Car Reviews

From the July 1987 issue of Car and Driver.We know that a lot of you would rather go ten rounds with Leon Spinks than slide behind the wheel of a van. Any van. And we know who you are, so don’t try to hide. We see you in the morning playing Nelson Piquet by weaving back and forth in your lane, warming your tires for the off-ramp. In your frame of reference, vans are for delivery geeks, teenagers overdosing on hormones, and young couples who haven’t learned the subtleties of birth con­trol. Forgive us if we call you insular and shortsighted. For a significant portion of the motoring public, vans are absolutely necessary. Not necessary evils, mind you, like high-fiber diets or strip mining, but just plain necessary. To a lot of people, vans are as much a staple of civilized life as napalm-grade chili verde or a clean video copy of Double Indemnity. And vans don’t exact as large a penalty on driving fun as you might think.We first learned that vans don’t have to be penalty boxes four years ago when Chrysler introduced the T-van twins, the Dodge Caravan and the Plymouth Voyag­er. We found that you could slide a T-van into a standard garage without rearrang­ing the ceiling, and that no major recalibration of your driving style was re­quired to feel comfortable behind the wheel. Aside from the fact that the trunk started at the back of your neck, the T-van gave the driver all the usual car cues: a soft ride, middle-of-the-pack steering feel, ex­cellent sound deadening, even adequate handling. Last January, in response to the V-6 of­fered in the Chevy Astro and the Ford Aerostar, Chrysler introduced a Mitsu­bishi-built 3.0-liter V-6 for the Cara­van/Voyager. With the newfound power and smoothness, the T-twins moved one step closer to passenger-car refinement. Now, taking a step in the other direction, toward traditional van virtue, Chrysler is offering a longer cabin as well. Sliding a V-6 into the same space occu­pied by an in-line four might sound like a shoehorn operation, but the T-van’s en­gine bay was in fact designed from the be­ginning to accept a larger powerplant. The addition of the V-6 adds only 50 pounds to the van’s overall weight: the en­gine itself weighs 30 pounds more than the Mitsubishi 2.6-liter four, which was the largest optional engine before the in­troduction of the six, and about 20 pounds of additional front structure comes with the new motor. The total weight penalty for the V-6 and the addi­tional cabin space is 300 pounds. The extended versions of the Caravan/Voyager carry a “Grand” prefix to distin­guish them from their standard-length stablemates. The overall length has in­creased to 190.5 inches, 14.6 inches long­er than the standard van. Of that extra length, 7.0 inches was gained by stretch­ing the wheelbase and the remainder came from adding bodywork behind the rear wheels. In the past when Chrysler needed to stretch its full-size vans, the al­teration was accomplished crudely, with extra flanges and a welded-on bustle. In the case of the Caravan/Voyager, the body engineers specified all-new exterior stampings. The base engine for the standard­-length van is still the ever-popular 2.2-liter four, producing 97 hp. Chrysler’s 100-hp, 2.5-liter four is optional in the standard van and base equipment in the stretched model. Either version can be or­dered with the new 3.0-liter V-6, which produces 140 hp. (The Mitsubishi 104-hp 2.6-liter is no longer available.) The V-6 comes only with a three-speed automatic transmission. The other two engines are available with either a five-speed manual or the automatic. The suspension of the Grand minivan is virtually identical to the standard van’s, though the rear longitudinal leaf springs had to be lengthened three inches when the wheelbase was stretched. The reason is that the mounting points for the rear­most bank of removable seats would have interfered with the springs’ mounting points in the floorpan. Rather than sacri­fice rear-passenger legroom, the engi­neers chose to design longer springs. The spring rates are slightly different, too, but the overall ride rates of the standard and Grand versions are identical. One of Chrysler’s criteria for determin­ing how much cargo space the longer van would offer was the ability to accommo­date the familiar four-by-eight-foot sheet of plywood. (Van guys consider plywood as much a staple of suburban life as Gro­Mulch and variable-rate mortgages.) Re­move the Grand van’s rear benches and the cargo hold can swallow as much plywood as an owner would care to haul. You can shut the rear door on it too, without the need of unsightly rope. With the rear seats removed, the stretched van’s cargo volume is 150 cubic feet, twenty percent greater than the standard van’s. In addi­tion, the V-6 increases towing capacity from 2000 to 2750 pounds. If carrying people rather than plywood is your priority, your rear passengers will find their lives measurably improved. Legroom for both second- and third-seat passengers has been increased. The only dimension that seems to have suffered is the second seat’s headroom, which is re­duced from 38.5 inches to 38.3, but this isn’t a major sacrifice unless one of your passengers is wearing a beehive hairdo. Every other critical dimension has either remained the same or improved. In addition to the extra room, the rear riders are treated to such ambassador-­class amenities as cup holders molded into the plastic bulkheads and ashtrays to keep them from parking their chewing gum under the seats. They are further coddled by fairly comfortable benches up­holstered in grippy fabric and by deep, living-room-grade carpeting. Wind and road noise is subdued, so it’s possible to converse at normal levels of speech. For ventilation, rear passengers can rely on the vehicle’s excellent climate-control sys­tem or pop the flip-out windows. And thanks to the extended cabin, there is now sufficient room behind the rearmost bench for most of their luggage. More Minivan Reviews From the ArchiveThe driver and the front-seat passenger are treated to first-cabin accommodations in the form of big, comfortable seats. Our fully optioned Grand Voyager LE test sample was equipped with six-way power adjustment for the driver’s seat, while the front passenger’s seat offered only fore­-and-aft travel and a reclining seatback, both manually controlled. Overall, the Grand Voyager provides a pleasant and comfortable environment, whether you’re slogging around town on plywood runs or trekking cross-country with the babies on board. Unless you have luggage stacked to the headliner, visibility at all compass points is terrific. The op­tional roof console features individual map lights, a digital compass, an outside­-temperature gauge, and compartments for a garage-door opener and sunglasses. A fold-down tray in the center console of­fers two depressions for road drinks, but they’re too shallow to be truly useful; one good corner and you’ll be mopping Slurpees off that thick carpeting. In lieu of a glove box there is a slide-out bin under the front passenger’s seat (a feature intro­duced in the original T-vans), but it’s inac­cessible to the driver while on the fly. The instrument cluster houses an 85-mph speedo (13 mph short of true top end) and gauges for oil pressure, engine temp, fuel level, and voltage. Whether lightly or heavily laden, the V-6 provides enough smooth power and the suspension is competent enough that you almost forget you’re piloting a mini­bus. This maxi-minivan’s ride quality, steering feel, bump absorption, overall handling, and reassuring feel of being sol­idly planted on the road are without a doubt the best in its class. In fact, our Grand Voyager test van felt better in many ways than some of Chrysler’s convention­al passenger cars. Within limits, it was fun to drive—and definitely not a penalty box. Although we can’t point any accusing fingers at the new van’s mechanicals or ba­sic goodness, we must urge care during the ordering process. Our test unit, as you have no doubt noticed, was equipped with the rolling-coffee-table wood-grain side molding and wire wheel covers—a retina­-searing combination guaranteed to raise questions about your taste in motor vehi­cles. We’d like to see Chrysler scrap that whole ethic and opt for cleaner, simpler exterior decor. The Caravan/Voyager twins sit at the top of the minivan market, and they should look as slick as they are. SpecificationsSpecifications
1987 Plymouth Voyager LEVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $13,026/$17,415Options: luxury-equipment package (includes power win­dows, locks, mirrors, and driver’s seat, cruise control, tilt steering, forward and overhead consoles, remote fuel-filler door and liftgate releases), $1379; travel-equipment package (includes 3.0-liter V-6 engine, automatic transmission, and tinted glass), $1338; air conditioning, $840; deluxe stereo system, $458; luggage rack, $140; Eagle GT tires, $130; full-size spare, $104
ENGINESOHC 12-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 181 in3, 2972 cm3Power: 140 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 170 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 10.1-in vented disc/9.0-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GT205/70R-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 119.1 inLength: 190.5 inWidth: 69.6 inHeight: 65.0 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 50/40/46 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind R: 16 ft3Curb Weight: 3620 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 4.460 mph: 13.4 sec1/4-Mile: 19.0 sec @ 74 mph80 mph: 30.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 5.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 9.8 secTop Speed: 98 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 220 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.67 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 19/23 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Mini’s Countryman SUV is new for 2025, and like the outgoing model, it’s being offered in both S and John Cooper Works guises, the latter of which we already drove in Portugal this past February. We just wrapped up a three-day stint of driving, following along with this year’s edition of the Mini Takes the States road rally, where we were able to sample the JCW again and also drive the new Countryman S for the first time. And the two feel more closely related than you might think. While the JCW sounds a bit ruder and moves with a bit more hurry, the Countryman S doesn’t feel too far off. Its 241-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four makes 71 fewer horsepower than the JCW’s 312-hp unit, but the two share a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission and all-wheel drive system. Mini estimates the Countryman S will hit 60 mph in 6.2 seconds versus the JCW’s 5.2-second estimate, and that delta feels about right in our experience. Still, the S confidently charged up the winding mountain roads on our drive from Grand Junction, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah. The Countryman has grown a fair bit for 2025. It’s over five inches longer, almost an inch wider, and close to four inches taller than the 2024 model. With its extra mass, the new Countryman feels far larger on the road than a Mini ought to. That was also evident when seeing it parked among the hundreds of previous-generation Coopers, Clubmans, and Countrymans that turned out for the rally.While it was possible to forget you were driving an SUV in the last-gen Countryman, the new model’s tall-in-the-saddle feeling never fades. You can sense the higher center of gravity more in the S than in the JCW, but you have to be moving quite briskly to notice. Steering is quick and fairly communicative, although neither of the SUVs satisfies quite like the new Cooper S hatchback in this metric. The ride is good though, and the Countryman S feels more compliant than the JCW and less antsy at highway cruising speeds. A comprehensive interior makeover has elevated the 2025 Countryman’s panache while still leaving some of Mini’s characteristic playfulness. The circular infotainment display, for example, lets you choose from a variety of themes, including one that emulates the gauge cluster of a vintage Cooper. Textile-covered panels on the dash and upper door panels look rich, and there’s more attention paid to storage cubbies and ergonomics this time around. There’s also a sizable cargo hold and a rear seat that can easily fit two adults for an extended road trip without complaints; we fit three abreast for a short commute back from dinner, but it was a squeeze.Earlier-generation Countryman Reviews:Of course, you get all that with the JCW too, and for some buyers, the extra horsepower will be a big draw to that top model. But the price difference is substantial, and those who choose to forgo the $8000 upcharge by sticking with the S aren’t compromising on fun.But perhaps prospective buyers would rather spend some of that difference on features instead of power. Our test car was a loaded Iconic-trim model with the Favoured appearance package, which added handsome 20-inch wheels and sport seats with driver-side massaging. It also had a Harman/Kardon stereo system and the Comfort Package Max, which includes a wireless smartphone charging pad, augmented-reality navigation, and adaptive cruise control with lane centering. At $44,295, that represents $4400 in options or just a little more than half the cost to upgrade to the base JCW.With its newfound refinement and extra interior space, the Countryman S also finds itself in a better position to compete with the likes of the BMW X1, the Mercedes-Benz GLB-class, and the Volvo XC40. The new Countryman is a more well-rounded product than before, and the effort and attention to detail that Mini has made during this latest redesign is obvious no matter which version you drive.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Mini Countryman S All4Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: Signature Plus, $39,895; Iconic, $43,095
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1998 cm3Power: 241 hp @ 4500 rpmTorque: 295 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
7-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.0 inLength: 175.0 inWidth: 72.6 inHeight: 65.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/44 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 56/25 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.4 secTop Speed: 130-150 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 27/24/32 mpgDrew Dorian is a lifelong car enthusiast who has also held a wide variety of consumer-focused positions throughout his career, ranging from financial counselor to auto salesperson. He has dreamed of becoming a Car and Driver editor since he was 11 years old—a dream that was realized when he joined the staff in April 2016. He’s a born-and-raised Michigander and learned to drive on a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am. His automotive interests run the gamut from convertibles and camper vans to sports cars and luxury SUVs.       More

By all accounts, Mini’s new fourth-generation 2025 Cooper hatchback should feel like an entirely different vehicle than last year’s model. Mini’s ground-up redesign puts the focus on refinement and modernity—a risky endeavor considering how delightful the previous-generation Cooper was. After spending time hustling a two-door Cooper S through the mountains in New Mexico and Colorado, we walked away impressed with what’s new (and pleasantly surprised by all that’s been retained) in the makeover.Our test route was part of the first leg of Mini’s biennial Mini Takes the States road rally event, in which thousands of owners show up to geek out over their cars and cover hundreds of miles per day enjoying scenic views and good driving roads. The cult following the Cooper has cultivated since its 2002 rebirth is still in full effect. Even with a host of changes, the new Cooper S is still the nimble, punchy little rascal it ought to be. Handling is frisky, and the steering is responsive enough that it borders on darty. The turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four under the hood pumps out only 201 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque, but in this diminutive package it feels like more. The four-pot revs freely, and even at higher speeds, there’s plenty of torque to keep the Cooper S pulling toward triple-digit speeds. Mini says 60 mph will arrive in 6.3 seconds; we think it’ll do it in a little less than that. The exhaust emits a nice little burble when driving in the normal Core driving mode, but switch it into the Go-Kart mode (a nod to its handling), and it sounds a little ruder. All models come with a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic—that’s right, there’s no manual option—and it downshifts quickly when you put your foot down to pull out for a passing maneuver. There are no paddle shifters here, though, which seems like an oversight in this sporty variant.Previous-Gen Cooper S ReviewsStep on the brakes and you’ll feel an immediate bite, followed by a reassuring linearity as you sink your foot farther. High-speed stability is mostly good, although we did feel an occasional rear-end wiggle when encountering midcorner bumps while hustling the Cooper S over some particularly twisty pavement. At a more leisurely pace, the Cooper S has a planted feel that belies its small footprint. Here, you can truly appreciate the extra refinement that went into the new model. The cabin is hushed at highway speeds, and there’s less chrome and more textiles throughout the design, lending it a more upscale vibe. There’s plenty of whimsy too, which is expected from Mini. For example, the fabric-covered dash panels are backlit and project an ambient-lighting pattern at night. We drove a top-spec Iconic model with the Classic appearance package. At $37,295, our Sunny Side Yellow Cooper S came with plenty of desirable options, including a Harman/Kardon stereo system, adaptive cruise control, 18-inch wheels with summer tires, dual-zone automatic climate control, heated front seats and steering wheel, a wireless smartphone charging pad, parking sensors, in-dash navigation, and a dual-pane sunroof.MiniA circular infotainment display resides in the middle of the dashboard and features a virtual canine assistant called Spike. The display itself is a high-resolution OLED panel, and it looks quite fetching. The software, however, needs a little more time to cook. We noticed some intermittent lag throughout our day with the Cooper S; we also found the climate control’s temperature adjustments to be fussy and difficult to adjust, both for the driver and passenger. Luckily, Mini says the system is capable of accepting over-the-air updates, which in theory gives the company’s software team a chance to address such issues. Modernization can inadvertently lead to a loss of character, but Mini has carefully balanced the improvements here to keep the Cooper a Cooper. Being among the throngs of Mini enthusiasts while sampling the new one only served to underscore the importance of getting the new one just right.MiniSpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Mini Cooper SVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base: S Signature, $33,195; S Signature Plus, $35,595; S Iconic, $37,295
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1998 cm3Power: 201 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 221 lb-ft @ 1450 rpm
TRANSMISSION
7-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 98.2 inLength: 152.6 inWidth: 68. 7 inHeight: 56.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 47–49/32 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 34/9 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3100 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.0 secTop Speed: 130–150 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 32/28/39 mpgDrew Dorian is a lifelong car enthusiast who has also held a wide variety of consumer-focused positions throughout his career, ranging from financial counselor to auto salesperson. He has dreamed of becoming a Car and Driver editor since he was 11 years old—a dream that was realized when he joined the staff in April 2016. He’s a born-and-raised Michigander and learned to drive on a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am. His automotive interests run the gamut from convertibles and camper vans to sports cars and luxury SUVs.       More

From the April 1983 issue of Car and Driver.As you drive beneath the raised gate and into Ferrari’s Maranello compound, Enzo Ferrari’s office sits immediately to the left. The room is large but not enormous, furnished sparingly, and painted a dark shade of grayish blue. To the right of the wide desk, carefully placed among other mementos, is a picture of Gilles Villeneuve, and high above, indi­vidual lights bathe the room softly like the God-rays that highlight fields of grain beneath towering thunderheads. To the left of the desk, the rear door opens and quickly Enzo Ferrari is in the room, shaking hands with the U.S. press expeditionary force that has come to sample his new quattrovalvole engine. Ferrari’s hand is warm and firm, 84 years old. In an obviously good humor, he leads us through a question-and-answer session lengthier than his assistants have anticipated. His answers are sharp and wary, his wit as bright and shiny as the light haloing through his white hair. His phone jangles. The afternoon is waning and Mauro Forghieri is calling with re­sults of F1 testing in France. Ferrari re­moves his dark glasses and puts on a pair for reading, and begins to take notes with a fine-tipped marker on a lined pad. His handwriting is small and fluid. His questions are regular and pointed. For the moment we have been forgotten. Ferrari thanks Forghieri, hangs up, and motions for the book he will autograph for us. He will leave us free to have dinner with his right-hand man. He knows his meeting with us has had remarkable impact. Stars have a way of always knowing things like that.Over dinner, Eugenio Alzati, Ferrari direttore generale, is afire with enthusiasm. A small, trim, smiling man with dancing brown eyes, Alzati is telling our table that a Car and Driver test of the Mondial (which was a genuine stone in its original, underpowered configuration, need­ing 9.3 seconds to reach 60 mph) was responsible for the decision to go ahead with the quattrovalvole engine. Ferrari, as the story goes, called Alzati into his of­fice, waved a copy of our November ’81 issue around (accompanied by appro­priate invectives), flung it across his desk, and declared that something had to be done. (To be honest, Road & Track, which also took issue with the Mondial’s performance, is also given credit for Ferrari’s leap into action.) The four-valve Ferrari engine proba­bly would have happened anyway. Even since the company’s move under the mighty wing of Fiat for better or for worse, the powers that be at Ferrari have never entirely lost sight of that fi­nal necessary ingredient called speed. And what better way to get more speed than by adding sixteen additional valves to Ferrari’s proven, electronically fuel­-injected, double-overhead-cam V-8s? Says C/D technical editor Csaba Csere: “The basic advantage or four­-valve heads is that they breathe better than two-valve heads. It isn’t because of valve area per se, it’s because of curtain area, which is the mathematical product of the perimeter of the valve and the valve lift. Curtain area is significant even at relatively low valve lifts, so it’s not entirely a racing phenomenon. Be­cause a four-valve engine has very good breathing inherently, you don’t have to use wild camshaft timing to get good flow at high rpm, so you can produce an engine that has a very broad power band, with good low-end and midrange power. Four valves also allow placing the spark plug in the center of the combustion chamber, which is very desir­able for rapid combustion because it shortens the maximum distance the flame has to travel to reach the edges of the chamber. Using four valves also al­lows a shallower chamber with less of a peak in it than is possible with two larg­er valves, again promoting faster, more even burning. And four valves create lots of good turbulence—with airflow coming from two sources, there’s lots of intermixing—which contributes to rapid combustion. Basically, for a street car, four valves have no disadvantages. They’re better for power at all speeds, for emissions, for fuel economy, and octane requirements. Of course they do cost more money because of their complication.” All of which sounds good and runs better. Loosed on the Fiorano test track, the American-specification four-valve Mondials and 308s we set foot to were transformed by their newfound energy. Their throttles proved just as effective in steering the cars as their steering wheels. Less throttle? Big understeer. More throttle? Big oversteer. The Mondial in particular had a tendency to swap pendulum-like between push and loose, its bulky, mid-engine guise even more handling-sensitive than the small­er 308’s. This is the Mondial’s price for its added bulk and its most modest, child-sized back seats. More Ferrari’s From the ArchiveAs to whether Enzo Ferrari will be happy after we get a chance to run a full set of instrumented tests on the new quattrovalvole Mondial, we can only wait and see. We can say already that the en­gines are a complete success in feel, very full of willing and eye-opening performance. Tell us again about how Enzo Ferrari is too old to know what he’s doing. Ha! And mark our words, the Japanese will be hot on his tail with a whole bundle of four-valve technology in the coming years. But Ferrari has beat them to the punch: His quattrovalvole will hit the American market first.SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Ferrari Mondial QuattrovalvoleVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICEAs Tested: $70,000 (est.)
ENGINEDOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 179 in3, 2927 cm3Power: 227 hp @ 6600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 184.3 inCurb Weight: 3550 lb 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the July/August 2024 issue of Car and Driver.Pushing 93 mph on a broken and battered trail through a northern Michigan forest should be a terrifying experience. Trees flash by. Wildlife peers through the dense growth. One midcorner miscalculation could trigger an epic rally-style barrel roll. Yet blurring the scenery in a 2024 Can-Am Maverick R isn’t a big deal.The Maverick R’s high-speed off-road capability starts with beefy suspension arms and links. Big suspension packages aren’t uncommon in this high-strung segment, but what sets the Maverick R apart are the extra-tall front knuckles and spider-leg upper control arms that meet above the tire. With the upper and lower ball joints in line, considerable deviations in the scrub radius during vertical motions are virtually removed. The setup also eliminates massive camber changes during full compression, keeping the tires flat on the ground. Topping it off are Fox Live Valve adaptive dampers, part of an X-RS package, that adjust compression and rebound damping on the fly. With a terrain-gobbling amount of suspension travel—25.0 inches in front, 26.0 in the rear—the enormous dampers brush off impacts with any bump, hump, or jump in their path. Fully compress the front end, and the upper control arms peek through the bodywork like a Whac-a-Mole.Not long ago, these machines were prone to rollovers, but the Maverick R never threatens to go belly up. Being nearly as wide as a Ford Ranger Raptor helps, but the ability to firm up the outside dampers during lateral loads keeps the body surprisingly flat.The Maverick R’s driving force is a turbocharged 1.0-liter inline-three huffing 21.0 psi of boost. Its 240 horsepower makes it one of the most power-dense engines you can buy off a showroom floor. Whereas belt-driven continuously variable transmissions are the norm in side-by-sides, the Maverick R bangs off gears through a seven-speed dual-clutch transaxle. The automatic gearbox does an outstanding job on its own, and paddle shifters add a level of engagement uncommon in the segment.The Maverick R reaches 60 mph in 4.2 seconds on pavement and 5.1 in the dirt. While the suspension might be the Maverick’s high point, the engine’s Sport+ mode contains the coolest bit of tech: Advanced Response Technology (ART), otherwise known as anti-lag. With ART active at idle, the turbo roars like a taxiing jet plane. The engine sounds broken during off-throttle moments. That’s just the center cylinder shut down and the ignition timing changed to keep the turbo spooled and the boost at the ready. And it’s no gimmick. Typically, turbocharged engines are sluggish during our 5-to-60-mph rolling-start test. Not the Maverick’s. Its 4.4-second showing is just 0.2 slower than its sprint to 60 mph. Out on the trail, the acceleration is relentless. The rear differential is always locked, enabling huge powerslides. In the four-wheel-drive Trail Active mode, the automatic front-axle engagement quickly reacts, sending torque to the front wheels to rocket you out of turns. The turbo three, though, is comically inefficient. Over 200 miles of good times, we averaged just 8 mpg.The Maverick R X-RS isn’t just for high-speed antics. Its low-range gearing, electronically locking front differential, beadlock-capable wheels, and 17.0 inches of ground clearance make it perfect for rock climbing. The Maverick R starts at $36,484, and the X-RS with adaptive dampers commands $45,284. That doesn’t include a windshield or even speakers connected to the 10.3-inch touchscreen. It will, however, provide the most entertaining off-road experience we know of on four wheels.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Can-Am Maverick RVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door buggy
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $36,484/$45,284
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 61 in3, 999 cm3Power: 240 hp @ 8000 rpmTorque: 170 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION7-speed dual-clutch automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.0 inLength: 140.0 inWidth: 78.1 inHeight: 71.5 inCurb Weight: 2375 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS (PAVEMENT/DIRT)
60 mph: 4.2/5.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.4/14.1 sec @ 93/91 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4/5.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 93 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 180/233 ft 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 8 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDavid Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More

From the April 1983 issue of Car and Driver.And you thought old Carroll Shelby had fallen off the edge of an earth too flat to appreciate his talents. That hard times and high-priced fuel had squared up a once-hip populace and relegated the old Black-Hatted Chicken Farmer and his sports cars to a resting place out behind the last row of coops in Texas like roosters gone gray in the gonads. Did you really think ol’ Shel, the Snake Charmer, the Terlingua Chili Chieftain, had shot his Warrior’s Wad?Yo’ mama!The man in the black hat is back. Try this on for size: the new Shelby Charg­er, conceived, engineered, and pack­aged in three madcap months, will pin any other car in its class directly to the mat. On four very energetic cylinders, the Shelby Charger will run a whopping 117 mph, burn off quarter-miles in the sixteen-second bracket at over 80 mph, stop from 70 mph in under 200 feet, corner at a bloodcurdling 0.80 g, and return a most laudable 22 mpg even un­der giddily throttle-minded feet.Back in the days when Lee Iacocca was running Ford and Carroll Shelby was running Fords, they saw very much eye to eye. Fast was fun and perfor­mance was profit. Now, Lee Iacocca has brought the Chrysler Corporation back from the dead, and he has resurrected Carroll Shelby as the black-hatted good guy. Every other maker of performance cars will soon want to have this unholy marriage annulled. We’re talking three months from pro­posal to progeny here! This must be some sort of all-time record in the auto­mobile business. Mattel can’t even get a two-ounce toy car into production that fast. The Shelby Charger, this 90-day wonder, is the first Chrysler product in many a year that has everyone walking around with a huge smile. Chrysler is small enough to move quickly. Its quick­ness has been learned in desperate straits, and the talent has been honed by Iacocca. The program started with the formation of a Chrysler-Shelby tech center in Santa Fe Springs, California, complete with dynamometers, an eighth-mile drag strip, and a full-size skidpad. For the first month, Shelby spent a good deal of hands-on time with his new hardware, but he later was able, when corporate PR requirements cut into his time, to leave much of the fine-tuning to longtime Chrysler engineer Scott Harvey, a former national rally champion and Monte Carlo Rally participant. Says Shelby: “I laid out all the param­eters that I wanted in the car. The main parameters were to have as good a han­dling front-wheel-drive car as there is anywhere, that it be unique in appear­ance, and that it perform adequately. It’s not another Cobra, and there’s no claim for it to be. But it had to be built so that we can add certain things to it. The person who buys it can buy these parts and pieces from Chrysler’s Direct Connection to bring its performance up as high as he wants. And my last param­eter was that the base price be held to around $8000.”I wanted a car,” Shelby continues, “that was going to blow off the GTI, that would perform with the 924, and that would have the potential to equal the 944 even if it comes out with a tur­bocharger. If we build an automobile that is in the ballpark with these things and sells for $8000, then I’ve got me some sales. I am not trying to build a race car. My racing days are over. But I goddamn sure guarantee you I could blow ’em off with somethin’ I’d sell for $25,000!” This man is incorrigible. The front­-wheel-drive Charger is nifty, and Shelby knows the 2.2-liter engine is a winner. Redlined at 6000 rpm, it produces 107 hp at 5600 rpm (and he says there’s an­other 25 naturally aspirated horsepower to come). At 107 hp, it is 13 hp stronger than the standard 2.2, thanks to a block­-milling of 0.030 inch, which raises the compression ratio from 9.0 to 9.6:1. The overhead cam is retarded four de­grees for better top-end performance. Pete Gladysz, a project engineer on the Shelby powerplant who works out of Chrysler’s Engine Electrical Engineer­ing, says: “The spark is running very close to max-power advance. Premium unleaded is recommended, but not absolutely required because we’re using a detonation sensor. In 0-to-60 runs, I’d say premium allows the car to be per­haps a second quicker. “This engine is carbureted richer than the normal, federal-package 2.2. We’ve used the California-spec carbure­tor because of the emissions setup, and we’re probably 20 percent richer.”These refinements mesh with the two-barrel’s electronic controls to pro­duce generally good drivability. A warm 2.2 provides pleasing performance, de­cisive responsiveness, and total freedom from flat spots. And there is never an unpleasant letdown at the top of the rev range. The 2.2 always feels ripe underfoot. The five-speed transaxle’s final-drive ratio has been bumped from 3.56 to 3.87:1. This, along with a good cluster­ing of ratios, propels the Shelby smartly from corner to corner. Shelby noticed in hard driving that the transmission be­came unduly obstinate after a few hard shifts, but this will be corrected with re­finement and hardened shift forks be­fore the car goes into production. Sitting almost an inch lower than a bread-and-butter Charger, the Shelby sacrifices 0.6 inch to shorter springs (30 percent stiffer in front, 15 percent stiff­er in the rear), and 0.3 inch to the spe­cial-construction 195/50VR-15 Good­year Eagle GT tires. These tires—some of the best performance doughnuts in memory, providing excellent traction and feel in both wet and dry—are an amalgam of construction techniques pioneered by Goodyear in its European NCTs (which the Chrysler-Shelby équipe found to be ill-suited to its needs) and its American-developed Ea­gles. Incidentally, the inner circle of decorative holes in the wheels will soon disappear. Larry McLeese, senior vehicle-dy­namics development engineer, confirm that the shocks are considerably stiff­ened with more rebound damping and a little more jounce control. The Shelby’s ride is very firm, but not out of propor­tion to the added responsiveness and excellence of handling, and we never found a pothole that brought the car to its knees. According to McLeese, this is because new, progressive bump stops keep suspension compression from reaching the critical stage. The car rides up on the front tires’ shoulders during high-g cornering, bad­ly wearing the outer ribs of tread. Shel­by would like to crank in some static negative camber to square up the tire near the limit, but Chrysler begs the question. However, camber can easily be biased toward negative by any align­ment shop if that’s your predilection. The Shelby has straight-line stability in abundance, and its steering, in the opinion of some enthusiastic staffers, is the best power-assisted steering en­countered in any American car. It still must fend off some torque steer (un­equal-length half-shafts are partial cul­prits here, and a fix is on the way), but it never gives you the feeling that the car is going to jump off the road. Still, a firm hand is a good thing. The steering, with a ratio of 14.0:1, is highly linear and vastly superior to the wishy-washy units of the Z28 and the Mustang. Thankfully, the car’s development was not accomplished solely within the “too sanitary” (McLeese’s words) world of the proving grounds alone. “You’ve got to get into the real world,” McLeese avers, “and deal with bumps in the cor­ners and off-camber turns and other cars in your path . . .” After you’ve put them all behind you, you can sail into the next corner and lay into the brakes. They’re ridiculously easy to use, and they took a useful twen­ty feet off our last 70-to-0 Charger stop­ping distance, cutting it to 195 feet. Chrysler isn’t talking, but the add-on exterior trim (a substantial air dam, Camaro-like rocker spats, and a handsome ducktail) may have contributed to the four-cylinder’s war with the winds, although our coast-down measurements indicate the opposite. The add-on flying buttresses over the rearmost side win­dows are less than swell, but our Shelby never failed to draw admirers at every gas stop. On the road, the pretenders who tried for a closer look invariably fell away in stunned defeat. More Dodge Shelby VehiclesAn inch of road we wouldn’t give the pretenders, but the interior they can have. We like the nice cloth and the gray and royal blue, but the colors are too evenly apportioned. What’s more, the trim and the dash layout are strictly sec­ond-string, while the driving position, saddled with a towering steering col­umn left over from the taller Omni se­dan, is best suited to life forms un­known to this corner of the universe. Lateral support is less than it should be, the buckets’ cloth upholstery providing the only saving grace. We do, however, nominate the Shelby for the first annual Console Feature of the Year Award: a three-way choice of closed, open with a nice boxy space, or open with two mini dry docks for stor­ing cups of coffee or chocolate shakes and the like, as well as a graduated row of coin holders for those afflicted with tollboothitis. Kudos also to the Char­ger’s power-assisted armrest (spring­-loaded to move back when the parking­-brake lever is pulled up), the first we’ve ever encountered. Okay, so eight thousand bucks gets you no A/C. So what? Pay the extra. And plunk for an aftermarket Recaro or two. And laugh with us when you pick off all those dozens of pretenders you’ll come across every day. Nobody ever said Carroll Shelby didn’t know how to have fun, not even the flat-earth disci­ple who’d written him off, chili and all. SpecificationsSpecifications
1983 Dodge Shelby ChargerVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $8290/$8775Options: AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, $485
ENGINESOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 135 in3, 2213 cm3Power: 107 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 127 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 9.3-in vented disc/7.9-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GT195/50VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.6 inLength: 173.7 inWidth: 66.7 inHeight: 50.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/29 ft3Trunk Volume: 19 ft3Curb Weight: 2400 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 34.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.9 secTop Speed: 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 195 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 34/28/47 mpg  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the August 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Let’s get this styling business out of the way right now: Chevrolet’s full­-size pickups haven’t had a major facelift since the 1988 model year, and there’s an argument to be made that with the new 1999 model, they still haven’t. Certainly, the restyled ’88 model differed dramatically from the ’87 model, just as the 1973 model was a radical departure from the ’72. So it’s fair to question why Chevrolet chose mild over wild, when wild worked great for the current Dodge Ram pickup and reasonably well for the current Ford F-150. Chevrolet insists that the Sil­verado’s looks are the result of an incred­ibly intensive series of customer clinics, which left Chevy with the overriding impression that current Chevy customers, and plenty of potential buyers, do not want a dramatic styling statement. They want comfortable and familiar.That’s what Chevy, and corporate near-twin GMC, delivered. Beginning late this summer, customers will have the oppor­tunity to vote with their wallets, which is the only kind of customer response that really matters. For now, then, let’s agree on this: Chevy’s conservative makeover is as interesting an experiment as Dodge’s still-startling redesign was for 1994. That said, we can accentuate the posi­tive, because aside from the looks, the Silverado is just short of a quantum leap in pickups. Not because of any major inno­vation, but because of a very long list of minor ones. Such as making 16-inch tires and wheels standard, even on the base model. Also standard are: huge four-wheel disc brakes with ABS; battery-rundown protection; coolant-loss protection (as on the Cadillac Northstar V-8, the engine shuts down half its cylinders, turning them essentially into air pumps, air-cooling itself as you limp home); “Dynamic Rear Proportioning,” which is a computer chip that senses minute changes in wheel speed under braking and adjusts the proportion of rear brake engaged accordingly. Also standard are hydroformed front frame rails, just like the Corvette has. The pickup’s track is wider, wheel­bases are longer. Cabs are wider, longer, and taller. In the extended-cab versions­—those will be the first to reach dealer­ships—the rear seat’s bottom cushion is extended a couple of inches, and the rear seatback is canted at a comfortable angle. There are four more inches of legroom, too. In other words, this is the only extended-cab full-size pickup on the market in which we’d agree to sit in the rear without protest for a long trip. Chevrolet did miss the boat on the four-­door craze, as the extended cab has three doors for 1999 but should get a fourth in 2000. The official explanation is that Chevy needed to reach its goal of a body and chassis that are at least 60 percent stiffer than the ’98 model’s, so the com­pany elected to wait on the fourth door to allow for additional engineering time. The unofficial explanation is that product plan­ners misjudged the demand for four doors, and the speed at which the competition, especially Ford, would move to fill it. That seeming goof is offset, however, by a rear seat in the new trucks that is worth using, and thanks to seat-mounted front belts, you don’t have to climb through a hanging web to get into the back. In fact, there’s precious little to criti­cize about the interior. The seats, even those in the base model, are very good. The controls and the gauges are where they should be, and the instrument panel has a neat little “information center” box that can read out 18 different messages, from “Trans Fluid Hot” to “Cargo Lamp On.” By depressing the trip-odometer button for four seconds, the display switches to indi­cate the total number of hours the engine has been running since the last scheduled service stop. This will allow fleet customers, whose trucks idle a lot or run power takeoff devices, to better plan their servicing intervals. You may already know that GM chose to stick with pushrod engines, as the Sil­verado’s three new cast-iron-block V-8s are based on the Corvette’s LS1 aluminum 5.7-liter V-8. Truck engines start with the 4.3-liter carryover V-6 and top out with the carryover 6.5-liter turbo-diesel V-8. The 7.4-liter gas V-8 also stays in pro­duction for heavy-duty trucks. Those new V-8 engines are a 4.8-liter (255 horses and 285 pound-feet of torque), a 5.3-liter (270 hp and 315 pound-feet of torque), and a 6.0-liter (300 hp and 355 pound-feet of torque). By comparison, the two V-8s these three engines replace are the 5.0-liter (230 hp and 285 pound-feet of torque) and the venerable 5.7-liter (255 hp and 330 pound-feet of torque). Chevrolet says the new engines have a wider power band than the old ones, meaning torque is spread out over a wider rpm range. Unfortunately, the 6.0-liter is for three-quarter-ton applications and bigger trucks—for now, anyway. It will fit in the half-ton truck (all three engines are the same size on the outside) and could even end up in a performance pickup to counter the coming Ford SVT F-150 Lightning. The 4.8 and 5.3 engines have aluminum heads; the 6.0 is all iron (alu­minum dissipates heat better, Chevy con­tends, but cast iron wears better for com­mercial customers). More SIlverado Reviews From the ArchiveThe transmissions are updated, and there’s a new AutoTrac transfer case for four-wheel-drive applications that can automatically engage four-wheel drive when the going gets slippery. The four-­speed automatic transmission also has a “tow/haul” mode. Pressing a button at the end of the shift lever engages it, altering the shift pattern to maximize pulling power in each gear. The first-to-second shift, for example, occurs at 22 mph in the tow/haul mode, and at 10 mph in normal mode. Prices should be official by the time you read this, but we’re estimating a three-to-four-percent increase over prices of cur­rent models, which isn’t bothersome when all that standard equipment is considered. Mechanically and ergonomically, the 1999 Chevrolet Silverado simply advances the cause of pickups. As for the styling—­well, it doesn’t.Driving The Top-of-the-Line LT ModelWe drove a variety of 1999 Sil­verados but selected this top­-of-the-line LT (there are also a base model and a midlevel LS model) to gather some early test data. It’s an extended-cab four-wheel-drive Sport­side (rear fenders are injection-molded plastic) with the Z71 off-road package (larger shocks, beefier jounce bumpers, bigger tires). Power was supplied by the 5.3-liter V-8, with a four-speed automatic transmission and an Auto­Trac electronic transfer case. It was dressed up inside, too—with power-operated leather seats, a pre­mium stereo, and a CD player. The LT was an exceptionally comfortable place to pass the miles, and it provided a sur­prisingly smooth ride that was quiet at highway speeds. The 5.3-liter V-8 feels and sounds a lot like the current 5.7-liter V-8, although its fuel economy should be a bit better. It also pollutes less, which was a central purpose for creating this new engine family. We averaged a not-­great 13.6 mpg for our long afternoon of driving, but it was peppered with quite a few full-throttle runs to the speed limiter, which kicks in at a modest 97 mph. On the road, the Silverado handled reasonably well, considering its rather cumbersome 143.5-inch wheelbase. Off-road, it was surprisingly nimble, and the AutoTrac system seems more intuitive than the similar system Ford uses. A 4.10:1 differential ratio certainly helped boost off-the-line performance (likely to the detriment of fuel mileage), resulting in a 0-to-60-mph time of 8.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17.1 seconds at 80 mph. That beats the Dodge Ram and Ford F-150 full-size extended-cab rear-drive pickups we tested in June 1996. The 220-foot braking distance from 70 mph is simi­larly impressive, considering that the big Firestone Wilderness radials are true dual-purpose tires. Stay tuned for the obligatory shootout of the GM, Ford, and Dodge full-size pickups, a test the Chevrolet people insist they can hardly wait to read.SpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LT Sportside 4WDVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 2+ 1-door pickup
PRICE (EST)
Base/As Tested: $28,000/$28,500Options: Z71 off-road package
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 325 in3, 5327 cm3Power: 270 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 315 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/12.8-in vented discTires: Firestone Wilderness AT265/75SR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 143.5 inLength: 227.6 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 73.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 64/50 ft3Cargo Volume: 44 ft3Curb Weight: 4650 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.9 sec1/4-Mile: 17.1 sec @ 80 mph90 mph: 23.8 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 97 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 220 ft  
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (PROJECTED)City/Highway: 14/18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

If you look at the engine specs of Chevrolet Silverado 2500HDs over the years like the back of a baseball card, the engine output of the Duramax diesel has grown like Barry Bonds’s weight during his playing days. While all Duramax V-8s have displaced 6.6 liters, they started 2001 as a doe-eyed 185-pound center fielder cranking out 300 horsepower and 520 pound-feet of torque. Bonds eventually—and notoriously—juiced his way to a pitcher-intimidating 228 pounds, but the Duramax has Bonds’s gains beat. Today, the L5P Duramax slugs diesel to make 470 horses and 975 pound-feet. In isolation, the engine is a monster. More might than any one person really needs, but where’s the fun in that when the Ford F-250 cranks out 1050 pound-feet (1200 from the High Output version) and the Ram 2500, by way of Cummins, musters 850 pound-feet (1075 in the 3500)? That the Ford has 8 percent more torque is so inconsequential, the only ones who care are those who measure themselves in ways other than height. If you’ve read all the way into this third paragraph, it’s very likely that you already own a heavy-duty Chevy and little will sway you from the brand loyalty your Calvin sticker personifies. Or perhaps you’re really in the market for an HD truck and you’re upset that we haven’t mentioned the tow ratings yet. So, here goes: For 2024, the Silverado 2500 maxes out at 22,430 pounds with a gooseneck hitch. That’s about triple the mass of the heaviest Airstream made, so it’ll likely be good for you. HIGHS: More than enough torque and tow, blue interior stands out in a sea of black and beige, luxury-car bells and whistles.The High Country Duramax Crew Cab 4WD model we tested is more show horse than workhorse, but even an Arabian tip-toeing is a force to wrangle. Nevertheless, between the Z71 package’s all-terrain tires, this truck’s four-wheel drive, and its lack of the Max Trailering package, our tester is limited to towing 18,100 pounds with a fifth wheel or gooseneck hitch, or 18,500 pounds behind the bumper. But figuring this out required at least three consultations with our tech and fact-checking departments (your author wisely set his Slack status to Do Not Disturb). It’s confusing to nail down, and if you want the highest possible tow rating, you’ll want to make sure you select that Max Trailering package and a regular cab. It upgrades the 2500’s rear springs, shocks, rear axle, and frame to 3500-level stoutness. A step up from the LTZ trim, the Silverado High Country nets body-colored bumpers, a Bose stereo, stainless beltline trim, LED taillamps, a spray-in bedliner, LED bed lighting, a wireless phone charger, heated outboard rear seats, side steps, a power tailgate, and many, many other bells and whistles, most of which are optional on other trims. The High Country’s cabin is the fanciest of all Chevy trucks with front ventilated buckets (no bench is available) and a 13.4-inch center touchscreen featuring Google built-in and Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Only a few hard plastic panels in this near-luxury-grade interior might be shared with the base WT trim. And credit where it’s due for gambling on a blue interior. It’s a lovely break from the typical black and beige. LOWS: Feels less refined than before, will lose most measuring-stick contests to the Ford F-250, nice cabin still lags the competition’s.The optional Z71 package (just $325) brings off-road-tuned dampers with a very truckish ride, as well as hill-descent control and protective skid plates. Most HD truck buyers would find the jostle pretty normal considering the capability underfoot. But the biggest trucks from Chevrolet and GMC used to be some of the lightest in their classes, and that svelteness was felt behind the wheel. This test truck is heavier than both the most recent Ford F-250 and Ram 2500 diesel we tested. GM’s HD trucks still use an independent front suspension (the only in the segment), but the Ford’s tuning is remarkably smooth. Again, HD truck drivers will find it rather normal, but it just seems like this newest Chevy 2500 took a step backward in terms of refinement. The Duramax V-8 has 32 valves and single turbocharger. The tach indicates a 4600-rpm redline, but you never make it there as foot-on-the-floor shifts happen around 3000 rpm and there is a fuel cut at 3500, should you opt for manual mode. Driving the 2500 around barely stresses the engine. From a standstill, 60 mph arrives in 6.4 seconds. Not too bad for an 8260-pound rig—that is, until the 8100-pound F-250 does it in 5.5 seconds. For the record, the last Ram 2500 crew cab we tested weighed 8060 pounds and needed 7.6 seconds to hit 60 mph. With an Allison 10-speed automatic, the Silverado gets around shuffling and skipping gears often and we can’t think of a better column-shifter application. Putting a shifter on the console occupies otherwise primo Slim Jim and pistachio real estate. There are likely already comments saying that electric pickups make more torque. Blah, blah, blah. That’s great. EV trucks are great. But until you can get a bench seat in the front of a Cybertruck or have a rear window slider to toss a soda can into the bed of a Rivian R1T or lay an eight-foot sheet flat in a Silverado EV without messing with a midgate, electric truckin’ just ain’t the same as a dad-gum diesel. And, at $85,855 as tested, this Chevrolet seems like a bargain compared to the electrics (it’s almost $10K less than a Ford F-150 Lightning we tested). Besides, tailgating in the bed of a heavy-duty pickup before a ballgame is just as American as the pastime itself. No matter what your brand is, people will notice, and some will stop to ask about torque and towing, but you should keep it interesting and make sure to show off that blue interior.VERDICT: A truckish truck with luxury trimmings that can tow a house.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD High Country 4WDVehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $73,995/$85,855Options: Duramax diesel engine, $9490; power retractable assist steps with perimeter lighting, $1500; Gooseneck/5th wheel package, $545; Z71 off-road package (off-road suspension, hill descent control, oil pan and transfer case skid plates), $325
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve 6.6-liter diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 403 in3, 6599 cm3Power: 470 hp @ 2800 rpmTorque: 975 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/live axleBrakes, F/R: 14.0-in vented disc/14.1-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler Trailrunner ATLT275/65R-20 126/123S M+S 3PMSF TPC SPEC 2370
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 158.9 inLength: 250.0 inWidth: 82.0 inHeight: 79.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 73/66 ft3Curb Weight: 8260 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4-Mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 97 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 203 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.70 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 18 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 640 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDK.C. Colwell, the executive editor at Car and Driver, is a seasoned professional with a deep-rooted passion for new cars and technology. His journey into the world of automotive journalism began at an early age when his grandmother gifted him a subscription to Car and Driver for his 10th birthday. This gift sparked a lifelong love for the industry, and he read every issue between then and his first day of employment. He started his Car and Driver career as a technical assistant in the fall of 2004. In 2007, he was promoted to assistant technical editor. In addition to testing, evaluating, and writing about cars, technology, and tires, K.C. also set the production-car lap record at Virginia International Raceway for C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test and was just the sixth person to drive the Hendrick Motorsport Garage 56 Camaro. In 2017, he took over as testing director until 2022, when was promoted to executive editor and has led the brand to be one of the top automotive magazines in the country. When he’s not thinking about cars, he likes playing hockey in the winter and golf in the summer and doing his best to pass his good car sense and love of ’90s German sedans to his daughter. He might be the only Car and Driver editor to own a Bobcat: the skidsteer, not the feline. Though, if you have a bobcat guy, reach out. K.C. resides in Chelsea, Michigan, with his family. More