Reviews

Cutting the roof off of Aston’s Vantage coupe makes for a beautiful, attention-grabbing beast with 503-hp twin-turbo V-8. More

Electrification is coming fast, and the greatest ideological quandary for manufacturers that embrace it is whether to buy or build an EV platform. Is it better to invest the huge amounts necessary to create an all-new architecture or hammer out an existing vehicle for electric operation? While the first approach is braver and more future proof, it’s also much more expensive. Lacking the ability to write as many zeros on a check as larger makers such as Volkswagen, Volvo has taken the second option with its 2021 XC40 Recharge P8.
Volvo’s Compact Modular Architecture underpins the Recharge and was designed with electrification in mind—it also forms the basis for the Polestar 2 EV—but its engineers still had to make substantial changes to accommodate the P8’s powertrain and ensure it is as safe as any other XC40. Compact 201-hp electric motors power each axle, with the front end having gained a new reinforcing underbody structure in place of the regular model’s internal-combustion engine. This space also houses the powertrain’s electronic controls and a small frunk designed to accommodate a charging cable. A 75-kWh lithium-ion battery pack is mounted under the floor in an aluminum cage, where it reduces ground clearance from 8.3 inches to 6.9. But in terms of packaging, the only compromise is a nearly 25-percent smaller cargo hold behind the rear seats.

View Photos

Volvo

Volvo Ad Needs an App to See XC40 Recharge

Volvo Unveils 408-HP XC40 Recharge Electric SUV

The P8 mostly looks like a regular XC40, too. From the outside, only model-specific badging and the lack of both a conventional radiator grille and any exhaust tailpipes serve to distinguish it from its fossil-fueled brethren. The passenger compartment is similarly unchanged beyond the replacement of the tachometer in the digital instrument cluster with a power-flow meter. As with other XC40s, cabin space is good by the standards of the compact SUV segment, although materials are more redolent of durability than luxury. The only other notable revision is the pioneering arrival of Volvo’s new Android-based operating system that’s shared with the Polestar 2, which combines some vehicle controls and infotainment functions and is navigated via the central portrait-oriented touchscreen.
The P8 shares both its powertrain and 402-hp total output with the Polestar 2, but the two vehicles have very different characters. We expect the slightly heavier Volvo to be almost as rapid as the Polestar with an estimated 4.3-second zero-to-60-mph time; we clocked the Polestar at 4.1 seconds to 60 mph. The immediacy of the powertrain’s response is impressive, and the twin motors give their all almost silently. Traction is excellent, even in the damp conditions we tested the car in, although the level of thrust tails off at higher speeds. We still had no difficulty confirming the 112-mph speed limiter that Volvo now fits to all of its cars.

View Photos

Volvo

Abrupt acceleration is the XC40 Recharge’s occasional party trick, but not one that really suits its character. The P8’s suspension settings are pliant and clearly biased more toward comfort than iron-fisted body control. The Recharge weighs an estimated 4900 pounds, or roughly a half-ton more than an all-wheel-drive gasoline XC40 T5. On undulating surfaces the chassis struggles to settle down, and larger bumps had the passive dampers fighting to maintain disciplined control. The mighty electric motors have no difficulty motivating the P8’s bulk, but persuading its mass to quickly change direction results in the front tires quickly surrendering to understeer.
The P8 is far more impressive when driven at a casual pace. There’s something almost Bentley-like about its combination of effortless acceleration and relaxed handling. Cruising refinement is excellent, with only the faintest hint of wind noise coming from the tops of the doors at 75 mph. Volvo’s Pilot Assist remains one of the better smart-cruise-control systems, capable of deftly managing both stop-and-go congestion and flowing traffic.
Volvo’s regenerative-braking setup allows you to select a one-pedal driving mode that delivers forceful deceleration when you let off the accelerator. But we actually found this setting a little too aggressive for smooth operation at urban speeds. Switching it off allows the P8 to coast, with both regenerative and friction braking controlled by the left pedal. Volvo is predicting an EPA range of more than 200 miles, with the P8 supporting DC fast charging at speeds of up to 150 kW—enough to take the battery from empty to 80 percent in just 40 minutes. Maxing our the car’s 11-kW onboard charger with a Level 2 charging station will replenish the pack in around 7.5 hours.

View Photos

Volvo

The Android operating system is generally a welcome addition, although Volvo says the version we experienced didn’t represent the final specification. The core interface looks great, with intuitive and crisply rendered app icons on the central touchscreen. But the mapping for the Google-based navigation seemed no better than the one you’d get running Android Auto on a smartphone. It failed to label sizeable towns when zoomed out and rendered minor roads as thin black lines that looked like cracks on the high-definition screen.
Considering Volvo’s pledge that by 2025 half of all the cars it produces globally will be EVs, with the remainder either hybrids or plug-ins, the fully electric XC40 Recharge impresses on many levels. But with an expected price that will just slip under $50,000, not including federal and local tax credits, we expect it will have to fight to find its niche within a quickly expanding premium EV segment. While the United States likely won’t get the less-powerful and more affordable front-wheel-drive version that will be sold in other markets, the Recharge P8 does nicely illustrate Volvo’s commitment to electrification.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Volvo XC40 P8 Recharge
VEHICLE TYPE front- and mid-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
BASE PRICE (C/D EST) $49,500
MOTOR 2 permanent-magnet synchronous AC motors, 201 hp, 243 lb-ft (each); combined output, 402 hp, 487 lb-ft; 75.0-kWh lithium-ion battery pack
ENGINES single-speed direct-drive
TRANSMISSION single-speed direct-drive
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 106.4 inLength: 174.2 inWidth: 73.0 inHeight: 65.0 inPassenger volume: 95 ft3Cargo volume: 17 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 4900 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 4.3 sec100 mph: 10.7 sec1/4 mile: 12.9 secTop speed: 112 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 115/120/110 MPGeRange: 200 miles

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

10/1/20 UPDATE: This review has been updated with test results for the 2.0T SH-AWD model.
It’s been a while since Acura built a worthy sports sedan. Although the TL and TSX earned comparison-test victories in their day, merging the two to create the tweener 2015 TLX failed to capture the magic of either. Meanwhile, Acura’s other sedan, the Honda Civic–­based ILX, has withered on the vine, and when the 11th-gen Civic debuts in the coming months, the ILX will be two whole Civic generations behind.
[pullquote align=’center’]HIGHS: Impressive underpinnings, standout looks, good value.[/pullquote]
It’s a good thing that the new TLX is an extremely credible and full-fledged effort. Parked next to a BMW 3-series, the TLX looks supercar wide, backing up Acura’s boasts about the width and low roofline of its new sedan. Compared with the Bimmer, it has an extra 3.3 inches between its flanks. It’s also 8.9 inches longer.
[image id=’1c365f32-ea95-4553-94fc-fb27b8a8b2a9′ mediaId=’00954808-2b3b-42b0-9732-752723b21b38′ align=’center’ size=’medium’ share=’false’ caption=” expand=” crop=’6×4′][/image]
[editoriallinks id=’0b8a1684-45df-4788-bfab-cc874887d10c’ align=’left’][/editoriallinks]
That added width isn’t just for your eyeballs; it’s for your elbows and hips, too. Interior room up front is generous, with lots of space between the driver and passenger. The cabin also shows off real wood or textured aluminum trim. But the larger footprint brings with it that universal enemy of performance: weight. At 4026 pounds, our top-trim TLX Advance with the optional SH-AWD is more than 300 pounds heavier than a 330i xDrive and some 600 pounds heavier than a Honda Accord.
Yet, despite its size, the TLX’s rear-seat accommodations are on the small side for a luxury compact sedan. But Acura has a reasonable explanation: Consumers’ widespread migration to crossovers gave the development team the courage to sacrifice interior space on the altar of beauty, as everyone who’s shopping for maximum practicality has already moved on to an SUV.
[pullquote align=’center’]LOWS: Smallish back seat, unsporty transmission, low-grip tires.[/pullquote][image id=’e8ad5b1f-0dd3-47fb-9f9c-0905c67eb374′ mediaId=’4b238d0d-64c9-408b-86aa-64213a6466d8′ align=’center’ size=’medium’ share=’false’ caption=” expand=” crop=’original’][/image]
The chassis is also a major differentiator. Set up and engineered for the handling needs of the performance-focused Type S model that will launch in spring of 2021, the structure is stiff, with perfectly dialed-in chassis tuning. TLX Advance models feature adaptive damping and a handful of driving modes, but the Comfort and Normal settings have too much float. The base car’s nonadjustable suspension tuning strikes us as just right. Remember when BMWs used to have one excellent setup? The regular TLX is like that.
Laying the Groundwork
Building a great-driving car starts with a firm foundation of stampings, castings, and extrusions. Acura’s TLX benefits from an overhauled architecture, designed with the fortitude to make the high-perform­ance Type S work. No chassis parts are shared with the Honda Accord, which is built in the same Ohio assembly plant. Lengthening the distance between the dash and front axle yields almost rear-drive proportions. Only the longish front overhang hints at the transverse-engine, front-drive setup. The control-arm front suspension is a return to Acura sedans of the past, and it’s a claimed 85 percent stiffer laterally than the last TLX’s strut setup. The rear suspension gains a link (to five total) for better wheel control; lateral stiffness is up 45 percent. Under hood, the four-cylinder sits so far ahead of the axle, it looks as if you could remove the steering rack from above. That extra room is to accommodate the TLX Type S’s turbo V-6. The battery moves to the rear for the first time in an Acura, shifting a claimed 52 pounds to the tail, while the use of aluminum for the front fenders and shock towers removes 29 pounds from the nose. Acura says the center of gravity shifts 3.4 inches rearward. Our all-wheel-drive test car had a 57.2/42.8 percent front/rear weight distribution.
[image id=’e31db0f3-0ea5-4ef9-8d53-cdddace462c2′ mediaId=’04146295-3d8d-46d1-8e36-61d41c1380cb’ align=’center’ size=’medium’ share=’false’ caption=” expand=” crop=’original’][/image]
Far More Expensive, but Still a Bargain
The price is up $4500, but the TLX’s $38,525 entry point is still $3720 less than a 3-series’. Add $2000 if you want all-wheel drive. At launch, the TLX gets a transversely mounted 272-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four from the RDX and Honda’s 10-speed automatic. It’s a satisfying powertrain, and the electronically enhanced engine noises are natural-sounding and pleasing, which isn’t the norm.
The fourth generation of Acura’s Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (a.k.a. SH-AWD) reacts quicker and with more available rear bias than the last, and you can feel the system tightening your line during vigorous cornering as it overdrives the outside rear tire. The 10-speed serves admirably across the Honda and Acura lineups, but the programming and responses aren’t much different here than they are in, say, an Odyssey minivan. And its lazy reaction to paddle inputs and refusal to hold gears stand out as detriments. The brakes are the same system used in the NSX but with slightly less aggressive tuning. The pedal is firm and easy to modulate, unlike some similar “by-wire” systems.
[image id=’8267bff2-1d96-4622-ab45-8bb7ed0ac2c2′ mediaId=’c6e77ba3-8059-4029-b717-9bd4e5b01bb1′ align=’center’ size=’medium’ share=’false’ caption=” expand=” crop=’original’][/image]
In a drag race, the TLX can’t hang with the quick end of the segment, and annoyingly, it’s not as swift as its little brother, the Accord 2.0T. Acura fits the TLX’s 19-inch wheels that come on everything but the base model with Michelin’s Primacy A/S, a tire chosen not for its grip but probably its long tread wear, ride comfort, low noise, and minimized rolling resistance. Although the steering is quicker than before, and with progressively wider gear-tooth spacing so the response quickens as you turn the wheel off-center, turn-in is dull, and the tires squeal even at responsible street speeds. On the skidpad, an Accord Sport on narrower but more aggressive all-season tires outperforms the TLX, 0.89 g to 0.87 g. And the setup hurts the Acura’s stopping distances: Both the 70-mph and 100-mph braking figures are a ways off from those of the summer-tire-wearing segment leaders.
Acura’s choice of a laid-back tire is a shame, as the dialed-in chassis is begging for more grip. Torsional rigidity is up by a claimed 50 percent, and you can feel it. There’s greatness in the latest TLX, but it’s going to take the Type S’s 355-hp turbocharged V-6 and 20-inch Pirelli P Zero PZ4s to fully realize it.
[vehicle type=’specpanel’ automotive-tagset-id=”][/vehicle]
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the November 2007 issue of Car and Driver.
In the convoluted hierarchy that constitutes the Mercedes-Benz model lineup, the S63 AMG makes sense as the bargain performance version of the S-class topliner.

2021 Mercedes S-Class vs. BMW and Audi Flagships

Mercedes Fills 2021 S-Class with New Technology

We Drive Every Generation of the Mercedes S-Class

The S63 AMG runs 0 to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds and rips through the quarter-mile in 13.0 seconds at 110 mph, all for the comparatively low base price of $130,775. (Yes, and we do mean comparatively.) Against that, the twin-turbo V-12 S600 covers those benchmarks in 4.2 seconds and 12.6 seconds at 115 mph, but it costs $147,975. If that’s not enough speed or money, the über-S-class, the S65 AMG, starts at $189,575, matches the S600’s 0-to-60 time, and records a 12.4-second quarter-mile at 118 mph.

Highs: Looks great, reeks of money, performs superbly.

Of course, the S63 looks the part, with typically stylish AMG body modifications and gorgeous 20-inch wheels shod with suitably low-profile 35-series Pirelli P Zeros. Inside, it features a special AMG steering wheel with aluminum shifter paddles and heavily bolstered AMG sport seats. Alcantara and leather cover almost every surface, convincing occupants that the car costs money with a capital M.

View Photos

The S63 sounds wonderful, too, thanks to the now ubiquitous AMG 6.2-liter V-8, which growls malevolently under hard throttle. It’s not as swift as the S600 and S65 at covering 30-to-50- and 50-to-70-mph passing, but times of 2.7 and 3.4 seconds, respectively, are still obscenely quick. The sport-tuned suspension gives up some ride quality compared with the S600 and S550, but the upside is that one can make this big car dance in the twisties. Braking, too, is impressive, with the 70-to-0-mph stop taking 159 feet.

Lows: The ride can be harsh, hugely expensive.

But no matter how well the S63 performs, there was this nagging question: Do we really need a sporty version of the planet’s best luxury car? The S550 is so good and so capable that we kept thinking the raison d’être for the S63, other than as a profit center, is to show other Mercedes drivers that, well, you’re even better off then they are. In this day and age, when too much is never enough, the S63 serves a useful function, as it also delights the stockholders and management of Daimler AG.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$136,245 (base price: $130,775)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 379 cu in, 6208ccPower: 518 bhp @ 6800 rpmTorque: 465 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
TRANSMISSION 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 124.6 inLength: 205.0 inWidth: 73.7 inHeight: 58.0 inCurb weight: 4910 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 secZero to 100 mph: 10.8 secZero to 150 mph: 27.3 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 4.9 secStanding ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 110 mphTop speed (governor limited): 155 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 159 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city/highway driving: 11 mpgC/D observed: 12 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the Archive: A wheeled skiff on pavement, a mountain goat on the trails. More

From the September 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
Cheap speed is like free beer or two bonus Presidents’ Days that land on successive Fridays. It’s always, always good. The only way it could be better is if you combined the beer part with, say, King Mswati III’s parade of bare-breasted maidens, held in the King’s honor annually in Swaziland, where we have never tested even one automobile. But the female members of our production team, one voting in this comparo, reminded us that rampant immaturity in grown men is a trait they do not often seek, so we let it slide, opting instead to spend one hour per night devoted exclusively to poop jokes.

Every New Compact Car You Can Buy in 2020

20 Best Cheap Performance Cars, Trucks, and SUVs

2020 Editors’ Choice: Best New Cars, Trucks, SUVs

This feels like maybe the 23rd installment in our series of cheap-speed comparos, but that’s okay, because we’ve made quite a prosperous little career out of repeating ourselves. For this test, we demanded that each car produce 200-or-more horsepower with a base price not to exceed $25,000. Cheap speed isn’t so cheap these days. We eventually came up with six qualified combatants, which immediately dwindled to five when Volkswagen couldn’t supply a Jetta GLI.
Unfortunately, that’s when the squabbling broke out, fueled mostly by assistant art director Dan Winter, who provoked us into lengthy Other Car negotiations throughout what he calls “Milwaukee Beer Night,” a weekly ritual that Wisconsin native Winter pursues much as Catholics pursue high-stakes bingo. Ever generous, he trotted out his personal premium stock—Schlitz, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and Blatz in cans—and our first order of business wasn’t making a list of potential comparo cars but making a list of really cranky chicks who unfairly dumped us in high school. Copy editor Cora Weber was no help in this matter, concentrating instead on her Blatz and often asking what time it was.
That’s why we got around to talking about cars on some other day, probably at noon or 2 o’clock. First, we summarily excluded any Ford Focus, Hyundai Tiburon, or Mini Cooper on account of not making enough power. The latest Mitsubishi Eclipse GT came close to making the cut, but the only staffer who’d driven the thing told us it was “more like a softly suspended tourer than a racer” and would thus be humiliated. Maybe. But notice that the gentleman didn’t want his name to appear here.
“What about a V-6 Mustang?” blurted Winter, when no one had asked the art department’s opinion on anything. “Twenty grand, 210 horses,” he pointed out. We cursed and laughed, reminding Dan that a heavy rear-drive muscle car was totally at odds with the character of this group. Later, a civilian in Ohio asked, “So where’s your V-6 Mustang?” and we wished we’d included one.
And then someone, possibly Weber, asked, “What about an Audi A3? Less than $500 beyond the price cap and 197 horsepower, which is close enough.” We scoffed and threw pizza crusts, assuring her that the A3 couldn’t possibly keep up. Later, when we looked up its test results, we realized we were wrong, but we’re men and she’s just a girl, so we didn’t say anything, and the Audi wasn’t invited. Sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, which usually entails some Schlitz in a paper cup. Then Winter mentioned that a Jeep Wrangler might almost qualify, so we had to hurt him.

AARON KILEY

And that’s how we wound up with one coupe (the Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged), one hatchback (the Acura RSX Type-S), one pseudo-coupe with rear half-size suicide doors (the Saturn Ion Red Line), one four-wheel-drive sedan (the Subaru Impreza WRX), and one front-wheel-drive sedan (the Dodge SRT4 ACR). We’re not sure if this sets a record for the most tacked-on initials in comparo history, but it might.

If you’re still reading at this point, direct your letters of outrage to managing editor Steve Spence. The 18th letter to arrive will earn its author a pair of embarrassingly red Ferrari sneakers, size unknown, or $35,000 in cash, whichever Spence feels like mailing that day.
Some bathrobes may have been involved in this comparo. “It was real hot outside,” explained Winter. “Like a steam bath.” It was Winter’s idea that we thus dress appropriately. Which meant we could claim expensive monogrammed terry-cloth robes on C/D’s expense account. Winter was not even drinking Blatz when he made this suggestion. Schlitz, possibly.
Plus: Three cost-free things that will improve your autocross performance

Fifth Place: Saturn Ion Red Line
For years and years, we’ve tried to love Saturns. Really, we have. But the division’s products continue to lack a pound of passion and an ounce of refinement. The Ion Red Line is Saturn’s most earnest effort to enrapture, starting with a supercharged Ecotec producing 205 horses. Combine that with the $1375 Competition package, and SoCal import tuners suddenly have a reason to stop snickering. Sort of.

Highs: Confident chassis, strong brakes, manageable price.

There’s plenty here to like. For starters, the Ion Red Line offers the lowest base and as-tested prices in this group. It required a mere 164 feet to stop from 70 mph, with glory due its performance pads and 11.6-inch front rotors. Power delivery was smooth, unlike the on/off whipsawing of the turbocharged cars. There wasn’t a trace of torque steer. The Ion resembles a coupe, but its rear suicide doors proved a godsend for the two (not three) back-seat riders. It was faster than the Chevy Cobalt—with which it shares an engine and platform—in our autocross and emergency-lane-change maneuvers, where it felt extraordinarily well planted. And its Recaro seats accommodated all keisters.
In the end, though, those selling points were drowned in a whirlpool of minor misjudgments. The clutch and the steering were slightly too heavy and leaden, and the shifter was too ropy—beefs leveled at the Cobalt, too. The interior was notable mostly for acres of tacky black plastic, and the dash appeared to have been assembled from 40 pieces. The engine wanted to hang onto revs after we’d lifted, introducing driveline snatch. There was still too much engine thrash above 4000 rpm. Instead of a dead pedal we found only a wad of spongy, squishy carpet. And the optional $390 decklid spoiler wobbled and shimmied like an epileptic hula dancer.

Lows: Thrashy above 4000-rpm, plasticky interior, say-nothing steering.

What’s more, no one ever warmed to the column-mounted shift lights, whose warnings glow at 4400 rpm (peak torque), at 5600 rpm (peak horsepower), and finally at 6200 rpm (300 revs shy of the redline). Actually, the idea is good—you can’t help noticing the lights in your peripheral vision, a cool thing during an autocross. But our testers unanimously ached for a large, simple tach instead, a tach not mounted in the middle of the dash, we might add.
We’d like to tell you that C/D’s editors are free of “historical momentum”—a euphemism for prejudices. But, hey, we’re human. (Well, at least four of us.) During this contest, the Ion may have suffered from the kind of pent-up residual animus that voters reserve for politicians who try to appeal to every constituent on every issue. In one corner of Saturn’s parts bin you’ll find a bunch of super-cool Honda engines, and over in another corner are some Euro-sourced Opel chassis, and over in a third is—hey, what’s this?—a rebadged Chevy minivan that the division advertises as “all-new.” And now we’re to think of Saturn as our performance company?

The Verdict: We want so much to love thee, Saturn, but you’re still not ready to commit.

In truth, Saturn has a couple of thoughtful offerings in the pipeline—chief among them the Sky roadster—although there’s reportedly nothing in the pipeline invented by Saturn uniquely for Saturn. For the nonce, the division remains the car company for people too timid to haggle with salesmen, and a mission statement like that must surely mess with Saturnalians’ minds.
2005 Saturn Ion Red Line205-hp turbocharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2962 lbBase/as-tested price: $19,990/$22,115C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 15.61/4 mile: 14.6 @ 98 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg

Fourth Place: Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
We began referring to the Cobalt SS as the “Chevrolet Ion Red Line,” which was probably unfair. But neither was it a gross exaggeration. The Chevy and the Saturn share identical aluminum engines; they share the same Recaro seats and Quaife limited-slip differentials; and both at least begin with the same Delta chassis, although tuning differences now differentiate them. The Cobalt, for instance, always felt like the longest and heaviest car in this group (it was neither), especially on the freeway, where its superb tracking and overall solidity made it a long-distance all-star.

Highs: Solid and rattle-free, three-passenger rear seat, accom­plished long-distance cruiser.

But the Cobalt also evinced a few too many of the Saturn’s Delta blues. The steering often felt heavy, artificial, and far less fluid than, say, the Acura’s or Subaru’s. That, combined with the heavy clutch and shifter—whose reverse lock-out ring was as fiddly as a nine-speed electric can opener—lent the car a moribund countenance, especially around town. Like the Saturn, the Cobalt also sported a rickety decklid spoiler that obscured the view of trailing Crown Vics and threatened to fly to pieces every time the trunk was slammed. And apart from its easy-to-read gauges—a huge improvement over the Saturn’s—the interior was as dark as February in Reykjavik, at odds with the car’s putative mission.
All voters remarked on a weird scraping noise that the Cobalt’s Ecotec inline-four—and the Saturn’s, too—emitted under light load and steady throttle. It sounded like a serpentine belt rasping across a tensioner or like pennies vibrating in the bottom of Uncle Morty’s cigar tin.

Lows: See Saturn Ion Red Line.

The long, heavy doors—remember the Camaro’s?—require your full attention in tight parking spaces, but they do make entry to the rear seat easier, a seat that is, by the way, suitable for three. Here’s a case, though, where the Saturn’s suicide clamshell doors might have been worth stealing.
Around our Ohio Hocking-heim loop—home of Grandma Faye’s convenience store and six varieties of vegetarian beef jerky—the Cobalt proved as quick as any car in this group, save the SRT4. But to maintain that pace, it also required more stern-willed shepherding. At its limits, the Cobalt was never unpredictable or snaky. Just, well, raggedy .
Our cobalt Cobalt wasn’t a victor in any of our many voting categories, and a car has to do at least one thing well before it has the remotest shot at fame. Instead, the little Chevy apparently aspires to be everyman’s cheap-speed coupe, lacking the refinement of the Acura, the brute force of the Dodge, or the passion of the Subaru—three models that have generated actual cults.

The Verdict: Competent and fun but not likely to launch a cult.

Nothing notable to hate, nothing notable to love. Apart from maybe Dan Quayle, no one has ever become famous like that.
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged205-hp supercharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2936 lbBase/as-tested price: $21,990/$24,580C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 15.31/4 mile: 14.6 @ 99 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 169 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

Third Place: Dodge SRT4 ACR
The Dodge SRT4 ACR—we were asked not to use the Neon designator here, lest readers conjure a wimpy, dental hygienist’s car—represents a kind of descent into acronymic nirvana. SRT stands for Socially Regressive Thinking [ It stands for Street and Racing Technology – Ed.], and ACR stands for Alabama Canine Registry [ It stands for American Club Racing – Ed.]. The $1195 ACR package includes an even firmer suspension—yeah, that’s what it needs—as well as 225/45-16 BFG g-Force T/As instead of the standard 205/50R-17s.

Highs: Big dirty speed, astounding brakes, an autocrosser ready for tire immolation.

Thus equipped, this smiley-faced Dodge is not so much a bull in a china shop as a tyrannosaur in a maternity ward. Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking.
What’s more, the SRT4 offers intergalactically powerful brakes, shedding 70 mph of velocity in 161 feet—supercar territory. If you’re beginning to think of the SRT4 as more race car than street car, we wouldn’t talk you out of it.
Race cars make a lot of noise. The SRT4 was far and away the noisiest car in this group—at idle, at wide-open throttle, and at a 70-mph cruise. Racing engines don’t have to be smooth. The SRT4’s produces a riot of vibration and is so lumpy at idle that our testers couldn’t write clearly in the logbook.

Lows: Noisy at all speeds, vibration at all speeds, overly aggressive front seats.

Race-car seats aren’t designed to be comfy. The SRT4’s hold your legs almost at belt level, as if you’re in a Formula Ford, and the bolsters were apparently designed to clutch onto Steve Kinser. The struts and anti-roll bars groan and gronk. The throttle-return spring is so heavy it could close a screen door. The rear windows are operated via manual cranks. And the spare tire is directional, as if the Dodge guys assume it’s the first thing buyers will discard on the garage floor.
While autocrossing, the Dodge felt right at home but was also the easiest to overdrive, with boost manifesting as early as 2000 rpm. Curb your right-foot enthusiasm, or the SRT4 will smoke its front BFGs out of every corner, even in third gear, plowing wide of your intended line.
This feisty little brute might have placed higher (an SRT4, in fact, won our May 2003 “Serial Thriller” comparo) were it not such a one-trick pony. The Dodge was a perfect marvel on our Ohio handling loop and a perfect nightmare on the drive down—hobbled by the omnipresent lawn-mower exhaust drone, the let’s-get-it- on ride, the rock-hard brake pedal, the torque steer off the line, the dense steering at low speeds, and the onlookers who assume you’re a sociopath looking for a school bus to ram.

The Verdict: A one-trick pony you’ll want to save for SCCA weekends.

Pulse-pounding velocity is dandy, until you want to sip an espresso latte while commuting to work at 6:30 in the sleet. Then all the boy-racer stuff becomes cloying. Still, if there’s pavement in front of your house that needs to be torn up, buy your SRT4 now. This mobile monster disappears in 2006.
2005 Dodge SRT4 ACR230-hp turbocharged inline-four, 5-speed manual, 2973 lbBase/as-tested price: $22,390/$24,058C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.6 sec100 mph: 14.51/4 mile: 14.3 @ 99 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 161 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

Second Place: Subaru Impreza WRX
It seems as if there’s been a hot Impreza or a WRX in our sign-out fleet about one week of every four since 1995, and the awfulest, rudest example among them would still score an easy nine-point-nine in the smiles-per-mile department. When we think of WRXs, we think of Rex, the cute little Boston terrier who licks and kisses his master but also occasionally bites the FedEx guy’s ankle just for fun. The growl of the 227-hp boxer does nothing to spoil that illusion.

Highs: Long-travel suspension, four-wheel grip, superior sightlines.

What you notice first about the WRX is that everything feels in the right place—the optional short-throw shifter ($345), the height and angle of the cloth seats, the secondary controls. “It’s the only car here that doesn’t need an adjustable steering column,” noted six-foot-five Dave VanderWerp. What you notice next is that the steering is by far the lightest, most sensitive, most telepathic in this group, the sort of steering you’d expect on, say, a sporty Lexus. And the brake pedal is firm but with considerable travel, clearly announcing the onset of anti-lock.
Outright grip isn’t great—the WRX is fitted with the least racy tires in this bunch—but if you enter a turn too fast, the chassis offers up a charming little four-wheel drift, then scrubs speed reliably and neutrally. That’s not the quickest way around a corner, just the funnest. Because it makes it so hard to get into trouble, the WRX inspires confidence. You drive it fast all the time—nine-tenths in the 7-Eleven parking lot feels about right.

Lows: Wait-till-tomorrow turbo lag.

The boxy body still rolls and squirms too much, but that’s likely the upshot of what feels like huge suspension travel, which, in turn, imbues the WRX with the cushiest ride in this group. Even if you didn’t know the WRX’s rally history, you’d know its suspension was designed to work on rough, diabolical byways.
The biggest knock against the WRX is that its 227 horses are so slow to emerge from their turbocharged barn. Glance at little Rex’s rolling-start and top-gear accel times — all the worst by a wide margin. Compared with the Dodge, the Subaru subjectively evinces twice as much turbo lag. You quickly learn to linger in the 4K rev region and to apply power way, way before you exit a turn. Left-foot braking helps a little but not a lot. Despite being the second-most-powerful car in this group, the WRX finished fourth in our autocross, a victim of its weight, family-man tires, and lag. On the sharpest of the autocross turns, we’d almost stop on entry so that full throttle could be applied immediately after turn-in — that’s how much you have to anticipate.

The Verdict: An endearing, confidence-inspiring hunting dog that never lets you down.

It sounds funny to say this, but of the cars in this group, the WRX felt the most grown-up, the most utilitarian. You sit bolt upright and are surrounded by the clearest view in all directions. The WRX offers the only back seat that comfortably accommodates three adults without jamming their knees into their chins. And four-wheel drive makes the WRX the obvious choice for those who dwell in the solid-precipitation belt.
Rex, boy, go bite the mailman.
2005 Subaru Impreza WRX227-hp turbocharged flat-four, 5-speed manual, 3117 lbBase/as-tested price: $25,620/$26,364C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 18.01/4 mile: 14.6 @ 94 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg

First Place: Acura RSX Type-S
Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap.
Go ahead and write letters. We’re used to it.

Highs: Luxurious cockpit, world’s slickest front-wheel­-drive shifter, balance and agility of a ballerina.

It’s not that we’re so into the whole stone-shot-from-a-sling Philistine scene. But what makes this car a Goliath beater is that it’s an 8100-rev-ripping steroidal slot car on weekends and an intellectually sophisticated upscale six-jewel commuter on weekdays. Plus, when your neighbor asks what car you bought, it sounds way cooler to say Acura than Dodge—another reason why Acura’s offerings so firmly hold their resale values.
Acura’s recipe is worth copying. The engineers created the lightest and lowest car in this group, then added the highest-revving engine but with the least vibration, which they then mated to a six-speed box that shifts so fluidly that it’s like working the Tiptronic levers on a Porsche 911. It feels as if the shift linkage, the throttle, and the short-stroke clutch were magically interconnected and giving one another instantaneous instructions and heartfelt advice.

Lows: Always revving, always shifting, always busy.

In this quintet, the Acura proved the most neutral in the hills and was the only car whose tail could be rotated with a dash of trail braking, thus avoiding the dreaded plow endemic to everything else in this group. On the skidpad, the RSX beat all comers.
What’s more, its trunk is the largest—okay, so it’s a hatchback, but it’s hard to tell from most angles—and the RSX simply embarrassed the pack with its built-in-Japan fit and finish. The dash is covered in a fetching rubberized grain that resembles expensive fabric, and the standard perforated-leather seats look like those in the tip-of-the-flagpole RL. The tiny, leather-wrapped wheel is just the right thickness and is as gratifying to grasp as a new Rawlings softball. Even the door inserts are swathed in delicate, pale cow skins, lending the cockpit a bright, luxurious feel. Why don’t the rest of the cars in this group offer cockpits as airy and fun? Why don’t they offer decklid spoilers as subtle and tasteful?
The RSX isn’t perfect. The seat cushions are a bit too flat and slippery, encouraging butt migration. The suspension feels as if it offers the least travel, occasionally crashing over Michigan potholes. The engine’s predilection for revs is so serious—note the astounding 4.77:1 final drive—that the drone can be annoying after a couple hours of freeway slogging. There’s still too much wind whirlpooling around the A-pillars. And an RSX driver will be rowing the gears at a rate that would impress even the Andretti family.

The Verdict: A showcase of engineering, style, speed, and grace.

Who cares? Around town, the RSX is so agile, so light on its feet, so neatly balanced, so crisp at step-off that we voted it Most Likely to Carve Traffic into Invisibly Thin Slices. Close your eyes, and the RSX Type-S is like driving a Honda S2000. Okay, so maybe you shouldn’t close your eyes too long. Just long enough to sign a check for $24,240.
2005 Acura RSX Type-S210-hp inline-four, 6-speed manual, 2843 lbBase/as-tested price: $24,240/$24,240C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.4 sec100 mph: 16.61/4 mile: 14.9 @ 95 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 gC/D observed fuel economy: 24 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the July 2001 issue of Car and Driver.
We always thought we knew what Mustangs were all about: reasonably quick coupes that, despite being slower and less sure-footed then Camaros, still outsold the Chevy pony car by a margin of four to one. How could this be? Some say the Mustang looks better, or that the Camaro’s bulked-up body turns off potential buyers.

Which Ultimate Pony Car Is the 1/4-Mile King?

Camaro ZL1 1LE vs. Challenger SRT vs. Shelby GT500

Best Muscle Cars for $10K: Window Shop with C/D

Even though Ford is clearly killing Chevy at the showrooms, the Dearborn automaker made a variety of refinements to its SVT Mustang Cobra that it hoped would finally produce a Mustang that equaled a Camaro’s quickness and agility. The Cobra’s crude solid rear axle was replaced with an independent rear suspension in 1999, and the engine’s output was boosted by 15 horses to 320—the same as in the killer 1998 Camaro Z28SS.
But Ford’s hoped-for glory never materialized because, oddly enough, the enhanced horsepower didn’t make the Cobra any quicker. The 1999 Cobra needed 5.5 seconds to get to 60 mph, about a half-second slower than the Camaro. We figured that although the Cobra had equal horsepower, the 5.7-liter pushrod Chevy V-8’s significant torque advantage (345 pound-feet versus 317) over that of the revvy 32-valve DOHC Cobra V-8 gave the Camaro an edge at the drag strip.
It turns out that many of the Cobra’s 15 new horses had jumped the fence—and it wasn’t just our test car. About midway through the 1999 model year, Cobra owners, who thought their cars just didn’t feel 320 horses strong, started taking their cars to dynos and testing them. Some Cobras were missing as much as 20 of the advertised horsepower. These guys were miffed. And they got on the horn in big numbers and began howling, “Where’s the beef?”

Highs: V-8 snarl, first-class punch, refined new chassis.

By the time Ford discovered its horses weren’t where its mouth was, then figured out a fix for each of the cars already sold and also designed new parts for production cars, there wasn’t enough time to get the new parts into 2000 Cobras. As a result, Ford did not produce any for that model year. Ford now says 2001 is the first production year that all Cobras make 320 horsepower.
As you can imagine, we were quite eager to get into the latest Cobra model. We received the Mineral Gray 2001 model pictured here. The car felt strong, but it still didn’t seem to have Camaro punch. Perhaps 320 horses was still optimistic.
Then we strapped on the test gear and made a few runs at the track. The results were staggering—the Cobra’s acceleration time matched a Camaro SS’s. The Cobra scooted to 60 mph in only 4.8 seconds and through the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 105 mph. Our last Z28SS (a particularly quick model we tested in October 1998) hit 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and did the quarter in 13.5 seconds at 107 mph.
“Must be a ringer,” somebody offered. Had Ford slipped us an especially strong one? We asked for a second Cobra, and soon a white convertible arrived. We quietly drove both cars to the chassis dyno at Automotive Performance Engineering (APE) of Clinton Township, Michigan (810-954-3181; www.ap-engineering. com).

Lows: Fix the understeer. Please.

The technicians at APE strapped our gray coupe onto the dyno rolls and recorded 272 horsepower at the rear wheels. If you correct for driveline losses (about 15 percent), the rear-wheel dyno number correlates to 320 crankshaft horsepower, exactly as advertised. We then put the white convertible Cobra onto the dyno, and although we expected to see some typical production variation, we did not. It too made 272 rear-wheel horsepower. So you can take it from us: At least two 2001 Cobras produced the advertised 320 horsepower.
The newfound quickness and consistent engine performance are only part of the story as the Cobra has left its crude pony-car roots and joined the ranks of competent sports coupes. The floaty, not-sure-what-the-tires-are-doing feeling that has plagued Mustangs is gone. Now you can point the Cobra exactly where you want and assume it will go there. The car feels appropriately firm without being harsh, and it never bounces off bumps or potholes.
You can thank the independent rear suspension for the Cobra’s buttoned-down, confidence-inspiring behavior. According to Art Hyde, chief program engineer for the Mustang, the new independent rear suspension achieved three significant things: It slashed unsprung weight by 100 pounds, reduced lateral compliance, and allowed an inch more of wheel travel.
The result is nothing short of a Cobra transformation that, along with some of the other 1999 detail changes (new seats and an inch more of front legroom) and the always alluring exhaust snarl, has turned the Cobra into a car that’s a superb all-arounder. There’s really nothing the Cobra can’t do either well or extremely well. It’s quick, it stops from 70 mph in 179 feet, and it claws at the pavement with 0.86 g of lateral grip (the Camaro Z28SS stops in 174 feet and pulls 0.85 g on the skidpad).

The Verdict: A genuine match for the Camaro SS. Too bad Chevy doesn’t have the cojones to respond.

Matching a Z28SS’s quickness will cost you, however, as our well-equipped Cobra (power driver’s seat, in-dash CD changer, traction control, anti-lock brakes, and leather trim are all standard) stickered at $29,600. A Camaro SS, which now has 325 horsepower, starts at $26,400.
Even so, we’re glad to know that once the Camaro leaves us next year, the last pony car left standing won’t be the slowest one.
Counterpoint
It is somewhat irritating to know that a standard Mustang can be had for about 18 grand, but to get one that is going to get your blood in motion, you have to ante up another 10 large. Once I enter the realm where the price tags even approach 30 grand, the word Mustang is no longer on my mind—I’m thinking Audi and BMW, and could I possibly swing the payments for a C-class Mercedes? Call me cheap. And although I’ll admit that this is an exceptionally handsome paint job and a superb new color, and the seats are a huge improvement over the standard chairs, count me out. Even a full-second edge to 60 mph wont entice me. —Steve Spence
This Cobra is probably as good as this generation of Mustang is going to get. It’s really quick. It sounds tremendous. And sans rear wing and painted a tasteful color, this is a pretty good-looking car. But the Cobra is going to cost you. Am I greedy to think that I should be able to get a Mustang GT that feels like this for six grand less? And although SVT changed the rear fascia to read “Cobra” instead of the 1999 Cobra’s fascia that read “Mustang,” its origins can’t be hidden. There is a limit to what even 320 horsepower and an independent rear suspension can do. This Cobra feels slightly heavy and ponderous as do all Mustangs —Daniel Pund
Lots of snort here, and I’m sure the SVT people are sleeping better as the product finally measures up to the 320-hp promise. Now they should get busy and fix the elements that really need fixing. This or any other Mustang is out of step with the times in terms of chassis, comfort, and control layout. Specifically, the relationships among the wheel, seat, and foot pedals just don’t work for taller drivers. There’s not enough fore-and-aft seat travel, and the seats rate a B-minus at best. The plain truth is that the Mustang is rapidly becoming antique. A fast antique, for sure. But antique nonetheless. —Tony Swan

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2001 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
VEHICLE TYPEfront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED$29,600
ENGINE TYPEDOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 281 in3, 4601 cm3Power: 320 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 317 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): struts/control armsBrakes (F/R): 13.0-in vented disc/11.6-in vented discTires: BFGoodrich Comp T/A, 245/45ZR-17
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 101.3 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.1 inHeight: 53.2 inPassenger volume: 82 ft3Trunk volume: 11 ft3  Curb weight: 3472 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.8 sec100 mph: 12.0 sec130 mph: 23.3 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.5 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 9.5 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 10.2 sec1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 105 mphTop speed (drag limited): 148 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 20/17/25 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More