Car Reviews

From the September 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Was any car more ahead of its time than the Lamborghini LM002? In its day, the LM002 was a freak, an epic miscalculation by a brand that really couldn’t afford a dud. Now it looks like clairvoyance: the original exotic luxury SUV, two or three decades too early. Today almost every sports-car company builds a six-figure overpowered utility vehicle, and even the LM002’s odd-for-its-day form—four-door, short-bed pickup truck—is the default body style for America’s most popular mode of transportation. The LM002 didn’t just predict the Bentley Bentayga and the Ferrari Purosangue; it was a harbinger of the fleet of 400-plus-horsepower crew-cab pickups that are now considered practical family transportation across the land. It should have been an instant hit, the LM002. To try to find out why it wasn’t, we traveled to Lamborghini’s headquarters in Sant’Agata Bolognese to drive a 1989 LM002 alongside its spiritual successor, the 2023 Urus Performante.Over a production run that spanned 1986 to 1992, Lamborghini built just 300 LM002s. The model was such a tough sell that we know of one customer in Florida who was told by a dealer in 1988 that he could only buy a 25th Anniversary Edition Countach if he also took an LM002 off their hands. (To his credit, he took them up on that.) These days the LM002 is so rare that to arrange a drive, Lamborghini itself must borrow one from a private owner. This aquamarine example was commissioned by the late Japanese real-estate magnate Akira Akagi, whose company, Leyton House, fielded a 1990s Formula 1 team with cars wearing the same-colored livery. It’s an outrageous hue for an outrageous truck, one powered by a 5.2-liter Countach V-12 tuned for 444 horsepower and adapted for off-road duty. The LM002’s air intakes are routed through twin cyclonic air filters that might’ve been pilfered from some kind of Caterpillar earth-moving equipment (they’re the correct shade of yellow), while the six Weber carburetors live in a sealed aluminum sarcophagus and are adjusted by remote screws—laparoscopic surgery for air-fuel mixtures. Lamborghini says an LM002 makes less power than its Countach contemporaries thanks to the restrictive intake, a longer exhaust, and a tune that allows for the grubbiest 87-octane fuel one might find in a desert battle theater. On that front, the electrical system includes auxiliary plugs to power military equipment such as radios out in the field.The fact that Lamborghini envisioned the LM002 as a military vehicle rather than the be-all and end-all of consumer four-by-fours is one of the great misreads in product-planning history. In the U.S., political optics dictate that we replace the Mercedes-Benz badge on humble Metris postal vans, so imagine the blowback if the Pentagon—or any other government worldwide—announced that the taxpayers were funding V-12 Lamborghinis for the armed forces. In its day, even the most brazen of oil-soaked oligarchs took a gander at the LM and said, “It’s a little much.”Charlie Magee|Car and DriverCharlie Magee|Car and DriverPark the LM002 alongside the Urus Performante, and you can see how priorities have shifted. The LM002 was a towering truck that happened to deliver credible on-road performance—in 1987, we clocked one at 7.7 seconds to 60 mph, which was preposterously quick back when a Range Rover needed almost twice that much time. The Urus Performante is more like an extremely high-functioning sport wagon that’s happy on a racetrack but can handle dirt when the occasion arises. It trades the height-adjustable air springs of the Urus S for ground-hugging steel springs (and a 0.8-inch-lower ride height) and gains a tail-happy Rally mode for its stability-control and other software. With its twin-turbocharged 4.0-liter V-8 mustering 657 horsepower, the Performante explodes to 60 mph in 3.0 seconds. By the time it’s dispatched the quarter-mile—in 11.2 seconds at 122 mph—the Urus is traveling faster than the LM002 ever went. Lamborghini claimed a 130-mph top speed for the LM002, but the best we managed in 1987 was a doubtlessly still thrilling 118 mph.To compare the Urus with its flamboyant predecessor, we head to the hills and trails outside Sant’Agata to find some dirt. On Italian back roads, the LM002 feels dauntingly gigantic, and it is—just look at those tires, sized 345/60VR-17. Their preposterous width was a boon for dune running, and the spare tire on the back of this one is an original sand tire, with a broad lip around the bead to increase the footprint even more when it’s aired down. (Lamborghini being Lamborghini, aesthetics surely guided the tire size, and the comic-book donuts look cool as hell.) The LM is tall and heavy and intimidating enough behind the wheel, so imagine what it looks like from the viewpoint of an oncoming Fiat Panda. But Italians recognize a national treasure when they see it, and other drivers don’t so much yield as genuflect. Among all the weightiness of the controls—steering and throttle linkage and brake pedal—the five-speed manual shifter is surprisingly delicate and buttery in its movements. The shift lever looks like it’s wearing a leather corset, laced up along the back, making for a saucy juxtaposition with the winch controls, which reside immediately behind the shifter on the dash. (This truck doesn’t have a winch, and even Lamborghini is no longer sure which model winch is correct for an LM002.) The power windows work flawlessly, which is fortunate because the air conditioning doesn’t work at all. It possibly never did. Given the overall insanity of the thing, it’s easy to forget that the LM002 is actually practical in a lot of ways. Like the Urus, it has four doors and back seats. Unlike the Urus, it seats six. The asterisk on that stat is that the two rearmost perches are alfresco, facing each other across the stumpy pickup bed—the world’s fanciest Subaru BRAT. This is a strictly four-passenger example, the bed filled by a fitted trunk upholstered in red carpeting. You access the bed via one of the stranger tailgates in truck history, with the entire midsection of the rear end—everything between the taillights—folding down to the ground and forming a diamond-patterned step that rests on the now-horizontal spare tire. Opening all of it up is a bit of a process, but surely you would have people for that.Charlie Magee|Car and DriverCharlie Magee|Car and DriverThanks to its impregnable intake plumbing, the LM002’s V-12 is relatively hushed, with the dual exhaust’s crispy cackle dominating the soundtrack. The powerplant is so quiet and torquey that it’s easy to forget this is a Countach engine, designed to rev. Peak power arrives at 6800 rpm—50 rpm higher than the Urus’s redline. Somehow pushing it that hard feels wrong. Not because this LM002 is old and valuable, but because of the cognitive dissonance of winding out to nearly 7000 rpm in a vehicle with manually locking front hubs.A special toothed wrench engages those eight-lug hubs, but once we’re up in the hills, it’s apparent that the LM002 can go anywhere a Urus Performante can go without even engaging four-wheel drive. We venture onto dirt roads that feature the occasional washout and plenty of hikers who initially look annoyed to hear approaching traffic, then appear pleasantly bemused when they realize they’re being overtaken by a pair of Lamborghinis. Honey, you’re never going to believe what I saw in the woods today.Picking its way down along a dry riverbed, the LM002 requires little forethought—you just think “I wanna go over there!” and then aim those 33-inch tires in whichever direction you please. The Urus, with its no-profile Pirellis, can play along, but you’re constantly running mental calculations on ground clearance and sidewall exposure to rocks. Back up on the road, the roles are reversed, and the Urus driver must heed the LM002’s pace. The Urus Performante has a chassis to match its ridiculous thrust, pulling 1.04 g’s on the skidpad and hauling down from 70 mph to a stop in 152 feet. With moves like that, it’s easy to turn the LM002 into a small turquoise dot in the rearview mirror. Both machines are authentically Lamborghini—extroverted and loud and hyperbolic—but are aimed in different directions. The LM002 would’ve been a direct hit, if its target hadn’t been decades beyond the horizon.More Lamborghini ReviewsBut who could’ve predicted a hugely popular onslaught of exotic SUVs? Well, us, actually. “We would wager that there is a stronger world demand for these monsters than one might suspect,” Brock Yates wrote in the October 1987 issue, going on to posit that Lamborghini could probably sell more of the SUVs than it does cars. In fact, last year the Urus accounted for 58 percent of Lamborghini’s overall worldwide sales, the triumph of the weirdo off-roader. You can never know what the future holds, but if school drop-off lines 30 years from now are filled with Huracán Sterrato look-alikes, remember that you heard it here first.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1987 Lamborghini LM002Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICEAs Tested (C/D est, 1987): $120,000
ENGINEDOHC 48-valve V-12, aluminum block and headsDisplacement: 315 in3, 5167 cm3Power: 444 hp @ 6800 rpmTorque: 368 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 192.9 inWidth: 78.7 inHeight: 72.8 inCurb Weight: 6780 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 16.0 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 22.8 secAcceleration times adhere to our old 3-mph rollout method.Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 9.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.8 secTop Speed (redline ltd): 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 203 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 8 mpg
— 
2023 Lamborghini Urus PerformanteVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $265,971/$338,770
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 657 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 627 lb-ft @ 2300 rpm 
TRANSMISSION8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 118.3 inLength: 202.2 inWidth: 79.8 inHeight: 63.7 inCurb Weight: 4986 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.0 sec100 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 11.2 sec @ 122 mph130 mph: 13.1 sec150 mph: 20.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 190 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 152 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 296 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.04 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/14/19 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED  Senior EditorEzra Dyer is a Car and Driver senior editor and columnist. He’s now based in North Carolina but still remembers how to turn right. He owns a 2009 GEM e4 and once drove 206 mph. Those facts are mutually exclusive. More

From the March 1999 issue of Car and Driver.Our last official visit with a Pontiac Bonneville wasn’t memorable. It was grim, even. It was part of the mas­sive 10-car “Salt-of-the-Earth Sedans” comparison test in June 1998. The Bonneville took on such flashy newcomers as the Oldsmobile Intrigue, the Dodge Intrepid, the Honda Accord, the Toyota Camry, and the eventual winner, the Volkswagen Passat. The ’98 Bonneville SE found few friends among the test drivers. Criticisms like “mushy-feeling” and “wallows around” and “spongy” peppered the brief six-paragraph account, which ended with this: “In its seventh year, the Bonneville is the oldest car in this group by three years, and it shows.” The Bonneville finished 10th of 10 cars. A subsequent drive of a ’99 Bonneville showed no improvement over the 1998 model—it was, after all, simply one year older. The people at Pontiac took this criticism to heart. Frankly, they weren’t surprised. They were well aware that a new Bonneville was on the way. And when they offered us an exclusive drive in the 2000 Bonneville, we took that as an indication they had confidence in the new car. That confidence was well founded. The current Bonneville—spiritually, anyway—traces it roots to the new-for-1987 model. On a platform shared with the Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Delta 88, the 1987 Bonneville SE was powered by a 150-horse­power version of the 3.8-liter pushrod V-6. It was a single-mindedly sporty sedan, clearly targeting the Europeans and, in some aspects, hitting the mark: The interior was “the closet thing to a BMW’s this side of the Black Forest,” we wrote, proclaiming the Bonneville as one of our 10Best cars for 1987. The fol­lowing year, a sportier SSE model was introduced, setting the tone for the top-of-the-line Bonneville that continues today. The Bonneville was redesigned for 1992, and again, we sin­gled out the performance model as our favorite. The SSEi kept the 3.8-liter V-6, but a supercharger bumped horsepower from the standard 170 to 205. The package was completed with boy-­racer pseudo-ground effects, Z-rated tires, electronic ride con­trol, and dual airbags—the 1992 Bonneville SSEi was the first GM car to have both driver and passenger airbags. Not a lot has happened since. The 3.8-liter perseveres—­horsepower is up to 205 on the standard engine and is 240 for the supercharged model, but other changes to the Bonneville since 1992 have been so minor and evolu­tionary that newer models from the com­petition promptly passed it by. Enter, then, the 2000 Bonneville. It’s based on the same platform as the new Buick LeSabre (C/D, January 1999)—which will be introduced before the 2000 Bonneville’s October on-sale date—and the Oldsmobile Aurora, which will be introduced after that. The Bonneville is, GM tells us, by far the most performance-­minded application of this G-platform.The Bonneville’s wheelbase is consid­erably longer—112.2 inches, up from 110.8. The track was widened by two inches. The body is slightly longer overall, and it’s 0.3 inch taller. The wheels were moved out to the corners of the car, contributing to a more aggressive appearance. The rake of the windshield is a swoopy 64 degrees, compared with the 1999 model’s almost upright 58 degrees. There’s a bit of the tapered Coke­-bottle shape to the sides, shared with the Grand Prix, giving the profile a sense of family within the Pontiac brand that’s long been absent from the Bonneville. There will be three models: the base SE, destined largely for fleet sales; the more upmarket SLE; and the SSEi, the top of the line. Pontiac has departed somewhat from the previous mar­keting strategy that offered the Bonneville SSE to customers who wanted the sporty looks but the base engine; those who wanted more horsepower got the supercharger and SSEi badging. Now, the sporty look comes only on the SSEi, and the supercharger is strictly an option. That could confuse current Bonneville owners—the car does, after all, enjoy a surprisingly healthy 35-percent customer repurchase rate—as well as insurance companies, which may assume that because it’s an SSEi it must be supercharged. The base SE, which will likely account for about 70 percent of the 80,000 Bonne­villes that Pontiac hopes to sell in 2000 (up about 20,000 from 1999), is nonetheless a handsome, well-appointed car. Power comes from a 205-hp, 3.8-liter V-6. Sixteen-inch tires and wheels are standard, as are driving lights, a good AM/FM/cassette stereo with a compact-disc player, steering-wheel-mounted audio controls, a tire-pressure monitor, front and side airbags, and four-wheel disc brakes, a first for the Bonneville. That car should start at about $24,000—a very competitive price. The supercharged SSEi we drove is at the other end of the spectrum—loaded, it should list for about $34,000, a modest increase over a comparably equipped 1999 model. (We expect the supercharger option to cost about $1200.) And “loaded” it was, lacking only heated seats and a sunroof from being a check-every-box example. Carryover parts from the current car are few—even the venerable 3.8-liter V-6 has undergone some fairly extensive changes, including a new harmonic balancer, power-steering pump, alternator, transmission-oil pump, and induction and air-cleaner system. The Bonneville’s battery was moved to beneath the rear seat, which improves battery life (a more controlled temperature, less exposure to the elements), gets weight off the nose of the car, and allows for better underhood packaging. There is also a clearly marked junction box underhood for jumper-cable hookup. The Bonneville shares quite a few parts with the Cadillac Seville, especially in the suspension, which has struts up front and semi-trailing arms in the rear. The mounts and bushings are tuned differently on each of the Bonneville models, with the SSEi getting the most aggressive settings, as well as different valving for the struts, a 30-millimeter hollow anti-roll bar up front (larger than on the SE), and the addition of a 20-millimeter anti-roll bar in the rear (which the SE lacks altogether). The 17-inch tires and wheels on the upscale Bonnevilles allow for slightly bigger brakes. The top speed is governed at 130 mph and limited by the H rating of the Goodyear radials.Inside, the current Bonneville’s busy dash and controls have been refined and much improved. The SSEi carries over the helpful head-up display (HUD), which can show speed, turn-signal operation, and radio frequency if desired. That—coupled with the audio controls mounted on the fat, leather-covered steering wheel—means there is little reason for the driver’s eyes to leave the road, a much-underrated safety feature. You can extinguish the HUD altogether or dim it to the point that it is readable but never intrusive. Unfortu­nately, it—like the rest of the instru­ments—is illuminated with Pontiac’s garish trademark orange-red light, which looks increasingly dated. The leather-covered front seats are comfortable and multi-adjustable, but they lack side support. The front belts are seat­-mounted, a vast improvement over the cur­rent car. The rear seats are more than ade­quate for a six-footer, and ingress and egress are painless. The 150-watt Delco/Bose eight-speaker stereo is as good as any on the market; our car had a compact-disc player in the dash, in addition to a 12-disc changer mounted in the trunk. Pontiac has, as before, packed plenty of bells and whistles into the Bonneville SSEi. If it can be accomplished electroni­cally—be it a small travel computer, speed-compensated radio volume, or heated mirrors—it’s likely part of the package. There are three power outlets—one by the ashtray, one in the rear of the console for back-seat passengers, and one in the roof, although that one disappears if the optional sunroof is ordered. Rear seats have thoughtful tethers for child seats built into the package shelf. In the trunk, there’s an emergency kit with a rain suit, a first-­aid kit, gloves, a light, a snow scraper, and an air hose connected to a small com­pressor. On the road, it’s immediately apparent that this is a new, improved car. That 3.8-liter pushrod V-6 may be a veteran, but it’s smooth and torquey, and when it’s super­charged, it’s quick. Pontiac says the 0-to-60-mph time should be 7.1 seconds, con­firmed by an impromptu run with a stopwatch. Throttle tip-in is excellent, and on mountain roads in Arizona, the four­-speed automatic transmission shifted up and down at all the right times. Previous experience with the magnetic variable-­assist power steering has drawn mixed reviews, but in the SSEi, it felt linear and natural. The brakes are firm and progres­sive—again, a departure from the mushy feel of the current car—and there was little nosedive during panic stops. The exhaust note is pleasant—the SSEi has two muf­flers, fed through one catalytic converter. More Pontiac Reviews From the ArchivePontiac has adapted most of Cadillac’s StabiliTrak system, leaving out the pave­ment-texture compensator, and borrowed Cadillac’s old name: Integrated Chassis Control System (ICCS). Yaw sensors, wheel sensors, a lateral accelerometer, and a steering-angle sensor feed information to the traction-control system that can, among other things, help steer the car during skids using the brakes. The ICCS is seamless, even during spirited driving. Like the 1987 Bonneville, the 2000 model is theoretically targeted at the Europeans, such as the BMW 5-series and the Audi A6. More realistically, the direct competition is the Chrysler 300M. (When Ford dropped the Taurus SHO, it pretty much abandoned the $30,000 sports-sedan market.) We like the 300M—a 10Best car for 1999—and we like the 2000 Bonneville SSEi. We’re certain that’s a comparison test Pontiac awaits with anticipation.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2000 Pontiac Bonneville SSEiVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICEBase (est.): $24,000–$31000
ENGINEpushrod 12-valve 3.8-liter V-6, 205 hp, 230 lb-ft; supercharged pushrod 12-valve 3.8-liter V-6, 240 hp, 280 lb-ft 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 202.6 inWidth: 73.8 inHeight: 56.0 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 3750–3950 lb
MANUFACTURER’S PERFORMANCE RATINGS (SUPERCHARGED)
60 mph: 7.1 secTop Speed (governor limited): 130 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 18/27 mpg  More

For Mazda, the CX-90 marks several major departures. Its longitudinal-engine, rear-wheel-drive architecture is an about-face from all the brand’s current products save for the Miata, and both of its powertrains are Mazda firsts: a turbocharged inline-six and a plug-in-hybrid four-cylinder. The CX-90 comes in a host of configurations, and generally speaking, the plug-in hybrid costs more than the turbo six, although that depends on the trim level. Is the plug-in worth it? First, some facts and figures. The plug-in-hybrid powertrain combines a 2.5-liter four with an electric motor and an eight-speed automatic. It puts out a total of 323 horsepower, landing it just shy of the turbo six’s 340-hp in its higher state of tune but well ahead of the 280-hp base version. Like either turbo six, the PHEV uses an eight-speed automatic with a wet clutch rather than a torque converter, and it makes an identical 369 pound-feet of torque to the non-base six. The PHEV also adds a battery with an estimated 14.8 kWh of usable energy capacity to feed the electric side of the powertrain. Despite the battery’s size, the CX-90 PHEV doesn’t qualify for the $7500 Federal tax credit due to its assembly in Japan. Mazda evidently sees the PHEV as the middle-of-the-lineup offering, and in Premium Plus trim it’s priced at $4000 more than the base I-6 and $3000 less than the Turbo S. Our plug-in Premium Plus test car wore a $58,920 sticker price.Predictably, the PHEV’s extra hardware adds weight. The all-wheel-drive Premium Plus plug-in crushed our scales to the tune of 5236 pounds, some 350 more than a similarly spec’d CX-90 turbo six. For the most part, though, the gas-electric CX-90 shrugs off the extra mass. The PHEV reaches 60 mph in 5.9 seconds, beating its 340-hp six-cylinder sibling by 0.4 second. (We haven’t tested the 280-hp version.) In the quarter-mile, the plug-in again noses ahead, crossing the mark after 14.5 seconds at 97 mph, versus 14.7 at 99 mph for the I-6. With the electric motor’s ready torque (199 pound-feet at 400 rpm), the PHEV’s advantage is more pronounced in the suburban slog—accelerating from 30 to 50 mph takes 2.7 seconds to the I-6’s 3.6 clicks. Out on the highway, where the PHEV leans more heavily on its four-banger, the I-6 pulls close to even with a 4.5-second 50-to-70-mph time to the PHEV’s 4.4-second showing. One arena where the I-6 holds a clear advantage: towing, with the six-cylinder good for a 5000-pound max rating compared to the PHEV’s 3500 pounds.HIGHS: Quicker than the turbo six, useful EV range, quick recharging.The plug-in-hybrid powertrain isn’t as polished as the conventional one either. At ultra-low speeds, there’s often a bit of a stutter when tipping into or out of the throttle, and there’s a faint engine moan at times. The four-banger doesn’t sound great when giving its all, but the PHEV overall is quieter than the six-cylinder under acceleration or when cruising. Of course, the plug-in hybrid also can be driven solely on battery power, relying on the 173-hp electric motor for propulsion. The EPA-estimated EV range is 25 miles, and we got 26 miles at 75 mph in our testing. But it takes a feather foot on the accelerator to keep from waking the engine. The EPA estimates that once the battery is drained, the CX-90 PHEV will average 25 mpg, same as the six-cylinder. So, unless you’re diligent about plugging in, you might not see much fuel-economy benefit over the I-6. However, plugging in recharges the battery quickly (just over two hours) thanks to a robust 7.2-kW onboard charger, and there’s also a button on the console that allows the drive battery to be recharged on the move by the engine, up to a selected percentage or fully.There are two settings for the regenerative braking, Normal and High, though the difference is barely discernible. Switching between them requires delving into the on-screen settings menu, but presumably, a driver would set their preference once and then not bother with it again. Either way, the brakes are grabby at low speeds, but stopping from 70 mph took 166 feet, an excellent result. LOWS: Some powertrain missteps, marginal third row, steering falls short of the Mazda norm.The steering isn’t up to Mazda’s usual standards as on, say, the CX-5. The somewhat high effort levels feel mostly like friction in the system rather than the natural loading of effort with cornering forces. And whereas the CX-5 feels nimble for its size, the CX-90 mostly just feels its size, with solid handling and 0.83 g of lateral grip on our skidpad. The ride is firm, but bump isolation is good, and the vehicle structure feels stout.In the Premium Plus trim level, the CX-90 comes with a panoply of driver assists. They include a cross-traffic alert that works in the forward direction as well as when reversing. Unfortunately, we found it to be overly alarmist; similarly, on multi-lane highways, the blind-spot monitoring often hyperventilated when there was a car one lane over from the one we were entering. We were more impressed with the 360-degree-view camera, which is also part of the Premium Plus equipment. It can show two views at once, and the images are among the sharpest we’ve seen.The CX-90 has upscale ambitions. Our test car’s all-black color scheme wasn’t the most flattering, but most of the cabin’s surfaces are nicely padded, and the patterned silver trim likely would hide scratches better than gloss black. The Premium Plus also includes screen-based instrumentation, and the digital instrument cluster includes two fuel gauges, one for the gas tank and one for the battery. There are also readouts showing the estimated EV range and total range in miles. The shifter has a somewhat odd pattern, with Park up and to the left and Reverse-Neutral-Drive in their traditional arrangement. An unfamiliar driver could think they were putting the transmission in Park and end up in Reverse.Related StoriesOur car had captain’s chairs in the second row, which were somewhat lacking in under-thigh support but otherwise okay, although the second row isn’t as spacious as some rivals—say, the Chevrolet Traverse, the Kia Telluride, or the Volkswagen Atlas. That’s true also for the third row, which rather optimistically has seatbelts for three. Headroom and legroom are tolerable back there, but even middle-schoolers may have trouble wedging their sneakers into the footwells unless the second-row denizens scoot their seats forward. Similarly, luggage space behind the third row isn’t as good as some competitors.VERDICT: Better than its sibling objectively but still could use a bit of polish.Some compromise to interior space is the price you pay for the swept-back proportions of the Mazda’s longitudinally mounted powertrain, a layout that mimics many luxury SUVs. The Mazda’s plug-in-hybrid powertrain may not be as refined as those rivals, but its performance is every bit as good or better than its six-cylinder sibling.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mazda CX-90 PHEV Premium PlusVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $58,325/$58,920Options: Rhodium White paint, $595
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter inline-4, 189 hp, 192 lb-ft + AC motor, 173 hp, 199 lb-ft (combined output: 323 hp, 369 lb-ft; 14.8-kWh [C/D est] lithium-ion battery pack; 7.2-kW onboard charger)Transmission: 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.7-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Falken Ziex CT60A A/S275/45R-21 110W M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 122.8 inLength: 200.8 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 68.2 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 57/51/33 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 74/40/15 ft3Curb Weight: 5236 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.9 sec100 mph: 15.4 sec1/4-Mile: 14.5 sec @ 97 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 26 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving, EV/Hybrid Mode: 57 MPGe/28 mpg75-mph Highway Range, EV/Hybrid mode: 26/510 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 25/24/27 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 56 MPGeEV Range: 25 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDeputy Editor, Reviews and FeaturesJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

From the July 1994 issue of Car and Driver.If we can believe our handsomely paid demographics consultants, then most of you reading this were children sometime between the mid-1950s and the early 1970s. And if our probability and statistics calculations are correct, then a rather large number of you spent some of your formative years relegated to the back seat of a station wagon. You might even have learned to drive in the Family Truckster, perhaps decorating it with a battle scar or two in the process.Advertising of that bygone era glamorized the station wagon as the key to a life of blissful leisure for the All-American family. Ozzie clones lined up to buy wagons despite their high sticker prices (the wagon was often the priciest model in a series, even costing more than the convertible). A wagon was the perfect vehicle for hauling paneling or shrubbery back to the suburban homestead or for camping, fishing, and cross-country vacations.As these pursuits grew in popularity during the decade after WWII, wagon sales exploded, from 1 percent of the market in 1946 to a peak of 17 percent and nearly a million units in 1959. By the late Sixties, burgeoning sales of light trucks and big vans dropped the wagon’s market share to below 10 percent. The hefty fuel price hikes of the Seventies dealt full-sized station wagons another blow. And the birth of the minivan halved the wagon’s share again.Today, minivans have a lock on 8 percent of the total vehicle market, hauling kids, plywood, and stuff that families used to carry in station wagons. In many ways, the minivan is better suited to these tasks. Tall, upright packaging allows an equal or greater number of people and things to fit into a smaller and lighter vehicle. Parents can commute between the front and rear seats to settle the occasional border skirmish or wipe an ice-cream-stained face. And minivans provide superb visibility over traffic.Minivan manufacturers like to talk about how “carlike” their vehicles ride and handle. But when it comes right down to it, minivans feel about as much like cars as tempeh tastes like hamburger or Sharp’s tastes like beer. Station wagons feel more like cars because they are cars, plain and simple.Having tested the minivan field several times since our last station wagon comparison, we were eager to experience the ride and handling benefits of wagons and to weigh them against space and comfort concessions. And those of us who grew up crisscrossing the country on station-wagon vacations were curious to find out how the current crop of wagons compare with our fond recollections, and whether those glamorizing ad slogans might still apply.We selected six well-equipped and reasonably stylish or sporting wagons priced in the low-to-mid-$20,000s. Then we loaded them with camping, hiking, and boating paraphernalia for a working vacation in the Hocking Hills region of southern Ohio. Here’s how they fared.6th Place: Mitsubishi DiamanteThe Diamante entered this competi­tion with a serious price handicap. Its double-take base price of $26,790 is well above all the other cars’ as-tested prices. The difference can be traced to the Diamante’s Australian pedigree, not to an abundance of standard equipment. Our car stickered at nearly $30,000 with leather upholstery, so we instructed edi­tors to overlook the leather and assess it as if it were the $27,662 cloth car. It still ranked last in value. HIGHS: Beautiful and smooth, inside and out.LOWS: High price, low power, legs of Jell-O.VERDICT: The turnpike cruiser of the bunch.In ride and handling, the Mitsubishi perhaps most closely approximates our recollection of the old family wagon. An unsophisticated rigid-axle rear suspension and soft damping result in the best boule­vard ride but the most flaccid handling. Oodles of bushing compliance and over­boosted steering assist give the Dia­mante a squirmy, non-linear turn-in that leads to big understeer. At 3704 pounds, the Diamante is also the heaviest wagon here, and its syrupy smooth 175-horse V-6 struggles to provide modest performance. The Dia­mante finished last in nearly every accel­eration test, and we fear that when bur­dened with family and gear, its limited passing power would imprison this wagon behind Winnebagos and semis on twisty, hilly two-lane highways. On the upside, the Diamante looks beautiful inside and out. It offers the richest interior, good ergonomics, and comfortable seats front and rear. Rear­-seat occupants get a wide center arm­rest, an adjustable backrest, and read­ing lamps—all of which should keep the whining and fighting to a minimum. The box in back of this wagon earns high marks for its broad, low load floor and 48-inch-wide hatch opening. With just 45 inches between the wheel wells, sheets of plywood and paneling will rest on a slight angle, but they will slide into the Diamante better than into any of the other wagons.1994 Mitsubishi Diamante175-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3704 lbBase/as-tested price: $26,790/$27,662Passenger volume, behind F/R: 54/44 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 37/72 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.6 sec1/4-mile: 17.9 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 31.1 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 g C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg5th Place: Mercury Sable LS Ford was the number-one seller of wagons for years, and the Taurus and Sable lead the market today by a wide margin. It should therefore come as no surprise that this Sable handles wagoning tasks the best. It carries the most people (eight), and it has the most space inside. Thoughtful touches abound, like a rear window that can be opened without opening the hatch and a net to keep parcels contained in the back of the wagon. HIGHS: Space for eight people or 83 cubic feet of stuff.LOWS: Dull chassis dynamics, uncomfortable seats.VERDICT: Counters the Windstar as the most minivan-like car.We strongly recommend the $150 optional rear-facing third seat, even if you never plan on sentencing anyone to sit back there (padding is almost nil; ditto for head, leg, and hip room). The beauty of this option is that it moves the spare tire out from under the deck and puts it in an otherwise useless space on the side of the cargo area. This leaves lots of space in the well beneath the tiny third-­seat cushions for stowing gear. It also makes the spare easier to get at when the cargo bay is loaded. The Sable’s luggage rack wins big points with its tie-down hooks and accessory-mounting points. The Sable imitates a minivan quite well. Unfortunately, its impression of a spry sedan isn’t as convincing. From the moment the driver climbs in, a high cowl, smallish windows, and flat unsupportive bench seats seem to whisper the message, “Easy in the turns fella’, yer drivin’ a big car.” If unheeded, the sentiment is re­emphasized by squealing from the tires. From the logbook: “Steering is mushy and turn-in sluggish,” and “Lots o’ tire squeal. Even the platform seems to groan when you load it hard in cor­ners—good ride though.” With the loosest grip on the skidpad, the longest braking distance from 70 mph, and a somewhat groany V-6 engine that managed only midpack numbers, the Sable ranked second to last in the fun-to-drive and handling categories. Its last-place ratings in driver and rear-seat comfort helped seal its fifth-place finish.1994 Mercury Sable LS140-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3489 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,645/$22,835Passenger volume, behind F/R/3rd: 53/47/28 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 38/83 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.6 sec1/4-mile: 17.3 sec @ 78 mph100 mph: 33.1 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 197 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg4th Place: Subaru Legacy Touring Take everything we’ve said about the Diamante and Sable and reverse it 180 degrees and you just about have our take on the Subaru. This featherweight flyer carves up twisty roads far more eagerly than any other wagon in the bunch. Its four driven tires cling to the road tenaciously, the fronts passing every byte of surface information right from the contact patches to the driver through a perfectly weighted steering system. HIGHS: Brass and spunky drivetrain, fly-paper traction and handling.LOWS: Flexy body, buzzy engine, fade-prone brakes.VERDICT: The best wagon for carving up a mountain road—if the family can hang on.A turbocharged and intercooled flat-four and a close-ratio four-speed automatic add to the fun in low-speed point-and-squirt running. The turbo spools up quickly through short final-drive gear­ing to provide terrific thrust. The Legacy bolts away from the pack up to about 60 mph. As speed builds, this lit­tle motor begins to pant pretty hard, however, and just past the quarter-mile, the Camry and Passat power past it. And that performance has its costs—the Legacy managed only 18 mpg over our 700-mile trip.A few testers commented on the spongy feel of the Legacy’s brake pedal, but by and large, the entries were glowing. “This is the Eagle Talon TSi of the bunch,” raved one. “I prefer the compact feel of this smaller wagon on winding roads,” said another. Alas, as a wagon, the Legacy comes up somewhat short. Back-seat comfort suffers from a lack of head and shoulder room. The cargo area, while relatively large, is not as useful as some others. The rear seats don’t fold flat, there are no tie-down hooks, and there isn’t much concealed storage space. The small luggage rack lacks mounting hardware for aftermarket rack accessories. The Legacy Touring wagon comes very well equipped, with a glass sunroof, a CD player, and power every­thing. But it feels like a less substantial car than its com­petitors, due to abundant body flex and a rather cheap-sound­ing engine. And even though it has a driver’s airbag, the Legacy still has motorized seat­belts—an absolute no-buy for many of us. Several of our complaints will likely be resolved in the new-for-’95 Legacy due later this year. In the meantime, despite its eagerness to play, the Legacy’s aversion to work restricted it to fourth place.1994 Subaru Legacy Touring160-hp flat-4, 4-speed automatic, 3240 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,645/$23,778Passenger volume, behind F/R: 50/40 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 36/71 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-mile: 16.4 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 27.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg3rd Place: Honda Accord EX The Accord wagon was unanimously awarded the honor of “most sedan-like wagon,” thanks in large part to a cargo box that adds only 90 pounds and pre­serves the superb handling dynamics of Honda’s sophisticated control-arm and multilink suspension. Unfortunately, cargo space is similarly sedan-like. The wagon’s short rear overhang and stylish but steeply raked back window give it between 8 and 15 fewer cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat than any of the gathered competitors have.HIGHS: Superb driving position, slick and precise mechanicals.LOWS: Lacks power, cargo space, and joie de vivre.VERDICT: The most sedan-like wagon.Our Accord was the only wagon in this train without some type of luggage rack. Honda offers a dealer-installed unit similar in style and function to the Sable’s rack, priced at $499. Also available are an enclosed luggage basket, a bike rack, and a ski rack; all can be mounted on the lug­gage rack. We strongly recommend the rack and basket for anyone contemplating a cross-country jaunt with a family of four. What the Accord’s interior lacks in quantity, it makes up for in typical Honda quality. Drivers of all sizes praised the superb seating position, control relationships, and visibility out of the cockpit. “All the buttons and knobs are nicely placed and easy to reach and understand,” one of us noted.Up in the Hocking Hills, the Accord never threatened to wag its wagon tail, even at the limits of adhesion. But those limits are relatively modest, as noted by a native Ohioan editor: “Great steering on the twisty stuff, very composed at nine­-tenths, but could use more aggressive tires.” The Accord could also use some aggression therapy in the engine room, as its smooth-running 2.2-liter VTEC four­-cylinder was the smallest and least torquey motor of the bunch. A 3186-pound curb weight and short gearing kept the Honda running with the pack from 0 to 60. Otherwise, the Accord goes about its busi­ness with a mild-mannered meekness that may help it inherit the earth but earned it only a third-place finish.1994 Honda Accord EX145-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3186 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,850/$21,937Passenger volume, behind F/R: 53/39 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 26/68 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.6 sec1/4-mile: 17.4 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 34.8 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 188 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.74 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg2nd Place: Toyota Camry LE Remember the smarmy goody-two-shoes kid in class that always did everything right? In this class, the Camry is that kid. It will carry virtually anything the Sable can, including a couple of ankle-biters facing back­ward in the back. The Camry’s optional $315 rear-facing third seat offers slightly less head and leg room than the Sable’s, but the underdeck storage still justifies the option. Passengers in the Camry’s third seat get shoulder belts and an inside latch (with a child-protection lock) to let them­selves out. Toyota provides the longest and best-equipped luggage rack for bolting or lashing on skis, boats, and gear.HIGHS: Best engine, best passenger space, best build quality.LOWS: No-thanks styling, isolated and unengaging as a driver’s car.VERDICT: In purely quantitative terms, this one would win.Even at the track, the Camry is a Dudley Doright. With the most pow­erful engine of the group, it turned in the best quarter-mile (16.4 sec­onds at 85 mph), the highest top speed (126 mph), the best brak­ing from 70 mph (174 feet), and it tied for the best skidpad grip (0.78 g). But perhaps because of the smug, silent, and isolated way the Camry generates these numbers, the driver doesn’t seem to enjoy generating them here as much as in some other cars.Out on the road, most editors agreed with this comment: “This car feels as good pushed to high limits as it does in the 7-Eleven lot—classy.” But they also agreed with the observation that “the homely styling and interior trim and the dull steer­ing remove most of what you could call sportiness—I prefer the VW in the hills.”And so it went with the voting. The valedictorian didn’t win the popularity contest. The Camry excels at all the right­-brain activities, but it kind of lets the left brain atrophy.1994 Toyota Camry LE188-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3505 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,303/$25,398Passenger volume, behind F/R/3rd: 56/44/23 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 41/75 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-mile: 16.4 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 24.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg1st Place: Volkswagen Passat GLXSometimes the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts, and that’s the secret of this Passat. Simply put, this one pushed all our buttons. VW revised this year’s Passat significantly and fixed our biggest gripe by fitting airbags and adjustable shoulder belts with auto­matic pretensioning in place of the long-dreaded motor-mouse belts. The driver’s bag lives in an attractive new four-spoke steering wheel. The passenger bag occupies what was the glove compart­ment, leaving little storage space up front.The Passat’s taut Euro­pean suspension traverses North Ameri­can potholes and expansion joints more comfortably this year, thanks to new Goodyear Eagle GA tires. And new structural adhesives have beefed up body rigid­ity by 15 percent and reduced road noise substantially.HIGHS: Ardent chassis, remarkable space efficiency, superb cockpit.LOWS: Useless luggage rack, substantial price.VERDICT: The wagon that best appeals to all the senses.Finally, the controversial square pug nose of old has been freshened with a new grille and wraparound headlamps that present kind of a smug grin to the wind.Similar grins appeared on the faces of the editors after a short time behind that new airbag wheel. The Passat’s 172-horse VR6 does not generate class-leading num­bers, but it makes classy noises and keeps this tight nimble wagon ahead of the pack in the cut and thrust.With 0.78 g of grip and excellent roll control, the Passat was the quickest and smoothest car through both the mea­sured lane-change maneuver and the Ohio chicanes. “Doesn’t feel bulky. Great steering response and plenty of passing power,” said one tester. “Trans­mission snaps off downshifts like salutes,” noted another.Headroom and legroom abound both front and rear, and the seats are firm, well-shaped, and supportive. As in the Diamante, the rear seatbacks are adjustable. The Passat’s cargo bay is square and useful in shape, but just aver­age in size. Its “luggage rack” is just for show—accessory crossbars and lug­gage baskets are required to carry any­thing outside, and the rails create wind noise right next to the sunroof. In the end, our right brains were sat­isfied with the Passat in hard, cold, objective terms, and our left brains were smitten with its character and personal­ity. Hence, it wins by a nose. 1994 Volkswagen Passat GLX172-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3266 lbBase/as-tested price: $23,890/$24,765Passenger volume, behind F/R: 54/43 ft3Cargo volume, seats up/folded: 34/69 ft3C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.5 sec1/4-mile: 17.2 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 27.0 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpgConclusions? Unless your child­hood wagon memories are of a Chevy II, a Plymouth Valiant, or a Rambler American, these wagons are going to seem small. On a trip, a family of five or more will have to pack light, and three people sitting across any of these back seats will wish they were in a minivan. More Wagon Reviews From the ArchiveFood and gear for four people on a month-long cross-country trip fit easily in the back of the Markus family wagon (a ’69 Chevy Townsman) with nothing on the roof and room for a person to sleep in the cargo area. Today that kind of travel definitely requires a mini (or maxi) van. But many families of four would never dream of taking such extended vacations. They need not view the mini­van as a fundamental element of the family plan. Any of these six wagons, when equipped with a decent luggage rack, will carry a family of four to Dis­ney and tote shrubs and lumber with aplomb. If you need the space and carrying capacity, by all means look at a mini­van. But if you treasure driving plea­sure, you should definitely see if one of these moderately sized wagons can meet your needs. Your left brain will surely appreciate it. More

From the October 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Sitting still, the Porsche 911 GT3 RS looks absolutely feral. Unless your name is Shaq, that cliché line about the rear wing being a picnic table doesn’t track, because it’s too high off the ground. Lest you dismiss this quarter-million-dollar car as just another 911 in a long line of variants, know that there isn’t a single body panel shared with a standard Carrera. The carbon-fiber door skins necessitate actual door handles, not the pop-up flaps on a regular 911. This is every bit as wild a road car as the 1990s mid-engine Porsche GT1. And that car was built to win Le Mans. Although southeast Michigan has a Milan and there’s a London nearby, its roads are hardly those of Sarthe. We were expecting the bewinged RS to have a brutal on-road ride, but we’re able to report that the GT3 RS feels no firmer than a regular GT3 despite having roughly 50 percent stiffer spring rates. Some of that compliance may come from the softer carbon-fiber anti-roll bars—extra roll resistance isn’t needed when the suspension is so stiffly sprung. On the track, you’d never guess there’s softer anything. Once you dial in all the chassis settings [see “Play Station”] or even if you just leave them alone, the car’s limits are quite approachable. The wail of the 518-hp, 9000-rpm flat-six (our testing team insists it revs to only 8900) pierces straight through the carbon-fiber layers of an Arai helmet, but the engine is a puppy dog that just wants to run. The torque peak is at 6300 rpm, and it’s a relatively puny 342 pound-feet. Put all your trust in the seven-speed dual-clutch, and put your foot in it. Even if you’re off the pace, it feels fast. Overdrive it, and understeer reminds you you’re not that good—don’t blame the diff-lock position.Sure, there are lots of settings, and it’s easy to get lost moonlighting as a calibration engineer sifting through all of the possible suspension, differential, aero, and stability- and traction-control combinations. But it’s good to know that the end user really can’t set the car up wrong, according to Porsche GT boss Andreas Preuninger. A little more rebound damping on the rear axle may help the RS feel more planted bounding over curbing. Or, depending on the aggressiveness and angle of the concrete serrations, maybe less compression is what you want. It depends on the track and the driver. The point is, all of these settings allow the driver to tailor the feel of the GT3 RS in a way no other car has ever offered.The GT3 RS is 30 pounds lighter than a similar-spec GT3. But at 124 mph, the RS gains roughly 900 pounds (that’s the downforce number most will exploit). At top speed, which is 177 mph in the high-downforce setting (the low-downforce DRS mode will allow it to do 183), the load on the GT3 RS’s tires is nearly 1900 pounds more than when it’s sitting still. That’s a lot of aero stick. Funny enough, at triple-digit speeds, toggling the DRS on and off comes with a change in engine note as the engine load jumps.More on the 911 GT3 RSThe Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 Rs, 275s in front (stuffed under wider fenders) and 335s out back, cling to the skidpad at 1.16 g’s and help haul the car down from 70 mph in 133 feet. The RS is fast between corners too—about as quick as a regular GT3 in a straight line, posting an identical 10.9-second quarter-mile time. This GT3 RS, likely the last GT3 RS ­without some form of electrification, is amazingly capable like a McLaren Senna yet civilized like a Chevy Corvette. It’s shocking, but then you remember that Porsche has been refining this formula for 60 years. We can’t wait to quantify its track performance at Lightning Lap later this year.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Porsche 911 GT3 RSVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $226,950/$284,320Options: Weissach package (carbon-fiber exterior mirror upper housing, 20-in front and 21-in rear GT3 RS forged lightweight magnesium wheels), $33,520; Porsche ceramic-composite brakes with calipers in yellow, $9210; leather and Race-Tex interior in black with GT silver stitching, $4730; front-axle lift system, $3670; Bose surround-sound system, $1600; Exclusive Design taillights, $990; LED headlights in black including Porsche Dynamic Light System, $850; auto-dimming mirrors with rain sensor, $700; park assist, $610; wheels painted in Satin Dark Silver, $600; illuminated doorsill guards in matte carbon fiber, $530; seatbelts in Racing Yellow, $360
ENGINEDOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 518 hp @ 8500 rpmTorque: 342 lb-ft @ 6300 rpm 
TRANSMISSION7-speed dual-clutch automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 16.1-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic disc/15.0-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R ConnectF: 275/35ZR-20 (102Y)R: 335/30ZR-21 (109Y)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.7 inLength: 180.0 inWidth: 74.8 inHeight: 52.1 inPassenger Volume: 49 ft3Cargo Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight: 3216 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 2.7 sec100 mph: 6.6 sec1/4-Mile: 10.9 sec @ 127 mph130 mph: 11.4 sec150 mph: 16.9 sec170 mph: 28.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.1 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 184 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 133 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 251 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.16 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 15 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/14/18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDExecutive EditorK.C. Colwell is Car and Driver’s executive editor, who covers new cars and technology with a keen eye for automotive nonsense and with what he considers to be great car sense, which is a humblebrag. On his first day at C/D in 2004, he was given the keys to a Porsche 911 by someone who didn’t even know if he had a driver’s license. He also is one of the drivers who set fast laps at C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test. More

From the October 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Four dials and five buttons on the Porsche 911 GT3 RS’s steering wheel control drive modes, PASM damper compression and rebound, stability and traction controls, differential lock, and the drag-reduction system (DRS). Old hat for the video-game generation, right? Wrong. There are 6561 possible combinations for the dampers alone, but Porsche GT boss Andreas Preuninger says there are no bad settings. It all just comes down to driver preference.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverActivating DRS changes the angle of attack of the trailing edge of the rear wing and elements in the front fenders to reduce drag. With DRS active, the GT3 RS makes 674 pounds of downforce at 183 mph. That nearly triples to 1896 pounds at 177 mph when it’s not active. That’s more downforce than a 911 Carrera Cup car.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverPush the center button on the upper-left dial to adjust suspension compression and rebound parameters. The left-side dials now control compression, and the right-side controls rebound (top is front, bottom rear) in nine steps from –4 to +4.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverPush the center button on this dial to adjust differential lock. Only the left-side dials are used to adjust lock while off throttle (top) and while under power (bottom), each in nine steps from –4 to +4.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverPush the center button on this dial to select the drive mode: Normal, Sport, or Track. Further customization of various vehicle parameters, such as the display mode and whether the active aero is on, is available in submenus. Select Track to unlock all the steering wheel’s functionality.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverPush the center button on this dial to adjust traction- and stability-control settings. The lower-right dial now toggles stability control between off, dynamic, and on. The upper-right dial adjusts traction control in eight steps from off to +7. Dynamic traction control (+1 to +3) is only available in dynamic stability control, and deactivating traction control (off) is only available in the stability-control-off setting.NÜRBURGRING CHEAT CODEWhen factory driver Jörg Bergmeister set the 6:49.3 lap at the famed Nordschleife, the only settings he adjusted off zero were the front and rear rebound, to +2 and +3, respectively.More on the 911 GT3 RSExecutive EditorK.C. Colwell is Car and Driver’s executive editor, who covers new cars and technology with a keen eye for automotive nonsense and with what he considers to be great car sense, which is a humblebrag. On his first day at C/D in 2004, he was given the keys to a Porsche 911 by someone who didn’t even know if he had a driver’s license. He also is one of the drivers who set fast laps at C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test. More

If vehicles were priced by utility rather than glamour and exclusivity, it’s three-row SUVs that would cost half a mill, while hypercars, with their miserly luggage holds and seating for no more than two, would be more affordable. Luckily for those of us trying to get the twins to their bassoon lesson, the neighbor’s kid to curling practice, and Grandpa to his ceramics class, sensible and useful machines such as the Honda Pilot and the Toyota Grand Highlander put a smaller dent in the wallet than McLarens and Koenigseggs. Even when trimmed out like these two top offerings from Honda and Toyota, loading up friends, family, pets, and accompanying accessories can be done while staying under the $60,000 mark. The Pilot has been ferrying families since late 2002, while the Grand Highlander is a new addition to the three-row aisle, filling in a gap between the smaller Toyota Highlander and the hulking Sequoia. Honda versus Toyota is an obvious matchup, with our range-topping contenders offering many of the same safety and convenience features, similar storage space, and standard all-wheel drive, wrapped up in blunt-nosed boxy designs that will neither offend nor astound. We expected performance to be similar too, but that’s where one of these machines pulls, quite literally, far ahead. 2nd Place: 2023 Honda Pilot Elite AWDLooked at from a dollars-per-passenger perspective, the Pilot comes out on top. Even as a top-spec eight-passenger Elite AWD model, the Honda still came in at nearly $6000 less than the Toyota. The Grand Highlander with the second-row captain’s chairs only seats seven, but if you’re jealous of the Toyota family’s ability to send its kids through the mid-row walkway, you needn’t be. The center section of the Honda’s middle seat is easily removed and stowed under the cargo floor. Passengers won’t fight for the privilege of riding in the third row, but even tall adults will fit, and when not in use, the third row is easily lowered and raised again. Let’s move up front, where the Pilot’s nod to style in the interior is a loamy leather that even in the options sheet is just called “brown.” We’re fans of chocolate details, but this shade is more burnt diner coffee than rich espresso. On the plus side, muddy dog prints and Raisinet spills will go unnoticed. HIGHS: All the features for less money, easy-fold third row, seats eight with removable second-row center section.LOWS: Soporifically slow, sleepy steering, annoying shifter.VERDICT: The Pilot does its job without complaint, but also without thrills.The Pilot cockpit is easy to enter and comfortable to sit in, with heated and ventilated front seats and 10-way adjustability for the driver. The interface is straightforward, with only Honda’s teeny-button shifter likely to raise any user complaints. Drivers with manicures will find the Park button unpleasant to touch, and those with big mitts won’t find it at all. The rest of the console is well formatted, with a wireless charging pad, out-of-the-way cupholders, and narrow-but-deep storage under the armrest. We also liked the shelf in front of the passenger seat. There’s no great handbag storage up front, but plenty of room for snacks and beverages. The 9.0-inch touchscreen sticks out of the top of the dash, and it’s a stretch to reach from the driver’s seat. Kudos, however, to the physical climate-control buttons, and the Elite trim gets a head-up display to add a little fighter-pilot feel to the Honda Pilot. We wouldn’t recommend getting into a dogfight with the Pilot though. While the Honda was nimble enough—pulling 0.84 g on our skidpad, which is good for a three-row SUV—it’s not quick. We know that many SUV shoppers aren’t prioritizing drag racing, but the Pilot is sluggish enough that passing became a chore, and in some cases, a stressor. That was a surprise given Honda overhauled the Pilot powertrain for this model year and pairs it with a 10-speed automatic transmission. The new mill puts out 285 horsepower and 262 pound-feet of torque, but it arrives deep into the throttle and has to contend with an extra 300-plus pounds compared to the prior version. The result is a lazy 7.2-second 60-mph time. That’s a full second slower than the previous-gen Pilot, putting this Honda toward the back of the pack. Even if it were quicker, there’s little incentive to push it hard, as you don’t get much feel from the steering, and the brakes’ 70-mph stopping distance was unimpressive. We wouldn’t make such a big deal of this, except that the Toyota proved so much more enthusiastic as a driving partner, and that put it clearly in first place despite its higher price. 1st Place: 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hybrid Max Platinum AWDDon’t be fooled by the Highlander name. The Grand Highlander isn’t merely a regular Highlander with a few inches tacked on. It’s a bigger vehicle all around: longer, taller, and wider than the Highlander but still capable of slipping into a parking space or a two-car garage. Exterior dimensions are almost identical to the Pilot’s, but the Grand Highlander’s slightly longer wheelbase makes for more than 10 cubic feet of additional cargo space with all the seats down. Put them up and even the third row is reasonably comfortable for taller riders. And if for some reason you need to carry multiple different beverages with you on your journey, the third row alone has six cupholders.HIGHS: Surprisingly quick, clever interior layout, fits everything inside and still fits in a garage.LOWS: No steering feel, third row heavy to stow, even worse shifter.VERDICT: The Grand Highlander is family size but moves out like a smaller machine.At first glance, the Toyota interior is awash in gray faux suede and black leather, like a pair of ’80s stiletto boots, but less sexy. Closer inspection rewards with rose-gold accents, a Pilot-beating 12.3-inch touchscreen slightly more set into the dashboard, and a useful if cluttered center console. The wireless charging pad tucks a phone deep under the dash—good for driving safety perhaps, not so good for retrieval once parked. The removable cupholder can also be a cubby, and the long storage space between the armrests could house a small bag. It’s clever that the armrests don’t need to lift for access, making it easier to grab something in a single move. An additional small storage drawer on the left side of the dash is perfect for housing parking-garage tickets or the key fob (just don’t forget about it in there). The flexible storage theme carries into the second row, where the console can be lifted out to make an aisleway between the seats, and no passenger is ever far from a phone charger, a place to store a phone, or a cupholder (or six). Complaints about the Toyota are few, but it does join the Pilot in foolishly reimagining the good ol’ PRNDL shifter into something less familiar and way less nice. In the Grand Highlander’s case, it’s similar to the toggle found in a Prius, with Reverse forward and Drive back and a mysterious labyrinth in between. Using it correctly is unsatisfying, and messing it up is maddening. If your automatic transmission requires a diagram, you’ve made things too complicated. Once you find Drive though, the Grand Highlander is off like a rocket, at least by SUV standards. Our test car had the Hybrid Max powertrain, combining a 265-hp turbo four-cylinder with a pair of electric motors and a six-speed transmission. The total output is 362 horses and 400 pound-feet of torque, which is noticeable in driving as the Grand Highlander accelerates with ease from stoplights or when stepping out to pass. That performance was backed up in our test results, where the Grand Highlander did the 60-mph run in 5.6 seconds and covered the quarter-mile in 14.3, more than a second quicker than the Pilot. Again, you may not care about the numbers, but when you’re making the scary left turn out of the Costco parking lot with a trunk full of oversized condiment jars, you’ll appreciate the extra zip. Other than acceleration, the driving dynamics of the Grand Highlander and the Pilot aren’t dramatically different. The Pilot held on better around the skidpad, but both stopped about the same: 187 feet from 70 mph for the Grand Highlander compared to 189 for the Honda. Neither has sports-car steering feel, and both had some wind noise in the cabin at highway speeds. In our hands, the Grand Highlander returned 25 mpg overall while the Pilot got 22. It’s rare that two vehicles so close in almost every other way should have one big outlier, but that’s how these two shook out. They look alike, sound alike, and offer many of the same benefits, so in the end it’s down to how much merging you do, and whether it’s worth the extra money to do it a bit quicker. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda Pilot Elite AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 8-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $53,755/$53,755
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 212 in3, 3471 cm3Power: 285 hp @ 6100 rpmTorque: 262 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.8-in vented disc/13.0-in discTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S255/50R-20 105H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.8 inLength: 199.9 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 71.0 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 57/57/40 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 87/49/19 ft3Curb Weight: 4670 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 20.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 112 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 27 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 490 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 21/19/25 mpg
—
—
2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hybrid Max Platinum AWDVehicle Type: front-engine and front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $59,520/$59,520
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, 265 hp, 332 lb-ft + 2 AC motors (combined output: 362 hp, 400 lb-ft; 1.4-kWh nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions, F/R: 6-speed automatic/direct-drive

CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/13.3-in vented discTires: Continental CrossContact LX20 EcoPlus+255/55R-20 107V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.1 inLength: 201.4 inWidth: 78.3 inHeight: 70.1 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58/52/39 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 98/58/21 ft3Curb Weight: 4936 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.3 sec @ 98 mph100 mph: 14.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 410 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 27/26/27 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior Editor, FeaturesLike a sleeper agent activated late in the game, Elana Scherr didn’t know her calling at a young age. Like many girls, she planned to be a vet-astronaut-artist, and came closest to that last one by attending UCLA art school. She painted images of cars, but did not own one. Elana reluctantly got a driver’s license at age 21 and discovered that she not only loved cars and wanted to drive them, but that other people loved cars and wanted to read about them, which meant somebody had to write about them. Since receiving activation codes, Elana has written for numerous car magazines and websites, covering classics, car culture, technology, motorsports, and new-car reviews.     More

Volvo got a whole lot right when it debuted the latest generation of the Polestar-massaged V60 station wagon. However, the plug-in hybrid proved a little light on EV range, and its performance couldn’t match that of its gas-only predecessor. Now, with a few extra tweaks under the skin, the revitalized V60 T8 eAWD Polestar Engineered is finally putting down some solid figures.The upgrades to the V60 Polestar’s plug-in-hybrid powertrain are shared with the other Volvo models carrying the same underpinnings. The battery picks up a third row of cells, boosting usable capacity from 9.1 to 14.9 kilowatt-hours. At the same time, the electric motor powering the rear axle gets a bump from 87 to 143 horsepower. It also contributes 228 pound-feet of torque. Because of the added electrical oomph, the formerly turbo- and supercharged 2.0-liter inline-four has surrendered its supercharger. The revised turbo-only mill makes a healthy 312 horses and 295 pound-feet on its own, and total combined output is now a meaty 455 ponies and 523 pound-feet of torque, respective improvements of 40 and 29.HIGHS: Impressive EV range, solid hybrid performance, did we mention it’s a wagon?That increased battery capacity should give the electric-only range a big boost, and it does. In our 75-mph highway cruise test, the 2024 V60 Polestar managed 44 miles of EV range, besting its Volvo-estimated range of 41 miles in Pure mode and absolutely trouncing the 2020 model’s 21-mile highway test result. Overall fuel economy on our 200-mile highway loop is up, as well, from 31 mpg to 34. Charging from empty to full—a typical use case for a PHEV—will take five hours, at best, on 240-volt Level 2 charge equipment. That’s okay for overnight home refills but too slow for midday top-ups. We blame Volvo’s puny 3.7-kW onboard charger, a component they should have upsized when they enlarged the battery but didn’t. Giving the rear-axle electric motor a little extra juice finally puts the V60 Polestar ahead of its gas-only forebear. At 4.1 seconds to 60 mph, the 2024 model pulls ahead of a 2017 V60 Polestar we tested by one-tenth of a second; it bests the 2020 PHEV by three-tenths. A 12.5-second, 111-mph quarter-mile sprint tops the previous V60’s 12.9-second, 107-mph result. The 2024 V60 also improves on the 2020 model’s 50-to-70 passing time, shrinking it from 3.4 seconds to 3.2. In the opposite direction, the V60 slams to a halt from 70 mph in 163 feet and from 100 mph in 331 feet.The V60 Polestar’s demeanor varies between sedate and seething, depending on which mode it’s in. Leave everything in the default settings, and the wagon will prioritize electric driving, lolling quietly down the road until juice runs low or the right pedal gets pushed in anger—a clever icon on the digital cluster’s power gauge marks the point where more throttle will engage the engine. People who want to save juice for city driving will be happy to find settings to either hold or generate charge while driving. The only real complaint here is that the center console’s mode switch is gone, now requiring a few taps of the center display to find and change these settings.LOWS: Slow AC charging, modes buried in menus, limited front-row storage.Polestar driving mode puts the full force of the powertrain to work, with the gas engine working the front wheels while the e-motor propels the rears. Volvo’s turbocharged engine is demure, preferring a subtler sort of racket that avoids the snap-crackle-pop theatrics of other hi-po powertrains. The eight-speed automatic transmission never makes itself known, and the blending between gas and electric propulsion is buttery smooth. Brake regeneration can be activated by shifting the wagon into B instead of D, and it’s strong enough to bring the whole show to a halt.Adjusting the V60 Polestar’s suspension involves more than a few taps on a display. The standard Öhlins dampers are adjustable, yes, but only through the knobs on the top of each strut. The default stiffness is on the firm side of the spectrum, but a softer ride is just a few clicks away. As it comes from the factory, the V60’s ride is stern, nicely transferring weight between the corners as it’s chucked down a twisty two-lane while avoiding the kind of bad-road porpoising you can get in a car like the BMW M3 CS.Despite design cues that are on the mature side, the Volvo wears its style well. Both the interior and exterior lack the kind of trendy drama that leads a vehicle to look old later down the line. The front half of the cabin is cozy but not claustrophobic, although there’s a distinct lack of storage beyond the door pockets. The rear offers suitable space for adults too. One part of the interior that has been zhuzhed up over time is the infotainment system, which now runs on Google underpinnings and includes baked-in features such as Google Maps and Spotify, in addition to the usual smartphone mirroring. Even More Zippy Wagon ContentVERDICT: Volvo’s wünderwagen makes an even better case for itself.At $72,345 to start, our V60 Polestar test car is not a cheap proposition. However, stepping up to the next tier of sporty wagons—a segment run by the likes of the Audi RS6 Avant and Porsche Panamera Sport Turismo—requires a six-figure outlay and places a far greater priority on pure performance. If you’d rather strike a balance between sprightly back-road antics and emissions-free commuting, the V60 Polestar will give you both without feeling compromised.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Volvo V60 T8 eAWD Polestar EngineeredVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, rear/all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $72,345/$72,925 Options: Luggage cover, $380; power tailgate, $200
POWERTRAIN
Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 312 hp, 295 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, 46 and 143 hp, 133 and 228 lb-ft (combined output: 455 hp, 523 lb-ft; 14.9-kWh lithium-ion battery pack; 3.7-kW onboard charger)Transmissions, F/R: 8-speed automatic/direct drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.6-in vented, grooved disc/12.6-in vented discTires: Continental Premium Contact 6235/40R-19 96W Extra Load VOL
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.1 in   Length: 188.1 inWidth: 72.8 inHeight: 56.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/42 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 61/26 ft3Curb Weight: 4494 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4-Mile: 12.5 sec @ 111 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 113 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 331 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.90 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving, EV/Hybrid Mode: 86 MPGe/34 mpg75-mph Highway Range, EV/Hybrid mode: 44/540 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY 
Combined/City/Highway: 31/30/33 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 74 MPGeEV Range: 41 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More