Car Reviews

From the April 1997 issue of Car and Driver.”In the spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love,” wrote Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Easy for him to say—sports cars weren’t much of a distrac­tion in 1842. But this spring, we predict, love is in for tough competition from the niftiest class of two-seaters to come along in a beagle’s age.Sports cars had a good year in 1990, when, all by itself, the new Mazda Miata had the chattering classes wound up for about a year and a half. Remembering way back, 1970 stands out, too, for the simultaneous arrival of the fastback Datsun 240Z and the lump-shaped Porsche 914. But 1997’s class of four out­shines them all—three radically new models plus a celebrated yearling fresh from steroid therapy. The yearling is, of course, the BMW Z3 2.8, looking all mus­cled up now that its rear fenders have been stretched over a wider rear track. What you don’t see is the real muscle. The 189-horsepower six-cylinder from the 328 sedan fills the long engine bay (continued is the four-cylinder version for those under doctor’s order to limit their cardiac excitement).Topping the radically new list is the Mercedes-Benz SLK. This deftly engineered two-seater packs a supercharged four­-cylinder up front and a single red button on the console that transforms the car from snug coupe to open roadster in one touch of one finger. So impressed are we by this SLK that we unhesitatingly voted it to a spot on our 1997 Ten Best list. Radically new, too, not to mention long awaited, describes the Porsche Boxster. Twenty-some years later, Porsche finally makes amends for the unfortunate 914 with a middle-motor sportster that really works. More Convertible Reviews From the ArchiveThe terms “radically new” and “long awaited” apply equally well to the fourth member of 1997’s sports-car class, the all-­new Chevrolet Corvette. But does that magnum-caliber V-8 Detroiter belong in the same group with these compact Euro­peans? If price is all that counts—each one lists for about 40 large—then you’d have to say yes. But whether you’re buying fine wines, politicians, or sports cars, price is never all that counts. The talent and swagger and thrust of the Corvette flow from a philosophy that is very much different from the others. Besides, the ’97 Corvette is a targa, not a true convertible.When the ’98-model convertible arrives, we may toss it into the mix. Right now, we have a trio of German two-seaters seductive enough to lure Tennyson back for a rewrite of his famous line. Let’s see how the test drivers’ fancy turns as we put each one through a springtime romp.Third Place: Mercedes-Benz SLK We still admire the SLK every bit as much as we did when naming it to our 1997 Ten Best list at the beginning of the year. And for exactly the same reasons. “Does the SLK stand as the optimum real­ization of the concept?” we asked in our January road test. “Darn near,” we answered. “But let’s be clear. The concept isn’t Sports Car. The SLK is more like the slam-dunk champ in a league of one.” HIGHS: Cheeky good looks, tremendous road grip, draft-free with the roof up, one finger puts the roof down.LOWS: The five-speed is a (groan) automatic, the grip reaches its limit with too little warning.VERDICT: Only an unreconstructed sports-car nut would find this machine lacking.The SLK concept is this: a cockpit tightly sealed against weather and noise when the top is up; a fully automated one-touch, 25-second retraction of that top; and an exceptionally shake-and-rattle-free ride when the top is down. What you get is the best of both the coupe and convertible worlds, and a painless transition between the two, a tale of excellence no true sports car has yet to match. Oh, yes, and don’t forget the hey-look-at-me styling that con­fers instant celebrity on its driver. Still, any two-seater must inevitably be held up to the sports-car yardstick. When we put on our driving gloves and set out for fun in this group of three, the last guy to grab gets the SLK keys. The automatic transmission is part of the problem. Why turn over to automation one of the fun parts of driving? The supercharged four­-cylinder is not quite aesthetically pleasing, either. The putt-putt-putt exhaust sound at idle is too close to a Farmall’s, and power flow tends toward an abrupt on/off, depending on accelerator position and the automatic’s inclination toward gear­changes. Too many important decisions are taken away from the driver and rele­gated to HAL or whatever silicon pseu­donym is on duty. We don’t love the handling, either, an assertion that surely requires some expla­nation since the Test Results panel gives the SLK top marks for cornering and braking grip—0.90 g on the skidpad and 170 feet to stop from 70 mph. The problem here is attitude. The SLK is secretive. Vir­tually no information comes back through the steering. Imagine a rheostat for dialing up cornering forces. Turn the wheel more; cornering force goes up. As for a sense of what the tires are doing, the steering answers, “What tires?” Experienced drivers, either consciously or uncon­sciously, rely on subtle changes in tire-slip angle to know where they’re operating rel­ative to the limits of the tires. Slip angles increase as cornering forces rise, and the increase goes nonlinear when you near the limit. Feeling for this nonlinearity enables you to drive on the edge without ever falling off. But this car gives no sense of the edge. Don Schroeder, who drove the track portion of the test, reports that the SLK’s remarkably high lane-change speed—more than 4 mph better than the others’—was achieved with no sense of the tires slipping. And when slipping finally becomes apparent, “you encounter a spooky handling abyss,” he says. Of course, this abyss shows itself only at extremely high lateral forces, and one can usually keep up with the other cars in this test with little risk. But sports-car fun comes more from control than from speed, and the joy of controlling this machine is largely absent.Truth to tell, when we think of sports cars, we never think of the vastly more expensive Mercedes SL two-seaters, either. The SLK shares with the SL line a family resemblance long on solid con­struction, comfortable appointments, serious engine power, and enduring styling. But none of these cars spreads grins across the faces of sports-car guys. The SLK’s acceleration times are slightly behind the others’ here, largely because of the automatic. Zero to 60 takes 7.2 seconds, and the quarter-mile slips past in 15.5 second at 91 mph. On our com­parison trip, the SLK outscored the others in fuel economy at 21 mpg, compared with 20 for the Porsche and 19 for the BMW. And on cold mornings, the heater of this SLK blew out plenty of BTUs, unlike the last one we tested. Whereas we’re firm in our conviction that the SLK comes up short as a sports car, we’re also aware that the majority of wanna-owns prefer it that way.1997 Mercedes-Benz SLK185-hp supercharged inline-4, 5-speed automatic, 3020 lbBase/as-tested price: $41,123/$42,095C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.2 sec1/4 mile: 15.5 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 20.0 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 170 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g C/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpgSecond Place: BMW Z3 2.8 Maybe this runabout can’t restore departing hair or shrink the bags under the eyes, but it sure brings to mind our younger days and the Tri­umph TR6. The snorty 2.8-liter six makes the same textural growl (though greatly muted compared with that old Brit), the narrow-at­the-elbow cockpit positions the torso upright behind the wheel, the long hood sweeps across the view as we turn, the rear suspension responds to power with that familiar demi-squat. Good stuff? Wrong question. The Z3 delivers that rare car flavor, one that’s been savored since Morgans were young, sought after by drivers who shun decaf and power steering with equal vigor. The flavor here is sports car, hot and black. HIGHS: Smooth power from the six, amusing handling from the semi-trailing-arm rear, convincing sports-car mood in the cockpit.LOWS: “Amusing handling” isn’t the same as correct handling, skimpy features list makes price seem steep (unless you value high-visibility BMW circle logos).VERDICT: Very much a traditional sports car, with all the joys and gripes that entails.In fact, the Z3 has power steering and power brakes and power windows and a power up/down adjuster on the driver’s seat—all niceties that have watered down the hearty flavor of sports cars over the past several decades. This is by no means the snow-in-the-cockpit experience that Triumph-MG-Healey drivers welcomed as proof that they were apart from the crowd of sedan-slogging weenies.And yet—is this a time machine hauling us back to the ’60s?—the Z3’s windshield shakes on bumpy roads, air currents roil into the cockpit from behind, the stubby gear lever pokes up out of a tall tunnel that might just as well be the Con­tinental Divide for the way it separates the cockpit into two sides. And there goes the rear again, hunkering down as the clutch takes up. No question that this Z3 is closer to the traditional sports-car definition than any­thing else in stores these days (the Miata excepted, of course). New for 1997 is this six-cylinder ver­sion, the extra 51 horsepower accompa­nied by vented front brakes (the same diameter as on the four), a rear track increased by 2.5 inches, a limited-slip dif­ferential, and a new front spoiler.The torque starts low in the rev range and pours on smoothly and sweetly as the tach swings upward. This is a disciplined powertrain, never raucous. It propels the Z3 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds, 1.8 seconds quicker than the four-cylinder Z3, and just a tick behind the quickest of this group, the Porsche. Top speed is governor-limited at 129 mph. Unlike the SLK, there’s lots of communication here. The cockpit feels close, more intimate than the others. You’re in touch. You have a sense of what the machinery is doing. The steering feels substantial—”meaty” in the words of one of our testers. You can grab hold of it. Road adhesion is about medium for this group at 0.87 g. Handling is exactly what you’d expect of a front-engine car with semi-trailing arms behind: predictable understeer. Yet lifting abruptly off the power in turns will step the rear out to heroic drift angles, even at relatively low lateral forces. Controlling same is easy and intuitive, however.With the top down and the side win­dows up, we rushed along some high desert roads at speeds up to 110 mph. Drafty, yes, but not so much so that it wasn’t fun, never mind that temperatures were in the 50s. Sports cars goad you into bursts of exuberance like that. With the top up, this car has considerably more wind­-rush noise than the others. Downing the Z3’s top is a do-it-your­self project bereft of power assists­—unlatch the header, push back till the stack drops into the well behind the seat, and then the cover, stored in the trunk, must be snapped into place. The details are well designed and simple. One of our staffers, by himself, did the job in 54 seconds. Still, the manual top, along with a short roll call of features, a plainly appointed black cockpit, and the list of conventional BMW-sedan mechanicals under the skin, says that the Z3 is a rather short reach for its maker—certainly a far less imagina­tive concept than either the SLK or the Boxster. Yes, our as-tested car lists for about four large less than the others here, but the Z3 seems fully priced to us. 1997 BMW Z3 2.8189-hp inline-6, 5-speed manual, 2920 lbBase/as-tested price: $36,668/$37,423C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.3 sec1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 18.3 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpgFirst Place: Porsche Boxster “Nosy” is the visual first impression of this car—the nose Pinocchios out in front of the wheels an astonishing distance. Let it be your warning that the Boxster does nothing the ordinary way. We give it top marks in this group because it drives superbly and plies us with creature comforts to boot. It’s a bold rethink of how a sports car might be con­figured—the long nose makes room for two radiators, one ahead of each front wheel. The rethink is incautious, too. All engine work—hell, all peeking into the engine room—must be done from the bottom. The trunk opens to reveal a corner devoted to service: dipstick, oil and coolant fillers. That’s the rear trunk. The front trunk gives access to brake fluid and washer juice. The engine itself? HIGHS: Two trunks, a power roof, slick moves in the twisties, and just enough traditional Porsche cues to remind that this company always does its own thing.LOWS: No engine access from the top? Is this an annuity for the dealer mechanics, or what?VERDICT: Thoroughly fun to drive, thoroughly unconventional, thoroughly Porsche.Well, they say it’s in that box behind the seats.Wherever it is, it’s a sweet contrib­utor to this car’s success. It makes whirring sounds, quite loud and clatter-­free in a way foreign to Porsches. These whirs fade to background when you’re driving. The cockpit is serene. Unless the top is down. Then, if the road is right, you hear organ-pipe resonances more beautiful than any since Bach when the intake and exhaust passages pass through their 5200-to-5500-rpm tuned frequencies as the flat-six rushes toward 201 hp at 6000 rpm. The rush delivers 60 mph from rest in 6.2 seconds, and finishes the quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds at 93 mph, quickest of this group. Drat! The Boxster, in the lower gears, passes too quickly through its tuned peaks to even notice them. But the music that accompanies the labored acceleration up mountain grades is worth however many vacation days a flatlander’s journey may take. While in the mountains, enjoy the switchbacks. The Boxster’s cornering behavior is first-rate. The steering stays lively and responsive at the limit, and the rear tracks reliably behind. Porsche brags of a new way of managing deflection steer in the rear wheels. It works. This is not a tail-happy handler, never mind the repu­tation of mid-engine cars. The low-profile Bridgestone Potenza S-02 tires deserve mention here. Their dramatic gatorback tread pattern is almost as notable as the Boxster’s nosy profile. Their grip is sur­prisingly low, a disappointing 0.81 g on the skidpad, by far less tenacious than the other cars’ Michelins. But their breakaway characteristics are wonderfully gradual, so the Boxster is easily controllable and steer­able at the limit. We repeat: Control is the fun of a sports car, and if you have it, you can often outrun cars that produce better numbers in highly practiced test-track maneuvers. Would the SLK be more fun on these tires, we wonder? In sharp contrast to the Z3’s traditional approach, the Boxster seems devoid of all tradition save the occasional Porsche touch (the single, center-outlet exhaust reminds of so many 356 racers). The body is round-­shouldered, the cockpit is wide, the instru­ments are marked in italic typefaces, plastic interior details are shiny black—­this from the company that, in the early Seventies, originated the fashion of flat­-black trim instead of chrome. Porsche’s rethink of the sports car shows in the power top, too. A single latch at the top of the windshield must be freed by hand. Then one button stows the roof under a hatch at the rear of the cockpit in just 12 seconds, less than half the time of the next-best Mercedes. Well, it almost stows the roof: A moon-shaped section of it remains visible behind the twin roll bars, a packaging necessity turned into an auda­cious design element. Audacious describes the whole package. And fun. We expect that a rethink this radical, from a maker of such low volume, will devil early owners with a few bothers. Ah, but Boxster mechanicals come with a two-year unlimited-mileage warranty, something you could never say for springtime love. 1997 Porsche Boxster201-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2850 lbBase/as-tested price: $41,284/$41,673C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4 mile: 14.8 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.5 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg More

Hindsight is always 20/20, but looking back we can see that the minivan was an obvious step for the American auto industry to take in the early 1980s. The combination of larger families and longer journeys to the nation’s growing number of destination theme parks gave the impetus to create something better able to carry bigger quantities of human cargo than that previous favorite clan-hauler—a station wagon with cushions in the trunk. Vehicles like the Dodge Caravan, Chevrolet Astro, and—in very much last place—Ford Windstar responded to this need. The same held true in other parts of the world, like France, where the original Renault Espace was created around similar grande famille priorities. Now China has reached the same epoch of automotive evolution—but is doing so electrically. The three-row Maxus MIFA 9 is an EV minivan that combines serious internal space, impressive equipment levels, and a front-end design that immediately makes us think of Star Wars bounty hunter Boba Fett. Having driven it in Germany, where it recently went on sale, we can report it is as striking in three dimensions as it is in two.MaxusMaxusMaxus is a commercial brand belonging to SAIC Motor, formerly known as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, China’s biggest automaker. The Maxus name comes from a long-defunct U.K. vanmaker, which SAIC acquired the rights to some time ago. MIFA is apparently an acronym: Maximum Intelligent Friendly Artistic. The MIFA 9 sits on the same platform as a gasoline-powered model called the Maxus G90, but the EV is distinguished by grander design, more equipment, and a heftier price tag. The original MIFA concept car was shown at the Shanghai auto show in 2021. The production version we drove featured a single 241-hp motor powering the front wheels and fed by a battery pack with a claimed 90-kWh capacity. It has an estimated range of around 275 miles under Europe’s flattering WLTP test cycle. Although China in 2016 moved beyond its single-child policy—which had restricted parents to just one kid—the legal limit subsequently was only raised to two. So, demand for vehicles like the MIFA 9 isn’t coming from the need to haul big families but rather the need to transport VIPs in space and style. That priority is clear in the differing missions assigned for each row of seating. Up front the confines are comfortable, well finished, and short on ergonomic fuss—clearly designed for professional drivers. There is a touch-sensitive control panel for climate-control functions, but almost everything else is controlled by the 12.3-inch central touchscreen. The middle row, behind electrically operated doors, is where the luxury resides on the top-spec Premium version we drove, with two power-adjustable airline-style seats complete with motorized footrests. This is where plutocrats get pampered. But behind them things turn cheap, as the third row is a bench with limited legroom and an upright backrest, a place to put kids or junior staff. If it were a ship then the respective demarcation by row would be bridge, first class, steerage. HIGHS: Spacious, luxurious interior; refined cruising; generous equipment.Unsurprisingly, the driving experience is utterly bland. The MIFA 9 has been designed for ease of operation and a level of smoothness to allow passengers to snooze undisturbed. Gentle pressure on the accelerator produces almost seamless starts, although pushing harder tended to create a modest amount of wheelspin as the front tires battle to get about 5500 pounds of van moving. The Maxus can be stopped just as unobtrusively, thanks to its ability to seamlessly blend regenerative and friction braking. But the steering is light and completely lacking in discernible feedback. Bizarrely there are separate switchable Sport modes for both the accelerator and steering maps—it is hard to think of any car that needs them less—and in the case of the steering all this adds is extra weight.MaxusMaxusBut the MIFA 9 has some fine qualities too. Its soft suspension gives it a pliant ride, but it isn’t lacking in chassis discipline over bumps as speeds start to rise. Even moderately keen cornering produces body roll and would bring doubtless admonition from the rear seats. But the Maxus tracks straight and feels very stable at highway speeds, and noise insulation is good for something with such a large frontal area. While acceleration is leisurely by EV standards—an official 62-mph time of 9.2 seconds—the Maxus is happy to cruise at an indicated 80 mph in serene comfort. That’s presuming the driver has taken the time to deactivate the over-sensitive lane-keeping assistant and its loud warning chimes. Top speed is electronically limited to 112 mph, although achieving that would likely kill the cruising range. We didn’t. LOWS: Indifferent to drive, priced against premium Euro rivals, not destined for the U.S.Switching to the middle row proves the MIFA 9 is a fine vehicle in which to be chauffeured. The seats are comfortable and offer sufficient adjustment to allow a reclining angle that leaves an occupant looking through the glass moonroof. There is also a massage function, plus heating and active cooling. Each seat has twin USB chargers, plus a pair of pop-out cupholders, and between the front seats is a deployable domestic socket for higher-voltage accessories.More on Vans and MinivansUltimate legroom in the second row is limited unless the front seats are motored forward, and reclining fully will obviously reduce the already limited space for anyone in the third row. Nor can the rearmost seats be fully folded to increase luggage space; the backs can be collapsed, but the base remains in place because of the battery location. Yet while the MIFA 9 we drove in Germany felt plenty grand, top-spec Chinese-market cars seem to be considerably posher with twin high-definition screens built into the dashboard and six seats arranged in pairs with even plusher thrones in the second and third rows, along with fold-out tables and individual touchscreen controls.No part of the MIFA 9 feels insubstantial or cheap, with that reality being reflected by the price tag. In Germany the entry-level version, with manual rather than electrically adjustable second-row seats, costs 57,974 euros before tax—$63,400 at current exchange rates. The Luxury version brings power rear seats for 63,854 euros ($69,800), and the top-spec Premium adds the motorized leg rests plus various other spec enhancements for 67,739 euros ($74,100). That puts it pretty much on par with plusher versions of the electric long-wheelbase Mercedes-Benz EQV, the most obvious alternative in this part of the market.While it is likely that most German shoppers will prefer to buy their EV minivans from familiar brands, the MIFA 9 illustrates that the Chinese industry can produce something that, while not a traditional luxury car, is a genuinely luxurious vehicle.Senior European CorrespondentOur man on the other side of the pond, Mike Duff lives in Britain but reports from across Europe, sometimes beyond. He has previously held staff roles on UK titles including CAR, Autocar and evo, but his own automotive tastes tend towards the Germanic, owning both a troublesome 987-generation Porsche Cayman S and a Mercedes 190E 2.5-16. More

From the January 1988 issue of Car and Driver.The British press has given its home­grown Panther Solo 2 a tremendous buildup. Car recently called it “the most important British sports car since the E­-type Jaguar.” Autocar, mixing its meta­phors deliriously in advance of the car’s debut at the Frankfurt Auto Show, said, “Solo won’t just steal Porsche’s limelight; it will grab it by the throat.” These testimonials, you should understand, were made before anyone had the opportunity to drive a finished Solo. Thus the second generation of Panther’s concept, with its turbocharged, 16-valve Cosworth en­gine, four-wheel drive, and race-car-style composite body construction, already has a monumental reputation to live up to.We have driven as many miles as any­one in the only fully bodied Solo 2 proto­type and have not found it wanting; how­ever, the car we drove was far from ready for production. The Solo 2 has all the right ingredients, to be sure. But they alone are no threat to the likes of Jaguar, Porsche, and Ferrari. Fortunately, no one at Panther underestimates the job that remains to be done. What started as a straightforward idea to build a modern, low-priced two-seater has become a complex story.Young C. Kim—Korean-born, American-educated—bought Panther Westwinds out of receivership in 1980 and renamed it the Panther Car Company. He took one of the company’s existing products, the Pan­ther Lima, reengineered it, arranged for a supply of chassis and aluminum bodies from Jindo Industries, the family con­glomerate in South Korea, and put it back on the market as the Kallista. Although the car was well received, it soon became clear to Kim that the sale potential of such pastiche vintage cars was limited. But there was, Kim believed, a gap in the market for a mid-engined sports coupe, built around a transverse power­train from a modern front-drive sedan. His inspiration came in part from a maga­zine article on a contest at London’s Royal College of Art. With a brief to design a sports car around a mid-mounted Ford Escort XR3 four-cylinder, the students had created designs that, in their bluff noses and far-forward driving positions, resembled Group C race cars. Kim called the college and talked to the students’ tu­tor, Ken Greenley, a freelance car design­er who had learned his trade at Vauxhall, the British GM subsidiary. The upshot was that Greenley and his partner, John Heffernan (ex-GM, ex-Audi), won the contract to style the Panther Solo.Kim commissioned ubiquitous Len Bailey, of Ford GT40 fame, to design the chassis. The fuel-injected, 105-hp, 1.6-liter XR3i engine was chosen. The result, the first Solo, was shown, and acclaimed, at the 1984 British Motor Show. Soon afterward, however, it became clear to Kim that he would not be able to meet his targets for the Solo. It would be not only slower than the conceptually sim­ilar Toyota MR2 but also more expensive. A move upmarket, to a car that would of­fer much higher performance and be based on more sophisticated technology, seemed to hold more promise. Kim redirected Panther’s sights toward a Solo with four-wheel drive and the tur­bocharged, 16-valve, 2.0-liter four­-cylinder of the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth. Ever-enthusiastic Bob Lutz, then heading Ford of Europe, examined the Solo proto­type, listened to Kim’s plans, and prom­ised a supply of the Cosworth engine. Doubling the Solo’s horsepower, shift­ing its engine orientation 90 degrees, and adding four-wheel drive required rather more than a detail redesign. In addition, Panther had decided, for marketing rea­sons, that a two-plus-two cabin was prefer­able. The team started afresh with a new, four-inch-longer chassis, drawn up by Raymar, a group of defected Ford of Eu­rope engineers who had worked on the Sierra RS Cosworth and the Sierra XR4x4. On the design side the Solo was Greenley’s baby. Ever practical, he began the car’s expansion program by cutting up the Solo l body buck—with a chain saw. When the Solo 2 emerged, only hours before its promised debut at Frankfurt, the extent of the transformation was im­mediately apparent. Although the new car is somewhat similar to the first Solo in the shape of its nose and in its thrown­-forward stance, its body is completely dif­ferent. To some eyes, the difference is not for the better. Greenley says that some critics thought the first Solo looked too bland; in contrast, the new car has been designed to advertise its performance. It certainly does that, and the rear end gives more than a clue to the involvement of race-car manufacturers. March, which provided the composite-materials tech­nology, also undertook the aerodynamic testing; it proposed the Formula 1–style rear wing, with a carefully shaped airfoil section and tucked-in end plates. March also developed the duct designs to feed air to the engine, the radiator, and the inter­cooler. Because each passage has separate inlet and outlet ports, the Solo 2, viewed from the back, is almost more holes than bodywork. The curves that surround the many ports are not all harmonious. March’s wind-tunnel work resulted in a shape that provides downforce of 33 pounds at the front and 82 at the rear at the Solo’s projected 150-mph maximum speed. There has been some sacrifice of low drag for downforce, but the drag coef­ficient of the final car is still about 0.33. The use of aerospace and race-car com­posite materials was not originally part of the plan. Having concluded that neither aluminum nor fiberglass was ideal, how­ever, Panther’s growing engineering team was attracted to racing construction tech­niques. Apart from the combination of low weight and strength that composites could provide, they promised accuracy in the fit of adjoining parts—something that specialist manufacturers always find diffi­cult to achieve. March chairman Robin Herd had long held an ambition to be­come more involved with road cars, and Comtec, his company’s composite­-materials subsidiary, had the expertise and the capacity that Panther needed. The construction of the Solo combines the new materials with an old idea. A fabri­cated sheet-steel center section comprises the floorpan and the front and rear bulk­heads; a tubular space frame extends from the rear bulkhead to support the power­train. Nothing too unusual about that: in principle, the Jaguar E-type was built the same way. In the Panther, though, the roof section, the B-pillars, and the door frames are molded from a composite sandwich of epoxy resin, aluminum hon­eycomb, and glass cloth and bonded to the metal chassis; carbon fiber is used in the A-pillars. The finished structure is so strong that steel roll bars are unnecessary. Similar materials are used for the un­stressed body panels, including Kevlar in the wheel arches for protection from stones. Kevlar is also used for the U.S.­-mandated door beams. To meet frontal-impact requirements with such a short nose, Comtec has adopt­ed an energy-management system that employs the same principle as the crush­able foot-box section of a Formula 1 car. The open ends of a horseshoe-shaped, honeycomb-filled box section lie on either side of the front luggage compartment and abut the cockpit bulkhead. The front bumper is attached to the curved end of the horseshoe. This strong but lightweight construc­tion should enable the Solo to weigh less than 2400 pounds in production form. As this is written, no car has been completed to this final specification; the show car we drove had fiberglass bodywork. The chassis development has been car­ried out on a rudimentary device known around the works as the “milk float.” Although the final car has been designed to Raymar’s layout, Raymar itself is no long­er involved; Panther now has a 30-strong engineering team of its own. It is on the strength of the milk float’s test numbers that performance estimates for the Solo have been based: the 150-mph maximum speed, 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds, and a cornering limit of 0.92 g. Considering the Solo’s power-to-weight ratio, the speed claims are not unrealistic. The Cosworth engine comes with the Borg-Warner T5 five-speed gearbox of the Sierra RS, though the Solo’s overall gearing is slight­ly higher than the sedan’s. Ford doesn’t yet offer a four-wheel­-drive Cosworth Sierra, and even if it did, installing its system in the Solo wouldn’t be as simple as turning the engine and the transmission around. The Panther’s four-wheel-drive system is a Ferguson Formula design, with several components from the Sierra XR4x4 and a new transfer case. For the sake of compactness, cockpit space, and weight distribution, Panther decided to mount the engine backward, its gear­box pointing toward the front of the car. The transfer box, therefore, takes the drive to the front directly from the epicy­clic gearset, while the drive to the rear is through a Morse chain—an arrangement opposite to the Sierra’s. To provide room for the rear differential without further lengthening the wheelbase, the engine and the gearbox have been angled eight degrees to one side. A set of helical gears in the transfer box accommodates the asymmetrical layout and reverses the di­rection of the backward engine’s rotation. Like the front-engined Ford four-by-fours, the Solo has a torque split of 34 per­cent front, 66 rear. Sierra differentials are used at both ends. Viscous-coupling limited-slip devices are fitted to the center and rear differentials. It is, to say the least, an unusual ar­rangement. Looking further, the engine appears to ride high, partly because, in ad­dition to being angled to the side, it’s tipped up three degrees in back. And Pan­ther engineers wanted to avoid routing water lines from front to rear, so the cool­ing department is located entirely behind the engine: the radiator, above it the intercooler, and twin fans behind. The stan­dard air-conditioning equipment will also be located in back. The Solo’s suspension, in contrast, is conventional, with Escort-derived struts up front and a lateral link and a control arm at each rear wheel. There are no anti-­roll bars, and the Sierra steering doesn’t need and doesn’t have power assistance. The braking system, with discs all around, is equipped with an adaptation of the Scorpio’s electronic anti-lock system. The wheels and tires—195/50VR-15 Goodyear Eagle NCTs—look weak for a car of high-performance aspirations. But Phil Gillott, who has been in charge of the Solo’s chassis development since Panther took it in house, is adamant that they are the optimal size. He reduced the rim width from seven to six inches in the inter­est of better steering feel, and he reasons that a car of the Solo’s weight with four­-wheel drive needs tires of the same size front and rear and that 195-section is quite wide enough.On the road, at least at the moderate speeds that the show car allowed, Gillott’s theory held up. Though unassisted, the steering felt nicely weighted and accurate, without feeding back bumps and ridges in the pavement. An illicit attack at some tight corners showed characteristics very like the Ford four-by-four sedans’, with a willingness to oversteer under power; the Solo felt just right for a sports car. We learned some other things in this first encounter. The Solo 2 rode surpris­ingly comfortably. The integrity of the structure was impressive, too, even though the panels were made of fiberglass and didn’t fit perfectly. There seemed to be no creaks or rattles from the suspen­sion, though there was plenty of noise from other sources: the harsh note of the Cosworth, the whoosh of the turbo, and, most of all, the heterodyning of the spur gears in the prototype transfer box. Even when that last problem is solved, it seems unlikely that the Solo 2 will be a qui­et car. The rear window and the engine cover are one big composite structure, and the surrounding seal is the only upper barrier between the cockpit and the power unit. The engineers also have heat­-transfer problems to solve. Assuming that the Solo won’t literally be too hot to handle, the driver and passenger should find its cockpit a pleas­ant place to be. The driving position is fine, and there is a racing-car feel in the layout of the controls and the curved cen­ter console. The visibility through the steeply raked and multicurved windshield is good, and neither the front nor the rear pillars are too obtrusive; the view in any direction is better than most cars of this type offer. Although the Solo 2 supposed­ly has more room around the pedals than the Solo 1, the footwells are still narrow; there is nowhere to rest the left foot. The interior design scheme, in keeping with the Solo’s body construction, is high­-tech both in looks and in materials. In­stead of panels of polished wood, the dash and the door panels have the shiny surface and black weave of carbon fiber. The seats are Recaros, re-covered in gray leather. Incidentally, you can forget the rear seats for carrying real people; the space is handy for luggage, though, as there is pre­cious little room for that elsewhere. Specially produced Stewart-Warner in­struments with pale-blue faces are a nice touch. They are clustered, Formula 1 style, around a large tachometer, with the relatively tiny speedometer relegated to the bottom right, where it’s partly ob­scured by the Scorpio column switches. Most of the interior equipment—central door locking, electric window and mir­rors, etc.—is also from Ford. The tubular­-spoked Momo steering wheel and the massive, turned-alloy gearshift knob will be revised for the production cars. The Solo is now going through the long routine of certification. To start with, it will be available in Britain only, but it has been designed with all markets in mind. When it arrives in the U.S., probably no sooner than 1990, it may well have a dif­ferent engine—perhaps a 2.9-liter Ford V-6 depending on whether Ford gains EPA approval for the Cosworth. The U.K. price will be around $46,000. Panther plans to build 100 cars in 1988 and hopes to begin delivery in July. Production is due to rise to 600 in 1989.There is still much to be sorted out. March will supply the composite panels for the first cars, but Panther expects to take over their production, in a new facili­ty to be built in Essex. That means leaving the historic surroundings of the old Brooklands racetrack, where the Kallista is currently made.Such a move is probably essential, for as the Solo project has changed and become more ambitious, so has Panther. A major­ity shareholding has been acquired by an­other Korean industrial group, Ssangyong. Young Kim retains twenty-percent ownership and remains chairman and chief executive, but his horizons are now set beyond the Solo. The production of a different kind of four-wheel-driver, the Stampede, reworked from a utility four-­by-four made by Ssangyong’s Dong-A Motor Company in Korea, is likely to in­crease Panther’s total output to 5000 vehi­cles a year. The Stampede is also scheduled for the U.S. Young Kim needed the connection with an existing car manufacturer to get a foot in the door of the expanding Korean in­dustry. Panther has much to offer the Ko­reans, Kim says, pointing to the engineer­ing team that is now striving to develop the Solo to be worthy of Britain’s super-en­thusiastic welcome.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1988 Panther Solo 2Vehicle Type: mid-engine, all-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
ESTIMATED BASE PRICE$46,000
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1993 cm3Power: 201 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 204 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 99.6 inLength: 171.0 inWidth: 70.1 inHeight: 46.5 inCurb Weight (C/D est): 2450 lb
MANUFACTURER’S PERFORMANCE RATINGS
60 mph: 5.7 secTop Speed (est): 150 mph  More

The monikers for motorcycle genres are charmingly descriptive. A bagger has bags, a naked bike is scant on bodywork, and an adventure bike is for riding to the sort of places where you have to bribe a local official to buy three gallons of gas siphoned out of a crop-duster. To that end, adventure bikes are tall, with leggy suspension travel, big fuel tanks and tires that can tolerate some dirt. The Zero DSR/X offers all of that, except the big gas tank, because it’s powered by this newfangled electricity everyone’s talking about. Fortunately, this bike can tote quite a lot of juice.In its standard specification, the DSR/X packs 15.2 kilowatt-hours of usable capacity into the rectangular lithium-ion battery slung low in its trellis frame. Another 3.0 kilowatt-hours or so can be added via the optional $3200 Power Tank, which replaces the storage cubby in front of the rider with another battery. A 6.6-kW onboard Level 2 charger can charge the battery from zero to 95 percent in about two hours, with the optional $3000 dual charger cutting that time in half (but being incompatible with the Power Tank). Range is 180 miles in city riding—scenarios with plenty of regenerative braking and not much high-speed aero drag, which could also mean picking your way along a trail. At a steady 70 mph, though, claimed range drops to 85 miles. During a ride weighted toward fast back-road travel, we managed about 100 miles. Is 100 miles a long way to ride a motorcycle? Sure. But adventure bikes aren’t supposed to be about blasting a canyon loop and ending up back at your front door an hour and a half later. They’re about going somewhere, which means that in this case you’ll need to do some planning ahead of your rides. Out in the boonies with friends riding a Royal Enfield and a Honda Gold Wing, our turnaround point was dictated by the Zero’s state of charge—when the battery’s at 50 percent, you either head for home or calculate the mileage to a known working Level 2 charger.This can be surprisingly tricky. I considered trying to ride the Zero to the North Carolina coast, but from my house 140 miles away, there was no good way to do it with only one charge break, since the area around the halfway point is a charger desert. Zero probably chose Level 2 charging for the DSR/X because of its ubiquity, but along highways Level 3 chargers are now almost easier to find than Level 2, and plenty of DC fast-charging has sprung up around the corridors to the coast. If the Zero could accommodate both Level 2 and DC fast-charging—as any fully electric car does—then a wider range of destinations would be possible. But motorcycles, so sensitive to weight and packaging, tend to go with one charge style or the other. The Harley-Davidson LiveWire One accommodates DC fast-charging but not Level 2 (due to limitations in the onboard charger), while Harley’s S2 Del Mar is the opposite. Both of those, and the Zero, can plug in to your household outlet and charge at 1.0 kilowatt or so, which might prove useful. One day, we plugged in the Zero on a Level 1 charger during a pit stop at a fellow rider’s house and upped the charge by 5 percent. Which was important, since we rolled back into the driveway with 4 percent charge remaining. Hey, motorcycles are supposed to be exciting, right?Range is always on your mind, because the Zero’s prodigious thrust makes it difficult to exercise restraint with your throttle wrist. The electric motor’s 100 horsepower is nice, but it’s that immediate 166 pound-feet of torque that makes the bike feel lighter than its roughly 550-pound weight. There are mellow riding modes, like Rain and Eco, but we spent most of the time in Canyon, which delivers aggressive throttle response and enough regenerative braking to handle deceleration for most corners (unless, say, you’re trying to hang with a pair of maniacs on a Royal Enfield and a Gold Wing). The Showa suspension is happy to soak up potholes on a dirt road, but with 7.5 inches of travel, a Honda Africa Twin it is not (the Honda offers 9.1 inches of travel up front and 8.7 inches out back). But if you really do intend to hit the dirt, Zero offers knobby Pirelli Scorpion Rally STR tires and a chain drive to replace the standard Gates belt drive. Also a potential boon off-road: reverse, so you can back out of situations you shouldn’t have ridden into in the first place.At $24,495, the DSR/X is significantly more expensive than the $18,874 you’d pay for a top-of-the-range Africa Twin ES DCT—and just about twice the $12,390 sticker for a 99-hp BMW F 900 XR. Of course, there may be incentives, but the Zero is always going to be a premium bike among the premium bikes. More Electric Two-WheelersIs it worth it? That depends on what kind of adventures you’re after. If you can hopscotch from charger to charger, you can get a lot of places by covering 100 or 150 miles at a time. The irony of a bike like this is that it seems tethered to civilization, but is ultimately the only of its peers that could truly function off the grid, indefinitely, wherever the sun can shine on some solar panels. All you need is time.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Zero DSR/XVehicle Type: mid-motor, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger motorcycle
PRICE
Base: $24,495
POWERTRAIN
Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 100 hp, 166 lb-ftBattery Pack: air-cooled lithium-ion, 15.2 kWhOnboard Charger: 6.6 kWTransmission: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 60.0 in Curb Weight (C/D est): 557 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.5 sec100 mph: 9.3 sec1/4-Mile: 12.5 secTop Speed: 112 mphSenior 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

Thomas Burberry’s innovative trench coat covered the shoulders of British army officers in World War I. That it would emerge from the reeking hell of battle and become a fashion statement by the Second World War was quite the evolution. Few luxury goods of this caliber originate from war.One is the Mercedes-Benz G-class, which was developed initially for the Iranian army and instead became a West German and NATO assault vehicle during the Cold War. Only in the latter half of its 44-year run fighting Soviets and protecting popes has the G-class served as a glorified Rodeo Drive shopping cart. Not this one. We’re idling a gray 250GD called “Wolf,” which refers to early W461 two-doors built for militaries, fire brigades, and police. Plucked from a German scrap field and rebuilt fresher than it came out of the Magna Steyr factory, this 250GD is a most authentic take on the G’s original mission.Unlike many vintage-SUV restomods, a 250GD from Expedition Motor Company rattles with the same diesel inline-five and long-throw manual transmission that the German army commissioned in 1991. Anyone familiar with low-horsepower classic cars knows the drill in modern traffic: Merge with extreme caution and stay to the right. In the 15.6 seconds that an AMG G63 takes to hit 120 mph, an EMC 250GD is barely touching 55—and that’s assuming you don’t start in the crawler gear or fumble an upshift, which is easy enough to do given the 250GD’s shift linkage.EMC founder Alex Levin prefers it this way. As a boy in Belarus, he’d steer a 300GD from his father’s lap. Although his family emigrated to the United States when he was two years old, when they returned to visit, the white Mercedes hardtop with the clattering engine and knobby tires was waiting. Levin, 33, never lost the connection to his homeland. He started Expedition Motor Company in 2017 with one objective: Revive the gnarliest G-class.”You have to have some sort of roots in Europe to restore these things,” he said. “It’s tough to put the entire chain together.” Levin scavenges specific Euro-market models—only two-door diesel soft-tops from 1990 to 1993—and rebuilds them in Poland and Germany. It’s a frame-off restoration that takes some 2000 hours to complete. When Mercedes parts are scarce, his team machines or 3-D-prints them from scratch. Levin sells roughly 30 examples a year from his shop in Frenchtown, New Jersey. The 2.5-liter OM602.939, ironically called the “whisper diesel,” gets a full rebuild and an upgraded fuel supply that unlocks two precious ponies over the stock configuration’s modest output of 91 horsepower and 117 pound-feet. Unlike later G-class models, the Wolf has no center differential. It’s a part-time four-wheel-drive setup like you’d find in any 4Runner. You just have to learn the German abbreviations for Strasse, Strasse Allrad, and Gelände Allrad (2WD, 4WD Hi, 4WD Lo). Two plungers engage the axle lockers. In low range in the lowest gear, it’s impossible to stall. There are a few concessions to modern engineering and consumer tastes, namely the extra pistons on the front brake calipers and urethane suspension bushings on the front axle that improve wheel control on the road. The EMC 250GD is lifted 1.6 inches, and Levin doesn’t recommend highway travel, but for science, we pushed it to 70 mph, and the only consequence was a speaker cover coming loose. At that speed, the manual steering is light and full of trembling fear—as far as feel goes, there isn’t much. Despite its tractor soundtrack, the diesel five is smooth from idle to whatever redline is (there’s no tach). Wear a KN95 mask during cold starts, though; it’s rough and positively poisonous for the first few minutes.Related StoriesLevin is at least kind enough to include a Boss Audio head unit with a backup camera, a basic radio, functioning air conditioning, and electric heating for all four seats. There’s a teak console with cupholders and more beautiful woodwork running along the side panels and cargo floor. The most lavish option is a Mercedes five-speed automatic.Everything else is purposely inconvenient. The soft top requires 20 minutes to stretch over the frame and tie its straps through 35 loops. The rear seats are mounted high atop ammo boxes—be sure to have your passengers wear their seatbelts. Other army vestiges include a jerrycan, fold-down windshield, and bumper hooks for helicopter transport. More than a hundred people have written checks to EMC despite—or because of—the Wolf’s limitations. The $165,000 sticker is more than you’d pay for a new G550 (at least before options and dealer markup), but while Mercedes does offer civilians some military flair with the G550’s G Professional package, that essentially just buys a roof rack and ladder. If a true war machine is what you’re after, EMC makes the genuine article.Contributing EditorClifford Atiyeh is a reporter and photographer for Car and Driver, specializing in business, government, and litigation news. He is vice president of the New England Motor Press Association and committed to saving both manuals and old Volvos. More

From the November 1997 issue of Car and Driver.While looking at an illustration of the new Volkswagen Passat GLS’s four-link front suspen­sion, we noticed that the partly cutaway wheel in the picture had an Audi four-ring logo on it. You know why? Because Audi’s so-called B-platform (which has the same front suspension and is the basis for its A4 and A6 models) is now found under VW’s new Passat, too. So having artwork with an Audi logo on it is almost like boasting. The common platform also explains why the new Passat feels like a car from a higher demographic zone than the one it customarily inhabits, and it confirms com­pany chairman Ferdinand Piëch’s stated intentions of taking VW upmarket. A look under the hood reveals more shared components: the Audi A4’s 20-valve, turbo­charged, 1.8-liter four-in-line installed in a north-south position rather than the east­-west orientation found under previous Passat hoods. Audi does that to facilitate four-wheel drive, which the new Passat will get, too, eventually. From its distinctive exterior styling­—clearly evolved from the curvaceous new Beetle and Audi TT concept cars—to an interior reminiscent of a Mercedes-Benz’s, this new Passat is a suit cut from altogether different cloth, and we like it. Now 2.6 inches longer, an inch wider, an inch taller, and with a wheelbase 3.1 inches longer, there is more interior space, headroom, and cargo capacity. Yet a lot of what you get in the new GLS sedan is somewhat unexpected, and that’s a welcome change from the me-too nature of family sedans populating the low-$20,000 range.The small turbo motor is unusual in this segment, but it works very well in the Passat. Apart from slight sluggishness at takeoff if you don’t get the revs up or slip the clutch a little, it propels the 3080-pound car with considerable élan, producing eight­-second sprints to 60 mph and 16.3-second quarter-mile dashes. HIGHS: Good looks, quality interior, fine performance, good ride and handling, high fit-and-finish standards.The 20-valve four generates 155 pound-­feet of torque all the way from 1750 rpm to 4600 rpm, making the small engine much less peaky than you might expect. Although response to the throttle is less than forceful at moderate cruising speeds in fifth gear, most of the time the car answers the right pedal something like a 2.5-liter car would. And the turbo’s presence is fairly transparent, producing neither whistle nor whine nor the abrupt surge of power you feel in, say, a Saab 900. All you hear is a nice res­onant throb from the engine as it pulls steadily through its range. The relative linearity of the power delivery makes the Passat seem a lot like a normally aspirated car in fast-driving circumstances, with prompt throttle response during acceleration and double-clutched downshifts that feel quite natural—apart, that is, from the way the engine hangs on to revs during shifts, a mannerism that may be due to its pressurized intake system. With a shifter that is light and fluent, the Passat encourages your search for the best gear for continued strong acceleration. The only time the lever feels imprecise is when you press downward onto the spring-­loaded, reverse-lockout mechanism during shifts: It produces a rubbery bounce in the mechanism. After you learn not to do that, the shifter assumes the same relationship to the driver as do the steering and brakes; everything operates as if there were a plastic layer between metal and human, but not so much that it dulls all sense of immediacy. So although the steering is nicely iso­lated from nasty impacts, producing only some mild vibrations on rippled surfaces, it quickly impresses with its accuracy and integrity. If there are any manifestations of torque steer, we could not feel them. In fact, on this 1.8-liter, turbo-powered model, most owners will probably be unable to detect which wheels are driving the car. Even very hard launches produce no direc­tional caprice, because the car’s standard traction-control system activates a limited-­slip differential, balancing front-wheel grip. VW has also achieved a good roadgoing compromise on the new Passat, with a ride soft enough for the family vacation, yet with body-motion control that allows sporty driving. The Passat’s body shell is 10 per­cent stiffer than its predecessor’s, and it provides quietness and seclusion at near­-luxury-class levels. With an industry-­leading drag coefficient of 0.27, the Passat also produces little wind roar at speed. In fact, the only evidence of engineering down to a price in this VW are mild vibrations through the steering column, floor, and seat on certain surfaces. LOWS: Some road and engine vibes still come through. With anti-lock brakes standard, the Passat has good brake feel and, with a 193-foot stopping distance from 70 mph, reasonable braking performance. The brakes never feel overboosted, and they have good initial bite with little lost motion in the pedal. The responsibility for the average braking distance falls on the all-season Continental tire fitted to the car. Although these mud-and-snow radials ride fairly qui­etly and promise decent performance in varied weather conditions, the unimpres­sive 0.75-g skidpad number and our high-­speed cornering experience suggest that high-performance rubber would substantially improve all the numbers.Better rubber would also make the Passat livelier company. As it is, the Passat turns in willingly, hangs on well, and has well-mannered cornering habits. It rewards smooth inputs with surprisingly high cor­nering speeds before the front tires push wide, although it will squeal off-line imme­diately if you drop the car onto its outer front tire with fast steering inputs. When it’s understeering, the Passat will tighten its line obediently as the throttle is trailed off. It rolls a fair bit in bends but takes a firm set and is extremely stable in transitional maneuvers. For all the stability and imper­turbability, there is a surprising degree of nimbleness in the chassis. Particularly considering the comfortable spring and shock rates—soft enough to allow a touch of float over abrupt crests—and the all-weather rubber. But dynamic sophistication isn’t the be-­all and end-all of cars in this segment. Potential Passat customers will be looking for security, equipment levels, and comfort, and the GLS has some of that. Along with the ABS and traction control, the car fea­tures seatbelt pretensioners to go along with its dual airbags and dual front-seat-mounted side airbag. A remote-access system arms a theft alarm—it’s standard—and there’s a two-program trip computer to calculate fuel range and arrival times. All the windows have a one-touch-down function; the front windows go up with one touch, too, and have pinch protection. The car has an expensive-looking two­-tone interior with numerous thoughtful details, many of which are typically not available on cars in this class as standard equipment. The list includes a glove-box door with latches at both sides instead of one in the center to prevent distortion with age and use; a 60/40 split rear seatback for greater carrying versatility; a steering wheel that tilts and telescopes; anti-whistle venti­lation outlets; rear reading lights; vanity mirrors with lights set into the headliner so you don’t blind yourself; and silicone­-damped grab handles that retract noiselessly when released. Although the front seats must be adjusted by hand, they feature a roller-mounting system for easy movement, and they’re height adjustable via a low-­effort crank lever on the outboard side. Seatback rake is adjusted by the usual VW knurled knob, which allows infinitely small graduations but has to be cranked until your wrist seizes up in order to move the back­rest to full recline.More Passat Reviews From the ArchiveThe layout of the Passat’s controls is just about perfect, with clear gauges that glow a peaceful green at night and clever graphics on switches and buttons. There is even an electric fuel-filler release button, which is completely uncharacter­istic of German cars. In fact, having just looked at the new Mazda 626, which now has a manual fuel-filler flap and no rear reading lights in the name of lowered cost, we have to wonder how the Ger­mans can offer this much car for $21,250. Even though our test Passat came with $950 worth of leather upholstery, the car stickered at only $22,200. VERDICT: A standout in a sea of generic family sedans.However they do it, let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. Here we have a sophis­ticated and stylish family sedan that pro­vides performance, comfort, and luxury at a very reasonable price. Even if this new Passat isn’t exactly the return of the people’s car, it’s certainly a deal people shopping in that price range would be wise to consider.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1997 Volkswagen Passat GLSVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,250/$22,200Options: leather seats, $950
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 20-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 107 in3, 1781 cm3Power: 150 hp @ 5700 rpmTorque: 155 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/9.6-in discTires: Continental ContiTouring Contact195/65HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.4 inLength: 184.1 inWidth: 68.5 inHeight: 57.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/42 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3080 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 22.9 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 9.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 126 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 26 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 23/32 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the March 1999 issue of Car and Driver.German engineers mining for torque deposits near Affalterbach must have hit a mother lode. At least, that’s what it feels like from behind the AMG-monogrammed steering wheel of this E55. Somewhere between here and the three­-pointed gun sight at the leading edge of the hood is housed 391 pound-feet of torque, available from 3000 rpm onward. This is the kind of urge that prompts you to adjust your head­rest—and those of the passengers—because a careless thrust at the throttle pedal will, in most circumstances, produce a lunge that snaps back heads faster than a space-shuttle launch.Press the ESP button located on the console, disabling the stability-control system (lighting a prominent yellow tri­angle in the dash), and you can expect wheelspin if you mash the throttle from rest. That’s with the five-speed automatic transmission that is standard equipment, folks. Brake-torque the E55 for a second before you go, and you’ll light up the 35-series rear tires in a serious fashion. HIGHS: Masterful integration of power, poise, and refinement.But if you balance your launch in a mature manner, you can expect propul­sion of a decidedly quick nature: 0 to 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and a quarter-mile sprint in 13.5 seconds at 105 mph. To get that sort of thrust from a big luxury car like this, did AMG turn the E55 into a hot rod of the brutal, kidney-crushing variety? Well, yes and no. Fast it is. Rude it ain’t. In fact, so suave is this E-class muscle car that its real potential will not be recog­nized by many passengers. You could pick up your boss at the airline terminal and transport them to their hotel at quarter-throttle, and they’d swear it was a luxury ride under them. That’s because the quiet 5.4-liter V-8 wuffles along with hydraulic smoothness and slurs gearshifts in a seamless sequence. Even at low revs, there’s enough torque to waft up hills without losing speed or digging for another gear. And only if the roads are bad will your VIP sense the ten­sioned suspension (35 percent higher-rate springs, Bilstein shocks, beefier stabilizer bars) and high-pressure, low-profile doughnuts under them. As for the drivers around you, they’ll just recognize another E-class Benz with the Sport package they’re accustomed to seeing on E430s. Unless they close up tight on the car’s tail, that is, and read the chrome letters that proclaim the car to be an E55 by AMG. Yes, the latest “Hammer” from Mercedes and its in-house speed wizards is a Q-ship. According to Mike Jackson, the recently appointed boss of Mercedes-­Benz of North America, the Germans are currently into inconspicuous consump­tion, and they want their cars—particu­larly the tuner-prepped rocket ships—to be unobtrusive. But that’s not what Jackson wanted for his mid-size giant killer in our market, and the E55 you see here is the resulting compromise. It uses an existing AMG-derived Sport package, but it’s allowed a subdued boast from its tail-mounted insignia, along with subtle AMG badging on the steering wheel and gauge cluster. It’s not a car that needs superfluous decoration, that’s for sure. At a suggested price of $71,717 (cheaper by 15 or so grand than its predecessor, the Porsche-­assembled E500), every one of the 2000 examples earmarked for the U.S. over the next four years will be snapped up. Heck, most of the first shipment will likely be absorbed by dealer principals before the public even gets a shot. Which is a pity, because this is an extraordinary vehicle, versatile beyond our wildest expectations, and as rewarding as the best drivers’ cars around. To have achieved this at a lower price than that of the preceding E500 is commendable, accomplished by keeping as much of the original E-class car intact. Unlike the E500, the E55 is essentially a fully assembled and trimmed vehicle off Mercedes-Benz’s Sindelfingen line before it is sent off to the AMG skunk­works in Affalterbach for its stroked and breathed-upon engine, its heavy-duty V-12-derived transmission, its uprated suspension and brakes, and its big wheels and tires. Because of that, the essence of the E-class car has been pre­served, but with dynamic parameters that have been extended in every way. The primary differences are manifested as a more jiggly ride with much tauter roll control, a throttle that gets into the power without the Benz-signature long and pro­gressive pedal travel, and acceleration—anytime—that is in another league. Oh, yeah, and an engine note that changes from a polite V-8 burble to a hard-edged snarl when the pedal’s down and the tach is reaching for six grand. LOWS: Seats could use more lateral support, steering-wheel spokes are too thick.Surprisingly, the steering-assist mech­anism is identical to that of the E430, and it remains light at most speeds. So light that the mechanism in a BMW 328i feels leaden in comparison. But it directs the E55 with such accuracy and fluency that more weight at the rim doesn’t seem nec­essary. In fact, when you add the car’s tenacious grip (0.88 g on the skidpad) and tightly tied-down body motions to the razor-sharp helm, the E55 can take on almost anything in the corners. But be warned, the driver will likely need some recalibration; the car’s abundantly stiff structure and good isolation lead one to underestimate corner entry speeds. On the introductory ride-and-drive in Napa, California, a couple of drivers from other publications went off the road, and we suspect that those incidents were partly due to the decep­tive ease with which this car gathers speed. What shouldn’t go unno­ticed in the E55 (and this is particularly seductive) is the push in the back you get when you pin the throttle. The torque is so prodigious (41 pound­-feet more than a Corvette’s), and the torque curve so flat, that the E55 pulls hard all the way through each gear, pro­ducing a concerted thrust like that of a 757 on a takeoff run. It just keeps on coming. Aerodynamic drag beyond triple-digit speeds does little to blunt its charge, and our E55 was still accelerating when it hit an electronic limiter at 158 mph. Hard enough to suggest a real top speed somewhere around 180 mph. Still, 158 ought to be enough for most people, and at that speed the E55 tracks as straight as a die. More E55 Archive Reviews and Best AMGsAt more reasonable rates of travel, the E55 assumes its more civilized persona, providing a smooth, quiet ride that will take its occupants on interstate travel with little discomfort. This is perhaps the car’s most noteworthy aspect. When not being flogged hard, it behaves more like a limo than a supercar. In fact, the transmission’s computer reads driver inputs and adjusts its activities accordingly. The compromises you accept for this broad operating bandwidth are few. A sus­pension designed for high speeds and mas­sive cornering potential can’t be expected to traverse broken surfaces without trans­mitting some impact shock and movement into the car. On the other end of the scale, the factory-issue seats (available in all­-black leather or in two-tone combinations of black and blue and black and silver) are firm and supportive enough for a cross­-continent tour, but they lack the wrap­around support of dedicated sport seats. We also found the leather-wrapped wheel (also available in solid or two-tone hues) to have a rather obstructive arrangement of spokes and thumb pads, leaving too little rim available for those of us with large hands. Understand, please, that this is deliberate picking of the smallest nits. For most people’s needs, the mix of sporting and luxury attributes is right on the money. As the two companies involved in the E55’s genesis have drawn closer (AMG is being acquired by Daimler-­Chrysler), so the levels of sophistication have increased. Thus, the E55 retains all the elaborate technical aspects of the V-8-powered E-class cars: the stability- and traction-control systems; the twin-plug cylinder heads; the variable-volume intake tract; the oil-quality monitor-in short, all the assets of a factory-backed product.VERDICT: This is a real everyday supercar.Indeed, this close integration of a leading-edge manufacturer and its spe­cialist engineering consulting service is really what defines the new E55 and its nearly perfect blend of pedigree and power. Remember, 1998 saw Mercedes and AMG bring home two world-champi­onship motorsports trophies as well as launch the E55. It looks like a winning streak to us.Counterpoints Five minutes behind the wheel, and sud­denly I have a new favorite Mercedes. Floor the accelerator on most automatic Mercedes models, and the transmission responds, “You sure you want me to downshift? Positive? Right now? Okay.” Floor the E55, and it says, “Faster? Yesss!” The muted V-8 burble, the taut suspension that still gives an excellent ride, the ultra-low-profile Michelins, the supple leather bucket seats that are as comfy as anything in your living room—the E55 may well be the ulti­mate in understated executive transport. At least until the new BMW M5 migrates to America. —Steven Cole Smith Isn’t it interesting that Mercedes has always subscribed to the American big-engine approach when creating its sports sedans? To create the legendary 300SEL 6.3 back in 1968, Mercedes employed the 6.3-liter V-8 from the 600 limousine. With the new E55, Mercedes has followed the same path by shoehorning its largest V-8 into the mid-size E-class sedan. With about 70 percent more displacement than the base E-class 3.2-liter V-6 has, the E55 is a rocket, flattening you in your seat all the way to its 158-mph governor. And it produces this thrust with effortless refinement, proving once again that there is indeed no substitute for cubic inches. —Csaba CsereArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Mercedes E55 AMGVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $71,717/$73,302Options: six-disc CD changer and cellular telephone, $1495; luxury tax on options, $90
ENGINESOHC V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 332 in3, 5439 cm3Power: 349 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 391 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.2-in vented disc/11.8-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot SportF: 245/40ZR-18R: 275/35ZR-18
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.5 inLength: 189.4 inWidth: 70.8 inHeight: 56.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/44 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3765 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.9 sec100 mph: 12.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.5 sec @ 105 mph130 mph: 22.4 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 158 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 156 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 16/23 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the November 1997 issue of Car and Driver.George Hurst’s first customized shifter was for a 1956 Chevy. It had shorter throws from gear to gear and a more precise feel than stock shifters. In no time, performance drivers everywhere were lining up for them. Detroit automakers were serious about perfor­mance back then, and by the Sixties, a Hurst shifter could be ordered on many cars—even Buicks! In 1968, Hurst went beyond just turning out shifters. He built an Oldsmobile Cut­lass 442 with a huge Toronado 455-cubic-­inch V-8 under the hood. In addition to all that horsepresssure, this Hurst car stressed speed and comfort—something tradition­ally absent in most muscle cars of the day. Moreover, at the time, GM had a ban on engines larger than 400 cubic inches from all but the largest models. Oldsmobile may have seen the Hurst car as one way to get around GM’s policy and keep one serious racehorse in the stable by producing reg­ular Cutlass 442s and then having Hurst perform the engine swap after the cars left the factory. Since 1968, nine Oldsmobiles and three American Motors cars have carried Hurst badging. The latest Hurst car, a modified 1997 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6, developed in a roundabout way. Hurst, now owned by Mr. Gasket, the performance­-parts company, borrowed a car from Pon­tiac to develop a shifter for the Firebird’s automatic transmission.Pontiac PR man Mark Hitchins handed over a black WS6 and suggested that maybe it was time for another Hurst car. Hurst agreed. Since both Pontiac and Hurst wanted the car to be more than just a paint­-and-trim package, they called well-known aftermarket tuner John Lingenfelter. The result is not just a Hurst Firebird—it’s a Hurst Firebird by Lingenfelter. Lingenfelter’s goal was to increase horsepower without jacking up the price too severely. The LT1 engine in a stock 1997 WS6 Firebird with a ram-air intake system makes 305 hp; Lingenfelter wanted to kick that up to 350. Just as Primatene Mist opens up clogged breathing passages, Lingenfelter uncorked the LT1. First, he ported a set of cylinder heads and an intake manifold from the now defunct Corvette Grand Sport’s LT4 engine and installed them. Next came stronger valve springs and pushrods with titanium retainers (these helped allow the redline to increase by 800 revs). Longer roller rocker arms and a Lin­genfelter Performance Engineering (LPE) custom-ground camshaft provided higher lift and more duration. On the exhaust side, Lingenfelter installed new headers and added a Borla stainless-steel exhaust system. To handle the increased power, he specified an alu­minum driveshaft 3.5 inches in diameter and, for more traction, swapped the original Goodyear rubber for Michelin Pilot SX tires, in the same size.Of course, the Hurst six-speed shifter, with its well-established short throws and precise feel, was also added. A Hurst custom job also includes a dose of body cha-cha. A ground-effects package complements the lower body panels, although WS6 Firebirds are already so busy-bodied that it’s tough to notice the new zoot. There is, however, no missing the car’s trick paint job, with gold aluminum wheels and gold paint cov­ering the decklid and the hood.The car is loaded with options. There’s a T-top, power leather seats (they bear badges that say “Hurst Firebird by Lin­genfelter”), a CD and cassette player, cruise control, and power for the mirrors, windows, and locks. More on the Pontiac FirebirdWe like the extra options, but let’s face it: This car is about extra speed. At the track, the 15-percent increase in horse­power pays off. The 0-to-60 routine takes 4.7 seconds, which is 0.6 second quicker than the new LS1-powered ’98 Trans Am. The quarter-mile flashes by in just 13.1 seconds at 111 mph. That makes this Hurst car the quickest set of wheels in the GM stable—outrunning even the new Corvette. (The fastest new Vette we’ve tested hit 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and ran the quarter­-mile in 13.3 seconds at 109 mph.) The Hurst Firebird is still ahead of the Vette at 150 mph, and it stays there to a whopping terminal velocity of 182 mph, 23 mph faster than the new Trans Am and 7 mph faster than the Vette. Given the Vette’s 345 horsepower rating—that’s five less than this Hurst car—we think Lingenfelter’s estimate of 350 horses is, as even he says, “conservatively low.” Oh, did we mention that the Hurst car generates 0.89 g on the skidpad, which is an improvement of 0.04 over the stock ver­sion? Did we mention there is no free lunch? In 1968, a Hurst package added $400 to the model. Today, it adds $15,495. Tack that onto an already pricey $28,789 WS6 Firebird, and you have—cha-­ching!—a payment schedule involving $44,947. Well, think of this car as the most exclusive ride this side of a Ferrari F50. That’s because only nine of these Hurst Firebirds by Lingenfelter (designated as 1997 models) will make it into customers’ hands. Why so few? The original plan called for 50 cars, but by the time con­tractual details were finalized, only nine WS6 cars, of 3807 built, had yet to be sold. Pontiac and Lingenfelter haven’t inked a deal yet for a Hurst version of the new LS1-powered Firebird, but chances are good they will. Either way, if you were one of the lucky souls to get your hands on a 1997 model, hang on to it. Who knows? Twenty years from now, it just might be worth some serious cash.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1997 Pontiac Hurst Firebird by LingenfelterVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,249/$44,947Options: Hurst package (LPE 350-hp engine package, ground effects, Hurst shifter, aluminum driveshaft, gold graphics, car cover, gold aluminum wheels, Michelin Pilot SX 275/40ZR-17 tires, oil cooler, embroidered floor mats and headrests, numbered dash plaque, and key chain), $15,495; WS6 option package (ram-air induction system, air scoops, dual polished exhaust outlets, performance suspension), $3345; 1SB option package (power locks, windows, and mirrors; cruise control; rear-window defroster), $1121; T-tops, $995; leather seats, $829; remote CD changer, $595; steering-wheel radio controls, $200; keyless entry, $150; Delco stereo, $130; theft alarm, $90; power antenna, $85; luxury tax on options, $663
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 350 in3, 5733 cm3Power: 350 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 375 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 10.7-in vented disc/11.4-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot SX275/40ZR-17
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.1 inLength: 197.0 inWidth: 74.5 inHeight: 52.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/31 ft3Trunk Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 3554 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.7 sec100 mph: 10.9 sec1/4-Mile: 13.1 sec @ 111 mph130 mph: 18.8 sec150 mph: 30.6 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 14.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 13.5 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 182 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More