Car Reviews

From the February 1980 issue of Car and Driver.We refuse to discuss the looks of this car. It’s ugly as sin. Sorry, that just slipped out. This inbred styling fault has nothing whatso­ever to do with the turbocharged engine that lies beneath the hood, but if you think we can put up with the Monte Carlo’s looks long enough to find utterly redeeming truth and beauty in its mechanical specifications, you’re in for a big disappointment. What possesses Chevrolet to do such things?In our styling summation, which we de­clare with admirable brevity, we simply quote a succinct counterpoint prepared by our Mr. Patrick Bedard two years ago, upon the introduction of the downsized Monte Carlo. To wit: “‘For every man who drives one, thousands have to look at it, and no car could ever perform brilliantly enough to make that sacrifice worthwhile. Chevrolet has indeed let loose a blight upon the landscape. It is possible, of course, that Chevrolet has no say in the matter. Mr. William Mitchell was for years GM’s custodian of style, and when he left his legacy, this steaming pile, on the doorstep of Chevrolet, the division may have been obligated to take it in …. I can think of only one other explanation, and it is even more appalling. What if Chevrolet really likes the looks of this car?There is a new, tastefully restrained hump asymmetrically located on the hood. It pro­vides clearance for the all-important turbo­charger. Chevrolet has pirated the turbo mo­tor from Buick. It is the same V-6 that came originally to life for the Riviera and the Cen­tury, and carries within it crankshaft throws arranged to provide even-firing combustion, unlike V-6s whose power pulses produce en­gine shake in certain rev ranges. As installed in the Monte Carlo, this modern engine ex­hibits no V-6 shortcomings. It provides ade­quate performance, but welding the gas ped­al to the floor never turns out more than mild exhilaration. The turbo V-6 is only re­quired, in the eyes of Chevrolet (and Buick), to substitute for the small-displacement V-8s that are following their bigger brothers into mechanical oblivion. That it does.Cold starts are no problem, but cold accel­eration brings a mild case of the croup, wherein the motor stops murmuring for a moment as the throttle is opened from idle. This disappears when operating tempera­tures reach normal. The Buick-developed Turbo Control Center—the much-lauded detonation sensor and automatic timing ad­juster that retard timing just as detonation begins—sits on top of the fan shroud, well forward of the high temperatures produced by the turbo itself. At full throttle a mild pulsing is felt. The retarding feature is at work, forestalling detonation, feeling a little like a minor misfire. In spite of Buick’s handy-dandy creation, we encountered slight pinging, which Buick says is usual, under all­-out acceleration. Steady highway throttle set­tings also brought steady pre-ignition at times. Normal driving brought smooth and refined, but middling, performance.More Monte Carlo Reviews From the ArchiveThe turbo Monte Carlo is quite taken with the idea of whispering down the road at quite heady speeds. Its quietness is eerie. It con­tributes to a strange detachment, the driver somehow filtered aside from the world, his relationship with reality altered, as if a series of fun-house mirrors were his only communi­cation with reality. The suspension and steer­ing are surprisingly capable, and braced by the expected linearity of Chevrolet’s con­trols, but it takes some time to discover this basic goodness, so thickly is it swathed by the driver’s isolation. Turning into corners is ac­complished with less drama than most do­mestic cars exhibit, and stopping is accom­plished with genuine poise. Alas, the seats are no help at all. They are split benches and deserve every excoriation that can be heaped upon them. They offer no support to anything but your butt. No lateral support, no back support. To top it off, ours were upholstered in a velour wrapping that finished off the ultimate monotony, an eye-­boggling, interior-wide color scheme of continuous-tone Kermit Green. Like the spindly Muppet, Chevy’s interior packagers are vaguely out of control, aspiring (and unfortu­nately appealing) only to the Miss Piggys of the marketplace. Confused about their audi­ence, the product planners have furnished a complete instrument layout, only to sur­round it with enough petrochemical wood to surface a large coffee table. There may be a decent, if slightly obese, car under there somewhere, but damned if we want to find it. SpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Chevrolet Monte Carlo TurboVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As-Tested: $6163/$9243
ENGINEturbocharged V-6, iron block and headsDisplacement: 231 in3, 3785 cm3Power: 170 hp @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.1 inLength: 200.0 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 3440 lb 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined: 17 mpg More

Since its debut for the 2022 model year, the Hyundai Ioniq 5 has become a Car and Driver darling. In that time, it’s racked up EV of the Year, 10Best, and Editors’ Choice wins, all bolstered by handsomely edgy styling, satisfying performance, fast-charging capability, a practical and spacious cabin, and competitive range estimates. Now, four years in, Hyundai has updated the Ioniq 5 for the 2025 model year, keeping one of our favorite EVs at the top of its game.This mid-cycle refresh brings mild styling tweaks front and rear, new wheel designs, a revised center console, upgraded infotainment with wireless support for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and an updated steering wheel with handy lights that indicate the battery’s state of charge. Mercifully, Hyundai has also added a rear windshield wiper to the Ioniq 5 this year, something we wish our long-term 2023 model had. Two different battery packs are still offered, but both are now slightly larger. The Standard Range pack grows from 58.0 to 63.0 kilowatt-hours, and the Long Range version is now an 84.0-kWh battery versus last year’s 77.4-kWh capacity. Range is up across the lineup as well, with the biggest boost coming for the dual-motor all-wheel-drive SE and SEL models, which are now estimated to deliver 290 miles per charge, a 30-mile increase over 2024 equivalents. The model with the most range is still the rear-wheel-drive single-motor variant with the Long Range battery, estimated to deliver as much as 318 miles per charge. Juicing the battery now requires an NACS connection. Popularized by Tesla, the new charging standard is being adopted industry-wide, and the Ioniq 5 is the first electric Hyundai to offer the port as standard. To ease the transition to NACS, all 2025 Ioniq 5s will come with a CCS adapter, which is still needed to charge at most non-Tesla charging stations. (That’s the plug you find at your average DC fast-charger.)Latest Info on Hyundai’s Ioniq LineupWe drove a loaded Limited model across a variety of Southern California microclimates, starting in the sunny desert town of Palm Springs, stopping for a coffee in Idyllwild, and eventually landing at a mile-high mountain village in the San Bernardino National Forest. The cliffside roads leading up to Idyllwild are twisty, but the Ioniq 5’s stable handling and torquey electric motors made quick, fun work of the ascent. The Ioniq 5’s suspension has been reworked and is slightly firmer than before, but steering feel remains duller than we prefer.But mild year-over-year tweaks weren’t the only reasons we trekked to California. In fact, there’s a whole new trim ready to put this electric SUV into an equally new environment: the dirt.Off-Roading in the Hyundai Ioniq 5 XRTAfter coffee, we headed back down the mountain to an off-road playground on the San Andreas Fault. There, we sampled the rugged-looking XRT trim. New for 2025, the Ioniq 5 XRT features a 0.9-inch suspension lift, all-terrain tires on steelie-inspired 18-inch wheels, and trim-specific front and rear fascias wearing a subtle pixelated camouflage pattern.The all-wheel-drive-only XRT’s approach and departure angles have been improved compared to other Ioniq 5 models: 19.8 degrees for approach and 30.0 degrees for departure versus 17.5 and 25.4 degrees, respectively, for other models. Functional, red-painted recovery hooks add an extra element of ruggedness to the XRT’s front end, and three terrain-specific driving modes—Snow, Mud, and Sand—can be selected via a button on the steering wheel’s lower spoke.The sandy trails at the off-road park were dotted with bowling-ball-sized rocks, sagebrush scrub, and shallow gullies, all of which the Ioniq 5 XRT handled just fine. We had fun whipping it around in Sport mode, kicking up enough dirt that we could finally test out that new rear wiper. (It’s everything we’ve hoped for.)Of course, higher heels and beefier bumpers alone don’t make a proper rock-crawling expert. For those adventures, you’ll have to consider a Rivian R1S or perhaps a Jeep Wrangler 4xe plug-in hybrid. The Hyundai doesn’t have an adjustable air suspension or a locking differential system—but then again, the XRT doesn’t cost $80,000 either. Instead, its $56,875 asking price makes it a direct competitor to the Ford Mustang Mach-E Rally or perhaps an EV alternative to something like a Subaru Outback. On the road, the XRT’s extra suspension travel, new suspension tune, and taller tire sidewalls offered a more compliant ride than the Limited we drove earlier in the day, but otherwise the car delivered the same satisfying experience on pavement as the rest of the Ioniq 5 lineup. We also noticed that the dirt-friendly trim didn’t feel quite as quick as its siblings, but the difference was marginal, and we’re excited to get the full breakdown on performance deltas when we get the new models in for testing. Driving range is estimated at only 259 miles per charge for the XRT, though, down from 269 in the Limited AWD.What we’re seeing here is Hyundai covering all of its bases. From the price-leader SE to the posh Limited, and from the rugged XRT to the rowdy Ioniq 5 N, this particular lineup of electric crossovers works so well because its foundation is strong. The updates endowed on the 2025 model are minor, but they’re still impactful, and they should keep this EV plenty relevant going forward.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5Vehicle Type: rear- or front- and rear-motor, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: SE Standard Range, $43,975; SE RWD, $48,025; SEL RWD, $50,975; SE AWD, $51,525; SEL AWD $54,475; Limited RWD, $55,675; XRT AWD, $56,875; Limited AWD, $59,575
POWERTRAIN (RWD)
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 168 or 225 hp, 258 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 63.0 or 84.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.9 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 350 kWTransmission: direct-drive
POWERTRAIN (AWD)
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 99 hpRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 221 hpCombined Power: 320 hpCombined Torque: 446 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 84.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.9 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 350 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 183.3 inWidth: 74.4 inHeight: 63.0–64.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54–55/49–51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 59/26 ft3Front Trunk Volume: 1 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4150–4850 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.3–6.5 sec100 mph: 12.0–14.8 sec1/4-Mile: 13.0–15.8 secTop Speed: 117 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 94–115/103–131/85–100 MPGeRange: 245–318 miDrew Dorian is a lifelong car enthusiast who has also held a wide variety of consumer-focused positions throughout his career, ranging from financial counselor to auto salesperson. He has dreamed of becoming a Car and Driver editor since he was 11 years old—a dream that was realized when he joined the staff in April 2016. He’s a born-and-raised Michigander and learned to drive on a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am. His automotive interests run the gamut from convertibles and camper vans to sports cars and luxury SUVs.       More

From the October 1987 issue of Car and Driver.When you’re hot, you’re hot, and Ponti­ac is General Motors’ hottest division. Its sales grew from a dismal total of 483,149 cars in 1982, at the nadir of the last reces­sion, to 841,441 last year. In the 1987 sea­son, it’s running neck and neck with Olds­mobile for the number-two sales spot among GM’s five divisions. That’s up from a distant fourth place five years ago. Clearly, the excitement builders are doing something right.We think the most critical element in Pontiac’s recovery has been its commit­ment to producing a line of cars that are attractive, entertaining, and international in flavor. World-class cars are the ones that grab the attention of today’s most sought-after buyers, the affluent young urban professionals. Other GM divisions have made overtures toward this market, but only Pontiac has been motivated by a sense of urgency. For one thing. the division’s feeble sales performance in the ear­ly years of the decade virtually forced it to adopt a back-to-square-one attitude. For another, with a customer base heading to­ward extinction, Pontiac saw little per­centage in continuing to cater to its tradi­tional buyers. Pontiac first showed its new direction in 1983 with the original American-built Eurosedan, the 6000STE. The next year it introduced the Fiero, which despite its sports/commuter split personality was and is a very sexy-looking two-seater. These two image builders helped Pontiac get rolling, but its pace didn’t really quick­en until its geriatric models were superseded by modern designs in the interna­tional idiom. The Grand Am replaced the Phoenix, the Bonneville succeeded the Parisienne, the LeMans retired the 1000, and Pontiac’s image improved dramatical­ly each time. To no enthusiast’s surprise, so did its sales. The latest reincarnated Pontiac is the 1988 Grand Prix, the replacement for the antediluvian personal-luxury two-door of the same name. The old Grand Prix, in­troduced for the 1978 model year, was one of the General’s first downsized cars, but it was never what you would call a modern design. Born with rear drive, body-on-frame construction, and ba­roque styling, it was soon hopelessly out­dated. And from the beginning, it was a major departure from the original Grand Prix premise: sporty accommodations for four in a stylish and luxurious package. The Grand Prix grew even dumpier in its old age—an ignominious fate for an auto­mobile named in honor of the world’s pre­mier race series. The new model, scheduled to go on sale after the first of the year, should go far to reestablish the Grand Prix at the lead­ing edge of distinctive transportation. The 1988 edition is sleek and streamlined, as just about every new car is these days, yet it doesn’t have that generic slickster look. To be sure, it has a low nose, a high tail, and a rakish greenhouse, but it also has several well-defined styling cues that give it a unique appearance. Perhaps the most striking is its prominent grille. Together with nearly flush plastic headlights, this below-the-bumper snout gives the Grand Prix an instantly recognizable face. Skirt panels on all four sides help distinguish the car as well, and its fastback roofline stands in sharp contrast with recent Gen­eral Motors practice. Without question, the new Grand Prix is GM’s most exotic­-looking large sedan, a clear break with the corporation’s bland, look-alike cars of the mid-eighties. In addition to looking great, the Grand Prix is a wiz in the wind tunnel. According to Pontiac, the base model has a drag coef­ficient of 0.287, the lowest figure for a production car of any manufacturer that GM has ever tested in its wind tunnel. Even the deeper-spoilered and wider-­tired SE version breaks the magic 0.30 barrier. That’s proof positive that excel­lent aerodynamics can be combined with fresh styling. Inside the new Grand Prix is a similar blend of contemporary form and func­tion. Sweeping surfaces combine with in­teresting shapes, textures, and contrast­ing colors. Bright-metal trim and fake wood are nowhere to be found. The dash­board slopes down from the base of the windshield, providing a feeling of spa­ciousness. Most of the dash is relatively uncluttered, too, because all the instru­ments are grouped in a binnacle in front of the driver. More Pontiac Reviews from the ArchiveThe top-of-the-line Grand Prix SE is equipped with an unusual mix of tradi­tional and newfangled instruments. The tachometer and the oil-pressure, voltage, and coolant-temperature gauges use me­chanical needles, while the digital speed­ometer, the bar-type fuel gauge, and the odometer are electronic displays. Al­though we prefer tachometers with more than 90 degrees of sweep, this hybrid lay­out works surprisingly well. Flanking the instruments of all Grand Prix models are two colorful pods of switches. The group on the left controls the lights, the group on the right the wip­ers. Two stalks could probably manage these functions more efficiently, but the switch pods are both attractive and easy to use. Just as important, their novel design is another demonstration of Pontiac’s will­ingness to forge ahead and its ability to make new ideas work. Another interesting interior feature is the trip computer in the Grand Prix’s cen­ter console. In addition to the usual fuel­-economy and mileage functions, it incor­porates an eye-catching compass: the outline of a car on a road is surrounded by compass headings that automatically ad­just as the direction of travel changes. Al­though the display is mounted low, it’s large enough to be read at a glance. The compact radio and climate-control panels sit at the bottom of the dashboard, just above the trip computer. Small push buttons control almost all the func­tions of both systems, but they are marked clearly and are spaced far enough apart for easy operation. Various shapes and colors help to highlight the most impor­tant functions. Entertaining design details are nice, but what really matters is the driver’s relationship to the primary controls. Fortunately, ergonomic detailing is one of the Grand Prix’s strongest suits. The shifter is well placed and light to the touch. The rim of the four-spoke, leather-covered steering wheel is carefully shaped in the normal hand locations. And the front seats pro­vide a superb blend of plush comfort and solid support. Both buckets offer an impressive array of adjustments: for upper­ side-bolster position, headrest tilt, lumbar support (in three different segments), and individual support for each thigh. This last feature is particularly useful on long trips, when your clutch leg gets a long rest but your accelerator foot is on permanent duty. The controls for all of these adjust­ments are within easy reach on the center console. Unfortunately, the power switch­es for the normal fore-and-aft and height adjustments are mounted on the sides of the seats; there is barely enough room be­tween the seats and the door panels to squeeze one’s hand in. Despite the Grand Prix’s sporty orienta­tion, passengers need not worry about be­ing sentenced to the back seat. Two comfortable buckets are provided in the rear, along with more headroom than the fast­back roofline suggests. Even the legroom, aided by roomy footwells under the front seats, is satisfactory. Four adults can enjoy an evening on the town in the Grand Prix without fighting over who gets stuck in the back seat. They can even look forward to high-­speed cross-country jaunts, because the Grand Prix drives as well as it accommo­dates. Underneath its slippery skin lies the General’s new GM10 platform. Pontiac shares this front-wheel-drive, 107.6-inch-wheelbase chassis with the 1988 Buick Re­gal and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. (Chevrolet will also have a GM10 model, but it’s not expected until early 1989.) The only available engine in the GM10 models is Chevrolet’s 130-hp, 2.8-liter V-6, mounted transversely and coupled to either a five-speed manual or a four-speed automatic transaxle. (Buick offers only the automatic.) The suspension consists of struts at all four corners, coil springs in front, and a transverse fiberglass leaf spring in the rear; in addition, the SE is fit­ted with anti-roll bars at both ends. Four­-wheel disc brakes, vented in front, are standard equipment. Regrettably, anti­lock control is not offered. Pontiac engineers have massaged the GM10 chassis to produce a good combi­nation of ride and handling. Our test car was an early-prototype SE model, fitted with 215/65R-15 Goodyear Eagle GT+4 tires. Although it gave up its grip on the skidpad at a middling 0.76 g, it was easy to control at its limit, and it rolled down the road in a very stable yet responsive fash­ion. It tracked straight and true and pro­vided good steering feel both on center and in turns. Aside from its mediocre adhesion, our test car’s only handling weakness was a trace of torque steer. Although Pontiac’s engineers haven’t finally determined the Grand Prix’s shock-­absorber calibrations, we found our pro­totype’s ride generally satisfying. Our SE absorbed most bumps with an admirable combination of resilience and control, though at high speeds it floated a bit more than we like over large undulations. Sharp-edged bumps and expansion joints evoked loud thumps from the suspension, but the impacts themselves did not feel very strong. Neither problem was a major annoyance, and we’re hopeful that the production models will prove better. Our most serious reservation about the Grand Prix is that it lacks power. The little V-6 is simply not strong enough to moti­vate 3297 pounds with any alacrity. Even when the excellent Muncie-Getrag five­-speed is stirred to maximum effect, the Grand Prix needs 9.5 seconds to reach 60 mph and nearly seventeen seconds to cov­er the standing quarter-mile. Those fig­ures are hardly disgraceful, but for a car that looks like a road rocket at the curb, they’re not good enough. This car de­serves more engine.Despite the power shortage, we expect that many buyers will find the Grand Prix to their liking. Its price remains to be an­nounced, but an SE equipped like our test car will probably carry a sticker of about $17,000. That puts the Grand Prix in the same ballpark with loaded Ford Thunder­birds, Chrysler LeBaron two-doors, and, presumably, the other GM10 models. None of these cars is a pushover, but looks count for so much in this class that the Grand Prix should be an instant show­room success. It should also have little trouble pleasing its drivers. And such an artful combination of form and function should help keep Pontiac on track as GM’s hottest division.SpecificationsSpecifications
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix SEVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICEAs Tested: $17,000 (est)
ENGINEpushrod V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 173 in3, 2837 cm3Power: 130 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 160 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: strut/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 10.5-in vented disc/10.0-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle GT+4P215/65R-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.6 inLength: 194.1 inWidth: 71.0 inHeight: 53.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/42 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3297 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.5 sec1/4-Mile: 16.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 32.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 15.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 15.3 secTop Speed: 119 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 210 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 19/30 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

Some cars tell you what they’re all about the moment you wake them up. The Mercedes-AMG GLC43 Coupe comes to life with the snarl of a happy puppy wanting to play. And what you hear is what you get: a feisty, fun-loving compact SUV that nips at your inner enthusiast. It’s always ready to romp but is never vicious.The 416-hp GLC43 Coupe is the underdog to the overdog GLC63 S E Performance Coupe plug-in hybrid, which pounds out a combined 671 horses between its gas engine and electric motor. But don’t be fooled by the 255-hp difference between these two; the GLC43 is lovable in its own right. Its M139l turbocharged four-cylinder is shared with the GLC63, and even here, the turbo four makes an impressive 416 horsepower, or 208 horsepower per liter. (In the GLC63 it belts out 469 horsepower, a mega number for such a small engine.) Both engines employ Mercedes’s Formula 1–inspired electrically assisted turbocharger, which is intended to help the turbo spin up faster, mitigating boost lag and improving throttle response at lower revs. The GLC43’s belt-driven starter-generator also adds 13 horsepower at low revs for the same purpose, though it’s not factored into the engine’s overall output. The turbo four channels its power through AMG’s nine-speed automatic, which substitutes a wet clutch for a torque converter. The standard all-wheel-drive system is rear-biased, permanently splitting torque 31 percent front, 69 percent rear.In comparison to the GLC63’s Rube Goldberg powertrain—a 4.8-kWh battery, two electric motors, and a two-speed gearbox for the rear-axle motor—the 43’s setup seems from a simpler time. But less is also more: Absent the 63’s mother lode of plug-in-hybrid hardware, the 43’s curb weight should be considerably lighter, though we haven’t been able to weigh either model. It’s far less complex to boot.This is a good parts list, but in the end, the magic comes from how the engineers meld the pieces to work together. In the GLC43, it all clicks. This sporty SUV is a happy companion in almost every situation. The playful snarl on start-up lingers in the background as a constant presence that makes even modest acceleration sound exciting, let alone rips to the 7000-rpm redline. Thankfully, the raspy exhaust note quiets down to a distant hum during interstate cruising. Still, if you like your performance cars to speak in their indoor voice, this is not the one for you. More on the AMG GLC43 CoupeThe current model’s 2.0-liter four replaced the twin-turbo 3.0-liter V-6 that resided under the GLC43’s hood through 2023. It delivers 31 more horsepower but loses 15 pound-feet of torque. We expect its 60-mph time to land around four seconds. Despite the electrified turbo and motor-generator assistance, there’s still some lag below 2500 rpm; it takes a couple of beats for the engine to gather itself up when you push deep into the throttle. This dearth of low-end torque is exacerbated off the line by the transmission’s wet clutch. It engages fluidly, but the take-up happens so slowly that moving off from a stoplight feels like driving through a vat of molasses until you’re across the intersection. From that point, the power swells and the GLC43 surges ahead like a Jack Russell chasing a squirrel. Sadly, shaving two cylinders and one liter of displacement from the GLC43 Coupe’s engine barely changes the overall fuel economy. The turbo four’s 18-mpg EPA city number is but 1 mpg better than the previous V-6’s, while its 24-mpg highway rating is unchanged. We’d wondered whether we’d like the turbocharged four-cylinder as much as the sonorous twin turbo V-6, and the answer is yes. It’s not better, though, just different. Beyond the powertrain, AMG buttresses the GLC43’s chassis with adaptive dampers and speed-dependent four-wheel steering. Summer tires, size 265/45R-20 front and 295/40R-20 rear as standard, promise ample cornering grip. The GLC43 drives cohesively, with direct steering, sharp brakes, and a taut ride that never gets harsh—even in Sport+ mode. It feels wide awake and ready to cut sharply into bends, even on the winter tires our test car was fitted with, but it settles down comfortably on the highway. It’s never boring and always playful, even on trips to the supermarket. And if you want this formulation in a more conventional SUV profile, it’s also available in the squareback GLC SUV body style. This being an AMG, the GLC43 Coupe is both well dressed and well equipped at its $71,750 base price. It uses Benz’s crisply rendered, multilayered MBUX infotainment system, which is sometimes cumbersome to navigate through. As with other AMG products, it’s easy to inflate the MSRP with all manner of goodies that don’t alter the GLC43’s core driving character. Our test car had more than $11,000 of those options: special paint, leather and carbon-fiber interior trim, a Burmester Surround Sound system, additional safety gear, black 21-inch AMG Y-spoke wheels (up from the standard 20s), dynamic engine mounts, AMG’s Track Pace performance video-and-data recorder, and more. Had they all been absent, it wouldn’t have changed how the GLC43 drives, or how we feel about it. The best cars are more than the sum of their parts, and the GLC43 manages to be exactly that. It offers a surprising and rewarding balance of capability and fun, with a side of SUV-ish practicality—a car that’s ready to play whenever you are. Kind of like a happy puppy. And everyone loves puppies, don’t they? SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-AMG GLC43 CoupeVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base: $71,750
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 121 in3, 1991 cm3Power: 416 hp @ 6750 rpmTorque: 369 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.7 inLength: 188.7 inWidth: 75.6 inHeight: 63.1 inCargo Volume, Behind F/R: 53/19 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4400 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.0 sec100 mph: 10.7 sec1/4-Mile: 11.9 secTop Speed: 155 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 21/18/24 mpgRich 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 October 1987 issue of Car and Driver.The Bavarian Motor Works is tuned to its market. There you are, boulevarding along in your Bimmer, its top down, sun­shine on your shoulders, listening to something suitably refined on the BMW anti-theft radio. Touch the “Band” button.No, not to receive oompah music from a Munich Bierstube, but to see orange digits reading “WB” and hear:” . . . and out 30 miles, wind west-southwest at twelve knots, visibility seven, seas four feet . . . ” It’s marine weather! The radio can pick up a third broadcast band, the set of seven channels from 162.400 to 162.550 MHz that carry local meteorological reports from the National Oceanic and Atmo­spheric Administration. What a perfect yuppiemobile. Swan­ning around town in your $31,000 con­vertible, you can keep up on the latest yachting forecasts. Everybody should own a convertible at least once in his life. However, everybody who’s wanted to own a convertible with a whirling-propeller emblem, new and factory-made, hasn’t been able to for 28 years. The last chance was the two-seat 507, made from 1956 to 1959 in very small numbers. True, the outside coach­builder Baur has been chopping the tops off 2002 and 3-series BMWs for years, but not many of them, and not for the United States. Time, said BMW, to put matters right. More 3-series Reviews From the ArchiveBMW is serious about “right.” Unlike many open cars, its convertible does not start life as a sedan. No decapitation is suf­fered. BMW builds the 325i convertible as a drophead from the Dingolfing factory floor up. Stiffening sheetmetal is added to the doorsills, the floor, and the front strut towers; the compartment behind the back seat that stores the folded top also ties into the rear spring mounts to contribute to the chassis’s stiffness. As a result of these and similar measures, the open car weighs only 160 pounds more than a comparably equipped 325is two-door. Comparably equipped is comprehen­sively equipped. The convertible, in fact, is more or less a combination of the 325i and the 325is, with some of the luxury ap­pointments of the former and some of the sportier bits of the latter. Even a partial list reads like the contents of a Christmas stocking: 168-hp, 2494 cc SOHC six-cylin­der engine; anti-lock brakes; gas-pressure shocks; alloy wheels; V-rated tires; leather upholstery; front seats with adjustable thigh support and front height; multifunc­tion computer; eight-speaker sound sys­tem; BMW’s service indicator . . .Listen. The cassette deck keeps track of how long it’s run, and every fifteen hours it beeps at you a reminder that it’s time to use the head-cleaning device. Which is supplied, gratis, in the glove box.Another thing you get for your 31 Gs is a top that is very easy to raise and lower, even though doing so is an entirely man­ual operation. The cloth roof folds away under a neat, completely flush metal cov­er, leaving the clean (if rather bricklike) beltline unbulged. One rear passenger place is lost to the top, but the two that re­main are roomy and comfortable. You can feel the convertible’s slight weight disadvantage, especially if you’ve ordered the automatic-transmission op­tion: its shift points and kickdown switches seem to make a poor marriage with the engine’s torque curve. Yes, you can manual­ly cycle the box through all four ratios, and rather briskly, too. But a four-seat convertible is by nature a lazy car; you don’t normally keep one on the balls of its feet. With the automatic, you keep think­ing, “Sweet engine, but too small.” With the manual transmission, less is lost. In C/D testing the five-speed con­vertible was only 0.3 second slower than the 325is from zero to 60, only 0.1 second and 1 mph behind in the quarter-mile, and only one foot out front at the end of a stop from 70 mph. The 131-mph top speed of the five-speed convertible was actually 3 mph higher than that of the five-speed se­dan, but the difference is well within the range of production variability. Back to the lazy mode. Simply ghosting along, not a competitive corpuscle aquiv­er in your body, is a delightful way to drive this car. Wind protection is so good even when all the windows are down (they’re electric, of course) that your hat might just stay on, if you dare wear it. The seats­, well, you could do the One Lap in these seats and love every endless hour of it. The ride is excellent under all conditions, the suspension having been beefed just enough to carry the extra weight. The shocks damp out everything thrown at them. The steering is especially fine, light but with feel; BMW’s is one of the few power systems that cannot be “beaten” by the quickest moves. When you start to ex­ercise the steering through the curves, you find the tires and the springs take the added load in stride; and though the car doesn’t actually feel as if it wants to run hard, it retains its integrity when you insist on doing so. It also retains a feeling of res­olute refinement. For an essentially frivo­lous vehicle, it seems very serious. One passenger’s remark: “It has a big-car feel in a small-car style.” There are a few things that make you wonder. For all the factory’s pride in the ergonomics of its cockpit, you wonder why it’s adopted the too-many-buttons­-alike style for the radio controls. And why the wiper stalk is so convenient to your fin­ger tips that you wipe the windshield twice a mile whether it needs it or not. And why for your $31,000 you can’t have an adjust­able steering wheel. You expect some cowl shake over ripply pavement, of course, just as you would in any other convertible. You don’t get a lot of it in the 325, but the wheel quivers lat­erally in your hands enough to dilute some of that stone-mountain feeling you want from a premium German car. And any ragtop is going to be an actual pain to live with at times: the times you can’t get away from a tire-whining truck, the times you have to do something with belongings that you normally leave in sight on a seat, the times you come back to a dusting of green pine pollen all over everything. However, there are the other times. The soft summer-evening times, air like velvet, sun golden in the trees, lake water shimmering with joy . . . Maybe everybody should own a con­vertible sometime in his life. Maybe this is one to own all through a lifetime.SpecificationsSpecifications
1987 BMW 325i ConvertibleVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $31,000/$31,425
ENGINESOHC inline-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 in3, 2494 cm3Power: 168 hp @ 5800 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.2 inLength: 175.6 inCurb Weight: 2982 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.7 sec100 mph: 23.3 sec1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 87 mphTop Speed: 131 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ft 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 21 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the March/April 2025 issue of Car and Driver.We all have knocked back a pint at the local bar while mulling how to build a better car than the one in our driveway. Daydreaming about perfecting cars is universal, but Jim Ratcliffe apparently takes it more seriously than most. He’s the British billionaire who tried to buy the tooling for the Land Rover Defender (the old one, not the new one) so he could update it to meet modern regulations. When Land Rover passed, he did the costliest “Hold my beer” we’ve ever heard of and created the Ineos Grenadier.It looks familiar. From some angles, the body-on-frame Ineos is all Defender 110 (again, the old one). From others, it screams G-wagen louder than an influencer upon being asked, “What’s the first thing you’re gonna buy with all of that YouTube money?” The Grenadier has a 115.0-inch wheelbase, five seats, and, in Fieldmaster trim, two standard safari windows that can vent open or be removed, should you want to eliminate the security that glass offers while you take in Serengeti wildlife. The base version of the Grenadier starts at $73,100, less than half the starting price of a Mercedes-Benz G550 and about 10 grand more than the least costly new Defender 110.HIGHS: Dapper off-road style meets genuine off-road capability, wonderfully smooth powertrain, built like a brick outhouse.The exterior of the Fieldmaster trim we borrowed sports small graphics inspired by three flags: a Union Jack for obvious reasons, a German flag for the “engineering rigor” it claims to have, and a French flag for its assembly home in Hambach (depending on when your geography book was printed, that could be a French or a German city). Bolted between the front fenders, which will support a standing adult, is a BMW 3.0-liter inline-six connected to a ZF eight-speed automatic. The turbocharged engine is good for 281 horsepower, and the powertrain earns exceptional marks for smoothness and refinement. It’ll pull the 5901-pound SUV to 60 mph in 7.3 seconds and hit a governed 102-mph top speed. The 1993 North America–spec Defender 110 lumbered to 60 mph in 12.3 seconds on its way to a max of 89 mph. An inline-six Defender 110 (the contemporary one) finds 60 in 6.3 seconds, while the new Toyota Land Cruiser is nearly a half-second behind.More on the GrenadierStraight-line acceleration hardly defines this segment. With stubby overhangs and the departure angle of an F-22 Raptor with its afterburner lit, the Grenadier is clearly designed to excel when the pavement ends. Live axles provide the durable traction off-roaders love, and a ground clearance of over 10 inches gives the go-ahead to clomp down most any two-track. The on-road ride is neither exceptional nor brutal. A score of 517 on the ramp travel index (RTI) puts the Grenadier well below the new Land Cruiser’s 634 but above the Defender 130’s 331. Not that front and rear locking differentials would help in the RTI articulation game, but they are available as part of a $2850 Rough pack, which also includes BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 tires. Far less aggressive Bridgestones still sing a boisterous tarmac tune, contributing to 73 decibels in the cabin at 70 mph. Both the Land Cruiser and the Defender 130 are better here, with a comparably subdued 68 and 67 decibels. LOWS: Incessant warnings, sloppy and slow steering, noisy on the highway.The driving position faithfully channels an old Defender. You sit upright on comfortable chairs above a narrow pedal box, and a wide console separates driver and passenger. It’s a bit of a climb into the cabin, and there are no grab handles on the B-pillars to assist second-row passengers. Build quality, inside and out, gets an A+. The main instrument display, centrally located above a compass, is part of a 12.3-inch touchscreen that conveys both vehicle speed and infotainment doings. Directly in front of the driver is a three-by-11 matrix of red, yellow, green, and blue warning and indicator lights. Typically, warning lights wouldn’t get a mention, but most cars don’t beep annoyingly every time you break what the car thinks is the posted speed limit. Six keystrokes deactivate the Euro-regulation dingleberry but illuminate a bright-yellow warning icon.While silencing the speed nanny, you’ll also want to deactivate lane-keeping assist because the steering is not great. It’s slow (3.9 turns lock-to-lock) and not particularly attuned to going straight. Making matters worse is a near-total lack of self-centering, a byproduct of the suspension geometry’s lack of adequate caster angle. So, every time you make a turn, you then have to return the wheel to center. As a modern take on an old car, the Grenadier has nostalgic charm. There are only two cupholders, and they weren’t designed with Stanley or Yeti in mind. The ZF electronic shifter sits juxtaposed between a mechanical hand brake and an actual lever that reaches deep into the Grenadier’s bowels to control the two-speed transfer case. The door handles and thumb-press release are like those on a G-wagen and make a sound so special that you’ll slam the door a second time just for aural pleasure. And the bevy of switches and knobs on the instrument panel and the overhead console offer straightforward operation. However, the simple luxuries of passive entry and push-button start, which would greatly increase convenience, aren’t even options on this $82,385-as-tested SUV.VERDICT: A proper off-roader practically plucked from the past.There are a lot of peculiarities and annoyances here (e.g., 14-mpg observed fuel economy), but we know that most of these shortcomings were intended to give the Grenadier character. Ineos succeeds in delivering an off-road wagon that has the curb appeal of a classic. Cheers to the hope that this single narrow focus gins up sufficient sales so Ineos sticks around long enough to inspire another dream. SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Ineos Grenadier FieldmasterVehicle Type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $80,790/$82,385
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2998 cm3Power: 281 hp @ 4750 rpmTorque: 331 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm 
TRANSMISSION8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: live axle/live axleBrakes, F/R: 12.4-in vented disc/12.0-in discTires: Bridgestone Dueler A/T255/70R-18 116S M+S 3PMSF 001
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.0 inLength: 191.2 inWidth: 76.0 inHeight: 80.7 inCurb Weight: 5901 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 24.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 102 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 194 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.62 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 16 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 370 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 15/15/15 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDK.C. Colwell, the executive editor at Car and Driver, is a seasoned professional with a deep-rooted passion for new cars and technology. His journey into the world of automotive journalism began at an early age when his grandmother gifted him a subscription to Car and Driver for his 10th birthday. This gift sparked a lifelong love for the industry, and he read every issue between then and his first day of employment. He started his Car and Driver career as a technical assistant in the fall of 2004. In 2007, he was promoted to assistant technical editor. In addition to testing, evaluating, and writing about cars, technology, and tires, K.C. also set the production-car lap record at Virginia International Raceway for C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test and was just the sixth person to drive the Hendrick Motorsport Garage 56 Camaro. In 2017, he took over as testing director until 2022, when was promoted to executive editor and has led the brand to be one of the top automotive magazines in the country. When he’s not thinking about cars, he likes playing hockey in the winter and golf in the summer and doing his best to pass his good car sense and love of ’90s German sedans to his daughter. He might be the only Car and Driver editor to own a Bobcat: the skidsteer, not the feline. Though, if you have a bobcat guy, reach out. K.C. resides in Chelsea, Michigan, with his family. More

From the October 1982 issue of Car and Driver.Truths about the new Audi 5000S Turbo Diesel are a lot like children: they’re everywhere you turn, but they’re mostly underfoot. Feel free to take this literally. Everywhere you need to turn the steering wheel, the 5000S Turbo Diesel artfully crafts its way into the cor­ners, and you know you have found truth in engineering. And every time you take a healthy poke at the old fuel pedal, you know you have discovered why it is reasonably nice to have a turbocharger underfoot in your diesel. Still, all in motoring life, as else­where, is a compromise. Our question is, Where does the compromise end for a diesel and the life begin? We know that the nor­mally aspirated, gas-propelled versions of Audi’s 5000 are tingly enough to qualify as Testers’ Choice, and the 5000 Turbo, sweet nutcracker that it is, can be put right at the top of the Marital Aid, Heavy Breathing category—but can Audi’s heretofore semi-lethargic diesel be resuscitated with a turbo? Its one real normally aspirated attribute has been its ability to deliver econobox-like fuel economy in a much roomier and more refined package than smaller con­tainers can provide, but Audi’s oil burn­er to date has had all the titillation po­tential of dead batteries. That in itself was enough to bring it at last (and notably long after the gaso­line-engined 5000) to Ferdinand Piech’s attention, never mind the fact that he thinks turbochargers can be successfully applied to anything down to and includ­ing Hula-Hoops and Roto-Rooters. As Audi’s most entrepreneurial idea man, Piech has brought us first the gas-com­busted 5000 Turbo and then the dash­ing, four-wheel-drive, kompressorized Quattro. Welcome to Act III. Alas, no getting around it, the 5000 Turbo Diesel is not fast, nor is it even quick. After a day at the test track, the best results we could get were a 0-to-60-mph time of 15.9 seconds, a quarter­-mile elapsed time of 20.4 seconds at 68 mph, and a level-ground maximum ve­locity of 92 mph. So you’re not writing home for a down payment yet, right? Have just a little patience. It eventual­ly pays off with this car. It’s a little like life with the children we mentioned back in the beginning: when you come to understand just what you’ve got un­derfoot, you get a lot more out of it. When you watch children grow up, over the years turning from free-form little rug rats into real and clever little peo­ple, you realize it’s worth the wait. And that’s just the way it is when you ask Audi’s diesel turbo to gather itself up for a launch from a standing start into the rest of its life. At first not much hap­pens, then there’s some activity, then all at once it barrels right on off, proud as punch. After you understand the fun that lies beyond the crossover point, you can arrange your motoring so the sweet side of that speed curve is usually at hand.Also fun is the Turbo Diesel’s almost total abhorrence of fuel stops, given its 19.8-gallon fuel tank, 28 mpg through the confines of the EPA’s prototypical city, and 24 mpg in C/D’s own hard­-charging environment. Audi has intro­duced an interesting way to improve the Turbo Diesel’s around-town mpg re­sults: its floor-mounted, T-bar shifter includes a position marked “E,” which allows the engine to freewheel when you lift off the accelerator pedal, thus reducing fuel-consuming drag on the engine at idle or when decelerating around town. Of course, selecting “E” rather than “D” for country use might also be expected to yield some gains in economy, but they would normally be proportionately less since steady-state cruising conditions are more prevalent on the open road. Moreover, the sensa­tion of having no engine braking when you release the accelerator pedal is ini­tially a bit disconcerting in traffic or at higher speeds on back roads. In the “E” mode, the transmission disengages a forward-gear clutch in the transmission when it senses major de­celeration. Then a distracting lurch ac­companies re-engagement when you step back into the accelerator. In all shift positions other than “E,” the transmission works as you would expect any automatic to work. Even beyond “E,” though, this auto­matic transaxle likes to let you know it’s around. Full-throttle upshifts are a touch muscular, and equally firm kick­downs are prone to somewhat vague de­lays. Our biggest suggestion to Audi is to take a look at what General Motors is doing with it automatics in its front­-wheel-drive, V-6 diesel A-cars. We re­cently tested an Oldsmobile Ciera (C/D, August 1983) that was a prime example of the pleasant mating of automatic transmission and diesel engine, its 4.3-liter, nor­mally aspirated powerplant tuned for high torque at low rpm and a relatively flat curve from there up, while the transmission was a three-speed unit with a torque converter designed to al­low the engine to rev very quickly to its maximum-torque rpm, and then to lock up in fully mechanical direct drive after shifting into third gear, effectively creat­ing a fourth-speed ratio and extremely long-legged cruising. Efficient and com­pletely undistracting in use, the system allowed the roomier and equally heavy Ciera to out-accelerate Audi’s Turbo Diesel while matching its EPA city rating.More Audi Reviews from the ArchiveNot to say that the Audi doesn’t outdo the Olds in several other areas, par­ticularly in construction quality and even more dramatically in simply having under its skin quite a refined chassis. This wonderful quality of the Audi is a tangible thing. It is obvious in the car’s every major control, in its subjective feel, and in its almost unearthly abilities to boost your over-the-road confidence substantially, without ever indicating that this accomplishment is any big deal. The Audi 5000 chassis is about as well sorted as any we’ve ever encoun­tered in a sedan, better able to deal with the physical pleasures and disasters of today’s roads than anything else we’ve had in a good long while. The steering is light but full of good wishes and fine detail. The suspension is receptive to anything you have in mind or the road holds in store. Despite a fair amount of body roll, the suspension never goes wishy-washy at trying moments, and the directional stability is placid testimony to zero-offset steering geometry and proper suspension design and develop­ment. This chassis holds no nasty sur­prises for its driver (though less spongy brakes would be nice), and it sets stan­dards others could well strive for.Would that the seats were as good as the mechanicals. They are massive and firmly padded and adjustable nine ways (literally) to Sunday, but their lower cushions are short and they lack some­thing several of the rudest Japanese se­dans offer without a second thought: lumbar-support adjustments. A number of your C/D drivers stepped out of the Audi singing its behavioral praises but aching from stem to stern and casting colorful aspersions upon the black-­leather thrones. The optional power sunroof loomed into available head­room, grumbled towering testers, but more diminutive drivers (well, say, six feet or under) spoke of the expansive hole in the roof and how nice its air and sunshine were. The windows and mir­rors are also power units, and the back seat is blessed (if you can call it that) with two cigarette lighters, one in each door alongside small courtesy and read­ing lights. These lights failed to func­tion in our test car, as did the main inte­rior light unless its switch was flipped to the well-known, battery-draining, on-­no-matter-what position. The cruise-control switches on a steering-column stalk are hidden by a spoke of the wheel and are somewhat difficult to use. Moreover, the control unit itself has a tough time coming to grips with long uphill grades, steep or otherwise, and exhibits a certain absent­mindedness in eventually misplacing about 2 mph if your selected speed is moderately above the national limit, even when the terrain is level. And if you ask the Turbo Diesel for consistent hotfooting in speedometer-peg territo­ry, the request must come directly from your foot.Audi’s air-conditioning, heating, and vent systems are very strong and their controls are simple (if garishly splashed with blue and red), and the dash-wide array of vents allows great precision of adjustment. While the heater is plenty hot, the space for back-seat feet is less so. Audi has for some reason chosen to breed power seats whose component­-occupied underbellies hang almost to the floor, effectively taking an important chunk out of what is otherwise a very commodious rear cabin, offering space for three abreast and full shoulder har­nesses for the two outboard passengers. Those in the back seat of our test car were more likely to spot a few aesthetic oversights such as the door frames and seat tracks in body-color white, which clashed strongly with the black interior trim. Some A-pillar trim was mis­aligned, but the rest of the interior (with the major exception of a depressing plastic headliner) was neat and attrac­tive, an aesthetically okay locale for tak­ing the tunes with Audi’s Panasonic auto-reverse, electronic AM/FM/cas­sette multifeature stereo, which seems to produce better sound in the 5000 body enclosure than it does in the Quattro. Just don’t race any Quattros. And save all your competitions for downhill cuts and thrusts, back-hill boondog­gling, and clever nippings through town. If that puts too tight a limit on your fun, bypass the Turbo Diesel and go directly to the rousingly energetic, gasoline-burning 5000 Turbo. That’s a car you can put to quick use anywhere, not just downhill, and you’ll never, ever forget that the truth about it lies almost entirely underfoot.CounterpointsAudi is one of the long-ball hitters in the automotive marketplace. It’s been swinging for the fences ever since Ferdinand Piech joined the team. With few exceptions, every Audi of recent memory has been ex­ceptional: the Quattro, the Coupe, the 5000 Turbo, even the 4000 are all solid shots into the center-field bleachers.This time, I’m afraid, mighty Casey has struck out. The 5000 Tur­bo Diesel fails not only to advance the art, but also to even measure up to the better cars in the diesel class. It struggles away from stoplights when the air conditioner is on. Ugh. A mid-priced, normally aspirated Olds Cutlass Ciera is far more sprightly around town. The Mercedes Turbo Diesel proves you need not suffer with the lethargy. If the notion of a 5000 Turbo Die­sel tickles you, I suggest checking back in a year or so, after this car has been through the inevitable refine­ment process. You see, that’s the other thing about Audi. Like all champions, it doesn’t make the same mistake for long. —Rich Ceppos The Audi 5000 is a nice, contempo­rary car for rich, young professionals with a need for a back seat. It’s a great touring car (though the ride is a tad on the soft side), its cabin is luxurious, and its styling is among the most modern in the luxury-sedan class. But a diesel-engined 5000, tur­bocharged or otherwise, is not for me, thanks. Turbocharging may help to over­come the 5000’s diesel slows in the midrange, but around town the car is a real slug. I was also surprised to find that this Audi makes enough noise to wake the dead. To add to all that irritation, Audi adds an “E” gear, which drops the engine revs to idle when the accelerator isn’t being depressed. But instead of subtly kick­ing back in with the throttle, the en­gine sags, then goes, when you hit the gas. The “E” gear may be a good idea and may help fuel economy, but the execution is poor. I hated it. If you’re sure you must own a diesel, then turbocharge it. And if you have $20,000 to make the experience less painful, wait for the Volvo 760 Turbo Diesel. —Jean Lindamood An Audi 5000 can’t be bad. I’ll admit that. But I don’t understand this deal about turbo-dieseling. Every time I punch the equation into my calcula­tor, the microchips melt. First you pay extra for a diesel en­gine. This is to make the car more economical, right? All you have to do is drive 80,000 miles to break even. Then you pay more for a turbocharg­er. That’s to make the car less slow than an ordinary diesel—but it can also make it less economical. In re­turn for all this extra dough, you get a car that’s still pretty slow and only pretty economical. This kind of double-talk puts tur­bo-diesels in the same category as dash-mounted earthquake detectors, as far as I’m concerned. In short, they’re gimmicks. And the Audi’s “E” gear, which seems designed solely to trick the EPA’s chassis dyno into delivering inflated fuel-economy numbers, heightens my skepticism about this car. Some might say that every diesel deserves a turbo, especially when the base smoker is as slow as an Audi 5000 Diesel. But if you’re still going to get a slow car, why pay more? —Michael JordanSpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Audi 5000 Turbo DieselVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $17,480/$20,680Options: leather Interior, $1205; electric sunroof, $805; AM/ FM-stereo radio/cassette, $690; power seats, $500
ENGINEturbocharged diesel inline-5, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 121 in3, 1986 cm3Power: 84 hp @ 4500 rpmTorque: 127 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/9.1-in drumTires: Goodyear Grand Prix S70185/70SR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.5 inLength: 188.9 inWidth: 69.6 inHeight: 54.7 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 51/39 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3060 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 15.9 sec1/4-Mile: 20.4 sec @ 68 mph90 mph: 54.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 6.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.8 secTop Speed: 92 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 213 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.72 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 31/28/36 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the March/April 2025 issue of Car and Driver.Here’s one trend the automotive prognosticators didn’t see coming: the humble hybrid’s comeback. In 2024, sales of conventional hybrids—the ones you don’t plug in—shot up nearly 37 percent from 2023, according to the automotive analysis firm Wards Intelligence, while sales of electric vehicles rose just 7 percent. Proof that hybrids have become so well understood, so well accepted, and so commonplace is that all 2025 Toyota Camrys are hybrids, and the top four of the Honda Accord’s six trims went hybrid-only in 2023. When popular mainstream family cars like these—the Camry was the eighth-bestselling vehicle in the U.S. in 2024—have gas-electric propulsion as standard, you know hybrids have become the new normal. To see what upsides—and downsides—exist in the realm of hybrid-only mid-size sedans, we paired an all-wheel-drive Camry XLE and an Accord Touring for a comparison deep dive. We also invited the recently refreshed Hyundai Sonata Limited Hybrid, a natural competitor of the Camry and the Accord. Curiously, each of these family sedans employs a different type of hybrid system. Which car provides the best performance, the highest efficiency, and the most fun from behind the wheel? To suss out our trio’s fuel efficiency and driving personalities, we journeyed from our Ann Arbor offices to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, a round trip of 600 miles. Why Indy as our terminus? Race cars that compete at the Brickyard are increasingly adopting hybrid systems (Indy cars and IMSA prototypes are hybrids), and the connection to our family sedans gave our Walter Mitty fantasies a boost. As to our street-drivable hybrid trio, we gathered loaded models from each brand. The Accord Touring and the Sonata Limited are top-spec versions in their lineups. The Camry XLE is one small step down from the slightly sportier XSE, and the XLE’s smaller wheels and tires net better EPA ratings. As tested, the three cars are close in pricing and equipment. The Honda’s $40,905 sticker showed but one option, Radiant Red metallic paint ($455), while carpeted floor mats ($210) were the only extra on the $39,005 Hyundai. The $42,577 Toyota, which starts at $36,360, was optioned up to a similar equipment level with the Premium Plus package ($4760); it also added several items the others didn’t have and that we wouldn’t want, including a dash cam and paint protection on the rear bumper and doorsills, a combo that raised the price by roughly $1500. And while the Honda and the Hyundai are front-wheel drive, the Camry offers an all-wheel-drive option for $1525. The system adds a motor to the rear wheels, netting seven more horsepower while dropping the EPA combined figure by 1 mpg on our test trim. Fuel economy being a focus, we spent the first day of our drive on a mix of roads: a morning slog on a loop through city and suburban streets near our office; a midday, two-lane run from Toledo, Ohio, south along the Maumee River to Defiance, Ohio; and finally, an interstate sprint to Indianapolis and back. And, of course, we subjected the cars to our thorough instrumented testing regimen, including our 200-mile, 75-mph highway fuel-economy test. The deep soak revealed plenty about this intriguing trio. Exterior and InteriorOne thing the Accord, Sonata, and Camry hybrids show us is that hybrids are now mainstream: Beyond a few small badges, these three make no effort to call attention to their gas-electric powertrains. To our eyes, they’re all modern variations on the classic three-box sedan shape. The Accord’s styling is the most restrained, and the Sonata’s is the most modern and edgy, with a droopy nose and a thin light bar spanning the front end. The new-for-2025 Camry could be mistaken for the previous-generation car, which apparently looked good enough to attract 217,859 buyers to the 2024 model. Honda Accord TouringHIGHS: Sports-sedan moves, luxury-car powertrain refinement, rear legroom for days. LOWS: Low-key on the outside, low-key on the inside, lacks satellite radio. VERDICT: A family sedan that drives sweetly enough to please discerning enthusiasts.Inside, each vehicle offers a slightly different vibe, though all three are roomy, comfortable, dressed in good-quality materials, and fully equipped with everything from heated steering wheels to heated and ventilated front seats to upscale audio systems. We were happy to find plenty of real buttons and knobs for things such as climate control and audio adjustments in all three cars. Our trio also featured reasonably easy-to-navigate 12.3-inch infotainment screens, though both the Sonata’s and the Camry’s were more convenient to use while driving than the Accord’s. The Honda is also the only one that does not offer the option of satellite radio. We did note one aesthetic miscue in the Camry’s interior, which is the fabric trim lining the dash and door panels—it reminds us of a cheap washcloth.Since these are family sedans, roominess is especially important, and here, the Accord pulls ahead of its rivals in one key metric. While the Sonata and the Camry are spacious enough for a pair of six-footers to sit comfortably front and rear, the Accord’s rear-seat legroom is positively voluminous, giving its cabin a clear advantage in practicality. When we stuffed three staffers in the back, however, we noticed that the Accord’s sloping roofline impeded headroom for the outboard two passengers in particular. Powertrain and PerformanceAll three sedans use an Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder gas engine—2.0 liters in the Accord and the Sonata, 2.5 liters in the Camry—along with a small-capacity lithium-ion battery pack. From there, the strategies diverge. The 204-hp system in the Honda uses its engine to spin a generator that sends power to either the battery or a traction motor coupled to the front wheels; the engine can also power the front wheels directly when conditions are right. The Camry’s 232-hp setup combines a traction motor and a supplementary electric motor to apportion gas and electric power through a planetary gearset to the front wheels, and this all-wheel-drive version adds a 40-hp rear-axle motor. The Sonata’s 192-hp system has a motor-generator stuffed between the engine and a conventional six-speed automatic transmission. All three cars employ regenerative braking, adjustable in the Accord and the Sonata via steering-wheel paddles. Hyundai Sonata Limited HybridHIGHS: Modernistic styling, sharp widescreen infotainment display, big-time value.LOWS: Conventional transmission hinders performance, uninvolving handling, would rather trot than sprint.VERDICT: The hybrid that operates most like a conventional gas car, for better and for worse.In our objective tests, no one car asserted dominance. In this segment’s all-important category of fuel economy, the differences are paper thin: Over our 600-mile drive, the Sonata delivered 37 mpg, the Camry 36 mpg, and the Accord 35 mpg. Those numbers are well below each car’s EPA figures for combined driving, a result we attribute to our heavy-footed driving style and the frigid winter temperatures the test vehicles endured. On our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, the Sonata and the Camry both notched 39-mpg results, while the Accord came in at 36 mpg. From there, determining which car has the best performance becomes murkier. The Accord’s 6.7-second 60-mph time is quickest, with the Camry at 6.9 seconds and the Sonata at 7.7. At the quarter-mile mark, the three are neck and neck, but the Camry begins to pull away. It is 2.6 seconds quicker than the Sonata and beats the Accord by 3.1 seconds to 100 mph, a speed that will probably be anathema to most hybrid jockeys. The Accord takes the win in sprints from 30 to 50 and 50 to 70 mph, and the Camry is a few tenths quicker than the others from 5 to 60 mph. Braking from 70 mph has all three within seven feet of one another. The Accord posts a strong 0.89-g skidpad result, with the other two tied at 0.85 g. Based solely on the objective results, it’s tough to pick a winner.Driving ExperienceWhile the performance of these hybrids is similar, their personalities are not. All were comfortable cruisers on the highway, but once we started threading our way along the two-lane bordering the frozen Maumee, the Accord reminded us why it’s a 10Best winner. It’s a sports sedan trapped in a hybrid family car’s body, manifesting that elusive nth degree of athletic coordination that discerning drivers will immediately sense. Its ride and handling balance is just right, its steering feel and effort spot-on. The Accord manages to be light on its feet yet playful and dedicated in the bends. What’s more, its powertrain refinement stands head and shoulders above the other two cars’. Its four-cylinder whispers distantly as the revs rise and fall between the barely noticeable faux shifts programmed into its hybrid system. As with the Camry, the instant torque supplied by the electric motors enables crisp response even to small accelerator inputs, making the Accord feel peppier than it is. We could nitpick its ride—it clip-clops across expansion joints the Camry glosses over—but our backsides quickly adjusted to that minor difference. There’s joy to be had here. Toyota Camry XLE AWD HIGHS: Pleasingly peppy powertrain, appropriately parsimonious with fuel, well-honed ride. LOWS: Boomy engine note, CVT’s syrupy responses, the washcloth material on the dash and doors. VERDICT: The Camry succeeds at making standard hybrid power a nonissue.To be sure, both the Camry and the Sonata delivered a driving experience that will offend no one. The Camry has closed the gap between itself and the Accord dynamically, but it still doesn’t quite possess the deft and effortless handling that wows us in the Honda. There’s far more engine presence in the Camry’s cabin too, exacerbated by its transmission, which slurs engine rpm up and down noisily with every press of the right pedal. Still, there’s a lot to like here; it’s a well-rounded and highly capable family sedan. As is the Sonata. It’s the softy of the group, with a ride that sometimes had a touch of float coupled with relaxed handling responses. “Relaxed” also describes the drivetrain, which was the least inclined to deliver energetic acceleration unless you pin the gas for a long time. Part of this is down to its conventional automatic transmission, which felt programmed to upshift to higher gears early, as expected of a car aimed at max fuel economy. All of this made the Sonata feel the most like a conventional gas-only sedan.And the Winner Is . . .All three of the hybrid family sedans in this test are parsimonious with gasoline and offer solid value. But we love driving, and we favor vehicles that not only fulfill their core mission but also deliver an extra measure of enjoyment and involvement behind the wheel. That’s why the Honda Accord Touring is the hybrid sedan we would most want in the Car and Driver family’s garage. You’re not surprised. Come to think of it, neither are we. ⬇︎Curiosities: Power PlayWhile counting USB ports and cupholders as part of this comparison test, we thought we had killed the Sonata’s 12-volt battery when all electronic accessories stopped working. After some research, we discovered the vehicle’s “12V batt reset” button on the lower left portion of the instrument panel. To prevent its lithium-ion 12-volt battery from an accidental over-discharge, the Sonata disconnects the 12-volt system if it senses a drop in voltage beyond a certain point. The reset button reconnects the 12-volt battery for 30 seconds, allowing you to start the car or put it in Ready mode to replenish it with the hybrid powertrain’s traction battery. Alternatively, the trunk release can act as the reset button, should you find yourself in a similar situation with the fob locked inside. —Austin IrwinSpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Honda Accord TouringVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $40,450/$40,905Options: Radiant Red Metallic paint, $455
POWERTRAINDOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 146 hp, 134 lb-ft + AC motor, 181 hp, 247 lb-ft (combined output: 204 hp, 247 lb-ft; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Michelin Primacy MXM4235/40R-19 96V M+S DT1
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 inLength: 195.7 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 53/50 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 3507 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.3 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 20.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 165 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
600-mile Trip: 35 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 460 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 44/46/41 mpg 
— 
2025 Hyundai Sonata Limited HybridVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $38,795/$39,005Options: carpeted floor mats, $210
POWERTRAINDOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 150 hp, 139 lb-ft + AC motor, 51 hp, 151 lb-ft (combined output: 192 hp, 210 lb-ft; 0.8-kWh [C/D est] lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: 6-speed automatic 
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.2-in discTires: Kuhmo Solus TA31+215/55R-17 94V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.8 inLength: 193.3 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 59/42 ft3Trunk Volume: 16 ft3Curb Weight: 3535 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 20.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 124 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
600-Mile Trip: 37 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 39 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 510 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 47/44/51 mpg 
— 
2025 Toyota Camry XLE AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $36,360/$42,577Options: Premium Plus package (Traffic Jam Assist, front and rear cross-traffic alert w/ rear automatic braking, lane change assist, panoramic view monitor, front and rear parking assist, 9-speaker JBL Premium audio system, ventilated front seats, 10-in head-up display, digital key capability, panoramic glass roof w/ power tilt/slide, rain-sensing wipers, driver’s seat and side mirror memory), $4760; dash-mounted camera, $375; Connected Services trial, $325; carpeted floor and trunk mats, $309; doorsill enhancement, $199; mudguards, $155; rear-bumper protector, $69; trunk LED bulb, $25
POWERTRAIN DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 184 hp, 163 lb-ft + 3 AC motors; front: 134 hp, 153 lb-ft; rear: 40 hp, 62 lb-ft (combined output: 232 hp; 0.6-kWh [C/D est] lithium-ion battery pack)Transmissions, F/R: continuously variable/direct-drive 
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT235/45R-18 94V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.2 inLength: 193.5 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3746 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.9 sec1/4-Mile: 15.2 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.0 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 170 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
600-Mile Trip: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 39 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 500 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 46/46/46 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