Reviews

From the June 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
Driver involvement—it’s what distinguishes cars we lust after from cars that merely have impressive performance specifications. It’s what makes a Porsche Boxster so much better to drive than the quicker Corvette convertible. It’s also what gives us job security, since there’s no reliable way—other than getting behind the wheel—to predict if a new model possesses this car/driver relationship.

500-HP Face-Off: Vantage v. AMG GT v. 911 GT3

Tested: 2018 911 GT3 PDK Will Make You a Fiend

Tested: 2018 GT3 Manual Will Stir Your Soul

A high-revving naturally aspirated engine often indicates that a car’s engineers have made driver involvement a priority. Working to keep the engine screaming high in the rpm range—and being drawn into the wailing soundtrack—is almost always more rewarding than standing on the gas of a mega-torque turbo.
This thought kept bouncing around in our heads while wringing out the latest and highest-revving version of the 997 Porsche 911—the GT3.
Driving Impression
Even at idle, you know this is something special. The seats tremble from the high-strung flat-six’s lumpy idle, and a stab at the throttle yields instant response. The GT3 goads you to stand on it, and you submit. As the car screams through first gear (in less time than it takes to read this sentence), it becomes apparent that the GT3’s gearing is noticeably shorter than that of other 911s. Above about 4000 rpm the cabin fills with a robust growl as the exhaust bypass opens up. Initially, you shift by sound at about 6000 rpm, and the engine feels impressive. But then you realize that you’ve got another 2400 rpm to play with, and when you push into the upper reaches of the power band, there’s an awakening at 6000 rpm. The engine absolutely shrieks to the 8400-rpm redline. Anyone listening on the outside is treated to a fantastic race-quality wail. Your neighbors will hate you. Your neighbors’ kids will love you.

View Photos

On the track, of course, is where the GT3 shines. At first, we thought there was noticeable understeer through some lower-speed sweepers, but it turns out we hadn’t started trusting the massive grip of the rear tires yet. Blasting out of a corner, the GT3 has shocking traction—its 415 hp scorches the ground. If you push too hard, the tires break away predictably, and the GT3 is never scary—no amount of experimentation with jumping off the throttle could get the rear end to come around. All the cars we drove had ceramic brakes, which are absolutely fade free and provide a slop-free feel that other companies should benchmark. The short shifter is a welcome improvement, although engagement is now crisp and effort is higher. On the street, we were almost thinking it was notchy, but those thoughts vanished at the track, where the gearbox works perfectly.
Most of the cars we drove had the carbon-fiber seats, which feel like they’re bolted directly to the floor, placing the driver low in the cockpit. With stiff and aggressive leg and shoulder bolstering, they’re perfect for track work. But they wear quickly on leg and shoulder comfort during any significant street driving, making the U.S.-spec GT3’s grippy sport seats a reasonable choice.
But what’s so impressive about the GT3 is that despite a major increase in ultimate performance, it also works so much better on the street. The active dampers (PASM), while much stiffer than on standard 911s, go a long way to smoothing out imperfect roads. In normal mode, we were pleasantly surprised not to take a beating over some rough roads we encountered. But picking the extra-firm sport mode makes a dramatic difference.
At high speeds, the new variable-ratio steering dials in some sneeze room to get rid of previous darty behavior. And the GT3 kicked its habit of following pavement grooves. But don’t worry; the steering still gives excellent feedback and has an always precise feel.
Okay, so the GT3 isn’t a likely option for a daily commuter, nor is it likely to be someone’s only car. But for pure driving enthusiasts — people that probably think the 911 Turbo is an autobahn cruiser for fat-cat execs — with a six-figure track-toy budget, what a sweet choice.

View Photos

Background
The 911 GT3 is the street version of Porsche’s production-based racing cars, the GT3 Cup and RSR. This is the second version of the track-junkies’ 911 that we will get in the U.S. when it goes on sale in August, starting at $106,795. Porsche plans to sell about 800 in the U.S. the first year.
Engine
This isn’t the same engine as the 3.6-liter in more pedestrian 911s (if you believe such things exist). The GT3 shares its dry-sump engine with Porsche’s production-based racing cars—the GT3 Cup and RSR—and the Turbo. Standard 911s use a two-piece engine block split down the center line of the crankcase. On the GT3 and Turbo, it’s a four-piece unit with crankcase parts cast separately, which are then bolted to the cylinder blocks. This is a stiffer arrangement, which can handle more power, and was originally developed for racing applications.
For the 2007 GT3, Porsche sticks with the same aluminum 3.6-liter flat-six but ups the power by 35 hp to 415 at 7600 rpm, making it the most powerful naturally aspirated 911 ever. That’s also the same output as the last-gen Turbo. And the redline rises by 200 rpm to a stunning 8400, up there with the best, just 100 rpm shy of the Ferrari F430’s redline. But the GT3 makes 115.3 hp per liter—more than the Ferrari and just about anything else. Torque is up 15 pound-feet to 299 at 5500 rpm.

View Photos

These gains have come largely by lightening rotating components and making the engine breathe better. A new crankshaft design saves 1.3 pounds. Reshaped, forged pistons and 1-mm-smaller (in diameter) piston pins shave an ounce per cylinder. The titanium connecting rods also got thinner. The compression ratio is up to 12.0 from 11.7 in the previous GT3.
In the exhaust, the GT3 has new silencing flaps that, when open (above about 4000 rpm at load), reduce back pressure by eight percent compared with the old GT3. The entire exhaust system has thinner walls than before and weighs almost 20 fewer pounds.
Other updates include a slightly larger throttle body, to better feed the three-stage variable-intake manifold (the 996 GT3 had a two-stage unit), and a wider operating range for the variable intake-valve timing. It can now adjust over 52 degrees, versus 45 degrees previously.
Transmission
The six-speed manual transmission is largely the same as the previous GT3’s (including steel syncros and an oil cooler), though the second-through-sixth gear ratios have been shortened slightly. Shift throws are 22-percent shorter than those in other 911s. The limited-slip rear axle has a familiar 3.44:1 ratio but is beefed up compared with lesser 911s.

View Photos

Chassis
The GT3 is based on the 911 Carrera 4’s mechanicals, but it wears the Carrera 2’s narrow sheetmetal, and instead of all-wheel-drive hardware up front, Porsche mounts a larger, 23.8-gallon fuel tank (a 0.3-gallon increase). The new GT3 benefits from an eight-percent increase in torsional rigidity over the previous car. Bending stiffness is up 40 percent.
For the first time, the GT3 has Porsche’s active shocks—called Porsche Active Suspension Management (PASM)—which have worked wonders on 997 911s and 987 Boxsters to date. PASM offers two choices: a sport setting geared toward track use and a normal mode for the street. The GT3’s suspension is a stiffer version of the strut front and multilink rear arrangement from other 911s. Its anti-roll bars are more substantial as well as adjustable — five-way in front and three-way in back. Both the front and rear suspensions are height adjustable.
No additional weight increase came from the 19-inch (one inch larger) alloy wheels. They’re 8.5 inches wide up front and 12.0 inches wide in back. Wrapped around them are GT3-specific Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires in the same size as on 4S models — 235/35 front, 305/30 rear. But these tires have precious little tread, so driving in the rain is done at your own risk. And with a tread-wear rating of 80, which is less than half that of a typical high-performance street-car tire, these tires will ensure that they’ll know the sound of your voice at Tire Rack.
Also new to the GT3 is a full-function traction-control system similar to that on the Carrera GT. The system applies individual brakes to keep the rear wheels spinning at the same rate but will cut engine power if both wheels are slipping excessively. There’s a sport button that raises the thresholds slightly (that same button alters the engine mapping for a little more midrange), as well as an off switch that fully disables the system. But the system doesn’t have stability control like other 911s, so driver skill is required.

View Photos

The 13.8-inch front vented-and-cross-drilled discs (0.8 inch larger than those on the 911 S) are the same size as the previous GT3’s. The rears are also cross-drilled and vented, but they now measure 13.8 inches, up 0.8 inch over the old car. Larger Porsche Ceramic Composite Brakes (PCCB) are optional (15.0 inches front, 13.8 inches rear) and save 44 pounds over the standard steel setup. This is a larger version of PCCB—a size shared with 911 Turbo—but the internal venting design of the discs came from Cup-car development.
Like other 997 911s, the GT3’s steering ratio is variable, which is intended to increase high-speed stability. Thankfully, it remains constant until you really crank the wheel, at which point it speeds up — but this only comes into play in low-speed maneuvers; if you’re cranking the wheel far enough to invoke the faster ratio at high speeds, you have worse problems than the variable steering ratio!
Exterior
The GT3 is even more extroverted than before and looks outrageous on the road. It sits 1.2 inches lower than a base 911 and has an extremely low front fascia with gaping air intakes that insure proper brake and radiator cooling. There’s also an air outlet in front of the trunklid, which reduces front lift by forcing the air passing the central radiator up and over the car. The telltale bi-level rear wing remains, and the top portion is adjustable. Another striking difference is the center-exit rear exhaust pipes, which mimic the race car’s — a first for the street version.
But looks can be deceiving: Despite all the spoilers and bodywork, Porsche engineers have reduced the GT3’s drag coefficient by 0.01 to 0.29 (same as a 911 S).
Porsche says the GT3 weighs the same as a base rear-drive 911, or 3250 pounds. That’s up about 30 over the last model despite some 44 pounds saved with aluminum doors and trunklid as well as a plastic rear engine cover.

View Photos

Interior
The GT3’s interior looks much the same as that of other 997s, which is to say significantly more upscale than before. The GT3 adds an Alcantara-covered steering wheel, shifter, parking-brake lever, and door accents. The gauges have yellow needles and markings (à la Carrera GT) as well as a GT3 logo. Grippy and heavily bolstered Alcantara-lined sport seats are standard. The race-car-like, 23-pound carbon-fiber buckets from the Carrera GT are optional but not in the U.S. And due to the 997’s Porsche Communication Management (PCM) central command screen, there’s no center-console delete option as on previous GT3s. As with all “GT” model 911s, there’s no back seat. Another option U.S. buyers can’t get is the no-cost Clubsport package, which adds a roll cage bolted in the rear, a six-point harness for the driver’s seat, and a fire extinguisher. And of course, there are numerous leather and carbon-fiber trim upgrade options as on any Porsche.
Performance
Porsche predicts an identical 0-to-60-mph time for the new GT3 — we got 4.0 seconds with the old car—but it should shave a couple tenths off the quarter-mile time (think 12 flat), as well as raise top speed 3 mph to 193 (at 8000 rpm in sixth gear).
Skidpad grip should also be higher than the 1.03 g we measured in the last car due to the more-aggressive, softer tires. And we expect that braking from 70 mph should improve 15 or so feet to about 150.
Porsche says that during development the 911 GT3 997 recorded a 7:47 lap around the benchmark Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit. But engineers say the time with the final setup should drop into the 7:42-to-7:45 range. That’s about 10 seconds better than the old car and also a few seconds quicker than the 997 Turbo. We’re sure Porsche would be pleased if the GT3 matches the Corvette Z06’s 7:42 lap time, but it’s still a ways off its big-brother Carrera GT’s 7:32 pace.

Specifications

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

Well, the company did it. Audi managed to make the second-generation TT as stunning to look at as the last. Even after we saw the 2008 TT in pictures, far before we ever saw it in metal, we doubted that it was really good-looking—it had to be trick photography, right? A sequel can’t be as good as the original, can it? Sure it can, and here’s proof. Thankfully, the latest TT is more than a smokin’ body—it’s now an honest-to-Nuvolari sports car, too. (One of the first-gen car’s greatest feats was remaining a favorite of enthusiasts—in spite of its less-than-stellar dynamics—almost solely on account of its staggeringly beautiful design. Yeah, we’re that shallow.)

Best Coupes of 2020

Cars Are Dying, But Fun Will Survive

2019 Audi TT 20 Years Edition; The Start of It All

Grip, Balance, Go, and Stop
Turn the TT into a corner, and you’ll discover three things: There are huge amounts of grip (0.93 g); the TT Quattro feels more balanced than the front-drive TT, even with a similar 59.4/40.6 front-to-rear weight distribution; and Audi still has trouble figuring out how to tune truly communicative steering. The 2008 TT’s steering is pretty good, but because its speed-sensitive, variable-assist system is always just a step or two ahead with the boost, the feel through the supercool flat-bottom steering wheel is always a tad too light, and it’s hard to discern what the front wheels are up to. The TT’s brakes offer good response and stopped the TT from 70 mph in a mere 159 feet.
Our example was fitted with the $1400 optional two-mode magnetic shocks, similar to those found in the Chevy Corvette and Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano. Sport mode doesn’t spoil the ride, and there’s a noticeable uptick in body control when it’s selected. We’re kind of old-school and like a bit of body lean into corners, though, so we kept it mostly switched off with little penalty to handling.

View Photos

The TT rides on the same platform as the Volkswagen Rabbit, Jetta, and GTI, as well as Audi’s own A3 hatchback. Our test car was equipped with a 250-hp, 3.2-liter naturally aspirated V-6 and a smooth six-speed manual transmission, but the base engine is the VW Group’s awesome 2.0-liter turbo four mated to a six-speed, dual-clutch automated manual (the dual-clutch box is an option for V-6 TTs, and a traditional six-speed manual will be available on 2.0Ts after launch). The V-6 is happy to rev right to its 6600-rpm redline, and with three-quarters of peak torque available from 1000 rpm, there’s grunt for the taking all over the tach. It sounds fantastic, too—an ominous, meaty howl underlaid by a thousand sledgehammers striking home—so naturally, we took every opportunity to rip down through the gears just to hear it at full throat.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2008 Audi TT 3.2 Quattro
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED $48,075 (base price: $42,275)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 195 in3, 3189 cm3Power (SAE net): 250 bhp @ 6300 rpmTorque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
TRANSMISSION:6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 97.2 in inLength: 164.5 inWidth: 72.5 inHeight: 53.2 inCurb weight: 3255 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 secZero to 100 mph: 15.4 secZero to 130 mph: 31.2 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 14.5 sec @ 97 mphTop speed (governor limited): 131 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 159 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.93 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city/highway driving: 17/24 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited.

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 January 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
Attention, Wall Street: The latest economic forecast comes from Munich, and this one definitely points up. BMW, a company with a finger firmly on the pulse of the cash-endowed classes, is launching a two-door flagship that runs about 70 large. Surely this is the work of optimists.

Best Coupes of 2020

These Vehicles Are Discontinued for 2021

Cars Are Dying, But Fun Will Survive

The 645Ci arrives as a large two-plus-two coupe hosting four adults in a luxurious and spacious cabin wired with technology up the yin-yang. Features both optional and standard include active anti-roll bars, variable-ratio steering, left-and-right-swiveling xenon headlamps, and an iDrive computer console with a porkpie superknob. By the time the 645Ci slinks into U.S. showrooms this March, the Werke will be ready with a cabriolet version. A bull market can’t be far behind.
The latest opus from BMW design chief Chris Bangle and his gang of icon busters sits astride a shortened version of the new 5-series chassis. The 325 horses emanate from the 4.4-liter DOHC 32-valve V-8 and are routed rearward via a ZF Type G six-speed manual, a ZF 6 HP 26 six-speed automatic, or BMW’s sequential manual gearbox (SMG), a no-clutch-pedal six-speed with paddle-operated shifting.
The suspension is straight 5-series: a strut braced by two spindly aluminum links in front and beefy cast-aluminum lower control arms in back assisted by a pair of lateral links on each side, all mounted to a tubular aluminum crossmember. BMW loves its steel coils; air springs, variable-rate shocks, and other suspension electrotrickery are for others. The 645’s one optional undercarriage fandangle is front and rear hydraulic variable-rate anti-roll bars that help keep the body flat in corners.

View Photos

Coupes die or thrive by their styling, and the 645Ci is yet another complex BMW shape that is more cerebral than emotional. The cab-backward body is the off-the-steroids production version of the gull-wing Z9 GT concept car from the 1999 Frankfurt auto show. Family ties to the big 745i sedan lurk in the oversize grille kidneys, the smoothly groomed flanks, the single thin swage line along the side, and the boxy trunklid. The latter juts out from the deep 13-cubic-foot trunk like the Rock of Gibraltar, which is not far from the southern Spanish town of Málaga, where the 645 was unveiled to automotive writers.
This one screaming feature is set amid fascinating details all but invisible in print. For example, the border between the hood and front fenders is a complicated sculpture of inward and outward creases that slash down the nose to define the glowering headlights. The side character line starts on the thermoplastic front fender, streaks across the aluminum door skin, and fades away into the steel rear quarter-panel, all the while maintaining perfect shape uniformity despite three completely diverse materials.

View Photos

Bangle, who credits BMW’s California-based DesignworksUSA president Adrian van Hooydonk with the exterior shape, admits the 645’s charm may be lost on people who only see it in magazines. “We’ve decided we can’t figure out how to design a car that looks good in pictures,” he says with a shrug. The 645 would look much better without its thick black B-pillars, especially since the Mercedes CLK and CL coupes swoop down the avenue as pillarless hardtops.
Bangle answers: “Of course, doing a car without a B-pillar is attractive to designers, but I work for a performance-engineering company, and they want that sucker to be stiff.”
And so it is. Flung at reckless speeds up the winding roads of Andalusia, the 645Ci is serenely stable and solid. It pounces on corners, tracks flat through the apexes, and devours the straights with a burly snarl from the V-8. It laps up freeway kilometers at triple-digit speeds, the suspension digesting ripples and dips so thoroughly that the body remains almost inert. All the driver has to do is aim the 645 and it goes there. Fast.
This was our first opportunity to stroke BMW’s new free-revving, throttleless V-8 with a manual. The stick is fingertip light, and the power gushes in one smooth surge through the flywheel. Sadly, two huge mufflers overdampen the V-8 sound show from the twin polished tailpipes.

View Photos

BMW expects the 645 six-speed to reach 60 mph in about 5.5 seconds. We have no reason to doubt that. Opt for the automatic, and the shifts—both up and down—are quick and slick. Skip the jerky SMG unless you’re a sadomasochist.
The Werke plans to announce final pricing closer to the 645Ci’s on-sale date, but spokesmen say the base price will fall somewhere just north of the 745i’s base of $69,195. That’s heavy money—about $16,500 more than a Mercedes CLK500—but BMW’s big coupes have always attracted big spenders. The last 840Ci we tested bent an AmEx by $82,312, and that was in October 1996.
By comparison, the 645Ci is more powerful by 43 horsepower, it is less weighty by as much as 350 pounds, and it should be quicker to 60 mph by at least a second depending on which transmission you choose. The styling or the iDrive may not fill everyone’s teacup, but lighter, faster, and cheaper is a trend we can all appreciate.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2004 BMW 645Ci
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
ESTIMATED BASE PRICE $70,000
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 268 cu in, 4398ccPower (SAE net): 325 bhp @ 6100 rpmTorque (SAE net): 330 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual, 6-speed manual with automated shifting and clutch, 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 108.4 inLength: 190.2 inWidth: 73.0 inHeight: 54.1 inCurb weight: 3800 lb
PERFORMANCE RATINGS (MFR’S EST)Zero to 60 mph: 5.5-5.7 sec
FUEL ECONOMYEPA city driving: 17-18 mpgEPA highway driving: 24-26 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

The BMW 3-series is without question one of our favorite cars, reigning on our yearly 10Best Cars list for the past 16 years. The current and much-praised, fifth-generation E90 version is no doubt the best, and is among the most rewarding cars to drive at any price. For 2008, and to no one’s surprise, BMW is adding a convertible version, just as the company has for the past 20 years.

Best Convertibles of 2020

Convertibles for $5000: Window Shop with C/D

The BMW M850i Droptop Outdoes the 6-Series

But, this is BMW’s first foray into the expanding, hardtop-convertible parade. Other notable features are a much-improved, rapid-shifting six-speed automatic; special reflective leather to keep the seats cool (up to 30 degrees cooler than conventional leather) when the top is down; and, of course, the spectacular 300-hp twin-turbo inline-six that was introduced in last year’s 335i coupe. In the U.S., the convertible will be offered as the aforementioned 300-hp 335i—the model we got an early drive in—as well as a 230-hp 328i when it goes on-sale at the end of March. Pricing isn’t yet finalized, but the convertible premium will likely not change much from the outgoing model’s, so expect to pay about $7000 more than comparable coupes; roughly $43,000 for the 328i and $48,000 for the 335i.
Changes from convertible to coupe in 23 seconds
Hardtop convertibles offer numerous advantages over their soft-top competitors, including coupe-like quietness and excellent visibility when the top is up. BMW reports that the rear side windows have grown 30 percent in the new 3-series convertible, while overall visibility is up 38 percent. To our eyes, visibility out of the convertible is essentially equivalent to that of the coupe.

View Photos

Looks-wise, you probably won’t spot the new convertible by its 3-series-coupe-like front-end, but rather from the rear, where the coupe’s flowing roofline is replaced by a distinct line where the convertible’s roof meets the trunk.
BMW’s new top is a three-piece unit and, at the push of a center-console button or the key fob, stacks the front panel on top of the center panel, then the rear panel on top of both of those before disappearing into the trunk in 22 seconds. It takes a second longer to reverse the process, which is about seven seconds quicker than its closest competitor, the Volvo C70.

View Photos

The downside of folding hardtops is that they’re heavy and that the top can hog most of the trunk space when down. In the 3-series’ case, the top itself adds 300 pounds, while the extra chassis reinforcements pack on another 150, so expect a 335i convertible to weigh about 4000 pounds. To BMW’s credit, however, the convertible retains a 50-50 weight distribution and is claimed to have 50-percent stiffer torsional rigidity than the previous 3-series convertible. From the driver’s seat, we can tell you that the new 3-series is among the stiffest in its class, with almost no perceptible quivers felt through either the seat or steering wheel.

View Photos

The convertible’s 12-cubic-foot trunk is actually one cube larger than the coupe’s, but shrinks to 7 with the top down; still leaving usable space beneath the panels. That also compares favorably with the Volvo C70’s 13 cubic feet top-up and 6 top-down. However, the Volvo has a nifty loading feature that electronically motors the roof panels out of the way for easier access to the trunk space with the top down. On the BMW, that feature is optional (part of the $500 Comfort Access, which also includes keyless unlocking/locking and starting) and doesn’t work as well as there’s no button (instead you must click the key fob twice), and even then doesn’t make loading as easy as the Volvo does. However, the 3-series has a folding rear seat and a 16-inch-wide trunk pass through to accommodate the must-have set of golf clubs under the folded roof.
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

Porsche returns some things that were lost. It’s shaped with some old curves, blatting exhaust, sharper controls, and is a lot more fun. More

From the Archive: More power, but at a price. More

From the November 2003 issue of Car and Driver.
Before we delve into the new Morgan Aero 8 roadster, let’s get something, uh, prominent out of the way first. The nose. It’s a unique-looking snout with a deeply recessed grille and a pair of pontoon fenders that are capped with flush-mounted, offset headlights. To some, “unique” doesn’t do it justice-it’s been likened to a cross-eyed Pekinese, or a frog drawn by the Merry Pranksters.

2020 Morgan Plus 4: Unchanged since 1950

Morgan Plus Four Sets Course for America

2018 Morgan Plus 8 50th Anniversary Edition

However you see it, the Aero 8 is the first entirely new car the little company in England has introduced in 50 years. Its previous model, the Plus 8, appeared in 1968, and it was little more than a lengthened version of the Plus 4, which had its debut in 1950. Although the Plus 8 has been regularly updated, it has remained about as modern as a VW Beetle, but customers nonetheless endured six-month waiting lists and a $65,000 price to snag one of the 200 Plus 8s produced each year, of which maybe 50 trickled into the U.S.
If there were no crash or emissions regulations, Morgan probably would have continued on with the Plus 8 for eternity. But these regulations got tougher with each passing decade, and the grim reaper finally had his eyes firmly locked on the Plus 8.
Imagine the dilemma at Morgan’s Malvern Link headquarters: Precisely how do you make a new car without turning off the loyal cadre of customers who are attracted to the classic, creaky British roadster that is the Plus 8?
So you try designing a new, modern car that retains the old, classic look of the Morgan. The task fell to Charles Morgan, grandson of the company’s founder, H.M.S. Morgan. The chassis emerged from a Plus 8 race car that Charles had built in the mid-1990s. In 1995, Christopher Lawrence (“The Mad Monk of Malvern Link,” June 1999), a 61-year-old race engineer, vehicle designer, and fabricator, joined Morgan to help turn that chassis-and body-into the Aero 8.

Highs: Light weight yields excellent performance; precise, easily controllable chassis; strong brakes; looks like nothing else on the road.

In 2000, a completed Aero 8 made its debut at the Geneva auto show and soon after went on sale in Europe. Since then, the company has reportedly invested $1 million to certify the car for the U.S. Interestingly, the company’s chairman, Peter Morgan, was once quoted as saying the firm could “lose [the U.S. market] tomorrow and never notice.” Obviously, that statement is no longer operative, and Morgan would indeed be grateful for U.S. buyers, whose purchases could recoup the cost of developing the new car.
The first Aero 8s should arrive next spring at a price of about $95,000. We got an early drive and test courtesy of Morgan’s East Coast agent, Cantab Motors. The blue car you see here is the sixth Aero 8 built and served as a prototype and test mule. Although its interior and trim bits are crude and unfinished, mechanically, it’s the real deal.
Morgan has never built its own powertrains. The 4.4-liter V-8 and six-speed manual transmission are from BMW. Plucked from the 540i, the DOHC aluminum V-8 produces 282 horsepower at 5400 rpm and 324 pound-feet at 3600 rpm.
The engine is mounted well behind the front axle for good weight distribution, and from the appearance of the tightly fitted frame rails, it looks as though the car were designed around the motor. The frame is an interesting combination of rectangular aluminum tubes that are reinforced with bonded and riveted aluminum panels. The skin is also made from aluminum.
The Aero 8 is a small car. It’s only 6.5 inches longer than a Mazda Miata. Its wheelbase, however, is 10.4 inches longer, so the Morgan doesn’t have that little-roadster look to it. Say what you will about the nose, but the guy’s got the eye. The Aero is without a doubt a Morgan, and although it appears to have the aerodynamics of a barn door, the drag coefficient is a poor but not horrendous 0.39 (the slippery Corvette has a much better figure of 0.29).
We’ve seen other aluminum cars with only small weight savings, but the Aero 8 is decidedly a featherweight. With a full tank of fuel, it weighs only 2476 pounds, which is about 50 pounds more than the four-cylinder Miata and 700 pounds less than the 405-hp, $52,000 Corvette Z06 (not to mention about 1300 pounds less than the 540i sedan the engine was designed for).
The Z06 has the power-to-weight advantage (7.8 pounds per horsepower versus 8.8 for the Morgan) and is quicker, but not by much. The Morgan scampered to 60 mph in only 4.2 seconds and through the quarter in 12.7 seconds at 110 mph. The Vette can hit 60 in 4.0 seconds and does the quarter in 12.4 seconds at 116 mph.
There are plenty of high-dollar sports cars the Morgan can dust off, including the Porsche 911 and Mercedes-Benz SL500, and some-such as the $119,000 Porsche 911 Turbo-that would direct the Morgan to the weeds. But the main point is the Morgan can suck you into the seat in any gear. It’s a pleasure to row through the six-speed box, the shift lever is well placed, and the clutch takeup is smooth.
Like a Dodge Viper, which rockets forward regardless of the gear it’s in, the Aero is joyously responsive. Left in sixth gear, this Morgan needs 5.4 seconds to go from 30 to 50 mph and 5.7 seconds to leap from 50 to 70 mph. Those are extremely good times, better than the Corvette’s at 9.5 and 9.4 seconds, respectively.
Part of the credit goes to the low-geared rear end (3.08:1) and a sixth gear that isn’t as tall as the Vette’s, but the big reason is that the engine doesn’t have much mass to pull around. We did our testing at Summit Point Raceway in Summit Point, West Virginia, and after using the straightaway for our acceleration testing, we did some hot laps to see just how sporting this Englishman with the German heart is.

Lows: Goofy-looking nose; manual top operation; getting in and out makes you look dorky or, worse, burns you.

That’s where we learned that downshifting is not required to keep the Aero 8 cooking. The V-8, as we’ve reported before, is creamy smooth and redlines at only 6100 rpm. The engine feels underworked and effortlessly whips the car around. After a few laps we found it was just as quick to skip downshifts and let the flexible engine do its work.
The chassis felt extremely strong and is completely up to modern stiffness standards. Bumps or road irregularities did not send the steering column shaking, and the cowl stayed put. That stiffness lends an alacrity and precision to the performance that we had not expected.
We got on the track thinking we’d do five laps for the photographer and get a feeling for the car’s handling balance. But five grew to 10, then to 15, then 20. The Aero 8 rocked out there.
The word that kept coming to mind: modern. The Aero 8 suspension uses unequal-length control-arm geometry at all corners and imparts amazing trackside grip and confidence. The low-profile tires are mounted on trick center-bolt magnesium wheels.
It’s an interesting setup because there are no anti-roll bars, which most other sports cars in production today have. Perhaps it is Morgan’s desire to be different, but the suspension delivers fantastically lively handling and loads of grip (0.96 g). We never expected to feel so comfortable sliding the car through corners and probing the limits of adhesion on the unfamiliar track.
We shouldn’t forget how the brakes and steering contribute to the good vibes. The front brakes use 13.0-inch rotors and four-piston calipers; the rears have 12.0-inch rotors and two-piston calipers. These are big brakes that would be suitable for a much heavier car. On the lightweight Morgan, we didn’t experience any fade. Anti-lock control is not available, but the firm pedal offers excellent feedback and is easy to modulate. We measured 178 feet to stop from 70 mph. (The Corvette Z06, with anti-lock brakes, stops in 160 feet.)
The steering uses variable power assist that is a little lacking in the feedback department, but it has no slop and firms up nicely as cornering forces build. Production cars feature a tilting and telescoping steering column not on our prototype, which had a steering wheel that about rubbed against the top of our thighs and made getting in somewhat undignified. The pedals are offset to the left in a small footwell that doesn’t have enough room for a dead pedal. The brake and gas pedals are too far apart for easy heel-and-toe maneuvers. There was plenty of legroom, though, and even with the seat moved all the way rearward, the seatback was still reclined at a comfortable angle. It’s intimate inside, with only six or so inches separating the shoulders of pilot and co-pilot.
There’s solid wood trim at the base of the upright windshield that continues onto the tops of the tall doors. That handsome trim and the view over the long elegant hood impart a vintage feel that was completely at odds with the Aero’s strong, modern performance and sharp handling. We were recalibrating ourselves over the entire drive, trying to rectify that old-time look with the modern chassis dynamics.
That recalibration continued on public roads. Admittedly, in Virginia and West Virginia, we never encountered the kind of crater-laden surfaces that we love to hate here in Michigan, but the bumps we did hit were soaked up just fine.
We did not detect any harshness filtering through the chassis, and despite the lack of anti-roll bars, there wasn’t a lot of lean in the corners. The prototype exhaust pipes that drooped below the rear suspension on their way to the dual rear outlets hit the road a few times, but production models have a system with more clearance.
Heat from the exhaust was one of our biggest gripes. The catalytic converters reside underneath the fenders and at a point next to the doors. These fenders look like running boards but are about eight inches wide and won’t support any weight. They make for wide sills that you have to hurdle while getting in and out. You end up looking dorky as you maneuver awkwardly to get out without cooking your calves on the fenders.

The Verdict: A surprisingly modern—and fast—performance car from the last purveyors of the wooden British roadster.

The prototype only had the removable hardtop, so we didn’t experience the manual softtop. Reports we’ve read from British car magazines suggest it’s far from perfect and not weather tight.
A convertible top that must be raised and lowered by hand is tough to accept in a $95,000 car. Still, the Aero 8’s combination of vintage looks, excellent performance, and rarity–only 50 or so will make their way here in 2004–makes it undeniably cool. Which is good, because this new Morgan may not see any changes for another 50 years.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2004 Morgan Aero 8 Roadster
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster
ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED $95,000
ENGINE TYPE DOHC aluminum 4.4-liter V-8, aluminum block and heads, port injectionDisplacement: 268 cu in, 4398ccPower (SAE net): 282 bhp @ 5400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 324 lb-ft @ 3600 rpmRedline: 6100 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 99.6 inLength: 162.2 inWidth: 69.7 inHeight: 47.2 inCurb weight: 2476 lb
C/D-TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 secZero to 100 mph: 10.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 4.8 secStanding ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 110 mphTop speed (drag limited, est ): 155 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA city driving: 15 mpgEPA highway driving: 31 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 May 1988 issue of Car and Driver.
We at Car and Driver don’t need a lot of encouragement to road-test a Corvette. As America’s highest-performance production car and one of the world’s great supercar bargains, the Corvette is a constant topic of discussion in our office. Which is not to say that the discussions are always friendly. The arguments between staff members who are smitten with the Corvette’s speed and those who are discouraged by its deficiencies never stop.

Tested: 2020 Corvette Z51 vs. Cayman GT4

Tested: Five-Way 1990 Sports Car Shootout

Complete History of the Chevy Corvette

Chevrolet has fueled the debate by continually honing, tuning, and otherwise improving the current-generation Corvette, which first appeared as a 1984 model. The 1985 version introduced a port fuel-injection system, which increased the engine’s power and responsiveness, and a thoroughly recalibrated suspension, which largely tamed the car’s buckboard ride. A lovely convertible edition and standard-equipment Bosch anti-lock brakes were the highlights of the 1986 lineup. Last year’s crop of improvements included the Z52 suspension package, which spanned the gap between the base calibration and the Z51 competition setup, and aluminum cylinder heads, which reduced weight and helped add ten horsepower to the engine’s power rating.
The 1988 Corvette continues the tradition of annual progress. This year’s news includes revised front and rear suspension geometry, bigger brakes, yet another engine upgrade, and optional seventeen-inch wheels and tires. There are a host of minor changes as well: a quieter and lighter air-conditioning compressor, an improved ventilation system, and the addition to the standard-equipment list of power locks, cruise control, and an AM/FM/cassette stereo system.
Of the running-gear changes, the most obvious are the larger wheels and tires, which are standard with the racetrack-oriented Z51 package or the similar Z52 street setup. Except for such boutique machines as the Porsche 959 and the Lamborghini LM002, the 1988 Corvette is the first car in modern times to be outfitted with seventeen-inch wheels and tires. The tires are 275/40ZR-17 Goodyear Eagles—a wider, lower-profile development of the 255/50ZR-16 gatorbacks that are still fitted to the base car.
Surprisingly, the racy-looking rubber does not—and was not intended to—improve the Corvette’s absolute cornering power. But the Corvette had plenty of grip already. Our Z52-equipped test car circled the skidpad at 0.87 g, a performance identical to that of the Z52 we tested last June, and as high as that of any production car we’ve ever tested. Corvette and Goodyear engineers developed the new tires not to increase the ultimate grip but to improve controllability at the limit and performance on wet pavement.
Sure enough, the 1988 Corvette with the Z52 option—a bargain at $970—handles more benignly than any other Corvette we’ve ever driven. The chassis’s moderate understeer and the tires’ gradual breakaway encourage flirting with the Corvette’s outstanding cornering limits. You can slide all four tires a bit, or flick the tail out with a touch of throttle if you prefer. You can play Mario Andretti all day long without fearing that the chassis will snap into oversteer the first time you make a little mistake.

Chevy Corvette: A Brief History in Zero-to-60-MPH

Corvette Chronology 1980s

Tested: 1963 Chevrolet Corvette Reshapes the Icon

And when the weather turns against you, the Corvette won’t. Despite their steamroller width, the new Goodyears work amazingly well in the wet. Not only is their wet grip impressive, but they resist aquaplaning at any sensible speed. The new rubber even works well in the snow. You’ll never mistake the Z52 Corvette for a Jeep, but neither will a three-inch snowfall transform your drive to work into a nonstop skid-control session. In fact, the biggest problem with driving a Corvette in the snow is its sensitive throttle linkage, which translates the first tiny increment of pedal movement into a sizable fraction of the engine’s generous torque. An overaggressive throttle is usually intended to create the impression that a car has more power than it really has. The Corvette requires no such fakery.
Some of the credit for the improved handling belongs to the suspension changes. Although the components and their basic layout are unchanged, the new front geometry produces a scrub radius of zero, rather than the slightly negative figure of earlier Corvettes. This change eliminates the tendency of braking forces to steer the front tires, thus increasing stability during braking when the tires are on surfaces of different traction.
In the rear, the engineers repositioned several of the suspension pivots to reduce the camber change that occurs as the suspension moves up and down. The result is that the tires maintain better contact with the ground as the suspension reacts to bumps, improving straight-line stability on uneven pavement.
We can’t say we noticed more stable braking in the new car, though we didn’t try any hard stops on split-traction surfaces. The new geometry definitely improves steering feel, however, The Corvette’s overall steering effort is about perfect for a sports car, and the steering has a very positive on-center groove. And unlike some steering systems that have strong on-center feel, the Corvette’s doesn’t feel artificial. On the negative side, the meanderings of the front tires as they follow longitudinal grooves and ridges still come through unfiltered.
The revised rear suspension does help to settle the back end of the car on rough pavement. Road crowns and bumps now cause fewer disturbances in the rear, so the Corvette darts around less. Fast driving on back roads demands less attention than it did before.
Although these suspension changes sound like simple realignments, their implementation required redesigned control arms, hubs, pickup points, shock mounts, and spring and anti-roll-bar links.
Such extensive revision presented an ideal opportunity to upgrade the Corvette’s brakes, which were a little too small to resist fade during hard use. Part of the solution is two-piston front calipers instead of the single-piston design used before. The new calipers have larger pads, too; because they heat up more slowly, they are more resistant to fade and should last longer. The engineers also enlarged the 0.8-inch-thick brake rotors, from 11.5 to 12.0 inches in diameter, increasing their heat capacity as well. The Z51 competition package gets 13.0-by-1.1-inch rotors in front.
We know from racing experience that the Z51 binders are up to the hellish heat generated in a 24-hour endurance race, and even the standard brakes are now up to the hardest street driving. Formerly, a single hard stop from a triple-digit speed produced noticeable fade. Now, repeated hard use will not diminish the brakes’ effectiveness.
That’s a substantial benefit, because the 1988 Corvette is faster than ever. The latest version of the fuel-injected, 5.7-liter V-8 benefits from freer-flowing ports. Although the aluminum heads became standard equipment last year and were given credit (along with a new camshaft) for raising the engine’s output to 240 horsepower, the ’87 models were actually slower than earlier Corvettes with only 230 rated hp. This year’s upgrade has increased the rating to 245, for an engine that is demonstrably as strong as that of any Corvette we have ever tested.
Our test car, equipped with the four-speed automatic transmission and the optional 3.07:1 axle ratio (a 2.59 ratio is standard with the automatic), needed a mere 5.6 seconds to hit 60 mph and covered the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 95 mph. Those figures set no Corvette records, but the 154-mph top speed we measured makes the new car at least 3 mph faster than any of its predecessors. The revised engine indeed seems to breathe more deeply at high rpm.
Complementing this performance are the perfect drivability and eager response we’ve come to expect from automatic-equipped Corvettes. The symbiosis of the automatic and the torquey V-8 sets a highwater mark for performance powertrains. No matter the circumstance or the speed, this combination translates pressure on the throttle into smooth, powerful thrust. The engine handles most demands from the accelerator with is own deep power reserves; and when it can’t answer the call, the transmission contributes a fast, firm, and extremely smooth kickdown. Upshifts are equally crisp and seamless. Few luxury cars shift so slickly. We far prefer this automatic to the Corvette’s manual transmission, with its intrusive, computerized overdrive and clunky linkage.
Although the changes for 1988 have strengthened the Corvette’s strengths and weakened its weaknesses, our office arguments rage on. We all agree that the Corvette has always been an outstanding performer on the racetrack, and that the new car is a more stunning road performer than ever. But those who want refinement with their performance remain troubled by the Corvette’s plasticky interior, its loud and rumbly exhaust, its numerous (though fewer) squeaks and rattles, and its less-than-stunning reliability record. Some of these shortcomings are inevitable results of the Corvette’s nature. As long as Chevrolet’s sports car is built with a separate fiberglass body, it’s unlikely to feel as solid as a Porsche.
Which brings up a final point: the Corvette doesn’t cost as much as a Porsche, either. The Z52 on these pages—equipped with power leather seats, a deluxe sound system, and other options—wore a sticker price of $33,593. A plain-Jane 924S, without an automatic transmission but otherwise comparably equipped, costs about $35,500—and for that extra two grand you get a car that does not offer anti-lock brakes and is about two seconds slower to 60 mph and 20 mph shy in top speed. For most of us on Hogback Road, that makes the Corvette an unbeatable bargain. To convince the office holdouts, we’ll just have to keep testing every new Corvette we can get our hands on.
Counterpoint
Don’t expect many Corvette criticisms from me. I adore Chevy’s plastic beauty. I’m not blind to its spotty reliability record or to its propensity for squeaks and rattles, but I am convinced that no other car on earth offers more raw performance or sculptured pulchritude for less than $50,000. The 1988 edition is the best year. Yes, the Corvette group has more work to do before its sports car is as tight and rattle-free as a Porsche. But then, to buy a Porsche that can run with a Vette, you’ll have to shell out at least $65,000. That ought to pay for a few trips to the Chevy service department. What’s more, with the exception of any Ferrari and maybe the new Lotus Esprit Turbo, there isn’t a better-looking sports car built. Standing tall on its new seventeen-inch wheels, the Corvette has never looked more stunning. Oh, one more thing. To all those highbrows who wouldn’t be caught dead in a Corvette because of its “image,” I say: Kiss my taillights! —Arthur St. Antoine
Because a beautiful woman once picked me up in a silver Corvette that belonged to her father, I’ve never been able to criticize these machines rationally. This seems altogether fair, however, given the Corvette’s record of continuing improvement. The red bahnstormer we’ve been driving for the past weeks showed me nothing but a good time. The staff spoke freely of ills that plagued earlier Corvettes, maladies best summed up by the words “quality control.” Or lack of same. Happily, I escaped such inconveniences and have only laurels to place on the Corvette’s roof. Well, almost. The more I think about it, I wonder why the Corvette has to be made from fiberglass. Were it bodied with aluminum or steel, it might not squeak like an old man’s knees when it gets old. There’s also a stone to be cast at having to use a wrench to get the removable hard top off, and no small amount of irritation attaches to having to get the car absolutely level before you can wrench the top back into place. That degree of flexibility has no place in a world-class grand-touring coupe. —William Jeanes
You might as well know my biases going into this counterpoint: I love Corvettes. I love winging them around road-racing circuits in endurance races, and I love zinging them around on public roads. I’m proud to say I backed the Vette in our Ten Best voting. I stop short of blind devotion, however. The Corvette’s faults are as obvious as its strengths. Building a sports car with a pop-off roof and a fiberglass skin makes as much sense as trying to dance in cement shoes. You can’t produce a rigid, tight-fitting car that way. So, despite a host of structural Band-Aids, the Corvette still shivers over bumps and creaks its way through life. This car deserves to be as solid as the Porsche 944s and Toyota Supra Turbos it trounces in performance. I’d settle for something close, even. There’s no excuse for a 30-grand car with less than a world-class body. That said, I’d like to answer the only question that really matters in a discussion like this: Make mine red. —Rich Ceppos

Specifications

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