More stories

  • in

    Comparison Test: 2023 Kia Telluride vs. 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander

    There are moments in history when a new contender arrives on the scene and disrupts the entire landscape. Remember professional golf before Tiger Woods? Athletes on the PGA Tour didn’t work out. Heck, they showed up for their round of 18 with a pack of cigarettes and a sixer of domestic beer. Then Tiger arrived and began an era of domination that rattled the foundation of the sport. Why is any of that relevant to three-row SUVs? Well, when the Kia Telluride first arrived for 2020, it forced a similar shakeup in the three-row world. The Telluride offered a lavish experience at a bargain price, but it’s no longer as fresh as it was at the beginning of the decade, and the competition hasn’t been sleeping. A few years later, the Telluride remains a fantastic family SUV, but others in this class are catching up. With the arrival of the new Toyota Grand Highlander, we figured now was a good time to reassess the Telluride and its place in the family-SUV market. For the test, we chose well-optioned versions of both vehicles while staying under the $60,000 mark. 2nd Place: 2023 Kia Telluride SX Prestige AWDMoney talks, and viewing the two cars from a purely economic standpoint, the Telluride comes out on top. Equipped with the SX Prestige AWD package, the Telluride continues to amaze us with the impressive number of features included for the base price of $51,955 or our tested vehicle’s $52,970 sticker—more than $6000 less than the Toyota. Even with the reasonable price of admission, the interior of our test car provides a near-luxury experience with leather, a faux-suede headliner, and heated and ventilated first- and second-row seating. And the Telluride’s interior layout continues to make sense. Dual 12.3-inch displays stretch across the left side of the dash, and the center touchscreen offers an intuitive menu. Controls on the steering wheel are clear and straightforward, the PRNDL shifter is instantly familiar, and unlike some of the newer offerings from Kia, the Telluride retains a full suite of physical buttons for the climate control and the stereo.HIGHS: Feature-rich, fantastic styling, great value.LOWS: So-so acceleration, less than accommodating for all sizes, wired phone mirroring.VERDICT: Still the best value, but no longer the best overall.Yes, the Grand Highlander tops it in many volume metrics, but the Telluride ties the Toyota for front-row space and actually offers more space for second-row passengers. Plus, the Telluride equals the Grand Highlander for cargo storage behind the third row. Most drivers will find the Telluride’s cockpit a comfortable space, though shorter pilots might struggle to find that just-right driving position, even with 10-way adjustability for the driver’s seat. Despite that, the Telluride cockpit sits low enough that most folks can settle into the car rather than clambering up and in. Generally, the build quality shows attention to detail, and the materials are for the most part upscale. Frequent touch points, such as the shifter and the interior door handles, are finished in sturdy plastic, nappa leather, or a gloss metallic finish. Elsewhere, the Telluride starts to show its value pricing a bit more. On the front seatbacks, leather gives way to a cheaper-looking black plastic covering that also makes its way to the glove compartment. And for as well equipped as it is, the Telluride does show some gray hairs. Take Apple CarPlay—the Telluride comes equipped with it but requires a wired connection, and that connection is USB-A. Probably not a dealbreaker, but the wireless option would be nice to have.When it comes to driving dynamics, the Telluride does everything it needs to and does it well, but the competition has caught up. The Kia’s 291-hp V-6 offers enough oomph for most occasions, but the Grand Highlander Hybrid Max has a lot more power. For example, its 4.2-second 50-to-70-mph run easily beat the Telluride’s 4.7. It probably won’t be a frequent issue, but the extra grunt in the Toyota certainly made passing on two-lane highways a less stressful event. 1st Place: 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hybrid Max Platinum AWDThe Grand Highlander arrives as the new kid on the block. It shares the Highlander name, but it’s a bigger vehicle all around: longer, wider, and taller than the Highlander. Yet it’s still able to slip into a parking stall or most garages. It’s 4.5 inches longer than the Telluride and nearly a full inch taller, with both SUVs measuring 78.3 inches wide. The extra length in the Toyota makes room for 11 more cubic feet of cargo space with the second- and third-row seats folded down. When you first open the door, the Toyota interior is pretty much all work and no play, even with the Platinum’s diamond-stylized trim pieces and rose-gold accents. The center console is practical, although we wish Toyota didn’t feel the need to reinvent the shifter. The wireless charging pad is tucked under the dash to keep your smartphone from becoming a projectile. The removable cupholder doubles as an extra cubby, and the center console offers enough space for a bag or a purse. Flexible storage was clearly a theme for the design team, as the second-row console can be lifted out of the way to make an aisle between the seats. Children will likely find the third row to be welcoming enough, but most adults will find a scarcity of legroom unless the second row is pushed forward. HIGHS: Carries the most cargo, strong fuel economy, lots of power.LOWS: Higher price, cramped third row, Rubik’s Cube shifter.VERDICT: What the Grand Highlander lacks in pizazz, it makes up for in practicality.If the hybrid system in the Prius is the concert equivalent of attending a Sunday church choir, the one that debuted in the Crown—and that serves as the top powertrain offering in the Grand Highlander—is the equivalent of a Slipknot concert. The combustion engine is a 265-hp turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder paired with a set of electric motors and a six-speed automatic transmission with a wet clutch. The total output in the Grand Highlander is an impressive 362 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque. The torque figure is achieved at a wonderfully low 2000 rpm, making stoplight drag racing a reality. The 5.6 seconds required to hit 60 mph makes it 1.1 seconds quicker than the Telluride. Those two-lane highways we mentioned earlier? Passing with the Grand Highlander was a breeze. Granted, performance isn’t the main marketing point for this segment, but you’ll be glad for the extra ponies when your loaded-up SUV is used to chauffeur half of your child’s youth hockey team and its gear.As for fuel economy, the Grand Highlander shows the benefits of its hybrid power—especially in the city. The Toyota returned 25 mpg over the course of our 650-mile test, beating the Telluride’s 22 mpg. However, the Telluride did manage to come out on top in our 200-mile 75-mph fuel-economy test, returning 26 mpg to the Grand Highlander’s 24 mpg. Outside of acceleration and power, the driving dynamics of the Grand Highlander and the Telluride are actually quite similar. Ride quality is smooth and comfortable, with both suspension setups sopping up all but the worst potholes. Neither three-row provides much steering feedback, but, then again, these aren’t canyon carvers. After three years of being undefeated in comparison tests and winning 10Best awards, the Telluride fully earned the target on its back. Now the Grand Highlander is here, and it’s big, quick, and incredibly practical. If the Grand Highlander leaves anything on the table, it’s that Toyota is unashamedly leaving room for a Lexus version down the line (which will likely cost even more than this Toyota’s $59,520 base/as-tested price). There aren’t many frills, but the Grand Highlander knows what its mission is and executes it incredibly well. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    2023 Kia Telluride SX Prestige AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $51,955/$52,970Options: Glacial White Pearl paint, $495; Mahogany Interior Color package, $295; carpeted floor mats, $210
    ENGINE
    DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 231 in3, 3778 cm3Power: 291 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 262 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
    TRANSMISSION
    8-speed automatic
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.4-in vented disc/12.0-in discTires: Michelin Primacy LTX245/50R-20 102V M+S
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 114.2 inLength: 196.9 inWidth: 78.3 inHeight: 69.3 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58/57/36 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 87/46/21 ft3Curb Weight: 4490 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 6.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.1 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.6 sec130 mph: 38.6 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 secTop Speed (C/D est): 135 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 22 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 26 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 480 mi
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 21/18/24 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 EXPLAINEDAssociate News EditorJack Fitzgerald’s love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1. After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn’t afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. More

  • in

    The 1997 Chevrolet C5 Corvette Really Pushed Our Buttons

    From the February 1997 issue of Car and Driver.Chevrolet has presented new Corvettes that have stimu­lated our cranial synapses with exotic new technology, ele­vated our pulses with bump-and-­grind styling, and sent our adrenal glands into overload with tire­-scorching performance, but this new 1997 model is the first Corvette that presses all of our livable and useful buttons with its relentless attention to detail and meticulous engineering. Dubbed the C5 because it is the fifth-generation Corvette, the new model uses a structure that is four times as stiff as the C4 chassis. Its natural frequency measures 23 hertz, close to the Mercedes E320’s and the Oldsmobile Aurora’s, which are among the stiffest cars in the world. Furthermore, this stiffness only drops to 21 hertz when the roof panel is removed. The stiffer structure does much to reduce the squeaks and rattles that have always plagued Corvettes, but chief engi­neer Dave Hill didn’t stop there. From day one, he assigned an engineer to do nothing but optimize the design and assembly of every part to eliminate unwanted noise. Among the items eliminated were 34 per­cent of the total number of parts in the C4. By using fewer, larger parts, the C5 is inherently more solid. Despite the reduction in the number of parts, the C5 has grown: slightly on the outside, substantially inside. In addition to offering more room for large people, a lower sill and a taller roofline make it easier to enter and exit. The pop-out roof panel is now attached with three hand levers rather than four bolts and a ratchet wrench. Meanwhile, luggage space has doubled to 25 cubic feet, more than a Saab 900’s. Completely new suspension geometry at both ends has greatly reduced the C4’s tendency to be pummeled by potholes, deflected by crowned roads, and upset by truck grooves on the road. The new model seems glued to the road, without transmitting all surface imperfections to its occupants. As valuable as these improve­ments are, however, they would be worthless had they been achieved at the expense of per­formance. We’re happy to report that in the pursuit of their kinder and gentler priorities, Dave Hill and his team have not forgotten that speed is central to the Corvette experience. Despite a softer launch at Atlanta Dragway than we nor­mally achieve at our sticky test track in Michigan, the prepro­duction 1997 Corvette hit 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and 100 mph in 11.4 seconds and swallowed up the quarter-mile in 13.4 seconds at 108 mph. We were only able to reach 130 mph within the short confines of the drag strip, and that figure came up in 20.5 seconds, but Chevrolet claims a top speed of 172 mph. Jim Ingle, a Corvette development engineer and known straight shooter, assured us that he’s seen 175 mph at the 7.5-mile Transportation Research Center’s oval in Ohio. The quickest LTl-engined C4 we’ve ever tested needed 13.6 seconds at 104 mph to cover the quarter. The fastest one topped out at 161 mph. Even the hotted­-up LT4-engined car we tested last year could only run 13.7 at 104 and top out at 168. In fact, we’ve tested relatively slow ZR-ls that could barely keep up with the new CS. Despite its newfound comfort and practicality, the CS is, without question, one of the fastest Corvettes ever.This combination of speed, utility, and solidity is clothed in completely new body­work—still fiberglass, of course—that is both sleek and reminiscent of past Corvettes. To many eyes, however, there are a few styling genes from the Mazda RX-7 and Pontiac Firebird evident in its low, rounded, twin-nostriled front end. In profile, the CS is low in front and a little heavy in the rump, as if it were mid-engined. Practically speaking, the low nose enhances forward visibility and the high tail reduces drag and increases lug­gage space, but the look takes a bit of get­ting used to.At the rear, this bodywork terminates in a sharp crease that seems incongruous with the rounded contours elsewhere. The necessarily tall rear fascia is nicely broken up by four oval taillights near the top and an array of slots near the bottom. Unfor­tunately, the four flat-black exhaust tips virtually disappear when viewed from a distance. A few square inches of polished stainless steel would find a good home here. Despite these nits, we don’t dislike the look of the CS. It just doesn’t knock our socks off. But pretty is as pretty does, and the new body boasts an excellent drag coefficient of 0.29—a useful improvement over the C4’s 0.34 figure. Some of this benefit is offset by the greater frontal area, a result of the C5’s being 1.4 inches taller and 2.9 inches wider than the C4 (it’s almost as wide as the dis­continued ZR-1). Allowing for this increase, the C5 still produces about 8.5 percent less aerodynamic drag than its pre­decessor. Lift—and the resulting high­-speed instability that it can provoke—was never a problem with the C4, but insiders report that the C5 body is about 30 percent improved by that measure as well. This coachwork covers a completely redesigned chassis that was conceived to finally give the Corvette the solid founda­tion it needed to shed its reputation for a jittery ride and low-quality assembly. Greater interior space, easier entry and exit, and a more solid mounting for the suspension pieces were also high on the new chassis agenda. A folded-steel backbone—roughly 12 inches high, 9 inches wide, and 4 feet long—forms the heart of this frame. With a bottom plate attached by 36 bolts turning it into an enclosed tube, this structure pro­vides immense torsional rigidity.The sheetmetal flares out at each end to tie into the C5’s second major structural element: a pair of hydroformed rectan­gular-section steel rails that run the full length of the car, just inside the front and rear wheels and kicking out to form the door sills next to the passenger compart­ment. These galvanized-steel elements begin as six-inch-diameter tubes. They are first roughly bent to shape and then inserted into a set of dies. The tubes are then filled with water at a pressure of 5000 psi, which forces them into their four-by-six-inch rec­tangular configuration. They provide much of the C5’s bending stiffness. A steel roll-bar structure is welded to the rear intersection of these frame rails and the backbone frame. At the front inter­section, two rectangular steel tubes jut upward to provide mounting points for the aluminum windshield structure.Featherweight pieces are everywhere on the frame. The steering column is sup­ported by a magnesium casting. The removable roof panel also uses magnesium for its frame. The floor boards are a com­posite of fiberglass and balsa wood. No one can accuse Hill and his team of taking shortcuts in the design of this chassis. One might, however, come to a dif­ferent conclusion after a first glance at the new LS1 engine, which superficially appears to be another rehash of the 31- year-old small-block V-8. But the LS1, which we thoroughly discussed in Tech­nical Highlights last October, shares nothing but its 4.4-inch bore spacing with its forebears. The light-but-strong philosophy that pervades the CS is evident in the LS1 engine as well. Its new aluminum block extends well below the crankshaft cen­terline and uses six bolts (four from the bottom and one from each side) to retain each main-bearing cap. Each aluminum head attaches to this block with 10 bolts in a symmetrical four-bolt pattern around each bore, rather than the traditional five-­bolt array. These bolts thread into the block down near the main-bearing web to minimize distortion of the cylinders bores when they are tightened. These new heads employ equally spaced intake and exhaust ports rather than the traditional siamesed pattern. The light­weight plastic intake manifold takes advantage of this change with tuned intake runners and smooth interior surfaces. The LS1 engine marks the debut of the Corvette’s first drive-by-wire throttle. Instead of a mechanical linkage from the accelerator to open and close the throttle, the LS1 uses an electric motor. This motor is controlled by a computer that reads the position of a sensor at the accelerator pedal. It also incorporates the cruise-control system and communicates with the engine-management computer and the traction-control system to restrict engine output when needed. By combining all these functions, it is actually simpler and lighter than the conventional setup. In contrast to this innovation, you might be surprised to see that the LS1 engine retains the traditional pushrod, two-valve design. But lightweight valves, extensive use of roller bearings, and opti­mized valvetrain geometry have reduced friction while maintaining a lofty redline of 6000 rpm. Moreover, the LSI is distantly related to an upcoming new truck V-8, which will be built in huge volumes. That genealogy may well have dictated the pushrod setup as well as the tight bore spacing that forces the LS1 engine to have a smaller bore and longer stroke than the old V-8. But with 345 horsepower and 350 pound-feet of torque, a light 532-pound weight, compact dimensions, and pro­jected EPA fuel-economy figures of 18 mpg city and 28 mpg highway with a manual transmission, it’s hard to fault Chevy’s design decisions. This engine feeds its output to the rear wheels via an all-new driveline that posi­tions the transmission in the tail. A torque tube that is five inches in diameter and four feet long connects the engine rigidly to the new rear-mounted transaxle. The entire assembly attaches to the chassis via a hydraulic mount underneath the transaxle and a motor mount on either side of the engine block. With a manual transmission, the hydraulically operated clutch is bolted to the engine’s flywheel. The clutch in turn twists an aluminum-and-ceramic-matrix driveshaft. The gearbox is a variation of the Borg-Warner T56 used in the Chev­rolet Camaro and Dodge Viper. For use in the CS, its guts are reinforced with triple cone synchronizers in the lower gears and stuffed into a new case that bolts to a Getrag limited-slip differential. If you’re being picky, this isn’t really a transaxle, since the transmission and the differential each have their own discrete cases and do not share lubricants, but other than costing a few pounds and maybe an inch in length, that’s not a disadvantage. If you specify an automatic, the arrangement is much the same except that the torque converter is mounted in the rear with the transmission, a Hydra-Matic 4L60-E, which is a repackaged version of the C4’s four-speed automatic. By moving the transmission from the front to the rear, Hill and his engineers cre­ated more space for wider footwells—six inches wider on the passenger side. Moving the transmission aft also helped restore the weight distribution to nearly even—it was 51.4/48.6 on our test sample—after such measures as pulling the rear wheels back, moving the gas tank forward, and eliminating the spare tire had increased the front weight bias. The keen reader will have noticed the implications of the hydraulic mounting of this differential. Since 1963, when Corvettes first received independent rear suspen­sions, their differentials were always solidly mounted because the half-shafts formed the upper suspension links. On the CS, this is no longer so. Instead, the rear suspension consists of unequal-length aluminum upper and lower control arms with a rear-mounted toe-con­trol link. The lower control arms mount to a cast-aluminum subframe that is bolted solidly to the chassis. The upper control arms attach to the hydroformed side rails. The half-shafts are now a splined design to accommodate the length variations imposed by suspension movement. A transverse plastic leaf spring is the only element even vaguely recognizable from the C4. The suspension geometry was con­ceived to provide minimal track and toe changes as the wheels move up and down. The toe-control link is critical to achieving this, especially since the bushings allow the wheels to move rearward slightly to help absorb small, sharp bumps. In front, the design philosophy is sim­ilar, with unequal-length control arms and a transverse plastic leaf spring mounted to another large cast-aluminum subframe. In place of the toe-control link, you’ll find GM’s Magnasteer II setup. Magnasteer II is a refinement of the rotary electromagnetic variable-assist power-steering system that made its debut on the Aurora. The computer that controls this electromagnet now looks at speed and lateral acceleration to provide a more stable, progressive feel at the steering­-wheel rim. The base suspension has gas-charged, single-tube shock absorbers all around. Optional is the F45 variable-damping system that provides three cockpit settings. Each setting corresponds to a different pro­gram that selects from an infinite variety of damping curves based on wheel travel, steering-wheel angle, and calculated lat­eral acceleration. Called Selective Real Time Damping, the system can change the shock settings as often as 100 times per second. Finally, for committed performance enthusiasts, there’s the Z51 option that comes with larger (1.8- versus 1.4-inch diameter) gas-charged shocks with a single setting (stiffer than any of the F45 offer­ings), along with stiffer springs and larger anti-roll bars.As on the C4, there are vented disc brakes and aluminum calipers at each corner. Although the front rotors are slightly smaller in diam­eter than previously, they are sub­stantially thicker, as are the rears. Furthermore, the two openings in the C5’s front fascia feed cooling air via four-inch ducts to the front brakes. Anti-lock control is pro­vided by a Bosch ABS V system that is integrated with the standard traction-control system.All this chassis hardware com­municates with the pavement via Goodyear Eagle F1 GS EMT tires—P245/45ZR-17 in front and P275/40ZR-18 in the rear. You will notice that for the first time in Corvette history, the rear tire is larger in diameter than the front, for appearance and because the resulting longer contact patch pro­vides some stability benefits. You might also notice that both tires are one size narrower than the C4’s, although we were told that the new car achieves 0.92 g on the skidpad compared with 0.89 for the old one. With sufficient grip, the narrower tires provide better steering feel and greater tolerance of imperfect pavement.Sliding behind the wheel of the C5 certainly demands less human origami than before, and the greater view out from the cockpit makes the C5 feel more like an Acura NSX than the C4 with its somewhat buried perspective. Ergonomically, the C5 is hard to fault. The wider footwells pro­vide room for a perfectly positioned dead pedal. The wipers are controlled by a stalk sprouting from the right of the steering column. The steering column itself is adjustable for angle, although not reach, and comes with a fat, grippy rim and spokes well positioned for hands at the three- and nine­-o’ clock positions. The shift knob is no more than a hand’s breadth away from the rim. The ignition switch is on the dash rather than the steering column. And to our immense relief, the C5 has a full set of proper, round, white-on-black instruments that are neither a weak imitation of an arcade game nor afflicted with any needles that fall as the temperature rises. Not that there’s a total absence of razzle-dazzle. When you fire up the C5, the needles on all the instruments flick full scale and back, and a driver-information center uses an alphanumeric display to communicate a wide variety of information, including the individual pressure in each of the C5’s four tires (good to know because an inattentive driver might not realize when the run-flat tires are underin­flated).As you accumulate miles in the C5, the claims about the improved rigidity become fully credible. Bumps pro­duce single, muted thumps with no quivers, no rattles, and no aftershocks. There’s also no sign of the C4’s fondness for continuous tiny vertical shakes that made us feel as if we were sitting on the end of a springy diving board. Finally, the C4 suspension’s tendency to turn vertical bumps into small, lateral vibrations—occa­sionally even on a straight road­—is completely absent. The preproduction examples we drove did, however, exhibit more driveline noise than we expected. In one, the engine buzzed lightly between 3000 and 5000 rpm. In another, there was some rattling in first gear. With the C5’s sophisti­cated driveline isolation, we hope these vibrations will be exorcised before cars arrive at dealerships. When you start pushing the C5 hard on a winding road, the body moves up and down as needed to absorb the bumps and grinds of the pavement, but the four tires feel as if they’re magnetically attached to the pavement. In cars equipped with the adjustable F45 suspension, this supple character prevails in all three settings, although the level of ride control increases progres­sively as you dial the switch from “tour” to “sport” to “performance.” But even the tautest setting is far less harsh than it was on, say, the 1995 FX3-equipped models. Such a stable platform encourages hard charging. The precise and progressive control responses will help all C5 drivers imitate Alain Prost. The lengthy shift linkage communing with the rear­-mounted transaxle feels pre­cise and accurate. The stop­ping power of the strong brakes varies linearly with the pressure of your foot on the cast-aluminum brake pedal. Furthermore, there’s a nice gradual onset of braking when your foot first starts pressing the pedal, making you look smooth even when you stab the brakes to cope with an over-­the-rise surprise. The steering proves equally friendly, although at first we felt that the effort was a little too heavy. But as we pro­ceeded to attack the winding and hilly back roads of Ken­tucky, the steering became completely transparent. There seemed to be a seamless con­nection between the driver’s brain and the C5’s front tires without the need for any con­scious thought. You can eat up pavement very quickly and easily in this car without ever breaking a sweat or sliding a tire. However, we were given the opportunity to do both at Road Atlanta racetrack. We were critically interested in the C5’s behavior at the limit, because the C4 was particularly forgiving when driven flat out. Despite its high limits, you could lean hard on it, safe in the belief that it would break away gradually and keep its tail in line. Car and DriverWe soon developed the same confidence in the C5, although with the new car’s higher grip, it definitely takes more speed before it slides. Through the 70-to-90-mph esses at Road Atlanta, the CS only gradually relinquishes its grip on the asphalt. Unlike the C4, the new model does slide first at the tail, but after oozing out only a few degrees, it sta­bilizes in a slight drift. Easing off the throttle a tiny amount brings the car right back into line. In slower turns, such as the right-angle, second-gear corner leading onto the back straight, you can get the tail out big time if you are even slightly overaggressive with the throttle—with the traction control turned off, of course. Not even the Dodge Viper GTS demands as much respect in similar turns. As it turns out, Corvette engineers plan a few changes prior to production to minimize this behavior. A five-percent-stiffer front spring will increase understeer slightly, and a change in the rear-tire compound is expected to increase cornering grip when the power is hard on. Those who perennially hope for a smaller Corvette will be disappointed, but there’s no question that the CS uses its bulk well. Moreover, it is not overweight for its size or performance. The now-defunct Nissan 300ZX Turbo weighed 300 pounds more than this new CS, and the Toyota Supra Turbo and the Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 are heavier than it as well. Only the far smaller Porsche 911 undercuts the CS’s weight—and then by less than 200 pounds. More Corvette Reviews From the ArchiveWhich brings us to another Corvette tradition that the CS upholds: exotic-car performance at a moderate price. The least expensive production car we’ve tested that can outperform the CS in the quarter-mile is the Dodge Viper RT/10, which costs $6S,260. Although final CS pricing has not yet been announced, Chevrolet plans to price it not much higher than the C4’s $38,000 base price. Corvettes, of course, have always delivered tremendous performance for the buck. But purists have tended to dismiss this value by reciting the litany of quality and refinement shortcomings that accom­panied it. With the CS, that list is suddenly very short indeed. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    1997 Chevrolet CorvetteVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa
    PRICE (ESTIMATED)
    Base/As Tested: $39,000/$41,000
    ENGINEpushrod V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 346 in3, 5665 cm3Power: 345 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 350 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: control arms/control armsBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/12.0-in vented discTires: Goodyear Eagle F1 GS EMTF: 245/45ZR-17R: 275/40ZR-18
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 104.5 inLength: 179.7 inWidth: 73.6 inHeight: 47.7 inPassenger Volume: 52 ft3Trunk Volume: 25 ft3Curb Weight: 3260 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 4.9 sec100 mph: 11.4 sec1/4-Mile: 13.4 sec @ 108 mph130 mph: 20.5 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.7 secTop Speed (C/D est): 172 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ft 
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 18 mpg
    EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 18/28 mpg 
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDContributing EditorCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and LeMons racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, and trio of motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

  • in

    1999 Mercedes-Benz C230 Kompressor Proves a Little K Goes a Long Way

    From the March 1999 issue of Car and Driver.What do a cherry-red SLK230 and a base C-class sedan have in common?” asked an Acura salesman in Ohio. “One’s a roadster, the other’s a toaster.” This caused him to bend double in a fit of laughter. Ha, ha. Get it? Neither did we, but we think he’s referring to the C-class’s styling or its age or both. When the salesman first saw our C230K, he said, “Hey, look, it’s the little K,” not to be confused with the Big K, which has something to do with a Kmart marketing scheme.Mercedes-Benz currently offers three C-class sedans. There’s the over-the-top C43 AMG, producing 302 horsepower and costing, ahem, $54,651. There’s the $36,207 C280 with a 194-hp V-6. And there’s the base car depicted here, with a DOHC 2.3-liter four-banger. This year, the four is intercooled and supercharged—the “K” stands for Kompressor—raising its output from 1998’s 148 hp (and 162 pound-feet of torque) to 1999’s 185 hp (and 200 lb-ft).The base C230K ($31,795) now also includes standard-equipment traction con­trol (previously a $990 option), leather seating inserts, and brake assist (which helps timid drivers summon ABS during emergencies in the Big K’s parking lot). T. W. Benjamin|Car and DriverOur test car was fitted with the optional $890 Sport package—16-inch Continental ContiSport Contacts (which sounds like a rough Euro iteration of croquet that requires helmets), beautiful six-spoke alloy wheels, more aggressive seat bol­sters, firmer suspension calibrations, and a load of faux carbon-fiber trim scattered around the cockpit. That trim, plus the gray seats and black dash, comprise an interior more austere than Henry Hyde’s shoes.But forget about that. Is the C230K ballsier than the sedan it replaces? You bet your polished wingtips. Sixty mph now looms large in only 7.6 seconds, a 1.2-second improvement over the last four-cylinder C-class we tested, a 1994 C220, and a margin the C230K maintains throughout the quarter-mile. In fact, the car is only 0.4 second slower to 60 mph than an SLK roadster, and—holy smokes—is 0.3 quicker to 60 than the last C280 V-6 we tested. The engine pulls eagerly from 2500 to 4800 rpm, through which range it produces peak torque, and the five-speed automatic clicks off flawlessly smooth wide-open-­throttle upshifts. T. W. Benjamin|Car and DriverThere is, however, a downside to this newfound thrust. Although the Kompressor doesn’t sound as tractorish as it does in the SLK, it still emits a coarse, gruff, low-pitched grumbling that is far from satisfying. Beyond 5000 rpm, the racket becomes downright intrusive and, at one frequency, actually sets the sun visors to buzzing like a pair of deranged June bugs. Moreover, on cold mornings, this engine balks and stalls if asked to move the car before an appropriate idle is negotiated. And the idle quality—even when everything’s as warm as, well, a toaster—never approaches that of the four-cylinder smoothies in, say, a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord. In our myriad drives in C-class Benzes, we’ve voiced some recurring beefs. The back seat is so cramped that, when three adults climb back there, some sort of acci­dental ménage á trois is inevitable. The recirculating-ball steering is somewhat leaden and heavy on center, making the car feel less nimble than it actually is. There’s that infernal single wiper blade. The ride, at least with the Sport shocks and springs, is borderline harsh on Michigan roads. And now there’s this: The engine requires premium fuel. Let’s face it. In a seven-car comparo in 1994, a C220 finished, ah, seventh. And in another seven-car comparo last July, a C280 finished fifth. Of course, there are also Mercedes traits we consistently cherish and cham­pion: A rigid platform. An unequal-length control-arm front sus­pension that is as adept on the skidpad as in emergency-lane-change maneuvers. No-nonsense ergonomics. High resale value. And absolutely spectacular brakes. To halt from 70 mph, the C230K requires less asphalt than a Chevy Camaro Z28. More C-class Reviews From the ArchiveUnfortunately, the C-class sedans are five years old, and the phrase “It just gets better with age”—which, you’ll have noticed in life, applies to almost nothing­—does not obtain here, either. Just for starters, the C230K faces the six-cylinder Audi A4 and BMW 328i—cosmic blockbusters that, in acceleration, luxury, ride, styling, handling, steering, and sound levels, leave the C230K looking like, well, toast. Our advice? If a C-class sedan is your goal in life, wait for the all-new models, slated to appear in May 2000. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    1999 Mercedes-Benz 230 KompressorVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $31,795/$32,685
    ENGINEsupercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 140 in3, 2295 cm3Power: 185 hp @ 5300 rpmTorque: 200 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic 
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 105.9 inLength: 177.4 inCurb Weight: 3258 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 133 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g  
    EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 21 mpg 
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

  • in

    2024 Polestar 2 Makes a Stronger First Impression

    Don’t call this a refresh. Polestar claims it doesn’t do the whole traditional mid-cycle update thing, and given the constant tweaks the Polestar 2 electric hatchback has received since launching, that tracks. Every model year has seen a new variant or adjusted power and range. For 2024, the Polestar 2 gets its most comprehensive upgrade to date, making this EV an even more appealing introduction to the fledgling automaker that specializes in electric cars.Changes Outside and Under the HoodThe 2 looks a little different now, thanks to a new “SmartZone”—the part of the front fascia that houses most of its forward-facing sensor and camera tech. When painted white, it looks like a single, comically wide tooth.The tire offerings have changed as well; both single- and dual-motor base variants now come standard with 19-inch wheels and Michelin Primacy 4 all-season tires. The Performance trim upgrades to 20-inchers with Continental SportContact 6 summer rubber, but folks hunting for a middle ground can swap out the lesser trims’ 19s for optional 20s with Continental PremiumContact 6 summer tires.The single-motor entry model—now priced at $51,300, a $1500 bump over 2023—picks up the most notable adjustments. A new electric motor now powers the rear wheels rather than the front. Output rises dramatically to 295 horsepower (up from 228 horses) and 361 pound-feet of torque (versus 243). Polestar estimates a 60-mph time of 5.9 seconds, which would be a big improvement over our test of the 2022 front-wheel-drive base model, which required 6.8 seconds to reach that mark.Driving the Single-Motor Polestar 2It only takes a single stab of the right pedal to notice the difference. The RWD Polestar 2’s throttle mapping makes it easy to start smoothly, with pickup dramatically improved over last year’s model. Passing at highway speeds is easier but still requires some forethought. In nearly any daily-driving situation, the newfound vim is more than ample. Standard twin-tube dampers do a commendable job in corners, allowing just a bit of lean without feeling wishy-washy. The newly standard all-season tires don’t throw much noise into the equation—yet another benefit, as the formerly standard summer tires weren’t exactly ideal for staying quiet or maximizing range.Speaking of range, there’s a whole lot more of it on the base Polestar 2. A new 79.0-kWh lithium-ion battery from CATL bumps EPA-estimated range from 270 miles to 320 while also increasing the peak DC fast-charging rate from 155 to 205 kilowatts. The dual-motor Polestar 2 and the Performance variant stick with a 75.0-kWh lithium-ion LG Chem battery. Range increases for the dual-motor, too, though; thanks to a newfound ability to disconnect the front motor under certain conditions, EPA-estimated range is up from 260 miles to 276 (the exception is the Performance, down from 260 to 247 miles). DC fast-charging remains at 155 kilowatts for dual-motor models, and AC filling via the onboard charger on all Polestar 2 models is pegged at 11.0 kilowatts.Driving the Dual-Motor Polestar 2Dual-motor models—$56,700 for the base, $64,400 for the Performance—pick up some powertrain benefits too. They combine the RWD model’s new synchronous motor with a new induction front motor, bumping horsepower to 416 on the base car and, strangely enough, lowering it slightly to 449 on the Performance. Torque rises to a meaty 546 pound-feet for both trims. By Polestar’s estimates, the Performance’s 60-mph time is 0.1 second quicker than before (4.1 seconds versus 4.2). Our test of a 2023 model produced a 3.9-second sprint, so it’ll be interesting to see whether the 2024 model improves on that.Our dual-motor time was limited to the Performance variant, which was fine by us. The torque injection more than makes up for the negligible horsepower drop; this Polestar 2 feels just as zippy as the old one. The Öhlins dampers at each corner are decidedly firm in their factory setting, but like before, they can be adjusted, and since adjusting the rears is rather difficult, owners get a free annual suspension adjustment through their dealer. When the going gets curvy, the 2’s seats don’t hug as well as we’d like; a little extra lateral bolstering would go a long way. The relatively gentle nature of the regenerative braking lets you put just a little more weight on the nose without upsetting midcorner balance, making for a slight uptick in dynamic entertainment.For all Polestar 2 models, steering weight is adjustable, and the stiffer mode adds a bit of artificial heft, but we preferred it in its standard configuration. One-pedal driving is possible with the strongest regenerative braking setting, but it still could stand to be a little more aggressive. The cabin is largely the same across the lineup, with a too-tall center tunnel that leads to mild claustrophobia and a general lack of storage. The Google-based infotainment system is as easy to use as ever; it’s tough to gripe when Google Maps is the standard onboard navigation app.Polestar 2 New Options PackagingPolestar also adjusted its options packaging. Single-motor models can pick up the $2000 Pilot package that adds adaptive cruise control, swiveling LED fog lights, and the Pilot Assist suite of active and passive driver aids—this same pack is standard on dual-motor Polestar 2s. The Plus package used to be $4200 but is now $2200, and it bestows both drivetrain layouts with a heat pump, a Harman Kardon sound system, a panoramic glass roof, heating for the rear seats and steering wheel, a power liftgate, and more. The Performance pack now automatically adds both the Plus and Pilot packages, in addition to the slick 20-inch wheels, Öhlins dampers, gold seatbelts, and more.More from PolestarSadly, given the Polestar 2’s current production and parts sourcing, it is ineligible for Inflation Reduction Act tax incentives—if you finance it; it’s still eligible if leased. Thankfully, the wealth of upgrades thrown in the 2’s direction for 2024 should broaden its appeal.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    2024 Polestar 2Vehicle Type: mid-motor or front- and mid-motor, rear- or all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
    PRICE
    Base: Single Motor, $51,300; Single Motor Plus, $53,500; Dual Motor, $56,700; Dual Motor Plus, $58,900; Dual Motor Performance Plus, $64,400
    POWERTRAIN
    Front Motor: induction ACRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 295 or 416 or 449 hpCombined Torque: 361 or 546 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 75.0 or 79.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 155 or 205 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 107.0 inLength: 181.3 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 58.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/38 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 14/39 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4500–4700 lb
    PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
    60 mph: 3.9–5.5 sec100 mph: 8.9–17.3 sec1/4-Mile: 12.2–14.0 secTop Speed: 127 mph
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 95–115/100–124/90–106 MPGeRange: 247–320 miSenior 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

  • in

    1997 Mitsubishi Montero Sport LS: Meet Montero Jr.

    From the April 1997 issue of Car and Driver.If you’re not a Tibetan Bud­dhist or a Chinese Taoist, this may sound foreign: Mi­tsubishi’s latest sport-utility vehicle adheres to feng shui (pronounced fung shway). Literally, that means “wind and water,” but its popular meaning has to do with the “Chinese art of placement,” the act of enhancing one’s environment by putting things in their most advantageous places. It is not merely the newest buzz­word to appear in metro-news­paper lifestyle sections, although it is applied most often to interior design. The new Mitsubishi Montero Sport’s attributes follow the prin­ciples of automotive feng shui: (1) The pedals are close together, and the control action of the brakes, clutch, and throttle is smooth on the road. Big feet can easily tap-dance on these controls to keep the wagon poised on slick surfaces. (2) The steering wheel is angled up to leave room for long legs, yet you need not have long gorilla arms to reach it. The wheel also isn’t as buslike horizontal as the larger Montero’s. (3) The front seats are firm, but they work a good compro­mise between holding you in place on bumps and in corners and allowing easy entry and exit—even while wearing an expedition-grade parka. (4) The Montero Sport, although shorter than its big brother, still sits tall enough to provide excellent visibility over traffic. (5) The floor height is above the road surface enough to provide a tall 8.5 inches of ground clearance, although the climb could impair Grandma’s entering and exiting. HIGHS: Macho body will get double takes on whistles of admiration, but inside, it feels surprisingly like a sports car.Finally, you don’t have to be a Bud­dhist to figure this one out: The Mitsubishi Montero Sport just plain looks good. Why a Montero Sport? Big Monteros are priced from $30,000 to $42,000 plus, and they’re selling well—12,083 last year. Mitsubishi says that’s all it can build, too. U.S. dealers, however, want more SUVs to sell, especially in the under-$30K market. Meanwhile, Mitsubishi has been building a smaller wagon (seven inches lower and shorter) called the L-200 for Asia and South America. The L-200 is now the Montero Sport in the United States. The Montero Sport shares the front bodywork of the latest Mighty Max pickup truck (no longer sold in the U.S.), but its full-length ladder-type frame has more in common with that of the bigger Montero wagon, including a 107.3-inch wheelbase. Both also share front unequal­-length control arms and torsion bars. In Japan, you can get an L-200 wagon with coil springs in the rear, but to save assembly costs, the Montero Sport gets a leaf-sprung rear axle. The base Montero Sport ES starts at $18,065 as a rear-driver with a 134-hp 2.4-liter four-cylinder and a manual transmis­sion only. Mitsubishi expects that most buyers will opt for LS models, priced in the mid-twenties with popular equipment. LS models get a 173-hp 3.0-liter V-6 (the base engine in last year’s big Montero) and can be had with a choice of rear-drive or part-time four-wheel drive and a manual or automatic transmission. Top-of-the-line Montero Sport XLS models come equipped with the V-6, four­-wheel drive, a four-speed automatic trans­mission, big tires, leather seats, air condi­tioning, and power windows, locks, and mirrors—all standard for $31,555. LOWS: Macho or not, it’s a heavy wagon, and your neighbor’s V-8 Explorer will outrun it.Our five-speed, four-wheel-drive Mon­tero Sport LS started out at $23,575, to which we added a $3070 Premium package that includes 265/70SR-15 mud­-and-snow tires (up from standard 225/75R-15 tires) riding on shiny alloy wheels, a chrome grille, fender flares, a leather­-wrapped steering wheel, a sunroof, and an eight-speaker stereo. Air, power conveniences, and a CD player added another $2143. For $1037 more, we got a limited-slip rear differential, a compass, a ther­mometer, and a rear heater. That package also includes an exterior spare-tire mount to which a couple of mountain bikes can be affixed with an accessory rack that attaches to the spare. We’d be a bit more thrifty if it were our checkbook. For example, a V-6 four-wheel-drive LS model with air and a five-speed manual is $24,490. The Montero Sport looks tough, but it’s as convenient as a Camry wagon inside, with two covered bins under the rear floor. Its 43 cubic feet of cargo volume equals that of the spacious Ford Explorer. The long wheelbase means it rides well, just a bit more jiggly on pavement than an Explorer. We think the bigger tires add unwanted bounce on suburban side streets. Off-road, they stick to mud paths with confidence. The Montero Sport has a manual transfer-case lever that hard-core off­-roaders prefer to the electro-four-wheel-drive switches popu­larized by the ubiquitous Explorer. The Montero Sport’s lever-actuated part-time four-wheel-drive system can be shifted from rear-drive to four-wheel drive at speed. “Shift on the fly,” as it’s called, means you become your own center dif­ferential by disengaging the four-wheel drive on dry pavement and engaging it to limit wheelspin on starts and in corners. A rear-drive Montero Sport ES weighs just 3450 pounds, light for a mid-size SUV. But our fancied-up LS model sagged the scale at 4153 pounds, which is heavier than a unibody Jeep Grand Cherokee, but much lighter than the Explorer. Still, the manual shifter—a relatively rare item on the SUV market these days—keeps it ahead of Jeeps and Fords equipped with pushrod sixes and automatics: The Jeep runs to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds, the Explorer in 10.7. The Sport hits 60 in 10 flat. More Montero Reviews From the ArchiveThe Montero Sport’s four-­wheel discs mean braking is good for such a deceptively light-feeling-but heavy­ sport-utility, which comes to a stop from 70 mph in just 190 feet. That’s better than an Explorer, and as good as a Toyota 4Runner.VERDICT: The smaller brother of the brawny Montero inherits its strength, with state-of-the-art packaging for all of its pricey hardware.We like the Montero Sport for its bal­ance of features and abilities, more than for any single attribute. Putting one in your garage would likely enhance your envi­ronment. That’s good feng shui. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    1997 Mitsubishi Montero Sport LSVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $23,575/$29,825Options: Premium package (aluminum wheels, power glass sunroof, upgraded cassette stereo with 8 speakers, leather-wrapped steering wheel, 265/70SR-15 tires, fender flares, chrome grille accent, running boards), $3070; Off-Road package (rear limited-slip differential, extra gauges, rear heater controls, exterior spare-tire carrier), $1037; air conditioning, $915; Convenience package (power windows, locks, and side mirrors, cruise control), $829; CD player, $399
    ENGINESOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 181 in3, 2966 cm3Power: 173 hp @ 5250 rpmTorque: 188 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 10.9-in vented disc/10.7-in discTires: Yokohama Super Digger265/70SR-15
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 107.3 inLength: 189.8 inWidth: 66.7 inHeight: 67.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/40 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 79/43 ft3Curb Weight: 4153 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 10.0 sec1/4-Mile: 17.4 sec @ 77 mph100 mph: 38.8 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 10.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 13.4 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 106 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 190 ft 
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 15 mpg
    EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 17/21 mpg 
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

  • in

    Tested: Three-Wheelin’ and Dealin’ with the 2023 Polaris Slingshot SLR

    From the September 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Ask anyone who’s missing a few teeth or sporting some gnarly scars, and they’ll tell ya—life’s a lot more fun when you don’t take it too seriously. For proof, look to the three-wheeled Polaris Slingshot SLR. A few miles spent behind the visor of the Slingshot will have you ripping around traffic while blasting Inner Circle and might just be the final push needed to talk yourself into some tribal tattoos.The $35,286 SLR we tested is the middle trim level, presumably between dude and brah. It’s about $10,000 more than the entry-level 178-hp Slingshot S and roughly $7000 less than the range-topping Roush Edition. Behind its grumpy plastic fascia sits Polaris’s own Prostar 203-hp 2.0-liter inline-four engine, and the SLR uses a wider (11.0-inch) rear wheel than base models. The 1661-pound SLR has nearly as much torque as a Mazda Miata, which is its closest automotive equivalent in terms of price and performance, but the Polaris revs to 8500 rpm, 1000 more than the Miata.While you can get an automated manual transmission, our tester had as many pedals as it did tires. A five-speed manual strikes us as a little quaint, but its shifts felt slicker than what you get in many performance cars. Between shifts, you’ll find a powerband that delivers plenty of oomph above 6500 rpm. The blast to 60 mph is over in 5.3 seconds, two-tenths quicker than the last Slingshot we tested,which was propelled by a General Motors–supplied 173-hp 2.4-liter four. The updated 2.0-liter also beat the old 2.4-liter’s time to 100 mph by 2.7 seconds. Its quarter-mile outdid the previous Slingshot by half a second at 14.0 seconds and 101 mph.HIGHS: 203 horsepower for 1661 pounds, has a manual, surfeit of ‘tude.LOWS: Priced like a car, helmet hair, rainy days.We’re confident the SLR’s acceleration numbers would be more braggadocious with a grippier rear tire, but smoking the 305-section-width Kenda radial through second gear looks cooler than getting to 60 mph a half-second quicker. The 65.5/34.5 percent front/rear weight distribution also did the Slingshot no favors here. However, Polaris says if you stick with it, the Slingshot will reach 125 mph.Around the 300-ft skidpad, the Slingshot held on with 0.90 g of stick, another improvement over the previous Slingshot that only managed 0.85 g. The Slingshot, down a wheel to the Miata, unsurprisingly exhibits less grip than a 2022 model we tested. That Mazda achieved 0.95 g while wearing 205/45R-17 Bridgestone Potenza S001 summer tires that were 20 mm narrower than the front tires on the SLR. The Slingshot SLR’s stop from 70 took 157 feet—two feet shorter than the 2346-pound Miata and nine feet better than the previous Slingshot we tested. It has ABS, but the brake booster remains hydraulic, which makes for organic brake-pedal feel. The SLR uses 11.7-inch vented rotors clamped by single-piston calipers front and rear (R models get 13.3-inch vented fronts with four-piston Brembos). Ahead of its lack of roof, doors, or second rear tire, the most entertaining part of driving the Slingshot SLR is hanging the tail out around corners. Even on completely dry pavement, you can send the Slingshot sliding, and a large part of the joy in that is the three-wheeler’s easily controlled action.More on the Polaris SlingshotThe SLR is a good time—it’s the on-pavement analogue to a high-strung Polaris side-by-side utility vehicle in the dirt. The optional heated and ventilated seats ($1559) are about as close as it gets to being a normal car. The air-conditioned seats at full tilt gloriously cooled our backs when we were mired in construction traffic under the heat of a glowing summer sun. Find the right playlist to pump through its Rockford Fosgate stereo, and don’t be surprised if, after a few days of ownership, you start styling your hair to better match the interior contours of a helmet.VERDICT: A simple-if-cartoonish way to enjoy life.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    2023 Polaris Slingshot SLRVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 0-door roadster
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $32,097/$35,286
    ENGINE
    DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1997 cm3Power: 203 hp @ 8250 rpmTorque: 144 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
    TRANSMISSION
    5-speed manual
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: control arms/swingarmBrakes, F/R: 11.7-in vented disc/11.7-in vented discTires: Kenda Radial225/45ZR-18 91W305-30R-20 99V
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 105.0 inLength: 149.6 inWidth: 77.9 inHeight: 51.9 inCurb Weight: 1661 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 13.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.0 sec @ 101 mph120 mph: 25.2 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 6.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 7.3 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 157 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.90 g
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 22 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 29 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 280 mi
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDAssociate EditorYes, he’s still working on the 1986 Nissan 300ZX Turbo project car he started in high school, and no, it’s not for sale yet. Austin Irwin was born and raised in Michigan, and, despite getting shelled by hockey pucks during a not-so-successful goaltending career through high school and college, still has all of his teeth. He loves cars from the 1980s and Bleu, his Great Pyrenees, and is an active member of the Buffalo Wild Wings community. When Austin isn’t working on his own cars, he’s likely on the side of the highway helping someone else fix theirs. More

  • in

    2023 Lamborghini Urus Performante vs. Lambo LM002

    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

  • in

    2000 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi Supercharges the Sport Sedan

    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