Car Reviews

From the February 1980 issue of Car and Driver.One door opens, another closes. One day I was reading Mr. Editor Davis’s val­ediction to the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL; on the day before, I was driving the car that proved the aluminum engine of its new successors, the 380 and 500SE, in the latest S-class range of luxury supersedans from Daimler-Benz. You know all about them; you know they have been derived and developed from the present class, looking sleeker and frac­tionally longer to give a 14 percent re­duction in wind resistance, and weigh­ing less (at vast energy expense in mak­ing aluminum, which is much more con­sumptive of electricity than iron, in or­der to save energy in fuel consumption on the road). You know how well the change has been justified, no doubt, with the performance of the superseded range approached with engines of smaller displacement: the new 3.8-liter V-8 offers virtually the same output as the iron-blocked 4.5 (218 bhp) and a slightly increased top speed of 133 mph, while the 5.0-liter V-8, with an output of 240 bhp, brings the 500SEL sedan within reach of the prodigious performance of the 6.9-liter SEL. What you may not know is that the five-liter V-8 has been in production and on the roads in and around Germany for nearly two years now, since it was introduced at the 1977 Frankfurt Motor Show un­der the bonnet of the 450SLC.Ever since it first appeared with 2.8-, 3.5-, and 4.5-liter engines, the SLC has been the most beautiful car in the Mer­cedes-Benz range, and surely one of the most beautiful in the world. Not that beauty is everything; but if it is not, I will stick my neck out and say that the SLC is also the best of all Mercedes. The 6.9 has more engine, more brakes, more suspension, and indeed more of most things; but they do not necessarily make it a better car than the 450SLC­—any more than having a shorter wheel­base, fewer seats, and slightly better acceleration makes the 450SL better. The “C” stands for “coupé,” which is ridiculous. “Coupé” means cut short, which is what this car is really not, being only a couple of inches shorter in the wheelbase than the corresponding sedan. On the other hand, it is fourteen inches longer in the wheelbase than the two-seater SL. In effect it is an SL that has been stretched to make room for four adults. It would make better sense if the C stood for “comfort.” The SLC is not a mollycoddling Merc, but it is the most comfortable of them all. The sedans may be roomier, but their expansive seats, dimensioned and contoured to pillow the posteriors of the tycoonly fat, offer less intimate sup­port to the torso than do the superbly shaped seats of this sumptuous car, which is itself superbly shaped. Gor­geous it looks from outside, but it is most specially delightful within: those seats are surely among the best any­where, for I once spent 24 hours out of 26 (the other two hours were spent on a ferry) literally on end in one, sitting be­hind the wheel and never detecting the faintest discomfort. Maybe the seat does not fold back all the way, but it goes back far enough to constitute an ade­quate bed; and the SLC may accordingly qualify as a sports car. After its success in the South Ameri­can Rally, maybe the SLC has other such qualifications, yet it was surely nev­er intended as a sports car. It is so ele­gant, so superbly balanced in form and in line, so exquisitely contoured to look beautiful from any angle, that to subject it to the gross indignities of competition would be sheer vandalism. Nevertheless the car begs to be driven in a sporting way—positively solicits the fast corner, the fine balancing of foot and hand, of centripetal and centrifugal accelera­tions. It is surely the best balanced and most impeccably behaved Mercedes-­Benz ever to have been built for com­mon sale. It is possibly a little less agile than the shorter and lighter SL, but in consistency and progressiveness of re­sponse to all control inputs, especially through the steering and brakes, it is the two-seater’s superior—which is just as well, because it looks it. More Mercedes SEL Content from the archiveTo rely on looks might be improvi­dent, unless you can look closely enough to read the small print. It is not very small, for modesty is not a failing commonly encountered either in Stuttgart or in its satellite showrooms; but the subscripts on the ravishing rump of this beauty deserve to be conned close­ly. What looks like a 450SLC may turn out to be only a 280SLC, which is less good; or indeed it may be a 350SLC, which is even less good than the 280. On the other hand, a full-span rump-reading might detect the figure “5.0” in addition to the 450SLC identification, in which case it is as good as almost any­thing. Even if you cannot read, there is a modest spoiler ridging the top of the trunk lid which is in itself an adequate declaration that what you see is the 450SLC that goes as well as the 450SLC always should have done. This is the car in which—in blissful legality on the pub­lic highway, and in perfect and tactful safety among all manner of other people going about their daily drives—I av­eraged 133 mph over 20 miles, 126 mph over 40 miles. This is a car that is every bit as fast as it looks, and which displays its incomparable pedigree by being very much faster than it feels.Take no great notice of the fact that the hood, deck lid, and bumpers are, like the engine, made of aluminum al­loys. They might account for a reduc­tion of 253 pounds in the curb weight of this car compared with the more com­monplace 4.5-liter version, but since that represents only 7.6 percent of the 3338 pounds standing on those four fat Michelins, it is not likely to have a great deal of effect on the performance. The aerodynamic bib and tucker probably make a slight difference, though their principal virtue is in increasing the car’s high-speed stability; and the higher gearing, raised by 12.5 percent in the rear axle, would by itself only make the car slower. No, the thing that made that gearing possible and makes everything else justifiable is the thing that gives 240 hp at 5000 rpm somewhere adja­cent to the driver’s right foot, the thing that is made of low-pressure, chill-cast, high-silicon aluminum alloy with elec­trolytically relieved cylinder bores that allow the plated pistons and rings to ride on the exposed silicon crystals without any nasty iron or steel liners in the way. It is the thing that has bigger bores to give it 10 percent more displacement than the 4.5-liter V-8, and bigger exhaust valves to give 11 percent more port area, along with 10.6 percent more power and 12.2 percent more torque. Intriguing exhaust valves, they are: Despite being 2 mm larger in head diameter, they are 2 mm more slender in the stem, and they are sodium-filled­—which is a rare feature today, after more than half a century since Sam Heron in­vented sodium-filled valves for the Wright Simoon aircraft engine. The Thing is just plain good, one of the most encouraging engines that a driver can find anywhere near his right foot; and it is just right for the SLC. Normally one barely hears it, for there is plenty of sound deadening (some­thing has to account for all that weight), and the high gearing reduces the noise level inside the car even more at a given speed. Should you not fancy the speed given, however, the throttle pedal can be kicked or the transmission lever flicked and the most gorgeous growl is­sues from somewhere deep in the tiger bay. When it does, the car seems to leap—except that a leap is soon over, while this goes on and on, a great surge that seems to tip the road down the car’s gullet and turn the horizon bluer, as though a contracting universe were the essence of some new Daimler-Benz cos­mological theory. It is not a car for leaping away from standstill in drag races. There remain others, more intemperate and less en­during, that will explode off a starting line with greater vim and volume. Ac­cording to its makers, the five-liter SLC reaches 62 mph in 8.5 seconds, though mine was slower. Against that must be set their claim for a maximum speed of 140 mph, whereas mine went quicker. The plain facts according to my chronography are that, two-up, the car reached 62 mph in 8.6 seconds, 100 mph in a further 9.6 seconds, and when I wondered what speed it would reach in another 10-second increment I found the answer was 122 mph. These figures show just what a magnificent performer the SLC 5.0 is on real roads, as distin­guished from illusory drag strips. It is magnificently high-geared, able to reach 66 mph in bottom gear at its redlined 5800 engine rpm, 108 in second gear, and—how much in top? Not 158, that is certain, though that is what would correspond to 5800 rpm. The roads I was using in southern Germany never stayed level enough for long enough; but I can tell you that the car did 137 mph uphill and 149 downhill, and that, according to Heuer and the half-kilome­ter markers, the speedometer was re­markably accurate.You do not have to drive the car like that all the time in order to enjoy it, for it is impeccably mannered at any speed. If you do, you cannot expect to go for 320 miles before summoning the reserve three and a half of the 23.8 U.S. gallons of fuel in the tank, as you can if you content yourself with cruising at about half the car’s maximum speed. But if you have a long way to go, little time, and you want to arrive unstressed, this is the car in which to do it. If your route is not all unlimited autobahn, but is wet and wiggly, it is still the way to do it: I covered a good many miles saunter­ing through the stupefying sweeps of the Black Forest and, even when saun­tering, the SLC 5.0 seemed a good deal quicker than anything else around. When given the boot it was only once beaten—by a chap in expensively beautiful leathers riding a 900 cc Ducati Des­mo, looking gorgeous and sounding filthy, which eventually outaccelerated the Merc in a joint sprint off the end of a 40-kph speed limit and was never seen again until I spotted him refueling a few swervaceous miles down the road. An SLC is one of the sweetest things in swervery, beautifully balanced and most reliably shod with the XWX tires that were until a couple of years ago the finest high-speed tires you could buy and are still the best suited to this par­ticular car. Its power steering is among the best of its kind, feeling just a shade less light at very high speeds in the five-­liter car, perhaps because its aerodynamic appendages help to keep its weight firmly on the ground. When go­ing into tight comers, it is amazing how much grip is available to allow braking to be used right up to the apex; coming out of them, even wet ones, it is equally amazing how much traction is available, only the utmost extravagance producing a brief and eminently corrigible twitch of the tail. No wonder racing drivers like the car; being no kind of racing driver myself, I absolutely loved it. I admired the absence of wind noise; I adored the positivity of the automatic transmission (the sedans will be getting a four-speed­er, which should be even better); and I am still trying to analyze the reasons for a Mercedes-Benz (any model, but espe­cially this one) being so exceptionally reassuring to its passengers. It has about it an air of infallible competence. It contrives to do everything with such ease that its speed is simply not noticed, its acceleration simply taken for grant­ed, its cornering ability accepted as a right rather than as a necessity. If the passengers can be passively content, the driver can be actively hap­py. Beyond the trivial confines of 60 mph, the five-liter SLC is a lot livelier than the sedans. Yet for all its ability to go, the thing that most impressed me at the time and in retrospect was its ability to stop. Such brakes are seldom en­countered in anything on wheels; only in the Bristol and the Porsche 928 have I met their peers. The most sensitive ad­justment of speed to suit the pace of a pedestrian is as readily available at the pedal as the most almighty and sudden substitution of discretion for valor at speeds once the exclusive preserve of aircraft. Chasing time and rainbows along a damp autobahn, I occasionally came up behind some more modest lit­tle car committed to its own humble speedfeast, unable to get back into a slower lane until some daunting feat of bus-beating or beetle-crushing was tremulously accomplished—but a mea­sured squeeze of the pedal would pe­remptorily negate all the Merc’s superi­or speed, to leave it ambling untroubled in the obstacle’s wake with half the orig­inal sighting distance still unconsumed. Whatever the speed or the other circumstances, the SLC brakes were just right. And so was everything else. More

From the July 1985 issue of Car and Driver.Our almost unbounded affection for the Volkswagen GTI has been tempered only by our concern for its ultimate lack of poke. We looked forward to the day when the man who has turbocharged a thousand Volkswagen four-cylinders would pump more ponies into the company’s latest GTI. Callaway’s turbo conversions are not free of flaw (an impossibility), but among performance privateers, this Connecticut Yankee is known for putting some of today’s most as­tute turbo packages into the hands of peo­ple who feel, as he does, that the pedal on the right is for pouncing. Callaway leaped at today’s GTI the moment VW released a pre-production model into his care. The result is your basic bullet of the byways.The red-coated bullet we’ve been re­loading at the Mobil station and firing at will for the past week is clad in a BBS trim package. The smoothly finished air dam, fender flares, and side skirts propel the GTI from “barn” toward “bullet,” and BBS claims that the pieces lick down the GTI’s aero ballistics by ten percent in the wind tunnel, despite the increased frontal area and the fat 205/50VR-15 Goodyear Eagle VR50s (a.k.a. “gatorbacks”), which are mounted on BBS’s famous alloy wheels. Our coast-down testing shows that the Callaway GTI is indeed slightly better than the stock machine in aerodynamic drag but slightly poorer in rolling resistance. At higher speeds, the Callaway car’s advantage should increase somewhat. Speaking of high speeds, the turbo pushes the GTI’s terminal velocity from 114 mph to 122. At that point, VW’s rev limiter is itching to put a lid on fifth gear, though our test car’s tachometer still read short of the indicated redline. Whatever the effect of the body pieces, stability is first-rate. The Callaway’s headlong ballistics begin with muzzle velocity through a Nissan 300ZX Turbo hood scoop. Fresh air feeds an air box sandwiched between the hood and an air-to-air intercooler. In the past, Callaway’s intercooler was buried below the battery; now it perches above the “Callaway” cam cover, and the resulting short runs of plumbing do a better job of cooling and delivering the denser air to the cylinders. VW has increased the GTI’s fuel-delivery capacity by switching from Bosch K- to KE-Jetronic fuel injection, so Callaway eliminates its own proprietary Microfueler, relying on a one-time ma­nipulation of the new electronic control box to feed an increment of extra fuel. A copper cylinder-head spacer reduces com­pression from 10.0 to 7.8:1, taking away some low-speed response but allowing the 10-psi boost that pumps the delightful 1.8-liter four to an estimated 150 hp.Estimated or not, the power produces a 7.2-second 0-to-60 sprint amid a quarter­-mile burst of 15.5 seconds at 88 mph. And it’s easy, whooping up in a hurry with no sign of detonation (on unleaded premium pump fuel) and with only a brief hiccup if the throttle is quickly lifted. Fuel economy under a light foot is reasonable, but we managed only 18 mpg overall. Temptation is a spiteful thing. Although no official emissions testing has yet been done, Callaway claims that the retention of the stock emissions system al­lows the engine to remain at least 49-state legal. However, our test car’s reluctance to start caused extended cranking and necessitated pedal babying, which might foul a full, by-the-bag emissions test. Company rep Scot Keller places the blame on an un­common glitch in the brain of this proto­type GTI. Unlike many cars fitted with wide wheels and tires, the BBS-and-Goodyear­-equipped GTI tracks true. Only when cor­nering hard over seams that mimic your general direction of travel does the car dance nervously. Despite the availability of a BBS suspension package, Callaway feels that the stock components provide the best compromise between day-to-day driving and ultimate adhesion. The fat-tired, stock-suspended version we sampled matched the stock GTI’s 0.83-g skidpad perfor­mance but did not better it. Even on its original-equipment 185/60HR-14 Good­year Eagle GTs, the everyday GTI sends shock waves through the top ranks of high-­limit handling and world-class tracking. Two points: first, VW has done a fine job on the stock suspension; second, if the sweet limits of the stock car make you hap­py, you could save a bundle by leaving off the big booties and the extra body pieces. (If you really want to save money, a base VW Golf with Callaway’s less expensive Stage I turbo can roll out the door for un­der $10,000.) For about $9000, base price, the every­day GTI provides splendiferously heady behavior, and, except for its powertrain, it is dressed to kill. It’s got dandy sport seats, suitably boffo trim, and the right heads-up dapper attitude. For an additional $4000 (which includes a heavy-duty clutch), Reeves Callaway’s Stage II GTI shows nothing but its ringed tail to otherwise potent machines. Many and varied are the pompous asses who will be booted aside by the Callaway Turbo GTI, shot in the butt by the bullet of the byways. SpecificationsSpecifications
1985 Callaway Volkswagen GTI TurboVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $9560/$17,557Options: Callaway Stage II turbo kit, $4000; BBS body kit, $960; BBS wheels, $940; Goodyear Eagle VR50 tires, $782; air conditioning, $695; AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, $495; leather-covered steering wheel, $125
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled SOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 109 in3, 1781 cm3Power: 150 hp @ 5500 rpm (est)Torque: 160 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm (est) 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 9.4-in vented disc/9.4-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle VR50P205/50VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 97.3 inLength: 158.0 inWidth: 66.1 inHeight: 54.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 46/41 ft3Cargo Volume: 18 ft3Curb Weight: 2323 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 24.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 7.7 secTop Speed: 122 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Last year, Subaru sold its three millionth Outback on U.S. soil. The fact that the sale occurred in Florida speaks to Subaru’s mainstream transformation from its original U.S. audience of professional snowshoers, granola farmers, and frostbitten loners. Subaru credits the Outback with saving the company’s stateside ambitions—in the mid-1990s, Subaru of America had a 300-day supply of cars languishing on dealer lots. Then, as the 1995 model year approached, someone said, “How about we add some plastic cladding to the Legacy wagon, name it after a remote region of Australia, and market it with Paul Hogan, star of the 1986 hit movie Crocodile Dundee?” In the words of one B. Dylan, when you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose. Thirty years later, the Outback is Subaru’s third-bestselling model, behind the Crosstrek and the Forester. In 2024, sales were up 4.1 percent even though the current-gen car was in its fifth year of production, largely unchanged since its 2020 redesign. But there have been some tweaks and revisions over the years, which is one reason why we’re training our critical eye on the 2025 Outback now. The other reason is that this is the last year of the Outback as we know it, so we figure we owe it a farewell. Yes, the 2026 Outback is going full SUV, abandoning the pretense of its wagon form factor. Whether this is a wise move remains to be seen, but online feedback from current owners seems to range from “I guess I’ll see how this turns out” to “I guess this is my last Outback.” Huffy social media proclamations aside, we’ll be bummed if Subaru goofs up the formula because the current Outback is really good at its core mission—hauling five passengers and their gear in comfort through the kind of wintry conditions that leave bro-dozers in ditches.Subaru has held the line on Outback prices over the years, and the 2025 model starts at $30,430, which is a swell deal for a capacious all-wheel-drive wagon. Turbocharged models open with the $40,895 Onyx Edition XT, with the top Touring XT example ($44,330) we drove still representing a good value for what you get, which amounts to every option on the roster. And options abound, as Subaru positions the flagship Outback as a credible alternative for disaffected Audi Allroad and Mercedes-Benz E-class All-Terrain shoppers. So you get heated and ventilated front seats, heated rear seats, a 260-hp engine, and nappa leather upholstery, among other finery. Headlights that track the steering wheel? Check. Heating that covers the full circumference of that steering wheel? Of course—that was one of the updates that came along with a light refresh in 2023.That minor overhaul also included a revised front end with changes to the headlights, grille, and bumper. The fanciest driver’s seat, included on the Limited and Touring models, went from 10-way adjustability to 12-way. The Outback got updates to its EyeSight driver-assist system and a new electronically controlled brake system that’s a better partner for EyeSight’s automated-braking capabilities. Speaking of Subaru’s stereoscopic forward-looking camera system, some of the uplevel trims now enjoy a third wide-angle mono camera to provide 180-degree coverage. Even in snow, the system somehow manages to parse lane markings that are barely visible, speakers chirping with reprimand if you dare stray. But mostly, EyeSight operates in the background and doesn’t intrude on your daily driving.Outbacks aren’t all about speed, but the XT’s turbocharged 2.4-liter horizontally opposed four-cylinder is a good match for the car, making 260 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque. When we tested an Outback Touring XT in 2020, it hit 60 mph in 6.3 seconds, 2.2 seconds ahead of its standard counterpart with a 182-hp 2.5-liter flat-four. The 2022 Wilderness model we tested was even quicker, dashing to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds. All Outbacks use a continuously variable transmission with eight fixed ratios that can be chosen via steering wheel paddles, and the XT’s extra torque is a helpful weapon against the CVT’s off-the-line turpitude. Going for the turbo also increases the Outback’s tow rating from 2700 to 3500 pounds. Given that the snail-fed mill is happy on 87 octane, and fuel economy is a push (both engines returned 28 mpg on our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test), we’d say treat yourself to forced induction if you can swing it.The Outback isn’t exactly a Raptor off-road, but its 8.7 inches of ground clearance (9.5 inches in the Wilderness) allows it to scramble along your average green-circle trail. And its limber suspension and generous tire sidewall make for a plush on-road ride. The driving experience errs on the side of luxury rather than sportiness, as the CVT strives to keep revs down unless overruled by the driver. When it comes to messages from the road, the steering adheres to a no-news-is-good-news philosophy, but then again, the Outback isn’t trying to be the Airslayer. The overall vibe is hushed refinement, with the exception of the stop-start system, which awakens the engine with such a jolt that it feels like the car got rear-ended. But you can disable that annoyance via the 11.6-inch touchscreen (dual 7.0-inch screens on the base model). Cabin-tech Luddites are likely to fawn over the existence of a real-deal CD player (standard on Touring/Touring XT); that throwback hides in the center console, where there’s plenty of room for your sleeve of bootleg Spacehog albums. The upgrade 576-watt Harman/Kardon sound system (Onyx Edition models and up) also includes a 3.5-mm input jack, affirming its commitment to old-school audio. If you don’t feel like plugging in your iPod Nano or tape deck, wireless CarPlay and Android Auto provide modern-day solutions.Even though the current-generation Outback debuted in the hazy antiquity of 2019, it doesn’t feel dated or obsolete, and its healthy sales affirm that impression. But time and product cycles march on, so soon we’ll find out whether the forthcoming Outback is more Crocodile Dundee or Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles. In the meantime, the 2025 Outback represents the distillation of 30 years of refinement, the last stop on the wagon train.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Subaru OutbackVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: $30,430; Premium, $32,730; Onyx Edition, $37,640; Limited, $39,390; Onyx Edition XT, $40,895; Wilderness, $41,380; Limited XT, $41,730; Touring, $41,880; Touring XT, $44,330
ENGINES
DOHC 16-valve 2.5-liter flat-4, 182 hp, 176 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter flat-4, 260 hp, 277 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.1 inLength: 191.1–191.9 inWidth: 74.2–74.6 inHeight: 66.1–66.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56–58/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 76/33 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3700–4000 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 5.8–8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.6–16.8 secTop Speed: 115–120 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23–28/21–26/26–32 mpgEzra 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

The Honda CR-V and the Mazda CX-50 are the cream of the compact SUV crop. With its nonhybrid powertrain, the CX-50 beat seven rivals in a small-SUV battle royal last spring. And the Honda CR-V’s full line took home a 10Best Trucks award this year. With increased public interest in hybrids, we were curious how the gas-electric versions of each would stack up against each other. Meet the ContestantsAt Honda, the hybrid powertrain is the step-up choice over the base turbocharged 1.5-liter four in the CR-V, so it’s reserved for the top three trim levels: Sport, Sport L, and Sport Touring. Our sample vehicle was a Sport Touring, which includes all-wheel drive (it’s optional on lesser trims) and for 2025 starts at $42,495.For Mazda, the CX-50’s hybrid powertrain is effectively the middle offering, between the free-breathing base four-cylinder and the more powerful turbo four. Mazda offers the CX-50 Hybrid in three trim levels: Preferred, Premium, and Premium Plus. Here again, we had the top model, the Premium Plus. Base price for that trim is $41,470, and all CX-50s come standard with all-wheel drive.Interior and ExteriorThe latest CR-V has a more substantial, squared-off appearance than its predecessors. If you want a CR-V Hybrid, though, you’d better like black wheels and black trim, because that’s what you’re going to get. We like the CX-50’s somewhat more wagon-like proportions, with a longer hood and a set-back cabin. It comes across as a junior version of the CX-70/CX-90. Climb inside, and the CR-V earns top marks for its outward visibility. The layout of the controls and switchgear is traditional Honda: straightforward, easy to use, and no gimmicks. We love the three knobs for climate control and the physical shift lever. There’s also a good amount of stowage. The plump front seats are plenty comfortable, and space in back is generous. Outside of the hex-pattern trim on the dash, however, this is mostly a style-free zone, and the materials even in this range-topping trim are nothing special.Honda CR-V Hybrid Sport TouringHIGHS: Spacious interior, plush ride, transparent hybrid powertrain.LOWS: Ho-hum interior materials, highway fuel economy lags, black exterior trim is inescapable.VERDICT: An extremely well-rounded offering that covers all the bases.The top-spec CX-50 interior has a whiff of richness with soft leather accents on the dash and door panels. As in the CR-V, a real shift lever and physical climate-control buttons and knobs are present. Bravo. The Mazda’s rear seat also has plenty of legroom and knee clearance, but the cushion isn’t as substantial as the Honda’s. And the CX-50’s more hunkered-down roofline means the view out isn’t quite as expansive.InfotainmentThe Honda’s infotainment system is unremarkable, and that’s okay. At 9.0 inches, the touchscreen is far from the biggest out there, but it’s big enough (the base Sport hybrid gets a 7.0-incher). There’s a volume knob and two tiny buttons for tuning. Smartphone mirroring is wireless in the Sport Touring (and Sport L), and the top-spec model also has a wireless charging pad.The Mazda infotainment system is unusual in that you navigate via a knob and a quartet of buttons on the center console. That wouldn’t be so bad—we appreciate BMW’s similar (soon-to-be-deep-sixed) setup—but the operational logic makes the Mazda system kind of annoying. There is a workaround, however. Pair your smartphone (wireless smartphone mirroring is standard on all models) and use Android Auto or Apple CarPlay, and touchscreen functionality is unlocked, but the 10.3-inch screen is a long reach. Wireless charging is standard on all CX-50 Hybrid trims.Powertrain and PerformanceThe Honda’s hybrid system combines an Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter four and two electric motors. One electric motor functions as a generator, and the other propels the car. The gas engine charges the battery and can also assist in powering the car. Total combined output is 204 horsepower.Mazda gets its hybrid powertrain from Toyota. The Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter four and three electric motors are the same bits you’ll find in a RAV4 Hybrid. Like we said, all-wheel drive is standard, with one of the motors driving the rear wheels, with the gas-electric combo up front powering the front wheels via a planetary-gear transmission that operates like a CVT. The nickel-metal hydride battery is a Mazda exclusive, though (Toyota uses a lithium-ion unit). Total combined output is 219 horsepower. Mazda CX-50 Hybrid Premium PlusHIGHS: Standout looks, upscale cabin, engaging handling.LOWS: Engine noise, less-roomy interior, some ride harshness.VERDICT: Exceeds the class norm in several areas, but the hybrid CX-50 is not our favorite CX-50.Mash the right pedal, and neither of these hybrids has a distinct advantage over the other. Our 2025 CX-50 test car got to 60 mph in 7.6 seconds. That’s just ahead of the 7.9-second result for the CR-V Hybrid Sport Touring, the test results for which come from a 2023 model we previously evaluated that’s mechanically identical to the latest one. From a 5-to-60-mph rolling start, though, the CX-50’s 8.4 seconds trails the CR-V’s at 8.0 seconds flat. The Mazda ekes out a win in the quarter-mile sprint, its 15.8 seconds at 89 mph nosing ahead of the Honda’s 16.3 seconds at 85 mph. The Honda, though, was fractionally quicker in 50-to-70-mph passing at 5.2 seconds to the Mazda’s 5.6. Call it a wash, then, between the two. Both hybrid SUVs have modest tow ratings. The CX-50 Hybrid’s pulling capability is less than its nonhybrid siblings at 1500 pounds. Still, that beats the hybrid CR-V’s 1000 pounds, but few buyers will find this difference meaningful. Fuel EconomyWith all-wheel drive, the Honda CR-V Hybrid earns EPA ratings of 40 mpg city and 34 mpg highway. With all CX-50 hybrids touting all-wheel drive, the feds say to expect 39 mpg city and 37 mpg highway. So, the Honda has a paper-thin edge in the city, while the Mazda does better on the highway. Our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy test gave testament to the CX-50’s advantage, with the Mazda’s 34 mpg beating the Honda’s 31-mpg result. Michael Simari|Car and DriverHonda CR-V HybridDriving ExperienceThe CR-V hides its hybrid nature well. Programmed faux shifts mimic the action of a conventional transmission. In most driving, the engine is audible, but droning isn’t an issue. The hybrid system in the CX-50 is familiar, since it’s borrowed from the RAV4 (and other Toyotas). Because of its CVT-like action, the engine sometimes holds revs under acceleration. There’s more engine presence here, as the Mazda is noisier than the Honda: 74 decibels at wide-open throttle versus 72. In keeping with its Sport designation, the CR-V Hybrid has a firmer suspension tune and beefier anti-roll bars than nonhybrid models. And while its handling is poised and competent, you wouldn’t call it engaging. We were much more impressed by the suspension’s ability to take the edge off broken pavement and glide smoothly over bumps. The CX-50 is stiffer riding, allowing more road harshness to penetrate the cabin. But while the two SUVs’ skidpad grip is similar (0.85 g for the Honda, 0.83 g for the Mazda), the Mazda has subjectively superior steering and handling. When it comes to stopping, neither of these hybrids suffers nonlinear brake-pedal response, but the Honda’s 171-foot stop from 70 mph is 10 feet shorter.Picking a WinnerThe tit-for-tat results show how closely matched these two compact SUVs are. The Mazda’s low-slung shape and cab-rearward proportions strike us as more stylish, and the Mazda’s interior is more upscale. The Honda’s straight-edged styling is hardly homely, though, and its cabin is both easier to see out of and slightly roomier. Acceleration is a figurative and literal dead heat between the two, but we preferred the CR-V’s power delivery and greater refinement. The Mazda returns better highway fuel economy, but in city driving it’s a wash. Both are among the best-driving of their ilk, with the CR-V delivering a smooth ride but the CX-50 having the edge in steering and handling. The Honda carries more cargo, but the Mazda can tow a bit more. Pricing is virtually identical.The CR-V Hybrid’s combination of virtues likely will please more buyers, so it takes the win. Even so, plenty of folks may find the CX-50 Hybrid more compelling. Either way, there are no losers here.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda CR-V Hybrid Sport TouringVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $40,450 /$40,450
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter inline-4, 145 hp, 138 lb-ft + AC motor, 181 hp, 247 lb-ft (combined output: 204 hp, 247 lb-ft; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)Transmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/12.2-in discTires: Continental CrossContact LSX Sport235/55R-19 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 184.8 inWidth: 73.5 inHeight: 66.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 77/39 ft3Curb Weight: 3914 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 24.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 secTop Speed gov ltd): 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 430 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 37/40/34 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED
2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid Premium PlusVehicle Type: front-engine, front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $41,470/$42,065Options: Soul Red Crystal Metallic paint, $595
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 176 hp, 163 lb-ft + 3 AC motors, 118 and 54 hp, 149 and 89 lb-ft (combined output: 219 hp, 163 lb-ft; 0.8-kWh [C/D est] nickel-metal hydride battery pack)Transmissions: continuously variable automatic/direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/12.8-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle Touring225/55R-19 99V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.8 inLength: 186.1 inWidth: 75.6 inHeight: 65.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/43 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 56/29 ft3Curb Weight: 4068 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.6 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 181 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 34 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 490 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 38/39/37 mpgReviewed byJoe LorioDeputy 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

A Porsche flat-six screaming at 9000 rpm is an intense and unique auditory experience, with out-of-this-world intake wail that will snap you to attention. But it’s also more than that. You can feel the manic combustion buzz through your whole body, and if you unleash this beast windows down in a tunnel—and you should—the sonic energy ping-ponging around you is felt as much as heard. Using a 911 GT3 as intended will earn you frequent elevated-noise-level nags from your Apple Watch, but in this case loud is lovely.The screaming Porsche 911 GT3 and wingless GT3 Touring are revised for 2025—this is the second 992-generation variant, or 992.2—and return with some of the highest-revving naturally aspirated power anywhere. While the 9000-rpm redline of the 4.0-liter flat-six is no higher than last time around, maintaining that threshold as emissions regulations continue to tighten is not a foregone conclusion. To comply with emissions thresholds that in some countries are 50 percent more stringent than those that applied to the 2022 model, Porsche added an additional two catalysts (now four total). U.S. models don’t get the particulate filters that European cars do, but their catalysts are modified to keep the back pressure, and thus the sound and power level, the same.To arrive back at the same 502-hp peak output, Porsche employed some bits from the GT3 RS, such as its better-flowing individual throttle plates and revised camshafts. And the peak torque of 331 pound-feet is 15 lower than before, with slightly higher rpm peaks in both cases. To offset that 5 percent torque deficit, the final-drive gearing is now 8 percent shorter. That means more revs at any speed and gear combination, which mostly isn’t a bad thing, but cruising along at 80 mph now evokes ’90s-Honda levels of caffeination, with the engine at 3700 rpm with the six-speed manual versus 3400 rpm before. Both variants’ top speed suffers slightly (going from 198 to 193 mph with the PDK gearbox, 199 to 194 mph for the manual), but Porsche claims the 60-mph time is identical, which would put it at 2.7 (PDK) to 3.3 seconds (manual) based on our previous tests of 992.1 GT3s.While the engine is a huge part of the GT3 experience, so is the chassis. For the 2025 GT3 and Touring, which share chassis settings, Porsche shortened the bump stops front and rear by about an inch. Spring rates are the same as before, which means there’s additional free travel to eat more curb or gnarly road than before. The adaptive damping is cranked up near the end of this newfound travel to soften the blow into the shorter bump stops. We often find that in European drive events like this—we drove outside of Valencia, Spain—the automakers choose routes with perfectly smooth pavement, which makes it difficult to judge ride quality. But Porsche threw us into some insanely lumpy sections in a GT3 Touring—we might have gotten air under its tires—and it handled the contorted pavement shockingly well. These latest GT3s also inherit the aerodynamically optimized front lower control arms from the GT3 RS that funnel air into the wheel wells, as well as the GT3 RS’s lower front knuckle that combats dive under braking.A new adaptive steering function uses a sensor in the pinion to measure friction and adjust the steering assist accordingly. For a new car with tight ball joints, that might mean a little more boost to reduce on-center notchiness. It’s not like GT3 steering really needed improving, but the on-center behavior is light and hyperresponsive while remaining communicative.As with horsepower, holding the line on weight is increasingly difficult, and the base curb weight climbs nearly 20 pounds. To combat that, Porsche is now offering the RS’s Weissach package on the GT3 for the first time. That $19,330 option includes a carbon-fiber rear shear panel and anti-roll bar, as well as a carbon-fiber roof, which shaves 11 pounds. In addition, magnesium wheels shed another 24 pounds while lightening your wallet by $16,820. Similar bits are available on the Touring, but on that car it’s called the Lightweight package, which costs $36,010 and includes the mag wheels. Manual Tourings with the Lightweight package also get the short shift lever from the 911 S/T. It’s a sweet-shifting, short-throw, light-effort manual, so it’s no wonder why 75 percent of U.S. Touring buyers opt for it. A new lithium-ion battery also saves roughly 10 pounds. All told, the new GT3 can be optioned to be slightly lighter than before.The wheels and tires are the same size as before, 255/35R-20 front and 315/30R-21 rear, but the standard forged-aluminum wheels are lighter by just over three pounds total thanks to new cutouts surrounding the hub. Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2, Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport R, or Pirelli P Zero R tires are standard, with even more extreme Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2R and Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R tires homologated as dealer-installed options. Across the board, these extreme summer performance tires have more wet grip to meet new European regulations, while Porsche claims dry grip has also improved slightly.But, somewhat ironically for such a performance-oriented sports car, a bigger deal may be the added practicality of the latest GT3. In case you needed that last justification to be able to sell this purchase to your significant other, the GT3 Touring is available for the first time with rear seats. It’s a no-cost option too. There are also new carbon-fiber bucket seats, with standard heating function and the ability to fold forward to access that rear seat or better utilize the area back there for cargo. These $6860 seats are heavier than the previous fixed buckets but still about 16 pounds lighter than the standard seats. There’s also a simple latch mechanism to remove the headrest padding to create more helmet space. They still don’t offer any backrest-angle adjustment and require some work to get the belt latched to the buckle that’s deep in the heavy lower bolstering. But we found them to be plenty comfortable for hours at a time once we were in there. And, at six feet five, I often sit with a lot of knee splay that sometimes doesn’t play well with aggressive seats. They felt slightly more accommodating than the previous carbon-fiber buckets.One area that Porsche definitely hasn’t held the line on is price. Just three years ago, the 2022 992.1 GT3 started at $162,450. Each year the company has raised pricing considerably, with 2025 prices landing at $224,495 for both variants. Whether talking percentage (38 percent) or dollars ($62,045), these are massive increases. But you can’t blame the company for adjusting to what the market will bear, considering used 992 GT3s are still going for comfortably over $225K.In addition to a street drive in the Touring, we flung the GT3 around the Circuit Ricardo Tormo in eastern Spain, a MotoGP track with some challengingly fast sweepers. As before, the GT3 is easy to drive quickly, well balanced, and very communicative. There’s tons of grip, but the tires still give up progressively, and it rotates nicely with a little scrub of the brakes. The dual-clutch PDK automatic pitches in with insanely quick shifts and is always in the right gear. Should you upgrade from your 992.1 because the new GT3 feels substantially different? No. Probably the most noticeable dynamic difference is the additional suspension travel. But the added practicality of a four-seat Touring and the foldable carbon-fiber buckets do make the GT3 a lot more usable. And you still get the sound. Oh, the sound.SpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Porsche 911 GT3Vehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2- or 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
GT3, $224,495; GT3 Touring, $224,495
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 502 hp @ 8500 rpmTorque: 331 lb-ft @ 6250 rpm
TRANSMISSIONS
6-speed manual, 7-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.7 inLength: 179.9 inWidth: 72.9 inHeight: 50.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 49/0–25 ft3Front Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3200–3300 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 2.8–3.3 sec100 mph: 6.6–7.5 sec1/4-Mile: 10.9–11.5 secTop Speed: 193–194 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 15–16/13–14/18–19 mpgDave VanderWerp has spent more than 20 years in the automotive industry, in varied roles from engineering to product consulting, and now leading Car and Driver’s vehicle-testing efforts. Dave got his very lucky start at C/D by happening to submit an unsolicited resume at just the right time to land a part-time road warrior job when he was a student at the University of Michigan, where he immediately became enthralled with the world of automotive journalism. More

From the November 1973 issue of Car and Driver.There’s an undeniable smugness stamped into the fenders of AMC’s new Matador X. And each arrogant crease is integral to an overall air of confidence. Not the brazen visual shock of the 1971–72 Buick Rivieras, but the clean-line integrity of a Charles Eames design. And that self-assuredness, as much as anything else, endows the car with an unmistakable visceral appeal, like a Na­math smile or a Kennedy handshake. You can consider that newly acquired self-assured look a tangible warn­ing to Detroit and the world that AMC is no longer bound by the threat of financial oblivion. On the con­trary, things are going better than anyone would have dared predict three years ago for the smallest domestic manufacturer. The primary medication for AMC’s recov­ery has been its Gremlin-Hornet-Sportabout small car family. Luck, or clever planning, (it makes little differ­ence) allowed each of these cars to reach the market in close harmony with changing trends—but, equally im­portant, each car was styled in a manner which clearly set it apart from the Big Three’s look-alike entrants. As a result, AMC outdid the competition during 1973. Not by outselling it on a unit-for-unit basis but by selling more than its “established” share of the market. Chrys­ler’s grip on third place isn’t exactly threatened, but now AMC bookkeepers have 4.2 per cent of the domestic market to fret over, compared to less than 3.3 per cent a year earlier. And if you think those one-tenth percent­age points are a trivial concern, you don’t understand American Motors . . . or the immensity of the domestic automobile market. Even paper-thin 10,000-unit slices of America’s largest industry are a meaty addition when you layer them into AMC’s low-calorie sandwich. Sales are on the upswing, profits have exceeded the fondest dreams (second quarter earnings in 1973 were nearly seven times those in the same period of 1972), so everything is milk and honey in Kenosha. But you can rest assured there would be no Matador X if the money men weren’t romanced into such a complacent mood by the steep upward climb of sales curves. The holders of the purse strings supplied two key board­room decisions that were both germane to the Matador and a right turn in AMC’s staunchly conservative path.First of all came a green light to Dick Teague and his styling department, allowing it to shape the sheet metal with a flamboyance never before seen behind an Amer­ican Motors emblem. And, secondly, a marketing tactic that will deliver the new Matador in but one body style—a fixed-pillar coupe. There is no plan to backstop its earning potential by sharing fenders with a bread­-and-butter four-door version. To the man in the street, that pair of bold decisions means that American Motors has gone through the in­ternal machinations necessary to build a car people will buy even if their brother-in-law isn’t an AMC dealer. The Matador is first of all an Intermediate at a time when over 20 per cent of the buyers are choosing Intermedi­ates, and the future certainly indicates an even greater potential. Moreover, distinctive styling automatically places it in the realm of specialty cars at a time when showroom traffic is approaching the stampede level for Monte Carlos and Grand Ams. And in contrast to last year’s Matador—a car so invisible that even its ads asked the question “What’s a Matador?”—the new ver­sion is a true Intermediate, designed for the job from the ground up, rather than a short wheelbase version of the Ambassador line. But no matter if the Matador is right or wrong for today, it could never pass unnoticed. The lines are clean and uncluttered in spite of Detroit’s headlong rush towards gimmickry in the form of stand-up hood ornaments, fender skirts, and figurine-studded opera windows. Simplicity is the central theme to the Mata­dor’s collection of broad, nearly flat contours, but at every corner there is an eye catcher. At the front, deep­ly tunneled headlamps light the way, the only interruption to the knife edge created by a long, sloping hood. The slippery look continues at the sides where the sheet metal folds sharply in at the top before it streams rearward down a fastback roofline. In the rear, side con­tours bend around the corner to create a striking rolled­-pan look dominated by four huge taillamp ovals. But the finishing touch to the package is AMC’s prime con­tribution to innovation: free-standing bumpers. At both ends of the car a simple chrome bar, almost a nerf bar, stands guarding the tender sheet metal at a four-inch separation distance. The approach creates a contrast that is functionally perfect: The soft contours of continu­ous sheetmetal behind a brusque protective beam. In total it adds up to an honest approach toward styling not often seen from Detroit. More AMC Reviews From the ArchiveWhile the Matador’s looks will undoubtedly sell the car, how it goes about the basic tasks of transportation will determine its long term success. It’s no secret that poise on the road is a function of the basic mechanical elements under the skin—or more precisely, how well those elements work together to move passengers. In pursuit of mechanical harmony, American Motors has wisely purchased off-the-shelf items already refined be­yond the means of its own relatively modest budget. As you launch the Matador X away from traffic with a smooth part-throttle downshift, a Chrysler-built TorqueFlite transmission executes your bidding. The four-barrel carburetor that answers your demands without a sag or hesitation is a Motorcraft by Ford. Turn onto an en­trance ramp and you feel the precise response of varia­ble-ratio power steering, the pump and gear courtesy of GM’s Saginaw division. So the Matador X feels compe­tent and at the same time familiar—under its shapely skin lie proven components. But no matter how good the pieces are to start with, their ultimate success depends on the final development of the system. That, unfortunately, is where the resources of American Motors are stretched so thin that rough edges begin to crop up. Interior noise is an example. The Matador body is quite rigid and sealed tightly but extraneous noises still manage to find their way in, the most notable being wind disturbance. There is no problem with leakage past the seals, but rather the constant ruffling of turbulent air as it fights its way around the windshield pillar. It’s the sort of distraction you aren’t bothered with in Torinos or Chevelles, be­cause such noise has been painstakingly eliminated. Those volume leaders by Ford and Chevrolet are also superior to the Matador in terms of ride quality. Again, noise is the most quickly noticeable weak point. Rather than any sense of gross harshness, you “feel” bumps because you hear them so distinctly. The Mata­dor is handicapped in this respect by its unit construc­tion chassis, while GM and Ford have chosen full frames to improve the ride of their Intermediates. How­ever, some ride improvement may lie within the options sheet. Steel-belted radial tires are available in place of our test car’s bias-belted rubber.Where the Matador does evidence a high degree of refinement is in braking. Vented discs are now standard in front—although the power booster remains an extra-­cost (but essential) option. Drum brakes do the job in the rear, and when you’re serious about stopping, the system will freeze the car in its tracks like a strobe light. From 70 mph, we made repeated stops approach­ing 0.9 g with no demand for Jackie Stewart reflexes to maintain control. The simple-to-explain but elusive-to­-produce engineering principle involved is near ideal front-to-rear proportioning: tires at both ends of the car approach lock-up at the same time. Unfortunately, the work is not so equitably distributed when it comes to handling. Our air conditioning­-equipped Matador test car had 58.4 percent of its two­-ton mass leaning on the front wheels, so there was a strong natural tendency toward understeer. However, the car is agile enough that the plowing attitude can be diminished with a rapid twitch of the steering wheel as you scrub your way toward the apex of a turn. Bob Bon­durant would scorn, but the technique brings the tail out and you can at least corner without grinding the raised white letters off the front tires. Part of the reason the Matador X is so stable in such an attitude is because there is not enough power on tap to overload the rear tires in the middle of the turn. That fact stands no mat­ter what version of the Matador you select. (Our test car was fitted with American Motors’ huskiest powerplant, the 401-cubic-inch, four-barrel V-8.) And acceleration tests fur­ther prove that Kenosha is not exempt from the horse­power crisis. In the quarter-mile, the Matador X could do no better than 16.3 seconds at 88.0 mph, which makes it less than average for an Intermediate coupe with a big en­gine. That laxity on the drag strip was no surprise, but there will be those caught unaware as they slip within the confines of the stylish Matador. You see, American Motors has delivered the world its first 2+2 Intermediate. Rear seat passengers must be sandwiched between Dick Teague’s fastback roof­line and a seat bottom elevated high enough to clear the chassis depart­ment’s bulky four-trailing-link rear sus­pension. The result is 0.7 inch less rear headroom than a Hornet Hatchback. At least there’s no problem getting in. The Matador’s doors are a good deal shorter and lighter than the long vault­like closures chosen by GM for its fixed­-pillar coupes. But they still open up the car to a degree that allows good front and rear ease of entry. The reason the door opening is so effective, given its relatively short dimensions, is because the windshield stands erect and doesn’t sweep back to interfere seriously with front seat entry. That allows the front seat to be well forward giving wide ac­cess to the rear compartment. The only obstruction in the path of entering rear seat passengers is a dangling lap/shoulder belt on each side. Except for the rear seat’s shortage of headroom, the Matador’s interior is a pleasant place to be. Legroom is in good supply front and rear, and the broad ex­panses of glass let you see the world with a clear view. The threat of claustro­phobia is further diminished by AMC’s version of the GM fixed-pillar design. The Matador’s large triangular rear quar­ter windows roll down, while they must remain forever closed in General Mo­tors’ Intermediate coupes. Reclining seats are an option for the Matador, although their goodness is compromised by two shortcomings. First of all, they are based on a split bench which affords no consideration to lateral support. Secondly, the seat back pivots at a point about half-way up your back. With that, Yoga lessons including S-­bends of the spine are a prerequisite to comfort in the Matador.Our test car was fitted with thin-shell bucket seats. They are wide and com­fortable, however they are little better than the split bench in terms of restraint in cornering. By far the most compelling reason to order the bucket seats is the upholstery material: a knitted vinyl that feels and breathes like a coarsely-wo­ven cloth, but retains plastic’s strong resistance to Baskin-Robbins fallout. One other alternative will appear after the Matador assembly lines get rolling at full speed. Fashion designer, and some­time social critic, Oleg Cassini will add his name next to a list that has included Cardin, Gucci, and the Levi Strauss Company by designing his own version of the Matador’s interior. You won’t be able to miss it if you trav­el in high fashion circles. Nor will you pass by the Matador’s shapely exterior without serious consideration. While it lacks the refinement of a Chevelle or a Torino from several standpoints, it is un­questionably this year’s style leader. And holding the keys to a car you can relish the sight of is no minor distinction in the current look-alike sweepstakes Detroit has entered. SpecificationsSpecifications
1974 AMC Matador XVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $2997/$4525Options: 401 CID engine, $169.90; automatic transmission with console shift, $316.10; Twin Grip differential, $45.65; power steering, $111.35; power disc brakes, $46.60; AM/FM radio, $230.15; air conditioning, $377.45; F70-14 white letter tires, $110.80; styled steel wheels, $104.20; tilt steering wheel, $45.65; visibility group, $59.95; light group, $33.75; sports steering wheel, $19.85; rear sway bar, $9.90; litter containers, $6.35; tinted glass, $42.00; rear window defogger, $28.95
ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and headsDisplacement: 401 in3, 6572 cm3Power: 235 hp @ 4600 rpmTorque: 335 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 10.9-in vented disc/10.0-in drumTires: Goodyear Polyglas F70-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 114.0 inLength: 209.3 inWidth: 77.2 inHeight: 51.8 inCurb Weight: 4049 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 23.9 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding: 0.89 g  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

The Toyota 4Runner is a dinosaur of sorts, a remnant of long ago when body-on-frame SUVs ruled the land with rugged simplicity, rather than the posh sophistication of today’s car-based wagons. And yet, despite Toyota letting the outgoing fifth-generation model languish for 15 years without a redesign, it still racked up a healthy 92,156 sales in 2024. Maybe its old-school nature was part of its charm. Evolution is unavoidable, though, and an overhauled 2025 model finally joins the modern age with new levels of refinement and capability, plus more variety than ever.The sixth-generation 4Runner is built on the same TNGA-F platform as Toyota’s other body-on-frame models, including the latest Land Cruiser and Lexus GX. Drill down further and the 4Runner is essentially an SUV version of the Tacoma mid-size pickup, sporting similar mechanicals, configurations, and even styling. No fewer than nine trim levels now comprise the 4Runner lineup, with two new additions—the upscale Platinum and the overlanding-themed Trailhunter—expanding its bandwidth. The 4Runner looks handsomely muscular in its new duds, especially on the 33-inch all-terrain tires of the TRD Off-Road, TRD Pro, and Trailhunter trims. The latter two also add a heritage-inspired grille with bold TOYOTA lettering; lesser models get a conventional Toyota emblem. Iconic design elements include distinctive rear quarter windows that extend up to the roof, plus the always-cool roll-down window in the rear liftgate. Outward visibility remains good (at least on models without an obstructive hood scoop). And despite modest increases in every exterior dimension, which make for a slightly bigger footprint and a more comfortable interior, you can still bob and weave through a crowded parking lot. A Meaningful BoostPour one out for the outgoing 4Runner’s 270-hp 4.0-liter V-6 and five-speed automatic transmission (or don’t; we won’t miss them). Like the current Tacoma, the new 4Runner is motivated by a 278-hp turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder backed by a modern automatic with eight forward speeds. A hybrid system (available on most trims, standard on the range-topping Platinum, TRD Pro, and Trailhunter) slots an electric motor between the engine and gearbox, upping the output to 326 horses and increasing torque from 317 pound-feet to a hearty 465. Drivetrains range from rear-wheel drive (standard on many models) to part-time four-wheel drive with low range (optional with the base engine, mandatory on most hybrids) to full-time four-wheel drive with an electronically locking center differential (Platinum and hybrid Limited models only). A limited-slip rear diff is included on all but the TRD Off-Road, TRD Pro, and Trailhunter, which get an electronic rear locker. Regardless of the setup, max towing capacity swells from 5000 to 6000 pounds. While more powerful than before, the 4Runner’s four-banger can sound uninspired, and the eight-speed is slow to downshift from higher gears. But this is still a far more potent powerplant than the one it replaces. Peak torque hits at 1700 rpm versus 4400 for the old V-6, which offered just 278 pound-feet of twist. Artificial engine sounds pumped through the stereo speakers help mask some of the engine’s coarseness, though the added theater can get annoying in the more aggressively tuned TRD Pro. Unsurprisingly, EPA fuel economy improves from the outgoing version’s 17 mpg combined to 21 mpg for nonhybrid four-wheel-drive models and 22 mpg for rear-drivers. The feds say the hybrid fares even better at the pump (23 mpg combined), and its extra grunt sharpens the powertrain’s initial throttle response. However, the system tends to run out of steam under sustained acceleration, and it brings several hundred pounds of additional mass. We’ll quantify our impressions once we get an example to the test track, but we expect the 4Runner to perform similarly to the Tacoma: In our tests of the pickup’s hybrid and nonhybrid TRD Off-Road trims, the standard powertrain was the quicker of the two, posting a 7.0-second 60-mph time to the hybrid’s 7.6 seconds. The placement of the hybrid’s estimated-0.9-kWh battery under the 4Runner’s cargo floor also makes for a higher liftover height, and it eliminates the availability of a third row of seats. Ready to PlayGet the 4Runner on the open road and its ride and handling are nothing short of a revelation. The outgoing model’s pronounced dive under braking and listing around corners are largely absent, replaced by good body control and a reasonably compliant ride for a vehicle with a solid rear axle and available 20-inch wheels (18s are standard). The street-oriented Limited and Platinum trims add adaptive dampers and additional Comfort, Sport S+, and Custom drive modes, letting you fine-tune their character. Like the Tacoma, the Platinum model we drove outside San Diego exhibited relatively crisp and direct steering, with far greater composure than alternatives such as the Land Cruiser, the Ford Bronco, and especially the Jeep Wrangler. The 4Runner can be even more enjoyable in the dirt. We’ve yet to drive the Trailhunter with its standard roof rack, high-mount snorkel intake, extra underbody protection, and modest suspension lift that affords it 10.1 inches of ground clearance (lesser versions have at least 8.1 inches of clearance). But we know from the Tacoma that it’s on par with the TRD Pro, which similarly comes standard with an electronic disconnecting front anti-roll bar and a lifted suspension with forged-aluminum upper control arms. The main difference is that where the Trailhunter gets 2.5-inch ARB Old Man Emu dampers designed for more technical trail work, the sportier TRD Pro features manually adjustable 2.5-inch Fox internal-bypass shocks. Also included are a TRD intake and a cat-back exhaust. In short, the TRD Pro is a hoot to toss around a repurposed motocross track, its quick steering and broad stance fostering confidence as you chuck it into corners at speed. While it doesn’t feel as invincible as, say, a Bronco Raptor on 37-inch tires, the TRD Pro handily soaked up rough terrain without reorganizing our insides, even when we launched a couple feet into the air over a tabletop jump. We’d like this chassis setup even more if it could be paired with the lighter (and less expensive) standard powertrain or, dare to dream, the GX550’s 349-hp twin-turbo V-6. Decisions, DecisionsFrom the 4Runner’s driver’s seat, the only tell you’re not in a Tacoma is the lack of a bed in the rearview mirror. Modern safety features and driver assists abound, and the cabin is sculpted in a purposeful aesthetic with straightforward ergonomics. Physical buttons and knobs for climate controls and off-road settings are welcome, and a rotary dongle on the console manages the drive modes and the four-wheel-drive system. Most trims adopt a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and Toyota’s familiar 14.0-inch center touchscreen, though 7.0- and 8.0-inch units, respectively, are standard. Overall comfort and support up front are good, and the TRD Pro thankfully eschews the Tacoma version’s bulky seats with a built-in suspension, which likely would negate the newfound 1.9 inches of rear legroom. As is, the 4Runner’s reclining middle row is generous enough for six-footers to sit behind their own driving position, and headroom should be sufficient for all but the tallest riders. The 60/40-split bench is easy to tumble forward for access to the cargo area or the cramped third row. Optional only on the base SR5 and nonhybrid Limited trims, the 4Runner’s rearmost chairs are essentially floor-mounted jump seats with short cushions that extend out from under the seatbacks. If you plan to regularly fill them with humans, get a Grand Highlander instead.Our main rub pertains to the higher trim levels. The new 4Runner’s materials and finish are fine at the SR5’s $42,220 entry point, and the numerous model-specific features and interior upgrades add meaningful value up to a point. But its overall polish quickly dulls as prices surpass the $65,285 needed to unlock a Lexus GX. The sweet spot seems to be the four-wheel-drive TRD Off-Road, which for $50,640 is plenty capable with its big tires, beefy Bilstein shocks, and optional anti-roll bar disconnect, and it can be further enhanced via a Premium version. We’d pass on the hybrid system though it’s available for $2800. But that’s just us. With so many variations, freedom of choice is arguably this long-overdue 4Runner’s best attribute.Get Your 4Runner FixSpecificationsSpecifications
2025 Toyota 4RunnerVehicle Type: front-engine or front-engine and front-motor; rear, rear/4, or 4-wheel-drive; 5- or 7-passenger; 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: SR5, $42,220; SR5 4WD, $44,220; TRD Sport, $48,700; TRD Off-Road 4WD, $50,640; TRD Sport 4WD, $50,700; TRD Off-Road 4WD Hybrid, $53,440; TRD Sport Premium, $54,060; TRD Sport Premium 4WD, $56,060; TRD Off-Road Premium 4WD, $56,420; Limited, $56,850; Limited 4WD, $58,850; TRD Off-Road Premium 4WD Hybrid, $59,220; Limited 4WD Hybrid, $61,650; Platinum 4WD Hybrid, $65,315; Trailhunter, $68,350; TRD Pro, $68,350
POWERTRAINS
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 278 hp, 317 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.4-liter inline-4, 278 hp, 317 lb-ft + AC motor, 48 hp, 184 lb-ft (combined output: 326 hp, 465 lb-ft; 0.9-kWh [C/D est] nickel-metal hydride battery packTransmission: 8-speed automatic

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 194.9 inWidth: 77.9–79.9 inHeight: 72.6–75.5 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 56/44/36 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 83–90/43–48/12 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4500–5700 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.7–7.8 sec1/4-Mile: 15.0–16.3 secTop Speed: 105–115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 21–23/19–23/24–26 mpgMike Sutton is an editor, writer, test driver, and general car nerd who has contributed to Car and Driver’s reverent and irreverent passion for the automobile since 2008. A native Michigander from suburban Detroit, he enjoys the outdoors and complaining about the weather, has an affection for off-road vehicles, and believes in federal protection for naturally aspirated engines. More

If you can say one thing about the 2024 Jeep Wagoneer S, it’s this: Looks are deceiving. Take the rugged SUV aft end that gives it the heft of a sports utility. It’s an illusion. In reality, the real roofline, rear interior contours, and the pinched rear visibility are actually that of a rounded “coupe”-style SUV, more like a BMW X4, yet the exterior side profile has the squared-off look of an X5. The seven-slot grille is another sleight of hand. After all, slots in a grille are there to admit cooling air, but this EV doesn’t really need much of that. Instead, the grille elements emit light as part of a daytime-running-light signature. All this subterfuge makes for a coefficient of drag of just 0.29, the brand’s best yet. Jeep’s first EV for the U.S., this electric SUV is built on the new STLA Large platform. The Wagoneer S is not overly large, however. It’s a comfy two-row SUV, but it is smaller in every exterior dimension than the Grand Cherokee, which in turn is much smaller than the gargantuan non-S Wagoneer. The Wagoneer S rides on a tidy 113.0-inch wheelbase. It’s 192.4 inches long and 74.8 inches wide. It also comes in at just 64.8 inches tall, but there’s no roof rack up top. And it has a very un-Jeep-like 6.4 inches of ground clearance below. That we’re writing about a “new” 2024 vehicle in 2025 is another oddity. But here we are, in January 2025, having just driven the 2024 Jeep Wagoneer S. This suggests that development of Stellantis’s first EV platform ran long—but in some respects it could have used more time in the oven.Solid SpecsThe numbers can’t be faulted. Power comes from a pair of 335-hp permanent-magnet AC electric motors, with one powering the rear axle all the time and another brought in to power the front as needed with a wheel-end disconnect mechanism. The driver doesn’t necessarily have control over the timing of this, so it’s essentially all-wheel drive. Put your right foot down, and you’ll get the maximum output of 600 horsepower and 617 pound-feet of torque. Jeep says that’s good for a sprint to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds, which the company claims is quicker than any previous model—including a tenth quicker than the supercharged 6.2-liter V-8 Grand Cherokee Trackhawk. (In our testing, the Trackhawk raced to 60 mph in a matching 3.4 seconds.) In the Wagoneer S’s case, power emanates from a 400-volt lithium-ion battery with a usable capacity of 93.9 kilowatt-hours. Charging peaks at 11.0 kilowatts when the Wagoneer S is hooked up to a Level 2 source and tops out at 203 kilowatts on a suitable DC fast-charger. Range is EPA-estimated at a respectable 303 miles when equipped with the Falken Ziex CT60 A/S tires or 270 miles on Pirelli Scorpion MS all-seasons.Less Solid Driving DynamicsThere are five drive programs to choose from. Sport, Auto, and Eco are self-explanatory and cover the basics, while Sand and Snow fill out the rest. We spent the bulk of our time in Auto and dabbled with Sport. Right off the rip, we found the accelerator to be touchy and nonlinear, particularly at tip-in. It smooths out at higher speeds, so that’s something. The regenerative braking has two settings, and we didn’t much care for either of them. Maxi was initially a bit grabby, and Min added too much brake at the first dab. We normally don’t think much about such things when driving a new EV, but this one needs more polish.More on the Wagoneer SOn paper, the chassis is built from the traditional stuff, with struts up front and a type of multilink at the rear. It’s all steel springs and passive dampers, though. The tires offered are Falken Ziex CT60 A/S or Pirelli Scorpion MS all-seasons in size 235/50R-20, and they offer up decent grip and low noise. But rolling along the back roads of San Diego County, we were taken aback by how the road felt rougher than it looked, as if the car were somehow magnifying the size of admittedly small bumps. Overall, it was a rather brittle ride that seemed to have too much low-speed rebound damping; never inhaling, just exhaling. As for the steering, it loaded up nice enough when we were bombing through fast sweepers, but it lost its focus and sense of self-centering when driving straight or turning more casually.Inner SpaceThe interior is a welcoming and interesting place, with a 12.3-inch instrument display, a 12.3-inch center touchscreen, a 10.3-inch lower screen, and another 10.3-inch screen ahead of the passenger. It all looks good and is cohesively tied together with Wagoneer design cues. Many of the controls are familiar and easy to understand, and the wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are super easy to set up. The inductive phone charger is also nicely secure and easy to access without opening the console. And the McIntosh 1200-watt 19-speaker stereo is everything you expect it to be and more. But some minor aspects do frustrate. The regenerative braking controls are hidden, the Auto setting for the climate system is not obvious, and the head-up display icons are so small and so low-contrast that they’re nearly invisible.Rear-seat headroom is not quite as tight as that of a BMW X4. The roof’s slope seems to start a little farther aft, which means rear headroom is reasonably good. Rear legroom is not quite enough for a six-foot-two-inch driver to sit behind himself. Cargo space is reasonably impressive, with 31 cubic feet available behind the rear seats. Flop the second row down and that increases to 61 cubes. And if you want to get frunky, there’s an additional 3 cubic feet in the front trunk. But the view through the rear window is decidedly pinched. A workaround is to use the rear camera view, which provides an unobstructed view as if the seats and rear pillars are not even there because, well, they’re not; the camera is mounted in the rear spoiler.All of the above features are standard in the 2024 Jeep Wagoneer S, but the same won’t be true of 2025 models. That’s because the 2024 Wagoneer S lineup comprises a single Launch Edition trim. It comes standard with everything, from the dual motors to the McIntosh stereo to the panoramic sunroof and more for $71,995. There are paint color options for $595, a towing package for $995, and a red interior for $1000, but that’s it. More is sure to come in 2025, including a lower-spec variant at a more affordable price point and possibly a more off-road-capable version in the vein of the Trailhawk concept shown last year. But let’s hope Jeep also takes the opportunity to hone this model’s rough edges—a successful EV is about more than just specs.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Jeep Wagoneer SVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICEBase: Launch Edition, $71,995
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet AC, 335 hpRear Motor: permanent-magnet AC, 335 hpCombined Power: 600 hpCombined Torque: 617 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 93.9 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 203 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.0 inLength: 192.4 inWidth: 74.8 inHeight: 64.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 52/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 61/31 ft3Front Trunk Volume: 3 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5700 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.5 sec100 mph: 9.1 sec1/4-Mile: 11.7 secTop Speed: 124 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 87–97/93–104/81–90 MPGeRange: 270–303 miDan 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