Car Reviews

From the November 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Fair warning: The following will be slightly prejudicial reportage on five automobiles generally described as luxury sedans. In a broad sense they all qualify, pos­sessing as they do svelte lines, sumptuous interiors, and as-­tested prices from $50,000 to $57,000. All are propelled by advanced-design V-8s spinning through similarly advanced four- and five-speed automatic transmissions. And all, save for one—the front-drive Cadillac STS—are rear-wheel-drive cars. Each is laden with what the industry likes to call “con­tent,” accoutrements and convenience items seldom found on lesser brands. Although their manufacturers—two German (BMW 540i, Mercedes-Benz E430), two Japanese (lnfiniti Q45t, Lexus GS400), and one American (Cadillac STS)—describe them as five-passenger sedans, they are in reality useful in transporting only four adults over reason­able distances. More Archive Luxury Sedan ComparosThe staff of this magazine tends to skew its evaluations of vehicles in this class not on the basis of comfort, silence, and soft ride but rather on agility, roadworthiness, and a certain hedonistic quotient that we believe ought to exist in any auto­mobile regardless of its mission or price class. This is where we depart from other professional testers who might con­centrate on seating softness, sound-system quality, and trans­mission suppleness when dealing with this five-some. Anyone seeking such evaluations is directed to Consumer Reports. But for those interested in luxury sedans offering long-dis­tance, high-speed transport in equal dollops of comfort and driving pleasure, read on. For openers, none of the five machines treated here can be reasonably faulted in terms of quality or general appeal. But as we narrowed our evaluations during two days of hard driving in the hills and hummocks of upstate New York, it became apparent that we were dealing not with five similar machines, but with two subtle but seriously divergent types—three full-blown, high-performance machines in the European idiom, and a pair of tamer, kinder gentler variations on the domestic theme that failed to enflame our admittedly boyish enthusiasms.5th Place: Infiniti Q45t Since the Infiniti Q45 was introduced in late 1989, accompanied by a hilariously pretentious advertising campaign featuring bonsai trees and Japanese rock and sand formations, it has been dogged by ennui. Long celebrated for its superb quality, the big sedan has, despite three styling iterations, yet to find real traction in the luxury-car market. Its inclusion in this test was based on the enhancement of its touring suspension to include adjustable shock absorbers. Also, all Q45s benefit from a mild restyling of the interior and exte­rior—a new grille, gas-discharge head­lights, and a new dash. HIGHS: Jewelry-like fabrication, comfortable and capacious interior.LOWS: Dreary, derivative styling; fluid but forgettable on-road personality.VERDICT: A competent luxury car in search of a vivid identity. At 4047 pounds, it was the heaviest car in the group. And the slowest—it did the 0-to-60 trick in 8.4 seconds, almost two seconds off the pace, and turned the quarter-mile in a modest 16.5 seconds at 87 mph. Its DOHC 32-valve V-8 was defanged in 1997 from 4.5 liters and 278 horsepower to 4.1 liters and 266 horses—­the second-smallest displacement and lowest output of the lot. That, coupled with its two-ton heft (more than 250 pounds heavier than the quickest of the five, the BMW 540i), explains the rather sluggish performance and mannerly but unremark­able handling, regardless of its adjustable suspension. (That system ostensibly offered both luxury and sporting capabil­ities, but none of our testers could discern much difference.) The Infiniti’s strength lies in a spacious interior and a luxurious cabin featuring yards of soft leather and literally board­-feet of fairly convincing fake wood trim. The decor is tastefully subdued, save for the odd placement of a white-faced, chrome-bezeled clock in the middle of the instrument panel that appears to have been stolen from a 1940 Philco radio. Rear-seat room for two and three passengers tied the Benz for best of the group. Although the Q45t deports itself prop­erly on lengthy freeway jaunts, its useful­ness as a high-performance sedan is lim­ited when compared with the best cars in this group. Fast bends produce a vague sensation of flotation, and hard cornering quickly reveals that the Q45 offers con­siderably less grip than the other entrants.Still, it was hard to pinpoint major shortcomings of this Infiniti, and we found it difficult to define any strong sensations, an impression best stated by one test driver as “acutely bland, a Japanese Taurus.” Another noted, “No character.” Neither fish nor foul, the Infiniti Q45t is not quick or nimble enough to get high marks in the luxo-sports-sedan league, nor does it offer sufficient visual impact and élan to compete with true luxury cars like the 7-series BMW and the new S-class Mercedes-Benz. Rather than leaving it in a marketing limbo, perhaps the Nissan product planners would consider adding eight inches to the wheelbase and trans­forming the Q45t into an unabashed full­-size luxury sedan. That might create a market niche for what is essentially a superb automobile.1998 Infiniti Q45t266-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 4047 lbBase/as-tested price: $51,500/$52,600 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4 mile: 16.5 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.0 sec130 mph: 36.0 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.73 g C/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg4th Place: Cadillac STSFor openers, consider that among this group of players, the STS was the longest (201 inches) and the widest (75 inches, about four inches more than the rest), and with the Infiniti, one of only two to tip the scales at more than 4000 pounds (4034 pounds, to be exact). This heftiness more than offset the 300 horsepower produced by its much-celebrated DOHC 32-valve Northstar V-8 and therefore relegated the Cadillac to fourth place in the performance standings—a position that seemed to rep­resent the overall sentiments of the test drivers as they tallied their final scores. HIGHS: Tasteful interior, lusty Northstar V-8 offers Yankee-style power.LOWS: Unnecessary size and bulk, evolutionary styling, lurking understeer.VERDICT: The best Cadillac, but not the best in class.There is much to like about the STS, including its handsome interior, lavished in hardwood and leather, and the car is well-optioned. The only component that qualifies for universal scorn is the out­sized, console-mounted transmission shift lever that appears better suited to a Class 8 Kenworth or a D9 Cat bulldozer. (Note: Only the Caddy and the Q45 have four­-speed automatics; the three others offer more contemporary five-speed autos.) Although this STS is smaller than its pre­decessor, it is still built on a somewhat out­dated, larger scale, adhering to the age-old habit of American carmakers to believe that bigger is better, especially when trying to create an aura of luxury. Despite such smartly labeled gadgets as “performance algorithm shifting,” a stability-enhancement system called “StabiliTrak,” “Magnasteer” variable­-assist power steering, and a road-sensing electronic suspension, the STS lagged well behind the leaders in the twisty stuff. It was, no doubt, inhibited by its two-ton bulk and 62-percent forward weight bias that can generate nasty understeer. Said one editor following a brisk drive through a series of sweepers, “All the Cadillac’s moves feel a step behind, as if one more mild curve would throw the whole works in the ditch.” “Unrefined” was the adjec­tive chosen by another staffer when describing the STS in comparison with the best of the entries. Its large, economy-size external dimen­sions notwithstanding, the Cadillac does not fare well in passenger comfort and capacity. Although by SAE measurements its rear-seat interior volume is larger than the others’, actual knee and elbow room seem to suffer, and only the Lexus GS400 offers less comfort among these five sedans with three passengers in the back. Surely, the STS is the finest Cadillac in recent history, and some would argue that, as perhaps America’s premier four-door sedan, it ought to rank with the best in this class. But until its excessive size and weight and cumbersome road manners can be dealt with, “the Standard of the World” will be playing catch-up in this very fast league.1998 Cadillac STS300-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 4034 lbBase/as-tested price: $48,476/$51,410C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4 mile: 15.3 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 18.5 sec130 mph: 28.4 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 192 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg3rd Place: Mercedes-Benz E430Sharp-eyed readers will recall our December 1996 comparison test (“The 50-Kilobuck Class”) in which the E420, pow­ered by a DOHC 32-valve V-8 producing 275 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque, ranked first. For 1998, Mercedes upgraded to an advanced, new, highly effi­cient modular SOHC 24-valve, 4.3-liter V-8 producing the same horsepower and torque—and slipped into third place. How can this be, you might ask? After all, the E430 rockets to 60 mph in 6.4 seconds and hits the quarter-mile in 15 flat at 97 mph. That’s well ahead of the pace set by the E420, which in any case wasn’t the quickest car in its comparison test.HIGHS: Traditional, ingotlike Mercedes-Benz structural integrity; new state-of-the-art three-valve, fuel-efficient V-8 engine.LOWS: Been-there, seen-that styling; US Airways coach interior in a Concorde body.VERDICT: A great automobile squeezed out by two even greater ones.Our answer hinges on the fact that the Benz’s competition in the last test was skewed more toward the luxury end of the spectrum. This time out, inclusion of the overtly sporting GS400 prompted us to invite Sport and Touring models of the 540i, the Seville, and the Q45. These pack­ages all include suspension modifications to enhance handling. Mercedes offers a Sport package on the E430, but for a lofty $4227, it only includes fatter 17-inch wheels and tires and an extensive aero body kit. Grip might have been improved (our test car’s 0.82 g was already 0.01 g better than the BMW’s), but the car’s handling demeanor and below-average lane-change performance would not have been enhanced $4000 worth, so we opted against it. As it was, our test car’s $56,742 sticker price surpassed the BMW’s price by more than a grand and soared past the GS400’s price by more than $6000.The E430 is the crossover machine of this group, covering the luxury turf occu­pied by the less sporty Q45t and STS and, at the same time, performing almost in step with the steamier 540i and GS400. On the downside, the Benz’s styling, at least aft of its goggle-eyed fascia, is per­haps overly familiar and a little boring. Likewise, the interior design—although warmer than some previous Benz designs—borders on the severe among competitors in this group. Still, the E430 is a dazzling example of contemporary automotive design. Weighing just 3580 pounds, it is within a few tenths of a second from being as quick as the BMW and the Lexus, although we sense a certain Teutonic severity that less­ened the all-important (to us) “fun to drive” quotient. Offsetting this is the E430’s excellent utilization of interior space and its top ranking in fuel economy (25 mpg during our 900-mile test). Moreover, a general sentiment was expressed that if any of these machines were kept for 200,000 miles, the Mercedes would likely fare best in overall solidity and rate of depreciation. Those endearing qualities, plus a mere five points in the bal­loting, would have made the E430 a repeat winner, at least in the hearts and minds of Mercedes-Benz loyalists. 1998 Mercedes-Benz E430275-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3580 lbBase/as-tested price: $52,259/$56,742C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4 mile: 15.0 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.9 sec130 mph: 24.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg2nd Place: Lexus GS400The first attempt by Lexus to produce a mid-size sedan that would fill the gap between its flagship LS400 and the gussied-up, Camry-based ES300 was a dud. The old GS300 was an overpriced, flaccid performer, and it was forgettably styled despite its Giugiaro pedigree. It posed no threat to the class-leading Benzes, Bimmers, and Audis and was ignored by enthusiasts and luxury-car lovers alike. But the arrival last year of the new GS400, with its radical bodywork and 300-hp, 4.0-liter V-8, instantly elevated it into the heady German domain, proving to be capable of running nose to nose with the best of the breed. Had it not been for low scores in rear-seat capacity for three passengers—it was decidedly more cramped back there than it was in the four other back seats in this test—and debate over the new shape (some editors thought it dazzling, others felt it too bustle­-backed), the one-point loss to the BMW would surely have been reversed.HIGHS: Eyeball-popping speed and handling, unsurpassed fit and finish, gobs of amenities.LOWS: Love-it-or-hate-it styling, rather harsh ride.VERDICT: Just when you thought only the Germans knew how to make high-performance four-doors. . .Performance-wise, the GS400 was for all intents and purposes the equal of the winning BMW. Zero-to-60 and quarter­-mile times were but a tenth slower—6.2 seconds to the BMW’s 6.1, and 14.8 sec­onds at 97 mph versus the Bimmer’s 14.7 at 98 mph. The Lexus bested the BMW in 70-to-0 braking distance (166 feet vs. 175), in top speed (148 mph vs. 131, both gov­erned), in fuel economy (24 vs. 22 C/D-­observed mpg), and on the skidpad (0.83 g to 0.81). It also scored better in such sub­jective evaluations as transmission effi­ciency (crisp and aggressive, aided by a manual-override mode controlled by shift buttons on the steering wheel), fit and finish, and general content.Some complaint was registered over what a few test drivers believed to be a faintly choppy ride, perhaps traceable to the 235/45ZR-17 ultra-low-profile tires (although the BMW was similarly equipped). However, the overall handling of the Lexus received rave reviews, including such notations as “light, nimble, and ready to play,” “I love the steering, no lost motion, easy to point,” “perfectly weighted,” and “the sports car of the bunch.” Save for the compacted rear seat, the GS400’s interior also received high marks, centered on the ergonomically friendly instrument panel; and the backlit, silver­-blue-tinted instruments that automatically adjust to ambient light conditions. Added to these appealing features is a sticker price of $50,347, the lowest in our luxury herd and more than five grand less than the winning BMW. Based on such numbers, one could certainly question the GS400’s No. 2 finish. Suffice it to say that in this particular test, a one-point separa­tion in scores might be considered a tie. The new Lexus GS400 is that good.1998 Lexus GS400300-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3811 lbBase/as-tested price: $45,946/$50,347C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4 mile: 14.8 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.8 sec130 mph: 24.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpg1st Place: BMW 540iLike the Mercedes-Benz E-class sedans, BMW 5-series machines have been known quantities at Car and Driver since some of the current editors were still in Pampers. In April 1998, we completed a long-term test of the six-speed-manual-­transmission version of the 540i—loved the car, frowned at the rather high main­tenance costs. We knew going into this five-car evaluation that the five-speed­-automatic variation would give little away in performance and overall appeal. Not only is the automatic 540i a lusty per­former compared with the six-speed, but—equipped as ours was with the $3333 Sport package—it’s also superior (although marginally) within this group of five. But it was not so much individual numbers recorded by our test gear that served the BMW so well, but rather the total package that drove it to the top of the rankings: its ride-and-handling balance, its power and comfort levels, and its build quality. Without question both the Lexus and the E430 are the equal of the 540i in many categories and surpass it in several, but when con­sidering the sum of all its parts, the BMW was awarded the top spot, but by just a single point over the GS400. HIGHS: Genuine, serious, all-around high performance; passionate engine.LOWS: Fifty-five big ones is a lot for a smallish four-door sedan.VERDICT: King for now, but uneasy lies thy crown.Being victims of subjectivity, we gave top marks to the 540i’s 4.4-liter, 32-valve DOHC V-8, which produces a remarkably spellbinding exhaust note for a high-dollar luxury sedan. Although rated at only 282 horses—as opposed to the 300 of the STS and GS400 V-8s—the BMW’s 310 pound-feet of torque matched the best in class. That, coupled with the car’s reasonably light weight of 3792 pounds, helped to account for it class-leading acceleration and midrange passing capability. But discounting the BMW’s broad spectrum of power, it was the car’s overall athleticism that won the day. “Exactly what you’d expect from a BMW. Feels smaller, more compact, more fun,” noted one editor. “Hugely competent and com­fortable,” said another. If there were any complaints, they dealt with what some drivers felt was an on-center dead spot in the steering and a cer­tain laziness in the downshift from fifth to fourth gear while passing. But these deficiencies were offset by high scores for the excellent seats, the stiff structure, four-passenger comfort, and world-class over-the-road competence under all conditions. Therefore, giving the 540i any serious demerits was impossible, even when comparing it with a number of pure grand-touring coupes and alleged sports cars we’ve driven lately. Yes, like the rest of the sedans in this group, we would like to see the BMW priced closer to $40,000 than to $60,000, where it would represent high value rather than a questionable luxury for status seekers and the profligate rich. But at any price, the BMW 540i represents noble high purpose in the art of car building, and thus it surely deserves its top ranking in this small, exclusive, and generally excellent group of automobiles. 1998 BWW 540i282-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3792 lbBase/as-tested price: $52,125/$55,458C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec1/4 mile: 14.7 sec @ 98 mph100 mph: 15.4 sec130 mph: 23.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg More

From the June 2023 Issue of Car and Driver.Like a shape-shifter, Mitsubishi has been many things. First known to Americans as the maker of gas-stingy little Dodges and Plymouths, Mitsubishi went on to produce its own econoboxes, sporty coupes, high-strung sport compacts, and off-road-ready SUVs. Repeatedly, though, changing markets or a wave of competitors washed out the ground beneath Mitsu’s feet. The brand’s latest niche is the plug-in-hybrid compact crossover. Its Outlander PHEV, sold here since 2018, enters its second generation for 2023—but the floodwaters of competition are already rising. Michael Simari|Car and DriverA corporate tie-up with Nissan means the latest Outlander is based on the Nissan Rogue, but the two look nothing alike. Under the hood is Mitsubishi’s engine: a 131-hp Atkinson-cycle 2.4-liter inline-four aided by three electric motors, one of which drives the rear wheels. HIGHS: Much quicker than the nonhybrid, 24 miles of EV range, eye-popping interior.The powertrain makes a combined 248 horsepower (versus the base engine’s 181) and 332 pound-feet of torque. Even though the PHEV weighs 4751 pounds—a whopping 887 more than the regular Outlander—it’s still 1.6 seconds quicker to 60 mph, reaching the mark in 6.6 seconds. With that time, it can’t match the 302-hp Toyota RAV4 Prime but beats the Ford Escape and Kia Sportage PHEVs. And in EV mode, the electric motors have enough thrust to move you around town.The new, larger battery (an estimated 16.8-kWh pack) can be replenished by the engine or by plugging in. A DC fast-charger took the depleted battery to 94 percent in 61 minutes. The EPA estimates 38 miles of EV range; in our 75-mph highway test, we went 24 miles before the engine fired up.Other modes can add to or preserve the battery’s state of charge or just let the system decide the motive mix. The standard digital instrument cluster keeps tabs on the hybrid system’s noisy machinations, although the readout isn’t easy to follow. Paddles adjust brake regeneration, and a console button brings nearly one-pedal driving. Using the actual brake pedal is not so satisfying, with lots of dead travel. Still, our 171-foot stop from 70 was acceptably short. LOWS: Powertrain noise, some dynamic rough edges, pointless third-row seat.Midcorner bumps can set the body into a corkscrew motion, and hitting one usually results in a shock reverberating through the cabin.That cabin—which is similar to a top-spec Rogue’s—is roomy, except for the third row, which is so small as to be strictly theoretical. Our top-level SEL S-AWC example came with the ritzy SEL Premium package (semi-aniline leather, a panoramic sunroof, massaging front seats, and more) for $2700.Despite the fancy cabin, the $50,980 as-tested price gives us the sweats. The similarly pricey RAV4 Prime drives better, while the Escape and the Sportage cost less. For compact-SUV buyers, the Outlander PHEV offers a way to ease into electrification. But for Mitsubishi, an influx of competitors means it may not be much of a safe haven for long.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWCVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $46,890/$50,980Options: Premium package (power panoramic sunroof, heated steering wheel, synthetic leather door inserts, semi-aniline seat leather seats, 10.8-inch head up display, Bose sound system, front seat massage), $2700; White Diamond/Black roof, $995; tonneau cover, $200; Welcome package (touch-up paint pen, carpeted floor mats, cargo floor liner, tray mat), $195
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 131 hp, 144 lb-ft + AC motors, 114 and 134 hp, 188 and 144 lb-ft (combined output: 248 hp, 332 lb-ft; 16.8-kWh lithium-ion battery pack, C/D est)Transmissions, F/R: continuously variable automatic/direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.8-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: Nexen Roadian GTX RG1P255/45R-20 101W M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.5 inLength: 185.4 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 68.7 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 54/46/18 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 64/31/13 ft3Curb Weight: 4751 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 31.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (C/D est): 110 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving, EV/Hybrid Mode: 44 MPGe/25 mpg75-mph Highway Range, EV/Hybrid mode: 24/370 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 26/25/27 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 64 MPGeEV Range: 38 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDeputy Editor, Reviews and FeaturesJoe Lorio has been obsessed with cars since his Matchbox days, and he got his first subscription to Car and Driver at age 11. Joe started his career at Automobile Magazine under David E. Davis Jr., and his work has also appeared on websites including Amazon Autos, Autoblog, AutoTrader, Hagerty, Hemmings, KBB, and TrueCar. More

The Cadillac Lyriq and Genesis Electrified GV70 do things differently. They’re both luxurious electric SUVs with appetites for performance, but they were born from two very different ideas. The Genesis disguises its all-electric powertrain under a body that mimics the gas version that debuted in 2021. The Cadillac is a fresh start, an all-electric entrant that’s part of GM’s EV assault. Despite their different approaches, these two luxury EVs are fairly closely matched. But they have different strengths and weaknesses, and one emerges the winner.The Electrified GV70 looks nearly identical to the gas-powered version. Its shiny grille, which also houses its charging port, smiles big whereas many EVs present a tight-lipped face to the world. If not for the exclusive 20-inch wheels and lack of potato-shooter exhaust outlets, it might be impossible to tell if the GV70 you’re looking at burns hydrocarbons or chugs electrons. Even inside, the only immediate clue is that the ignition button says “EV Start/Stop” instead of “Engine Start/Stop.” Its rear electric motor takes the place of the gas SUV’s spare tire under the rear cargo floor, but cargo space is still nearly identical. A tiny frunk is found where pistons and connecting rods used to dance. Genesis bulked up the Electrified GV70 with more structural rigidity to handle its 5060-pound mass, which, compared to the gas version, gives you 476 pounds more GV70 to love. The Electrified GV70 discreetly plays the role of an EV without making its entire identity about its powertrain. The Cadillac Lyriq is more obviously an EV, with a fresh design that’s distinct from the brand’s gas-engine models. Size-wise, it slots in between the gas-powered XT5 and XT6 but is far more stylish than either. In fact, during our photo shoot, the Caddy’s illuminated faux grille attracted so much attention it caused a traffic jam in downtown Detroit. (No one so much as looked at the GV70.) Under the Lyriq’s skin is a version of GM’s modular Ultium battery pack, similar to the larger one that’s employed in the GMC Hummer EV.Power and AccelerationRather than flashy looks, the all-wheel-drive Electrified GV70 proves its worth through action. Its party trick, exclusive to the Electrified model, is a Boost button mounted on the steering wheel that unleashes all 483 horsepower for 10 seconds. The Boost mode shaves a claimed half-second off its 60-mph time, knocking it down to 3.8 seconds, and shrinks its leap to a quarter-mile to just 12.3 seconds. That makes the electric GV70 1.1 seconds quicker to 60 mph than the 375-hp gasoline-drinking GV70 3.5T and leaves it only a few tenths behind a Porsche Macan GTS.Unlike the dual-motor-only GV70, the Lyriq offers both single- and dual-motor versions. The dual-motor, all-wheel-drive model we tested has 500 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque (160 horsepower and 125 pound-feet more than the single-motor version). Despite the Caddy’s power advantage over the Genesis, its 4.6-second sprint to 60 and 12.9-second race through the quarter-mile are both slower. An antithesis to Genesis and its fun button, the Lyriq restrains maximum output until 40 mph, even with the pedal fully mashed. Call it a latte anti-spillage system, but the delay really zaps the excitement of having 500 horses under the hood.Range and ChargingThe Electrified GV70 may pack a harder punch, but the Lyriq can go for more rounds. The EPA estimates the GV70 has a range of 236 miles, versus 307 for the Lyriq. Our real-world 75-mph highway range test showed a lesser difference. The Electrified GV70 went 190 miles while the Lyriq (wearing its standard 20-inch wheels, not the optional 22s) managed 220 miles. The Genesis, though, makes a comeback at the charger. At the DC fast-charger, the GV70’s 77.4-kWh battery pack can charge at up to 240 kilowatts, while a slower 10.9-kW onboard charger handles AC charging. The Lyriq’s 102.0-kWh battery pack can refill at up to 190 kilowatts when DC fast-charging and up to 11.5 kilowatts from its standard onboard AC charger (a 19.2-kW unit will be optional for 2024). Unfortunately, in two attempts, we never got a complete 10 to 90 percent charging test for the Lyriq. In the first, the car was charging exceptionally slow, and during a second attempt, the Electrify America charging station quit at a 76 percent state of charge. Still, we have enough data to tell most of the charging story. The Electrified GV70 recharged at a rate of up to 239 kilowatts, averaging 166 kilowatts for the 24 minutes it took to go from 10 to 90 percent, one of the fastest charging speeds of any EV. The Lyriq had a lower max rate of 181 kilowatts and a lower average of 111 kilowatts and took 40 minutes to charge to 75 percent.Comfort ComparedThere’s no real loser in the battle of luxury, but the Genesis’s interior is noticeably more upscale than the Cadillac’s. The Lyriq certainly shows effort, with a spectacular startup animation across its 33.0-inch curved display. It even uses a similar rotary infotainment dial and knurled volume scroll wheel as the GV70, but the execution and tactile feel is not as good. While the Caddy’s greater rear passenger headroom and leg space are a plus, we’d still rather be chauffeured in the Electrified GV70’s plush heated rear seats, which our Cadillac lacks. Our test Lyriq didn’t even have climate control back there. The electric GV70 also avoids EV gimmicks such as Cadillac’s odd touch-activated door handles that complicate a simple task.The sweetness is felt at the steering wheel too. Like the gas version, the Electrified GV70 feeds a craving for fun by tackling curvy roads without breaking a sweat. Its Michelin Primacy Tour A/S tires are as wide as the Caddy’s Michelin Primacy All Seasons, but the GV70 takes full advantage of its slightly better all-season rubber. Highway cruising is really where the Lyriq’s more relaxed personality shines. Its frequency-dependent dampers marvelously soften up the ride over bumps and quickly return firmer damping in sharp curves.With technology at the helm, the Lyriq should have the advantage with its standard Super Cruise, GM’s much-touted driver-assistance tech that offers hands-free driving. The GV70’s driving assist is not entirely hands-free. But we found Super Cruise to be glitchy on a stretch of I-94, just minutes from GM’s headquarters, where it would work one day and not the next. We also couldn’t find an adjustment for the volume of text notifications that erupt through the powerful 19-speaker AKG audio system. Cadillac Lyriq AWDHIGHS: A lot of EV for the price, has the edge in range, loads of rear passenger space.LOWS: Its 500 horses are hobbled, mediocre DC charging, less-than-Cadillac level of luxury.VERDICT: Not quite the Escalade of EVs.If this contest were decided by price alone, the Lyriq would secure a knockout victory. Our mid-trim Lyriq Luxury plugged in with a $65,615 as-tested price, the only option selected was Stellar Black Metallic, which is just a fancy way to describe spending $625 for black paint. Still, it’s nearly $10,000 cheaper than the Electrified GV70’s $75,275 as-tested price, which included a $6800 Prestige package that nets all of the upscale interior materials and $925 for the Makalu Gray Matte paint that we were a nickel short of discovering whether it was the same stuff on scratch-off lottery tickets. Genesis Electrified GV70HIGHS: The epitome of luxury, the quickest GV70, doesn’t scream electric car.LOWS: Higher price, lower range, no wireless smartphone mirroring.VERDICT: Tops its rival and its gas-powered siblings.As if the two were wearing boxing gloves, these EVs traded punches with pros and cons. The GV70 has a snazzier cabin, but it costs more, and the Lyriq has more space. The Lyriq goes farther on a charge, but the GV70 recharges more quickly. Ultimately, the Electrified GV70 ekes out a victory with superior luxury, more exciting driving dynamics, and just enough range. In this matchup, creating an EV from an existing model rather than a purpose-built architecture proved to be no handicap.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Cadillac Lyriq Luxury AWDVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $64,990/$65,615Options: Stellar Black Metallic paint, $625
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 500 hpCombined Torque: 450 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 102.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.5 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.6-in vented disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Michelin Primacy All-Season265/50R-20 107H M+S TPC Spec 3184MS self-seal
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.8 inLength: 196.7 inWidth: 77.8 inHeight: 63.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 58/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 61/28 ft3Curb Weight: 5838 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.6 sec100 mph: 10.2 sec1/4-Mile: 12.9 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 17.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 132 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 396 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 77 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 74 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 220 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 89/96/81 MPGeRange: 307 mi

2023 Genesis Electrified GV70Vehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $67,550/$75,275Options: Prestige package (Nappa leather upholstery, leatherette-wrapped upper instrument panel, suede headliner, 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster, head-up display, Lexicon premium audio system, Active Noise Control, manual rear sunshades, heated steering wheel and outboard rear seats), $6800; Makalu Gray Matte paint, $925
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACRear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 483 hpCombined Torque: 516 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 77.4 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.9 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 240 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.2-in vented disc/13.6-in vented discTires: Michelin Primacy Tour A/S265/45R-20 108W M+S Extra Load GOE
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.2 inLength: 185.6 inWidth: 75.2 inHeight: 64.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/46 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 57/29 ft3Curb Weight: 5060 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.8 sec100 mph: 9.3 sec1/4-Mile: 12.3 sec @ 111 mph130 mph: 19.6 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 2.4 secTop Speed (C/D est): 151 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 183 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 363 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 51 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 190 miAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 166 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 24 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 91/98/83 MPGeRange: 236 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

We here at Car and Driver don’t know how much money you have. We don’t know whether you’re stingy or a spendthrift, or whether you live someplace that makes car ownership an expensive proposition or a cheap one. Since we can’t know the degree to which your buying decisions are influenced by those particular factors, and most prices are tightly grouped within any given segment, we tend to mention a given car’s price but not dwell on it. But the 2023 Nissan Z automatic’s base price—$42,085—is worth dwelling on for a moment, because that’s $12,610 less than the minimum buy-in for the Z’s most obvious competitor, the Toyota GR Supra 3.0. Granted, snagging the Rays forged wheels, mechanical limited-slip differential and Akebono four-piston front brakes of our test car requires making the $10,000 leap to the Z Performance trim, but even then the Z keeps its financial distance from the Supra. That MSRP looks even more impressive when you consider that this Z’s ancestor, the 1990 300ZX Turbo Automatic, cost $34,075 back then—which would be more than $79,000 today. So let’s talk about what you get, and what you don’t, for the Z’s comparatively thrifty price.HIGHS: The cheapest 400 horses this side of a Camaro, quicker than the manual-transmission version, interior has buttons and knobs instead of screens.We’ve already tested the six-speed-manual Z, so we figured it’s time to try one with the nine-speed automatic transmission—a no-cost option. Predictably, the automatic Z is quicker than its manual counterpart, at least when both cars are running 91-octane fuel. On the octane-impoverished West Coast, the automatic Z outran the manual car to 60 mph, requiring 4.3 seconds compared to the six-speed’s 4.5 seconds. The automatic Z cleared the quarter-mile in 12.7 seconds at 115 mph, with the manual car recording a 13.0-second run at 111 mph. But although the automatic Z was the clear winner, we think it could do even better. And that’s because a manual Z already did just that when we tested it on full-proof 93 octane: 60 mph in 4.1 seconds, quarter-mile in 12.6 at 115 mph. The Z, it appears, is thirsty for the good stuff. It seems reasonable to expect that an automatic Z could break the 4.0-seconds-to-60 barrier with East Coast premium and a perfect launch.That latter part can be tricky, because Nissan’s 400-hp turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6 hits with a ferocious 350 pound-feet of torque at just 1600 rpm, making it difficult to leave the line without inducing wheelspin from the Bridgestone Potenza S007 B-Silent tires—sized at a healthy 275/35R-19 out back. With a manual Z, one might exercise a bit of judicious clutch slip to manage the meeting of rubber and pavement, but the automatic car relegates the traction-management duties to its own computers, mostly to the detriment of a clean escape off the line. The transmission won’t allow a second-gear launch in manual mode, and launch control made itself unavailable after two runs, pending some cool-down time. Since leaving the line in second gear isn’t an option, the best strategy is to launch at mid-rpm in first gear and then immediately short-shift to second. LOWS: Performance trim adds $10K, launch control goes AWOL, interior has buttons and knobs from the first Obama administration.So if the Z feels quicker than a 4.3-second 60-mph time would suggest (and it does), that’s because of the lollygagging required at launch. Peek a little farther down the acceleration chart, and you’ll find that a Z at full boil needs only 2.0 seconds to clear 50 mph to 70 mph (not to be confused with a cruising-start 50-to-70-mph passing maneuver), a tenth of a second less than the mighty Supra required at the same California test venue. It’s got the speed, this automatic Z. What it lacks is initial finesse.Off the line, it’s blowing up the tires. Under heavy braking, the lo-fi ABS grabs and pulses, causing the car to dance a little jig as the brakes on either side struggle to avoid lockup—an issue reflected in its 164-foot stop from 70 mph, well off the Supra’s 150-foot result. For a car that’s pretty clearly an evolution of one that debuted some 20 years ago (that would be the 350Z), you’d think the new Z would evince more polish, both in tuning and design. Like, why is the fuel-filler door so huge? It takes up about half of the right rear quarter panel. That seems like an artifact of a rushed design process, not one that’s been simmering since Bob Barker was hosting showcase showdowns.More on the Nissan ZWhich brings us to the most cited criticism of Z, which is that it feels old. That’s true, and adding paddle shifters and a slick nine-speed automatic doesn’t change its Now That’s What I Call 2000s vibe. However, dated doesn’t necessarily equate with distasteful. Given how frequently we’re annoyed by touchscreen-centric interiors, with haptic this and virtual that, the Z’s analog flavor at least makes for intuitive controls. Sure, the seat-heater buttons look like they came out of a 2008 Altima (and maybe they did), but they’re still 100 times easier to use than software-based controls buried under three touchscreen menus. And hey, look, it’s a manual emergency brake, and analog gauges in that dashboard binnacle—one of which is a tachometer for turbocharger turbine speed that reads to 250,000 rpm. When hardware like this is replaced with electronics, we moan about it, so let’s not let familiarity breed contempt when it comes to ripping handbrake turns in a snowy parking lot.VERDICT: It pains us to say so, but in this case maybe you want the automatic.In fact, the automatic Z sometimes reminds us of another Nissan performance car that’s long of tooth: the GT-R. When the Z’s turbos spool up and the boost hits, the V-6 angrily gobbling atmosphere as you keep one eye on the tach and another on the right shift paddle, the experience is not entirely dissimilar to what you get in a GT-R. Maybe that’s the best way to think of the automatic Z—as a lightweight, low-cost GT-R simulacrum, Godzilla Superleggera. Hey, if you want two seats and 400 horsepower, the Z is your cheapest ticket. Too bad it doesn’t hide that a little bit better.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Nissan Z PerformanceVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $52,085/$54,335Options: Boulder Gray/Super Black two-tone paint, $895; black illuminated kick plate, $500; interior accent lighting, $445; floor-mat package (premium floor mats, trunk mat, first-aid kit, cargo net, owner’s manual branded portfolio), $410
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2997 cm3Power: 400 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 350 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.0-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Potenza S007 B-Silent ES7AJZF: 255/40R-19 96WR: 275/35R-19 96W
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 100.4 inLength: 172.4 inWidth: 72.6 inHeight: 51.8 inPassenger Volume: 52 ft3Trunk Volume: 7 ft3Curb Weight: 3592 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.3 sec100 mph: 9.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.7 sec @ 115 mph130 mph: 16.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 164 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 322 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.93 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 22/19/28 mpg

C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorEzra Dyer is a Car and Driver senior editor and columnist. He’s now based in North Carolina but still remembers how to turn right. He owns a 2009 GEM e4 and once drove 206 mph. Those facts are mutually exclusive. More

From the November 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Attention, trivia collectors! With the arrival of this cleanly sculpted vari­ation of Volkswagen’s attractive mid-size sedan, Volkswagen-Audi AG now offers as many station-wagon choices as the Big Three. It’s true. Let’s go to the C/D wagon scoreboard. Number of station wagons built by Chrysler: zero. General Motors: one, the Saturn. Ford: two, each with two brand names—Ford Escort / Mercury Tracer, and Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable. Domestic industry total: three. And that’s the lot. More Archive Wagon Tests!VW-Audi also has three—the Audi A4 and A6 Avants, and the new Passat—and any one of them provides more driver grat­ification than all their U.S. competition put together. For that matter, the same can be said for the Passat’s former rivals from Honda and Toyota. In their recent redesigns, wagon models disappeared from both the Accord and Camry model ranges, and neither of their former offer­ings was as nifty or nimble as the new Passat. So that leaves the Passat with few cred­ible competitors: The Volvo V70 is not only bigger and quicker in its turbo editions but also considerably more expensive. The Subaru Legacy GT packs a bit more power and space, plus all-wheel drive, for $23,990. The base price of our Passat GLS tester was $21,800. A $325 All-Weather package (heated front seats and washer nozzles) and a power glass sunroof ($1000) bumped the as-tested total to $23,125. The base five-cylinder five-speed V70 opens at $28,860. Like the Audi A4 and A6 Avants, the Passat wagon is built on VW-Audi’s B­-platform. Unlike some companies, how­ever, platform sharing at VW-Audi doesn’t mean out-and-out cloning. Chassis and body dimensions for the three wagons are all different, with the Passat slotting between the two Audis. (Of course, the Passat is priced from $9165 to $16,394 less than the Audis.) The Passat’s new chassis is commend­ably stiff—a 35-percent improvement in torsional rigidity, according to VW—and its A4-derived four-link front suspension seems to do a better-than-average job of controlling toe and camber changes during hard cornering. The rear suspension—a trailing-arm and torsion-beam setup—is more mundane, but it at least keeps the rear wheels from contributing more than their fair share to the steering. HIGHS: Smooth styling, precise steering, super seats.That steering gives the Passat a little more character than your average mid-size family hauler. Although on-center feel is a bit on the numb side and there’s a tad more power assist than we like at low speeds, the ratio is fairly quick—2.8 turns lock-to-lock—and accuracy is very good indeed. Suspension tuning is another major ele­ment of aggressive turn-in and prompt recovery in quick transitions, of course, and the Passat’s Teutonic heritage shows to good advantage in these essentials of fun to drive (FTD). There’s enough starch in the shock and spring rates to keep weight transfer out of the drama zone, allowing the Passat to straighten out snaky stretches with higher-than-average zeal. This trait—and the power of the all­-disc brake system, augmented by a virtu­ally pulse-free Bosch 5.3 anti-lock brake unit—doesn’t really show to advantage in our formal test results. Indifferent skidpad performance (0.75 g) iden­tifies the limiting factor, a set of 195/65R-15 Continentals. We have to pre­sume these tires were chosen primarily for ride quality, and probably price, because they whimpered at the first hint of ram­bunctious ramp running. They also sniveled in switchbacks and just flat howled in any kind of hard cornering. Less sidewall and a little more contact patch, as well as a tread compound less closely related to linoleum, would definitely enhance this car’s abilities in the realm of driving for entertainment. Acceleration is still another essential component of FTD, and here the Passat’s performance rates so-so, at least when it’s equipped with VW’s corporate 1.8-liter twin-cam 20-valve turbo four. As we’ve noted before, Volkswagen’s five-valve-­per-cylinder engine is no screamer. It reaches its 150-horsepower peak at 5700 rpm. With a test weight of 3180 pounds, we weren’t at all surprised by its 8.5-second 0-to-60 time, even though our test car had the standard five-speed manual transmission.On the other hand, the 1.8T has excellent torque characteristics, with al­most all 155 pound-feet of it on tap from 1750 to 4600 rpm. The big bene­fits to this exceptional torque band are snappy stoplight getaways and better-than-average fifth­-gear response in freeway cruising. More snort will be available this month as ’99 models start trickling in to showrooms. They’ll have the option of VW’s 190-hp, 2.8-liter V-6. The same goes for VW’s all­-wheel-drive Syncro option and possibly the 1.9-liter turbo-diesel currently offered in the Jetta and New Beetle. At this writing, however, the only powertrain option for the Passat wagon is VW’s manumatic five­-speed Tiptronic transmission. LOWS: Bituminous interior, indifferent grip, modest acceleration.Seating is another of the Passat’s strong suits, as it usually is with VWs. Up front, the buckets lack some lateral support but otherwise offer a wide range of adjust­ments and include side airbags tucked into their outer edges. In back, there is an extra 1.4 inches of headroom and a bit more shoulder width. Behind the seats, the Passat can swallow 39 cubic feet of stuff; 56 cubes fit with those seats folded flat. There are two interior shortcomings: a color scheme that seems to have been inspired by an hour or so in the dark depths of the Carlsbad Caverns—coal miners will feel at home here—and audio controls designed for folks whose fin­gertips resemble freshly sharpened pencils. On the credit side of the ledger, the stygian interior decor is bright­ened at night by the neonesque instrument and secondary-control lighting—blue and red—­and the cabin is com­mendably quiet at most operating speeds. The engine emits a bit of buzz at idle, and exceptionally warty pavement will communicate occa­sional thumps through the suspension and into the ears of the occupants. But even though the coefficient of drag is, at 0.30, 0.03 higher than the sedan’s number, wind noise is still close to Accord/Camry terri­tory. Which is to say low. We all know why the popularity of station wagons has dwindled to almost nothing in the U.S. market, of course. They’ve been supplanted by minivans and sport-utility vehicles, the former for their greater capacity, the latter because they’re perceived as cool, and also because they convey a sense of invulnerability and empowerment to certain drivers. Well, okay. But in the realm of safety, we lean strongly toward vehicles with a high agility index, optimizing crash avoid­ance, rather than those that are likely to have an edge in total mass when the colli­sion occurs. And when we hear folks equating FTD with a high seating position, we’re tempted to contact the Thought Police. FTD is an amalgam of limited body roll, brisk transient response, precise steering, and a favorable power-to-weight ratio. With the 1.8-liter engine, the Passat wagon isn’t spectacular on the latter count, but it’s still livelier than 95 percent of the sport-utilities galumphing along out there. And it will leave any of them gasping for breath on a mountain road. VERDICT: Not quite a thrill ride, but nonetheless urbane, refined, and fun to drive.Add decent cargo capacity, smooth styling, long-haul comfort, and the best fit-and-finish quality we’ve seen from VW in many years, and you have an excellent reason to avoid the mountainous mass, ele­phantine responses, and heavy thirst of a mid-size sport-ute. Thanks to Volkswagen, the station wagon is cool again. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Volkswagen Passat GLS wagonVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,800/$23,125Options: power sunroof, $1000; All-Weather package (heated front seats and washer nozzles), $325
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 20-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 109 in3, 1781 cm3Power: 150 hp @ 5700 rpmTorque: 155 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/control armsBrakes, F/R: 11.1-in vented disc/9.6-in discTires: Continental ContiTouring Contact EcoPlus195/65HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.4 inLength: 183.8 inWidth: 68.5 inHeight: 59.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/44 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind M/R: 56/39 ft3Curb Weight: 3180 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.5 sec1/4-Mile: 16.6 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 25.0 sec120 mph: 48.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 127 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 200 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 23/32 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDTony was smart, well read, funny, irascible, cantankerous, opinionated, friendly, difficult, charming, honest, and eminently interesting to be around.

He loved cars, car people, and words… but most of all, he loved racing. The Car and Driver writer, editor, and racer passed away in 2018 at age 78.
Remembering Tony More

For nearly a quarter century, the Lexus RX has enjoyed enviable success prioritizing passenger comfort over behind-the-wheel engagement. Lexus, though, wants to expand the fifth-generation model’s skill set in a dynamic direction with the 2023 RX500h F Sport Performance.The RX is the second vehicle in the brand’s lineup to bear this recently introduced sub-F moniker, the first of which was the IS500 F Sport Performance. Like that sedan, the RX500h distinguishes itself from its lesser kin with a powertrain specific to the F Sport Performance. The RX500h Accelerates AheadWhereas the rear-wheel-drive IS500 features a burly 472-hp 5.0-liter V-8, the all-wheel-drive RX500h employs a hybrid powertrain that combines a turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine and a pair of electric motors to produce 366 horsepower—91 more than the RX350 gets from this same engine acting alone. A nickel-metal-hydride battery pack lives under the rear seat and sends electricity to the two motors, one of which Lexus sandwiches between the RX500h’s engine and six-speed automatic transmission while the other directly powers the rear axle.The electric drive motors’ instant thrust masks any lag from the turbocharger, while the gas engine’s plentiful low-end torque, all of which is available from 2000 rpm, means the powertrain never feels overburdened pushing this 4793-pound SUV about. At its peak, the gas-electric powertrain produces a total of 406 pound-feet of torque, enough grunt to accelerate the RX500h to 30 mph in 2.0 seconds and on to the mile-a-minute mark in 5.5 seconds, figures that almost exactly match those of the 355-hp Acura MDX Type S.Highs: Comfortable ride, quiet cabin, torque-rich powertrain.The Lexus is no less eager on the move, motoring from 30 to 50 mph in 2.7 seconds and from 50 to 70 mph in 3.7 seconds, its prescient gearbox seemingly hardwired to the accelerator pedal’s position. To put this in perspective, the Lexus SUV’s times are nearly identical to those of a 1328-pound lighter, 315-hp Volkswagen Golf R with a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission.Better yet, the RX500h maintains the miserliness expected of a hybrid. The gas-electric Lexus matched its 28-mpg EPA highway estimate on our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test. That’s 5 mpg better than the aforementioned MDX Type S. The RX500h also has an EPA city estimate of 27 mpg, which is 5 mpg better than the nonhybrid RX350.Can’t Stop the RX500hLay off the right pedal, though, and the RX500h’s driving dynamics seem less impressive. Even with its new GA-K underpinnings—which it shares with the likes of the Toyota Camry and Highlander and Lexus NX, among others—the RX500h is neither particularly capable nor exciting in any performance setting that does not involve booting the accelerator on a straight piece of tarmac.Goad the RX500h too hard through twisting turns, and the SUV’s heft overwhelms its available 21-inch Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S rubber. As its 0.80-g skidpad run reflects, the RX500h simply lacks the grip necessary to play the part of a performance SUV. Factor in the RX500h’s muted steering feedback, and it’s easy to unwittingly push this Lexus past its narrow limits. We suggest sticking with the standard Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV summer tires, as the stickier compound ought to noticeably improve the RX500h’s middling lateral grip and braking performance. As is, the RX500h’s 195-foot stop from 70 mph—three feet longer than our 6072-pound long-term Toyota Tundra—borders on unacceptable.RX for ComfortBy contrast, the RX500h hits its stride in everyday driving. Keep its adaptive dampers in their Normal setting, and the RX500h offers a cosseting ride that’s still firm enough to keep excessive body motion at bay. Switching to the dampers’ Sport mode does little more than butcher the ride quality. The low-effort but direct rack-and-pinion setup includes an RX500h-exclusive four-wheel-steering system that can turn the rear wheels up to four degrees, trimming 1.7 feet from the turning radius. As a result, this 192.5-inch Lexus has a turning radius better than the two-foot-shorter Fiat 500X.Lows: Dull handling, subpar stopping performance, uncomfortable front seats for the wider-waisted.The latest RX offers plenty of stretch-out space for two passengers in its cushy 40/20/40-split rear bench. There’s enough shoulder room for three passengers to sit in reasonable comfort on short jaunts too. Lexus makes the space even more welcoming with available heated and ventilated outboard rear seats, optional power reclining rear seatbacks, and an available panoramic moonroof. The RX500h is no Rolls-Royce Cullinan or Mercedes-Maybach GLS-class, but like those ultra-luxury machines, its rear seating area is at least as appealing as the driver’s and front passenger’s space.That’s certainly true for those with wider waistlines, given the front seats’ confining bolsters. The narrow and heavily bolstered front buckets seem to belong in a vehicle with much greater sporting intent. Nevertheless, those with thin-enough waists will find the front seats provide great long-haul comfort and support. The RX interior is nicely finished, but we weren’t enamored of the multimode steering-wheel buttons or the infotainment system’s quirks. The latter include the lack of a proper home screen and a menu structure that makes typically simple tasks (such as switching between the drive modes) needlessly complicated.Surprisingly, Lexus fits its flagship RX trim with the model’s smaller 9.8-inch touchscreen infotainment system. Nabbing the larger 14.0-inch display, which is included on the cheaper, sub-$60,000 RX350 and RX350h Premium+ and Luxury trims, adds at least $1105 to the RX500h’s $64,145 starting price.By appending the F Sport Performance designation to the RX500h, Lexus seems to be trying to convince consumers that this variant of its bestselling mid-size SUV offers something different from the sleepy driving dynamics that have long characterized the RX. Really though, the RX500h continues in the tradition of its forebears with its comfortable ride, quiet cabin, and spacious accommodations while adding an extra dose of horsepower. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Lexus RX500h F Sport PerformanceVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $64,145/$75,065Options: Mark Levinson stereo, $2265; premium triple-beam LED headlights, $1565; 360-degree camera system, $800; running boards, $725; heated and ventilated outboard rear seats, $680; cargo tray, mudguard, and door edge protective film, $640; Traffic Jam Assist, $620; Copper Crest paint, $595; 120-volt inverter, $550; power rear seats, $550; panoramic moonroof, $500; illuminated cargo sills, $300; digital key, $275; Advanced Park; $250; digital rearview mirror, $200; puddle lamps, $175; power liftgate with kick sensor, $150; Cold Area package, $100; rear bumper applique, $90; 21-inch wheel credit, -$110
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 271 hp, 339 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, (combined output: 366 hp, 406 lb-ft; nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions, F/R: 6-speed automatic/direct-drive
CHASSISSuspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.7-in vented disc/13.4-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/S235/50R-21 101V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 192.5 inWidth: 75.6 inHeight: 67.3 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 46/30 ft3Curb Weight: 4793 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.5 sec1/4-Mile: 14.2 sec @ 97 mph100 mph: 15.0 sec120 mph: 23.8 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.7 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 23 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 480 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 27/27/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorDespite their shared last name, Greg Fink is not related to Ed “Big Daddy” Roth’s infamous Rat Fink. Both Finks, however, are known for their love of cars, car culture, and—strangely—monogrammed one-piece bathing suits. Greg’s career in the media industry goes back more than a decade. His previous experience includes stints as an editor at publications such as U.S. News & World Report, The Huffington Post, Motor1.com, and MotorTrend. More

From the November 1998 issue of Car and Driver.There’s a certain who-cares ano­nymity to the cars in this econobox class. Nobody dreams of winning the Powerball lottery so they can show off a Chevy Cavalier in their driveway, or a Ford Escort or a Nissan Sentra. And in these cheap-gas days, big numbers on the EPA mileage label no longer draw a crowd (remember when they did?). The only shoppers who care about this class now walk straight to the price sticker. Price, quality, and dependability are the impor­tant issues for Protegé buyers, Mazda says. They shop price and they keep shopping across brands until something fits the budget. Still, a few econoboxes manage to stand out from the blur. The Neon remains a cutie and a lusty performer besides. The Honda Civic is a frisky futurist. And we’ve always liked the Protegé because, well, it just seemed to get all the basics right. Now Mazda has an all-new Protegé—­new body, new engines, new automatic gearbox—and this one has a shot at celebrity. To start off, it’s a looker. Mazda didn’t try for cute. That’s a perishable con­dition (though you wouldn’t know it from the Neon’s still-spunky shape), and now it’s a crowded corner of the market popu­lated by the roly-poly New Beetle. Rather, it did the hard thing in creating an econobox that actually looks classy. The rather formal profile of this four-door-only body is softened by a smoothly arched roofline and then given character with big taillights and boldly sculptured wheel­-opening flares. The grille has an in-your­-face chrome accent, too, a rich touch you’d expect on a Lincoln Continental or a Mercedes, but which seems utterly extrav­agant on a budgeteer. The Protegé does something else exceptionally well, something perhaps even more valuable: It fits the driver like a custom suit. Let’s be careful here. Anatomies vary, and we can’t foresee the complaints of every human settling into the driving position of a small car. But our relatively normal-size drivers report some­thing unexpected, maybe even unprecedented—the Protegé doesn’t hurt them anywhere. In most cars, larger ones, too, something about the console, or the under­dash, or the door, rubs on your knee, or your shin, exactly on the part where there’s hardly any meat to pad the bone. The longer you drive, the more irritating it gets. You can forget for a while, but then you notice, and it’s annoying again. The Protegé is one of the rare cars that didn’t rub us wrong in any way. It seems to have all its room in useful places. The driver’s seat slides rearward too far for six-footers, and they have ample headroom even with the sunroof. Mazda did a clever thing with the front­-seat tracks. The inner track is mounted on the side of the tunnel, and the outer one attaches to the side of the sill, leaving a remarkably wide floor space for rear-pas­senger feet. Kneeroom seems unexpectedly generous back there, too, as is the door-opening space for entry and exit. None of this grabs your attention when you review the official published dimensions. In fact, on the page, the new Protegé differs from the old Protegé by only a few 10ths of an inch in almost every direction, and usually the new car is slightly smaller. Overall length is down 0.8 inch; that’s as earth­shaking as the differences get. More Archive Compact Car ReviewsBut in fact, everything is new. This is a new body, built in Japan on the Capella platform (that’s a narrow ver­sion of the 626 and not sold in the U.S.). Dimensions, inside and out, are so close to those of the old car that you wouldn’t suspect such a dramatic change of hard­ware, unless you notice the 0.4-inch increase in track width. That’s a big clue to significant structural differences. In this day of big claims for enhanced body rigidity, Mazda’s improvement over the old Protegé seems minor—22 percent stiffer in bending, 12 percent better in torsion. But on the road, the test car has a rattle-­free, drone-free way about it that’s very pleasing. This car nearly earns the term “hushed” for its silence on impacts, for its lack of powerplant thrash at elevated revs, and for its restrained wind noise at speeds above 80 mph. This is high praise for an econobox. Mazda says the new body is about 50 pounds heavier than the old one. It has more steel, which works to provide the silence just mentioned, and crash protec­tion. Yet the total weight of the car is down 16 pounds on our scale, due to clever engi­neering in the bolt-ons. As is typical when crash improvements are made, interior dimensions are frac­tionally smaller in almost every case, but it doesn’t hurt the capacity and comfort of this car in any noticeable way. Trunk space has shrunk, too, by 0.2 cubic foot, but the new shape is so uncontorted—it’s a big box!—and the lift-over is so low, that we think it’s more useful than ever.The top-of-the-line Protegé, the ES, comes with a larger engine than the lower-­level DX and LX models: 1840 cc and 122 horsepower for the ES; 1598 cc and 105 horsepower for the others (those sold in states adhering to California LEV stan­dards have two less horsepower). Both are twin-cam, 16-valve fours but are based on fundamentally different designs. The ES engine is a newly derived version of the 2.0-liter four that’s standard in the larger 626 sedan. After driving the small-engine models, the ES feels like a muscle car. It cuts nearly half a second off the 0-to-60 time of the previous-generation ES model—down to 8.4 seconds with the five-speed now—and top-gear acceleration improves even more. The redline is down 500 rpm from before to 6500, and torque is much enhanced. If your budget will stretch to the ES, we think the engine alone is worth the extra cost. Jim Caiozzo|Car and DriverThe suspension is similar to that of the previous car, although the parts are dif­ferent, and we found road grip to be iden­tical to that of the last ES we tested, at 0.80 g on the skidpad. The new car has anti-roll bars front and rear and tightly limited roll angles, which add a sporty feel to the handling. The steering effort is rather high, and the on-center feel is wide rather than sharp. As a result, the Protegé feels stable, but it lacks the nippy responsiveness that makes Hondas so enjoyable. Mazda backtracked to drums for the rear brakes; the previous ES had solid discs. The brake pedal feels better than it did in the last car—firm and fade-free­—but its stopping distance increased by 10 feet to a not-very-good 195 feet from 70 mph. When it renewed the 626 model, Mazda rather conspicuously removed cer­tain convenience features in an effort to reduce costs. But now the yen is weaker, and we expect Protege prices to drop a few hundred dollars—to $12,500 for the low­-end DX, and to $15,500 for the ES. Better yet, the Protegé will retain a high level of stan­dard equipment. All versions have a tilt­-adjustable steering column, a 60/40 folding rear seat, and three-point belts for all five seating positions. LX and ES models have manual adjusters for cushion height and tilt on the front buckets. This adjustability, combined with firmly sup­portive seats and surroundings that don’t rub your legs wrong, makes the Protegé very satisfying to a wide variety of drivers. At first, the look of the interior seems aggressively bland. Choose between no­-comment gray and curious adobe brown. The broad expanses are broken up by golf-ball-dimple accents, though, and that’s worth a smile. Then, after a few hours of driving, you begin to notice how the shadows break over the sculptured dashtop, over the driver’s airbag cover, and even around the windshield pillars. As the sun moves to different windows, and as the rays slope lower at day’s end, yet more design subtleties rise to your notice. There’s a lot more to this Protegé than its econobox stature would suggest. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Mazda Protegé ESVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $15,500/$16,500 (est.)Options: premium package (power sunroof, anti-lock brakes, floor mats)
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 112 in3, 1840 cm3Power: 122 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 120 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION
5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/strutBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/7.9-in drumTires: Bridgestone Potenza RE92P195/55VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 102.8 inLength: 174.0 inWidth: 67.1 inHeight: 55.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/41 ft3Trunk Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 2594 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4-Mile: 16.6 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 27.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 114 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 26/30 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

You’d think that Toyota would have the sport-utility formula long figured out given its numerous popular models. But there’s been a gaping hole in Toyota’s SUV lineup for some time, with the step up from the Highlander crossover to the body-on-frame Sequoia being particularly large.play iconThe triangle icon that indicates to playThough it’s a wildly popular vehicle (3.3 million-plus sold to date), the Highlander’s middle row isn’t exactly world-beating, and its puny third row is no match for the likes of the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Grand Cherokee L, and Kia Telluride. Meanwhile, the product gap grew into a chasm when the new Toyota Sequoia debuted, as it moved in a truckier direction to fill the vacuum left by the departing Land Cruiser. The change from independent to solid-axle rear suspension certainly improved towing and off-road capability, but ride smoothness and third-row passenger/cargo space suffered.Enter the Grand HighlanderThe 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander is a completely new vehicle that is not merely a stretched-wheelbase Highlander. The Grand Highlander certainly has a longer wheelbase, but it’s considerably larger in every other dimension too. It also looks different from the Highlander, with smooth flanks that do not evoke the Supra-wannabe swoopiness of the Highlander. The GH is built specifically to take on the above competition in what Toyota calls the “long-haul three-row SUV” segment. That it uses a derivative name is a calculated strategy, as Toyota freely admits that it is “drafting off the success” of the Highlander by simply tacking “Grand” onto the nameplate.And why not? The Grand Highlander shares its namesake’s core mission, but it’s just better at it—particularly if you’ll use the third row more of the time, or for longer trips. In numeric terms, the Grand’s 116.1-inch wheelbase is 3.9 inches longer than the Highlander’s. It’s also 4.0 inches longer overall than the longest Highlander XSE, 2.3 inches wider, and stands 2.0 inches taller. But it remains significantly more garage- and parking-space-friendly than a Sequoia because its overall length is 6.7 inches stubbier, its roof crouches 4.4 inches lower, and the body is 1.3 inches narrower.Made For the Long HaulThe Grand Highlander’s extra interior space is put to good use, and we’re lucky that chief engineer Craig Payne cut his teeth on the Sienna before he was assigned the Grand Highlander project. The now-spacious third row is easy to enter, and our 6-foot-2-inch tester, yours truly, was able to sit there comfortably, with the second row preset to account for his own adjusted driving position. You could say the Grand Highlander can carry a conga line of Dans. At the same time, there is 21 cubic feet of luggage space behind the third row—enough, in Toyota’s estimation, for seven carry-on suitcases. More on the Grand HighlanderMeanwhile, the Highlander only provides 16 cubic feet behind a third row that is utterly adult-repellent, with 1.1 inches less headroom and 5.5 fewer inches of legroom. Things are surprisingly subpar in the Sequoia, which offers either 22 cubic feet of rear cargo space or Grand Highlander levels of third-row legroom, but not at the same time. You must scooch the seat forward to the point of uninhabitability to get the former or slide it back to get the latter, at which point you have just 12 cubes of cargo room—and 1.6 inches less headroom than the Grand.We like how every outboard seat has a USB-C outlet, and the Grand Highlander’s numerous cupholders feature adjacent slots that can cradle smartphones and tablets. The second-row mini-console pops out quickly to create an aisle, and the front console features a thoughtful roll-back top between fixed armrests that allows you to fish around without disturbing your seatmate. Want to fold seats and tote cargo? The Grand Highlander carries 58 cubic feet behind the middle row and 98 behind the front, which tops the Sequoia’s 49- and 87-cubic-foot efforts and is 10 or so cubes better than the competition in both measures.Up front, the driver’s seat is exceedingly well shaped, and the dash has a layered and interesting look—especially when accented with the Portobello brown leather and bronze trim of our Hybrid Max Platinum sample vehicle. Piano black is used sparingly, and many controls are set on matte-black surfaces that look and feel surprisingly premium. A 12.3-inch touchscreen is standard across all grades, and pairing our phone to wireless Apple CarPlay was painless. Indeed, this is a comfortable and accommodating place to whittle away the miles. Multiple Modes of MotivationUnder the hood, you have your choice of three powertrains. The base turbocharged 2.4-liter inline-four is good for 265 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque, and it’s available with front- or all-wheel drive. The V-6-powered competition delivers between 20 and 28 more horsepower, but the Grand Highlander sends an extra 48 to 50 pound-feet through its eight-speed automatic. Manufacturer-estimated combined fuel economy is 24 mpg for the front-driver and 22–23 mpg with all-wheel drive. That’s about 1–2 mpg better than the aforementioned competition.Next up is Toyota’s familiar hybrid with dual electric motors that work together to recover braking energy, harvest excess engine output, and regulate the drive ratio of the seamless electronic continuously variable automatic transmission. The system’s 2.5-liter engine makes 187 horses and 177 pound-feet on its own, with the electric motors boosting that to 245 horsepower. All-wheel-drive versions add a third motor between the rear wheels. Estimated fuel economy ranges between 33 and 34 mpg combined, depending on trim.Though the top-level powertrain is called Hybrid Max, it shares nothing with the above-described hybrid. It combines the base 265-hp turbo four with a single electric motor sandwiched between its engine and transmission, which has six speeds instead of eight because the electric motor’s added torque helps bridge the wider gaps. All-wheel drive is standard, so there’s a second motor at the rear. All in, this powertrain makes 362 horsepower and 400 pound-feet, which tops the Jeep Grand Cherokee L’s 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in both measures. Fuel economy is an estimated 27 mpg combined, which is 10 mpg better than the Jeep.Drives Like a Bigger Highlander Underway, the base powertrain has no trouble urging the larger and heavier Grand Highlander into merge lanes and up steep grades. The transmission shifts smoothly, and even though the base Grand is not quick, it’s no slug either. We reckon 60 mph will arrive in about 7.5 seconds. The engine note tends to mumble under load but pipes down while cruising. It also cuts a willing arc through corners, though the steering is somewhat light for our tastes.We didn’t drive the base hybrid, but the Hybrid Max feels much more eager, as it should with almost 100 more horsepower. Toyota says 60 mph will come in 6.3 seconds, but we think it’ll do better. Meanwhile, it’s never apparent that its transmission has two fewer cogs, and the feel of the blended brakes is impressively consistent and reassuring. The steering is just as light as the standard GH, but on-center buildup is a bit more muted here, possibly owing to the sharper response of its standard 20-inch wheels.Both versions deliver a generally smooth ride that lacks any semblance of float, but the base model’s 18-inchers came across as more supple over cracked surfaces, as smaller-diameter wheels often do. But we’re not ready to be definitive, because the roads on Hawaii’s Big Island lack the variety of those at home, and the lowly 55-mph speed limit is enforced by unmarked patrol cars.Available Soon, and at Compelling PricesWhen it arrives this summer, the Grand Highlander’s three-powertrain lineup will be available across the XLE, Limited, and Platinum grades. All-wheel drive is optional on the first two for $1600. All three grades are available with the base engine, starting with the XLE at $44,405, which is only $1050 more than a similarly outfitted 2023 Highlander. That’s a steal. The XLE Hybrid goes for $46,005, which again is just $1050 more than a comparable Highlander. Higher up, the all-wheel-drive Limited Hybrid Max, which has no Highlander equivalent, costs $55,375, and the all-wheel-drive Platinum Hybrid Max sits atop the pile at $59,460.ToyotaWith the new Grand Highlander, Toyota has neatly plugged a hole in its lineup that had recently grown larger with the Sequoia’s new realignment. It finally gives Brand T what it needs to go up against the likes of the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, and Kia Telluride in the so-called long-haul three-row SUV segment. Does it have a chance to win a comparison test? That’s not yet clear, but it’s sure to win over new converts that bypassed the Highlander because it didn’t quite measure up.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Toyota Grand HighlanderVehicle Type: front-engine, front-engine and front-motor, or front-engine and front- and rear-motor, front- or all-wheel-drive, 7- or 8-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase: FWD, $44,405; AWD, $46,005; Hybrid FWD, $46,005; Hybrid AWD, $47,605; Hybrid Max, $55,375
POWERTRAINSDOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 187 hp, 177 lb-ft + 2 or 3 AC motors (combined output: 245 hp, nickel-metal hydride battery pack); turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 265 hp, 310 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 265 hp, 310 lb-ft + 2 AC motors (combined output: 362 hp, 400 lb-ft; nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions: continuously variable automatic, 8-speed automatic, continuously variable automatic/direct drive (F/R), 6-speed automatic/direct drive (F/R)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.1 inLength: 201.4 inWidth: 78.3 inHeight: 70.1 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58-60/52-54/39 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 98/58/21 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4400-5000 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.2-8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.4-17.5 secTop Speed: 115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR’S EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 22-34/20-36/26-32 mpgTechnical EditorDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More