Car Reviews

MoonBikes’ electric snowped looks like a toy. It’s a refrain the French startup’s founder and CEO Nicolas Muron has heard countless times, especially from snowmobilers. Yet once those people experience the small machine’s instant acceleration and innate agility, Muron claims their skepticism typically turns into enthusiasm. Admittedly, we were also skeptical when MoonBikes invited us to sample one at Boyne Mountain ski resort in northern Michigan. Boyne is the largest U.S. resort where customers can rent them, with two-hour tours starting at $129. Following an obligatory safety talk from our guide and short familiarization period, we set out on the snow-covered golf course and surrounding trails. Just like Muron said, we went from skeptic to advocate.Eric Stafford|Car and DriverEntertaining at Any SpeedThere’s a memorable scene in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi where Luke and Leia are on speeder bikes chasing scout troopers through a forest on the planet Endor. Although the MoonBike’s speeds were dramatically slower, and the sound of firing blasters was replaced by a subtle whir from its 10-inch track clawing over soft powder, driving the electric snowped felt like the movie came to life.Even after an hour-plus of riding, the novelty never wore off. Instead, our confidence grew by the minute—mainly thanks to the MoonBike’s sure-footed stability. While this author has driven motorcycles and snowmobiles (including an electric one), most novices should also have a small learning curve. The biggest hurdle is understanding that cornering requires leaning rather than turning the handlebars, so skiers and snowboarders familiar with the concept of “carving” will have an edge.More EV Snow MachinesFirst-timers who want a figurative set of training wheels will select the Eco drive mode, which limits power output and maximizes regenerative braking. The latter quickly slows the machine when the thumb-operated accelerator lever is released, even without using the handbrake, which automatically cuts power when squeezed. These baked-in safety features could save poor souls from crashing face-first into a tree. We might’ve picked bark out of our skin early on too if it weren’t for the MoonBike’s strong regen and unerring resilience to remain upright.Eric Stafford|Car and DriverEco mode was still enjoyable, but the excitement rises in Normal and climaxes in Sport. It unlocks the full potential of the direct-drive 6.0-kW electric motor; peak output is 8 horsepower and 125 pound-feet of torque. Thankfully, the accelerator isn’t overly sensitive, because pinning it rockets the MoonBike to its 26-mph claimed top speed lickety-split. While take-offs are instantaneous, speed builds rapidly rather than uncontrollably. Still, we think newcomers and veteran riders alike will be entertained by the EV snowped.More About MoonBikesWhile it’s billed as an electric snowbike, we think snowped is more accurate, considering its light weight (about 192 pounds with a single standard battery) and relatively compact size. MoonBikes measure roughly seven feet long from tip to tip, with a seat that’s nearly two feet six inches high off the ground. The handlebars stand about a foot taller and connect to a set of adjustable front forks with a wide ski at the end. That combined with its boxy rear half makes it look like a bicycle, a moped, and a snowmobile had a baby.Cute design aside, it’s a capable machine that can be ridden in up to one foot of snow. It has a max payload of 265 pounds, including the rider. Beneath the seat is an easily accessible battery box with a heated pad. The battery is said to require the most maintenance, as we’re told it must be stored at 50 degrees Fahrenheit or warmer to avoid reducing its lifespan. Eric Stafford|Car and DriverThere’s a 2.5-kWh Standard pack (28 pounds) and a 3.2-kWh Performance pack (35 pounds). The company estimates the smaller version provides up to 90 minutes of riding time; the bigger one is claimed to deliver up to two hours. A second Standard pack ($1900) can be equipped—raising the estimated riding time to three hours. The optional 2.2-kW charger ($490) is claimed to refill the Standard battery in two hours and 20 minutes and the Performance battery in three hours. Without it, charging requires four-and-a-half hours or five hours and 45 minutes, respectively.Those details are only important to models purchased for personal use, but that’s apparently the majority. The company, which has been selling MoonBikes in America since 2021, claims about 75 percent of sales are direct to customers. Prices currently start at $8900, and there are lease-to-own options starting at $275 per month.MoonBikes aren’t a substitute for traditional snowmobiles, but they’re not trying to be. Their niche is providing an approachable and eco-friendly way to explore wintry locales. We think anyone who can ride a bike can ride a MoonBike, and now we know snowmobilers will be entertained, too—once they realize it’s more than a cute winter toy.Senior EditorEric Stafford’s automobile addiction began before he could walk, and it has fueled his passion to write news, reviews, and more for Car and Driver since 2016. His aspiration growing up was to become a millionaire with a Jay Leno–like car collection. Apparently, getting rich is harder than social-media influencers make it seem, so he avoided financial success entirely to become an automotive journalist and drive new cars for a living. After earning a degree at Central Michigan University and working at a daily newspaper, the years of basically burning money on failed project cars and lemon-flavored jalopies finally paid off when Car and Driver hired him. His garage currently includes a 2010 Acura RDX, a manual ’97 Chevy Camaro Z/28, and a ’90 Honda CRX Si. More

From the June 1985 issue of Car and Driver.If you had been the guy assigned to pound the stakes by which the progress of Chrysler Corporation was to be measured over the past few years, you would have needed about thirteen arms. Used to be that glaciers had more top end than Chrysler Corporation. Now the company is mak­ing noise and dust. And new cars that have inspiration behind them.Consider this fresh-baked H-car, called Lancer if it’s a Dodge, LeBaron GTS if it’s a Chrysler. It has all the right stuff: front-wheel drive, aero styling, hatchback utility, room for five to rattle around in the passenger compartment, and a turbocharged four­-cylinder engine option to put some mobile into this auto. Never mind whether the “Made in ______” label says Stuttgart or Tokyo or Detroit; doesn’t this sound like a serious car?Conceptually, the Lancer/LeBaron GTS may be the most intriguing four-door built in America these days. In the flesh, some aspects of it are second to none. Other as­pects are, well, second to some, maybe even third, but by no means out of the ballpark. It’s a car that, if it were a little more refined, could be the answer. Certainly the overall package is first-rate. The styling department did a nice job on the hatchback, which manages to offer enough of a sloping tail to interest the fast­back crowd and, at the same time, an undeniable notch to avoid turning off those who think anything but a conventional silhou­ette is funny-looking. Neither contingent can complain about the cargo hold. Oh, they probably won’t like the lift-over, which comes to about the top of the taillights, but the space inside is substantial and the floor is flat. Fold down the rear seat and the floor becomes flat and huge. The seminotchback lid, along with a hinged panel beneath, does a fine job of hiding the contents of your trunk from prying eyes. If there are to be any complaints about the passenger accommodations, probably they’ll focus on vehicle width, which is just a bit narrow for three-across rear seating. May­be the blame should more properly be lev­eled against the rear seat itself. It has a very nice pocket on each side of center where a body can find a comfy spot. But two bodies in their respective comfy spots leave not enough room in the center for a third. Anyway, that’s it for complaints about the interior. Headroom is top-hat friendly. Adult knees and feet will fit in back. The from buckets have a welcome—and, from Detroit, unexpected—firmness. A few sec­onds with the power-seat buttons and the column-tilt lever, and just about anybody will be comfortable in this car.There isn’t much difference on the out­side between the Dodge and Chrysler ver­sions: grille in front and chrome name­plates in back are about it. Inside, there’s even less. These are conspicuously “corpo­rate” cars, with the corporate pentastar getting top billing and the divisions fight­ing over what’s left. We could find neither “Dodge” nor “Chrysler” written inside. The car-line names appear only once, and that’s on the respective hatch lids. We did, however, find an instrument panel that should be required reading for all Detroit interior stylists. It’s to the point: six round dials directly before the driver tell them all they need to know. It’s in good taste: the dial markings suggest not a video game, not a jet plane, not a jukebox, but—ta­-dah!—an automobile. (An Atari panel is available for Motor Trend readers.) And it’s free of conspicuous mistakes: the lenses covering the dials don’t reflect the sky back into your face, and the actual dial markings aren’t skewed off center in a bogus attempt at parallax correction, as they are in some GM cars. The beveled buttons on the radio and heater controls are an original treat­ment, too, and a pleasing contrast to the jellybean shapes that are the fad elsewhere in Detroit. Chrysler got this part right.In the car world these days, the Ameri­can makers are searching their souls, trying to divine the true path between what they’ve always done and what the outsiders do. Which way is really better? The GTS represents, in effect, Chrysler handing in its midterm exam for the buyers to grade. The instrument panel is as astute as any German’s on the market, so give the corporation an A here. But how’s it doing elsewhere? On the floor to the left of the driver’s seat are two lever releases for the hatchback and the gas door—pure Japa­nese. On the dash are a pull button for the headlights and, beneath, a foot pedal for the parking brake—pure Detroit. A nifty two-hole cup holder folds out of the mid­dle of the dash, which is also pure Detroit. The dimmer switch is activated by pulling the turn-signal lever toward you, which used to be the foreign way but now is uni­versal, but in the GTS you have to pull it about two inches to do the job, which is pure Detroit. The blue high-beam light on the tachometer face is so bright, it blinds you about a much as your brights would blind an oncoming driver, which is a mistake in any language. And the “Front Drive” proclamation centered in the PRNDL window (otherwise the window would be empty in models with console shifts) remind one of the curious Motor City practice of bragging about your transmission choice in chrome letters on the deck lid. In any case, what you see from the driver’s seat is a hodgepodge of interna­tional cues, which we interpret as evidence that Detroit is questioning its ways. Chrys­ler’s answers are generally astute in the GTS. And where they fall short of perfec­tion, they at least show a serious search for a better way. Chrysler has obviously been searching for an international solution to the upscale­-sedan problem, and we are sufficiently en­couraged by the results to judge the LeBaron GTS on the same set of interna­tional standards. Sure, confusion abounds, and Chrysler has deliberately contributed to it. Its showroom menu offers the LeBaron, which is the old, block-shaped K­-car derivative with the loose-pillow uphol­stery meant for the traditional B-O-P buy­er, and then this new LeBaron GTS (also a K-car derivative, though it is significantly farther down the evolutionary path), meant for the Audi-Volvo-Saab-Maxima-Cressida kind of yuppie. The difference between the two LeBarons is a whole lot more than the names would suggest. From an enthusi­ast’s point of view, the GTS is a real car, compared with the non-GTS version, which would make a smart lease ride for some computer-company executive. This is our highest compliment. Chrysler is on the real-car game board now, which is a tough league. You don’t just stroll onto this court and knock off the pros. And Chrysler hasn’t. But the GTS doesn’t get skunked, either. The turbo 2.2-liter is a decent performer in view of its lack of an intercooler, an item of equipment that is becoming a common fea­ture in this class. It’s relatively quiet as well, but the texture of its sound is unappealing, agricultural rather than visceral. Chrysler more than covers the basics in roadholding by offering 205/60HR-15 Goodyear Eagle GT tires on 6.0-inch-wide alloy wheels. The adhesion is good, and the look is good. The GTS’s dynamics, however, don’t always live up to the car’s concept. If you just motor around as you would in the cream-puff LeBaron, you’ll think the GTS is a pretty rocky-riding car, and by cream-puff standards it is; but if you’re used to cars with aggressive tires, you probably will have no complaints. If you drive the GTS to the limit of the tires’ adhesion, however, you’ll notice an unwel­come dose of willy-nilly in the suspension. The straight-to-curve transition into cor­ners at speeds the tires are easily capable of produces some wiggles in the steering that will stand the hair up on the back of your neck, particularly if the road is less than ter­razzo-smooth. The front buckets don’t help much, either: the supportive firmness you feel in the showroom turns marshmal­low when the side forces build, leaving you hanging on to the wheel to stay upright. Hurrying is not a lot of fun. The stiff tires also show up the lack of structural rigidity in the body. You can feel the doors working in their openings and hear them rustling against the weather­stripping. Don’t get the wrong idea here. You expect some flex in a hatchback, and, by Detroit’s standards of just a few years ago, the GTS is a solid citizen. But today, we might ask for more starch. The fun quotient of the drivetrain scores lower than we would hope, too. Chrysler has the notches and the nasties pretty well worked out of its cable-shifting mechanism now, but the feel is, well, like pulling cables rather than shifting gears. The clutch effort is on the grunt side, too. Then there is the matter of throttle response, never an easy matter with a turbo. Driving as though you were in a cream-puff LeBaron, there’s no problem making smooth shifts, but when you get the boost up, the engine responds abruptly to sudden openings and closings of the throttle, resulting in jerky shifts un­less you concentrate more than is fun. Some makers do better on this matter. Some do worse, too, which brings us to the final point. This Lancer/LeBaron GTS project is an ambitious one, a Chrysler at­tempt to build a Euro-style touring car. Pontiac has managed to do this with the 6000STE, Chevrolet is taking a shot with its Celebrity Eurosport, the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe is a solid hit, and now Chrys­ler is stepping into the batter’s box for its first try in what we enthusiasts would con­sider the major leagues. That the first swing produces a triple rather than a home run shouldn’t discourage anybody.CounterpointThe LeBaron GTS Turbo is one year ahead of its time. That’s how long it will take GM and Ford to come up with anything close. Unfortunately, Chrysler too will need a year (or more) to rid this machine of the bugs it was born with. I’m talking buzzes and rattles, nothing really serious. For example, the clutch lets out an agonizing groan when you de­press it at high rpm. The window seals whistle. The exhaust system fills the interior with sonic boom at certain speeds. The suspension occasionally feels soft when it should be firm, hard when it should be supple. The seats let you down in the hips.I’m positive the right engineers could shape this car up quite nicely, given a generous year’s budget to do so. The size, weight, style, and horsepower essentials are all neatly in place, ready for the fairy godmother to come along and bestow true star quality on the LeBaron. I’m sure that Lido has her phone number, so let’s hope he reaches out for a little developmental magic. —Don Sherman Chrysler does it again! Yet another new car based on the same bits and pieces that the New Chrysler Corporation inherited from the Old Chrysler Corporation. But the LeBaron GTS promises much more than that. Seen rolling by on the highway, it looks almost as fresh and exciting as the Chrysler minivans did a couple of years ago. It is a neat looking car, no question, and it has a number of endearing practical virtues. But why does it have to be so noisy in the lower gears? Why are the front seats so skimpy and lacking in support, lateral or otherwise? Why did I have a backache every mile that I drove it? Why is the shift linkage so vague and rubbery? Why isn’t it as nice to drive or to sit in as an Omni GLH? Chrysler has spent enormous amounts of time, talent, and treasure to produce a car that’s a great leap forward in concept but a retrograde step in exe­cution. It’s clear that their hearts were in the right places on this one, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with . . . —David E. Davis, Jr.Heading to Europe on business and in a rush, I once handed in a story as rough as the LeBaron GTS Turbo I drove last night. I had worked myself ragged do­ing the research—a solid week of nights at the library, transatlantic telephone calls and interviews, the tedious double­-checking of names, dates, and titles. All of the pieces were in order and the in­tent was pure, but I ran out of time, bundled the story together with baling wire and Band-Aids, and was off for the Con­tinent. I’m here to tell of my shame only through the patience and forgiveness of my superiors. One rewrite, guys; the LeBaron GTS needs a simple rewrite. As it lands, only the exterior can escape the blue­-pencil treatment. Inside, we’re faced with a wraparound dash that ends in thin air, nicely shaped seats with side bolsters that dissolve under attack, a scrunchy shifter, a rock-hard clutch pedal, and an engine that sounds as if it were laundering peastone. Now I know why Sherman was so mad at me. It’s discouraging to see the slipshod and unprofessional execution of a basically sound piece of work. —Jean LindamoodArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1985 Chrysler LeBaron GTSVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $9659/$13,733Options: luxury equipment group (power windows, locks, mirrors, and driver’s seat; tilt steering wheel; cruise control; rear defroster; console; light group; tinted glass; intermittent wipers; floor mats) $1288; air conditioning, $757; sport handling package, $688; 2.2-liter turbocharged engine, $610; electronic AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, $515; rear wiper/washer, $125; leather steering wheel, $91.
ENGINEturbocharged SOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 135 in3, 2213 cm3Power: 146 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 168 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/8.0-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GTP205/60HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.1inLength: 180.3 inWidth: 68.5 inHeight: 52.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/45 ft3Trunk Volume: 18 ft3Curb Weight: 2844 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.2 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 26.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 15.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 13.3 secTop Speed: 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 202 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY City/Highway: 19/29 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the May 2011 issue of Car and Driver.Guess what? Minivans are still uncool. Automakers know this. Even the latest ads for the Honda Odyssey and the Toyota Sienna acknowledge the squareness of the segment. Sales have stabilized at about 500,000 units per year since tragically hip moms and dads fled to crossovers. As a mature segment with little potential for growth, minivans are getting comfortable with their squareness. For evidence, we direct your attention to the new Nissan Quest, which not only acknowledges its one-box silhouette but drapes a metaphorical trench coat over the whole thing.So minivans are cool with being uncool. Can we move on? The premise remains the same as before: Maximize people and cargo space, and forget about the styling. Driving dynamics get second billing. The point is to get you and your kids (or, for aging boomers, your dogs) to and from every destination with the least amount of hassle and the most comfort.The newest in our assembled quartet is the Nissan Quest, back after a two-year hiatus. Now based on the company’s D platform (shared with the Altima, Maxima, and Murano), the Quest is similar to the Japanese-market Elgrand. For 2011, the Chrysler Town & Country (and its sibling, the Dodge Grand Caravan) gets freshened exterior and interior styling, a retuned suspension, and–most important–a new 283-hp V-6 mated to a six-speed automatic, which replaces all three previous powertrain offerings.The Odyssey and the Sienna are also new for the 2011 model year, but both offer carry-over engines lashed to new six-speed automatics (available only in Touring trim on the Honda).Minivan Buying AdviceThere’s a lot of common ground among this set. All four are powered by 24-valve V-6 engines, with only 35 horsepower separating the strongest (Chrysler) from the weakest (Honda). In the top-of-the-line trims we specified for our test group, each minivan comes with power side doors and a power rear hatch. They all offer some sort of flat load floor when the seats are folded and/or removed. It’s worth noting that although the vans tested here all ring in at about $40,000, each can be had for closer to $30,000. The price of the Sienna, the highest in this test, drops as low as $25,370 for a base four-cylinder model. In light of the targeted use of these vehicles, we focused on the passenger compartments as much as we did on behind-the-wheel impressions. We watched Team America: World Police multiple times in an effort to evaluate the rear-seat entertainment systems. We also wore a pregnancy-simulation vest while examining each minivan for ease of child-seat installation. And yes, we left some small part of our dignity behind these sliding doors. 4th Place: Toyota Sienna LimitedThe Sienna is a perfect example of the—dare we say—pleasures of owning a minivan. A flat, wide floor underneath the driver’s seat makes getting in and out easy. The interior boasts two glove boxes, plus a handy storage cubby on the floor between the instrument panel and the center console in which to store your purse—sorry, “European man-satchel.” The center console deploys rearward to dispatch two cup holders for second-row passengers. And in our Limited model, the second-row residents get captain’s chairs with slide-out leg rests. They even almost work. To fully extend, the second row needs to slide completely back, obliterating third-row leg space. Even then, the leg extensions accommodate only the shorter lower limbs of children. But we like the idea. The same goes for the power-folding third row, which won’t work if the second row is too far aft. We expect better execution from Toyota. HIGHS: Barcalounger second-row seat, two glove boxes, parking-lot friendly. LOWS: Cheesy-looking fake wood, light on refinement, bland as a Camry.VERDICT: Looks great on paper but fails to inspire in person.A good idea executed poorly also describes the Sienna’s ride, which we deemed too harsh. We commend Toyota for attempting to inject a bit of sportiness into the Sienna, but it seems to have taken things a little too far. Light steering, however, makes for effortless parking-lot navigation, which counts for a lot in this segment. But the power assist doesn’t trail off at driving speeds; as a result, the steering effort stays light, which is at odds with the Sienna’s sporty pretensions.The Sienna earns points for ergonomics, with easy-to-find buttons for the power doors and the tailgate. The radio and nav system are clustered logically and high on the dash; the climate control has large, legible buttons and is likewise easy to use. Car and DriverKudos also go to the Sienna’s interior space, which is the largest in nearly every category. But with the exception of a best-in-test, 177-foot braking result, the Toyota is at or below average in most perform­ance categories. That backs up our overall impression of the Sienna, which is unremarkable. On paper, everything looks good, but in person and behind the wheel, the Sienna comes off as milquetoast. In that respect, the Sienna is the Camry of minivans. Like its sedan counterpart, it’s not that there is anything wrong with the Sienna—it’s just that it doesn’t make us care about what’s right. 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited265-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4499 lbBase/as-tested price: $39,610/$46,782C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.0 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g EPA fuel economy, city/highway: 18/24 mpg3rd Place: Nissan Quest LEOkay, we did say that minivans are uncool, but the Quest is about as funky as minivans get. We consider the tall, slab-sided exterior and wraparound rear glass a styling success, but then, we also watch Japanese cartoons. Inside, the Quest feels as tall and blocky as it looks outside, and a high cowl restricts forward visibility. But large windows and Dumbo-ear side mirrors mean that vision in every other direction is expansive.HIGHS: Funky styling, tight turning radius, comfortable front seats.LOWS: Low-rent center-console plastics, only one 12-volt power port in front.VERDICT: Not the Holy Grail of minivans but headed in the right direction.The Quest takes a different approach to seat acrobatics than the other three vans do. Open the rear hatch, and the floor is level with the bumper; cargo stows below a removable panel. The third-row seats fold forward onto the seat cushions, level with the false floor and leaving the rearmost luggage area intact; the other minivans flop the seats backward into the cargo pit. The compromise is a higher load floor—the second-row seats fold and lower themselves to make for a flat cargo area—and less storage space: 19 fewer cubic feet behind the second row and 36 fewer with everything folded versus the next-biggest interior of the Chrysler. If you’re looking to fit Neil Peart’s drum kit into the Quest, you might be short on storage, but we think the ability to fold the third row without moving any cargo will find supporters. Despite high marks in more advanced subjects, the Quest struggles a bit in Minivan 101. There is only a single 12-volt port in the front of the cabin—the rest have two ports up there. The buttons for the power doors are shaped like Tic Tacs, and our adult fingers had trouble using them. The radio controls are small and situated low on the dash. The front and rear center consoles are made of  hard plastic and feature minimalist cup holders that won’t accommodate the larger beverage containers favored by thirsty Americans. Otherwise, the interior looks and feels like an Infiniti’s, with high-gloss wood trim and thoughtful touches such as padded armrests on the front doors. Material quality is top-notch. We were also impressed with the Quest’s smooth ride, which is almost limo-like. The Nissan’s first-place, 55.6-mph performance in the emergency-lane-change maneuver is more the result of an effective stability-control system that keeps the Quest going where it’s pointed than any handling prowess. Through corners, it feels like the front and rear suspensions were tuned for different vehicles. But going back to minivan priorities, consider the 36.7-foot turning circle, which is slightly better than the Sienna’s, equal to the Odyssey’s, and 2.4 feet tighter than the Chrysler’s. Another plus for the Quest is the familiar VQ engine, making 260 horsepower in this application. Unlike the 3.7-liter variant, the 3.5-liter is smooth in the Quest, and the continuously  variable automatic responds quickly and without the usual drone we’ve come to expect from these transmissions. Unfortunately, that didn’t translate to quick numbers at the track, where the Quest was slowest to 60 mph. The CVT is also frustrating; it allows the engine to rev for a second when you are pulling into traffic. Nissan’s return to the minivan market is a solid effort, with high-class material quality, distinctive looks, and a buttery-smooth ride. Only the minor details—which the other automakers have already sorted out—keep it from a higher ranking.2011 Nissan Quest LE260-hp V-6, continuously variable, 4508 lbBase/as-tested price: $42,160/$42,340C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 20.3 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 19/24 mpg2nd Place: Chrysler Town & Country LimitedIn our most recent minivan comparo, we said the Town & Country’s twin, the Dodge Caravan, would have fared better than a third-place finish if it provided its driver a better connection to the road. Clearly, the engineers at Chrysler agreed. Updates for 2011 include a new, stiffer steering rack and retuned shocks and springs. There are also improvements in noise isolation, including better sound-insulating material and improved door seals. The result is a revelation. Gone is the old Town & Country shuffle, in which every shudder echoed through the chassis. The new T&C; is the best-driving minivan of the bunch—rock solid over L.A.’s notoriously undulating freeways, roads that got the best of the Toyota and the Honda. The steering is quick, weighty, and tuned for Turn Nine at Watkins Glen, but we do wonder if the minivan crowd might prefer the lighter steering found in the three other vehicles. HIGHS: Sporty steering, balanced chassis, high level of refinement. LOWS: Underwhelming engine power, dowdy exterior styling.VERDICT: Chrysler fixed everything that was wrong and kept everything that was right.We’re impressed with the interior updates as well. A couple of caveats: As with the exterior, Chrysler designers followed the maxim of “when in doubt, add chrome,” so there is plenty of—perhaps too much—brightwork outlining the abundant soft-touch plastics. The center console prevents the driver from crawling into the back of the van with any ease. Precocious brats take note: Dad actually will have to park and get out of the van to administer justice, should you fail to knock it off. On the upside, the T&C’s center console has plenty of storage, and the bottom section slides back to reveal second-row cup holders and an additional bin. Of all the high-end features in the Town & Country—automatic high-beams, remote start, even a heated steering wheel—we found most overrated the $320 luxury second-row seats, which are robust captain’s chairs with a pair of armrests. They’re perfectly comfortable but lack the slick fold-flat feature of the standard Stow ‘n Go second row. The third-row seats can flip backward into a tailgate mode for stationary, rear-facing seating. Car and DriverChrysler’s face lift didn’t fix everything, especially the dowdy exterior. The spongy brake pedal clearly didn’t get the memo sent to the steering, and the T&C’s 70-to-0-mph stopping distance was a last-place 190 feet. The new engine feels good, with much smoother delivery than the instant-on nature of the previous 4.0-liter, but the best power-to-weight ratio yielded only average acceleration. Is it possible that Chrysler’s new Pentastar engine is low on output? Stay tuned.2011 Chrysler Town & Country Limited283-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4585 lbBase/as-tested price: $39,495/$41,085C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4 mile: 16.0 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 21.9 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 17/25 mpg1st Place: Honda Odyssey Touring EliteGive Honda its due: The automaker might be cautious, but it also knows not to fix something that isn’t broken. The Odyssey’s interior is instantly recognizable as a Honda, to the extent that we weren’t exactly sure the cabin was new (it is). Ergonomics reign supreme in this van, with the usual mess of  Honda buttons to control the radio and navigation system made tolerable by their large size. The interi­or employs every spare inch of space for storage, including a second bin in the door just above the map pockets. The Odyssey also features a “cool box” to keep those Odwallas chilled; it’s located between the front seats at the bottom of  the dash.HIGHS: Excellent ergonomics, seating for eight, trick folding third row.LOWS: Slow and numb steering, contrived exterior styling.VERDICT: Good for drivers, great for passengers.Most of the updates, such as the Touring’s six-speed automatic, were similarly well considered. This gearbox earned top marks for its responsiveness and, combined with cylinder deactivation, gives the Odyssey a class-leading 28-mpg EPA highway rating. Some of the credit also goes to Honda’s use of high-strength steel—the Odyssey uses more than any other Honda—which gives it a 135-pound-slimmer curb weight than the next-heaviest minivan in the test, the Toyota. And despite the worst power-to-weight ratio, the Odyssey wins the 0-to-60-mph and quarter-mile sprints, with results of 7.3 and 15.6 seconds, respectively. Not that any of that really matters in this segment. Except that it does—ever try to merge onto the freeway while juggling a tube of Desitin? Then you’ll appreciate the Honda’s lane-owning oomph. But the Odyssey’s steering—which is a slow, 3.5 turns lock-to-lock and feels dead on-center—could be better. The Honda also exhibits more road noise than we expected (especially after driving the Chrysler), and the ride is choppy over highway expansion joints. Car and DriverWhere the Odyssey really wins is in versatility. The Honda has two child-seat LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren) mounts in the third row versus a single position in the other minivans. The Honda also has one more second-row child-seat mount than the rest; it’s the only minivan in the test with a second-row bench seat. The middle position folds down into an armrest proffering three cup holders. That kind of flexibility is what makes the Honda so good, even if second-row buckets give the other vans an air of luxury. The Odyssey’s third row is the most comfortable of the lot, and the easy-fold “magic seat” operation makes us wonder what all the fuss is about with the power-folding nonsense. The Odyssey provides a detailed picture of the current state of the mini­van. Despite a decent styling effort, it still looks uncool. It drives well but not so well that you’ll be tempted to lace up the Alpinestars. But load it up for a weekend and buckle us into one of the rear seats? We’re in. Passengers rule in the minivan, and none treats passengers better than the Honda.Lacking any knocked-up staffers in our crew, we foolishly decided we’d try faking it. We called Realityworks (www.realityworks.com), which promptly loaned us a pregnancy profile vest used in prenatal classes and child-development education. With its rib constrictor and a removable bladder (filled with water), the vest simulates the physical discomfort of pregnancy.Saddled with about 25 additional pounds, we were extra aware of any difficulties presented by getting into and out of the driver’s seat, such as how the Quest requires an extra lurch to settle into the seat. We did find it particularly easy to slide into the Sienna, however.The Quest also requires careful positioning to get a child seat through the narrow opening of the side doors. In the cabin, however, the Nissan exhibits the most-trouble-free LATCH mounting points. The Sienna’s second-row seats are far more problematic, with padding around the mounting loops that is reluctant to budge. In the Chrysler, fixed second-row headrests make it hard to get a child seat properly aligned. We were able to shed the pregnancy weight by peeling off a few Velcro straps, but the lingering effects of the vest—lower-back pain, irritability, and a compulsion to straighten everything up—stayed with us for a few hours. Mothers, you have our respect. Car and DriverThe DVD entertainment system is the vehicular equivalent of a pacifier. The Honda’s screen is wide enough to display two programs side-by-side. So is the Toyota’s. But Honda’s system sounds better and is the only one to offer an HDMI input. Chrysler’s setup gives you two screens, and it’s the only one available with Sirius satellite TV. Nissan’s screen is big, but it can display only one signal at a time. That it pivots open and shut under its own power makes it vulnerable to damage by brats.2011 Honda Odyssey248-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4364 lbBase/as-tested price: $44,030/$44,030C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4 mile: 15.6 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 19.4 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 19/28 mpg More

From the May 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Like many a family vacation, everything was perfect when we started out. The sky was sapphire blue, Palm Springs was just closing out its fashionable Modernism Week, and we had scheduled several days of activities designed to challenge our convoy while highlighting how minivans have evolved from bare-bones people-hauling boxes to sophisticated and feature-laden luxury transports.More on MinivansThe plan was to soak up the February sunshine in the desert, alight through power-sliding doors in the valet drop-off at hip farm-to-table eateries, and test the sturdiness of the many cupholders on the twisting roads surrounding the valley. Then there was a sandstorm, a windstorm, a wildfire, a power outage, a canceled hotel, and a blizzard, all within the first 36 hours. It was decidedly not luxurious, but you only really appreciate the comfort and entertainment value of a minivan when you’re huddled in the back during a surprise hailstorm. If only anyone had brought a portable oven, some chicken wings, and a few DVDs of Chevy Chase movies, we would have been all set for the night. (Yes, DVDs are still a thing.) Marc Urbano|Car and DriverThere was a time when a minivan comparison could have featured half a dozen slant-nose, sliding-door, three-row crates, all with V-6 engines, front-wheel drive, and similar prices. These days, the minivan is a vanishing art form, and those that remain have branched out with electrified drivetrains, all-wheel drive, and wildly variable price points from the $35,000 range all the way up to nearly twice that amount. We ended up with a plug-in-hybrid Chrysler Pacifica Limited, a Kia Carnival SX Prestige trying to pass for an SUV, a hybrid Toyota Sienna Limited with all-wheel drive, and an old-school underdog, the Honda Odyssey Elite. All were the top trims or close to it and loaded with options to best represent the plush, pampering offerings of Minivandia. We were diverted from our original route, but we pulled together a passable substitute around the strange shantytowns of the Salton Sea and through the sweeping roads and rock formations of Borrego Springs. We drove on a beach of fish bones and stopped for lunch in a dive bar boasting the lowest burger in the Western Hemisphere (223 feet below sea level). With their comfy seats, big screens, and connectivity, the minivans made it easy to rework our plans on the fly. It was not the trip we envisioned, but perhaps it was a better test of how these family cars satisfy when the family vacation doesn’t.4th Place: Chrysler PacificaThis may come as a surprise. The Pacifica has done well in previous minivan match-ups. It’s made numerous appearances on our 10Best list, and its quilted nappa leather interior in the Pinnacle trim, with the color-matched lumbar pillows, was the inspiration for this attempted luxury-van excursion. It’s like an S-class for seven! The problem was our test van wasn’t the Pinnacle trim, so we didn’t get the fancy cushions, and it was the plug-in hybrid, so we did get a ritzy price tag. Judged without Uncle Sam’s potential $7500 kickback for making an environmentally focused purchase, the Pacifica’s $60,075 as-tested sticker hung over the Chrysler throughout this comparison.HIGHS: Tech-forward drivetrain and cabin, quiet runner, spacious third row. LOWS: Seats too hard, brakes too soft, missing Stow ’n Go. VERDICT: For $60K, get a Charger Scat Pack and squeeze everyone in.Chrysler doesn’t put “PHEV” anywhere on the Pacifica, which is odd because it’s the only plug-in minivan, and you’d think Chrysler would want to brag about that. The Pacifica’s 3.6-liter V-6 shares motive duties with two AC motors for a combined output of 260 horsepower. There’s a lot to love about the idea of a plug-in hybrid. For the typical around-town errands a minivan spends most of its life doing, the Pacifica’s EPA-rated 32 miles of electric range mean all the school pickups and grocery runs could be gas-free, as long as you’re gentle on the accelerator. For family road trips, the Pacifica hybrid can be fueled up and treated like a nonelectrified machine. No matter the power source, the Pacifica was the quietest of our quartet with pedal pinned to the floor, with an engine note so subdued, you don’t even need the intercom option to speak with passengers in the third row. Marc Urbano|Car and DriverThe Pacifica was the only van to offer wireless phone mirroring, which proved useful when a hotel called to cancel our reservation due to a power outage. During the brief scramble to rebook, we considered simply sleeping in the vans, but without a Stow ’n Go second row—unavailable on the hybrid since it uses that underfloor space for the battery—the hybrid Pacifica doesn’t offer the welcoming flat floor of the regular version. However, the second-row seats are easy to remove for those of us who like to haul minibikes in our minivans. We also found these seats to be better padded and more comfortable than the fold-flat versions. More on the PacificaNot so the plank-like front seats. The Pacifica lost points for steering that feels like pulling against a bungee cord and brakes that associate editor Austin Irwin described as “stepping in mashed potatoes.” The Pacifica was also the slowest of our vans. That, plus its squishy driving characteristics and middling interior lacking in small-item storage, left us unable to justify its lofty price point. A non-hybrid Pacifica would likely have fared better in this pack.3rd Place: Honda OdysseyNone of our minivans are brand-new beasts, but the Odyssey, in particular, is feeling its age. This generation has been hauling kids since 2018, and everything from the wedgy exterior to the busy dashboard looks old and dull. For some, the front seats provided inadequate lumbar support, but otherwise they were a welcoming place to spend a day. Pebbled plastic makes up the surrounding trim. “This interior is 50 shades of gray and less interesting than the book—uh, I’ve been told,” said technical editor Dan Edmunds. HIGHS: Storage smart, hauls more than people, sporty sound, surprisingly quick. LOWS: Gray interior causes seasonal depression, dated infotainment, looks (and is) old. VERDICT: Fast, but also loud and aging.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverMoving back to fetishes we’re comfortable discussing, we liked the Honda’s rambunctious powertrain. While the Pacifica was subdued and the Kia and Toyota both mumbled more than growled, the Odyssey’s howling 3.5-liter V-6 and 10-speed automatic were never caught out, even during a canyon run. With 280 horsepower, the Odyssey wasn’t the most powerful van in the group, but it was the quickest at the track, knocking out a quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds. While most van owners might never bring the revs to full song and almost certainly won’t hit a drag strip, we’re still giving Honda props for offering us such a sporty soundtrack.More on the OdysseyLest you think we’re losing sight of what makes a minivan valuable to nonhooligans, we did notice the Honda’s useful console, which left plenty of room for passengers’ elbows and knees as well as for large diaper totes and Ziploc bags full of Cheerios. We also noted that the second row moves not just forward and back but also side to side and is easily removable, making the Honda one of the most flexible vans in terms of rear cargo and passenger options. Despite being the quickest of the four and making senior testing editor David Beard shout “VTEC!” on more than one occasion, the Honda just couldn’t overcome its age. We’ll welcome the next-generation Odyssey, which is sure to feature the brand’s latest design elements, with open arms.2nd Place: Kia CarnivalIf your family needs the sliding-door lifestyle, but you prefer to park with the SUVs, Kia sees your cool-kid hang-ups and addresses them with a minivan that doesn’t look like a minivan. The Carnival stood out for its stylish exterior design, which helps this front-wheel-drive van masquerade as a sport-utility vehicle. The Kia was also the muscle car of the group, with a 290-hp 3.5-liter V-6 backed by an eight-speed automatic. It wasn’t the speediest in testing, but it was the only one to light up the tires when leaving a stoplight. HIGHS: SUV styling, uncluttered interior, value pricing. LOWS: Limited storage, cramped third row, fixed second-row seats, worst fuel economy. VERDICT: Kia makes a good minivan but an even better SUV.Inside, you sit up high, with a large padded center console that has the best armrests. It’s one of the most spacious and modern interiors, but it also offers the least small-item storage, with no shelves, sliding drawers, or under-console pass-through. Michael Simari|Car and DriverOur SX Prestige had the optional VIP Seating package, which replaces the three-seat second-row bench with two reclining lounge chairs. Our team, a lazy bunch, enjoyed testing the loungeability, but we wouldn’t recommend the chairs for most buyers. Going full recline while enjoying Netflix on the entertainment system requires moving the seats all the way back, diminishing any legroom for third-row riders. Even then, it’s likely your feet will be touching the front-seat backrests. The VIP seats aren’t removable for max cargo carrying, and passengers entering and exiting the third row can’t conveniently fold them. It’s a novel concept, but better for an executive sedan than a minivan.More on the CarnivalJust as the Pacifica suffered because of its price, the Carnival gained position for its value. We also praised its cushioned front seats, nicely weighted steering, and quiet cabin. On the road, we noted minimal body roll, a responsive engine, and good brake-pedal feel, but if not for the Carnival’s sub-$50K price point, it wouldn’t have snuck past the Honda and its more useful interior.1st Place: Toyota SiennaAwarding the Sienna top honors proves we look beyond physical appearance to what lies beneath. The Toyota resembles a roast chicken—all greasy drumsticks and a fatty front end. We don’t care, because a minivan’s job is to make it easy to run a million errands while caring for a variety of living creatures, and the Sienna was most comfortable across all three rows. It also respects your budget with its fuel-sipping hybrid power train—even with all-wheel drive.HIGHS: Gas-savvy hybrid, four-wheel traction, a place for everything. LOWS: Looks only a parent could love, sounds like a Shop-Vac, could use an infotainment update. VERDICT: A comfy companion whether the road trip is great or a disaster.On the spec sheet, the Toyota was at a disadvantage. Its 189-hp 2.5-liter four-cylinder and electric motors combine to produce just 245 horsepower, but its all-wheel-drive launch meant its track numbers matched the more powerful Kia’s. Its most impressive numbers, though, were in fuel economy. While the plug-in-hybrid Chrysler managed 24 mpg during our road trip, the Sienna returned 27.Michael Simari|Car and DriverWe did complain about the droning leaf-blower engine note, but the Sienna struck the best balance for ride quality on the highway and around town. “Not floppy, not stiff,” said the test notes—just like properly cooked vegetables. The Sienna also offered the best visibility in the test, despite having the worst-quality backup camera, and there’s storage, storage everywhere. More on the SiennaYou could keep kids’ snacks organized in one cubby, dog treats on the dash shelf, a toy basket in the pass-through, field-trip paperwork in the door pocket, and a mini bottle of prosecco in the console for when you finally get a break. Heck, with 18 cupholders, you could host a chardonnay-tasting party. The middle and rear rows offer a variety of positions, including a nice deep recline. Whether it’s after a family vacation gone wrong or just another long week of softball tournaments and emergency vet visits, you deserve a moment of luxury.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2022 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid LimitedVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $56,090/$60,075 
POWERTRAINDOHC 24-valve 3.6-liter Atkinson-cycle V-6, 220 hp, 235 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, 114 and 84 hp, 231 and 92 lb-ft (combined output: 260 hp); 12.5-kWh (est.) lithium-ion battery pack; 6.6-kW onboard chargerTransmission: continuously variable automatic 
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.0-in vented disc/13.0-in discTires: Nexin Npriz RH7a235/60R-18 103H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.6 inLength: 204.3 inWidth: 79.6 inHeight: 70.0 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58/54/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 141/88/32 ft3Curb Weight: 5094 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.2 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 106 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 183 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 33 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 540 mi 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 30/29/30 mpg
— 
2021 Honda Odyssey EliteVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 8-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $50,965/$51,420
ENGINESOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 212 in3, 3471 cm3Power: 280 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 262 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm 
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.6-in vented disc/13.0-in discTires: Bridgestone Turanza EL4 40235/55R-19 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 205.2 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 69.6 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58/57/48 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: 141/87/33 ft3Curb Weight: 4599 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.7 sec1/4-Mile: 15.3 sec @ 94 mph100 mph: 17.3 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 580 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 22/19/28 mpg
— 
2023 Kia Carnival SX PrestigeVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $47,565/$49,285
ENGINEDOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 212 in3, 3470 cm3Power: 290 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 262 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.8-in vented disc/12.8-in discTires: Goodyear Assurance Finesse235/55R-19 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.7 inLength: 203.0 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 69.9 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 62/59/46 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: –/87/40 ft3Curb Weight: 4782 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.5 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 19.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 530 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 22/19/26 mpg
— 
2023 Toyota Sienna LimitedVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door van
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $51,730/$53,855
POWERTRAINDOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 189 hp, 176 lb-ft + 3 permanent-magnet synchronous AC motors, front: 180 hp, 199 lb-ft; rear: 54 hp, 89 lb-ft (combined output: 245 hp); 1.5-kWh (est.) nickel-metal hydride battery pack 
TRANSMISSIONS, F/R
CVT/direct drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.9-in vented disc/12.5-in vented discTires: Goodyear Assurance Finesse235/55R-19 101H M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 120.5 inLength: 203.7 inWidth: 78.5 inHeight: 69.7 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 58/58/47 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/M/R: –/75/34 ft3Curb Weight: 4811 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.5 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 88 mph100 mph: 22.1 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.5 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.8 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 27 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 33 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 590 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 35/35/36 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior Editor, Features
Like a sleeper agent activated late in the game, Elana Scherr didn’t know her calling at a young age. Like many girls, she planned to be a vet-astronaut-artist, and came closest to that last one by attending UCLA art school. She painted images of cars, but did not own one. Elana reluctantly got a driver’s license at age 21 and discovered that she not only loved cars and wanted to drive them, but that other people loved cars and wanted to read about them, which meant somebody had to write about them. Since receiving activation codes, Elana has written for numerous car magazines and websites, covering classics, car culture, technology, motorsports, and new-car reviews.    More

There’s a certain comforting symmetry to the automotive circle of life. New models tend to age into senior citizenship in roughly six or so years, and most get a light makeover around the time they reach middle age in an attempt to keep them looking and feeling fresh. That’s exactly where the Lincoln Corsair is right now. No surprise, then, that Lincoln gave the 2023 model a light makeover as it began its fourth year on the market.It would take a dedicated Corsair spotter to pick out the small revisions made to the latest version: The grille is slightly larger, the front fascia is mildly reworked, and there are a couple of new exterior and interior color combinations. That said, there are several noteworthy changes inside, one of them a new-and-impressive piece of tech that makes it a perfect time to check in with this compact-luxury SUV. Michael Simari|Car and DriverSince we haven’t visited the entry-level end of Lincoln’s all-SUV lineup in some time, let’s review: The Corsair’s svelte styling and gently sloping roofline may evoke images of Range Rover products, but—though you’d never guess it—that handsome sheetmetal is stretched over a humble Ford Escape SUV’s transverse-engine, front-drive platform. Corsairs are propelled by either of two engines: a 250-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four or a 2.5-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-four hybrid that produces a total of 266 horses. (The previously available 295-hp 2.3-liter turbocharged four was dropped for 2023.) The smaller engine feeds its power to an eight-speed automatic; the hybrid is lashed to a CVT. All-wheel drive is a $2300 option on the Standard and mid-level Reserve models. The top Grand Touring version comes only with the hybrid powertrain and all-wheel drive. Highs: Plush interior, a plethora of available luxury features, confidence-inspiring hands-free capability.More from Lincoln landThough the Standard model starts at a reasonable $40,085, getting the features, amenities, and posh cabin materials that make the Corsair feel like a luxury ride drives the price up quickly. Our test Corsair, a 2.0-liter Reserve AWD, started at $46,770. Several equipment packages later, it was comprehensively equipped and priced at $60,685. That’s the kind of money that will almost get you into a well-equipped BMW X3 or Volvo XC60, and it easily puts SUVs like the Genesis GV70 3.5T or Acura RDX SH-AWD A-Spec in your driveway. Lincoln’s been doing a credible job of dressing the interiors of its cars—whoops, SUVs—for its upmarket mission, and there was no arguing our tester’s accommodations. The roomy, two-row interior sports handsome, modern lines and was swathed in ritzy two-tone Ebony/Smoked Truffle leather, a black-taupe mix that sounds like something you’d hear about on Project Runway. There’s good-looking wood on the dash and classy bits of bright trim scattered throughout. All Corsairs get a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and an easy-to-use 13.2-inch touchscreen with crisp graphics and Alexa app connectivity—the latter free for the first three years. Both screens were previously reserved for the upper-level models. The convenient piano-key shifter buttons are carried over. The big-ticket item on our test car was Equipment Group 202A ($10,730), which adds an avalanche of upmarket features—as it should at that price. The goodies include a head-up display, panoramic sunroof, 14-speaker Revel Audio system, heated-and-ventilated front seats, heated rear outboard seats, adaptive dampers, a heated steering wheel, and smartphone-as-key functionality. Most important is the inclusion of adaptive cruise control with ActiveGlide, Lincoln’s hands-free self-driving feature (more on that in a bit). The final bit of sybaritic gear was a set of optional 24-way front seats with massage ($1285).Michael Simari|Car and DriverRefresh or not, the Corsair drives just like it did when we last aimed it down the highway more than three years ago. It’s a luxury-first chariot that’s cosseting and comfortable but makes no attempt to involve the part of you that likes to drive. Steering feel is muted, and response to the helm is relaxed. Get it out on a smooth interstate and you’ll notice just a hint of float to the ride. That softness lets it glide over larger pavement swells, but the 20-inch Continental CrossContact LX Sport all-season tires clip-clop across smaller road imperfections and send a shiver up through the otherwise calm cabin environs. Switching the drive mode from Normal to Excite tightens up the adaptive dampers a bit but does nothing to transform the Corsair into anything like a road carver.At the test track, the all-wheel-drive Corsair turns in a performance that won’t raise anyone’s pulse but is about average for many of the vehicles in this segment, with a 60-mph time of 6.1 seconds and a quarter-mile sprint of 14.7 seconds at 93 mph. The engine does work well with the eight-speed automatic and is a subdued and distant presence through most of its rev range. The Reserve’s 0.83-g skidpad grip and 179-foot 70-mph stopping distance are also unexceptional but more than enough for the kind of relaxed driving the Corsair inspires. Its EPA estimated fuel economy is equally midpack in the compact-luxury SUV segment at 21 mpg city, 28 mpg highway, and 24 mpg combined. Michael Simari|Car and DriverThat this vehicle does little to involve the driver makes it all the more apropos that it now offers a feature that enables you to not drive. Called ActiveGlide 1.2, it’s Lincoln’s version of Ford’s similar BlueCruise system, and it lets you take your hands off the wheel for extended periods on more than 100,000 miles of qualified divided U.S highways. ActiveGlide requires a subscription, but the first two years are included with the 202A package. Lows: Thrill-free handling, relaxed performance, pricing that’ll get you some pretty fine alternatives.We did our hands-free driving on a local interstate and found that the system, which works in concert with active cruise control, performed flawlessly during our short cruise. It negotiated curves adeptly, made smooth and safe lane changes when we flipped the turn signal, and had us almost comfortable when we passed semis in the next lane. Michael Simari|Car and DriverIndeed, ActiveGlide fits the personality of the Corsair perfectly. We wouldn’t expect the Corsair to lure people away from Audi Q5s and BMW X3s; the Lincoln is an altogether different animal. A loaded example like our test vehicle doesn’t win on value, nor does it deliver the driver engagement we crave. But roughly midway through its production life, the Corsair remains what it was at the beginning: a vehicle more than capable of making you feel pampered. So, welcome to middle age, Corsair. You haven’t changed a bit.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Lincoln Corsair AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $42,385/$60,685 Options: Equipment Group 202A (rain sensing wipers, power tilt/telescoping steering column, auto-dimming rearview mirror, 60/40 split rear seat with power seatback release, head-up display, adaptive dampers, auto dimming and heated sideview mirrors with power folding, inductive device charging, hands-free liftgate, heated-and-ventilated front seats, panoramic roof, Lincoln Co-Pilot360 2.1 driver assist with a two-year subscription of ActiveGlide with lane-change assist and in-lane repositioning, intersection assist 2.0 and driver-monitoring camera, Active Park Assist 2.0, front parking aid, 14-speaker Revel stereo, windshield wiper de-icer, heated steering wheel and outboard rear seats), $10,730; Reserve trim (ambient lighting, leather seats, jeweled LED headlamps, if you’ve made it this far give the Tech Department a shoutout in the comments, roof-rack side rails), $4385; 24-way Perfect Position front seats, $1285; 20-inch Bright Machined alloy wheels, $1150; Whisper Blue Metallic paint, $750
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1999 cm3Power: 250 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 275 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.1-in vented disc/11.9-in vented discTires: Continental CrossContact LX Sport245/45R-20 99V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.7 inLength: 181.4 inWidth: 74.3 inHeight: 64.1 inCargo Volume Behind, F/R: 58/28 ft3Curb Weight: 3983 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 17.5 sec1/4-Mile: 14.7 sec @ 93 mph120 mph: 28.8 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 secTop Speed (C/D est): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/21/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDDirector, Buyer’s GuideRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 19 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata and a 1965 Corvette convertible and appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More

From the May 1985 issue of Car and Driver.Think of this test as the answer to what to do when you’re caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is your enthusiasm for things automotive: the tingle you feel in your gut when a Ferrari whistles by. The hard place is what you face each morning as your dreams fade and your baby blues pop open: mortgage payments, career goals, and a couple of yelping rug rats to feed. We know it’s hard to accept, but what you need in the garage these days is something practical. Not to worry, bub. This is one of life’s headaches that can be resolved happily. You can have it all—and without huge out­lays of cash. Just listen closely to your friendly doctors at the Car and Driver auto­motive clinic.Your prescription for over-the-road happiness comes from the amorphous market segment known as sports coupes. A sports coupe marries the élan and the inti­macy of a sports car to the practical attributes of a sedan—though the proportions of utility and gusto can vary widely. To us, “sports coupe” means a car that rolls off the assembly line with racy sheetmetal, ex­citing mechanicals, two doors, and at least a vestigial back seat. As definitions go, however, that one’s got holes big enough to drive Mr. Davis’s Suburban through. For one thing, it de­scribes dozens of cars—large, small, ex­pensive, and otherwise. Second, it raises the knotty problem of distinguishing be­tween sports coupes and sports sedans. Is a car a coupe if your mother-in-law can squeeze into the back seat? Is it a sedan just because it isn’t a fastback? You’ve got us. Since some of these distinctions are so blurry they’ll never be resolved, this is where we make two executive decisions. For the purposes of this test, we will focus on the best sports coupes you can buy for about $15,000—give or take a few grand. You can get sports coupes for less, but this kind of money will put you into some pretty impressive machinery. And cars that re­quire you to remortgage your house are definitely not in our program. Parameter number two is that the cars in this test are all outfitted in the European tradition. In other words, no V-8s. As much as we love Z28s and Mustang GTs, this was not to be a test of the big thumpers. Sports coupes built anywhere in the world and sold here were eligible as long as they had fewer than eight cylinders. Winnowing the vast array of candidates down to a manageable few was a matter of a simple staff vote supplemented by well-­timed personal threats. When the snarling and the baring of canines finally subsided, eight contenders emerged—three from America, three from Japan, one from Ger­many, and one German-American hybrid. We had already had first-hand experi­ence with seven of the contenders: the Audi Coupe GT, the Chrysler Laser XE, the Ford Mustang SVO, the Merkur XR4Ti, the Mitsubishi Starion ESI, the Nissan 300ZX two-plus-two, and the Toyota Supra. The eighth, a Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta V-6, was added as the promoter’s option because we suspected that this unknown quantity might have some hidden potential. Two cars that might well have made the cut, the Pontiac Firebird S/E V-6 and the Isuzu Impulse Turbo, were unfortunately not available at the time of this test.The first step in coming to grips with this distinguished group was a thorough shake­down at the test track. Each contestant was put through the full spectrum of C/D accel­eration, braking, and handling tests by the tech department. The perfor­mance results are impressively close when you consider the great diversity of powertrain layouts, engines, and suspen­sion designs. As you can see from the charts, these cars are plenty athletic enough to entertain a serious driver. If you really want to separate the wheat from the chaff, though, you’ve got to hit the road. We did, and with a vengeance. Seven editors, one photographer, and one able­-bodied assistant herded our eight test cars up and down the California coast for three long days. Our 700-mile excursion took us from L.A. to Carmel and back on every conceivable type of road, from mountain switchbacks to straight-shot freeways. We’re happy to report that everyone made it back safe and sound—sans speeding citations. If only the cars had fared so well. We ex­perienced an annoying number of engine failures—more, in fact, than we’d seen in the past five years. The 300ZX expired sud­denly with a broken valve stem a few days after top-speed testing. Fortunately, it was replaced with a fresh two-plus-two a few hours before our road drive. The Starion ESI went into terminal rod knock just after the first leg of mountain-road thrashing and seized up moments later. Despite the heroic efforts of the Mitsubishi public-rela­tions department, the Starion’s replace­ment missed most of the hard-charging two-lane stuff. Mechanical failures weren’t the only sur­prises, as you’ll see when you examine our voting results. Deciphering the numbers is easy. Each editor rated each car in eleven categories on a one-to-five scale. If, say, a car’s handling was great, it earned a five. If it was bad, it got a one. And so on. Ties be­tween cars were allowed. (Two or more cars could each earn a five for handling, for instance.) The results represent the total number of votes each car earned in each category. The scores in the “overall rating” column—our bottom line—were awarded in the same fashion, rather than by averag­ing the scores in the individual categories. So, without further ado, it’s time to tell you what it was like out there and exactly how the King of the Sports Coupes came to earn its crown. The finishers, in reverse or­der, are: 8th Place: Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta It’s clear from our Berlinetta experience that Chevrolet’s interest in sporting Camaros stops with the Z28. The Ber­linetta V-6 proved to be a Percheron among quarter horses in this comparison, destined to go through life with too little motor, run-of-the-mill rubber, and an un­derachiever suspension.We know how good Camaros can be, and we’ve seen how sweet GM’s port-­injected 2.8-liter V-6 is in other cars—but here the two make no music together. At 135 hp, the V-6 has about twenty percent less power than it needs to move the Berlinetta with authority, and it’s surpris­ingly coarse in the upper rev ranges. More noise comes up through the five-speed’s shift boot. The Berlinetta’s ride isn’t bad, but on racer roads, the boulevard-soft suspension lets the car bob and buck enough to make even experts slow down. There’s little salvation in the cockpit. The Berlinetta’s digital tach is impossible to read, and its electronic controls and computerized radio are annoyingly diffi­cult to operate. We picked this Camaro for our test because we thought it had the potential to be tomorrow’s Z28. In spite of its lackluster showing, we still do. A punched-out 3.2-liter version of its V-6 with 165-plus horsepower, along with Z28-quality chassis pieces, would allow the Berlinetta to run with this herd. (On paper, some of this good stuff is already available on the Fire­bird S/E, but it too is saddled with the 2.8 V-6.) For now, a true driver’s Berlinetta is still off somewhere in the wings. Maybe next year…1985 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta135-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3180 lbBase/as-tested price: $11,060/$13,741C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.0 sec1/4 mile: 17.0 sec @ 81 mph100 mph: 30.7 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 242 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.74 g C/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg7th Place: Chrysler Laser XE The Laser’s seventh-place finish is a clear message to sports-coupe makers the world over: strong performance is no long­er enough to keep a car in the front ranks. It takes more. There’s no arguing with the power pro­vided by the Laser’s 146-hp 2.2-liter turbo four-cylinder. It peels off 0-to-60 runs in 8.1 seconds and tops out at 117 mph. In real life there’s an abundance of power un­derfoot in the four lower gears and little turbo lag. The Laser is more than a straight-line specialist, though. It grabs onto twisty roads, and it means business. The steering cuts well, and its good straight-ahead sense makes the XE very stable on the highway. Still, the Laser has one glaring fault that is magnified in the context of this elite group. Its logbook is full of comments like “cheap,” “junky feeling,” and “crude.” The magic ingredient the Laser lacks is, in a word, refinement. The most prominent offender is the drivetrain. What good is a willing engine if it drones all the time? On top of that, the fun of stirring your own gears is diminished by a clunky shift linkage. There’s nothing sophisticated about the Laser’s suspension tuning, either. Around town the ride is stiff. Burning along on ser­pentine roads, it turns downright choppy. The XE premium trim package does nothing but exacerbate the Laser’s prob­lems. The leather upholstery lets you slide around in the turns. The electronic dash is hard to read and contributes a lowball look that this car doesn’t deserve. The Laser may be a runner, but at this price ($14,399) there are other cars that treat you better. 1985 Chrysler Laser XE146-hp turbocharged inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2800 lbBase/as-tested price: $10,362/$14,399C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.1 sec1/4 mile: 16.0 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 25.1 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 206 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpg5th Place (tie): Ford Mustang SVO Body builders pump iron. Mustang SVOs pump boost—fifteen pounds of it, to be exact. That’s enough to make the once lowly 2.3-liter four-cylinder bulge with 200 hp, 25 hp more than last year. (These fig­ures may be revised slightly by the time you read this: we tested a prototype a few months before the beginning of produc­tion.) There are also some minor upgrades for 1985, like flush headlamps, but brute force is this year’s real story. The SVO is Ford’s Porsche 930 Turbo, an old design that’s kept vital with large doses of technology administered by dedi­cated engineer/racers. This strategy works well for the German firm, but it’s a double­-edged sword for Ford, where the engineers have had their hands full trying to make an old car act new. Ford has certainly gotten the SVO’s looks right, and its performance is truly po­tent. It’s the hottest car in this test by far. Fire it down a test track and you’ll see 60 mph in 6.8 seconds, a top speed of 129 mph, and a 0.79-g cornering limit. The SVO also handles itself well on both highways and byways. It likes to be driven briskly on meandering roads. The steering feels direct and sure when you bend into corners. The ride is taut but not too tight. The fat steering wheel feels good, and the short-throw shifter is racer-sharp.But when you push deep into the SVO’s throttle—nothing. A second goes by, and still nothing. Then, whoosh! All of the horses wake up at once, and the SVO snaps your head back. That’s what is known as boost lag. Keeping the turbo on the boil means keeping the revs up, and that translates into a ton of engine noise—all of it the wrong kind. Between the lack of power at low revs and the high-rpm assault on your ears, the SVO is never really happy. It’s enough to make you wish for the 4.9-liter V-8 from the GT.Then there are the minor annoyances: a seat that felt subpar to some of us, a behind-the-times dash, and a silly 85-mph speedo. All this leaves us wanting more from the SVO. We’re glad Ford builds it, but we hope the company can give it the re­finement it so dearly needs. Big biceps just aren’t enough. 1985 Ford Mustang SVO200-hp turbocharged inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3140 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,000/$15,000 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4 mile: 15.1 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 19.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 197 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg5th Place (tie): Nissan 300ZX The 300ZX two-plus-two is the polar op­posite of its fifth-place partner. Where the Mustang SVO is all aggression and rough edges, the 300ZX is civilized and polished. The Mustang is a charger. The 300ZX would rather cruise. We’re of the mind that the 300ZX is a good car for people who are decidedly not serious enthusiasts. In most respects it’s quite pleasant. The three-liter V-6 is one of the slickest powerplants in this test or any­where else—wonderfully smooth and qui­et, with enough oomph to get the job done. The five-speed gearbox shifts crisply, mak­ing for a very refined powertrain. In most day-to-day situations, the 300ZX drives well enough. When you start haring around, though, the ride gets pitchy, the steering goes vague, and you notice that the seat has let you down badly. Worst of all, we can’t imagine why any­one would want to deal with the ZX’s wild­-and-crazy optional digitronic instruments and controls. It’s as if Nissan had said to it­self, “Since this car isn’t an all-out perfor­mance model, it’s gotta have a gimmick.” Make that a couple dozen gimmicks, none of which work out too well. The radio and the climate-control switch gear look as if they were straight out of Mission Con­trol. You’ll need a thorough preflight checkout to operate them. The electronic instruments, which include a pulsating tach, are high on entertainment value but low on ability to deliver information at a glance. All of the other stuff, from the seat’s pump-up thigh support to the accelera­tion-and-braking g-meter, gets old fast. None of this seems like much to fret about until you check the price sticker. The 300ZX starts at a whopping $18,399—gulp—and our test car went out the door for almost twenty-one grand. Now that’s some gimmick. 1985 Nissan 300ZX 2+2160-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3210 lbBase/as-tested price: $18,399/$20,799C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.2 sec1/4 mile: 16.8 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 29.4 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 188 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg4th Place: Mitsubishi Starion ESIGood things have happened to the Starion since we last checked on it­—enough of them to push this car smack into the top echelon of sport coupes. The latest version looks better, handles better, and goes better. No doubt about it, Mitsubishi is really getting with the program. Right off, the Starion looks tastier. Be­fore Chrysler started selling its version, the Conquest, it cooperated with Mitsubishi on cleaning up the design. Now the Starion has the tidy look and the classy detailing of a driver’s car. This year’s new performance model is the ESL. The big improvement is inter­cooling, which bumps the power peak of the 2.6-liter four-cylinder turbo up to 170 hp—a 25-hp improvement. Best of all, this powerplant retains its torquey, big-engine feel. In most situations the throttle re­sponse is so sharp that downshifting is op­tional. When you call for full boost, it’s up in a flash. On balance, this is one of the sharpest turbo setups around. Add suspension that works better than before, and this coupe’s fun-to-drive rating is up with the best of them. The Starion’s body movements are tied down tightly now, but not to the point where the ride gets miserable. The tuning makes it an ace in the mountains. The steering is secure, the cornering is stable, and there’s great power for digging out of the turns. All that’s left is to improve this car’s on-center steering feel and straight-line tracking.We do have mixed emotions about the Starion’s accommodations, though. The driver’s seat is quite good, the driving posi­tion is comfortable, and the analog gauges are easily readable. On the other hand, the controls look and feel tacky. The black vi­nyl that covers most of the cabin is so shiny it makes the interior look like a proving ground for Armor All. We were split on how well the steering-wheel-mounted ra­dio controls work. The touch switches for the heater and the air conditioner can be recalcitrant as well. Nevertheless, we like the latest Starion just fine. Mitsubishi has transformed it into a sophisticated driver’s car, and—more important—it’s a whale of a good time. That’s really what a sports coupe should be all about.1985 Mitsubishi Starion ESI170-hp turbocharged inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3020 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,279/$15,279C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 25.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: NA mpg3rd Place: Merkur XR4Ti A quick look at the ballot sheet will ex­plain how the XR4Ti nipped into third place ahead of the Starion: athletics took a back seat to aesthetics. The look and the feel of this car are intoxicating enough to balance its few mechanical drawbacks. Don’t get us wrong. The XR4Ti is a solid performer in all respects. As our test re­sults show, it can turn on the speed. It also holds its own in the zigs and zags. Its greatest strengths lie elsewhere, how­ever. As you can see from the voting, we think the Merkur’s futuristic shape looks terrific. To Ford’s credit, you can’t tell it from the European Sierra.Inside, the Merkur earns high marks for its swoopy interior design and good ergo­nomics. Its seats are Germanically—and we think correctly—firm. They aren’t adjustable in twelve dozen ways, but you don’t miss that at all. The dash is busy, but the gauges are easy to read, and all of the important controls are easy to access. Even the soft-molded steering wheel feels just right. Sitting in this car is good for your outlook on life.Driving it is no bad thing, either. The ride is supple, just the way you want it around town. The steering is accurate. The motor, a 175-hp nonintercooled version of the SVO powerplant, suffers only minimal turbo lag—though it doesn’t feel nearly as potent as the engines we sampled earlier in prototypes. Ford claims no power loss since our last test, but our sources report that the spark curve was dialed back after some durability questions arose. In any case, the production Merkur is almost a full second slower to 60 mph, and its top speed is down by 6 mph. Although the XR4Ti suffers from no great inadequacies, there is room for im­provement in several areas. Our test Merkur’s engine was coarse enough in the midrange and above to buzz the shifter (previous examples were buttery-smooth right to the redline), and there was some full-throttle surging we hadn’t felt before. The steering lacks a strong on-center feel. Whereas the suspension tuning is excellent in most situations, it’s a tad floaty during canyon acrobatics. You SCCA racers in the audience will also notice significant lift­-throttle oversteer and nonlinearity in the brakes. Such traits take a little getting used to before you can really fly in an XR4Ti. Just the same, there’s a whole lot to like about this car. Not only does it drive well and look great, but it also offers comfort­able seating for four adults, plus the versa­tility of a hatchback and a fold-down rear seat. Just because you’re an automotive aesthete doesn’t mean you have to leave your fam­ily behind.1985 Merkur XR4Ti175-hp turbocharged inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2920 lbBase/as-tested price: $16,361/$17,105C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 25.9 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 208 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg2nd Place: Toyota Supra This is becoming a pattern. We keep putting Supras in tests—a road test, a 30,000-mile test, a handling test, and now this comparo—and they keep doing re­markably well. The Supra was talented right at the start, and it hasn’t lost a step in four seasons.The Supra hasn’t needed much help to keep pace, either. Last year, the power out­put was boosted to 161 hp. This year, there’s a new rear spoiler, a slight change in the gearing, and minor paint revisions, but that’s about it. The Supra’s design—nothing you’d ever call stunning—has aged with surprising grace. Its interior layout remains one of the best in the sports-coupe division. The clean, simple analog-instrument cluster still gets rave reviews. The seat, the driving position, and the pedal placement contin­ue to rate high. We only wish Toyota would simplify the sound system’s controls and fit the Supra with a steering wheel commen­surate with its station in life.The big reason we love this car is that it does everything elegantly and never seems to breathe hard. Around the burbs and out on the freeway it coddles you with a ride that’s cushy but never wobbly. Its straight-­line stability is laser-keen. Lane changes are sharp. The twin-cam six is pure velvet. There is some wind, road, and rear-axle noise, but it’s less than disturbing.When you want to boogie, the Supra is right there to be your partner. The engine howls as if it believed it’s in a BMW. Come to think of it, the whole driving experience is what you’d expect from a big Bimmer coupe. The difference is that we mere mor­tals can afford the Supra. This car’s footwork is nearly flawless. It’s absolutely at home clawing along the jag­ged coastal highways at go-to-jail veloci­ties. Its steering accuracy and feel rival the big-name brands’. And when you make a mistake, the Supra covers for you. So once again we find ourselves crazy about this big Japanese coupe. Its virtues are great, and its vices are small—which sounds like the very definition of a winner. There is, however, one sports coupe that does it all a little bit better… 1985 Toyota Supra161-hp inline-6, 5-speed manual, 3060 lbBase/as-tested price: $16,558/$17,843C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.4 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 25.8 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 209 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg1st Place: Audi Coupe GT Not only are we crowning the Audi Coupe GT the Best Sports Coupe in Amer­ica, but it also wins Biggest Surprise of 1985. The Coupe GT is this year’s secret car, folks. The masses don’t know about it. Even if they did, you’d never see Coupe GTs cluttering up street corners, because Audi brings in only about 4000 a year. Driving this car is a rare treat. No matter what you throw at it—city traffic, mountain twisties, interstates—it never sweats. What we have here is the automotive equivalent of the natural athlete. You wouldn’t know that by checking the Coupe GT’s performance stats. It’s not particularly speedy (0 to 60 in nine seconds flat and a top speed of 115 mph). Nor is it great on the skidpad (0.77 g) or in the sla­lom (57.0 mph, strictly mid-pack).Nope, the Coupe GT’s magic lies else­where. When we leaf through the logbook we kept on this car, we’re almost embar­rassed. Supposedly hardened road testers bubble like wide-eyed kids: “This must be the most expensive car here. It feels like money.”1985 Audi Coupe GT110-hp inline-5, 5-speed manual, 2490 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,250/$16,125C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.0 sec1/4 mile: 16.6 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 34.1 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 209 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpgDirector, Buyer’s GuideRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 19 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata and a 1965 Corvette convertible and appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More

Hybrids are big at Lexus, making up more than 25 percent of the luxury brand’s sales. Nearly every model in the lineup now offers a gas-electric variant, and this kind of powertrain makes sense for the typical Lexus buyer who prioritizes quietness and efficiency above the sporty sounds and performance of Lexus’s V-6 and V-8 engines. The hybrids may seem like a bit of an odd pairing with the F Sport subbrand, but that hasn’t stopped Lexus from offering F Sport packages for even the most milquetoast hybrid models, such as the ES300h.This combination was new to the ES range for 2022, but it’s not just an appearance upgrade anymore. Lexus now offers the F Sport option in two tiers: F Sport Design includes just the visual bits, and F Sport Handling adds a set of adaptive dampers that adjust their firmness based on which driving mode you select. Handling has never really been the ES’s thing, but now that the sportier, rear-wheel-drive GS sedan has disappeared, it seems that Lexus is trying to broaden the front-wheel-drive ES’s appeal beyond those who are simply looking for a Camry with nicer trim and a more prestigious badge.HIGHS: Efficient powertrain, much-improved infotainment, spacious interior.The ES300h F Sport may look the part of a sportier sedan thanks to sharp 19-inch black wheels, a rear spoiler, front seats with aggressive bolstering, and the cool movable gauge cluster bezel first seen in the LFA supercar. But its hybrid drivetrain prefers a slower pace, as the combination of the 2.5-liter inline-four and two electric motors only produces a total of 215 horsepower. In our testing, the F Sport reached 60 mph in a sluggish 7.9 seconds, nearly two seconds slower than a 302-horsepower, V-6-powered ES350.Michael Simari|Car and DriverThe adaptive dampers do their job in the F Sport, stiffening the ride and reducing body roll when you select Sport or Sport+ mode. But that doesn’t mean that the ES300h likes to hustle, as the droning of the gasoline engine, the numb steering, and the lackluster wheel control discourage aggressive back-road antics. Riding on Michelin Primacy MXM4 all-season tires, the ES’s 0.86-g skidpad result and 178-foot stopping distance from 70 mph are behind the far-sportier IS350 sedan’s numbers.More on the Lexus ESOf course, we wouldn’t judge the ES for such dynamic deficiencies if not for the words “Sport” and “Handling” in its name. If you remove the pretense of the F Sport package, it’s a perfectly suitable cruiser. In Normal mode the ride is soft and cosseting, and the cabin is well isolated from road and wind noise. Plus, the ES delivers impressive efficiency for a sedan this size, with an EPA rating of 44 mpg combined. We didn’t get a chance to run this 2023 model in our 75-mph real-world highway fuel economy test, but a mechanically similar 2019 ES300h achieved 45 mpg—enabling a highway range of nearly 600 miles.Our favorite change for the 2023 ES is the reconfigured infotainment system. Lexus mercifully ditched the fussy touchpad controller, moved the display toward the driver so it could function as a touchscreen, and introduced the company’s new infotainment software that has a far simpler menu structure. It’s a wholesale improvement, with our test car’s optional 12.3-inch screen proving easy to navigate, and the selection of hard buttons and volume and tuning knobs provides a welcome respite from touch-sensitive controls.LOWS: Sluggish acceleration, numb steering, not right for F Sport treatment.If we were selecting an ES for ourselves, we’d skip the F Sport line and choose one of the lesser ES350 or ES300h models that reside in the $40,000 range. The ES300h F Sport Handling starts at a steep $50,085, and our well-optioned test car stickered for $54,345. Any number of legitimate sports sedans with rear-wheel drive can be had for similar coin. We think the Lexus ES is perfectly fine as a cushy, spacious, and efficient hybrid luxury sedan—as long as it stays in its lane. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Lexus ES300h F Sport HandlingVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $50,085/$54,345Options: triple-beam LED headlights, $1215; Lexus Interface (12.3-inch touchscreen, navigation), $1030; power trunk, $550; Iridium premium paint, $500; head-up display, $500; door edge guards, $155; carpet trunk mat, $120; SmartAccess key card, $100; rear bumper applique, $90
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4, 176 hp, 163 lb-ft; 2 permanent-magnet synchronous AC motors, 118 hp, 149 lb-ft; combined output, 215 hp; 0.9-kWh (C/D est) lithium-ion battery packTransmission: continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Michelin Primacy MXM4235/40R-19 92V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.0 inLength: 195.9 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 14 ft3Curb Weight: 3793 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4-Mile: 16.2 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 20.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.4 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.0 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 33 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 44/43/44 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

From the April 1988 issue of Car and Driver.Lee Iacocca leads a charmed life. After all the good fortune that has lit up his ca­reer, he finds himself hawking the all-new Eagle. The new Eagle bears no relation to the old American Motors four-wheel­-drive Eagle. This Eagle, in fact, may prove one of Lido’s luckiest strikes.Chrysler, under Iacocca’s guidance, re­cently snapped up American Motors and renamed it Jeep/Eagle. Iacocca has hit such highs several times over the two and a half decades since he bred the original Mustang during his tumultuous times at Ford. When he rode in to Chrysler to save the day, he did so armed with an enor­mous government loan; the corporation quickly harvested massive profits from its new K-car line and paid us taxpayers back. The K-car, however, was not Iacocca’s baby: it was created before Lido hit High­land Park. The wildly successful Caravan/Voyager minivans were in the works, too, before Iacocca arrived. Iacocca has since overseen the births of several other mod­els, but all of them have sprung from the K-car platform—broadenings of its po­tential, but hardly the results of fresh thinking. And now here comes Lido again to fill the picture tubes of the nation, this time enjoying the rub-off from the Eagle Premier—another timely machine with which America’s automotive stepfather had little to do until he walked it down the aisle. The Eagle Premier may prove to be Iacocca’s savviest career move yet. This capable, roomy new sedan was developed by the American Motors Corporation and Renault, AMC’s parental French connec­tion at the time. Renault attempted to bail AMC out of trouble but fell into troubles of its own. Chrysler, by then rolling in dough, stepped in and bailed out Renault by buying AMC. AMC’s on-line assets were pretty much limited to the perennial­ly successful Jeeps. The tinny Renault Alli­ance econobox and the derivative GTA hotbox, though built in America, did not rank as assets of note. The thoughtfully developed Premier, however, undoubted­ly looked to Iacocca and his cohorts like a boon. Imagine Chrysler’s pleasure in discov­ering that the engaging, modestly priced Franco-American Eagle stood ready to fight for nesting rights with every mid-size family sedan on the market. Such worthy birds as the Ford Taurus, the Mercury Sa­ble, the Pontiac 6000, the Buick Century, the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, the Toyota Cressida, the Nissan Maxima, and the nif­ty new Audi 80 and 90 are in for a feather-ruffling. Like many sedans today, the Eagle lifts off on thermals of Audi-like ideas. It even competes with the graceful 5000, which showed the world how high a sleek sedan could soar. As pleased as Chrysler must have been to find its adopted Eagle fully feathered, imagine its shock at learning that AMC and Renault’s handiwork tears the tail feathers out of Chrysler’s own all-Ameri­can family sedans. The Premier was conceived in 1982, when José J. Dedeurwaerder ascended to the throne, such as it was, of AMC. He wanted AMC to broaden its line by devel­oping an upmarket, Euro-flavor sedan, and he wanted Renault to come through with a high-technology plant on this side of the Atlantic. Dedeurwaerder ordered a head-to­-head design runoff that included Giorgetto Giugiaro, the finest head in the business. Italdesign’s Michelangelo of motorware pitted his Turin-based imagi­nation against those of AMC’s Michigan stylists and an independent studio in California. Not surprisingly, the winning shape wears a pair of subtle “Design Giugiaro” badges. AMC and Renault engineers hustled to package a front-drive layout into that shape, allowing room for either a new Jeep-developed four-cylinder or an exist­ing V-6 from the Continent. An all-independent suspension fell nicely into place, plucked with little modification from the then-upcoming Renault Medallion. AMC settled on Canada as its plant site. Dedeurwaerder’s band zeroed in on Bramalea, Ontario, and knocked together a $600 million, 1.8-million-square-foot fa­cility capable of building 150,000 cars per year. The pilot production of the Premier began in December 1986. We received our test car from the regular production line exactly one year later and set off hot for the holidays through a thousand miles of dead winter. Our Premier went through snow and ice as if they were tea and cookies. By the time we’d run a hundred miles, we knew José and Giorgetto had hatched a golden Eagle that promised to lay a golden egg for Lido. Larry Griffin|Car and DriverGiugiaro’s basic trim job comes in two cuts, one an LX luxury version with slim rub strips, the second our ES sport ver­sion with wide bands of protective clad­ding visually connecting the wheel wells. The ES’s suspension settings are firmer than the LX’s, with 20-percent-stiffer springs up front and sport valving in the front struts’ integral shock absorbers. Gas-pressure Fichtel & Sachs shocks cush­ion the trailing-arm, torsion-bar-sprung rear suspension, providing snugger control than you’ll feel in the LX. Working away between suspension and road are 6.0-by-14-inch alloy wheels and 205/70, HR-rated Goodyear Eagle GT+4 all­-weather performance tires. The slimmer stance of the LX, thanks to 5.5-inch-wide steel wheels and 185/75R-14 tires, presents a smaller frontal area, for a Cd of 0.30. The more sporting ES, not yet tun­neled, would probably produce a less out­standing result. The Eagle’s steering winds and unwinds with reassuring sensi­tivity, especially for a package with 63.4 percent of its 3052 pounds on its nose. The front tires feel anything but overburdened. Not so the brakes, however: though normally firm of pedal, the vented front discs and the small rear drums re­quire 218 feet to stop the ES from 70 mph. The chassis package also produces modest, 0.75-g skidpad cornering. Driven semi-sanely, though, the ES tracks around the trickery of real roads like a pleasantly compliant leech. Its inspiring predictabili­ty goads you to embarrass luckless dozoids wheeling demonstrably grippier hardware. The LX’s standard 2.5-liter four-bang­er is good, but its optional 3.0-liter six is better. Fittingly, the ES gets the V-6 only. Jointly developed in Sweden and France by Volvo, Peugeot, and Renault, the six owns a heritage of hundreds of millions of miles in 760s, 505s, and R25s. It features single overhead cams, all-aluminum con­struction, Bendix fuel injection refined by Eagle, tuned intake runners, semi-hemi combustion chambers, a one-piece main-­bearing “girdle” for improved rigidity, a forged crank and forged connecting rods, and an air-conditioning compressor fitted directly to the engine, without any intervening brackets. The results: all-around smoothness, 150 hp at 5000 rpm, and 17 mpg on the EPA city cycle. Happily, our ES delivered 21 mpg under combined caning and cruising. Caned long enough, it stretched out to 126 mph. The overdrive top gear of the ES’s four­-speed automatic makes a direct contribu­tion to its top speed. The V-6 arrives in ei­ther model exclusively with a German-­built ZF automatic; the LX’s standard four-cylinder comes with a French-built four-speed automatic of Renault-Volks­wagen origins. Although a middling per­former, with a 10.2-second 0-to-60 time, the ES moves down the highway with little fuss. Giugiaro’s wedgy shape and wind­-soothing particulars, unlike those of many aero cars, mesh with smooth and linear rack-and-pinion power steering to make the ES all but imperturbable in blustery winds. At city speeds, however, the ZF hunts gears; it also downshifts noticeably when you slow. The Premier’s column-­mounted plastic shifter, curled like a nine-­iron that got caught in a revolving door, pokes up just beyond normal reach, re­quiring a few practice grasps. Larry Griffin|Car and DriverThe ES’s standard analog instruments are easy to read. The optional electronic layout can’t compare. Two Subaru-esque control pods straddle the steering col­umn, with soft-touch, electronic-contact buttons and sliders. The climate-control readout fits neatly into the lower right cor­ner of the dash pod. The turn signals don’t always readily engage, and it takes a while to get used to their spacey, electron­ic beeps. The ES’s cabin squelches most outside noise, though the suspension sends up regular drumbeats from the asphalt jun­gle when the native potholes grow rest­less. Luckily, such warlike sounds can’t compete with the worthy output of the standard Renault/Jensen AM/FM/cas­sette stereo’s eight speakers. Our ES arrived with simple manual seats that kept us calm and comfortable, even on longer-than-day-long drives. These mild buckets offer only fore-and-aft and backrest adjustments, but their gentle contour and velour upholstery are just fine. (Six-way power seats are optional.) The standard tilt steering wheel’s low-­slung dual spokes (which contain the cruise controls if you select that option) clear a visual path to the gauges and con­trols. Normally we detest having only low-­slung spokes for leverage, but the ES’s leather wheel provides enough grip to compensate. Compensating is what many Premier competitors may now have to do. The Ea­gle’s space utilization leaves former trend­setters elbowing for room. Compared with interiors whose shortcomings have become more apparent as time has gone by—the big Audi’s, for instance, which of­fers only 97 cubic feet of space—the Pre­mier is substantially airier and leggier, of­fering 105 cubic feet. Eagle back-seaters are even free to stretch their feet fully forward beneath the front seats. Considering such benefits, Premier prices run low to moderate, varying from a base of about $11,500 for the not-too-­basic LX to an opening bid of $14,079 for the genuinely juicy ES. Squeeze in A/C, a rear defroster, power windows and locks, remote fuel-filler and trunk-lid releases, and an infrared system that locks or un­locks the doors when you press a button on your key ring, and you wing away with a $16,149 Eagle. Our Premier, except for an ashtray buzz, felt as if it were ready to take on the devil himself. And it’s a sure bet to scare hell out of its competition. CounterpointWhen Chrysler swallowed AMC, we flinty-eyed industry observers won­dered if Lee Iacocca would end up with a bellyache. The Jeep franchise was wholesome enough, but the passenger­-car side dish smelled rotten. AMC’s plate was piled high with Alliance left­overs, Medallions of Renault, and more than a few Eagle carcasses. Something named the Premier was still in the oven.Now Uncle Lido is sitting back and patting his belly contentedly. The moldy AMC sedans have been tossed into the garbage, and the Premier makes a fine main course. The Premier, in fact, is much tastier than any of Chrysler’s home-cooked se­dans. It’s roomy and comfortable, and its looks are passable. If you’re planning on dropping twelve grand on a sedan, the Premier is well worth a look—and that’s not something I’d say about Chrysler’s other sedans. To this report­er, the Premier sounds suspiciously like a case of just desserts. —Rich Ceppos For a while after Renault departed from these shores, it looked as if all you weird-car buyers would have to go cold turkey. Either that or switch to Subaru. But now the weirdness is back. Eagle has picked up the franchise. The way the Premier’s shift lever snakes up from behind the heater con­trols, like a cobra in a crosswind, is pret­ty weird. The turn-signal lever, pivoting on an east-west axis, is wonderfully cockeyed, too. And the pod-mounted heater controls will stump any Ph.D. in Aristotelian logic.Still, weird as this stuff undeniably is, can it carry the whole car? The Giugiaro shape is generic four-door and perfectly forgettable. The rear suspension incor­porates a record number of torsion bars, but you won’t notice that when you’re driving. The longitudinal engine orientation is rare for front-drivers, but it probably won’t start any fights. Mostly, we’re talking minor-league oddities here. I’m wondering if the French cashed out because the Premier came up short of weirdness specs. —Patrick BedardThis fledgling Eagle should go a long way toward improving Chrysler’s im­age. Chryslers have been known as hon­est cars that offer a good blend of value, efficiency, and reasonable performance. Unfortunately, they’ve also been known for lacking the refinement and the driv­ing finesse to rank with the world’s best. The new Eagle Premier isn’t going to change that reputation in one miracu­lous swoop, but it’s already soaring far above the corporation’s other products. The Premier has that hard-to-pin­-down subjective “feel” that’s so essen­tial to overall driving satisfaction. Its controls, though not up to Honda stan­dards, are smooth, responsive, and for the most part well placed. On the road, the Premier follows your lead easily, arcing through bends with a grace not found in other Chrysler offerings. The ride is equally pleasing, possessing the firm yet well-damped feel of a well-sort­ed European sedan. To fly with the best, Chrysler need only follow this Eagle’s lead. —Arthur St. AntoineArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1988 Eagle Premier ESVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $14,504/$16,149Options: air conditioning, $837; power window and lock group (includes power windows and locks, remote trunk and fuel-filler releases, and keyless entry system), $660; rear defroster, $148.
ENGINESOHC V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 182 in3, 2975 cm3Power: 150 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 171 lb-ft @ 3750 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arm/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 10.4-in vented disc/8.9-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GT +4 M+SP205/70HR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.5 inLength: 192.7 inWidth: 69.8 inHeight: 55.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/49 ft3Trunk Volume: 16 ft3Curb Weight: 3052 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.5 sec60 mph: 10.2 sec1/4-Mile: 17.5 sec @ 81 mph100 mph: 31.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.5 secTop Speed: 126 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 218 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 21 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 17/26 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More