Car Reviews

From the January 1999 issue of Car and Driver.Al Zadeh’s long-running affair with convertibles began shortly after his arrival from Iran nearly 20 years ago. While at the University of Southern California pursuing a chemical-engi­neering degree, Zadeh’s personal cars were always convertibles. Now he runs his own conversion company, Newport Con­vertible Engineering, in Placentia, Cali­fornia, where he lops the metal tops off anything you care to bring him.Take this BMW 740iL, for example. It’s a long-wheelbase car with four doors, and the German automaker did not design it to go topless, but neither the car’s Floridian owner nor Al Zadeh let that stop them. And now, $22,000 and innumerable worker-hours later, the Bimmer wears a new toupee—a power top. Cutting the roof off any sedan severely compromises its rigidity. To brace the 740iL’s unibody, NCE welds a maze of two-by-two-inch square-section hollow tubing underneath the floorpan. Tubes run the length of the rocker sills—laterally from one rocker to the other and diago­nally from the ends of the rockers to the center. The reinforcements reduce ground clearance by an inch or so, but they look strong. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverTwo-by-one-inch tubes extend verti­cally to the highest point in the cowl structure in front and to the shock towers in the rear, tying these to the underbody frame. Finally, Zadeh adds a “trunk bridge”—a tubular arch running between the main frame members. It’s visible in the trunk, but it intrudes mini­mally on luggage space.Removing the roof produces other prob­lems. The 740iL’s door glass runs in window frames. Cut­ting the frames off would leave the win­dows unsupported, but leaving the window frames in their entirety would look extremely dorky. So NCE removes just the upper rail of the front window frame and everything but the B-pillar upright on the rear window frame. When the doors are shut, with the top either up or down, this arrangement looks okay. Open a front door, and you’re treated to the peculiar sight of two frame uprights ending in grommeted stump. It isn’t par­ticularly stylish. A “basket handle” hoop runs over the car between the B-pillars, providing a brace for the body, a support for the top, and a handy place to fit a dome light and two map-reading lights. Sawing off the roof (and rear window) also removes the integrated radio antenna, so the BMW now wears a conventional mast antenna mounted in the rear quarter-panel. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverRear-seat space suffers, too, in this con­version. The articulating top structure and the hydraulic rams consume so much space that the outboard bolsters of the bucketed seats are completely removed. Occupants are therefore displaced inboard where they must ride a hump. We think a more artful solution would have been to remove the center armrest and squeeze the two bucket seats together. With its top up, the BMW has a profile similar to that of the stock sedan, although the C-pillar area is now huge and the plastic rear window is smaller than the original backlight. The windshield header has a one-inch channel to accept the top’s leading edge. It is clipped in place by two overcentering clamps and fits flush. This helps cut noise and top lift, both of which seemed quite tolerable during a brief test drive. In fact, the BMW retains a lot of the composure and tranquillity it had when it wore a steel top. The folded top stacks up about six to eight inches above the trunk, but the snap-on boot covers it tidily. On the move, the car exhibits some cowl shake over bumps, but no more than most factory convertibles do.The only question remaining is how well the car will hold together over time. Zadeh is confi­dent. He does a lot of conversions—about 65 in ’97, including a Lincoln Mark VIII, a Mercedes S-class and an E-class coupe, and a Lexus LS400. He hoped to finish off ’98 with 100. From body reinforcement through mechanism design and fabrication to canvas top-making tasks, every aspect of the work is handled in-house by Zadeh’s 15-member team. Our BMW went directly from the showroom to NCE with fewer than 100 miles on it. For its owner, that’s almost like buying a new, factory-made convertible. To us, it seems like a remarkable leap of faith. Newport Convertible Engineering1025B South MelrosePlacentia, California 92870;714–632–3287This content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the April 1993 issue of Car and Driver.Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II, is not revered for her sense of fashion, nor for her immeasurable wealth, nor even for her prowess at lawn bowling. Her subjects revere her for the impeccable breeding and heritage that she and the centuries-old British Crown represent (or at least once did). Where manners, refinement, and class are con­cerned—not to mention sensible shoes­—the queen is the world’s leader. Similarly, Mercedes-Benz’s new 600SL will not be appreciated for flashy styling, a huge price tag, or supercar performance, but rather for the understated and over­engineered way in which these qualities are integrated. In terms of class and refine­ment, the 600SL is also a world leader. Mercedes has taken the 500SL, a superlative two-place grand-touring con­vertible we likened to a modern-day Duesenberg SJ in our December 1989 road test, and infused it with smoothness, swiftness, quietness—or, in a word, “V-12ness.” SLs have always been lav­ishly expensive, and the 600 is no excep­tion. Simply put, anyone reading this is only slightly less likely to ascend to the British throne than to own this car. Mercedes say nine hundred rich Americans will have the opportunity to write on the second line of a check, in tiny letters: One hundred thirty-two thousand, one hundred-ninety dollars and no cents. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverThat sum will, of course, include an integrated cellular telephone, a six-disc CD changer, Adaptive Damping Control, and heated seats, all of which cost extra on a 500SL. Only the lumbar-adjustable seats and choice of color remain as options. HIGHS: Regal deportment; swift, silent drivetrain.These people will have The Best. More expensive Rolls, Bentley, and Aston Martin convertibles perhaps offer superior status in some circles, but vastly inferior engineering comes with them. This Mercedes isn’t a conspicuous con­sumer’s car. There’s a 600SL badge on the trunk, two small V-12 emblems on the front fenders, and a longer front bumper—­that’s all that distinguishes this car from a 300SL, which will impress the proletariat equally well for 68 cents on the dollar. Inside, the V-12 SL is lavished with extra walnut veneer. Walnut roll-top cov­ers conceal the console-mounted ashtray and cassette-tape holders, and the leather-topped shifter has a wood-covered shank. Mercedes’ singular ability to cover such complex surfaces with genuine wood is remarkable. Convertible Comparisons From the ArchiveInside and out, this is one of the most elegant and beautiful shapes on the road. Only a bare minimum of details adorn its long majestic hood and a short deck—the classic “cab-back” shape. The car is three years old, but its style will remain contem­porary for years. Its snug-fitting aluminum top and incredibly complicated fully auto­matic soft top are benchmarks for the con­vertible industry. Still, the real “value” lies just beneath that long hood. In moving Mercedes’ top-drawer 48-valve 6.0-liter V-12 from the S-class into the SL’s smaller quarters, revisions were made to the oil sump, the manifolding, the air filter, and the accessory drive. For­tunately, every bit of its 389 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque survived the move. To secure crashworthiness with the larger engine, the front bumper is extended subtly for two inches of additional crush space. So what is it like to drive? Special. Like a nuclear-powered hovercraft. Like the Concorde, or the bullet train. Phenom­enal. To talk numbers is to bourgeoisify the experience. Suffice to say that the Mercedes-Benz 600SL is quicker than a Ferrari 348tb, a BMW M5, and many other exotic sports and GT cars.LOWS: Two-and-a-quarter-ton handling dynamics. With an SL, it’s not the speed, but how well the speed is achieved that counts. Several editors here were shocked to hear the spectacular performance numbers, because the car is so smooth and quiet that it doesn’t feel like an ultra-high-perfor­mance car. Push the accelerator through its long, linear travel to the floor, and without the screech of wheelspin you’re off. In the time it takes to speed-dial your broker, you’ll be over most speed limits. Before the answering machine picks up—and you’ll be able to hear it fine, as there is no multivalve banshee howl to drown it out—you’ll be nearing double the limits. By the time you’ve finished recording your sell-IBM order, if you’ve left your foot planted, the speedometer needle will have come gently to rest at its governed 155-mph limit. Your heart rate will not have risen appreciably and your palms will not be sweating, because without the aerodynamic lift or skitteriness that afflicts lesser 150-plus-mph cars at speed, the 600SL remains firmly planted on the road, the steering wheel resting calmly in your hands. An amazingly rigid body and two and a quarter tons of road-hugging weight help provide the smoothest, most supple ride of any 99-inch-wheelbase convertible extant. However, asking those 4524 pounds to change direction quickly makes for bad physics. Running a gymkhana in the 600SL would be like asking Her Majesty to run a boot-camp obstacle course. Gradual high-speed corners are navigated with aplomb, however, and the big brakes are well up to the task of shedding speed prior to entering the tightest corners. The 600SL has the S-class computer-controlled brake system, which reduces rear brake pressure during cornering to prolong limit­-braking prior to ABS intervention. The 315-horsepower 500SL is arguably the better car for the pure driving enthusi­ast. At the track, it is roughly a second slower to 60 mph, but it tips the scales 300 pounds lighter, which makes it feel much more willing to hustle down twisty mountain roads. The V-8 inherently emits a less smooth, more visceral and sporty­-sounding exhaust note, which adds to the driving fun and further highlights the different mission of the “cheaper” $107,660 SL. Is the 600SL a perfect car with no room for improvement? Is the queen infallible? Heavens no. The cockpit ergo­nomics remain Germanically unintuitive, requiring a thorough study of the owner’s manual to completely comprehend; in the winter, the climate-control system blows cold air with gusto until the heater core warms up (most systems today are intelligent enough to wait). Part-throttle upshifts are rather abrupt, some buttons and switches require very high effort, and the seat backrests are too flat and hard. VERDICT: The ultimate con­vertible, if not the ultimate car. Clearly, there can be no reasonable rationalization for owning a car like this. But it’s The Best, and being rich means never having to rationalize. There is only one queen of England, and there is only one 600SL. God save the queen and the little red car. CounterpointThe 500SL provides every automo­tive indulgence known to man, includ­ing the world’s most effortless convertible top. What makes the 600SL $24,000 better? How about effortless speed? The 500 is fast, but the 600 is faster and it never breathes hard. The V-12 provides sharp getaways from rest without any jerky first-gear kick­downs. And on the freeway, a gentle squeeze of the right pedal provides more pull than most cars offer when you try to punch their accelerators through the floor. I’m not sure it’s worth 24 grand, but it sure is nice. —Csaba CsereI have some difficulty bringing my emotional response to the 600SL in line with my objective realizations. I mean, the SL hardly needs a six-liter V-12 engine just to move two people, and the marginal performance increases over the 500SL can’t justify the big engine or the higher price of this extravagant transplant. But it only takes a day in this splendid vehicle to smash those sensible arguments to dust. The smoothness, solidity, power, and mechanical harmony of it is gloriously intoxicating. Despite the price, I bet Mercedes moves them all. —Barry WinfieldI keep thinking what a sacrifice Barry Bonds will have to make to pay for his 600SL. He is going to have to play three whole baseball games! It’s going to cost him six or seven hours and maybe sixteen at-bats! But hey, on the short list of cars to kill for, I’d get in the ring with Mike Tyson for this one. (Did I say cars to kill for, or cars to be killed for?) I gotta fill up this space, cause describing this car is a one-word exer­cise: perfection. Okay, if you want a niggle, for 132 grand the shelf behind the seats should be lined in something other than cotton carpet. Like, how about gold fleece? —Steve SpenceSpecificationsSpecifications
1993 Mercedes-Benz 600SLVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICEBase/As Tested: $132,190/$132,190
ENGINEDOHC 48-valve 6.0-liter V-12, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 365 in3, 5987 cm3Power: 389 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 420 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 11.8-in vented disc/10.9-in discTires: Michelin MXM225/55ZR-156
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 99.0 inLength: 178.0 inWidth: 71.3 inHeight: 51.3 inPassenger Volume: 50 ft3Cargo Volume: 8 ft3Curb Weight: 4524 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.5 sec100 mph: 13.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.1 sec @ 102 mph130 mph: 25.2 sec150 mph: 38.8 mphRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.83 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 13/18 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the May 1993 issue of Car and Driver.Travelers out west are familiar with signs that warn “DO NOT DRIVE INTO SMOKE.” One of these signs should be bolted to the convex fiberglass rump of the 1993 ZR-1. At least while you’re conducting 0-to-60 accel tests—purely in the name of science, of course—with the traction control disengaged. I mean, you wouldn’t think that any engine short of something concocted by John Force could so instantly transform two twelve-inch strips of gooey Eagle GS­-C into a dense and acrid wall of smoke the color of Flint Ink’s Butterfinger blue. But this is what 405 horsepower can do for you. Also, this is what 405 horsepower can do for your insurance agent’s complexion. But never mind that. The big news is that the ZR-1 finally offers the power it should have generated when the engine was introduced in 1989. Jim Minneker, the Corvette Group’s powertrain manager, and the people at MerCruiser in Stillwater, Oklahoma, have extracted another 30 horsepressure, raising the ante to 405, a figure that always evokes a gasp and a “Holy smokes!” or two when it is divulged to onlookers. (If that doesn’t do it, mention casually that second gear is good for 84 mph.) Torque is up, too, but by only 15 pound-feet, raising the count to a not-insubstantial 385 pound-feet at 5200 rpm.Twenty of those horses were obtained when the plenum and the intake runners were polished and, as Minneker says, “generally opened up.” Moreover, says an insider, “finally a little bit of porting and matching is going on—so few ZR-1s are being sold [4600 to date] that there’s time.” The valve inserts now have what is known as a “three-face cut” for less turbulent air/fuel flow—a trick plagiarized from hot-rodders with black gunk permanently clogged under their fingernails. And a new spacer ensures closer alignment of the ports and the injector manifold itself. In addition, the LT5 is filled with platinum-­tipped plugs, which are hotter than last year’s, and the engine glides exclusively on synthetic Mobil 1.The remaining 10 hp, says Minneker, resulted from a reduction in backpressure. GM seems a little embarrassed by this, but the 2.25-inch tubes in the resonators of last year’s LT1 were flowing more freely than the 1.75-inch versions strapped to the ZR-1. The King of the Hill now wears its less beastly brother’s resonators and breathe a little easier in the bargain. C/D readers may recall that our favorite Corvette aftermarket fiddler, John Lingenfelter, went through the same ZR-1 cleanup program, perhaps more conscientiously, in July of 1991. He came up with a bonus of 80 horsepower, bringing the total to “an easy 455.” Since then, he says, “I’ve worked harder and am seeing as much as 485 horsepower. There’s a ton of untapped potential in a ZR-1.” (If you want more of this untapped stuff, drive your ZR-1 to Lingenfelter’s in Decatur, Indiana, and hand him $13,500.) In any event, the new-and-improved 1993 ZR-1 is every bit as docile around town as last year’s, which is to say it is like driving any other current Corvette. In fact, we’re now even less aware of the secondary inlet port banging open. What’s more, in the middle of this test, the firmament over Michigan divested itself of six inches of snow, slush, and ice. You wouldn’t expect tires that look as though they’ve been stolen from Steve Kinser’s sprint car to work on an ice rink. But when they’re combined with the Corvette’s effective traction control (whose technical, but ridiculous, name is “Acceleration Slip Regulation”), the ZR-1 does as well as a 405-horsepower Zamboni. Trust us, this is a claim that cannot be made for either a Mazda RX-7 or a Toyota MR2 Turbo. So how fast is 405 horsepower on dry pavement? With a smoke-warning sign hanging on the ZR-1’s tail, 60 mph is yours in 4.7 seconds. (The first ZR-1 we ever tested hit 60 in 4.6 seconds, though that’s mostly testimony to the unpredictable tolerance with which MerCruiser tended to assemble engines. Two subsequent ZR-1s tackled 60 in an identical 4.9 seconds—a figure we accepted as the norm.) The 1993 ZR-1 carries on through the quarter-mile in 13.1 seconds at 111 mph, then eventually attains 179 mph—6 mph beyond the average top speed of previous ZR-1s. On the way there, the huge inch-­high speedometer digits flick past like bicycle spokes fanning a baseball card. Not in individual units but in clumps: 3 mph here, 5 mph there. Skidpad grip is up, too, from a past ZR-1 average of 0.88 g to a leech-like 0.92 g. Thank you, Mr. Goodyear.In fact, the 1993 ZR-1’s accelerative résumé, all the way from the 7-Eleven lot to top speed, is almost identical to the limited-production Porsche 911 Turbo S2’s—”the fastest Porsche in the land.” Which, we should point out, is more expensive by an amount that permits you to purchase both this ZR-1 and, say, a Lexus GS300 for those days when only Interstating is on the menu. The new ZR-1’s speed makes even General Motors fidget. On its official spec sheet, under the “Performance” heading, Chevrolet lists EPA mileage and drag coefficient (0.33, if you’re wondering), then moves right on, uttering nary a hint that this car surpasses the highest U.S.-legal speed by, ah, 114 mph. To nail 60 mph sooner and less expensively, you’ll have to buy a $35,660 LT1 and haul it to Lingenfelter, who’ll lay his magical smog-legal “383 Kit” on the thing. This will raise your investment to $50,000 but will launch you to 60 mph a half-second sooner than a ZR-1 can. Which has nothing to do with production cars, of course, but neither does Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, a topic that comes up in conversation almost as often. We’ve come to expect eyeball-popping brakes on Corvettes. The new ZR-1, with its frying-pan thirteen-inch front rotors, does not disappoint. No kidding: from 70 mph, if you dropkick the Bosch ABS IIU into maximum grab, it’s like some sort of amusement-park ride. Loose items slam into the dash, the passenger’s seatback lunges a half-inch, your ears feel as if they may fold forward and cover your eyes, and the car comes to rest in 161 feet. Some feat for a 3500-pounder. Eight feet better than a Ferrari 512TR, in fact. To regularly equal this sort of braking, shift your posterior and wallet to cars assembled in Zuffenhausen—which, as we all know, is not as easy to pronounce as Bowling Green. The ZR-1 you see here was kitted out with a 40th Anniversary package, which you can order on any Corvette (assuming you have an extra $1455 earmarked for general lifestyle enhancement, although it’s a no-cost option on the ZR-1). The deal includes exclusive “Ruby Red” metallic paint, matching wheel hubs, four chrome emblems (with which we could gladly dispense), special embroidery on each headrest (right where it gets smeared by Vitalis), and Ruby Red leather seats. Okay, okay. The ZR-1’s clutch is still Caterpillar heavy, and the computer-assisted shift that occurs at low speeds to force a first-to-fourth selection is still an irritating intrusion. Also, no one can distinguish your chic ZR-1 from Billy Ray’s base LT1, the doorsill remains a hurdle plucked right from a 100-meter event, the bar-graph fuel gauge is as easily discernible as a 1040 form, the hood still goes all epileptic over railroad tracks, and, at only 3200 miles, our ZR-1’s glovebox door mimicked the sound of Leona Helmsley’s fingernails dragging across a blackboard. Yet, as our editor, Csaba Csere—a man who poses questions that would embarrass Larry King—put it: “Name another production car this reliable and cheap that you could drive as happily at 179 mph.”Apart from the toe of my shoe carving interesting Rorschach patterns in the office carpet, there was silence.The Latest in Door-Locking MagicPower locks have become common­place, and remote-control unlock­ing devices have lost their zoot. Now, Chevrolet introduces the latest thing in trick openers—the world’s first Passive Keyless Entry system (PKE). It is now possible to run through a blizzard, arms full of groceries and mittens on hands, and have your Corvette magically unlock itself as you approach. Here’s how it works. Step within about six feet of the car while carrying your keys—even in a pocket or a purse—and the system disarms the alarm and unlocks either the driver’s door or both doors, depending on the mode you have selected. To lock up, just walk out of that range; five seconds later the car locks, rearms the alarm, and confirms the maneuver with a single toot of the horn (unless the key has been left in the ignition). The hardware behind this magic includes a transmitter in the key fob that broadcasts a very low frequency signal—120 kHz, versus 300 MHz for a standard remote entry system—to two antennas, one located in the driver’s door and one near the rear hatch (or passenger door in a convert­ible). One million transmitter codes ensure security. When the transmitter in the key fob comes into range, it acti­vates the system by completing an elec­tromagnetic field, somewhat like the coupling of two windings in a trans­former. So PKE is entirely different than today’s radio or infrared remote systems. To prolong its battery life, the key fob only transmits a signal while in motion, which can cause a problem for those who leave keys sitting on a seat in the car. When the transmitter shuts off (after 30 seconds without motion), the car presumes it is out of range and locks the car. With luck, jiggling the car can reactivate the transmitter and unlock the doors, but Chevy warns against relying on this approach. The PKE draws about one milliamp of current from the vehicle battery at all times—about as much as the clock and the radio station preset memory draw—so Chevy recommends that you disconnect the battery before storing the car for long periods. There are no current plans to extend PKE to other models. But because the system adds considerable convenience for about $145, we expect it to go the way of power locks and wind up in the majority of high-line cars. —Frank MarkusSpecificationsSpecifications
1993 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $70,511/$70,511
ENGINEDOHC 32-valve 5.7-liter V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 350 in3, 5727 cm3Power: 405 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 385 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION
6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.0-in vented disc/12.0-in vented discTires: Goodyear Eagle GS-CF: 275/40ZR-17R: 315/35R-17
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.2 inLength: 178.5 inWidth: 73.1 inHeight: 46.3 inPassenger Volume: 48 ft3Cargo Trunk Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 3529 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.7 sec100 mph: 10.6 sec1/4-Mile: 13.1 sec @ 111 mph130 mph: 18.3 sec150 mph: 28.3 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.3 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 12.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 12.9 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 179 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 161 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.92 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpgEPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 18/15/23 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the July 1992 issue of Car and Driver.You should probably be sitting down when you read what these cars cost. We all know that Cadillac, Jaguar, and Mercedes-Benz make interesting automobiles and that convertibles are always premium models. And there’s no question that the Allanté, the XJS, and the 300SL have great appeal. But they all have serious shortcomings, too. We’re not sure that should be allowed at these prices.Look what the combined efforts of car-company marketers and government revenuers have done. Counting manufacturer’s suggested retail price, freight, gas-guzzler penalty, and luxury tax, the Jaguar XJS convertible now costs nearly $72,000. And except for the folding top and numerous detail refinements, it is the same basic car the company introduced in 1975: elegant, yes, but also heavy, cramped, and thirsty. And it’s still hobbled by the same slushy GM three-speed automatic transmission—which GM quit using generations ago. The Mercedes-Benz 300SL is the newest design here and clearly the most modern. But it is also the most flagrantly priced car, at an astounding $90,335. That hit would perhaps be a little easier to take if a $12,000 Ford Escort LX-E didn’t trounce the ostensibly sporty Benz by a full second in 0-to-60 and the standing quarter-mile.Then there’s the Cadillac Allanté, the bargain-basement ragtop of this group at $64,843. The new Northstar four-cam V-8 is a gem, but Allantés have been too expensive ever since the original was introduced at $56,000 (in 1986 dollars). Even if its competitors’ price increases have somewhat outstripped its own, the Allanté forges on into the $60,000 bracket with its flexible structure and problematic top still intact.Of course, these are flash cars, selected by emotion more than logic. But every judgment of an automobile must be made with one eye on the asking price. With that firmly in mind, we set off with these exclusive convert­ibles: the new 1993 Allanté, with its 32-valve V-8 engine, friendlier seats, and revamped rear suspension (C/D, February 1992); the XJS, which sports some subtly revised sheetmetal and a reworked inte­rior (C/D, July 1991); and the 3.0-liter six-cylinder version of Mercedes’ SL two-seater, unchanged since its 1990 debut (C/D, September 1989). We gath­ered performance data at Willow Springs Raceway and ran up a zillion miles loop­ing through the coastal mountains to Ojai and Santa Barbara before droning back to Los Angeles. Then we pondered the meaning of it all, and let the scores fall where they might.And fall they did. Note that the Overall Rating numbers, in addi­tion to clustering almost too close to call, barely broke out of the low eighties. The win­ning score was the lowest in recent comparison-test history. It’s almost a shame to cite winners and losers under such circumstances, but here is our call.3rd Place: Jaguar XJS V12Many of us have long had a place in our hearts for the velvety V-12 Jaguar sports tourer. The XJS enjoyed an exten­sive, if subtle, rework for 1992, incorporat­ing new headlamps, taillamps, and grille, plus faintly bolder contouring of the rocker panels and hood bulge. (The coupe version also had its rear-quarter windows reshaped.) And a complete refurbish inside included new power-adjustable seats, a new wheel, and a new instrument panel with proper round gauges set in walnut. HIGHS: Great to be seen in, rides like the QE2.LOWS: Too many details feeling too dated. VERDICT: There will always be an England; this XJS, too?Despite the upgrades, however, the XJS remains an aging design. Modern effi­ciencies—0f space, weight, and energy—go unrecognized by this regal conveyance. The huge engine/transmission assembly squeezes passenger space, and the conver­sion to a soft-top transform an already weighty two-plus-two coupe into a stag­geringly heavy (4160-pound) two-seater­—one that turned a gallon of unleaded premium into heat and smog every thirteen miles on our trip. More on the Jaguar XJDoes all this mean we didn’t like driv­ing the XJS convertible? Hardly. The big Jag rides beautifully, it has a sleek look and a stately demeanor, it makes respectable time over most roads, and it is in many ways the most flattering car of this group to be seen in. Though the steer­ing feels more vague and slow than we like, the car can be guided through bends with fine balance—impressive, given the extremely soft suspension. And any time the tach is showing over 4000 rpm, the big V-12 can deliver good thrust. So cer­tainly for posing, cruising, touring, and swooping through the mountains at a six-tenths pace, the XJS does the job. But for 5.3 liters and a quoted 276 horsepower, the big twelve doesn’t deliver much kick. Only the presence of the embarrassingly underpowered 300SL saved the XJS from the wrong kind of performance distinction in this test. And the V-12 gets little help from the Turbo-Hydramatic three-speed auto­matic; this transmis­sion works fine by decade-old standards, but today its shifts feel lazy and its selector lever balky. The Jag scores pretty well as a con­vertible. It suffers only minor drafts in the open cockpit, and its easy-to-manage top mechanism—manual latches and power up-down, but a too-tight snap-on boot—is surpassed here only by the Mercedes’ magical one-touch system. In body stiff­ness, though, the XJS takes the booby prize, flexing and shaking more than the others. Frankly, for anyone who doesn’t need to have a convertible, the XJS coupe makes a vastly better automobile, with much greater structural rigidity, more use­ful space, 200 fewer pounds, and a pricetag $7000 friendlier.1992 Jaguar XJS V12290-hp V-8, 3-speed automatic, 4815 lbBase/as-tested price: $71,888/$71,888C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.3 sec120 mph: 45.9 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.73 g C/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg2nd Place: Mercedes-Benz 300SLHopping into today’s Mercedes two­-seater and feeling the solidity and quality, we could almost forgive Daimler-Benz for dragging the hallowed 300SL name down off its pedestal and thrusting it into the melee of the modern market. Then we stood on the throttle for a quick getaway and got all steamed up again. This thing should have been at least a 320SL, using the 3.2-liter six now fitted in the 300SE. That engine’s fourteen-percent torque advantage would be a help because, as it is, the SL’s 3980 pounds completely overwhelm the poor little 3.0-liter six. HIGHS: Body rigidity, five-speed automatic, robo-top.LOWS: Too many bucks, too few horses.VERDICT: Makes the $107,000 500SL look like a must-buy.Get past its acceleration rate, though, and the 300SL begins piling on rationales for its shocking sticker. The apparent stiff­ness of its body structure is remarkable, with only a rare hint of shudder in the cowl. The chassis is far and away the most advanced and best settled in this group, giving the SL a secure, confidence-inspir­ing chuckability over fast, undulating roads of any surface, as well as a fine free­way ride. Its comfortable seats—more like occupant-support systems, really—incorporate the whole safety-belt mechanism plus the usual power adjustments. Each unit probably costs and weighs as much as a Hyundai. Then there’s the pop-up roll­over bar, the clean body lines, the high quality of the finish—on and on.And don’t forget that top, the easiest and trickest in creation. Hold a single but­ton on the center console and watch with wonder as eleven solenoids, fifteen hydraulic servos, and seventeen proximity switches run their routine, throwing latches, raising panels, cranking the top as bidden, and buttoning everything down. Amazing. (Yeah, we know 1960s Lincolns did the same thing. But they didn’t come with an automatic roll bar, did they?) The Mercedes also includes a removable hard top—an amenity that is $2000 extra with the Cadillac and not offered at all with the Jaguar. And give credit where it’s due: though the 300SL lagged behind the Allanté and XJS in all tests of acceleration and speed, it cleaned house in braking distance, skid­pad grip, and fuel economy (according to both the EPA’s test cycle and our trip log). So there’s no question the 300SL deliv­ers some value. But in this comparison, and considering that lofty price, it wasn’t enough to bag all the chips.1992 Mercedes-Benz 300SL228-hp inline-6, 5-speed automatic, 3980 lbBase/as-tested price: $90,335/$90,335C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-mile: 17.0 sec @ 85 mph100 mph: 25.0 sec120 mph: 48.5 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg1st Place: Cadillac AllantéCadillac’s Pininfarina-made Allanté roadster has always seemed too posh to be a sports car but too brash to be a luxury cruiser. It targeted the two-seat Mercedes on price, performance, and accommoda­tions but has never had the substance to go head-to-head with the high-quality, high-­resale-value Benz. A half-dozen years after its launch, however, the Allanté has inherited a huge price advantage. With the SL breaking through $90,000 (even in the “cheap” six­-cylinder form tested here), the new Allanté’s 1993 base price of $64,843—including the mandatory luxury and gas­-guzzler taxes—suddenly looks almost reasonable. HIGHS: Great new powertrain, friendly handling. LOWS: Shaky structure, bland interior, fussy top. VERDICT: Still pricey, but a decent value by comparison.But even bigger news for 1993, and the thing that makes the Allanté finally worth tak­ing seriously, is the arrival of the much-anticipated Northstar V-8. This impressive new 4.6-liter powerplant brings Lexus/Infiniti-class technology, power, and smoothness to the domestic camp, even though the Allanté’s Italian body assembly gets it classed an import. This brilliant all-aluminum multivalver delivers 290 horsepower through a slick and responsive new four-speed automatic. More on the AllantéIn every contest of speed and response, Cadillac’s Allanté has it all over the Mercedes 300SL and the Jaguar XJS. Punching the Northstar’s throttle to leap into a hole in traffic on Santa Barbara’s crowded State Street, or to launch out of a slow bend on serpentine Highway 33, always brought an effective boot in the back. And a nice exhaust growl, too.Though 290 horsepower sounds like too much to send through front wheels, the Allanté’s new chassis manages the chal­lenge just fine. There are reworked struts in front and unequal-length arms replacing the former struts in back, plus variable damping that reads and reacts to wheel travel in quasi-active fashion. The car does not have the sense of near-perfect balance and fine damping of the 300SL, and it cer­tainly doesn’t have the structure, but the Allanté feels easy, natural, and willing when the corners are coming up thick and fast. Stopping distances with our test car were on the long side, due perhaps to tire choice or the car’s extreme forward weight bias. But otherwise, the sportiest Cad per­formed with distinction. Even if it scored well enough to win here, though, the Allanté still gives us some things to wonder about. Such as, do its customers really like an instrument panel that’s all straight lines, right angles, and fields of identical buttons? Is its inte­rior trim rich enough for this price range? Couldn’t the structure be tightened up? Don’t the proprietary GM ignition switch and transmission selector feel sloppy in a $60,000 automobile? And why did the manually operated, power-latched top fit as if it were a half-size too small, forcing us into energetic tricks to get both ends attached? Ah, well, maybe we’re being too hard on these things. Cars like these may come up short on normal automotive value, but they aren’t really normal automobiles. These are boutique cars, purchased largely as fashion accessories. You don’t buy an Armani suit to keep warm.The reality is, an open car will always be more complex and costly to create, and it can hardly avoid being heavier, less sturdy, less efficient, and less comfortable as a result of its convertibility. That hin­ders the car’s effectiveness, but it isn’t really an argument for eliminating the open-air option. There is something unde­niably opulent about an expensive car with its top folded away and its occupants on display. For the right people (wealthy, and will­ing to look it) and the right missions (ten­nis, lunch, shopping, or a cruise down the Coast Highway to Sunday breakfast), the Allanté, the XJS, or the 300SL could work just dandy. But you’ll just have to forgive the manufacturers if the bold prices of this trio seem to promise a broader repertoire than that. 1993 Cadillac Allanté290-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 3720 lbBase/as-tested price: $64,843/$64,843 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.2 sec1/4 mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph100 mph: 16.7 sec120 mph: 27.0 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 196 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the March 1998 issue of Car and Driver.In the past 27 months, five new roadsters have been introduced in the United States. The sportiest of the five are the Porsche Boxster (which went on sale in January 1997), the BMW Z3 (which beat the Boxster to the showroom by a full year), and the Chevrolet Corvette, which has been available since last September. The two other roadsters, which are not included in this comparison test, are the Mercedes SLK230, introduced in February 1996, and Mazda’s latest Miata, which should be widely available as you read this. The soft-riding, automatic-only Benz is a luxury cruiser first and is notably slower and less athletic than the three ruffians gathered here, although they challenge it nearly dollar for dollar in the market. The venerable Miata continues to be a pure roadster, but its abilities are limited by its moderately powered motor, which contributes to its affordable $20,000 price, half the price of those in the group we’ve gathered. More Convertible ComparosThe Corvette, the Boxster, and the new more-powerful version of BMW’s Z3, called the M roadster, are all-out, go-for-broke roadsters, the performance benchmarks. We voted the Corvette and the Boxster two of our 10Best Cars for 1998 (the M roadster was still in the box). On the latest Corvette, many of the details—lack of rattles, the clean gauges, and extra storage space—are so well executed that you’d think each of these roadsters was hand-built. Porsche’s Boxster shares the new 911’s front fenders and doors and uses a 201-hp, 2.5-liter version of the watercooled flat-six engine in the new 296-hp, 3.4-liter 911 series. Do we like these cars? Does an owl hoot? BMW will begin selling the M roadster in April. It’s powered by the company’s strongest six-cylinder engine, also found in the M3 five-seat coupe and sedan. The engine swap required a thoroughly retuned suspension and steering gear, moving the battery from the right side of the trunk to the center to make room for a dual exhaust, filling the fenders with wider tires, and installing four chunky tailpipes that exit in back. All this extra work takes place on the same assembly line in Spartanburg, South Carolina, that builds the entire world’s supply of BMW roadsters. BMW’s famed M (for “motorsport”) department was responsible for the design and engineering and sends complete 240-hp motors from Munich, Germany, to the upstate Carolinians for installation. The lower-powered Z3 models’ engines come from Austria. The M roadster’s in-line six-cylinder is a rev-happy motor. It fits into the small chassis the way the Great Hot Rodder in the Sky intended, increasing output from the Z3 2.8-liter’s 189 hp to 240 hp. These three roadsters cost big money—$49,235 for the Corvette, $46,385 for the Boxster, and $43,245 for the M roadster as tested. Chevrolet predicts sales of upwards of 10,000 Corvette convertibles in 1998. Porsche hopes to sell 8000 Boxsters, and BMW figures 3500 of the 20,000 Z3s it makes for 1998 will be the M-roadster model. Exposure to the environment in our three test cars is as undiluted as in any convertible, but roadsters make no compromises for passengers behind the front seats. This selfish seating arrangement focuses the abilities of the Corvette, the Boxster, and the M roadster on pleasing the driver. Which one is the best at it?3rd Place: Chevrolet CorvetteWe’d drive the Corvette roadster about 40 percent of the time with its top down. Chalk that up to its interior spaciousness—there’s a lot of room inside for wind to swirl around and give you a chill. Although the stereo volume automatically rises with increased speed, the driveline and the exhaust make enough noise that you often need to withdraw from driving on challenging roads and just aim the car down a straight road, letting your senses cool down. The good news is the noises are good noises: Throaty, hot-rod-­style burbling and provocative “back pops” (just quieter than a full-fledged backfire) from the exhaust make playing with the throttle fun for the ears. Beginning at about 2300 rpm under part throttle, the exhaust booms like a subwoofer. HIGHS: Abundant power, balanced handling, and a trunk built for three. LOWS: You must get out of the car to lower and raise the roof, and the car’s bulk makes it tough to maneuver in tiny personal spaces. VERDICT: The fleetest of the pack, but it’s larger and feels less connected to the road than the others.Whining about the racket is not meant to subvert the Corvette’s expression of speed: Our test car got to 60 mph in just over five seconds, which is a blink slower than the first CS Corvette roadster we tested last October. It also climbed to 167 mph with the top in place and 160 with the top down. The Corvette roadster growls through the quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds at 107 mph. (Our last hardtop was just two­-tenths of a second and 2 mph quicker.) That puts the Vette a half-second ahead of the BMW and 1.2 seconds in front of the Porsche. The aluminum pushrod V-8 in the roadster makes 345 hp, but more notable in this field of roadsters is the engine’s 350 pound-feet of torque, which accelerates the car out of corners incredibly quickly, even at part throttle. You get a sense there’s a lot of power in reserve here. The six-speed manual transmission in our test car features a sixth gear so tall that at 70 mph the engine turns over at a mere 1550 rpm. It also features the annoying fuel-saver skip-shift feature that forces you to upshift from first to fourth gear when tooling along at part throttle at slow city speeds. More on the 1998 CorvetteFor our selfish and fuel-consumptive back-road business—conducted on some of the very tight 10Best Roads of the Southeast (C/D, January 1998)—we ignored the Corvette’s top three gears, saving them for highway cruising. The Corvette launches quickly from corner to corner on the roads that are the most fun to drive. It pulls so strongly you can sometimes avoid downshifting and still maintain as much speed. It feels balanced on the twisty roads and also in our handling and emergency-lane-change maneuvers. “The Corvette’s chassis deserves respect—it’s utterly predictable,” said senior technical editor Don Schroeder. The Corvette has better grip on the skidpad than the Porsche or BMW, and it out­runs both of them through the emergency-lane-change contest. So why does the car that generates the best numbers in so many categories finish third? In this test, its bulk got in the way, detracting from the complete roadster driving experience.”The Corvette is just too big here, in reality or perception,” said technical editor Larry Webster. We held this comparison test in South Carolina and set up a handling course on the fast and smooth Laurens proving ground owned by Michelin North America. The fast track should have favored the powerful Corvette, but Mother Nature gave the best time to the mid-­engined Porsche in the form of a traction­-limiting sprinkle of rain. “On the track it feels big and brutish, although fast, too,” said Schroeder. “On the damp track, though, it can’t put power down without extreme oversteer—not like the Porsche, which remains neutral. You find, getting out of the other cars and into the Corvette, that it takes a while to get used to the bulk.”Some staffers would be inclined to purchase the Corvette simply because of its sheer speed—no soft-top car that costs less can run faster. Others think the Corvette’s roomy 14-cubic-foot trunk, spacious interior, and amenities make it the best choice of the three for serving as both a weekday commuter and a weekend warrior. But we felt that the Corvette was happier on a dry test track than it was on these very twisty back roads. As a result, when it comes to delivering the variety of sensations that only come from a topless car, the Corvette loses by a whisker to its smaller, tidier competitors.1998 Chevrolet Corvette convertible345-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3260 lbBase/as-tested price: $45,619/$49,235C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.1 sec100 mph: 11.6 sec1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 107 mph120 mph: 16.8 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g C/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg2nd Place: BMW M RoadsterWe’d drive the M roadster about 60 percent of the time with its top down, for several compelling reasons: The heated seats and the reasonably draft-free cockpit mean you can drive alfresco in winter, your view out of the BMW is vast and expansive, and the top is electrically powered and lowers or rises in 10 seconds. Of the three cars in this group, this is the closest in feel to a motorcycle, and a lot of that sensation is because the doors seem low. Your left shoulder is several inches above the beltline of the driver’s door. The corner of your left eye picks up the texture of quickly moving pavement close to the car, which brings home the sense of speed you get in this roadster. HIGHS: Drivetrain-refinement perfection, stylish upholstery wardrobe. LOWS: The older-generation rear suspen­sion isn’t as flawless as the state-of-the-art M3 sedan’s, and you need more time to develop trust in the BMW roadster’s handling. VERDICT: The classic definition of a roadster.And that sense of speed is very real. The M roadster bests its M3-sedan sibling to 60 mph by a 10th of a second, getting there in 5.4 seconds. That’s approaching the acceleration of the Corvette, although the big-boy Chevy has 105 more horsepower. The quarter-mile blows by in 14 seconds flat at 100 mph, 1 mph better than the heavier M3 hardtop. “This motor sings along at 7000 rpm with nary a vibration,” said Webster. It’s also a flexible powerplant. In the conversion to the 3.2-liter engine, BMW added a freer-breathing dual exhaust system that the M3 doesn’t have yet. Output remains at 240 hp and 236 pound-feet, but the torque curve is widened a bit. Add that to the lighter weight of the little roadster—3080 pounds compared with the M3’s 3248 pounds—and the overall effect makes the M3 feel slower. BMW admits the four exhaust pipes were added mostly for the macho look, but the next generation of the M3 (due this summer) will likely get the new exhaust system and a power increase. The bigger exhaust doesn’t mean the car is noisier, however. At full throttle with the top up, the M roadster is notably more muffled than the two other roadsters. M roadsters destined for the U.S. have less sound-deadening material inside than do European-spec M roadsters, which have been on sale overseas for a year. The M roadster gets lower-profile front tires and wider rear tires than the Z3 2.8 we tested in our previous roadster comparison in April 1997, but it keeps the same size fenders as the Z3 2.8. Tuning the suspension for these tires required different spring rates and stiffer shock settings, but the goal of this tuning wasn’t to make the car quicker on a racetrack, but more civilized around town. It’s truly comfortable and easy to drive four-fifths of the way to its limits. Suspension bits start moving around an awful lot when the going gets quicker. Compared with the two other roadsters, the BMW exhibits the most body roll, squat, and dive. On some tight corners, you can lift the inside front wheel off the ground several inches. “You have to be absolutely precise and smooth through the lane change, or this thing slides around and is slow. Way twitchier than the Porsche,” said Webster. “It’s the least composed of the three roadsters on the damp track,” said Schroeder. “Steering requires frequent correction, and you must compensate for weight transfers.” What he means is that lovers of the older-generation Porsche 911 who liked driving sideways can reminisce in this BMW. The BMW’s leather seating surfaces and upholstery are beautifully color-contrasted, and the gauges get chrome bezels. Inside, this car is the most attractive of the three in this test. Outside, brake scoops replace the fog lights in front, and the rear license plate moves up from the bumper to the trunklid. We like it a lot. The Corvette costs $6000 more as tested, and it boasts a string of equipment unavailable on the BMW, such as dual climate controls, run-flat tires with integral pressure-sensor gauges, a power antenna, extra 12-volt outlets, a compact­-disc changer, memory seats, and more. Those who have come to expect all of this on a luxury-priced two-seater will miss it on the BMW.1998 BMW M Roadster240-hp inline-6, 5-speed manual, 3080 lbBase/as-tested price: $43,245/$43,245C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.4 sec100 mph: 13.9 sec1/4 mile: 14.0 sec @ 100 mph120 mph: 22.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg1st Place: Porsche BoxsterNot only would we take this car to the ski mountains in January with the top down, but we’d have to force ourselves to consider the downside of the latest flu before we’d put the top up, even when it rains in the summer. That means we’d want to drive this car topless about 80 percent of the time we spent in it. Maybe we’re dreaming, but just in case, we’d pack one of the Boxster’ two spacious trunks with extra jackets for the passenger. It’s not uncomfortable in wintertime (at least, a South Carolina winter) and we’re not exaggerating here: The Boxster’s high beltline means your shoulders ride level with the tops of the doors, so when the side windows are up, they block a lot of wind. Perforated panels covering the insides of the roll hoops and a plexiglass barrier between the seats also keep the air calm way down into the footwells of the car. All of this aids the heater’s ability with the top off. The Boxster is the most intimate-­feeling of these three roadsters. HIGHS: The intuitive communication through the controls to the driver creates the magic of true partnership. LOWS: Weak motor means it’s a dance partner not into full-tilt boogie. VERDICT: Although many will buy this new Porsche for show, its more secret abilities blossom in private on small, intimate roads.Successful top-down climate management is just one reason the Porsche is a good roadster. Agility, involvement, feedback, balance, sensitivity, comfort, and refined behavior in a variety of conditions are the others. At first, the Boxster feels less powerful than the two other roadsters here. It runs the quarter-mile more than a second behind the Corvette (at 14.7 seconds). Its 7.3-second rolling-start acceleration from 5 to 60 mph feels positively sluggish after you’ve driven the two other screamers, both of which manage the task in less than six seconds. Top speed is ungoverned at 146 mph—that’s about as fast as a V-8 Mustang. At that speed, the Boxster feels stable and doesn’t get blown around by sidewinds. Of course, the rocket Corvette goes 21 mph faster. While you’re indulging in other full­-throttle behavior, the Porsche feels quiet and confident. The two other roadsters seem to yell and shout. The Boxster is quieter than the others when cruising with the top up, and depending on how high you hold your head, it’s a whole lot quieter when the top is down. Roadholding ability is less than the two other roadsters’ at 0.86 g, and the Porsche was at least 3 mph slower than the others in the lane-change test. Yet the Boxster managed to run this test without leaving a mark on the asphalt. The first time through our cone-marked course, the BMW left long, wide, dark tire smears of cooked rubber—four of them. The Corvette, too, autographed the pavement and made screeching and wailing noises at its limit. The Porsche remained unruffled and unprovoked. Out on real roads the Boxster proves its mettle. While churning the steering wheels of all three cars back-to-back on no fewer than six of the roads we divulged in January as the 10Best Roads of the Southeast, the Porsche never fell behind, despite the enormous difference in accel­eration times. “Everything is so direct, quick, and immediate in this car—the chassis, the steering response, the roll control. It feels like the most nimble car here, which makes up for the lack of horsepower a bit,” justified Schroeder.”I think the M roadster is more fun, but the Boxster is pretty damn fun without scaring you. It’s a tough call which is better,” concluded Webster. It may be a tough call, but it’s one we’ve made twice now. In our comparison test last April, the Boxster earned almost exactly the same ratings that it received during this test, even though the tests occurred 2800 miles and 11 months apart. The scores for the early test’s Z3 2.8 and SLK230 were lower than those earned by this test’s Corvette and M roadster, which tell us these two latest roadsters are closer to our ideal. And our conclusion, once again, is that this Porsche is less handicapped by its moderately powered engine than you’d think. We can’t wait for the arrival of the rumored 250-hp Boxster S model this summer, with power enough for the truly impatient. 1998 Porsche Boxster201-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2900 lbsBase/as-tested price: $40,077/$46,385C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 16.8 sec1/4 mile: 14.7 sec @ 94 mph120 mph: 27.6 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the May 1993 issue of Car and Driver.Before we got all kissy-­kissy with the Russians, “throw weight” was a trendy bit of Cold War argot that gauged the ability of lCBMs the size of double-wide house trailers to toss megaton nukes between Minsk and Memphis. Thank­fully, that entire mode of technology is becoming déclassé in this age of peace, love, and the col­lapsing ruble.But not with Dave Hops, the maestro of Monster Motorsports. His notion of throw weight is to stuff a 4.9-liter Ford HO V-8 under the hood of a Mazda Miata roadster and stand back to whiff the rubber smoke. Should you have a spare $13,995 fry­ing a hole in your wallet and a Miata yearning to be freed of its neat but tepid four-banger, you are best advised to make it to Hops’s shop in Escondido, California, where he will take five weeks to complete the rather vivid transformation. Hops, a San Diego State engineering grad, a former Formula Atlantic shoe, and an accomplished builder of both ERA and Contemporary Cobra conver­sions, has built 30 of his Monster Miatas (transacted strictly by word of mouth) and has a steady stream of orders ahead of him. Car and DriverThe basic unit is a miracle fit, as if somewhere in some secret Mazda scheme a V-8 the size of Ford’s was planned. After he and former partner Vearl Collins conceived the idea in 1991, they discovered the small-block Ford would drop into the Miata’s engine bay with only a tiny snip out of the frame. Structural integrity was not both­ered, and there is plenty of room for simple maintenance of the new power­plant. Coupled to a Borg-Warner T-5 five­-speed manual (an automatic is optional) and a Mazda RX-7 differential, the com­pleted package tips the scale at 2480 pounds, roughly 220 more than the stock unit. Hops explains that the Ford engine weighs about 170 pounds more than the Mazda, and the RX-7 rear end adds another 40 pounds to the package. Amazingly, the T-5 (from the Saleen Mustang) is 50 pounds lighter than the stock Miata unit. With a larger radiator and cooling fan, extra bracing, and some subtle reinforcing, the Monster Miata hits the road with a reasonable 52/48 weight distribution, nullifying initial suspicions that the little machine might be a nose-heavy slug with all the maneu­verability of a D-9 Cat. Hop also adds larger sway bars fore and aft and stiffer Eibach rear springs, plus larger rubber (BFGoodrich Comp T/As, 205/50ZR-15 in front and 225/50ZR-15 in back). Our test vehicle carried Panasport Minilite replica mag wheels ($1000 extra), a roll bar, and considerably more power than the base package. For $1995, Hops installs a 300-hp SVO package, complete with a GT40 manifold, larger injectors and throttle body, Flowmaster headers, and a less restricted two-chamber exhaust. Four More From 1993Expectation that a vehicle with an 89.2-inch wheelbase that weighs just over one and a quarter tons and offers nearly 300 horsepower might offer heady highway thrills are not unfounded. The Monster Miata squirts to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds. It rumbles through the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds at 103 mph (compared with the stock Miata’s 17.2-sec­ond meander at 80 mph). With the some­what-constricted RX-7 final-drive ratio of 3.9:1, top speed is limited to 135 mph in fifth gear at 6100 rpm. Mid-range performance is dazzling: in fifth gear, the Miata leaps from 30 to 50 mph in 5.4 seconds and finds 70 mph from 50 in 5.3 seconds. Hops has done a superb job of mounting the engine in the Mazda’s innards. The body remains taut, and there is no cowl shake, axle tramp, or unseemly rattles or vibrations, even at full throttle. The Mazda steering is more than up to the task, and the car tracks well even in bursts beyond 100 mph. Because of the short final-drive ratio, second-gear starts are recommended for routine driving, while 80-mph Interstate cruising forces toleration of a rather thunderous 3700 rpm. Engine noise and the naturally high sound levels of a roadster tend to disqualify the Monster Miata as a long-range cruiser, but that misses the point of the entire exercise. Hops’s intent was to create an inexpensive sports car in the theme of the 289 Cobra or the Sunbeam Tiger: a hoot to hammer through the twisty parts. With a nicely tuned suspension, balanced weight dis­tribution, and Mazda’s intrinsic chassis stiffness, the Monster Miata is a surpris­ingly neat and abundantly exciting little machine.Monster Motorsports, 2312 Vineyard, Escondido, CA 92029: 619-738-46731993 Monster Motorsports Miata300-hp V-8, 5-speed manual, 2480 lbAs-tested price: $30,695C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.4 sec100 mph: 12.3 sec1/4 mile: 13.6 sec @ 103 mphRolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.6 secTop speed (redline limited): 135 mphBraking, 70­-0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

Modern pickup trucks have been blown out of proportion, literally. Full-size examples such as the current Ford F-150 can tow and haul like heavy-duty trucks of yore, while the Super Duty can tow up to 40,000 pounds—half the fully laden weight of an 18-wheeler. Meanwhile, mid-size trucks have followed suit, expanding in size and price to fill the void, leaving room for a truck that’s a lot more affordable and a lot less cumbersome. The Ford Maverick is the mini-truck America needs to unclog thoroughfares and parking lots packed with oversize four-by-fours. Not only is the Maverick a terrific tool in its fundamental form, but it becomes ruggedly cool when outfitted with the new-for-2023 Tremor off-road package.FordTremor TreatmentFord already sells Tremor versions of the mid-size Ranger, the F-150, and its Super Duty trucks. Now, one model year after the company resurrected the Maverick moniker in the form of a compact unibody pickup, the off-road-oriented treatment is trickling down. The $2995 Tremor package is reserved for the Maverick XLT and Lariat models with the turbocharged 2.0-liter engine. Trucks with the kit are identified by their bedside graphics, smoked headlights and taillights, and orange body accents. Along with an orange stripe in the grille and orange front tow hooks, each of the dark-painted 17-inch wheels has an orange pocket. There’s also a Tremor-specific appearance package that adds some black exterior graphics and a gray-painted roof, but we don’t think it’s worth the $1495 upcharge.More on the Maverick pickupThankfully, Ford takes the Maverick Tremor further than those superficial bits, starting with the front bumper. Unlike lesser models, its redesigned chin incorporates a steel skid plate and allows for an approach angle of 30.7 degrees, just over nine degrees steeper than other all-wheel-drive variants. The Tremor’s 1.0-inch lift raises ground clearance to 9.4 inches, which is 0.8 inch more than the truck without the off-road package and a half-inch higher than the mechanically similar Ford Bronco Sport Badlands. As with its Badlands sibling, the Tremor is the only member of the Maverick family to feature an all-wheel-drive system with a torque-vectoring rear differential. With its aggressively treaded Falken WildPeak all-terrain tires that stand 30 inches tall, the Tremor is well equipped to crawl up, over, or through rocky, sticky, or slippery surfaces. Helping it conquer diverse terrain are selectable drive modes, including Mud & Ruts, Rock Crawl, and Sand. A Trail Control feature that automatically adjusts the accelerator and brakes to maintain a set speed—think of it like off-road cruise control.Tough as TrailsDon’t confuse the Maverick for a dedicated off-roader like the Jeep Gladiator or even consider it on par with the Ranger, its body-on-frame kin. Ford’s tiniest truck has its limitations and won’t make it far on truly difficult trail systems. However, it has the hardware to take on obstacles most owners would likely shy away from.FordWhile we didn’t have the chance to push the entry-level Tremor to its limits, we did take it off the beaten path and came out the other end pretty dirty. It flexed its suspension, which features unique dampers as well as retuned front and rears springs. We felt the all-wheel-drive setup effectively transfer power to the wheels with traction, which was even more obvious when one of the rears is hung helplessly in the air. We enjoyed mundanely driving the Maverick Tremor as much as we liked tossing it around on the trails. That duality makes it a compelling package. Granted, its force-fed four-pot buzzes rather loudly at idle, and heavy doses of throttle cause coarse engine sounds to penetrate the cabin. But with 250 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque, the 2.0-liter packs a satisfying punch. Keeping the engine on boil is a dutiful eight-speed automatic transmission that oddly can’t be manually operated. We haven’t yet tested the Tremor-equipped Maverick, but a 2022 XLT model with the turbo four and the FX4 off-road package (featuring the same Falken WildPeaks) sprinted to 60 mph in a tidy 5.9 seconds.Despite its noisiness, the Maverick is comfortable cruising at highway speeds. It doesn’t bounce or fidget, thanks mostly to its direct steering and impressive stability. While it rides on the same C2 platform as the Bronco Sport, the Maverick is 28 inches longer overall and has an extra 16 inches between its axles; it’s also a couple of inches lower than the baby Bronco. This little truck feels more refined than its SUV counterpart, and it drives more like a car. Again, its accessibility and nimbleness are among the biggest reasons it’s preferable to big trucks, particularly in urban areas.The few downsides to the Tremor package include its towing and hauling compromises. Its 1200-pound payload rating is 300 less than other Mavericks, even the front-wheel-drive hybrid. Most all-wheel-drive models can pull up to 4000 pounds with the 4K Tow package, but Ford doesn’t make that available on the Tremor, so it’s limited to 2000 pounds. Perfect Pickup Package?Although we wish the Tremor could tow more, we’re still smitten with the Maverick because it’s incredibly useful in other ways. Its 4.5-foot cargo bed boasts 33 cubic feet of volume, enough to haul nine compostable bags of yard waste, and it’s a lot easier to climb into and out of than full-size trucks. The Maverick also has more passenger space than expected, with a rear seat that’s comfortable for most adults, although we wish it had HVAC vents in back. Still, Ford manages to make its budget-friendly interior appear more expensive than it is with plastic surfaces that have attractive textures, and cleverly designed storage bins are everywhere.FordOf course, the Ford Maverick isn’t the only new small pickup on the market. The Hyundai Santa Cruz is its closest competitor, with the mid-size-range Honda Ridgeline lurking on the periphery due to its similar unibody construction. All three have strong points, but the Maverick’s mix of capability, practicality, and value put it at the top. Plus, it’s the only one that offers a legitimate off-road package. Whereas the least expensive Santa Cruz with the turbo engine and all-wheel drive has an MSRP over $38K and no Ridgeline costs less than $40,000, the Maverick Tremor is a certified steal starting at $31,165. Our $39,075 Lariat example showed the upper reaches of its price range, thanks to the $2610 Luxury package and several other extras. With or without those options, the 2023 Ford Maverick Tremor improves on the mini-truck’s fantastic fundamentals by providing more fun for adventurous types.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Ford Maverick TremorVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base: XLT, $31,165; Lariat, $34,665
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1992 cm3Power: 250 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 277 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.1 inLength: 200.7 inWidth: 72.6 inHeight: 69.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 57/47 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3900 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.6 secTop Speed: 110 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 24/22/28 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the May 1993 issue of Car and Driver.If history and ad copywriters had shown a little respect for the term “sports car,” perhaps “budget sports car” would be recognized today as the redundancy it out to be. In the dawn of sports-car time, post-war Europe needed cheap transportation and couldn’t pay extra for fun. Skinny-tired MGs drew a clear distinction between sporty driving and other more serious forms of motoring, and a modest price was as integral to the formula as a roofless cockpit. So it’s a shame that “sports car” has been attached to every odd lump on wheels needing an image fix—so much so that when we want to use the term in a disciplined fashion, we have to specify that we’re talking about cars regular working folks can afford.For about five grand to either side of $20,000, there are exactly four cars available today that have the spirit and substance to be rightly called sports cars. They are Alfa Romeo’s gray-bearded but still handsome Spider, Honda’s incredibly well-thought-out Civic del Sol Si, Mazda’s retro-look MX-5 Miata roadster, and Mercury’s turbo-boosted Capri XR2.We collected this eclectic open-top fleet in Southern California and took to the mountains and deserts in search of truth, harmony, and transient response (and weird tourist stops, like these dinosaur/gift shops off Interstate 10 near Cabazon). Somewhere between beautiful downtown Chula Vista and the 8443-foot Onyx Pass, we found the test’s winner. And discovered something about the tradeoffs we can be coaxed to accept in pursuit of sheer driving pleasure.4th Place: Alfa Romeo Spider VeloceDedicated Alfisti may rave till the pasta goes limp, singing the praises of the Spider’s certain je ne sais quoi (or is that non so che dire?). But we have to say, “Basta! Enough, already.” Alfa Romeo first whipped the cover off Pininfarina’s design for the Duetto Spider at the 1966 Geneva auto show. Do you realize how long ago 1966 was? Liz Taylor won the best-actress Oscar for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and the Baltimore Orioles won the World Series. So to say the 1993 Alfa Spider is a little dated is an understatement of heroic proportion. (It happened that the Alfa public-relations people didn’t have a current example handy, so they offered a nicely-cared-for 1991 customer car. “There’s no difference,” we were assured, tellingly.) HIGHS: Dustin Hoffman snagged Katharine Ross with one…LOWS: …but that was in 1967.VERDICT: An all-too-faithful replica of a sports car from a quarter-century ago.David Dewhurst|Car and DriverWe included the old Italian roadster in this group because, like the others, its mission is to provide a spirited, open-air driving experience for a reasonable price. “Reasonable” means something different coming from the Old World, and the Alfa, at over $25,000, runs eight or nine grand more than the class norm. But the Spider is conceptually comparable to the Capri, the del Sol, and particularly the Miata. Out on the road, it is anything but comparable. The Alfa feels profoundly and prohibitively old. And we’re not talking details here, like defroster effectiveness (there is little) or differential whine (there is lots). It’s the fundamentals—chassis rigidity, ride and handling, steering response, braking action—that make the Spider seem quaintly antiquated in this company. More on the Alfa Spider VeloceYou can look at the performance figures and the subjective core and find the Alfa, caboose-like, generally bringing up the rear. To explain why feels like piling on: The engine, though the largest here at 2.0 liters and rated at a respectable 120 hp, does not produce the kind of power you can feel, and at 2700 pounds, this is the heaviest car of the bunch; the body flexes and shudder over imperfect pavement; the steering is vague yet darty; the brake pedal does nothing for the first inch of travel then bites suddenly; the clutch drags even with the pedal hard on the floor; the live rear axle lurches over bumps; and drivers over six feet tall have no place to stow their knees. Need we go on? It’s true that on a mild spring day, at a very relaxed pace over immaculate black­top, the Alfa Spider offers a heartwarming, offbeat ride. And even after all these years, its clean shape remains attractive. Its top also flips down easily—almost as quickly and casually as the Miata’s—though the boot cover’s hooks, snap, and zippers work awkwardly. But is that enough? Obviously, a few people still find the Alfa Spider irresistible—the company sells about three a day in the U.S.—and those good folks will pay no attention to what we say anyway. But this car needs to be retired gracefully. It became an instant classic in 1967 when poor, befuddled Dustin Hoffman chased up and down California in one, trying to come to grips with his life and a fetching Katharine Ross in The Graduate. We’d prefer to remember it that way, not see it continually shoved out to face rivals 25 years more modern.1993 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce120-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2700 lbBase/as-tested price: $25,815/$25,815C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.9 sec60 mph: 9.7 sec1/4 mile: 17.3 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 30.0 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 212 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g C/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg3rd Place: Mercury Capri XR2This one threw us a curve. We’ve never been smitten by Ford’s little Australian-built droptop, mostly because it just didn’t look like much, with its under­bite face, featureless flanks, too-high beltline, and drab interior. No offense intended to our many fine friends in the clerical arts and sciences, but it seemed to be a secretary’s car, intent on being more cute than cutthroat. So imagine our chagrin when, on any road we saw, the homely little Capri would up and vanish, leaving the rest of the group futilely checking parking-brake handles. With 132 horsepower worth of turbocharged thrust, lots of cornering grip, and resolutely unthreatening handling, the XR2 makes easy speed that is the envy of the class. No $16,000 car needs to apologize for running 0 to 60 in eight seconds flat or reaching 126 mph, and we have to think that this machine would be a rip­roaring success if it were draped in truly sexy bodywork. HIGHS: Sheer speed and back-road moves that get your attention.LOWS: Wallflower looks that don’t.VERDICT: Low self-esteem; if it seemed cocky instead of embarrassed, we’d be crazy about it.As it is, the Capri is a rip-roaring anomaly. Pace-setting performance not­withstanding, our ambivalence held it to third among the three real contenders. Why an anomaly? Why our ambivalence? Because the Capri’s performance is so out of step with its personality. Like the unpromising shape, the feel of the car is just not very sporty. The driver sits deep inside, as if in a bucket, peering out over that high, straight beltline. Though the steering is smooth, it does not snap the relatively weighty car (2560 pounds) into corners with much authority. The low­effort shifter works positively if moved slowly but turns doughy under a more intense hand. In conjunction with good 50­series Michelins, the all-disc brakes pull the car up short—but on the handling course we used for lap times, they faded quickly. And over any kind of bumps taken at any kind of speed, vigorous cowl shake betrays a lack of structural rigidity. Does the Capri sound like an easygoing economy car that just happens to generate good performance numbers? You’re getting the picture. Of course, the Capri also happens to have a fold-down roof. The open-air option is a wild card that gives the car a dash of flair and gets it invited to sports­car comparison tests. And a good folding top it is, with a neat hard-panel boot cover that only slightly complicates the top-dropping procedure but looks sleek and tidy. Other details go into the Capri’s plus column: the generous storage area behind you (with belts for two more—presumably legless—occupants), decent seats, a good driving position, lots of legroom, and good draft control with the top down. All the car really needs is a total makeover to sharpen its reflexes, stiffen its body, enliven its control feel, and make it look as fast as it is.1993 Mercury Capri XR2132-hp turbocharged 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2560 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,390/$15,670C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.6 sec60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4 mile: 16.0 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 24.7 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 192 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg2nd Place: Honda Civic del Sol SiSome gotta win and some gotta lose, as the song says. Even though Honda’s inventive new Civic del Sol is by consensus the best all-around automobile in the group, this is a sports-car test. And in a photo finish worthy of Little Al and Scott Goodyear (0.04 second at Indy last year, remember?), the traditional-layout Miata played up its incontestably sportier character to overcome its compromises and slip past the del Sol at the wire. But this one could have gone either way, thanks to how clever and uncompromised the del Sol is. HIGHS: The regular-car details (legroom, luggage space, comfort, ergonomics) are uncompromised.LOWS: Is it trying to be too many things to too many people?VERDICT: The best car of the bunch, but not enough sports to nab the gold.Much of this Honda’s appeal lies in its “openable-coupe” concept. Not a traditional roadster, with little more than a scrap of fabric to keep out the elements and traffic racket, this newest Civic spin­off wraps its occupants in genuine sheetmetal, keeping them as snug and comfy as any closed car. Then when it’s time to open up, the removable aluminum roof panel and power rear window provide a top-down experience on par with a ragtop’s. The roof panel is stowed in a hinged carrier just beneath the trunk lid, so it remains handy, takes up little cargo space, and allows access to your gear. The open cockpit has very good draft control, with just a little wind noise from air rushing around the roof bar above your head. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverThough not the largest car here, the del Sol has the most stretch-out room for occupants and the largest trunk, thanks to the modem, space-efficient, front-drive Civic platform. It also has the best structural integrity of the group, showing only minor cowl flutter with the roof panel out and almost none with it latched in place. More on the Civic familyIn familiar Civic fashion, the 125-horsepower 1.6-liter engine spins freely and pulls flexibly. The five-speed box shifts sweetly, and steering action is buttery and predictable. All controls, in fact, work with the expected precision and feel, helping to give the Honda civility and sophistication that the others in this sporty crowd can’t match. On the road, the del Sol displays especially benign front-drive handling, suggesting it wouldn’t step out of line even if you asked it to. All of which would make the del Sol everyone’s choice as an only car to live with forever. But frame the question in sports-car terms, where driving fun and feeling close to the action count, and the picture changes a little. That steering isn’t as quick as it might be, is it? And front­-wheel drive, say what you will, leaves the driver fewer options when dancing over a gnarly mountain road or around a handling course. Also, for its size and engine output, this car carries quite a bit of weight (2460 pounds), blunting its poise a smidgen and preventing its power advantage over the Miata from translating into a real performance edge. So we applaud Honda for its clever and thoughtful work in conceiving the pop-top del Sol. But if it’s unadulterated driving fun you’re after—if sports car to you means wiring the tire contact patches directly to your brain synapses—then we call your attention to the top platform of the winner’s podium.1993 Honda Civic del Sol Si125-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2260 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,310/$16,460C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.6 sec60 mph: 8.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.9 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 32.5 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 204 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 27 mpg1st Place: Mazda MX-5 MiataThe tight handling course at Willow Springs Raceway brought all this into focus. Yes, we know real people buy real cars to drive on real roads. And, no, we didn’t let racetrack performance unduly bias our final judgment. But this was where the true character, the driving character, of these cars could be most dramatically (and most safely) exposed. And it’s where the Miata showed itself to be much more than just a vintage-Lotus lookalike without oil leaks. The front-drivers in the group—the more powerful and heavier Civic del Sol and the much more powerful, lots heavier Capri XR2—swooped and slid around the course, trading understeer for forward thrust in an easy, no-brainer give-and-take. We simply pitched them into the corners and let them scrub off speed until it was time to unwind the steering and get back on the gas. HIGHS: Genuine, pure-sports-car virtues, from the control feel to the exhaust note.LOWS: Genuine, pure-sports-car vices, from trunk space to cockpit noise.VERDICT: The sports car of our day.But the Miata demanded an entirely different approach. It displayed delicate balance, reflex-quick steering, and opportunities for attitude adjustment that come only when the driven wheels are not also the steered wheels. Like a good dance partner, it showed a wide repertoire of moves and a steadfast willingness to follow our lead. Despite its skinny tires and modest 116 horsepower, it pirouetted its way to a lap time comfortably ahead of the del Sol’s—58.8 seconds to 59.0. More on the MiataOut on serpentine public roads, the handling trait that caught everyone’s attention after stepping out of any of the other cars was a quick-snap steering reaction coming off of center; at first, it felt like dartiness, but once we were acclimated to it, the lively response became just part of the Miata’s light-footed style. Combined with good stability (even when entering corners on the brakes), plenty of grip, and excellent overall balance, this quick-cut maneuverability made the Miata feel the raciest, though it was far from the fastest. In fact, Mazda’s little roadster—with a fairly green engine—posted the tamest top speed of the group (111 mph), and only barely dodged a last-place finish in the acceleration event. But the attention its backroad manner demanded, and then rewarded, made up for the shortfall in power. The Miata’s architecture and most of its aural and tactile feedback reinforce that close-to-the-road sense of sportiness—for better and worse. The front-engine/rear­drive layout steals space in the already snug interior, but it evenly divvies up the working loads among all four wheels and presents the neatest, most direct-feeling shifter you could want. The chassis telegraphs information about the road surface and tire traction straight to your fingertips and back pockets, although the freeway ride is noisy and busy. The Miata comes by its close-coupled feel honestly—it’s the lightest car here at 2260 pounds, and the shortest—but passenger and luggage space are squeezed to the minimum. Still, even drivers of above-average height have the working room they need, and major-control placement is about perfect for almost everyone. Finally, there is that impertinent exhaust snarl Mazda worked so hard to capture. It may get a little wearing on long drives, but who would dare complain? Certainly, no one will complain about the Miata’s folding top, a model of simplicity that can be unlatched and tossed back from the driver’s seat, while waiting for a light to change (if you’re not too picky about unzipping the plastic rear window so it can lie flat). This is spur-of-the­-moment convertibility that should be the rule among convertibles, but in fact is quite rare. That easy, frivolous manner in which the Miata flings itself open aptly characterizes the car’s whole attitude, and stands in fascinating contrast to the studiously refined ingenuity of Honda’s marvelous Civic de! Sol. “Hey, c’mon, will ya?” pesters the Miata. “Let’s get out, tear around have a little fun, leave some skid marks. Okay? Okay? C’mon, let’s go. Can we? Now? Huh?” The del Sol, for its part, quietly suggests, “It’s a lovely day. We can probably have a good time, I should think. And I’ll try not to inconvenience you too much along the way.” Commendable deference and all, but there’s something to be said for enthusiasm. And yet, in the final accounting, this contest wound up as close to a tie as we’d ever want to see. The voting staff members weighed the all-accommodating cleverness of the openable-coupe Honda against the Mazda roadster’s single-purpose eagerness…and found near-parity. What would we have done if the scoring had in fact produced a tie? One option (arbitrary but reasonable, given this magazine’s predilections) would have been to look at the Fun to Drive category core as a tiebreaker, on the rationale that if all else is equal, the car that we enjoy driving the most ought to take the gold. And on that basis, it’s really no contest. Mazda’s little Miata is the modern embodiment of driving fun. 1993 Mazda MX-5 Miata116-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2460 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,650/$16,480C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.4 sec1/4 mile: 17.2 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 32.5 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 201 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 gC/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More