destruction: $0 SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Ford Maverick XLT HybridVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,515/$33,030 Options: XLT Luxury package (remote start, trailer hitch with 4-pin connector, drop-in bedliner, LED box lighting, heated seats and mirrors, full-size spare, 8-way power driver seat, 110-volt inverter with cab and bed outlets), $2275; Ford Co-Pilot360 package (blind-spot detection with cross-traffic alert, lane-keeping system), $650; soft tri-fold tonneau bed cover, $590
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter inline-4, 162 hp, 155 lb-ft + AC motors, 105 and 126 hp, 48 and 173 lb-ft (combined output: 191 hp; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/11.9-in disc Tires: Continental ProContact Tx225/65R-17 102H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.1 inLength: 199.7 inWidth: 72.6 inHeight: 68.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/47 ft3Curb Weight: 3726 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.4 sec1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 20.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 110 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 181 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 34 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 37/42/33 mpgDavid 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

From the April 1980 issue of Car and Driver.Assuming that imitation really is the sincer­est form of flattery, Chevrolet must be practically purple from praise: Datsun’s gone and T-topped the 280ZX. We told you Japan had sights on its very own Corvette when the Z­-car was first X’d; the new roof treatment suggests our theory was probably correct.The initial anguish over yet another sports car that traded fat anti-roll bars for power win­dows has pretty well subsided in this car’s case. The reason is that Datsun hasn’t fooled around with the transition. The Z-to-ZX mar­ket shift was such a shrewdly executed meta­morphosis that neither the car’s basic styling nor its powertrain needed fiddling with. Lux­ury was the target. Datsun single mindedly plumped up its two-seater as comfortably as it knew how by lavishing new luxo equipment on a proven package. Costs were allowed to float upward in the process, so the ZX came out smooth-riding, quiet, and well engineered for four-speaker stereo, cruise control, and all the other trappings of the automotive good life. As the Corvette punched through the 10-grand barrier, the ZX followed suit after a short, discreet inter­val. The key difference is that Chevy boosted prices in response to demand, while Datsun was conscientious enough to factor value into the equation.For 1980, Datsun has taken the opportuni­ty to push the ZX higher. In addition to the T-top (sales brochures call it a “skyroof”), other new goodies are available. For a mere $70 (after you’ve plunked down $635 for air conditioning), you can opt for a set-it-and-­forget-it automatic temperature-control sys­tem to knock the chill off alfresco cruising. For $300, leather upholstery will caress your backside. And last year’s popular Grand Lux­ury pack is back, bursting at the seams with $1704 worth of sumptuous power assists to help raise the windows, steer the front wheels, and amplify whatever blasts out of the radio speakers. If you’ve jumped to the conclusion that the ZX’s well-endowed toy list is an ambitious attempt to mask flaws underneath, you’re wrong. The ZX acts as if it had a corner on all the world’s torque as it scurries from rest to 60 mph in less than ten seconds. The quarter-mile flies by in seventeen seconds flat, and the brakes work significantly better than they did in 240–280Z days. The power steering is sensitive, neither too light nor too heavy. Feed it a winding road, and the ZX will carve itself a quick line with confidence, and conscientiously issue early warnings if you tread close to the limit.If we had to rank the ZX’s character traits in order of intensity, the list would read something like this. First, and foremost, the ZX is an amusement park on wheels, packed with reminder chimes, electronic displays to carry out pre-flight countdowns, and joy­sticks to run the speakers—all intended to keep two participants perpetually at the brink of entertainment overload. Second, the ZX is the sports car for the guy that’s just traded in his two-year-old Eldo and needs to go out and feel his oats one last time before the old ticker chimes midnight. The third voice that cries out from the ZX’s soul is softer than the other two, and one you’ll probably be surprised to hear about. Unless it comes from the factory so equipped, the ZX goes through life pleading for an automatic transmission. Never mind that the five-speed delivers two more miles per gallon, there are a couple of reasons why the automatic works better. The five-speed ZX we tested had a severe case of motor­boatism, or nose-up/tail-down motion every time the throttle was tickled. Second, there’s a hitch in the electronic fuel injection that makes drivability ragged when you’d prefer gentle up- and downshifts around town. This is one of those cars you just can’t drive slowly and smoothly all at once. The best solution is to eliminate clutch-throttle-shifter action en­tirely, and let the automatic swish you about under full servo control. Related StoryWhich will give any ZX owner more of a chance to appreciate the fine accouterments like the new skyroof anyway. Datsun has bet­tered Chevy designs here, at least from a se­curity standpoint. While a sharp blow to the front corner of a Corvette’s roof will snap its hatch-release handle over-center and offer ready access to thieves, the ZX has a safety catch to keep the main handle from being opened so casually. The hatches are gener­ous in size and well integrated with the car’s lines. The sealing system was leak- and draft-­free in our test car, and the creak-and-groan gremlins that come built in with aftermarket T-tops never raised their ugly voices. Datsun has generously provided air deflectors that hinge out of the sun visors, but we found tur­bulence in the open cockpit to be low enough that these weren’t really necessary. So the T-top is one more successful move out of the classic sports-car mold toward a more laid-back life as a comfy cruiser. As an Asian Corvette, the ZX has already sur­passed the original.SpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Datsun 280-ZX SkyroofVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $9899/$13,208
ENGINESOHC 12-valve inline-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 168 in3, 2750 cm3Power: 132 hp @ 5200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 91.3 inLength: 174.0 inCurb Weight: 2970 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.4 sec1/4-Mile: 17.0 sec @ 83 mphTop Speed: 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 206 ft
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (EST.)Combined: 21 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the April 1980 issue of Car and Driver.Each year since 1976 has seen a worthwhile improvement in the overall quality of Volvo cars. For ten years be­fore that they were to be prized mainly for their nuisance value, so notoriously troublesome and unreliable were they. This didn’t stop Volvophiles from singing their praises to the skies, but the uniquely durable affection of Volvo owners during the years 1967-1976 is a tribute more to Volvo advertising and public relations than to Volvo automo­tive products. Well, not entirely. Volvo products from 1957 to 1966 were abso­lutely above reproach—perhaps the best cars imported in the United States during that decade—and there’s little doubt that Volvo lore handed down from those good old days sustained a lot of 144 and 164 owners when their trusty Swedish steeds refused to start three mornings out of seven.If Volvo was the enthusiast’s darling in the late Fifties and early Sixties, it al­most became the official car of the loons and dimbulbs of academe and the con­sumer movement in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Now, with Volvo send­ing us cars like the landmark GT (for­merly called 242GT) and our test car, the very slick GL, the pendulum has swung back toward automotive righ­teousness again. In fact, there’s a lot to light the enthusiast’s fire in these latest offerings from the solid burghers of Goteborg. These are four-cylinder cars, powered by Volvo’s infinitely lovable B-21 F engine—2.1 liters, 107 horsepower at 5250 rpm, and 114 pounds-feet of torque—an oversquare, overhead-cam, fuel-injected four that just seems to beg for abuse. Horsepower has been raised from 101 in the last couple of years, and those extra six do seem to make them­selves felt as a useful addition. The B-21—introduced in 1975—differs from its four-cylinder antecedents in that it features a belt-driven overhead cam­shaft, but the noise and the verve are unchanged.The engine’s polished manners are due in no small part to Volvo’s Lambda-­sond emissions system. Lambda-sond, as you may know, is the self-monitoring pollutant controller pioneered by Volvo in 1977 that incorporates a three-way catalyst, an oxygen sensor, electronic fuel injection, and an on-board comput­er. Because the system demands precise fuel distribution, a stoichiometric fuel­-air ratio, and an optimized timing curve, it not only does a better than average job of cleaning up exhaust nasties, but smooths over the rough spots in driva­bility as well. More Volvo Reviews From the ArchiveI’ve been listening to four-cylinder Volvo engines since I drove a PV444 (the 1941 Ford look-alike) in the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in 1958, and this new one sounds just like that one—feisty. However, if feistiness is what you seek, you should opt for the GT. Introduced two years ago, the GT has done much to restore Volvo’s credibility among the good guys, selling like hotcakes and pleasing owners and dealers alike. The GL is another breed of Swede. The Vol­vo legend is firmly based on four-cylin­der engines, and as their six-cylinder cars became more and more pricey, and people began to worry more and more about fuel economy, Volvo product planners saw an opportunity: why not build a four-door sedan with all the lux­ury of the primo six-cylinder cars, but power it with the straightforward practicality and economy of the B-21F four-cylinder? So they did. The resulting car is a paragon of North European auto­motive virtue, a car that everybody in a decision-making capacity in Detroit should drive for a year. Tighter, lighter, better appointed, and cheaper than a Seville, the GL—equipped as ours was, with a four-speed manual transmission and electric overdrive—delivers 18 mpg in town and 28 on the highway, says the EPA. In our experience this estimate is actually very low. But better still, the Volvo is a genuinely amusing car to drive. It’s alert, responsive, and stable. The handling, braking, and roadholding that go with all this luxury are first-class, and though the ride is European, it would not offend a Pontiac owner. This is a wonderful car for the long­-distance traveler. It’s long-legged, and economical enough for most people, and it’s always a pleasure to open the door and hop in. It’s loaded with useful space, both in the cabin and in the lug­gage compartment, and the seats are as good as anything this side of a Porsche 928. Ours were upholstered in some kind of petrochemical-derived cloth that clung to wool clothing like Velcro and made it impossible to slide across the seat for entry or exit. The accepted drill was to get in as far as possible before dropping into the seat, then hoist your­self up and repeat the process until you’d kedged your backside into the dead-center position. Once ensconced in those seats, however, your body will thank you for all the trouble you went to. The front seats are adjustable for height, rake, and fore-and-aft position­ing, and there’s a cam-type lumbar adjustment. The driver’s seat-height ad­justment (front and rear) is accom­plished with a pair of levers under the seat. The passenger’s seat offers the same range of adjustment, but is bolted in place, thus requiring the use of hand tools. Finally, the driver’s seat is electrically heated. The system is automatically, thermostatically controlled, and there’s something truly friendly about the warm feeling that begins to wrap the buttocks and kidneys when you first set out on a frigid morning. At the other end of the climate-control scale we’d like to applaud the Volvo sunroof, with its optional wind deflector. The translucent plastic deflector makes it possible to cruise at very high speeds with the roof open, even in the rain, and its ben­efits to smokers are great indeed.Because of the seats, all of the control relationships are very nice in the Volvo. The driver’s seat being chair-height, and its adjustments being as compre­hensive as they are, one can make abso­lutely certain that all the controls are right within one’s grasp. Visibility is good, inside and out, and this too helps the drivability. The GL instrument pan­el is bulkhead-to-bulkhead information, and that’s the way we like them. The ta­chometer is centered before the driver, with warning lights for parking brake, high beams, bulb and brake-system failure, and a service reminder for the Lambda-sond system in the same square. To the left of the tach is the speedometer—reading only to Miss Claybrook’s 85 miles per hour, about 15 percent short of the car’s potential—­along with the odometer and trip mile­age in tenths. To the right are the wa­ter-temperature and fuel gauges, plus warning lights for oil pressure and gen­erator, and an indicator light for the electric overdrive. The center section of the dash features air outlets, a clock, a rheostat for the instrument lights, rocker switches for rear-window defog and four-way flashers, and a control panel for the heater/air conditioner. Below all this, our car had an AM/FM radio and cassette player. Smack in the middle is an ashtray, a little drawer masked by the black vinyl that covers the panel and console, and this is the only part that doesn’t seem very well designed. It was invariably smudged and ash-strewn and detracted from the otherwise tidy effi­ciency of the dash. Between the graphic layout of the instrument panel and its illumination, Volvo does as good a job of conveying facts about the condition and operation of the car as anybody in the business. All GLs are fitted with electric windows, and the buttons for these have been moved from the center of the dash to the armrest. All the controls feel good—perhaps because all the components they’re at­tached to work so well. The steering is positive, with lots of feel. The four­-wheel disc brakes can be applied with micrometer accuracy in spite of a gener­ous power assist, and the clutch is smooth as silk. The owner’s manual does not recommend using the clutch for the shift (switch?) from fourth to fourth-overdrive, maintaining that it’s only necessary for the shift back down to fourth, but we used it both ways, up and down. Somehow the overdrive en­gagement is smoother when the clutch is used, feeling like the upshift in a very old automatic transmission when it isn’t. The switch for the electric over­drive unit is on the shift knob, and works on fourth gear only at speeds above 45. It’d be nice to have it avail­able on third gear as well, but our Swed­ish friends don’t see it that way. All four ratios in the gearbox are well chosen and nicely matched. The final-drive ra­tio is 3.91 on overdrive cars, dropping to 3.13 when overdrive is engaged. Vol­vos ordered with the optional Borg­Warner three-speed automatic trans­mission have a final-drive ratio of 3.73. Something of profound importance has taken place at Volvo in the past three years. They’ve gotten their act to­gether, and the cars they build improve all the time. Several of us felt that this was the best Volvo we’d ever driven, lively and agile with truly impressive attention to quality in every detail. Volvo is no longer a builder of cars for fringe markets; the GL and its sporty relative, the GT, are very much cars for the times, and very nicely slotted against the highly profitable (and growing) market for cars costing from 10,000 to 15,000 dollars. They’ve begun to look a little long in the tooth, maybe a little too big now that everything else is get­ting smaller, but there can be no argu­ment about the way they work. With an improvement in fuel economy our test GL would have been perfect.CounterpointsExcuse me for stepping right off into deep minutiae here, but I am positively enraptured by Volvo clutches, not just this one but all that I’ve sampled in the last few years. In the whole car kingdom, no others work half so well.The takeup in a Volvo clutch is so silky and so gradual. And the effort drops off in such a marvelously linear fashion as you let out the pedal. If you ever have to teach someone how to drive a stick shift. this is the car to do it in. They’ll find it easier than tangoing on Arthur Murray’s footprints. What about the rest of the car? Well, it’s a Volvo, to the eye and to the trouser seat pretty much like last year’s version and the one of the year before that. A known commodity in an otherwise rather tumultuous car market. I like it well enough. But I’m just flat smitten by the clutch. —Patrick Bedard Another year, another Volvo. Same soap­cake styling. Roomy interior: check. Front seats that all cars ought to have. The same old Volvo, tried and true. So how come I like it so much? Glad you asked. I guess it’s because this is the first Vol­vo I’ve driven in some time that isn’t trying to be something other than a family sedan. The 242GT didn’t quite make it as an ersatz BMW. And the chopped-top Swedish Toonderbird, the 262C, was so ugly that only a mother could love it—not to mention rough-edged in finish and in nature.The GL, however, has no such lofty intentions. Yet under its non-descript—­make that homely—sheetmetal beats the heart of a pretty refined automobile. All those years of development must have meant something after all, because the GL impressed me with its long-distance prowess, back-road agility, performance, comfort, construction, and luxury. It may be just another Volvo, but it’s also an aw­fully nice car. —Rich Ceppos There is nice work, and then there is nice work. This is nice work. And there is something else that’s nice: anybody with a reasonable bank account can get this work. Any Volvo dealer can set you up with a rewarding position. At the wheel of one of these gems. The back seating is beginning to look a little less spacious than it did before the advent of multitudes of midsized front­-wheel-drive cars, but the odds are big that the Volvo is still much more comfortable. And in the front, the seating is the stuff of historic significance. Volvo has stirred in some Ameri-plush, run-your-fingers­-through-it upholstery, and such luscious covering has never been laid over better seats. I’m keeping my eye out for a wrecked Volvo so’s I can get a pair of them for my living room. A living room is what Volvo has magi­cally wanded up here: most of the com­forts of home in a conveyance more com­fortable with its roads than most car buy­ers could believe. If Detroit could turn out just one car that approached this one’s overall excellence … what’s the use of speculating? —Larry GriffinSpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Volvo GLVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $11,385/$11,911Options: AM/FM/stereo radio, $400; Lambda-sond emissions-control system, #126
ENGINESOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 130 in3, 2130 cm3Power: 107 hp @ 5250 rpmTorque: 114 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/rigid axle, trailing linksBrakes, F/R: 10.3-in disc/11.0-in discTires: Michelin ZX185/70SR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 104.0 inLength: 192.5 inWidth: 67.3 inHeight: 56.3 inCurb Weight: 3070 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 12.9 sec1/4-Mile: 18.5 sec @ 72 mph90 mph: 40.5 secTop Speed: 97 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 206 ft
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (EST)Combined: 18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

10,000-Mile UpdateHere in Michigan, cars are to deer as magnets are to steel: They exert an inexorable pull toward each other. On the two-lane country roads not far from our Ann Arbor office, drivers know they’re going to have a close encounter of the deer kind sooner rather than later. Whitetails pop out of fields of tall summertime corn that line many roads. They bolt out of thick roadside woods at full gallop, suddenly filling your windshield and gone again—if you’re lucky—before you can gasp, let alone hit the brakes. Your author had that exact thing happen just the other day. Sometimes it doesn’t work out that well, though: Our BMW i4 xDrive40 long-termer is the latest victim of a deer-related shunt, so we’ve had to pause our test just before the 14,000-mile mark while the body shop surgeons operate. A couple-hundred-pound deer colliding broadside or running at top speed (35 to 40 mph) into the side of your car can do serious damage—to both parties. We’ve had a few test cars tangle with Bambi, and it can happen anywhere; a deer ran into the side of our long-term 2022 CT5-V Blackwing during acceleration runs at our test track. What we first thought would be cosmetic surgery for the Bimmer—no more than a new left headlight, a replacement hood, a fresh bumper cover, and new faux-grille pieces—has turned out to be a far more extensive hospital stay. Expensive busted components like a $3828 laser-LED headlamp, a $1228 radar sensor, and an arm’s-length list of supports, crossbars, tie bars, ducts, shutters, deflectors, and assorted hardware affected below the i4’s purple Mora Metallic sheetmetal have driven the repair estimate north of $17,000. Thank goodness for insurance. We’ll get back to you with the final tally when the i4 returns to service. Aside from this minor catastrophe, we haven’t had to visit the BMW dealer for required maintenance at all since taking delivery. EVs don’t require oil and filter changes so the first checkup is at 20,000 miles. The dealer, however, did install a set of BMW-spec Goodyear winter tires early on to cure the loopy dry-road handling that we experienced with the Michelin X-Ice Snow winters we’d bolted on (see intro story, below, for the sordid details). Another tire issue cropped up (what is it with this car and tires?) when spring arrived and we took the winters off: We noticed that the Hankook Ventus S1 Evo3s that came on the car had been badly torn up by our standard skidpad testing—something we’ve never experienced with summer tires before. We swapped them out for a set of BMW-spec Michelin Pilot Sport 4 rubber in the stock sizes. It remains a mystery why the Hankooks that arrived as part of the M Sport package got ripped up during our normal testing, but since i4 owners won’t be doing extended lateral-g testing, we doubt the Hankooks will be a problem in normal driving.As to our daily driving, it was almost entirely sunshine and smiles. Putting miles on the i4 has only reinforced the staff’s sense that this is a BMW worthy of the badge, a car that harks back to the best gas-powered driver’s cars of Bimmers past. As testing director Dave VanderWerp observed, “I maintain my assertion that electrics such as this i4 are better than most of BMW’s gas-powered lineup these days, such as the lukewarm new 5-series.” Added associate editor Caleb Miller: “The i4’s ride is splendid, so placid and really quiet. It handles the roughest roads with aplomb and grace.” Senior features editor Greg Fink enthused, “If range anxiety wasn’t a thing, I’d be asking to take this on all of my weekend road trips.” Indeed, if America’s charging infrastructure were more reliable, the i4 would be racking up miles even quicker than it is, because it’s proving to be both efficient and capable of delivering good range. Several editors noted that the i4 makes the most of its moderately sized 84.3-kWh battery. “I did 234 miles with 7 percent charge left,” said VanderWerp, “so, 250 miles is definitely reachable. Even with the majority of my miles at 80 mph on the highway, it still averaged comfortably over 3 mi/kWh.” To date, our leadfoot staff has averaged 81 MPGe against an EPA-estimated 99 MPGe combined. The EPA pegs the car’s maximum range at 279 miles with the 19-inch tires our car rolls on. Go for the alternative 18-inch rubber and an i4 xDrive40’s combined MPGe crests at 109 and range jumps to 307 miles, according to the EPA. Living with any car will reveal its innermost secrets, and no car is perfect. After nine months with the i4 we’ve discovered a couple of compromises that come with the Gran Coupe’s sleeker-than-a-sedan body style. The rear seat has proven adequately roomy for middle-school-size humans but not so much for adults or infants in rear-facing car seats. About the bulky kidlet thrones, managing testing editor Dave Beard said, “I’m not tall, but my kid’s rear-facing seat is pressed up against my seatback when I have it installed behind me. You have to push the front seats far forward to have room for a rear-facing child seat in back.” And though the i4 is a hatchback, don’t expect the cargo room of a crossover. There’s 17 cubic feet of space behind the rear seats versus 29 cubes in the square-tail X3 SUV; though the i4’s trunk is deep, the sloping roofline means the space isn’t tall. At least there’s a useful cargo-bay cover to hide your stuff from view. The i4 should be back in our hands soon, in time for plenty more warm-weather driving. We’ll keep our hopes up that we can make it all the way to the 40,000-mile mark without another chance meeting with one of our four-legged local inhabitants. Months in Fleet: 9 months Current Mileage: 13,971 milesAverage Fuel Economy: 81 MPGeService: $0 Normal Wear: $0 Repair: $0Damage and Destruction: $0UPDATE 3/13/2024: We have revised this story since it was first published to incorporate new information about issues we experienced with the winter tires fitted to this long-term test car. IntroductionThe Hyundai Ioniq 5 won our 2022 Electric Vehicle of the Year award. But if the compact electric SUV with origami styling was that year’s valedictorian, the BMW i4 Gran Coupe was surely the salutatorian. The i4 M50 that participated in EV of the Year ’22 wowed us with its poise, power, and chest-compressing speed. Subsequent drives of the then-base-model eDrive40 convinced us that the i4 lineup embodies the same three core dynamic traits—supple suspension, talkative steering, and intuitive handling—that made the best BMWs of the past incandescent automobiles, ones we remember warmly. The i4 proved our initial impressions true by beating a host of impressive gasoline-powered cars to win a 2023 10Best award.Cars that get a 10Best medal hung on them are special enough to warrant a more in-depth look. That’s even truer in the brave new world of EVs. Each new electric vehicle brings its own grab bag of pluses and minuses, any one of which could turn out to be a breakthrough or a fail. BMW gives buyers the choice of electric or gas propulsion in the same vehicle—the i4 is the electric doppelgänger of the gas-powered 4-series Gran Coupe—so we’re eager to see how that strategy plays out in a 40,000-mile test.Going against our instinct to reach for the version with the most power, we ordered the second-most powerful model in the four-trim lineup: the 396-hp, twin-motor, all-wheel-drive xDrive40, which starts at $62,595. That was all the restraint we could muster, though. We couldn’t resist the M Sport package (19-inch summer rubber, plus a racy steering wheel and aluminum cabin trim) or the Premium, Shadowline, Driving Assistance Pro, and Parking Assistance packages. We also sprang for adaptive LED headlamps, Oyster Vernasca leather, and a Harman/Kardon surround-sound system, then topped it all off with a special order of purplish Mora Metallic paint, bringing our test car’s sticker to $77,920. Broken in with around 1200 miles on its odometer, the i4 was a sprightly performer at the test track, with a 60-mph time of 4.4 seconds and a quarter-mile zip of 12.9 seconds at 109 mph. It stuck to the skidpad at 0.89 g and stopped from 70 and 100 mph in 161 feet and 325 feet, respectively. At a DC fast-charger, the i4 replenished its 84.3-kWh battery from 10 to 90 percent in 38 minutes, with a peak charging rate of 208 kilowatts and an average of 104 kilowatts—a solid midpack result. Instrumented testing was the easy part; we’ve now started on the challenges posed by day-to-day living and, dare we say, a road trip or two. The miles that we’ve put on the i4 since it left the test track have reconfirmed our feeling that it’s a finely honed driver’s car. The M Sport package firms up the suspension a bit—but not too much—though we think the i4 would be almost as enjoyable to daily without the sportier chassis pieces or its summer tires. Its behavior on its first set of winter tires is another story, however. We replaced the Hankook Ventus S1 Evo3 summer rubber with a set of Michelin X-Ice Snow winter tires of the same size—245/40R-19 front, 255/40R-19 rear—just in time for a two-week blast of single-digit temperatures, snow, and icy roads to roar through our home state of Michigan. Unfortunately, though, the winter rubber caused the i4’s confident dry-road handling to go south along with the milder temperatures. Suddenly, this highly capable EV sedan started acting like something was amiss underneath. Since we fit all of our long-term vehicles with winter tires, we’re very familiar with the usual additional tread squirm and less crisp dynamics, but this was way more than that. It reacted to steering inputs sloppily and felt wobbly and unpredictable at the rear in brisk low-speed corners. At Interstate cruising speeds, merely nudging the steering wheel off center when making gentle lane changes caused the tail to wag. This was a clear case of cause-and-effect—new winter tires, unnerving handling—so we set out to understand why the normally agreeable i4 was having a violent disagreement with its new winter rubber. More on the BMW i4We looked at several factors that might have influenced the car’s handling. The i4’s weight—5056 pounds—could have been one, but it was not too porky for the winters, which have the same load index ratings (98 front, 100 rear) as the summer tires. That means that the winters could support a vehicle with a maximum gross vehicle weight of up to 6834 pounds, roughly 800 pounds more than the i4’s gross vehicle weight rating. Although the margin at the rear axle is barely more than 100 pounds, it’s the same differential as with the OEM summer tires. The Michelin winters have an H speed rating (130 mph) while the summer Hankooks are Y rated (for use up to 186 mph) even though the i4’s top speed is governed to 122 mph. Was that a contributor? Possibly. We suspect that i4’s poor dry-road handling—we found no problems in nasty conditions—is a matter of construction differences related to the X-Ice winter tire’s mission: optimum snow-and-ice performance. While the i4’s high-performance summer tires are internally stiffer and have stiffer tread blocks to optimize dry-road handling, grip, and high-speed performance, the winters need to work well on sloppy roads, and their large, deep, flexible tread blocks squirm more. Something in the tires’ different construction upset the i4’s handling. Michelin said as much in answer to our queries. Though they couldn’t pinpoint a definitive reason for the car-and-tire mismatch, they noted that their Pilot Alpin line of winter tires are “sport oriented” while the X-Ices are not. Indeed, we’ve fitted Alpins to several of our long-termers, including our Porsche Cayman GTS 4.0, and found them excellent handlers on dry roads. But we’ve also run X-Ice winter tires on other vehicles, including our long-term Tesla Model 3, without these dramatic side effects.We contacted BMW, and they told us its dealers carry BMW-spec Goodyear and Pirelli winter tires for the i4 that are not readily available on the open market. These tires have a small star molded into the sidewall that indicates that they have been vetted by BMW to work well on their cars without causing undue degradation to the handling or the stability control and anti-lock brake systems. (Other manufacturers use their own unique symbols for their spec tires.) We opted for a set of Goodyear Ultra Grip winters in the stock sizes ($1335 at our local dealer) and voila! The i4’s secure, planted feel returned as soon as the BMW-spec winter tires were bolted on.What that change proved was that there is nothing inherently wrong with the i4, and that it drives as it should when fitted with the approved winter tires. We’ve been fitting winters to our long-termers for decades without ever encountering an issue like this, so we’ve learned something worth passing along: if you’re about to purchase a set of winter tires, first check to see if there’s a brand-specific spec tire available for your particular ride. That’s the best insurance you can get that the new winter donuts will work well when the roads are clear, not just when they’re covered in snow and ice.With the winter-tire issues resolved, the staffers who’ve put miles on the i4 have already discovered some strengths and idiosyncrasies that can only surface over time. Early on, the i4’s driving range indicator seems to be spot on. Yet, one driver put an expletive into the logbook about his frustration with being locked out of the climate-control system while charging. We’ll have to delve into the many menu options to see if there’s a way to program around that. Another editor doubted that this car’s newest iteration of iDrive is an improvement. We’ll have more definitive things to say about that, about driving range, about winter tires, and much more as the weeks and miles accumulate. And we’ll see how, in our estimation, the i4 stands up over the long haul as a BMW. We have our suspicions, and its status as a 10Best award winner couldn’t be a better start. Months in Fleet: 9 months Current Mileage: 13,971 milesAverage Fuel Economy: 81 MPGeService: $0 Normal Wear: $0 Repair: $0 Damage and Destruction: $0 SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 BMW i4 xDrive40 Gran CoupeVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $62,595/$77,920Options: Mora Metallic paint, $4500; M Sport package (19-inch M Aero wheels with summer tires, M steering wheel, aluminum mesh trim), $2200; Premium package (heated steering wheel and front seats, lumbar support, Iconic Sounds Electric sound effects, wireless charging, curved display, head-up display), $1900; Driving Assistance Pro package (Extended Traffic Jam Assistant, Active Driving Assistant Pro), $1700; Oyster Vernasca leather interior, $1500; adaptive Laserlight LED headlights, $1000; Shadowline package (black mirror caps, red M Sport brake calipers, M Shadowline headlights, extended Shadowline trim, rear spoiler), $950; Harman/Kardon audio system, $875; Parking Assistance package (360-degree camera with 3-D surround view, Parking Assistant Plus, Active Park Distance Control), $700
POWERTRAINFront Motor: current-excited synchronous AC, 255 hp, 243 lb-ftRear Motor: current-excited synchronous AC, 308 hp, 295 lb-ftCombined Power: 396 hpCombined Torque: 443 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 84.3 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 205 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.7-in vented disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Hankook Ventus S1 Evo3F: 245/40R-19 98Y Extra Load ★R: 255/40R-19 100Y Extra Load ★
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.4 inLength: 188.5 inWidth: 72.9 inHeight: 57.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/39 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 5056 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS: NEW
60 mph: 4.4 sec100 mph: 10.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.9 sec @ 109 mph120 mph: 16.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 122 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 161 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 325 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 71 MPGeAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 104 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 38 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 99/98/100 MPGeRange: 279 mi
WARRANTY
4 years/50,000 miles bumper to bumper8 years/100,000 miles powertrain12 years/Unlimited miles corrosion protection4 years/Unlimited miles roadside assistance3 years/36,000 miles scheduled maintenanceRich 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

When senior editor Ezra Dyer recently presented the idea that convertibles only need around 150 horsepower to deliver a relaxing and sometimes sporty open-air experience, it made sense. However, the 2024 Mercedes-AMG SL63 S E Performance, which produces roughly five times that amount, presents an interesting counterargument. And after some time behind the wheel of AMG’s latest plug-in-hybrid hot rod, we admit Affalterbach’s mad scientists might have some good points—805 of them, to be precise.Silent and Violent Just like the GT coupe with which it shares a platform, the SL63’s E Performance variant wields a 603-hp twin-turbocharged 4.0-liter V-8 with 627 pound-feet of torque, routed through a nine-speed automatic that utilizes a wet clutch instead of a traditional torque converter. At the rear axle is where the E Performance powertrain gets complicated. An electric drive unit consists of a motor with 201 horses and 236 pound-feet, a two-speed transmission, an electronically controlled limited-slip differential, an inverter, and a 4.8-kWh liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery pack. The e-motor can even send torque forward to the front axle to enable electric-only all-wheel-drive.The SL lives in a world of excess. When the SL badge was initially conceived in the early 1950s it stood for Super Leicht—Super Light, for the monolingual folks. Fast-forward some 70 years later, nothing about the current-generation SL comes off as svelte. Mercedes says electrified elements add roughly 500 pounds to the gas-only SL63, which should put the E Performance in the neighborhood of a chunky 4850 pounds.Speaking of excess, with all the powertrain elements at full tilt, the combined output is a monstrous 805 horsepower and 1047 pound-feet once all that fuzzy EV math is factored in. And just like the equally strong GT63 S E Performance, delightful sensations abound, especially with Race Start engaged. The 4.0-liter V-8 shakes in its mounts and fills the air with pops and burbles. Release the brake and the SL leaps forward, attacking the road ahead. The brutal acceleration waffle-stomps your innards through your rib cage. The electric motor puts out full thrust in 10-second doses before tapering off to deliver 94-hp blasts in 60-second increments. Just as with its hard-topped sibling, we expect the race to 60 mph to be over in under 2.5 seconds, while the quarter-mile wraps up in just over 10. Though we expect the E Performance to return just a handful of electric-only miles, moving along on battery power alone is especially appreciated in the SL. Toggle through eight driving modes to reach Electric and the V-8 shuts right up, leaving just the wind in your hair (or, in our case, what’s left of it) and the airy scents of southern Germany’s freshly baled hay. Mercedes says the SL E Performance can cruise at up to 87 mph in electric mode. There are four levels of brake regeneration available, none of which deliver true one-pedal driving, and the strongest modes are locked out when the battery is nearly full. In the sportiest drive modes the V8’s starter-generator can quickly recharge the battery. Should the battery be depleted upon arrival, the SL’s 3.7-kW onboard charger can replenish the pack in about two hours when plugged into a 220-volt outlet or nearly five hours on a 110-volt setup. Super LegitDespite what its mass may suggest, the SL63 S E Performance doesn’t stomp around like a petulant elephant. Instead, the SL’s standard rear-axle steering helps the car gracefully navigate twisting hillside roads. There isn’t any more feel through the tiller, but whereas the GT’s steering feels reactive, the SL’s is more relaxed; for that, you can thank a structure with 40 percent less torsional rigidity, narrower Michelin Pilot Sport S5 tires, and electronically controlled dampers with softer valving. Like the GT, the SL skips a traditional anti-roll-bar setup and uses a hydraulic anti-roll control system instead. The corners are hydropneumatically linked to mitigate body roll, and the system tuning varies in Comfort and Sport driving modes. In the SL, the system operates at a lower pressure to allow for additional body motion.More on the AMG SLUnsurprisingly, the E Performance pairs its hustle with strong brakes. Up front, six-piston calipers pinch the standard (and massive) 16.5-inch carbon-ceramic rotors. In the rear are 15.0-inch rotors but only wimpy-looking single-piston calipers. While they will clamp down with authority, we can’t overlook the annoyance of the brake pedal’s varying pressure, something we also disliked in the GT’s E Performance variant. The left pedal’s response is never consistent, nor is there an indication of what pedal feel you’ll actually get. Firm and ready, or a smidge of travel? Who knows! Mercedes-Benz’s mysterious moving brake pedal, an intentional choice that will adjust pedal position even under sustained braking pressure, continues to frustrate us. Who asked for this?Then again, who asked for an 805-hp convertible with a plug-in-hybrid powertrain and all-wheel drive? We’re not sure, but hopefully they’re willing to pay supercar money for this high-luster hustler. Its $208,150 starting point is a big pill to swallow, but the dual-major aptitude of the SL63 S E Performance will undoubtedly satisfy any owner who gets their hands on one when they arrive in the U.S. later this summer.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-AMG SL63 S E PerformanceVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base: $208,150
POWERTRAIN
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve 4.0-liter V-8, 603 hp, 627 lb-ft + AC motor, 201 hp, 236 lb-ft (combined output: 805 hp, 1047 lb-ft; 4.8-kWh lithium-ion battery pack; 3.7-kW onboard charger)Transmissions: 9-speed automatic/2-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 185.2 inWidth: 75.4 inHeight: 53.3 inTrunk Volume: 4 ft 3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4850 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 2.4 sec100 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 10.1 secTop Speed: 196 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 15/13/20 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 45 MPGeEV Range: 7 miDavid 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

From the March 1983 issue of Car and Driver.The Porsche 928S is like a favorite song that comes wafting over the air­waves and gets you snapping your fin­gers and bobbing your head, sounding just as fresh and clear as it did when you first heard it years ago. It may not be new, but it’s hard to believe it’s old.The Porsche collection, in fact, con­tains nothing but solid-gold hits these days; Porsches seem not to get older so much as better. Consider the evidence: The once weak-kneed 924 blossomed into the potent 944 series recently. The 911, at nineteen years old, still has the legs on just about all the new iron—and still looks great to boot. Then there’s the subject of this report. The 928 may be entering its sixth year of production, but don’t get nostal­gic about it just yet. The hard-bitten en­gineer-enthusiasts toiling at Zuffen­hausen certainly don’t waste much time lamenting the good old days. A good chunk of the reason Porsches are great drivers’ cars is the firm’s unswerving commitment to the slow but steady refinement of its designs. This flow of development energy has given us the 928S, Porsche’s idea of a new-and-improved, Mk II version. All of this year’s 928 crop both here and in Europe receives the “S” designation and equipment, but the new model isn’t really an attempt to redress any short­comings of the original version. It didn’t need much help. Last year’s car was still at the top of the C/D hit pa­rade, good enough to be considered the primo GT car in the land. No, the 928S is more like the next inevitable evolutionary step—produced because, well, it was time.The wait was worth it. Every one of the revisions makes the 928S that much more mouthwatering. The big news is in the powertrain, where Porsche has accomplished a two-pronged improve­ment, increasing power and reducing fuel consumption at the same time. Porsche started by boring out the 928’s all-aluminum V-8 from 4474cc to 4664. A slight change in combustion-­chamber design allowed a compression­-ratio increase from 9.0:1 to 9.3 and­—presto!—there are now 234 horses at your beck and call, fourteen more than before. (European models, unfettered by our strict emissions controls and low­-octane fuel, have a 10.0:1 compression ratio and deliver 288 hp.) To squeeze a bit more mileage from each tank, the final-drive ratio was dropped from 2.75:1 to 2.27. The gear­box’s bottom four ratios were lowered a bit and spread out a touch farther to compensate, but fifth gear is un­changed, so the engine loafs along at only 3000 rpm at 100 mph in top gear. EPA city mileage remains at 16 mpg, but highway mileage has improved from 25 mpg to 27. Porsche combined the new mechani­cals with what was previously referred to as the competition-package option to create the American S. The goodies in­clude a chin spoiler, a deck-lid spoiler, and flat-faced alloy wheels, all of which combine to drop the drag coefficient of the bulbous body from 0.41 to a more respectable 0.38. A set of 225/50VR-l6 Pirelli P7 radials replaces the 215/60VR-15 tires that were formerly standard. Larger brakes and sport shocks shore up the chassis. Leather seats, air, cruise, central locking, power windows, and more are also part of the deal. The only other significant change—as you might expect, given the increased standard-equipment list—is the price. It’s up to $43,000, from $39,500.It might seem hard to believe, but the feeling around these parts is that the 928S actually gives you your money’s worth in today’s inflated market. Here is one car that can do it all, friends, and never breathe hard. More Porsche 928 Reviews From the ArchiveYou want numbers? Try zero-to-60 in 6.2 seconds (a 0.6-second improve­ment from last year). Quarter-miles zip by in just 14.7 seconds at 94 mph (quicker than before by 0.4 second and 3 mph). Top speed is up to a blazing 144 mph, a dividend of 9 mph, making the 928S the fastest car sold in America. Just for good measure, it stops from 70 mph in an impressive 188 feet and puts an 0.80-g hold on the road. But none of this adequately depicts life with 928. Numbers can’t capture this car’s double-agent personality: a killer instinct coupled with luxocar civil­ity and the kind of bulletproof solidity you’d normally associate with a Mercedes. Aside from its stiff-legged ride, the 928S can be as docile as an Eldorado when you troll down to the cleaners. Call for speed, though, and the needle heads for 120 mph in an effortless gush. It’s all so easy you have to force yourself to put both hands on the wheel at triple­-digit speeds. And on the back roads, there’s more magic than most folks will ever know what to do with. Flights of hyperbole over the 928 are nothing new. This car has been a bullet on the chart from day one; this year, it’s all just a little sweeter. Even the once-balky shift linkage running to the rear transaxle has been tamed. This un­derscores just what makes the 928S, and all Porsches, so special: in each replay of the original, there’s always a little bit more gold. SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Porsche 928SVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $43,000/$430,940
ENGINESOHC 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 285 in3, 4664 cm3Power: 234 hp @ 5500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 98.4 inLength: 175.7 inCurb Weight: 3360 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4-Mile: 14.7 sec @ 94 mph100 mph: 17.8 secTop Speed: 144 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 188 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 13 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 16 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

Stick-shift aficionados looking for a new Volkswagen Golf GTI should act fast. For model year 2025, VW will discontinue the six-speed manual, and this move also affects the pricier and more powerful Golf R. With the refreshed eighth-generation GTI still a fair way away from the U.S., we headed overseas to shake down a European model and see just how much we’ll miss the three-pedal setup.Dwindling global demand apparently no longer justifies the extra outlay and complexity, so customers must either settle for the familiar seven-speed dual-clutch automatic or look to the competition from Japan and Korea. Even more bad news for Americans: The hardcore Clubsport edition, fitted with a torquier 296-hp engine, go-fast cosmetics, and an optional top-speed-lifting Race package that includes an Akrapovic exhaust, won’t make it to the U.S. at all. In Europe, the base model also gets a power upgrade. The fourth-generation 1984-cc EA888 engine develops 261 horsepower, up 20 from the 2024 vintage. Sadly, the U.S. won’t get the extra grunt. For all markets, the maximum torque is an unchanged 273 pound-feet starting at 1600 rpm. According to its maker, the Euro GTI Mk8.5 can accelerate to 62 mph in an estimated 5.9 seconds, shaving a few tenths off the previous best. Although the top speed is restricted to 155 mph, our car managed an indicated 170 mph—also explaining, in part, our disappointing observed fuel economy: 23 mpg recorded over a two-day, 355-mile blast through east-German no-man’s-land.The 2025 GTI wears some more vivid makeup than its predecessor, featuring redesigned high-intensity matrix headlamps, an illuminated Volkswagen emblem, more prominent aero aids, additional blacked-out styling elements, five-dot fog lights, a rear roof spoiler and LED taillamps with optional sweeping sequential indicators. Whereas lesser versions run on 17- and 18-inch wheels and tires, our car featured extra-cost 19-inchers. The Bridgestone Potenzas are sized 235/35 all around for top-notch traction and cornering grip; however, footwear-induced compromises include a brittle low-speed ride, a tendency to tramline along longitudinal grooves, and an occasionally brusque response to transverse undulations.Inside, the premier eye-catcher is a larger and more intuitive tablet-like infotainment. While the center section is loaded with icons, the two programmable touch bars at the top and bottom provide instant access to preferred functions. Imprecise touch sliders control volume and temperature return, but at least they’re now illuminated. The available voice-recognition system is connected to ChatGPT and a much bigger online database. The rearranged gauge-cluster display offers three different views: In addition to two round instruments (Classic), you can summon a mixed bag of tiles (Progressive), or settle for the all-red GTI readout that features a large combined speedometer and tachometer flanked by two secondary gauges. The useful head-up display costs extra. Like all previous GTI models, this one comes with a version of the original neo-tartan cloth upholstery complemented by red stitching and embroidered logos.The GTI Mk8.5 features an electronically controlled front differential lock dubbed XDS+, which masterminds the torque flow at each front wheel via a wet multidisc clutch. The four driving modes are Eco, Comfort, Sport, and Individual. The last invites you to fine-tune the steering, chassis, and drivetrain in multiple discrete steps from laid back to full attack. That’s the good news. The bad news is the absence of the even sharper Special calibration reserved for the Clubsport model. Also known as Nordschleife mode, Special does a better job tying the car down at speed when big bumps, high g-forces, and unilateral irregularities threaten to disturb the flight path. No matter the drive mode, the soundtrack is disappointing. With the exception of a faint turbo hiss under load, the system produces noise rather than music. At least there are no puerile fake interludes to frown at. It also takes consistent high revs and frequent gear shifts to deliver the goods. Even with the transmission in Sport, this Golf is more GT than GTI. Activating the manual mode frees a bit more on-demand energy, but the shift paddles are too small, and why are they made of plastic, not metal? We were further haunted by a frustratingly hesitant throttle response, which turned into a full two-second lag when we put the foot down hard in fourth or fifth gear. Then, suddenly, all hell would break loose with a bang and a jolt before the torque wave straightened again. Not what the doctor ordered.VW brags that Sven Bohnhorst, former senior test driver for Bugatti, was reportedly instrumental in setting up the revised progressive-rate steering. The new tiller may indeed be a tad more precise and direct, but it still isn’t quite quick enough, and it requires too much effort even with the scalable assistance set to its minimum. As a result, the car feels bigger and heavier than it is, as well as less playful overall. The weight of the helm, the pronounced on-center stiffness, and the near-40-foot turning circle make this GTI feel less nimble and agile than early variations of the breed. Even on unrestricted stretches of autobahn where high-speed stability is of the essence, the driver’s palms are kept busy by an odd haptic strife that wells up between the steering and the front axle, especially on bumpy terrain.One of the car’s strongest points are its brakes. True, the base GTI must do with smaller rotors, whereas the Clubsport variant is fitted with bigger discs, but even the standard setup is spot-on in terms of response, effort, and staying power. Linear and easy to modulate, the stopping apparatus is good at building underfoot confidence. The adaptive dampers are, in principle, a good thing too, but while the drivetrain is best left in Sport and the steering in Comfort, the chassis is a little too harsh in Sport and a little too swooshy in Comfort. We eventually settled for an in-between calibration that felt more okay than brilliant. Lift-off oversteer—an emphatic specialty of the unforgettable first-generation GTI—is now an absolute rarity even with stability control disabled and a part-time hooligan at the wheel on a damp and winding road. Don’t even think about reaching for the hand brake, which is a push-button job without fly-off capability.More on the Volkswagen GTIAlthough the latest iteration is a compelling performer, it takes the pricier Golf R to challenge the leading hot hatches from Japan, Korea, and Germany. The base GTI is merely swift, not tarmac-peeling fast. Still only available in front-wheel-drive form, it cannot quite match its all-wheel-drive rivals for off-the-line performance, nor will it blow your socks off above 60 mph when drag and weight enter the equation. As a result, the new GTI drives more like a GLI, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, the Mk8.5 metamorphosis of the ultimate hot hatch rides better than its Asian rivals, is at least as well made, and—unless the $33,190 sticker price balloons when deliveries commence in early 2025—is a good value.Appreciating the numerous talents of the upgraded GTI is easy; falling head-over-heels in love with it is more difficult. But in the U.S. at least, the pool of valid alternatives is drying up fast. And, the last time we looked, the ultimately more desirable Golf R was a hefty $13,700 more expensive. But if you are in the market for a three-letter Golf, why not start by scanning the web for a discounted last-of-line six-speeder?Although I was born the only son of an ornithologist and a postal clerk, it was clear from the beginning that birdwatching and stamp collecting were not my thing. Had I known that God wanted me to grow to 6’8″, I also would have ruled out anything to do with cars, which are to blame for a couple of slipped discs, a torn ligament, and that stupid stooped posture behind the wheel. While working as a keeper in the Aberdeen Zoo, smuggling cheap cigarettes from Yugoslavia to Germany, and an embarrassing interlude with an amateur drama group also failed to yield fulfillment, driving and writing about cars became a much better option. And it still is now, many years later, as I approach my 70th birthday. I love every aspect of my job except long-haul travel on lousy airlines, and I hope it shows. More

From the April 1980 issue of Car and Driver.The Pontiac Grand Am is the Dr Pep­per of the whole General Motors inter­mediate fleet—so misunderstood. Ev­erybody knows the LeMans; that’s the main-line Pontiac A-body—sedans, coupes, and wagons for Americans who are a bit flashier than Chevy buyers, not so stuffy as those who belt themselves into Buicks and Oldsmobiles. Then there is the Grand Prix, a famous name in the “luxury-personal” class. The Grand Prix is a two-door coupe for the aggressive, successful, self-made man, the guy who is a bit too discerning for a Monte Carlo and wouldn’t be caught dead in a Thunderbird because it’s a Ford. At least, this is what it says in GM’s manual of strategy.Okay, so much for the LeMans and the Grand Prix. But what’s a Grand Am? Apparently the customers don’t under­stand—never mind that they’ve had eight model years since the nameplate’s introduction to figure it out—because Grand Am buyers are lined up none deep at Pontiac dealers everywhere. (There is always the possibility that you folks out there know perfectly well what a Grand Am is and don’t want any part of it, but we’re discounting this scenar­io, not wanting to jerk the rug from un­der the rest of this road test.) As a re­sult, Grand Am sales amount to only about 2 percent of all Pontiac interme­diates. That’s a discouragingly small number for what seemed like such a good idea going in, and Pontiac is be­ginning to back out of the project: the Grand Am four-door was dropped for 1980, leaving only the two-door coupe. Regardless of what ultimately hap­pens to the coupe, the Grand Am must be regarded as a noble experiment. It’s a sincere attempt on Pontiac’s part to make an American “road car,” a ma­chine that’s as responsive and satisfying to its driver as a BMW or Volvo. It’s an extra model added to the lineup beyond the basic LeMans and the obligatory luxury-personal derivative, the Grand Prix. And Pontiac didn’t cheat on the specs, either; the Grand Am is not just a decal job. The car looks different and it drives different. The front-end appear­ance, with its wind-splitter beak and ver­tical grille openings, is unique to the Grand Am. So are the taillight treat­ments, body-side trim, and body-colored bumpers. The interior also has its own special look, a sort of international sporting motif if you pick up on the styl­ing cues as they were intended. The in­strument panel is faced in frosted metal rather than in the Grand Prix’s fake wood-grain, and the steering wheel has bare metal spokes instead of Detroit’s customary molded plastic. All of this is supposed to suggest hardware, machin­ery, equipment—serious business in­stead of frivolous furbelows aimed at the carriage trade. So much for the visual details. The good stuff is not so readily visible. The Grand Am has as standard equipment a suspension package that’s not available, even as an option, on any other Pontiac intermediate. It has stiffer springs—440 pounds per inch in front and 139 rear, compared with 365 and 115 in the base LeMans and Grand Prix. It has huge anti-sway bars—32mm in front and 22mm at the rear, compared with a 28mm front bar and nothing at the rear on the base car. Moreover, the Grand Am has special mounting hardware for the front bar to make it even more effec­tive, specially calibrated shock absor­bers, and a quicker steering gear—14:1 ratio, compared with 15:1 on the Le­Mans. The Grand Am steering gear also has a stiffer torsion bar inside to boost steering effort about 18 percent. There is an optional handling pack­age available for the LeMans and the Grand Prix that includes the massive anti-sway bars but not the stiffer springs and special shocks (which, in addition to having a unique calibration, also con­tain gas-filled bags to pressurize the fluid chamber and thereby reduce foam­ing, a different method of approximat­ing one of the features of the Bilstein). The result of all this suspension tun­ing is a car that behaves altogether un­like the Volvo and BMW tourers that served as the original targets. The Grand Am ends up being what Pontiac thinks a Volvo or BMW should be, and it offers a fascinating glimpse at the American philosophy of car handling as opposed to the European way. The Europeans tend to use relatively high-rate springs and soft anti-sway bars, or sometimes no anti-sway bars at all (Saab, for example). The springs are meant to do most of the work: hold the car up, keep the suspension from bot­toming, provide most of the roll stiff­ness. Since there is a practical limit to the amount of roll stiffness available from springs that are soft enough to provide decent ride, these European cars usually have a fair amount of body roll in turns. Americans don’t like body roll in turns, or at least Detroit thinks they don’t: Good handling and flat cornering are assumed to be just different terms for the same thing. So the Grand Am is intended, first and foremost, to have ex­tremely high roll stiffness. The springs are chosen to hold the suspension up out of the bumpers most of the time—while simultaneously providing a rela­tively low ride frequency (how fast the car bounces up and down on its suspen­sion). Then all the rest of the roll stiff­ness deemed necessary is added with front and rear anti-sway bars. Of course Detroit is not so simplistic as to think flat cornering is the only mea­sure of good handling. According to Norm Fugate, vehicle development en­gineer at Pontiac, the Grand Am was also intended to provide a crisp steering feel when driven straight down the road, and good directional stability. Overall, it was meant to be a quick, responsive handler, noticeably less lethar­gic than the usual Detroit sedan. Okay, enough talk about what the Grand Am is supposed to be. Does it work? Yes, and exceptionally well under most conditions. First, the suspension almost never bottoms—a detail that’s essential to good handling, particularly over rough surfaces, but rarely achieved in American cars. Second, the steering is very accurate, as good as anything from Detroit and competitive on a world level. Third, the ride is pretty friendly, notably in its lack of harshness, softening those sharp impacts you feel when encountering expansion strips and small bumps.More Pontiac Content From the ArchiveYes, you say, but what about han­dling? Handling is hard to quantify. We didn’t check the ultimate cornering lim­its on a skidpad, but they’re commend­ably high, enough to lay your head over like a willow tree in a windstorm when you groove through the expressway ramps. More important, though, is the feeling of control the Grand Am provides. The car goes where you point it and it’s quite stable over bumps—not as good in this category as the best for­eigners, but good nonetheless. You have the feeling of a precision instru­ment of travel, and that, we think, is more descriptive of good handling than raw skidpad numbers.There is one aspect of the Grand Am’s dynamics that we disagree with, however, and that is its tendency to “waddle” on roads with piecrust edges or when one wheel hits a bump. Under these conditions the body rocks side­ways with vigor, playing crack-the-whip with your neck, and it’s uncomfortable. Normally, we’d blame this on the De­troit penchant for using thick anti-sway bars, but engineer Fugate points to cer­tain basic characteristics of the GM A-body instead. He says that the Trans Am has even stiffer anti-sway bars yet less waddle. Whatever the cause, this duck-walking is only a modest flaw in what is otherwise a truly nimble car.In fact, if car shoppers took more test drives instead of judging the Grand Am by its sheetmetal cover, the car would probably be a raving success. Its ap­pearance doesn’t do a very good job of saying what the car is all about, in our opinion, and also in the opinion of a few “men on the street” that we polled dur­ing the course of the test. It’s interest­ing how we car enthusiasts get so used to certain styling cues that we never really question them. For example, the flat metal spokes in the Grand Am’s steering wheel say “sport” to us. A great deal of artistic license has been taken with the traditional sports-car theme—there are no holes in the spokes, for one thing—and this fuzzes up the message, but we still think “sport” when we see it. Others, less aware of tradition, see what they think is an unfinished wheel: somebody left the padding off the spokes. This failure to get the message across—and it occurs in the dashboard as well as on the exteri­or—is probably the reason for the Grand Am’s showroom malaise.Because, if you just drive it, you can’t help being impressed. Somehow, the seats have the right firmness—not the park-bench solidity of Mercedes buck­ets, but just a nice amount of support. The $175 six-way power adjuster pro­vides almost any driving position you could ask. There is a gauge for every­thing, properly weighted resistance to motion in each control, and typical American silence around your ears. And you can have it all for $9729 list, not a bad price in a time when so-called economy cars are bumping $7000, and real, live BMWs of similar dimension are close to $20,000. You even get exotic fuel-saving tech­nology conspicuously laboring away be­neath the floorboards. The test car was equipped with a 4.9-liter, four-barrel V-8 and an automatic transmission—­which means that a lockup torque con­verter is part of the package. The intent of this device is laudably simple and simultaneously high-minded. A torque converter gives wonderfully quick accel­eration at city-traffic speeds but slips at highway speeds, generating heat and wasting gas in the process. But a lockup converter, through the mystery of black­box science, knows when it should freeze solid to produce direct drive: not under full-throttle acceleration, not when you’re creeping through traffic, but, say, above 30 mph when you’re just cruising. You can feel it lock up, sort of like another shift in the automatic. But it’s surprising what an aesthetic nuisance this direct drive is: all the powertrain shudders and stumbles are sud­denly transmitted up into the passenger compartment. You wouldn’t think a sol­id drivetrain could produce such a ruck­us, but it does. Within a few years, De­troit will have this system all smoothed out, just as it’s managed to tame the shake of collapsible steering columns and take the stink out of (most) catalytic exhausts. But in the meantime, you’ll be aware of every gas-saving minute you drive with a locked-up torque converter. That, however, is a quirk not exclu­sive to the Grand Am. But the quick­-response suspension tuning, Pontiac’s rendition of the Good-Handling Sedan, is not available elsewhere. We think it’s pretty special, and even if you’re not looking to buy a car of this description, we think it would be well worth your time to hunt one down for a test drive. Pontiac’s engineering department has gone to a lot of trouble to show us what it can do. At the very least, you should check its papers. SpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Pontiac Grand AmVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $7299/$9729Options: air conditioning, $601; AM/FM-stereo/cassette radio, $285; aluminum wheels, $200; power driver’s seat, $175; power windows, $143; cruise control, $112; rear defroster, $107; power door locks, $93; tilt steering wheel, $81; tinted glass, $75; gauges with tach, $74; limited-slip differential, $68; reclining passenger seat, $67; other options, $349
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 301 in3, 4940 cm3Power: 155 hp @ 4400 rpmTorque: 240 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid-axle, trailing linksBrakes, F/R: 10.5-in vented disc/9.5-in drumTires: Uniroyal Steel Belted Radial205/70R-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.1 inLength: 198.6 inWidth: 71.9 inHeight: 53.5 inCurb Weight: 3470 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 11.0 sec1/4-Mile: 18.1 sec @ 77 mph90 mph: 28.4 secTop Speed: 104 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 210 ft 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (EST)Combined: 17 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More