Reviews

On paper, the Porsche 718 Spyder RS is a Cayman GT4 RS without a roof and without a wing, though it is hardly without. While it lacks the rollover protection desired for a racetrack and the downforce needed to increase apex speed, the Spyder RS has more driver engagement than an Army Surplus has OD green. But it’s light on fatigue because it also rides well.Will it excel on a racetrack, as implied by the RS suffix—for rennsport, German for motor racing? Absolutely. But Andreas Preuninger and his team, those responsible for all Porsche’s GT cars, didn’t even attempt a Nürburgring lap time. Which, if you ask us, is a little weird because even the Panamera and the Cayenne have laps on record.Less weight, more moneyThe result might very well be peak road car. With the 4.0-liter’s intake inches away from your left ear, every trip to 9000 rpm puts you in a valvetrain trance that’s only broken by the unwavering brakes. Iron rotors are standard, but opt for the carbon-ceramic stoppers ($8000) if unsprung and rotating mass are top concerns. The ceramic rotors save about 40 pounds, and once you’re there you might as well go for the magnesium wheels ($15,640) that shave another 22 pounds. But to get the wheels, you also have to check the box for the Weissach package ($14,730 with the required interior upgrades). The Weissach package is mainly an appearance kit consisting of exposed carbon-fiber components that are otherwise painted, a faux-suede dash, and a tiny carbon lip on the duck-like spoiler. Tacking nearly $40,000 onto a $163,650 Boxster that isn’t supposed to see track duty seems excessive unless you have a fetish for exposed carbon fiber. But we don’t judge.To make this Spyder RS extra harmonious with public roads, the GT team did something it has never done with an RS car: reduce spring rates. Compared to the GT4 RS, they’re down by 55 percent in front and 43 percent in the rear. There’s no wing, no underbody strakes, and a 2.0-inch shorter front splitter. The Spyder RS also rides 0.2 inch higher. But the engine is the same 493-hp 4.0-liter with individual throttle bodies (that’s one per cylinder) and dry-sump lubrication. A seven-speed dual-clutch is the sole transmission. Considering that Porsche emphasizes this being a road car, a manual would have made more sense, but we’re told there isn’t a row-your-own gearbox available that can spin fast enough, that has enough torque capacity, and that will fit. The upside to the PDK is unflappable launch control. Porsche says the Spyder RS will hit 60 in 3.2 seconds, but we got 2.8 out of a GT4 RS, a number we fully expect the roofless model to compete with. In fact, most of the acceleration numbers will be similar. The Spyder RS is just 11 pounds lighter than the GT4 RS, per Porsche.Cropped TopFor those wanting to explore the upper limits of the Spyder’s speed, know that the 191-mph top speed is with the roof removed. Porsche says not to exceed 122 mph when the roof is in place—although calling the 18-pound top a roof is like calling a three-ounce poncho a jacket. The two-piece design is an assemble-it-yourself affair. If you’re versed in the Spyder ways, it can be done solo in under two minutes. Despite its loin-cloth appearance, the top functions more like modern compression shorts. It has a tension cable that eliminates buffeting. And you can run it without the rear glass portion, like a bikini top on a Jeep CJ7. It’s not as convenient as the manual Miata-like roof in the standard Spyder, though Porsche claims it to be 17 pounds lighter.Hammer on this car on a two-lane to reveal the magic. It isn’t just the more supple ride bestowed by softer springs. Despite the on-road focus, the suspension is devoid of rubber bushings—it’s all ball joints. There’s no downforce (or lift). It’s a neutral-lift car, so the steering doesn’t have that extra heft even when you’re going at a good clip. When the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s load up in corners, it’s as if each unit of mechanical grip (the standard unit for this is “Bibendums,” or it should be) comes through the wheel, so much so that you can tell if the road stripers used Benjamin Moore or Sherwin-Williams.Related StoriesEvery car enthusiast should experience a modern Porsche GT car—we gush over them for good reason. Porsche says this is the last new 718 model with an internal-combustion engine, and we predict these GT cars will go down in history as the high point before electrification drains fun from the fleet. And with its on-road focus, the Spyder RS further distinguishes itself in a field of RS track-day specials.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Porsche 718 Spyder RSVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base: $163,650
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 493 hp @ 8400 rpmTorque: 331 lb-ft @ 6250 rpm
TRANSMISSION
7-speed dual-clutch automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 97.7 inLength: 174.0 inWidth: 71.8 inHeight: 49.3 inPassenger Volume: 49 ft3Trunk Volume: 4 ft3Front-Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3150–3200 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 2.9 sec100 mph: 6.9 sec1/4-Mile: 11.3 secTop Speed: 191 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 16/15/19 mpgExecutive EditorK.C. Colwell is Car and Driver’s executive editor, who covers new cars and technology with a keen eye for automotive nonsense and with what he considers to be great car sense, which is a humblebrag. On his first day at C/D in 2004, he was given the keys to a Porsche 911 by someone who didn’t even know if he had a driver’s license. He also is one of the drivers who set fast laps at C/D’s annual Lightning Lap track test. More

From the April 1995 issue of Car and Driver.If you crave a refined German sedan but have prayed for a price cut as deep as the Mariana Trench, salvation may be yours. Audi calls it the A6. Ours had Audi’s famed Quattro four-wheel-drive system, now attractively packaged as a stand-alone feature costing only $1500 over front drive. All told, our test car wore a base price of less than $33,000 delivered—a savings of $12,000 compared with the 100CS Quattro it replaces.The A6 badge tells us this is Audi’s “big” (okay, upper mid-size) sedan with the “small” engine. The 2.8-liter V-6 offers only single overhead cams, two valves per cylinder, and a modest 172 hp. For landed gentry requiring a substantially larger and more excitable herd of ponies, Audi’s alu­minum A8 with a 295-hp 4.2-liter V-8 may soon thunder over with a top speed of 155 mph and a price of, oooh, $70,000.More A6 Reviews From the ArchiveIn the early 1980s, the forebear of the A6 arrived as the slick 5000. The first digit stood for its five-cylinder engine, though the car was revered for its primary inno­vation, which was adding “aero” to the dynamics of a sedan. (Alas, in the late ’80s, Audis with automatic transmissions were wrongly accused of “unintended acceler­ation” by addled folk who just could not seem to drive and push pedals at the same time, hitting throttle instead of brake.)Audi, facing rivals with newer and less pricey models, has polished its products and pared prices. It’s done that with increased productivity and by juggling fea­tures. Along with standard power steering, air conditioning, and cruise control, base A6s get dual front airbags, anti-lock brakes, an adjustable steering wheel, power for the locks, windows, sunroof, and driver’s seat, plus rear defroster and wiper. So the A6 is substantially less expensive than the old 100CS Quattro, which admittedly came with more stan­dard luxury features.HIGHS: Handsomized aero envelope, blissful controls and manners, and added comforts despite a reduced price.Audi’s improvements look and feel more than sheetmetal deep. Sort of like liposuction and aerobics that zing the body electric but never buzz your bones. Begin­ning with the wedgy hood, fresh fold-over nose, aero lights, blended trim and bumpers in body color, and subtle fender flares, the body wears a brawnier yet slicker look—tricky to pull off.The ellipsoid headlights show Audi’s enlightenment. To cut drag, fog lights are fitted in the sleek headlight housings. The headlights are uniformly white. The low-beams have a crisp upper cutoff. High-beam coverage is now so vast and vivid that drivers coming up to pass often slow sharply when you switch to dim as they go on by, an eye-opening reminder that they’re probably overdriving their lights.For drivers who want a hand in the power delivery, Audi offers a choice between a four-speed automatic or the five-speed manual gearbox that we tested—and loved. Its feathery clutch and shifter make it as effortless as a deft automatic, just as good at flowing away from stoplights and slipping through city traffic and along interstates. Its buttery heel-and-toe action for matching revs while simulta­neously braking and downshift­ing makes it just as good for swooping along sinuous byways.To look at the V-6, you’d think it was a big-block V-8. It wears blocky cosmetic trim of the sort BMW popularized on its motorcycle and sports­-sedan engines. If the V-6 ran as big as it looks, Audi wouldn’t need the V-8. But Audi promotes its smooth V-6 for fuel economy. It averaged 20 mpg despite our throttle abuse, and even then provided a comfortable 400-mile range from the 21.1-gallon tank. LOWS: Unadventurous engine output, somber interior decor, lackluster stereo.The A6 Quattro, partly burdened by its extra driveline components, weighed 3627 pounds. Hampered by its innate reluctance to break the tires loose—its best feature on slithery roads—it turned in a modest 0-to-60-mph run of 8.3 seconds. Yet we blasted to a governor-limited peak of 127 mph (enough to make us wonder what it would do with two little turbos).Audi’s four-wheel discs and ABS pro­duce good braking feel, but all-out stops from 70 mph required a mediocre 191 feet. The A6’s all-independent suspension han­dles almost everything well, and the all­-weather treads of the smallish Goodyear Eagle GAs produce a reasonable 0.79 g on the skidpad. This sizable sedan can also turn in a circle of less than 35 feet, and its longish tail provides a 17-cubic-foot trunk that also contains a pass-through to the rear seat with a watertight ski bootie.The cabin looks surprisingly darker than we’ve come to expect from the warmer, lighter colors glowing within most recent Audis. Then again, maybe the more somber leather and wood suit the deep metallic green of its shell, which shows the best part of its reflective spectrum in soft sunlight. The sweeping dash­board and sizable console are triumphs of efficiency, and the seats are fine for cruis­ing and supportive enough for brisk romps. Footroom in the rear cabin, however, is still cut short by the front buckets’ low-­hanging position-adjustment motors. The A6’s optional sound system is a cooperative effort between Audi and Bose, which may not live up to much fanfare once you’ve heard it through the speakers. Because it costs $620 and the CD changer in the trunk adds another $790, you may want to listen before you leap at bumping the bottom line that much. Optional leather seats added another $1460, and a $1000 package of comfort and convenience items (see specs) plus associated luxury tax helped bloat the total to just under $37,000. That’s considerably more than the rela­tively low base price. But at this level of sophistication, the A6 Quattro’s talents qualify it as blissfully cost-effective.The Quattro issues a year-around invite to propel yourself almost anywhere far away because it’s prone to keeping its feet planted—a help to drivers who know what they’re doing, and a godsend for those who don’t but would like to hang around long enough to learn. VERDICT: To pronounce it benign is not to label it a vitamin, but its V-6 could use a few.If the beefy A6 looks less, um, “B9” than its predecessor, it is very benign in the way it drives. That’s a high compli­ment for a sleek sedan that, presuming you have a feel for subtle dynamics, is also a real sweetie to drive.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1995 Audi A6 QuattroVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $32,545/$36,802Options: leather seats, $1460; comfort and convenience package (power passenger’s seat, memory driver’s seat, remote locking, glass sunroof), $1000; CD changer, $790; Bose sound system, $620; luxury tax on options, $387
ENGINEDOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 169 in3, 2771 cm3Power: 172 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 184 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/control armBrakes, F/R: 11.3-in vented disc/9.6-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle GA195/65HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.8 inLength: 192.6 inWidth: 70.2 inHeight: 56.6 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 51/43 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 3627 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: XX.X sec @ XXX mph100 mph: 24.0 sec120 mph: 43.1 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.9 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.1 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.2 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 127 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 18/24 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the April 2000 issue of Car and Driver.Have we got a deal for you: Write out a nice check for $100,300 and send it to the British manufacturer of this beauty, and he’ll send you the car all wrapped in a big shipping box—only there’s no engine.We hear you right now saying, “Great. That’s worse than those $75,000 Mustangs.” Wait, don’t throw the magazine across the room—you’re not going to believe this. After you’ve invested, oh, another $40,000 or so for an engine and transmission, you’re going to own a car that is quicker than the latest Porsche Turbo, any showroom Ferrari, even the fearsome Dodge Viper. To be fair, unlike the other cars, which are real cars, this British import is more a race car tuned for the streets since there are no airbags and there’s minuscule luggage space and it’s tricky to get into.The car, called the Ultima GTR, hails from the fertile race-car turf of Britain, the land where McLaren, Reynard, Williams, and Van Diemen build race cars that win with remarkable regularity. Lee Noble, a freelance car designer, designed and built the first Ultima in 1983 for a British kit­-car racing series. It used many Renault parts, including a 270-horsepower V-6 engine mounted amidships. It was a suc­cess at the track, so Noble went on to sell 40 race cars before 1988, when he updated it. One of the 13 new models was pur­chased for about $25,000 by a civil engi­neer named Ted Marlow.A weekend racer, Marlow did what most race-car owners do—he customized the Ultima to his liking. He swapped the V-6 for a 440-hp Chevy small-block V-8. In 1992, after four years of modifying and perfecting his car, Marlow, then 44, pur­chased Noble’s enterprise. His goal was to turn the Ultima into a civilized street car yet retain its prowess on the track. The pro­ject took 18 months. Marlow replaced the Renault parts with Ultima-specific units. He farmed out some bits and pieces but did most of the work himself. The brakes, for example, were designed by the well­-known firm AP Racing. Since 1995, Marlow’s small factory in Hinckley, England, has turned out about 200 Ultimas. And this year, in faraway California, a retired marketing executive named Mike Mullin has begun selling Ultima GTRs from his Costa Mesa shop. As an engineless kit car, the Ultima bypasses federal regulations. Once it’s in the States, Mullin will install whatever engine you wish to pay for, but currently, he has two options—an aftermarket small-block Chevy V-8 or a current-production LS1 V-8 from a C5 Corvette. Both engines use a late-model Porsche 911 transmission and differential. The small-block engine and the 911 transaxle cost $38,000; the LS1 engine with transaxle costs $42,000.If, however, you live in a state with strict emissions laws and annual smog tests—California, for one—you need the LS1 V-8. The beauty of its installation is that the stock engine-control system, the catalysts, and the OBD II diagnostics remain unchanged. The LS1 engine in the car we tested felt perfect. Pumping out 345 hp, the alu­minum V-8 is a proven, trouble-free, instantly responding gem. Our Ultima GTR weighed just 2314 pounds, so the Vette engine practically lifts the front wheels off the ground at full throttle. Zero to 60 mph flashes by in 3.3 seconds. It’ll hit 100 mph in 8.4 seconds, and that’s quicker than any current production car we’ve tested—it even outruns Warren Mosler’s Raptor, the other street-legal Group C wannabe. (But remember that the nearly $160,000 Raptor has passed federal crash standards, a feat the Ultima GTR has not attempted since it is, technically, a kit car.) At more than 150 mph, which comes in 26.3 seconds from standstill, the Ultima’s high-drag shape and optional $3700 rear wing slow things down a bit, but nonetheless, the 157-mph top speed occurs at the 6000-rpm redline in fifth gear. The car felt solid and didn’t play sen­sitive even once during our tough perfor­mance testing. And, there’s a 12-month warranty. There is nothing kit-carish about it in reality. Most kit cars borrow heavily from existing vehicles. Not so with the GTR. Other than the engine, transmission, and lights, it’s virtually all original.In England, race shops dot the countryside, and it’s apparent that skilled fabricators with talented hands have turned out this car. The fiberglass body of our test car had not a ripple across its curvy flanks. Every weld of the steel-­tube frame displayed nearly perfect beads. The doors didn’t hint of binding, and the interior displayed impeccable fit and finish. The Ultima’s suspension employs unequal-length control arms all around and big vented, cross-drilled disc brakes that performed without fade. We experienced some early rear lockup that lengthened the stopping distance from 70 to 0 mph to 199 feet, but Mullin said some brake tuning would shorten that distance quite a bit. Considering how well the car hooked up under acceleration and the excellent 0.98-g lateral-acceleration figure, we know the Ultima has plenty of grip. Scorching performance is all well and good on the track. The real test comes on public roads, and that’s where the Ultima really surprised us. The ride is certainly firm, and yes, we did drive the car on smooth California roads. But even when we could see a nasty patch of road ahead and braced ourselves for some kidney upset, the unpleasantness never came. On the highway, the Ultima didn’t wander a bit. Since Mullin retained the cats and muffler that come with the LS1 engine, the loudest noise we heard was some wind roar. Overall, the ride is acceptable and nonpunishing. The low ride height made us fear driveway ramps and parking lots, but the short overhangs prevented the front end from scraping. More Supercar Reviews from the ArchiveWe wouldn’t call the Ultima GTR a grocery getter, simply because it’s a bit difficult to get into and out of. You won’t need a gymnast’s license to obtain entry, but the wide, tall sill and the low seat will give pause to consider how you’re going to get in. Our test car came with the optional $2050 safety cage, which pro­vided some handholds for entry. Once in, you’re blessed with a low, snail’s-eye view of the road, a small steering wheel, a metal shifter emerging directly from the floor, and room for anyone as long as they are not much taller than six feet two. The interior is refreshingly simple, with five plain white gauges logically placed. The climate controls are another matter, however, since they’re under the dash and require memorization to use. Despite the large glass area, the $3100 optional A/C worked well, as did the heater (another $1000). For kicks, we took a few laps on a race­track and couldn’t believe how confident the Ultima GTR made us feel. It is simply a well-engineered and well-built car. In every corner, straight, and braking zone, our test car was rock solid, with absolutely no twitchiness despite our prodigious speeds. We could gush on forever, but the bottom line is we’d sacrifice plenty for a day of track time in the GTR. At $152,150, there are numerous cars that’ll give you a thrill, but we have to put the Ultima GTR in with the top five cars that push all the right auto-enthu­siast buttons. As of this writing, it’s been two months since we drove it, and we’re still smiling.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2000 Ultima GTRVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $138,300/$152,150
ENGINEpushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 346 in3, 5663 cm3Power: 345 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 350 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 100.0 inLength: 162.0 inCurb Weight: 2314 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.3 sec100 mph: 8.4 sec1/4-Mile: 11.9 sec @ 117 mph150 mph: 26.3 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 3.9 secTop Speed (redline ltd): 157 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 199 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.98 g  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the September 2023 issue of Car and Driver.It’s no secret that new vehicles, especially pickups and SUVs, are suffering from ballooning prices, enlarged footprints, and swelling equipment lists. But the humble mid-size sedan soldiers on, much the same as it ever was. You probably hardly even notice these four-doors anymore. But they’re still here, serving as trusty steeds for commuters, parents, teenagers, and—perhaps most of all—the ride-share drivers and DoorDashers of America.With a new Honda Accord having hit the scene for 2023, it was time to pit our perennial favorite against its current cohort. Everyone likes to talk about the demise of passenger cars, but even though the family-sedan segment dwindled significantly several years ago, there’s still a healthy set of mainstays that have stuck around. For this test, we targeted a price point in the low $30,000s and avoided hybrid powertrains and flashy option packages in search of affordable sedans that deliver passenger-friendly practicality and the best driving experience.These plebeian sedans don’t exhibit the manic price inflation seen in much of the automotive market. The average as-tested price in this group is $32,550—far below the average transaction price of all new cars, which is sky-rocketing toward $50,000, making the four-door car look like a relative bargain.The 11th-generation Accord, already the recipient of a 10Best award for 2023, is here in EX form. With the top trims now available only as hybrids, this is the highest-spec version of the Accord you can get with the base turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-four. It stickers for $30,705, the lowest price in the test.Hyundai has already revealed a less piscatorial version of the Sonata for 2024, but it wasn’t available yet, so we tested a $33,600 2023 Sonata SEL Plus model with a turbocharged 1.6-liter inline-four.The Subaru Legacy, despite finishing last in our most recent comparison of this group, returns with a 2023 refresh that brings the turbocharged 2.4-liter flat-four to the Sport trim level. This time around, the Legacy is the most powerful but, at $34,915, also the most expensive.And naturally, we couldn’t leave out the bestselling Toyota Camry. It shows up as a sparsely equipped $30,981 SE model, with all-wheel drive as just about the only factory option.We invited some others, including the Chevrolet Malibu (the only American player remaining in this space), the Kia K5, and the Nissan Altima, but the automakers declined to participate, leaving us to decide a finishing order for this quartet. Unassuming as they are, the four sedans provide customers with an enticing combination of affordability and efficiency—some more than others, of course—that’s increasingly elusive among new cars these days.More on Mid-Size Sedans4th Place: Subaru LegacyIf you buy a Subaru without black plastic cladding on the sides, can you still go camping in it? The Legacy sedan doesn’t look particularly rugged, but it does feature classic brand tenets, including standard all-wheel drive and cleverly integrated roof-rack mounts. HIGHS: Potent engine, roomy rear seat, lots of features.LOWS: Loosey-goosey handling, dated screen graphics, high price.VERDICT: Subaru’s sedan acts too much like its high-riding Outback kin.The Legacy won points for its comfortable rear seat, generous list of features, and quick acceleration courtesy of the Sport’s 260-hp turbo four. But that was about it. While its sub-six-second sprint to 60 mph might appear to lend some credence to its Sport badge, one turn of the steering wheel puts the kibosh on that notion. With this much body roll, brake dive, and squat in play, maybe Subaru should just raise the Legacy and slap on a Wilderness badge like it has done with several other models. Remember the Sport Utility Sedan? Its spirit lives on here.The Legacy unsurprisingly was the thirstiest of the group, and the CVT automatic doesn’t do a good job of managing the engine’s torque curve, exaggerating the sensation of turbo lag. Plus, the Subaru’s highest-in-test price felt egregious given its unsatisfying mixture of interior materials and its dated and cartoonish infotainment graphics. The 11.6-inch portrait-style touchscreen is the largest here, but the design doesn’t use that real estate effectively, and the onscreen buttons and menus aren’t arranged logically.The Legacy ends up being far less than the sum of its parts. All the right elements appear to be present, but the mismatch between the engine power and the relaxed handling and chassis results in a sedan at odds with itself. 3rd Place: Toyota CamryWhen someone says “family sedan,” most people think of the Camry. And for good reason. It goes down the road purposefully, as the well-tuned damping and nicely weighted steering combine for a satisfying ride-and-handling balance.HIGHS: Composed chassis, good fuel economy, easy-to-use controls.LOWS: Sluggish, noisy cabin, sparsely equipped.VERDICT: An aging player that’s still in the game but not headed for the hall of fame.But the car built around this willing chassis is starting to show its age. We were shocked to find that our car still had a physical key that you insert into the ignition switch. The dashboard layout is also a throwback, with old-school analog gauges and a small 7.0-inch touchscreen that are straight out of 2012. At least the ergonomics are sound, thanks to plenty of hard buttons and knobs. And even though the Camry’s sheer ubiquity allows it to blend in with just about any landscape, the overly complex exterior design—especially the front end—hasn’t grown on us.With the only naturally aspirated engine here, the Camry’s powertrain always feels a step behind. The buzzy and peaky four-cylinder isn’t a good match for the eight-speed automatic transmission, which is reluctant to downshift. This, plus the extra weight of the all-wheel-drive system, means the Toyota struggles to keep up. Still, it did manage to tie the front-wheel-drive Accord in observed fuel economy.This generation of the Camry has soldiered on for six long years, and it still behaves like a mid-size sedan should. We’re eager to see what the upcoming next-gen model has in store.2nd Place: Hyundai SonataWith a crisp design and impressive attention to detail inside and out, the Hyundai is the only sedan here that looks more expensive than it is. Your ride-share passenger might think they accidentally booked an Uber Black. Unlike the Accord and the Camry, the Sonata provides rear-seat occupants with air vents and a USB port. Yes, even this higher-trim example has blank buttons and a few hard-plastic trim pieces, but it makes up for those deficiencies with an easy-to-use touchscreen, HVAC controls with an upscale look and feel, and a well-integrated digital gauge cluster. We also appreciated small, thoughtful touches such as the display in the gauge cluster that pops up when you activate the windshield-wiper switch or lets you know that the car in front has pulled away.HIGHS: Great to look at, upscale interior, strong performance.LOWS: Engine lacks refinement, chassis lacks composure, brake pedal lacks feel.VERDICT: The spiffiest sedan here comes up a tad short dynamically.But the Sonata’s pizazz goes only so far. Most notably, it doesn’t extend to the driving experience. The 180-hp turbo four hits its marks on paper, achieving the second-quickest acceleration to 60 mph despite having the least horsepower in the group. But it’s not as refined as the Accord’s engine, emitting an agricultural growl under hard acceleration and sending vibrations into the cabin. The Hyundai also finishes significantly behind the Toyota and the Honda in observed fuel economy.Although the Sonata has the best skidpad and braking performance numbers of the group at the test track, we never got into a groove with it on our handling loop. Its structure feels less stiff than the others, and it lacks the quiet composure of the Accord and the Camry on bumpy roads. Plus, the brake pedal feels wooden, and the steering lacks feedback, meaning the Sonata is competent but not engaging.While these are hardly fatal flaws in a mainstream sedan, they prevent the Hyundai from feeling entirely coherent. As nice as it is, it’s not the sedan we’d choose.1st Place: Honda AccordThe new Accord is still on top, but not without caveats. Obvious cost cutting has come to this latest generation, especially in the nonhybrid models. The hybrid Sport, EX-L, Sport-L, and Touring trim levels appear to be Honda’s priority now, as the company is aiming to sell half of all Accords with the pricier hybrid setup. But the gas-only LX and EX by comparison seem to have gotten short shrift. The lack of a leather-wrapped steering wheel is the most obvious example of cheapness in this EX, but the abundance of hard plastics, the small 7.0-inch touchscreen, and the barren rear seat also give off rental-car vibes. Plus, even though we like the new Accord’s smooth shape and athletic proportions, its relatively small 17-inch wheels give away that you bought the poverty spec.HIGHS: Balanced ride and handling, smooth drivetrain.LOWS: Some rental-grade interior materials, short on features.VERDICT: Despite some decontenting, the Accord still does what the Accord does best.Fortunately, there’s real substance here to offset the low-budget touches. While the Sonata gives off a few luxury-car vibes, the Accord actually drives like it belongs in the next class up—and that’s what we care about more anyway. It simply does what it’s told and adapts to every situation beautifully: The highway ride is sublime, the steering weights up nicely in corners, and the continuously variable automatic transmission is a smooth operator, effectively taking advantage of the low-end torque from the near-silent turbo four.The Honda not only wins on its refined feel and manners but also achieves the best highway fuel economy and has the most spacious trunk in the test. Plus, it costs less than the rest, which partially excuses its lack of features and amenities. While $30,000 might buy you less than it used to, the Accord still manages to provide more car for the money than any of its competitors.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda Accord EXVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $30,705/$30,705
ENGINE
Turbocharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4Displacement: 91 in3, 1498 cm3Power: 192 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 192 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar/multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Brakes, F/R: 11.5-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Michelin Energy Saver A/S, 225/50R-17 94V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 inLength: 195.7 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/50 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 3239 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
0–30 mph: 3.0 sec0–60 mph: 7.3 sec0–100 mph: 18.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 93 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 118 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 40 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 590 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 32/29/37 mpg
— 
2023 Hyundai Sonata SEL PlusVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $33,390/$33,600
ENGINE
turbocharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4Displacement: 98 in3, 1598 cm3Power: 180 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 195 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar/multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.2-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero All Season 245/40R-19 94W M+S

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.8 inLength: 192.9 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 56.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 62/42 ft3Trunk Volume: 16 ft3Curb Weight: 3350 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
0–30 mph: 2.6 sec0–60 mph: 7.1 sec0–100 mph: 18.4 sec1/4-Mile: 15.5 sec @ 92 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.5 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 secTop Speed (C/D est): 140 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 30 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 570 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 31/27/37 mpg
— 
2023 Subaru Legacy SportVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $34,915/$34,915
ENGINE
turbocharged DOHC 16-valve flat-4Displacement: 146 in3, 2387 cm3Power: 260 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 277 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar/multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakes, F/R: 12.4-in vented disc/11.8-in vented discTires: Yokohama Avid GT, 225/50R-18 95V M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.3 inLength: 191.1 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 59.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/49 ft3TrunkVolume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3719 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
0–30 mph: 2.3 sec0–60 mph: 5.7 sec0–100 mph: 14.5 sec0–130 mph: 29.8 sec1/4-Mile: 14.3 sec @ 99 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.2 secTop Speed (C/D est): 140 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 28 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 570 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 26/23/31 mpg
— 
2022 Toyota Camry SE AWDVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $30,355/$30,981
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve inline-4Displacement: 152 in3, 2487 cm3Power: 202 hp @ 6600 rpmTorque: 182 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar/multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakes, F/R: 12.0-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT, 235/45R-18 94V M+S

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.2 inLength: 192.7 inWidth: 72.4 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 54/46 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 3528 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
0–30 mph: 2.6 sec0–60 mph: 7.6 sec0–100 mph: 19.7 sec0–130 mph: 42.0 sec1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 90 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (C/D est): 135 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 176 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 36 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 510 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 29/25/34 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

From the March 1994 issue of Car and Driver.Hark back with us for a moment to the early days of the Jeep Grand Wagoner, which appeared in 1963 as the first of a new breed—a utility vehicle that wasn’t descended from a truck. In those days sport-utility vehicles were big, bad, and ugly. Few people would brag about owning these road crushers, which were relegated mostly to winter but when more respectable types were stuck at home playing canasta. Back then, sport-utility trucks didn’t have to be attractive, or refined, or even particularly well-made. More SUV Comparos From the ArchiveBut the explosive growth of the sport-utility market has, inevitably, brought about some cross-breeding between the most rugged of the mudders and the most sophisticated of sedans. With more than a million sold each year (1,132,177 in 1992), sport-utes have become primary appliances responsible for taking the danger out of snowdrifts as well as shuttling to work and play. Asked to pinch-hit for passenger cars, they’ve assumed the urbane qualities of some of the finest sedans without denying their earthy heritage. This new niche of gentrified trucks that we’ve gathered here—the Isuzu Trooper LS, the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, the Ford Explorer Limited, the Mitsubishi Montero SR, the Range Rover County, and the Toyota Land Cruiser—mark the spot where off-road capability and carlike luxury collide. Since they are used most often as cars—their makers say only about five percent are ever intentionally taken off the pavement—we put this gang of six through our traditional comparison-test procedures. Then we threw some dirt into the equation. In addition to driving them on highways and on back-road loops of the Vermont woods—including rest stops at Goshen’s exquisite Blueberry Hill Inn bed and breakfast and the sensationally low-key Trapp family lodge in Stowe—we also tossed in two days’ worth of off-road driving instruction with the chaps at Rovers North. With their expertise, we learned the finer points of winching and snatching.The biggest surprise: while most of these vehicles compromised their off-road abilities for the sake of on-road performance, they all remained surprisingly adept at climbing out of the slop. A few of them—and one in particular—squarely hit the cross-hairs of luxury and versatility. Which ones, you ask? Well, here’s how they finished. —Martin Padgett Jr. 6th Place: Ford Explorer LimitedAussies invented ‘roo bars, which are not lager lounges for marsupials crossed with pogo sticks, but grille guards against kangaroo encounters of the worst kind. Got that? The Ford Explorer instead sports “poo’bars”—as in “to engage four-wheel­ drive and lock the diffs, just poosh the two little bars on the dash.” These handy push bars rank among the Ford’s best features. Yet our latest drive tells us this outback­-going creature needs updating. Soon.HIGHS: Lowish price, pushbar drivetrain controls, handsome interior, decent ergonomics.LOWS: Lack of ground clearance, lunky suspension, dull engine, knee-poke shift lever.VERDICT: Needs a full re-do.The Ford has led the domestic sport­-utility-vehicle segment in sales and satis­faction. Now it’s been around for four years, and faces newer—if pricier­—imports. The “new” Limited lends an “enhanced level of luxury appearance and convenience features”—superficial add­-ons against some sport-utility vehicles that are more lively and capable.The Ford is at its best toodling around. Ask more and the Explorer reveals short­falls in ground clearance, suspension, structure, and powertrain. The front dif­ferential and rear suspension hang low, which may cause a real hangup on big rocks and sharp crests. The “Twin-Trac­tion Beam” front suspension is often off the beam in keeping contact with terra infirma. The structure twists and creaks. The running boards add weight and bulk. (The color-banded front bumper also draws sorry comments.) Worse, the Ford is short on towing points. The Explorer’s 4.0-liter V-6 tells you it’s unhappy. Overworked and under­-deadened, it wins the John Deere-sound­alike contest. You must press hard on the stiff throttle even though you get lazy response in return. Still, this can be helpful when getting underway on slimy terrain. The Explorer’s best feature remains its interior. It’s handsome and its ergonomics are generally good. Alas, the column-mounted shifter for the four-speed automatic’s PRNDL (say prin-duhl) pokes the driver’s knee (say OUCH!) when levered down to Low—a “Low” point since first gear is used off-road to control steep descents. The Explorer’s handling is often lunky, its feel tippy, and its steering is too limp for smooth transitions from tight turns to straight ahead. The suspension is bobby, often riding poorly. A heaviness hangs over its behavior. And the Ford hangs up often on off-road obstacles. The Explorer’s lack of deftness placed it no better than the mid-pack in any of our performance tests. More often it finished near or at the bottom, where it ran aground in our hearts and on our charts. —Larry Griffin 1994 Ford Explorer Limited 160-hp pushrod V-6, four-speed automatic, 4435 lbBase/as-tested price: $29,020/$30,100C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 11.0 sec1/4 mile: 18.3 sec @ 75 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 198 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.66 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg5th Place: Isuzu Trooper LSAlthough our Trooper is mostly unchanged from its winning form in our last sport-utility vehicle comparison in May 1992, it was outgunned in this test by pricier off-roaders. The big Isuzu is comfortable to ride in, and therefore likable. But two weak spots became apparent when compared with the other five vehicles in this test. HIGHS: Excellent fit and finish, good control responses, confident handling.LOWS: Rudimentary part-time 4wd system, dull styling. VERDICT: A high-quality wagon with a limited mission. First, an aesthetic price must be paid in exchange for the Trooper’s spacious interior, which is second only to the colossal Land Cruiser’s available space. The five-door Trooper (a shorter three-door version is available) is about an inch shorter and narrower than a five-door Ford Explorer, but there are six more cubic feet inside. That’s due mostly to the Trooper’s height advantage of 5.5 inches over the Explorer. Once inside the Trooper, you immediately sense that terrific space advantage, but it is space wrapped by sheetmetal devoid of curves, sheetmetal without an enticing shape. Standing side-by-side with the low-slung Jeep and the bulging-rendered Montero or even the Land Cruiser, the Trooper verges on the homely. Second, the trooper’s part-time four-wheel-drive system is less useful in a wide variety of driving conditions than the systems of its competitors. The Jeep, Range Rover, and Toyota all have ideal full-time four-wheel-drive systems; the Montero and Explorer have part-time systems that can be engaged at highway speeds. The Trooper has an archaic part-time system that doesn’t permit shifting into four-wheel drive unless the car is stopped. This creates a hassle when the driver is cruising on a freeway that is experiencing a change in weather conditions. That driver also cannot switch to four-wheel-drive on an off-road trail, or more significantly, on a sloped snow-covered driveway, until they’ve come to a stop, which would cost them valuable momentum in critical situations. In short, they risk getting stuck doing this. We can’t shake the image of how embarrassing it would be to get stuck in your own driveway in a $32,580 four-wheel-drive wagon. Still, there is a great deal of goodness in this wagon beyond the cavernous interior. The chassis of the Isuzu is rigid and the suspension is softly sprung. The result is a rattle-free ride, but that also means sluggish handling. Engine and road vibrations feel more isolated than in the Grand Cherokee or the Montero. The Isuzu’s 190-horsepower, twin-cam V-6 pulls smoothly to its 6500-rpm redline, but only the Explorer is slower to 60 mph. One test driver described the Trooper’s squarish dashboard as ugly, but the precise feel of all the controls, and the assembly quality throughout, are tops in this class. —Phil Berg1994 Isuzu Trooper LS 190-hp V-6, four-speed automatic, 4485 lbBase/as-tested price: $28,400/$32,580C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.9 sec1/4 mile: 18.1 sec @ 75 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg4th Place: Mitsubishi Montero SRIn the last couple go-arounds, the Mon­tero hasn’t won any standing ovations. In our most recent sport-utility test, it placed fourth among six vehicles, and a recent long-term hauler wasn’t exactly memo­rable. This year’s Montero SR comes with a new and more powerful engine, and some other refinements that have boosted its image. It’s a strange sight to see a tachometer on a sport-utility with a 7000-rprn redline. In terms of sophistication, Mitsubishi’s all-­new DOHC, 215-horsepower V-6 is very untrucklike, and took to high-speed inter­state driving like a greyhound after a jackrabbit. That’s a good sign in a vehicle that not too long ago could be charitably described as a turtle—quick enough to have come in second only to the speedy Jeep in nearly all the acceleration tests. HIGHS: Versatile driveline, beefy bod with power to match.LOWS: Vagabond steering, penalty-box rear seating, styling frippery.VERDICT: Competent, and with the new engine, respectable.The Montero’s versatile drivetrain offers the most choices of driving modes: rear-drive, and the usual high and low ranges in four-wheel drive—all manually selected with a console-mounted lever. Plus, the center differential can be locked using the same lever. A switch on the con­sole also locks the rear differential. Still, it was tougher to get the Montero going than its competitors, most notably on the off-road school’s hill of barely frozen mud, and again on the packed snow of Smug­glers Notch pass. The SR’s spiffy engine, ironically, might be part of the problem. Despite the fact that the V-6’s 228 pound­-feet of torque peaks at a low 3000 rpm, the torque delivery right off idle seemed dif­ficult to modulate compared with the responses of the other trucks. The driver’s seat is comfortable for long trips and offers a commanding view of the road, as well as the truck. Mitsu’s clever shock-absorbed driver’s seat has bitten the dust for 1994, although we only missed it during rough off-roading. The dash-mounted inclinometer, altimeter, and compass can seem a bit unnecessary until you get lost on a dark, wintry Adirondack road, as did one of your humble servants. The Montero performed unremarkably through the emergency lane-change course. But then, during one run, it got our attention when we almost rolled it. Given the tipsy-turvy manners of most sport-util­ity vehicles in emergency maneuvers, we’ll chalk up that near-disaster to hap­penstance. As for its steering, we wish Mitsubishi would exorcise the on-center dead spot, but at least there’s an airbag for the driver. “Wins the award for the most steer­ing play,” said one editor. The Montero SR finished fourth, as it did in our May 1992 comparo, but this time it competed in a much pricier segment. Now that’s a step in the right direction. —Don Schroeder1994 Mitsubishi Montero SR215-hp V-6, four-speed automatic, 4742 lbBase/as-tested price: $30,113/$31,332C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.7 sec1/4 mile: 17.5 sec @ 78 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg3rd Place: Range Rover CountyPurists will most likely assume that some very nice niceties—the sleek leather, the elegant wood trim, the meringue­-smooth drivetrain—have somehow impinged on the expert off-road abilities of this short-wheel-based Range Rover County. For the most part, that is untrue.In the years since the first edition plowed onto the scene in 1970, the Range Rover has received an Eliza Doolittle-style makeover that has elevated it from its util­itarian digs into the realm of luxury sedans. Along the way, it has acquired such dain­ties as power-adjustable leather seats, gen­uine wood trim, and a larger V-8 engine. The last two years have been watersheds for the Range Rover. It gained an all-new long-wheelbase model last year, and a height-adjustable air suspension this year. Our short-wheelbase Range Rover County came equipped with the most com­plete list of luxury amenities in the group—making it, at $47,525, the most expensive of our lot. Features that suck up to the swell set include seats that can be adjusted in eight directions, are heated, and are moved about with a power switch; the aforementioned electronic air suspension; and a 120-watt, ten-speaker stereo. HIGHS: Mellow drivetrain, superb off-road ability.LOWS: Barely amusing Brit notions of body rigidity and ergonomics. VERDICT: Quirks aside, a virtuous blend of on- and off-road performance.These perks didn’t diminish the Rover’s deft off-road handling. Its full­-time four-wheel drive has a lower-ratio gearset for trundling out of truly deep muck. The throttle cooperates by tipping in gently, avoiding right-foot overdoses of tire-spinning torque. With the air suspen­sion at its higher setting, the Range Rover’s approach and departure angles are 33 degrees, which make clearing deep ruts a snap. And should you find yourself high-centered, the air suspension can push down the wheels an additional 2.8 inches in its search for traction. Except for the sumo­-like Land Cruiser, the Range Rover had the least difficulty extracting itself from the various traps that the fellows at Rovers North driving school set for us. It excels as an off-road vehicle, but the Range Rover scores well on pavement, too. The short hood drops cleanly out of sight for an unobstructed view of the road, while a large greenhouse makes it easy to back into parking spaces. That unob­structed view is enhanced by the high seat­ing position. The air springs and good wheel travel (eight inches up front, eleven inches in the rear) added up to the cushiest ride on the freeway, and the torquey V-8 and four-speed automatic felt as civilized as a powertrain from one of Germany’s uber-cruisers.Aside from its price, which was $5894 more than its nearest competitor, the Rover was only hampered by spotty (albeit improved) build quality and hunt-and-peck ergonomics. The cruise control engaged intermittently, the steel hood fluttered at most speeds, and the gaps in the body pan­els were large enough that we could see the interior door lights through them. The horn is located on the end of the turn-signal stalk, the fuel-door opener is on the left side of the steering column, and the seating position feels more Greyhound than Orient Express.Despite the niggles, the Range Rover embodies both luxury and off-road capa­bility. It’s the only sport-utility vehicle, one of us noted, that would be appropriate for retrieving the company chairman at the airport. Being British has done nothing for the cachet of Benny Hill reruns, but it seems to work for aluminum-paneled trucks. —Martin Padgett Jr1994 Land Rover Range Rover County182-hp pushrod V-8, four-speed automatic, 4568 lbBase/as-tested price: $47,525/$47,525C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.4 sec1/4 mile: 17.9 sec @ 77 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 213 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.67 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg2nd Place: Toyota Land CruiserDuring the days we spent treading lightly through Vermont’s lovely woods, this Toyota came to be known affection­ately as the Land Bruiser. This impolite appellation seemed to fit a vehicle that cuts a swath 76 inches wide through the forest. Plus, it pounds Mother Earth with more than two and one-half tons of rock­-crushing weight. While none of these vehicles is exactly dainty, this one dwarfs them all.The Land Cruiser’s grand exterior encloses an enormous cabin that can accommodate as many as seven persons, or 91 cubic feet of stuff. The weight is due in part to a granite-like body structure, and as a result, nothing rattles, squeaks, or jig­gles—even when pounding over boulders and plunging across streams. Like other Toyotas, this one also earned high marks for its astonishing assembly quality, intu­itive ergonomics, and sophisticated drivetrain.HIGHS: Impeccable build quality, ergonomic interior, slick and simple four-wheel drivetrain. LOWS: Cumbersome size, weight, and pricetag.VERDICT: Think of it as a Suburban built by Lexus.Full-time four-wheel-drive, with an easily selected low range and center dif­ferential lock, make the Toyota ideal for the on-road customer who is concerned more about occasional bad weather than the prospect of crossing the Rubicon. This system, plus an easily modulated throttle and lots of weight pressing down on aggressive mud and snow tires, gave the Land Cruiser the edge in our climb-the-­snowy-mountain-pass test. However, serious off-roaders should choose one of the smaller trucks. The Bruiser is just too big to navigate between tight rocks and trees without a team of spotters.A huge DOHC six-cylinder engine of 4.5 liters that packed a wallop of 275 pound-feet of torque was able to deliver only mid-pack performance. New all-disc ABS brakes and a well-tuned suspension belie the Bruiser’s size—it came to a stop in the shortest distance, and was second only to the sprightly Jeep on the skidpad and through the lane-change challenge. We’d love to see this hard­ware applied to a lighter, nimbler 4Run­ner-sized package.The Land Cruiser’s sophistication and build quality offer some justifica­tion for its bruiser price of $41,623 and earn it a spot near the top of the class. Its sheer bulk, however, bars it from the winner’s circle. When the dust (and mud) settled, none of us could conceive owning and piloting such a huge truck when a smaller, nimbler, and more fun­-to-drive example is available. —Frank Markus1994 Toyota Land Cruiser212-hp inline-6, four-speed automatic, 5153 lbBase/as-tested price: $34,653/$41,631C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 10.7 sec1/4 mile: 17.9 sec @ 76 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg1st Place: Jeep Grand Cherokee LimitedOur search for the most luxurious and most capable sport-utility ended about where it started—on our 1993 Ten Best list. Only one sport-utility vehicle has ever managed to snare a spot on our honor roll, and though it fell off the list this year, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, in V-8-powered Limited trim, continues to be the only sport-ute that makes us forget we’re driv­ing a truck.When the mud-slinging came to an end, only the Grand Cherokee had passed the on- and off-road performance pop quiz with flying colors. Most of the credit due goes to the near-invisible operation of its full-time four-wheel-drive system, which has a viscous center differential that locks up only when extra traction is demanded by spinning wheels. Thanks to it, and even riding atop comfy Goodyear GA all-sea­son highway tires, the Grand Cherokee ascended Smuggler Notch near Stowe, Vermont, in deep snow with ease.The Jeep did not disgrace itself at the Rovers North Off-Road school either, despite being outfitted in upscale Lim­ited trim. Had it been equipped with the Up Country package that includes all-ter­rain tires, front tow hooks, uprated shocks and springs, and skid plates to protect the underside (a $350 option), it would not have gotten stuck in the mud nearly as often as it did.HIGHS: Torquey engine, car-like feel, all-season confidence.LOWS: Thrashy valvetrain, wandering steering, gas-gobbler.VERDICT: A versatile vehicle with few compromises. Though it works remarkably well off-road, the Jeep performed even better in the arena that sport-utility vehicles most often find themselves: on the pavement. It outperformed every other vehicle in the group by a comfortable margin. With its relatively svelte uni­body and smallish overall size, the Jeep was the most car-like of the vehicles in this comparison test. Although it seats five and hauls plenty of luggage, it’s not as tall as its rivals and is thus easier to get into. The challenges of suburbia are easily met by the relaxed power of a 5.2- liter V-8 driving through a well-mannered automatic transmission.This sort of versatility is unexpected in a vehicle marketed as a kind of high-per­formance station wagon. It’s a pity that the brawny V-8 broadcasts so much valvetrain thrash into the cabin, but without that noise, the list of complaints would be a short one: just a little instrument panel reflection, some unconvincing wood trim on the console (it’s good elsewhere), and occasionally wandery steering. None of these are serious flaws, and none deter from its all-terrain fluency. It may not have returned to the Ten Best, but of its kind, the Jeep remains without equal. —Barry Winfield1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee220-hp pushrod V-8, four-speed automatic, 4101 lbBase/as-tested price: $30,113/$31,332C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4 mile: 16.3 sec @ 84 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 180 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg More

From the July 1998 issue of Car and Driver.With all the tribute that is heaped on the Toyota brand in this country—its near-legendary quality, the bestselling-car status of the Camry—an interesting fact has been lost. No car or truck bearing the Toyota name­plate has ever been sold in this country with a V-8 engine—the iconic powerplant that defined Detroit’s offerings for decades. That changes this year as Toyota rolls out its new Land Cruiser sport-utility vehicle, which now comes with V-8 power. The Land Cruiser needed that engine if it was to have a fighting chance in its marketing niche among SUVs that cost more than $40,000. Its rivals—the Lincoln Navigator and the Range Rover­—have had V-8s all along. The previous Land Cruiser’s 212-hp inline six was as smooth as any V-8, but even when flogged, it never accelerated the 5150-pound Land Cruiser with any enthusiasm. More on the Land CruiserThe new engine was worth the wait. The aluminum heads on this iron-block engine feature double overhead cams and 32 valves, making this truck—and its twin at Lexus, the LX470—the only ones with a four-valve-per-cylinder V-8 available in North America. With 4.7 liters of displacement, it makes 230 horsepower and an even more impressive 320 pound-­feet of torque. Of all sport-utility V-8s, only the Range Rover’s 4.6-liter has a better power-to-displacement ratio. In torque-to-displacement, Toyota’s truck V-8 beats all others by a significant margin. So endowed, the new Land Cruiser’s acceleration is back in the hunt. Sixty mph is 9.4 seconds away, on par with the Range Rover 4.6HSE (9.2 seconds) and the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 5.2-liter (9.1 sec­onds). The Toyota will walk away from the four-wheel-drive Lincoln Navigator, at 10.3 seconds. The Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited, at 7.0 seconds, will maul this Toyota, but we can’t think of an SUV it won’t slaughter at a stoplight.Acceleration, however, is hardly this engine’s strongest suit. This may be the smoothest truck V-8 we’ve ever driven. It winds to its 5200-rpm redline almost without vibration, with the same delec­tably crisp whine of the Lexus LS400’s V-8—the engine that spawned this truck ver­sion.The standard Toyota four-speed auto­matic is as familiar as bar soap. Its shifts are so seamless that you don’t notice them unless you hear the change in engine pitch. A “power” button on the console orders more aggressive upshifts and downshifts. We’ve always thought the transmission should do this automatically in response to throttle application. There’s also a second-gear start mode for better winter and mud traction (selected by another con­sole button), which strikes us as super­fluous on a wagon with full-time four­wheel drive—the only way the Land Cruiser is equipped. These are minor quib­bles about a polished driveline that other­wise makes this Toyota feel expensive.The Land Cruiser’s no-brainer four­-wheel drive does not require any action on the part of the driver. That is, if you’re not getting stuck. Additional equipment is on hand to deal with that situation. There’s a low range, selected by a lever on the center console, for careful off-road creeping. If that doesn’t do the trick, the Land Cruiser’s open center differential can be locked via (yet another) button to ensure a 50/50 front-to-rear torque distribution in slippery situations. Our Land Cruiser offered even more traction thanks to an optional lockable rear differential, con­trolled by one more dashboard switch. With the center and rear diffs locked, the Land Cruiser had ample traction in some muddy dirt piles we discovered in one of metro Detroit’s many new farm-eating housing developments. You could get a locking front differen­tial on last year’s Land Cruiser, but that’s disappeared along with that SUV’s rigid front axle. In its place are unequal-length control arms sprung by torsion bars. Toyota says that they promise not only better traction over difficult terrain, but also more precise handling on-road. The live axle in back remains, but with refine­ments that allow more suspension travel. Yet the Land Cruiser is no nimble road dancer. This is a big SUV, between a Range Rover and a Chevy Tahoe in length and width. In weight, at 5320 pounds, it’s closer to the last Tahoe we tested, and after some time behind the wheel, it’s dif­ficult to ignore its substantial mass, contrary to our earlier impressions. There’s little urgency to the Land Cruiser’s responses, from stepping off at a green light to changing direction. Cor­nering grip of the Michelin LTX tires is a modest 0.68 g, and it takes 208 feet to stop the Land Cruiser from 70 mph, with stan­dard anti-lock brakes. Not bad on either count, but smaller SUVs can do better. To the Toyota’s credit, though, there’s little of the Range Rover’s cornering tip­piness, and the rack-and-pinion steering feels more connected than the recircu­lating-ball system in GM’s Suburban. The ride is supple, particularly at lower speeds, and there’s none of the Expedition/Navi­gator’s jittery ride motions on the freeway. It may not drive like a lithe 4Runner, but the Land Cruiser offers probably the best ride-and-handling combination among the big SUVs. Chalk up some of this to the Land Cruiser’s beefy structure. Toyota says the steel ladder frame is 50-percent more rigid overall than its predecessor. With this SUV’s rubber-mounted steel body, pave­ment joints are a distant thup-thup-thup away from your eardrums. We detected no flex in that body, even when we sunk one wheel into a ditch. This stout-feeling sport-­ute feels like it will remain so for some time. The Land Cruiser can tow up to 6500 pounds, a 1500-pound improvement over the last model. That matches the capability of the lighter Range Rover but falls short of the four-wheel-drive Navigator’s 7700-pound towing capacity. Admittedly, there aren’t many trailers on the road weighing more than 5000 pounds. Consider this: A Land Cruiser could happily tow a Navigator all day long. Lift the rear window and drop the tail­gate, and the Land Cruiser can swallow 39 cubic feet of cargo with the middle seat up and the rear seat removed, and 97 cubic feet of cargo with the rear seats folded. That’s more than the Range Rover, at 31/58 cubic feet, but not more than the Navigator’s 39/112 cubic feet. Just 21 cubic feet can fit behind the Land Cruiser’s optional third seat, which beats the 12 available behind the Navigator’s third seat. The Toyota’s third seat is split, and it flips up like a drawbridge from the middle and can be removed.Three seatbelts are included with that third seat, but with no footwell, it’s best suited for children. Only a sadist would stick even one adult back there. The same can’t be said of the front- and middle-row seats, which can accommodate five people quite comfortably. The passenger com­partment is now 2.8 inches wider and 3.5 inches longer, most of which goes into middle-seat room, although that still trails the Range Rover’s and the Navigator’s somewhat. The middle seat split-folds for­ward for cargo versatility. Toyota has managed to excise any lin­gering Japanese quirkiness from its inte­riors. The Land Cruiser’s is both functional and attractive and seems to meet Toyota’s lofty fit-and-finish standards—an accom­plishment in a SUV of this size. The unadventurous outer flanks aren’t much of a stretch, but at least they incorporate the distinctive fender bulges from the previous Land Cruiser. The prominent grille is defined by big jeweled headlamps.The Land Cruiser follows a pricing trend set by most other Toyotas this decade—meaning bargain hunters are in the wrong place. The $46,370 base price is $4762 more than last year’s model, but that includes power front seats, aluminum wheels, and a CD player, which were options previously. At least that not-insignificant sum buys a significant amount of vehicle. The new Land Cruiser may not be the flashiest sport­-ute on the market, but it offers an unequaled combination of solid refinement, driving ease, and hauling ability. If Toyota’s track record is any predictor, it should be impec­cably reliable, too. Will Toyota have any problem unloading 1000 of these a month, as it hopes? We doubt it. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1998 Toyota Land CruiserVehicle Type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 8-passenger, 5-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $46,370/$51,639Options: leather seats, $1820; power sunroof, $1155; third seat, $1100; security system with keyless entry, $695; rear differential lock, $410; floor mats, $89
ENGINEDOHC 48-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 285 in3, 4664 cm3Power: 230 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 320 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 12.2-in vented disc/12.9-in vented discTires: Michelin LTX275/70SR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 inLength: 192.5 inWidth: 76.4 inHeight: 73.2 inPassenger Volume, F/M/R: 60/47/36 ft3Cargo Volume, seats up/folded: 21/91 ft3Curb Weight: 5320 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.4 sec100 mph: 39.0 sec1/4-Mile: 17.2 sec @ 80 mphRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.8 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.8 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.5 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 109 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 208 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.68 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 15 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 14/16 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the March 1999 issue of Car and Driver.My right foot stomps the accel­erator hard against the narrow floorboard three times in rapid succession as I clang the long-throw shifter up through its heavy-toothed gate. Behind us, 5.7 liters’ worth of V-12 roars like the angry hooves and snorts of a hundred bulls bouncing off the walls of Pamplona. As we pass through 160 mph, an approaching blind curve prompts us to switch pedals. At that moment, a tiny dip in the pavement jounces the front tires into contact with the fender liners, and a whiff of rubber wafts into the cabin. Four of the five senses confirm that we’re not dreaming.What we are doing is storming the twisty byways of the Italian island of Sardinia as guests of Automobili Lamborghini. The fact that this tiny dream-car builder once again has the wherewithal to throw such a party can only mean one thing—that a big, mainstream car company with cavernously deep pockets has once again taken the reins of the raging bull from Sant’Agata.More on the DiabloYes, indeed, this once-faltering manu­facturer of ultra-exotic cars and offshore­-racing boat engines is again standing on solid financial ground. The last time Lamborghini bought us a round of nocella (a regional walnut liqueur) on its home turf, the company was thriving under Chrysler’s corporate wing (1987–94). Then a company in Indonesia took over, and fortunes sagged as capital investment waned and precious resources were diverted to help engineer a Third World econocar. Cost cutting and restructuring in 1997 restored a trickle of black ink, but the challenges of developing new products proved too much for Lambo’s nonauto­motive parent, so last July the company was purchased by Audi.Ah, wind tunnels. Supercomputers. Finite-element analysis. The Lamborghini toolbox now includes world-class equip­ment. We can expect impressive new products in Lamborghini’s future, the first of which should be a 600-horse super­-Diablo (perhaps named Canto), which will be built alongside the Diablo starting in late 2000. Next up, in the 2001–02 time frame, a V-8 Lamborghini is planned for the Ferrari F355 class, and then a super­-sport-ute LM002 successor may follow.But the much-revised 1999 Diablo was the inspiration for this outing. The sleeping devil awakens for 1999 with exposed headlamps (lifted from the late, great Nissan 300ZX) that impart a sly sneer to the Diablo’s visage. They also light up the road better, weigh less, and produce less drag than the old pop-up lights. New 18-inch composite O-Z Racing wheels are the only other exterior modification. Numerous tweaks to the structure boost rigidity by a useful 10 to 15 percent.The interior is far more attractive and hospitable for 1999 thanks to a completely new dash that has electron­ically controlled analog gauges. The fussy, buttony Alpine stereo is out of reach, but the other controls are arrayed in a less ergonomically obtuse fashion compared with those in previous Diablos. Lightweight one-piece bucket seats don’t have a lot of moves—adjustments are limited to fore and aft and a tilt of the entire seat—yet they provide superb support and reasonable long­-haul comfort.Major improvements have also been made beneath the skin since we last tested a Diablo. Last year, the naughty 5.7-liter V-12 got a new Lamborghini­-designed variable-valve-timing system that shifts the intake-cam timing by 20 degrees in a single step. The transition takes place at different engine speeds depending on driving conditions and is imperceptible. Valve lift was also increased, and the intake and exhaust valve were enlarged (by 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm, respectively). To make the most of these breathing enhancements, the fuel­-injection system was upgraded, as was the Lamborghini LIE engine controller.The net result? A fatter torque curve and a boost in output to 530 horsepower at 7100 rpm and 448 pound-feet of torque at 5600 rpm (up from 492 and 428). Can you feel an eight-percent power boost? Is Isabella Rossellini prettier when she’s smiling? Lamborghini claims the new Diablo SV (the rear-drive model) will hit 62 mph in 3.9 seconds. That seems rea­sonable, considering that our fastest rear­-drive Diablo (a taller-geared, 485-hp 1991 model) did 0 to 60 in 4.2. But the com­pany’s claim of 4.0 seconds to 62 mph for the all-wheel-drive targa-top VT seems optimistic. That car weighs 200 pounds more, is harder to launch, and is geared five percent taller than the SV. Our com­puters suggest the difference in perfor­mance should be a half-second or more.Top speed has always been the Diablo’s trump card—our 204-mph test car in 1991 remains the fastest U.S.-legal production car we’ve ever tested. Lamborghini claims a 208-mph top end for VT models without the optional rear wing, and 199 mph for shorter-geared (wingless) SV coupes. Those figures are mathemati­cally plausible, but the string-backed­-glove set should be cautioned not to try that kind of speed in Montana. Top-speed running is best left for high-banked circle tracks such as Nardo in Italy, where a bit of centrifugal force can help to counteract the slight aerodynamic lift that causes the Diablo to become light and darty at speed. The car is highly susceptible to cross­winds, too, as we discovered when we passed from a protected valley onto a wind-swept bridge at 140 mph.The formidable task of “whoa-ing” all that go power is handled by Lamborghini’s first anti-lock brake system, developed with LucasVarity/Kelsey-Hayes. The brake booster, the master cylinder, the calipers, and the rotors were all upgraded for ’98. They slow the car as if it were caught in a tractor beam, and they felt indefatigable during a morning of flogging.Top speed may be the Diablo’s big claim to fame, but this bull is most at home stampeding the twisties. There’s plenty of torque on tap to pull smoothly in any gear from any speed above the engine’s 1200-rpm idle. Immense all-wheel-drive grip in the VT precludes the fun of sliding the car out to nine-tenths on public roads, but it inspires immense confidence at seven- or eight-tenths. The power steering is appro­priately weighted and feels linear and direct, but it’s less communicative than we expected—as if Mercedes had helped with the calibration. Still, the Diablo feels quite chuckable—as 80-inch-wide cars go.The engine note is uniquely Lamborghini. It’s much more guttural than any Ferrari’s—think of a Viper with two more cylinders. The noise is hard to talk over at full wail, but the sounds are com­fortable at cruising speeds. The ride is firm, but it’s never bone jarring with the adjustable shock set to “automatic.” A welcome feature of those shocks is a “lift” position that helps the chin spoiler clear driveway ramps at low speed .For U.S. buyers who dream of owning Lamborghini’s ultimate exotic car, the price should be about $250,000 for the SV coupe and $295,000 for the VT targa. Sound expensive? To paraphrase the word of former company boss Lee Iacocca, If you can find a better 208-plus-­mph factory-built car, buy it!Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1999 Lamborghini DiabloVehicle Type: mid-engine, rear- or 4-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED (EST.)SV coupe, $245,000; VT targa, $295,000
ENGINEDOHC 48-valve V-12, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 348 in3, 5707 cm3Power: 530 hp @ 7100 rpmTorque: 448 lb-ft @ 5600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 104.3 inLength: 176.0 inWidth: 80.3 inHeight: 43.9 inPassenger Volume: 45 ft3Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3500–3750 lb
MANUFACTURER’S PERFORMANCE RATINGS
62 mph: SV: 3.9 sec; VT: 4.0 secTop Speed (drag ltd): SV: 199 mph; VT: 208 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 10/13 mpg  More

From the April 2000 issue of Car and Driver.Saleen Mustangs are unabashed mutants, with bodywork additions that bulge like the lats on Mr. Universe contestants, with wheels and tires that crowd the wheelhousings, and with engines that pulse with supercharged steroids. Of course, they’ve also displayed some of the downsides of steroid abuse in the past, such as grumpy idling, supercharger whine, a jolting ride, and tramlining on longitudinal grooves badly enough to make a bloodhound dizzy. Also, under the duress of our testing procedures, some examples of Saleen’s handiwork have even, uh, failed to go forward. More Saleen Mustangs!But this S281 you see here seems a zebra of an altogether different stripe. Using the overhead-cam 4.6-liter V-8 as a base, and employing a Roots-type Saleen supercharger much quieter than the one we last sampled on Saleen’s S351R (C/D, December 1996), the 2000 S281 is com­paratively civilized in nature. It starts easily and idles smoothly. Although the 2.5-inch-diameter stainless­-steel exhaust system utters a note clearly deeper and gruffer than you hear on the stock Ford, it avoids being obnoxiously boomy, especially at low rpm, where this problem often turns up on aftermarket pipes. The clutch effort is reasonable, and the short-throw shifter that Saleen bolts on works quite well, particularly when you bear in mind that the standard five-speed transmission isn’t the slickest in the business anyway. Low and midrange torque are excellent, providing bright throttle response in almost any gear. You can leave the traffic for dead without breaking a sweat, but the S281 engine will also zip through to its 6000-rpm redline with no sign of reluctance along the way. Perhaps this is what you’d expect from the over­head-cam engine, but it’s undoubtedly helped here by Saleen’s cast-aluminum intake manifold and high-flow (24 pounds per hour) fuel injectors—all managed by custom fuel-delivery calibrations. The last supercharged Saleen we tested (C/D, August 1998) suffered from the lack of an intercooler, but the S281 takes no chances here and wears an air-to-water intercooler squeezed into the engine bay. Saleen claims 350 horsepower for the car in this form, up 90 hp from the stock GT’s 260, and 65 more than Saleen’s own naturally aspirated S281. That’s a colossal jump, and although the car feels significantly stronger on the road, our test results don’t provide hard support for those horsepower num­bers. Yes, our quarter-mile time of 13.8 seconds at 103 mph is quite a bit quicker than a stock Mustang GT’s 14.2 at 98, but is it evi­dence of 350 horsepower? Not really. Saleen’s pub­licity material quotes some performance figures pub­lished by another maga­zine, declaring it went from 0 to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and turned the standing quarter in 13.4 seconds at 108 mph. We guessed these might have been simple one-way runs, perhaps without weather correction. But when we looked more closely at the num­bers, we discovered that our launches were better, with fractionally quicker times to 30 and 40 mph. Since the supercharged S281 has to be bogged off the line (the clutch must be engaged at low revs to avoid time-wasting wheel­spin), this performance disparity thus appears to be a pure power issue. Even more telling is the performance of our own super­charged—but not intercooled—project Mustang GT (C/D, July 1999). We mea­sured 278 rear-wheel horsepower on a dyno, which translates into about 330 crankshaft horsepower. That car—with 20 less hp and about 150 fewer pounds than the Saleen car—hit 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and blew through the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds at 103 mph. Perhaps this S281 was just a slow example—who knows? A pretty fair increase in power is evident at higher speeds. The S281 reaches 100 mph 2.1 seconds quicker than the GT. And more convincing yet is the dash to 130 mph—it’s a full 13.5 seconds quicker. The supercharged engine also has the grunt to tow the spoiler-festooned S281 to a top speed of 154 mph, beating the stock GT by 16 mph. Given the extra spoilers and scoops, that velocity increase makes the 350-hp claim more credible. And from the driver’s seat of the S281, there’s an unmistakable increase in torque that is apparent in all driving situations. In fifth gear, the S281 accel­erates from 50 to 70 mph in 8.5 seconds, 1.4 seconds quicker than the stock GT, which has a 3.27:1 axle ratio that is more con­ducive to acceleration than the 3.08 axle used on the Saleen. Couple that with the comprehensive suspension and wheel-and-tire upgrades on our car, and you get dynamics in the realm of race cars.At the skidpad, the Saleen swooped around at a giddy 0.92 g, displaying res­olute roll control and minimal understeer. Out on the track, the car (equipped for our test with optional 10-inch-wide rear wheels and 295/35ZR-18 Pirelli P Zero tires, worth some $995) has such good grip and such ferociously quick turn-in that it makes the stock Ford steering feel extra­ordinarily fast. Cough up another $2600, and you can demand 13.0-inch grooved front discs with four-piston calipers to go behind the Saleen five-spoke alloys. Our car wore standard-issue Saleen brakes—upgrades from the stock Mustang—and these were good for stops from 70 mph in just 160 feet, a notable achievement for a 3540-pound car. With the sticky tires and well­-tied-down chassis, this all adds up to a scarily fast car at the track. We had to restrain ourselves at our brief track session to keep the red mist at bay and to guar­antee an unwrinkled car at the photo shoot. It’s not that the Saleen S281 has any nasty surprises up its sleeve. It’s just that the cornering speeds are high enough to make any little lapses of concentration potentially expensive ones. Naturally, the aggressive setup compromises the car’s ride on rough surfaces, where it hammers and jolts over the worst surface imper­fections. Owing to its urethane bushings, the ride is not quiet, either. And—as expected—the solid rear axle does its usual dance on corrugations as well as its oblig­atory wag on big one-wheel bumps. But for what it is, the S281 is surpris­ingly usable and perfectly capable of com­muting and touring roles. And at $33,182 with the supercharger but without the wheels and tires, it isn’t wildly unafford­able. Hey, that’s 350 (or so) horsepower and a race-bred chassis for 33 large. Is this a great country, or what? Saleen Inc.2735 Wardlow RoadCorona, CA 92882800.888.8945Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2000 Saleen Mustang S281 SuperchargedVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICEAs Tested: $34,177
ENGINEsupercharged and intercooled SOHC 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 281 in3, 4601 cm3Power: 350 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 410 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.3 inLength: 183.2 inCurb Weight: 3540 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.1 sec100 mph: 12.8 sec1/4-Mile: 13.8 sec @ 103 mph130 mph: 24.4 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.5 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 154 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 160 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.92 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 15 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 17 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More