Reviews

From the June 2005 issue of Car and Driver.
Chrysler’s 300C SRT8 is the car we thought the American auto industry would not build again. After the muscle-car era, U.S. automakers relinquished the high-performance family-sedan formula to the Germans (who added refinement but charged elitist prices) and Japanese (who charged a little less than the Germans but somehow sterilized the whole thing).

Every Full-Size Sedan Ranked from Worst to Best

The Best Sedans of 2020

On occasion, the home industry was good for the affordable yet unrefined eye-opener that temporarily salved our pain—to name a few, the Buick Grand National and GNX, the Chevrolet Impala SS, and the Ford Taurus SHO. Those vehicles offered performance and price but lacked the refinement of the import brands. For 2004, Cadillac gave us the 400-hp CTS-V that matched the performance and refinement of the über-sedans, but at $51,485, GM charges fully for it.
What makes the SRT8 version of Chrysler’s 300C exceptional is that it’s the first sedan from anyone, anywhere, to combine the refinement and performance of the pricey supersedans with a sticker of $42,095, no incentive necessary. It’s something the U.S. auto industry should have done long ago, but it was worth the wait.

Highs: Performance shames that of most sports cars, $42,095 base price, machine-gun exhaust note, Porsche-grade stopping distances, room for five.

Without the 10Best-winning 340-hp 300C, which probably wouldn’t have gestated in its current form had it not been for the Mercedes merger, SRT (Street and Racing Technology) director Dan Knott would not have had such a superb starting point on which to perform the modifications necessary to make the car into something worthy of SRT badging. For those whose free time is completely taken up by reruns of VH1’s Strange Love, the SRT division of Chrysler and Dodge is akin to Mercedes-Benz’s AMG and BMW’s M division in that they take regular production cars and up the ante until they have about 50 more horsepower than you’d expect.
In the case of the 300C SRT8, the enhanced engine makes 425 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque from a bored-out, high-compression-ratio 6.1-liter version of the corporate 5.7-liter Hemi V-8. Tricks such as variable valve timing or a multistage intake manifold are not present. New stuff includes just a single hot camshaft sitting in the block, 16 lightened valves, and a forged crankshaft that allows the large V-8 to spin to a melodic 6400 rpm. The torque peak arrives at 4800 rpm. That may sound high for an engine this big, but the copious displacement means enough torque is available off idle to put the limited-slip differential to good use. Compared with the 5.7-liter it’s based on, the 6.1-liter feels sportier and, oddly, smaller because of its penchant for high revs.
An eager five-speed automatic modified by SRT provides immediate upshifts and downshifts and is a terrific partner to the 6.1-liter. Full-throttle shifts at the redline are accompanied by an explosive sonic boom from the exhaust. Back off the throttle, and the sound becomes mellow and unobtrusive. At 70 mph we measured 69 dBA of noise, but you don’t hear the engine as much as you hear the wind rushing around the brick-like body and the hum of the wide tires. Following the logic of AMG’s offerings, the German automaker’s American operations do not offer a clutch pedal. Manual transmissions in sedans this large and with this much power somehow feel out of place and too often suffer from high efforts that make them difficult to drive smoothly.

KEVIN WING

The SRT8 is a big sedan with 56 cubic feet of front passenger space and 51 in the rear. It isn’t light at 4212 pounds, but at just below 10 pounds per horsepower the SRT8 will bust through 60 mph in 4.7 seconds on its way to a 13.2-second quarter-mile at 109 mph. If the SRT8 had been included in the “Executive Adrenalators” comparison [ C/D, November 2004], it would have been less expensive and offered more sheetmetal and its acceleration would have been at the top of the heap. The SRT8’s ungoverned top speed of 173 mph also would have placed it on top and is especially startling when you consider the block-like drag coefficient of 0.36 and the garage-door-sized frontal area of 25.8 square feet. Better yet, the SRT8 outpaces the ungoverned CTS-V by 12 mph and all AMG products (which are governed at 155 mph) by 18 mph. Academic for sure, but if you paid more for those other cars, you’d definitely want the bragging rights.
The weight of the SRT8 is also effectively hidden by suspension changes that lower and stiffen the chassis. Striking 20-inch wheels that look nearly big enough to double as turbofan blades on a Boeing 777-200LR are wrapped by uncompromised Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires that adhere to the skidpad to the tune of 0.89 g. For those who don’t want to buy new wheels and snow tires (you’d have to buy new wheels if you wanted snows, since a 20-inch snow tire doesn’t exist at the moment), Chrysler will equip the SRT8 with all-season Goodyear RS-As that might have a better chance of getting you out of a snowy driveway. The tire sizes are staggered—smaller 245/45R-20 fronts and slightly larger 255/45R-20 rears—and on a dry, tight handling course there is some initial understeer, but it’s easily canceled by a quick crack of the throttle. Steering feel isn’t quite as award-worthy as the rest of the chassis. The power-assisted rack-and-pinion setup is predictable and never surprises, but it lacks the feedback you want in a car so willing to defy centripetal forces.

Lows: Acres of gray plastic inside, choppy bad-road ride, spongy brake-pedal feel.

Standard on the SRT8 is a specially tuned stability-control system that allows for more slipping and sliding than the regular 300C’s more intrusive system. As with Mercedes products, pushing the stability button on the dash doesn’t completely disable the control system, but you’ll be permitted even more freedom before the system finally intervenes. With the button pushed, hanging the tail out for those Dukes of Hazzard moments is as easy as cranking the steering wheel and matting the accelerator— Yee-haw!
The Duke boys might appreciate the stiff ride of the SRT8, but if you’re looking for a supple ride, the regular-strength 300C may be more your speed. In the SRT version you and your passengers will experience more bucking than Travolta did in Urban Cowboy. The dubs, the low-profile tires, and the firmer suspension increase the grip but degrade the ride over less than glassy pavement. Fortunately, even the harshest impacts don’t elicit quivers from the unyielding unibody. The strong structure imparts the SRT8 with a feeling of refinement and serenity that rivals that of sedans from das Vaterland.
The brakes are also up there with the finest from the autobahn nation. Stops from 70 mph take only 162 feet of real estate, and these brakes do so over and over again with no sign of fade. The front rotors measure 14.2 inches, and the rears are 13.8 inches tall, with four-piston calipers doing the clamping at every corner. Despite the SRT8’s remarkable braking performance at the track, after the car returned from testing, the brake-pedal feel became a bit spongy, requiring more travel than we like before biting down.

KEVIN WING

What doesn’t quite measure up to more expensive sedans is the interior of the SRT8. On the plus side there are new pseudo-suede and leather front seats that look like Viper seats let out between the bolsters. The chairs are supportive, and the wider size will fit big-and-tall shoppers with ease. An easy-to-use optional navigation system kept us from getting lost whenever we became disoriented by the SRT8’s acceleration. The nav system is part of a $1965 package that includes an upgraded and crisp-sounding stereo with Sirius satellite radio. Metallic trim adorns the center console and doors, but it doesn’t change the plastic-filled cabin to the extent that the rest of the modifications alter the character of the car. Some might call the interior understated, and it is certainly not an unpleasant place to spend time—it’s just a bit dull in light of the stellar performance.

The Verdict: AMG-like performance, Mercedes-like refinement—at a Chrysler price.

DaimlerChrysler must certainly recognize the greatness and appeal of the 300C SRT8 as it will soon be joined by SRT8 versions of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Charger and Magnum. Right now, the only other car selling in the low 40s that approaches the joy we get from the Chrysler is the lightweight, uncompromised Lotus Elise. Obviously, the two cars couldn’t be more different. So why do we want both of them in our garage so badly? Because in both cases a Ferrari-like devotion to driver happiness is the reason they exist, and no one does it as well for the money.
Counterpoint
You can call the 300C SRT8 a poor man’s Mercedes E55 AMG or a four-door Dodge Viper, but I just call it impressive. With a base price of about 42 large, the SRT8 runs right with a Cadillac CTS- V (about 10 grand more) and not too far behind a Corvette. Chrysler has built a true four-door American muscle car here—for pity’s sake, it’s a 4212-pound brick that can hit 173 mph! Perhaps more impressive is that from 70 to 0, it halts those two-plus tons in a fade-free 162 feet. This thing can stop and go better than LeBron. And it’s got mad street cred, thanks to jet-fan dubs, Bentley-esque styling, and a lowered stance. As Chick Hearn used to say, “Slam dunk!” —Ron Kiino
The folks at Chrysler’s SRT had better be careful. I doubt their German bosses paid much attention when the econobox Neon was turbocharged to within an inch of its life or when a Dodge Ram pickup truck was endowed with 500 horses. But now SRT has struck on something a bit dearer to those bosses’ hearts—the Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG. At 4.7 seconds, the 300C SRT8 is just 0.4 second slower to 60 mph. However, the SRT8 outstops the E55 by 11 feet from 70 mph and outgrips it on the skidpad. The SRT8 is also more involving to drive and less like a tool for speed. One last detail: It costs $40,000 less than the Benz. Uh-oh. —Dave VanderWerp
What a brute. The steering is nothing if not manly. The ride quality is just this side of Fred Flintstone. The interior décor is distinctly austere for a $42,095 car. I mutter about these demerits as I rumble around Michigan’s battered byways. Then I tramp on the gas, and— vroom!—a half-mile disappears before a sense of license preservation sets in. I repeated this process regularly during my travels with the SRT8 and emerged with the same conclusion every time: Horsepower is good. More horsepower is better. Not to mention habit-forming. As a child of the muscle-car era, I suppose I subscribe to the foregoing more than most. But I also suppose no one is immune. —Tony Swan

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Chrysler 300C SRT8
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$45,450
ENGINE TYPEPushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port/direct/port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 370 in3, 6059 cm3Power: 425 hp @ 6200 rpmTorque: 420 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): multilink/multilinkBrakes (F/R): 14.2-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Goodyer Eagle F1 Supercar, F: 245/45ZR-20 99Y R:255/45ZR-20 101Y
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 120.0 inLength: 196.8 inWidth: 74.1 inHeight: 57.9 inPassenger volume: 107 ft3Trunk volume: 16 ft3Curb weight: 4212 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.7 sec100 mph: 11.2 sec130 mph: 20.0 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.7 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 sec1/4 mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mphTop speed (redline limited): 173 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 162 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/city/highway: 16/14/20 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 September 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
How much Altima is too much? Nissan dares to find out with the Altima SE-R, cranking up the butch by adding 10 horsepower, a rigid suspension, and forged 18-inch wheels wearing super-stick summer tires. The Altima 3.5SE with 250 horsepower is pleasantly sweet; the Altima SE-R wants to be two Hershey bars washed down with a Coke. Hope you like Nissan’s brand of sugar buzz.

Compared: Accord, Camry, Altima, Sonata, Legacy

The Best Sedans of 2020

The Altima SE-R keeps company with the 270-hp Acura TL and 303-hp Pontiac Grand Prix GXP as one of a new generation of sedans whose power languishes in a front-drive cage. Bury the SE-R’s rubber-studded aluminum gas pedal, and the weight leans on the wrong set of tires, the right set of tires making smoke and painting stripes instead of providing traction. The steering wheel develops an urge-albeit less fervent than in some amped-up front-drivers-to seek out the nearest ditch.
Granted, the SE-R’s output, 260 horses and 251 pound-feet of torque, won’t be remembered as a turning point at a time when it takes 500 horsepower to make a headline. But the SE-R lunges down the drag strip, putting 60 mph behind it in 6.1 seconds, rattling off a quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds at 97 mph. The 12.6-inch front discs and 11.5-inch rears bring it to a halt from 70 mph in 168 feet, and double-D soles get it around the skidpad pulling 0.86 g. That’s fairly rabid for a family car carrying 3380 pounds and a $29,930 base price. It is 0.2 second slower to 60 than the last 3.5SE we tested, but the SE-R also picked up 160 pounds.

When squirting bend to bend under less-than-woolly throttle, the SE-R’s steering is delicate and precise.

We said the SE-R is a sugar buzz. Take it to a picture-postcard road to unlock its best flavors. There, the 225/45 Bridgestone Potenza S-03 tires and hewn-from-oak suspension provide real cornering grip, a fierce turn-in response, and tight body control. When squirting bend to bend under less-than-woolly throttle, the SE-R’s steering is delicate and precise. Scribe your corner lines as steadily as your hands can hold the wheel.
Changing gears is a long hand wave, thanks to the tall shifter, but the beanpole slides through its gates tightly if not with the sharpest and most satisfying metal-to-metal feel. This Altima wants to set your best lap time and just might if it had a limited-slip differential to plug all its power into the road. Instead, it relies on an optional $800 electronic traction-control system to suppress wheelspin, which isn’t quite the same thing.
The 350Z cockpit has been reprised in the SE-R with three gauge nacelles, largely ornamental, parked on the center console: oil pressure, charge-system volts, and least useful of all, a twitching pointer indicating instantaneous fuel consumption represents the data points to be gleaned by turning your head 30 degrees to the right. You won’t very often, not until the car hits 100,000 miles and charge voltage becomes a worry.

It doesn’t take many days behind the SE-R’s wheel to develop a detailed mental map of every pothole, frost heave, and pavement fissure in your town.

Nissan offers four exterior colors: gray, silver, red, and black. The bolstered front buckets flare with an embroidered SE-R logo and your choice of red or gray perforated leather accents down the center and matching topstitching. As with the Z, the driver’s seat bulges with a sort of codpiece between your legs. No explanation or diagrams are given to explain its supportive function. Sound gushes from a standard Bose eight-speaker system with a six-CD changer.
Nissan keeps it reserved on the outside. The raciest feature, aside from the blocky chin fascia, modest rump wing, and twin exhaust cans emitting a hearty snore reminiscent of the Z, is the snowflake-pattern 18-inch wheels. The spokes are forged aluminum rather than die-cast—it says so right on the rim—presumably lending extra strength. They need it, because the stiff, 45-series Bridgestones transmit bump energy to the suspension the way a bat transmits Johnny Damon’s swing into a baseball. It doesn’t take many days behind the SE-R’s wheel to develop a detailed mental map of every pothole, frost heave, and pavement fissure in your town.
There are no eurekas! in the SE-R. It offers a more traditional ride-versus-handling trade-off than magazine favs such as the Acura TSX, which seems to do better combining both. The SE-R does offer big V-6 performance in a clean, nicely appointed, and commodious package that will entertain people who like to play. No more Altima is required.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Nissan Altima SE-R
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$30,890 (base price: $29,930)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 213 cu in, 3498ccPower (SAE net): 260 bhp @ 6000 rpmTorque (SAE net): 251 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 110.2 inLength: 192.5 inWidth: 70.4 inHeight: 57.4 inCurb weight: 3380 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 6.1 secZero to 100 mph: 15.8 secZero to 120 mph: 25.1 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 secStanding ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 97 mphTop speed (governor limited): 141 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 168 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 20 mpgC/D-observed fuel economy: 19 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 August 1989 Issue of Car and Driver.
Nissan should rename itself “the Phoenix Motor Corporation.” Like the wondrous bird of ancient legend, the Japanese automaker has burned the weary persona of its past and arisen from the ashes bold, revitalized, and supremely competitive. Consider the sleek new 240SX, the rejuvenated Maxima, the daring Axxess minivan—all proof of Nissan’s newfound talent and awareness. Or scan these pages and drink in the most convincing evidence of all: the breathtaking, all-new 300ZX.

My Fair Lady: A Visual History of the Nissan Z-Car

Twin-Turbo 400Z Will Revive Nissan Z-Car’s Legacy

This is not the flabby, disco-poseur’s 300ZX of old. That tawdry beast is gone, laid to rest in a special graveyard reserved for stretch slacks, musk colognes, and slap-on chest hair. In its place is a car created by designers who understand design, engineers who grasp the needs and wants of enthusiasts, and, perhaps most important, management with the guts and the savvy not to stand in the way of its creative corps. New from the ground up, the new 300ZX is, quite simply, one of the most alluring cars to appear on the United States market in years.
But that’s obvious, isn’t it? Let your eyes wander over the Z’s sensuous form for a moment. The shape is lean, low, and provocative—and, unlike the previous edition, it’s restrained and sophisticated. This is not a flashy, boy racer’s strutmobile. Some viewers say the nose (which houses new flush headlights instead of the old model’s pop-up units) looks heavy, and others find the overall shape derivative and unoriginal. But we aren’t among the naysayers. The new 300ZX is stunning in the metal, a beautiful and exciting car that looks exotic without being quirky. That Nissan designed the car entirely in-house is further proof that it is a company with the resources and audacity to push bold programs into production.

View Photos

At present, Nissan offers the new Z only in naturally aspirated form; a twin-turbo version will appear this fall. Two body styles are available: the two-seater pictured here and a slightly longer two-plus-two. Both are shorter, wider, and lower than their respective predecessors. And both body styles are available in the U.S. only with T-tops. The Z’s T-roof is one of the best we’ve ever encountered—tight, leak-free, and easy to remove—but we’re still bewildered and bothered by Nissan’s decision not to offer the even-more-solid Japanese-market fixed-roof coupe in the States.
Under the new Z’s T-roof glass sits perhaps the most beautiful and efficient cockpit in the sports-car kingdom. The instrument panel blends seductive curves and handsome materials. The gauges are clear, conspicuous analog dials. Ancillary controls nestle on easy-to-reach pods surrounding the wheel. The steering wheel itself is a meaty three spoke design that feels hefty and reassuring in your palms. The leather-wrapped shifter sits close at hand. Tasteful fabric trims the doors, the console, and the dash. And the seats are deeply sculptured, easy to adjust, and extremely comfortable. (Our test car’s thrones were covered in optional leather—part of a $1000 option package—but natty-looking cloth seats are standard.) Trust us: sports-car cockpits don’t get any better than this.
We still have a couple of gripes, though. The first concerns the optional automatic climate control system. Designed to be a set-and-forget unit, this system instead behaves as a set-and-reset-and-override-and-get-annoyed unit. It offers only two manual fan speeds, and there is no way to channel the airflow where you want it. Although we didn’t have a chance to try the standard, manual climate-control system, which offers four fan speeds and five options for air routing, it should be far more accommodating.

View Photos

We also have a few complaints about the optional Bose sound system. We don’t claim to be audio experts, but we agree as a group that this system, like some other Bose units we’ve sampled, sounds undistinguished. And it has no fade or balance controls whatsoever, obviously implying that Bose knows better than the users of its systems how these parameters should be set. Happily, there is an easy solution to both of our cockpit gripes: skip the optional electronic power package. You’ll give up the heated rear-view mirrors and the power controls for the driver’s seat, but you’ll bypass the automatic climate-control system and the Bose stereo—and save $1600.
Enough talk of sound systems and cabin accouterments. You want to know the serious stuff, the power and the glory, the fury and the dust.
The power is provided by a version of Nissan’s fine 60-degree 3.0-liter V-6, but it’s been so thoroughly reworked that you wouldn’t recognize it. The new engine sports twin cams, 24 valves, pent roof combustion chambers with centrally located spark plugs, electronic fuel injection, new intake and exhaust manifolds, and a variable intake-valve-timing system for improved performance throughout the rev band. Horsepower is up to 222 at 6400 rpm—more than in last year’s Turbo—and torque is increased to 198 pound-feet at 4800 rpm.
The power flows to the rear wheels via a short-throw five-speed manual transmission (a four-speed automatic is available as an option) and a viscous limited-slip differential. Does it ever flow. The 300ZX storms from zero to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds and rips through the quarter-mile in 15.0 seconds at 93 mph. It doesn’t feel that quick: the engine always sounds smooth and unstrained, even when tearing up to its 7000-rpm redline. And the big, solid body (the Z weighs s 3341 pounds) insulates the cabin from the furor. In fifth gear, the engine winds to 6100 rpm—good for 143 mph. That means that only a handful of dedicated competitors can outgun the new 300ZX. (Fewer still will measure up to the 300-hp twin-turbo edition when it arrives.)
A new suspension puts that performance to good use. Each front corner sports unequal-length control arms and an additional articulating hub. At the back is a four-element multilink design based on the rear-suspension layout found in Nissan’s 240SX. Coil springs are used all around, and an anti-roll bar is fitted to each end.

View Photos

Thanks to clever tuning, this suspension combines stability, control, and a reasonably compliant ride. Shod with 225/5OVR-16 Michelin Sport XGTV tires mounted on attractive 16-inch alloy wheels, the Z turned in an outstanding 0.86-g skidpad performance. As you reach the limit the front tires slide first, but the rear end can be coaxed out with a sudden move on or off the throttle, making the Z easy to balance through turns. The fat Michelins offer progressive, predictable handling characteristics, but on some surfaces they howl out enough road noise to scare a Peterbilt pilot.
Beefy four-wheel vented disc brakes with four-piston front calipers and standard ABS stop the Z from 70 mph in 171 feet. We observed no signs of fade during repeated hard trials.
The test track numbers tell you plenty about the new 300ZX, but they don’t tell you nearly enough. Good as it looks to a stopwatch, the 300ZX is even more impressive from behind the wheel. No spec page figures, for instance, could describe the smooth, satisfying feel of the Z’s new variable assist electronic power-steering system. Nor could a bar graph express the sheer pleasure of running the stubby five-speed shifter up through the gears. Nor do we know of any data sheet that is able to convey the stirring sound of the 300ZX’s 24-valve V-6 in full-throttle crescendo.

View Photos

And so we arrive at the bottom line. The new 300ZX is not an entry-level GT. The base two-seater wears a $27,300 sticker, and our fully optioned test car carried a $30,160 price tag. But consider the returns on that investment:
1. We can think of no other car that offers more style and sculptured, buttoned-down beauty for the money. The established automotive objects d’art—the Italian exotics—start at twice the price.
2. The 300ZX offers standard amenities galore, decent luggage space, superb seats, and a cabin with an appeal quotient that is second to none.
3. Even the naturally aspirated Z has enough brawn and handling prowess to hold most of the competition at bay. Granted, the 300ZX’s profile reads “performance GT” not “bare-bones sports car,” but only the most dedicated sportsters will be able to defeat it in a straight fight.
4. Our 300ZX test car emitted nary a squeak or rattle during its extended stay with us. And past experience with other Nissans has convinced us that this car will stay tight and trouble-free for the long haul.
Or look at it this way: $30,160 is an awfully small price to pay for a phoenix missile you guide yourself.

Specifications

1990 Nissan 300ZX
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED $30,160
ENGINE TYPEV-6, iron block and aluminum headsDisplacement: 181 cu in, 2960ccPower: 222 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 198 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 96.5 inLength: 169.5 inWidth: 70.5 inHeight: 49.2 inCurb weight: 3341 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 6.7 secZero to 100 mph: 18.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.0 sec @ 93 mphTop speed: 143 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway: 18/24 mpgC/D observed: 17 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 April 2006 issue of Car and Driver.
In the hope of attracting more buyers, Lexus last October replaced its sales-lagging sporty-compact IS300 with two cars for 2006, the IS250 and the IS350. The more-powerful IS350 starts at $36,030 and comes with a class-leading 3.5-liter V-6 making 306 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque. But we think Lexus dropped the ball by not offering a manual gearbox on this little powerhouse on wheels.

2021 Lexus IS Gets Redesign, Handling Upgrades

The Best Sedans of 2020

Luxury Sports Sedans Face Off

If you wish to row your own, the lesser IS250 is your only choice. It starts at a more obtainable $30,580 and comes standard with a six-speed manual (the automatic is an $1170 option). And it needs it-this lesser 2.5-liter V-6 makes 204 horsepower and 185 pound-feet of torque at a lofty 4800 rpm. Math geniuses can tell you that’s 102 fewer horses than the IS350.
The 2.5-liter pulls the IS to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds, two seconds slower than the 3.5-liter. Still, that’s 0.1 second quicker than the fastest IS300 we’d ever tested. The IS250 jogs through the quarter-mile in 15.4 seconds at 90 mph (tying that old IS), compared with the 3.5-liter’s 13.7-second sprint at 104.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Straight-line performance aside, the IS250 is a pleasure to drive, even more than its big brother. The IS350 weighs 135 more pounds than the 3465-pound IS250, and with extra weight carried over its handsome nose, the 350 understeers more than we’d like. Also, the more powerful car’s suspension feels a bit overdamped and overzealous, whereas the 250’s feels composed and tight. There’s predictable understeer on corner entry, but a midcorner squeeze on the throttle is enough to tighten your line for a precise and pleasant blast to the next corner. For better balance, we’d take the IS250 over the IS350.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

The 250’s mission is to make potential buyers of a BMW 325i think twice. It’s worth a look. That Bimmer starts at about a grand more ($31,595), comes with a six-speed and a 3.0-liter inline-six that makes 215 horsepower and 185 pound-feet at a low 2750 rpm. Its specs are nearly identical to the IS250’s, but BMW seems to make better use of them-the German car gets to 60 mph a full second before the IS250 and 0.7 second more quickly through the quarter (14.7 seconds) at 94 mph. And the 325i feels right when pushed. Clutch engagement, shifting, braking, and steering all respond exactly as they should. On the other hand, the IS250’s clutch, for one, engages too abruptly at the end of its pedal travel, which can lead to embarrassing lurches from a traffic light. So although the IS250’s moves verge on those of BMW’s superb 3-series, the Lexus doesn’t feel quite as planted. For pure driving, BMW still has the edge.
The styling Lexus gave the new IS line turns the car from sharp to stunning. The body fits tight and low around the chassis with cool fender flares at each corner. Yet the overall shape remains graceful. And although BMW has a similarly tight design, its back-seat space is vastly better than the IS250’s (41 cubic feet to the Lexus’s 34, with four more inches of legroom).

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

Inside, the new Lexus has a more luxurious look, and the leather and plastic seem even better than those in the original model. Lexus replaced the previous IS300’s chronograph-style gauge cluster with two easy-to-read electroluminescent gauges. And in this age of techno overkill, the dash layout is retro simple and intuitive. For example, the radio has just two knobs-one for volume, the other for tuning. Brilliant!
The IS250’s list of standard equipment includes keyless entry and start, dual-zone climate control, a 13-speaker stereo with a six-CD changer and auxiliary input, and a power sunroof. Most of those are options on a 325i. Our tester came with the $194 Preferred Accessory package (trunk mat, cargo net, and wheel locks) and the $1290 Premium package that includes wood trim and fantastic heated and ventilated leather seats.

View Photos

NICK SAYCar and Driver

And for that occasional run through the woods, when you’d rather not have the electronics interfere with your tire-sliding ambitions, here’s how to shut down the stability system. Start the car with the hand brake engaged. Press the brake pedal twice and hold. Engage the hand brake twice and hold. Repeat until the “skid lights” appear on the dash. The ABS does not shut off. When the engine is subsequently turned off and then switched back on, the stability control is reactivated. (Presumably, this trick works on all new Toyota and Lexus models, and it’s easier than it sounds.)
The IS250 offers tremendous value to anyone looking for an affordable, sexy luxury car. But we strongly suggest a high-protein diet to beef up the motor.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2006 Lexus IS250
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED$32,064 (base price: $30,580)
ENGINE TYPE DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 152 cu in, 2499ccPower (SAE net): 204 bhp @ 6400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 185 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 107.5 inLength: 180.1 inWidth: 70.9 inHeight: 56.1 inCurb weight: 3465 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 7.1 secZero to 100 mph: 19.1 secZero to 130 mph: 41.3 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mphTop speed (drag limited, mfr’s est): 142 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 170 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: -*
FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 20 mpgC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
*A snow-covered skidpad precluded this test.

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.
Ford’s GT could be the most overhyped car of the decade. We admit we’re in part to blame, paying tribute with 12 pages in this magazine to date, covering every square inch of the reprised Le Mans champion, every engineering iteration, every development Ford threw our way. We’ve driven early mules with nonspec engines, and unfinished prototypes, but up until now, we’d never strapped our test gear onto the car to find out what we all want to know: How fast is it?

2021 Ford GT Gets Heritage and Studio Editions

Ferrari 812 Superfast: Fast as Its Name Implies

Look Back at 20 Years of the Porsche 911 GT3

It’s a simple question. Here’s another: How does the $150,000 supercar stack up against the newest European repli-racers, the $101,965 Porsche 911 GT3 and the $193,324 Ferrari Challenge Stradale?
You’re going to find out, but we should explain why we’ve brought these three cars together. First, all of them are meant to give a race-car-like experience in a street vehicle. The race-car theme has been taken to almost ridiculous extremes both to save weight and to provide the perception of saved poundage.
Race cars don’t have sunroofs or navigation systems or satellite radios, and neither do any of these cars. The Ferrari and the Ford have bare floors. Lightweight and extremely cool carbon-fiber panels adorn the insides of the Ferrari’s doors. You won’t find a spare tire in the group.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Even driver aids that wouldn’t add much weight have been left off. Although each car has anti-lock brakes, none has the software and sensors that turn ABS hardware into stability-control systems. Computer bytes weigh nothing. Will the Stradale be that much faster without its optional radio? All these cars have air conditioning, however, despite the pounds it adds. The race-car fantasy would sour quickly if you were sweating all over your date.
Second, each of these cars has a significant racing heritage. The 911 GT3 shares its engine and gearbox with the racing-version GT3 that won its class at Le Mans last year. The Ferrari shares its internal components with two race cars: the 360 GT, which races in the same class as the GT3, and the 360 Challenge, which runs in the single-make Ferrari Challenge series. The Ford GT is a modern interpretation of the GT40 that finished one-two-three at Le Mans in 1966 and went on to win again in ’67, ’68, and ’69.
The third point is that after devoting so much space to describing the GT, it’s high time we put it up against some worthy opponents, and the GT3 and the Stradale are the newest gunslingers on the block. Plus, at about $100,000 for the Porsche and roughly $200,000 for the Ferrari, the Ford GT’s expected base price of $150,000 neatly bisects the two.
Since these are performance cars, we spent most of our time on the 1.9-mile GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan. We also performed our standard testing regimen, in addition to driving the cars on a very bumpy public-road loop. Along the way to frying three sets of tires, we found a winner.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Porsche 911 GT3
The GT3 is an overachieving sports car. On paper, it should have trailed its two competitors in every performance test. It has the poorest power-to-weight ratio here, with each of its 380 ponies burdened by 8.5 pounds, 15 percent more than the Ferrari’s 425 horses are saddled with. But this is one scrappy car.
It shadowed the more powerful and lighter Ferrari in nearly every acceleration test. The two ran side by side to 60 mph (4.0 seconds) and to 150 (23.9) and were just about equal in the quarter-mile with the Porsche hitting 114 mph in 12.3 seconds and the Ferrari at 115 mph in 12.4.

Highs: Flexible engine, the least expensive of the pack, the most features, lively handling.

We loved the GT3’s aluminum flat-six engine. Its guttural growl provided a wonderful race-car soundtrack, and it revved freely to its 8200-rpm redline. Even though the peak torque of 284 pound-feet occurs at a fairly high 5000 rpm, there’s still plenty of grunt at lower rpm, and the throttle response is prompt.
We weren’t so thrilled with the shifting action of the six-speed manual transmission. Our test car had a rubbery linkage that didn’t provide a clear path through the gears. We had to be very deliberate with the shifts, and that extra effort probably cost the GT3 a 10th or so in the acceleration times.
No time was lost on the skidpad as the GT3 pulled an astonishing 1.03 g, a figure that’s been bested by only one other street car, the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo. The Stradale and the GT trailed the Porsche by 0.05 g.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Using all that grip on the racetrack took some practice because the GT3 likes to swing its tail. If we entered one of GingerMan’s long corners a little too fast and lifted off the gas to tuck in the front end, the tail would immediately swing wide. But it didn’t snap—we always caught the slide—although we found ourselves countersteering quite a bit.

Lows: To some, lively means evil; flat, unsupportive seats.

Regardless, it was great fun. If we wanted, we could dirt-track through the corners Dukes of Hazzard-style. The problem was there didn’t seem to be a happy medium in the handling. It was a case of powering through the turns and dealing with the front-tire slide that would put it wide of the intended arc, or backing off a little and trying to catch the inevitable flick-out of the rear end. As a result, you are always correcting something in the GT3.
We would have had an easier time if the seats held us in place better. While cornering at the GT3’s very high limits, we were sliding all over the seat, which made it hard to work the pedals precisely.
Still, that willingness to rotate did help the GT3 polish off the corners with ease and post a 1:34.15 lap time, 0.04 second ahead of the more highly powered, lighter Ferrari (see track map above). Our car also had the optional ceramic brakes, which refused to fade.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All three cars have stiff suspensions, so even though the Porsche was the best-riding car of the bunch, it was still a roughrider. It also displayed quite a bit of bump steer and tended to dart around the road as the tires followed any new groove they encountered.
The Ferrari costs almost twice what the Porsche does and isn’t quicker, so what’s the GT3 doing in third place? As good as it was, those unsupportive seats cost it some points, as did the balky shifter. In addition, it came down to the cachet of the two others. If ever a 911 could feel plain, it does in the company of the Stradale and Ford GT. It did have the most features, including cruise control, a CD player, even a trip computer.

The Verdict: The return of the bad-boy Porsche—fun, fast, and with a real kick.

Before you castigate us and opine that clearly we should have opted for the 477-hp Porsche 911 GT2 for this test, keep in mind that its $192,000 price tag would have evaporated the high value here, and based on previous experience, we doubt it would have been fast enough to offset its higher price.
2004 Porsche 911 GT3380-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3219 lbBase/as-tested price: $101,965/$120,965C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 114 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.03 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ferrari Challenge Stradale
You won’t find another car here that gets your heart thumping like this Ferrari. But you pay for the pleasure, and we’re not just talking about the price.
Stripped of sound insulation and carpeting and with noise-amplifying carbon fiber in place of the usual leather door panels, this Ferrari doesn’t simply let the noise in, it invites it. When the aluminum 40-valve V-8 sings its primal scream, no one cares that it blows 93 on the decibel meter (a Honda Accord hits about 74 dBA). When you’re cruising, the predominant sounds of the suspension thumping over every road imperfection and the carbon-fiber trim bits squeaking against one another get tiresome almost immediately. How much could a radio weigh?

Highs: A primal engine note that leaves your knees wobbling, fantastic seats.

The Stradale is the most powerful and lightest roadgoing 360 ever built. The 425-hp V-8 has 30 more horses than the 360 Modena. Credit a slightly higher compression ratio (11.2:1 versus 11.0:1) and freer-flowing intake and exhaust systems for the new juice.
Ferrari saved 139 pounds (the Stradale weighs 3152) via the aforementioned missing radio, carpet, and sound insulation; the use of carbon fiber for the rear hatch, door skins, center tunnel, and seat buckets; and ceramic brake rotors.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Stradales are only available with the F1 gearbox that automatically operates the clutch and performs the shifts. All the driver has to do is pull on one of two steering-column-mounted paddles: right for upshifts, left for down. There is no fully automatic mode, but the F1 gearbox will automatically select first gear at a complete stop. Our car also had a launch-control system that greatly helped standing-start acceleration runs.
Once you’ve pressed the right buttons to turn on launch control, you simply bring the engine revs to the desired level and lift off the brake. The computer then performs a perfect burnout on your behalf. After some experimenting, we found that about 3000 rpm produced the quickest runs.

Lows: Every thump makes it through the interior, choppy ride, $200K won’t get you a radio.

We think we could have gone a little quicker with a fully manual system, but still, the Stradale’s 4.0-second blast to 60 mph was 0.6 second quicker than the last 360 Modena we tested.
Ferrari says its cars are not about the numbers. Considering that the Ferrari finished ahead of the Porsche in voting while costing so much more and not being quicker, we’d have to say the company’s right. On the track, the Ferrari was the easiest of the group to drive.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The handling balance is the opposite of the Porsche’s: The Stradale only wags its tail when wildly provoked. Yet it doesn’t clumsily push through the corners, either. It didn’t feel like the lightest, nimblest car here—that’s the Porsche’s terrain—but it did feel the most solid, the most planted. We did our top-speed testing on a windy day, and with the Porsche jumping around dramatically, we didn’t have the cojones to bring it to its claimed 190-mph top end. The Ferrari was just the opposite—buttoned down, secure, undramatic. We ran it to 176 mph with nary a white knuckle. The steering, too, is precise and communicative.
The seats are fantastic and prove once again that thinly padded deep buckets are good both at the track and on the street. We did have some trouble locating the right shift paddle while cornering, but we got used to it. And we never grew tired of hearing the engine. It really is the sweetest-sounding motor available. Every time we headed off on a lapping session, crowds formed at the starter’s stand.

The Verdict: Presses automotive buttons we didn’t know we had.

Any complaints? Well, there’s a lot of road noise, and the suspension is harsh. It soaks up big bumps fine but reverberates over small holes and cracks. Still, although the Ferrari couldn’t outrun the less-expensive Porsche, we’d sell our homes if it meant we could hear that engine every day.
2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale425-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3152 lbBase/as-tested price: $193,324/$193,324C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 115 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 167 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg

First Place: Ford GT

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It wasn’t even a contest. The Ford GT so completely dusted off its two highly recognized competitors that if we had wanted to make this a real challenge, we would have had to go way up the “supercar” price ladder. The $401,000 Saleen S7 is about as quick as the Ford GT, and we know of only one car that would surely outrun the Ford–the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo.
Rocketing the GT to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and to 150 in 16.9 (that’s an incredible seven seconds quicker than the Porsche and the Ferrari) was a cinch. Unlike some other supercars that have hair-trigger clutches with monstrously heavy pedal efforts, the GT’s clutch was as easy to operate as a Honda Accord’s.

Highs: Fantastic performance, updated vintage skin is Jack Nicholson cool.

It’ll do burnouts until the tires disintegrate, but we found that gently spinning the tires at the launch with careful throttle modulation produced jack-rabbit starts. The Ferrari and the Porsche both require an upshift before 60 mph, but the Ford does not, which accounts for some of the huge sprint-time advantage.
But Ford can use a tall first gear because the engine has an enormously wide power band. In this comparo, it had the crispest throttle response. In the rolling-start test to 60 mph, where the gas pedal is floored at 5 mph, the GT hooked up and simply bolted, reaching 60 in 3.7 seconds, a full second quicker than the GT3 and 0.7 second faster than the Ferrari.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The rear tires do a fantastic job of turning the engine’s mighty 500 pound-feet of torque (besting both the others by more than 200 pound-feet) into forward motion without losing traction. Although lots of rear traction sounds like a recipe for an understeering car, that was not the case.
The Ford tied the Ferrari for skidpad grip (0.98 g), and it handily outran the others in the lane-change test (70.1 mph versus the Porsche’s 67.6 and the Ferrari’s 67.2). The GT’s handling neatly combined what we like best about the two other cars: It had the rock-solid stability of the Ferrari with less tendency to understeer, and although its tail could be gradually swung out, it wasn’t as eager to do so as the Porsche.

Lows: Somehow, could use more mechanical soul.

What really made for the GT’s stunning two-second-per-lap advantage–it ran a lap in 1:32.13–was its ability to put the power down while exiting a corner. A tire that’s cornering is more likely to spin if you give the car too much throttle. In the Porsche and Ferrari, sloppy throttle work resulted in a power slide. The GT hunkered down and dug out of the corners with impressive verve. Its corner-exit speeds were almost always higher than the others’. And even though the Ford did not have fancy ceramic brake rotors, its brakes never faded, and it stopped from 70 mph in the shortest distance (153 feet versus 167 for the GT3 and Stradale).

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Ford said it had not completed top-speed development and asked us not to go faster than 170 mph, so we can’t answer the top-speed question yet. The projections in Dearborn are for more than 200 mph. Considering how mightily it was accelerating at 170 mph (it got there in only 23.0 seconds), we’d have to say Ford is right.
Shortcomings? The GT rides about as stiffly as the Ferrari. The wide A-pillar blocks some of your vision. We’d like more steering feedback. The ratio and the turn-in response are fine, but you don’t get any sense of what the tires are up to. The whole car has a kind of robotic feel to it when compared with the lusty Ferrari. There’s no supercharger whine, none of the classic V-8 burble, and the cable shifter feels lifeless. Plus, the seats in our test car were hopelessly flat and uncomfortable. Ford says a change is in the works.

The Verdict: A worthy successor to the original.

Maybe we’re being too picky here, because for the money, you get not only one of the coolest shapes on the road but also one of the best-performing new cars you can buy. Period. It’s gratifying to know at last that the heavily hyped Ford GT does indeed deliver the goods.
2005 Ford GT500-hp supercharged V-8, 6-speed manual, 3429 lbBase/as-tested price: $150,000/$150,000 (est.)C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 3.3 sec1/4 mile: 11.6 @ 128 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 153 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 gEPA city/highway fuel economy: 14/21 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 April 1999 issue of Car and Driver.

Who ever thought a factory Mustang would command a price of $28,000? More surprising, who could have imagined that a Mustang would have an independent rear suspension (IRS)? Well, the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra lays claim to both those surprises and makes a strong case that the latter (abetted by a new 320-horsepower version of the four-cam, alloy-block 4.6-liter V-8) justifies the former.

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

Tested: 1999 Drop-top Muscle Cars

Certainly, the new IRS lends real credence to the Cobra as a serious performance car, taming the old car’s occasional tail-happy tendencies, improving the ride (mainly by reducing pitching motions), and reducing the transmission of road noise into the cabin. It also looks cool on the stand.

Consisting of a welded-up tubular sub-frame that cradles an aluminum diff housing (borrowed from the late Lincoln Mark VIII), assorted steel and alloy control arms, toe-control links, and a pair of coil springs and gas-pressure shocks, the IRS module bolts directly to existing pickup points on the Mustang unibody. All it takes to retrofit this item to a solid-axle Mustang is a special bracket on the GT’s normal shock mount. That and the considerable sum Ford’s Special Vehicle Team (SVT) will undoubtedly charge for all the IRS components soon to appear in its catalog.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The new IRS module provides the Cobra with a slightly wider track (by 1.2 inches), more suspension travel, and less lift under braking, which translates to less perceived dive at the front end. The IRS setup also provides a 125-pound reduction in unsprung weight, despite being 80 pounds heavier than the old live-axle suspension.

At least the increase in mass improves the car’s weight distribution and motivated SVT engineers to lighten the front end, where they trimmed 50 pounds. Of that, 20 pounds came off the engine, six from the adoption of a coil-on-plug direct ignition system. Whereas the previous car had a 57/43 fore-to-aft relationship, the Cobra now shows a 55/45 split. In the end, this test car was 110 pounds lighter than our last Cobra.

Highs: Willing engine, gnarly exhaust note, improved chassis dynamics.

The engine gets a new tumble-port cylinder-head design that improves combustion efficiency and helps bump output to 320 hp at 6000 rpm and 317 pound-feet of torque at 4750. That’s an increase of 15 hp and 17 lb-ft over last year’s Cobra. Given its 7.5-percent power-to-weight advantage relative to our last identically geared Cobra, we expected to hit 60 mph in about five seconds flat, but 5.5 was the best we could do—0.1 second slower than the previous model. Top speed was also down, from 153 to just 149 mph in the slightly more aerodynamic car, all of which confirms that our low-mileage prototype test car wasn’t making a full head of steam.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

1994 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra Road Test

1980 Ford Mustang Cobra Road Test

Ford’s Hot ‘Stang: ’95 SVT Cobra R

Straight-line performance may have missed the target, but more important to sporty drivers is the feel of the Cobra on twisty pavement. The IRS makes the car feel more supple and thus more readable in corners. The rear end is less susceptible to bump steer than before, and as the geometry has been set up for a touch of toe-out as the car begins to heel over, then for toe-in (and safe understeer at the rear axle) at full lean, its off-center steering response is better, and its handling is more neutral at the limit. Hence, 0.03 g better skidpad performance at 0.88 g.
Even power-induced oversteer through Turn Three at Willow Springs raceway could be easily modulated at the throttle, allowing the driver’s right foot to control rotation through the corner. This kind of handling finesse was not available from the solid-axle car.
On smooth California pavement, it was hard to discern any comfort gained from the IRS based on our distant memory of the previous Cobra. Obviously, corrugated surfaces no longer produce the yaw found on solid-axle-equipped cars, and the new Cobra also handles two-wheel bumps with little tail hop.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The IRS seems to put the power down well, too, although it shudders a bit during full-power wheelspin starts of the kind needed to generate good acceleration times. Few owners will subject their cars to this treatment, and indeed, most will drive around with the standard-equipment full-range traction control switched on. This device (supplied by Bosch) detects wheel-speed disparities and intercedes by first retarding the ignition, then manipulating the fuel regime, cutting off cylinders to reduce torque. If the condition persists at speeds up to 62 mph, it will also apply a brake to direct torque to the other wheel.

Lows: Dated ergonomics, balky shifter.

The neat part about the Cobra’s traction control is that it has a so-called power-start feature that allows the driver to make wheelspin starts as long as both front wheels are spinning at the same rate. That’s how it knows the car is going straight-ahead. The rear axle incorporates a Traction-Loc limited-slip mechanism, and all Mustangs now run the same 3.27:1 final-drive ratio.
Naturally, the new Cobra inherits the slightly blocky styling of the 1999 Mustang, but it has is own unique features. The front fascia for one thing, and the Cobra R—like hood, for another. New forged alloy wheels are fitted, and they wear 245/45ZR-17 BFGoodrich Comp T/A tires that do a good job of keeping the Mustang on line, albeit with a fairly intrusive sound playback that starts at moderate cornering speeds as a low growl, then builds to a penetrating howl at the limit.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The engine pulls well, particularly from 3000 rpm up to its power peak at 6000 rpm, but there isn’t a rush to the redline like there is with GM’s LS1 motor, and revving the Ford V-8 beyond 6500 isn’t very productive. However, keep the Ford mill in its sweet band, and you’re rewarded with good power and one of the least inhibited exhaust notes in the business.
That power goes to ground via a new 11-inch clutch and a T45 five-speed box (now made by Tremec under license from Borg-Warner). The T45 gets the job done, but it isn’t the smoothest, most precise cog swapper around. In fact, at Willow Springs, where you rush out of a downhill left-hander in second gear into a right sweep onto the back straight, it takes real concentration to keep the car pointed and find third gear.
It’s fair to say that none of the other shifts is slick and natural-feeling, either. The best one can say is that selections are mechanically positive. But in every other way the Cobra manifests considerable refinement. The car’s structure may have retained seat, shifter, wheel, and pedal positions for enough years to accentuate their inconvenience for extremely tall drivers (for whom the seat does not track back enough and for whom the control relationships are never optimal), but it has received enough reinforcement and tuning tweaks to provide civilized levels of noise, vibration, and harshness, even at the new performance level.

The Verdict: The Cobra finally gets its independence, but we’re still not sure it makes the car better than a Z28.

Who said there’s no gain without pain?

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2 passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $28,190
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-Valve V-8 engine, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 281 cu in, 4601ccPower: 320 bhp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 317 lb-ft@ 4750 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 101 .3 inLength: 183.5 inWidth: 73.1 in Height: 53.5 inCurb weight: 3285 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 13.8 secZero to 130 mph: 27.6 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 10.4 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 10.6 secStanding ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mphTop speed (drag limited): 149 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
FUEL ECONOMY:EPA city/highway driving: 17/26 mpgC/D observed: 16 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

You would think the nearly countless permutations of the Chevrolet Silverado and its twin, the GMC Sierra, would satisfy anyone’s needs, but you’d be wrong. For a select few, even the largest of GM’s regular pickups isn’t big enough to tow their motorhomes and trailers and boats. Fortunately, GM offers a pickup version of its seriously large GMC TopKick and Chevrolet Kodiak chassis. It’s not as big as Ashton Kutcher’s International CXT, but it’s close.

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Every Full-Size Pickup Truck Ranked

Typically, the Kodiak and the TopKick are used as dump trucks, moving trucks, school buses, and shuttle buses, but Monroe Truck Equipment of Monroe, Wisconsin, builds these over-the-top pickups in its plant in Flint, Michigan, down the road from where the Kodiak and TopKick chassis roll off the assembly line. About 750 of the beasts are built annually.
The TopKick that was sent our way was a C4500 crew cab with four-wheel drive, the least beefy of the available chassis. The optional four-wheel drive was new for 2005 in the pickup version. Pickups can be had in C4500 or C5500 garb. The really heavy-duty C6500 and C7500 don’t get the conversion. The C4500 and C5500 get the same Duramax 6.6-liter turbo-diesel that’s available in heavy-duty Sierras and Silverados, albeit in a lesser state of tune. A 325-hp gasoline-powered 8.1-liter V-8 is also available. The lone transmission with the diesel is an excellent five-speed automatic built by Allison that shifts smoothly and quickly.
With 300 horses and 520 pound-feet of torque, you’re not going to win many drag races, but the truck has no problem keeping up with traffic. The run to 60 mph takes 14.4 seconds, and top speed is governed at 75 mph, presumably to save the tires when the truck is fully loaded. The 11,300-pound TopKick is actually faster to 60 mph than an automatic-transmission four-cylinder Ford Escape. From a stop, stand on the throttle, and you’ll experience the brief hesitation of turbo lag. Once the turbocharger spools up, the truck rushes forward with decent alacrity to the sound of the optional dual-exhaust stacks that poke up through the bed. Lower the windows, and you’ll hear the chrome pipes belt out a loud sucking noise that will scare the “Calvin and Hobbes” stickers off lesser pickups. Now we’re truckin’!

Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2?

Monroe dresses up the interior of the TopKick with thick carpeting, leather seats independently suspended on air bladders—just like the truckers use—and faux-wood trim. Once you work your way up to the cab of the TopKick, one immediately notices the panoramic view. Ever wanted to look down on a Hummer H2? Better yet, you’ll be able to look eye to eye with most truckers.
Unloaded, the TopKick will shake its occupants mercilessly. Two beefy solid axles with thick leaf springs up front and air bladders in the rear make it possible to carry an astonishing 5000 pounds in the bed or tow 14,300 pounds, but the truck will shake and shudder at the slightest imperfection. Aside from the ride, the TopKick drives much like a smaller truck. The turning circle is tight enough to slip easily into a parking spot, and the short, sloped hood gives an excellent view of obstacles ahead. The 95.9-inch-wide TopKick fits in parking spots, but just barely.
We wanted badly to see how the TopKick would behave on a skidpad, so at the risk of wrinkling the asphalt we circled the 300-foot-diameter skidpad at 0.61 g. Not surprisingly, there’s extreme understeer at the limit. Braking from 70 mph was drama-free as the TopKick stopped in 228 feet. C4500 and C5500 TopKicks have hydraulic brakes; the larger-series trucks (C6500 and C7500) get air brakes that go pfffft when you stop. After each 70-mph stop, the TopKick went into a limp-home mode and wouldn’t shift out of second gear for about a minute in an attempt to allow the brakes to cool off.
So what does all this mother trucking cost? Our four-wheel drive crew-cab truck cost $52,171 from GMC, add the Monroe conversion that contributes a pickup bed and almost countless options (dual exhaust stacks, rear-seat DVD, leather seats, power-folding rear bench, hitch camera, adjustable rear air suspension, power-retractable tonneau cover, aluminum wheels, chrome grille), and the TopKick can climb to about $90,000. More-basic versions can be had for closer to $70,000, which is far less than a Hummer H1 and only a bit more than an H2. Faced with those choices, the TopKick looks almost rational.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
GMC TopKick C4500
VEHICLE TYPE Front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED $90,000 (estimated base price: $70,000)
ENGINE TYPE Turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 403 cu in, 6599ccPower (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 3000 rpmTorque (SAE net): 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION 5-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 169.0 inLength: 265.0 inWidth: 95.9 inHeight: 95.2 inCurb weight: 11,300 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 14.4 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 15.5 secStanding 1/4-mile: 19.8 sec @ 68 mphTop speed (governor limited): 75 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 228 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.61 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving (C/D est):7 mpgC/D-observed fuel economy:8 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 April 2004 issue of Car and Driver.
The press and public reactions when Chevrolet unveiled the SSR concept at the 2000 Detroit auto show were overwhelmingly positive. The message to Chevrolet was: Build it and they will buy it. The whole idea was outrageous: a pickup truck/roadster with bulging fenders and huge wheels. It just screamed for attention.

Quickest Pickup Trucks We’ve Ever Tested

How to Buy the Pickup That’s Right for You

An Illustrated History of the Pickup Truck

Most observers of the car scene laughed at the notion that Chevrolet would ever build its outlandish concept truck, but to everyone’s astonishment, GM green-lighted it. For once, gearheads got what they’d wished for. Well, sort of.
The production SSR remained close to the concept. The compromises included moving the outside mirrors from the A-pillars to the doors, adding marker lights to the body, and losing in the translation the sweeping metallic band along the tailgate. We were amazed and pleased that the muscular, bulging fenders made it to production.
Then the excitement waned. The show-circuit SSR had a 6.0-liter V-8 from a three-quarter-ton Silverado pickup, but the real deal ended up with a 5.3-liter V-8 that had only 300 horsepower to motivate more than two tons of truck. And it was only available with a four-speed automatic transmission. Reviewers described the SSR as all show and not much go.
Chevy had missed the boat in the same way Chrysler had with its 1997 Plymouth Prowler, a flashy hot rod that was hampered by a wimpy V-6. The SSR also brought to mind Ford’s weak and jiggly retro Thunderbird that went on sale in 2001. In fact, the looks and the attitude were only skin-deep. To qualify as cool and desirable, these car toys need to not only look fast but also be fast, or at least quick. The Prowler fizzled out two years ago, and the Thunderbird is destined for the same fate. Things haven’t looked much rosier for the SSR since it went on sale in 2003. On December 1, 2004, GM had a 300-day supply of unsold SSRs. The corporation sold 9648 SSRs last year but had envisioned selling 13,000.

Now instead of simply waiting for the ax to fall, Chevy has taken steps for 2005 to give the SSR what it deserved from the start—a big honking engine and a manual transmission. The 5.3-liter V-8 has been replaced with a 6.0-liter LS2 V-8 that churns out 390 horsepower and 405 pound-feet of torque. It’s the same engine found under the hood of the Corvette and the Pontiac GTO, although in those cars it’s tuned to crank out another 10 horses. A four-speed automatic also found in the Corvette is the standard transmission, but for an extra $815 there’s a Tremec M10 six-speed manual. The combination of this engine and the six-speed tranny gives the SSR some rabid bite to go along with an already hairy bark. The SSR we tested in September 2003 took a leisurely seven seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. This 2005 tester, with the six-speed manual, performed that task in 5.5 seconds. The 0-to-100-mph time was even more impressive. The new SSR whacked six seconds off the previous car’s time and reached the century number in just 14.1 seconds. The quarter-mile ET and speed went from 15.4 seconds at 89 mph to 14.1 seconds at 100 mph. These are respectable numbers that put the SSR in the same league with more conventional roadsters like the BMW Z4, Honda S2000, and Nissan 350Z when it comes to straight-line acceleration.
Chevrolet also enhanced a few other things in the revised SSR, most notably the steering system, which now has a retuned valve assembly and new bearings and seals for more precise on-center feel and a reduction in steering effort. The steering does feel a bit more accurate, and it’s easier to maneuver the SSR around town, but the truck still isn’t any fun for slaloming through corners. Push the SSR, and its truck roots are quickly revealed by its bouncy ride. The SSR pulled 0.82 g on the skidpad and stopped from 70 mph in 185 feet, the same distance as the one we tested in 2003.
Amazingly, despite the added 90 horsepower, one thing that hasn’t significantly changed on the SSR is its sticker price. The first SSR we tested had a base price of $41,995; this latest 390-hp version starts at $43,180. It’s easy to pile on expensive options, though. Our tester had, among other options, the 1SB Preferred Equipment Group ($1900), which includes heated seats, a Bose premium sound system, and an engine cover insert, and the Cargo Compartment Trim package ($895) for a hefty total of $47,375.
We won’t argue with the SSR’s eye-candy value or its ability to attract lots of attention, but there are a number of roadsters out there that offer better all-around performance at the same price. GM should have put a bigger, more powerful engine and a manual transmission in the SSR right from the start. That’s what this radical, uniquely American-looking vehicle deserved.

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Chevrolet SSR
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE AS TESTED $47,375 (base price: $43,180)
ENGINE TYPE Pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 364 cu in, 5967ccPower (SAE net): 390 bhp @ 5400 rpmTorque (SAE net): 405 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 116.0 inLength: 191.4 inWidth: 78.6 inHeight: 64.2 inCurb weight: 4746 lb
C/D TEST RESULTSZero to 60 mph: 5.5 secZero to 100 mph: 14.1 secStreet start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 secStanding 1/4-mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mphTop speed (governor limited): 125 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMYEPA fuel economy, city driving: 13 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