More stories

  • in

    2025 Mini Cooper EV Is Reinvented and Reenergized

    Recently leaked spy pics forced BMW’s hand in releasing early photos of the next-generation Mini. But before that happened, we got to drive a camo-covered example—specifically, the all-electric Cooper hatchback in SE trim.Kudos to chief designer Oliver Heilmer and his team, who contemporized the brand icon in a radically reduced yet emphatically modern manner. Although the official launch is still some six months away, we can now also tell you more about the advanced technology behind this masterfully evolutionary shape. Most importantly, we were able to gather initial driving impressions in a pre-production car on an entertaining handling course and over a one-hour mountain-road loop through Salzburg and Tyrol in Austria. Although the cabin of the pre-production car is still covered with drapes of black cloth, the two major innovations—a much larger circular center touchscreen and the bar of toggle switches below it—are totally undisguised. The latter contains five elements: parking-brake button, gear selector, volume knob, on/off toggle, and Driving Experiences selector. Since there is no minder in the passenger’s seat, we leap from the default Core setting straight to Go-Kart mode. The name says it all. Go-Kart speeds up the action, reduces driver assistance to a minimum, and sharpens the feedback. Not enough drama? Deactivate dynamic stability control (DSC) and brace yourself for an ample measure of liftoff oversteer enhanced by a device known as GMV, short for yaw moment enhancer.Related StoriesThe handling course is a short track, and our hosts set up plenty of cones to slow us down, but a couple of corners are wide enough to pay homage to “the Rally Professor,” Rauno Aaltonen, who competed in a Mini Cooper S. Heavy rain and near-freezing temperatures warrant interesting grip levels, there is an entertaining angst-inducing right-left-right up-and-down corner combination to be mastered, and the guy in the JCW lead car lets it all hang out for the heck of it. Good man. Front-wheel drive is, of course, a limiting factor through the lone 180-degree bend, where the two bad choices are either too much understeer or too little traction. But as soon as the 243 pound-feet of instant torque grabs the tires, the Mini picks up speed quickly and keeps accelerating seamlessly until that blind right-hander calls for a change of direction, velocity, and balance. This is fun, and we’re still only going seven-tenths. Feeding the electric motor is a 53.0-kWh battery, which in real life needs to be recharged every 200 miles or so. No provisional EPA consumption figures are available, but tentative European estimates suggest the U.S. model will be rated considerably better than the 110 MPGe rating assigned to the current SE. That said, after 15 laps in full hooligan mode, the onboard computer dropped to 29.5 kWh of remaining charge. Never mind. The top speed, which in today’s Mini EV is restricted to 94 mph, reportedly will be increased to 125 mph in the new SE. Acceleration from zero to 62 mph is a claimed 6.7 seconds, which suggests the new one won’t be substantially quicker than the last Cooper SE, a 2020 model, we tested. But there is more grunt to come, starting with the dual-motor 313-hp All4 (including 14 additional horses summoned by an overboost function), followed by a fully electric John Cooper Works edition. Meanwhile, the Cooper SE keeps on drifting through every corner it can find with the tail-out antics actively supported by the aforementioned GMV, which is a welcome addition.On public roads, Green driving mode will be the choice only for dedicated conservationists determined to better their personal consumption and range records. The rest of us should be perfectly happy with what the mainstay Core mode offers, namely an adaptive mix of instant on-demand performance, navigation-assisted predictive driving, and long-legged cruising that can either be relaxed or energetic. In addition to the three Driving Experiences, the powertrain and steering can be locked into Comfort or Sport. As far as the stability-control system goes, the spiciness scale ranges from Sport to Sport Plus to DSC Off. Customers also can choose from four different wheel sizes and opt for a sportier suspension setting. The redesigned seats are comfortable and generously adjustable, but long-legged drivers may have a problem reaching the low-mounted toggle bar. The small optional head-up display is of the pop-up type, which limits its appeal. Although the three-spoke steering wheel is studded with buttons and multimode switches, the main user interface is the notably larger round touchscreen in the center of the dash. One can scroll through numerous menus on the hi-res main display, but vehicle speed, range, state of charge, performance, and cabin temperature are always prominently displayed. And there’s more to come, including over-the-air updates, third-party app integration, additional experience modes, on-dash projections from your private image library, a wide variety of sound and light stagings, automatic radar-trap warnings, multiple user profiles, bespoke ambiance variations, digital personalization—you name it. In addition to four different new trim levels, Mini is going to introduce at least three mood settings provisionally named Calm, Heritage, and Vivid, which are supported by 3-D technicolor orchestration. Too much marketing BS? Thankfully, the unique driving experience remains. After all, dynamics always were and still are Mini’s main forte. The new battery-powered Cooper SE is chuckable yet composed, concurrently involving and balanced, refined but never lackluster. Silence that puerile soundtrack and enjoy the trademark handling and roadholding qualities Sir Alec would be proud of.Contributing EditorAlthough I was born the only son of an ornithologist and a postal clerk, it was clear from the beginning that birdwatching and stamp collecting were not my thing. Had I known that God wanted me to grow to 6’8″, I also would have ruled out anything to do with cars, which are to blame for a couple of slipped discs, a torn ligament, and that stupid stooped posture behind the wheel. While working as a keeper in the Aberdeen Zoo, smuggling cheap cigarettes from Yugoslavia to Germany, and an embarrassing interlude with an amateur drama group also failed to yield fulfillment, driving and writing about cars became a much better option. And it still is now, many years later, as I approach my 70th birthday. I love every aspect of my job except long-haul travel on lousy airlines, and I hope it shows. More

  • in

    2023 Mercedes-AMG EQE Is a Car at a Crossroad

    There was a brief period of time when many people thought the EV revolution meant we’d be stuck with a future full of slow, uninspiring cars. If anything, the current march toward electrification has proven the opposite: Through the process of shoving a bunch of electrons through a wire like a Tokyo subway stuffer, humanity is sending 9000-pound affronts to God to 60 mph as quickly as some supercars. But now that everyone can do it, what makes a vehicle with impressive performance stats stand out?That’s the question that Mercedes-AMG and others are figuring out. The 2023 AMG EQE isn’t Fast Mercedes’s first crack at an answer, and it’s far from the last. At its core, it retains AMG’s mantra of shoving lots of power into otherwise “normal” cars. But beyond that, it feels like it’s still hunting for that unique angle that’ll help these fast, low-center-of-gravity EVs stand out from all the other fast, low-center-of-gravity EVs.To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we’ll start with the AMG EQE’s known knowns. A pair of motors produces 617 horsepower and 701 pound-feet of torque, rising to 677 and 738, respectively, when using the standard Dynamic Plus package’s brief overboost function. With at least 70 percent in the battery (more on that later), we reached 60 mph in just 2.8 seconds, 0.4 second quicker than the manufacturer’s estimate. The quarter-mile mark came and went in 11.2 seconds at 119 mph. Passing maneuvers are impressive too—30 to 50 mph required a scant 1.3 seconds, and 50 to 70 only took 1.7. Not bad for a car that weighs 5547 pounds.HIGHS: Blistering performance, pricing undercuts gas equivalents, decent efficiency for modern muscle.Of course, that weight comes back to bite. Even with the free-of-charge optional Pirelli P Zero PZ4 Elect tires (265 section width up front, 295 out back) and honkin’ brakes (16.3 inches front, 14.9 rear), the AMG needed 168 feet to stop from 70 mph and 339 feet from 100 mph. That is not ideal for a performance car; hell, the 520-pound-heavier BMW i7 xDrive60 we tested managed to do a better job by nine and 21 feet, respectively. Three intermediary stages of brake regeneration are on offer—none, some, and more—while true one-pedal driving is locked behind an Intelligent regen mode that varies regen and physical braking based on proximity to traffic, which can be tricky to predict and thus doesn’t instill a whole lot of trust; neither does the brake pedal in general, which moves in tune with regen strength, leading to inconsistent feel at various speeds and rates of deceleration.More on the EQE SedanThe AMG EQE is a sufficiently deft handler for its mass. It achieved a solid 0.92 g on our 300-foot skidpad, exhibiting some mild understeer on its way ’round. In more real-world scenarios, we appreciate just how planted the EQE feels at all times. Standard rear-axle steering, which can turn up to 3.6 degrees, adds more precision to the AMG’s cornering, but the car still feels more like a speedo-smashing hammer than a delicate lateral-g scalpel. The adaptive air springs offer three different levels of stiffness (Comfort, Sport, and Sport+), but we feel less of a difference between these modes than we do in comparable gas models; even at its most rigid, there’s still an underlying hint of softness to the whole show. Hanging out under the floor is a battery with 90.6 kWh of usable capacity. Mercedes estimates total range at 225 miles, and the automaker’s EV estimates are usually pretty accurate. It didn’t come as a surprise, then, that our 75-mph highway test yielded a range of 230 miles. That’s 30 miles less than we achieved in the vastly less powerful EQE350 4Matic.Thankfully, if you had a little too much fun rearranging your organs with your right foot, changing vehicle modes can help you squeak out the juice needed to reach the next charger. The AMG EQE’s full output is only available in the powertrain’s Sport+ mode; Sport limits the motors to 90 percent, Comfort reduces it further to 80 percent, and Slippery pegs the car at half power. As with any electric powertrain, the maximum output also decreases as the battery loses charge; the EQE will keep track of your missing horsepower on the digital cluster’s power gauge, which conveniently marks the “redline” as it lowers. When it comes time to charge, the AMG will accept up to 170 kW on a DC fast-charger, refilling from 10 percent to 80 in 32 minutes, according to Mercedes. On to the more polarizing stuff. Maybe you like the ovoid styling, maybe you don’t. You can’t deny that our EQE’s specific 20-inch wheels are imposing, though, and the Panamericana-style front grille is the easiest way to spot the AMG at a distance. The interior is barely any different from the more pedestrian EQE, save for some Affalterbach-themed bits. The dash-spanning 56.0-inch Hyperscreen is absent from our car, but we don’t miss it; the wood trim that replaces it looks and feels nice, and it doesn’t accumulate fingerprint oils at a depressing rate. Wireless smartphone mirroring is standard no matter what, and that’s what most people care about anyway.LOWS: None of the EV sounds are particularly good, looks like a wet egg, feels like AMG is still finding its footing in new era.As equipped, our EQE includes two sound profiles, the default profile and the Performance one that comes with Dynamic Plus. If you like futuristic wub-wub noises, have at it. But to our ears, the default mode sounds like added wind noise, while Performance generates something closer to added tire noise. Each profile has three different levels of loudness, ranging from “you can barely hear it” to “somehow, the Germans engineered drone into an EV.” We say turn it all off and listen to the actual tires.The AMG EQE before us rings in at $110,150, a small bump over its $108,050 base price, thanks to a $250 110-volt charging cable, the $750 Night package that blacks out the exterior trim, and the $1100 Acoustic Comfort package that aims to mitigate interior noise. Strangely enough, this number is a bit of a bargain, considering the soon-to-be-discontinued AMG E63 S 4Matic+ starts a few thousand bucks higher. Despite that sense of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, there’s one hell of a performance car comprising the underlying current of the 2023 Mercedes-AMG EQE. It’s mighty quick, it can make a lot of noise, and it’s fun to chuck around without being a discombobulated mess in daily driving.Being offered an overwhelming amount of driver choice is a bit of an existential issue for AMG, and it’s only deepened as electrification takes hold. In addition to the four standard vehicle modes, an Individual mode lets you choose among four powertrain settings, three suspension settings, and three e-noise volumes—36 distinct combinations. And this is in addition to the myriad screen layouts, ambient lighting scenes, brake-regeneration strengths, you name it. How can an AMG vehicle have a distinct feeling if you get into five different EQEs and they all feel vastly different from one another?Perhaps it’s in this glut of choice where AMG’s future lies. Let Affalterbach set the meter, but it’s up to each driver to fill in the specific notes. For the time being, as everyone finds their footing in this burgeoning era, that’ll do.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    Mercedes-AMG EQE 4Matic+Vehicle Type: front- and mid-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $108,050/$110,150Options: Acoustic Comfort package, $1100; AMG Night package, $750; 110V charging cable, $250
    POWERTRAIN
    Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACMid Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 677 hpCombined Torque: 738 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 90.6 kWhOnboard Charger: 9.6 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 170 kWTransmissions: direct-drive
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 16.3-in vented disc/14.9-in vented disc Tires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4 Elect PNCSF: 265/40ZR-20 104W MO1R: 295/35ZR-20 105W MO1
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 122.8 inLength: 196.9 inWidth: 75.0 inHeight: 58.8 inPassenger Volume: 104 ft3Trunk Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 5547 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 2.8 sec100 mph: 7.4 sec1/4-Mile: 11.2 sec @ 119 mph130 mph: 14.3 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 3.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 1.7 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 146 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 168 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 339 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.92 g
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
    Observed: 65 MPGe75-mph Highway Driving: 77 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 230 miEPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 74/74/73 MPGeRange: 225 miSenior EditorCars are Andrew Krok’s jam, along with boysenberry. After graduating with a degree in English from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2009, Andrew cut his teeth writing freelance magazine features, and now he has a decade of full-time review experience under his belt. A Chicagoan by birth, he has been a Detroit resident since 2015. Maybe one day he’ll do something about that half-finished engineering degree. More

  • in

    1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic: Can’t Get Enough

    From the July 1982 issue of Car and Driver.Pity Detroit’s poor carmakers. First America burns them at the stake for not responding quickly enough to the needs of a changing world with space- and fuel-efficient cars, so they dutifully slash and burn through their product lineups. Then, at the first sign of dollar-a-gallon gas, every 52-year-old from Mammoth Falls to Miami Beach wants to buy a rolling living room again. You can bet that Chevy is breathing heavy relief-type sighs that it didn’t go through with plans to jettison its full-sized B-car plat­form. Pity poor Pontiac: it did.Chevy had originally planned to re­place the aging, rear-drive Caprice/Im­pala with a smaller, front-wheel-drive model this coming fall. That car, said by Chevy insiders to be the best-looking B­-car ever, has been shelved—perhaps permanently. Instead, Chevy will keep building the Caprice as we know it until 1985. The reason? Dealers can’t get enough of them. In the past year, sales of the Caprice/Impala have jumped from 7 percent to 15 percent of Chevy’s total. It’s the third most popular Chevy, behind the Citation and Chevette. More significantly, in the first three months of 1982, when it was neither rebated nor advertised, the Caprice/Impala outsold Chevy’s brand-new, heavily rebated front-drive Celebrity by almost three to one. Unofficially, Chevy hoped to sell 100,000 Caprice/Impalas this year; but if demand continues at the current rate, it will have to adjust plant schedules to turn out 175,000 of them. So instead of bidding farewell to the Caprice, we find ourselves taking a fresh look at it for the first time since it was downsized in the 1977 model year. If you think today’s Caprice is a battleship at 3900 pounds (with options) and 212 inches in length, consider its pre-1977 dimensions: a 121.5-inch wheelbase, a 222.7-inch total length, and a tubby, 4350-pound curb weight. Engine op­tions for the 1976 Caprice started with a 165-hp, 350-cubic-inch V-8. There was nowhere to go but down. As Bedard once put it, “This growth business can’t go on or we’ll be driving Fruehauf-sized sedans by the turn of the century.”When the Caprice was cut down to its current size in 1977, the wheelbase was shortened by five and a half inches and another five inches was pruned from the front and rear sheetmetal. That year, Chevy claimed a 700-pound weight loss for the base Caprice. As small as it seemed to us back in ’77, the Caprice is one of the biggest cars we’ve laid hands on in months. Driving it, just getting in behind the wheel, brings back memories. It re­minded us of summer vacations when we were children. We could almost hear Dad saying, “If you kids don’t settle down back there, we’re turning this car around and going home!”Big it may be; a klutz it is not. Our Caprice’s physical coordination was its most valuable and redeeming quality. But a physically coordinated Caprice is by special order only, under “F41” on the options list. At $49 (and $159 for the required P225/70R-15 tires), the F41 suspension ranks along with the 26-cent White Castle hamburger and the six-dollar case of Drewrys beer as one of America’s best buys. For your minimal investment, you get a host of beefed-up suspension pieces: front and rear anti-­sway bars tuned for a greater than nor­mal degree of roll stiffness, shocks with extra damping, stiffer front and rear spring rates, and more substantial sus­pension bushings. One of the benefits of the Caprice’s body-on-frame construction is more lat­itude for refined suspension tuning, but getting the job done right is another story. Engineer Jack Turner did the original development work on the 1977 F41 Caprice, and when Chevy went to higher-pressure tires for fuel economy in 1980 (35 psi versus 26 psi), suspension whiz Fred Schaafsma (of 1982 Camaro fame) did the rework. The Ca­price will sail regally down the inter­state at any speed you choose and main­tain almost equal aplomb on Michigan’s winter-ravaged county roads. Don’t leave the dealership without F41. The steering system is as good as the suspension. Its response to driver input is surprisingly precise and linear for such a big car—you turn, she turns. Sim­ple. Satisfying. And best of all, it works in concert with the suspension. When loads build up in tight cornering or over rippled asphalt, the car still works. This is one big American car that you can push without watching the steering response dissolve into understeer. On the skidpad, we measured a sticky 0.75 g, but we also noticed the first signs of in­adequate rear-axle location at the limit of adhesion. Heading clockwise around the circle, there’s a tendency for rear wheelspin and the axle wrenches a bit in its four trailing links. We doubt that the average Caprice owner will ever push the car to that point, however.The base Caprice comes with a 3.8-liter V-6 engine, but you can choose one of three V-8s instead: a 4.4-liter (not available in California, and planned for elimination in 1983), a 5.0-liter with a four-barrel carburetor, or an Oldsmo­bile-built 5.7-liter diesel. The Caprice wagon has the 4.4-liter as the base powerplant. We went straight for the biggest gas burner, the 5.0-liter, blowing off fuel economy in exchange for fun. In the long run, this two-ton sled is better off with the added horsepower than with the extra two miles per gallon the V-6 would bring it. The 5.0-liter engine also comes with a four-speed automatic overdrive transmission and a lockup torque converter as standard equipment. The up and down shifts of the four-speed are crisp, but they happen too frequently when driving between 30 and 50 mph. Manually downshifting to third gear around town clears up that annoyance. You can also feel the torque converter kicking in and out of action, but it’s only noticeable rather than irri­tating as in our recent Eldorado test car (C/D, April). The only really sore spots of the Ca­price are found inside the cabin. The seats are the absolute pits. They’re thin, flat, and set too low to the floor for comfortably working the pedals. The upper cushion is angled too far back and offers no lateral support other than the restraining nap of its velour cover­ing. The lower cushion stops uncom­fortably at mid-thigh. The flat-black dash has four large, easy-to-read dials rimmed in Day-Glo orange pinstriping. It’s a shame to see this crisp, bold design wasted on a set of optional gauges that includes nothing for your money but a temp gauge, a trip odometer, and a fuel-economy gauge, which operates on intake-manifold vac­uum. The last of these spent most of its time in our hands pegged on the “mini­mum” side of the scale. Car manufacturers tend to dismiss our criticisms of their luxury cars for be­ing what they call not pertinent to the type of person who would buy a car like the Caprice. But who would complain about getting some real information from the instrument panel? And who would complain about a seat that held you securely in front of the controls and didn’t compress your spine after twenty minutes? There’s got to be a happy me­dium between a Recaro and a couch, though probably not in this car’s ex­tended future. A more daring management team at Chevy could have made a down-home version of a Mercedes from the Caprice; the ride and handling are that good. But a more conservative inner voice was heard, and Chevy decided basically to rest on its 1977 laurels. Granted, that effort was right for its time. It was not only good enough to become America’s most popular car that year, but also sound enough to stay on Chevy’s future product-planning schedule at a time when the market is flooded with space­-efficient, high-mileage, high-quality, front-wheel-drive sedans. Dick Kelley|Car and DriverDad isn’t buying high-tech. He’s buying a Caprice because, with twelve cubic feet more cabin space than the Celebri­ty, it gives him more room to move around in. He gets a trunk in which he can lie down flat. He’s buying a Caprice because it’s nicely carpeted and swathed in velour and chrome. The body doesn’t squeak, and nothing rattles.Mostly, Dad’s picking Caprice be­cause the price is right and its reputa­tion is golden. It has more of that all­-American abuse-the-damn-thing-and-­it’ll-still-run aura than any other car in Chevy’s fleet. And with a base price of $8827, it can be loaded with every luxu­ry, convenience, and performance op­tion encouraged by the dealer and still ring out cheaper than a smaller, compa­rably equipped Celebrity. American car buyers are too fickle for this big-car craze to last forever. When the price of gas resumes its ascent, look for today’s front-drive A-cars to come into their own. If that doesn’t happen for a while, Chevy at least has one good big car to fall back on. CounterpointIf you’d like to know what America’s carmakers have been up to for the past eighty or so years, you owe it to yourself to test-drive an F41-equipped Caprice—or any Caprice, for that matter.These days, it’s fashionable to think that our automakers are incapable of building good cars. Certainly, they’ve been feeling their way with small cars, but to believe they’re technologically bankrupt is to sell them far short.A ride in the Caprice put this all into perspective for me. Most Europeans and Japanese drivers would marvel at this car’s velvety ride. And at its library quietness and automatic transmission, as well as its ultra-efficient climate-control system. With the F41 package, it moves with an assurance that approaches that of the cost-no-object brands. Sure, the decor is tacky—and there’s an energy shortage under the hood too. Still, it’s easy to understand why George and Irma America made the downsized Caprice the largest-selling model three times in the past six seasons: it’s a fine piece of work. It also makes me all the more confident that our boys on the front lines will keep gaining ground on the imports. —Rich CepposThe Chevy Caprice is America’s Mercedes 380SEL. It’s big and heavy by today’s standards, but great fun to drive. If it’s a true dual-purpose machine you’re after—a mild-mannered family hauler for the weekends, a cut-and-thruster for daily carpooling—look no further. Just make sure you sign up for two critical ingredients: the (gasoline) V-8 engine and the F41 suspension.Unfortunately, Chevrolet is letting the Impala/Caprice go to seed in its autumn years. The revitalization that took place in 1980 may have looked good in the wind tunnel, but it bloated the trim, chiseled look this car was born with. And the seats and instrument panel seem more disappointing every year. J-cars were born with decent seats, and GM’s human-factors experts have toiled diligently over Camaro and Firebird orthopedics, but Chevy’s finest has been left to live out its days without so much as a backrest-angle adjuster. Instead of useful instrumentation, we’re given a vacuum gauge that wags its needle scoldingly with every tickle of the gas pedal. There’s no denying the Caprice is elderly, but its Chevrolet management deserves some of the blame for letting it get old before its time. —Don ShermanI’ve always had a big soft spot for these cars, and this Caprice has just made it bigger and softer. I love it. I think it’s America’s finest example of Big Car. The Caprice is the very essence of the fussless, imperturbable container that soaks up endless stretches of these Unites States as if they were all scaled on Rhode Island lines and set on West Texas topography. Even knowing General Motors’ penchant for doing the right thing at about the right time, the pleasures of these cars were a surprise when they first came out and they remain a puzzle today. Who can explain why some cars simply come together with a unity of purpose that escapes 0thers entirely?I will not try to tell you that this Caprice is the game equal of a big Mercedes-Benz, and yet I want you to know that it has much of the same feel in its ability to hustle without ever hurrying. Yes, the big Chevy could use better seats and steering and doubled horsepower, but it will soon roll off the line for the last time and I will go off muttering. GM, after all, could have gotten it altogether wrong and I’d have had a big blank space in my heart where the Great Caprice has set aside a permanent soft spot for retirement. —Larry GriffinArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    1982 Chevrolet Caprice ClassicVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 4-door sedan
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $8827/$12,260Options: air conditioning, $695; power windows, $240; cloth interior with split bench seat, $195; automatic transmission, $172; P225/70R-15 radial tires, $159; power door locks, $152; two-tone paint, $141; rear-window defogger, $125; tinted glass, $102; limited-slip differential, $80; 5.0-liter V-8, $70; instrument package, $64; sport suspension, $49; intermittent wipers, $47; other options, $1142.
    ENGINEpushrod V-8, iron block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 305 in3, 5001 cm3Power: 145 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 240 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: control arms/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/9.5-in drumTires: Goodyear Custom Polysteel Radial225/70R-15
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 116.0 inLength: 212.2 inWidth: 75.3 inHeight: 56.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 58/52 ft3Trunk Volume: 21 ft3Curb Weight: 3900 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 4.4 sec60 mph: 12.6 sec1/4-Mile: 18.9 sec @ 74 mph90 mph: 36.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 5.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 8.2 secTop Speed: 104 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 212 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g 
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 14 mpg
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 21/17/28 mpg 
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

  • in

    2023 Microlino EV City Car: Vintage-Style Charm in a Tiny Package

    The city car is dead. While never particularly popular in the U.S., cars like the original Mini, the Fiat 500, and the Smart were successful all over the globe. But aggressive safety rules and electrification have made them bigger and heavier: The latest Smart is almost 170 inches long and weighs over 4000 pounds.Now there is a new player in the market, focused on Europe, but with a few orders already placed from the U.S.: the Microlino, a thoroughly modern take on BMW’s famous Isetta. That midcentury bubble car had entirely disappeared from European roads by the 1970s, but its design—you enter through the front—continues to bring a smile to the face of anyone who happens upon one. Fewer than 90 inches long and powered by a wheezing two-stroke engine, the Isetta is hopelessly unsafe and outdated. But Swiss inventor Wim Ouboter saw the opportunity to reimagine it as an electric car—or, rather, a quadricycle, because it would hardly be able to conform to the regulatory standards that an automobile must meet.Micro Mobility SystemsThe industry has toyed with reinventing city cars as quadricycles for over a decade. At the 2011 Frankfurt auto show, Audi launched the Urban Concept, VW showed the NILS, and Opel the Rak-e; Renault had earlier shown its Twizy. All were electric and designed as L7e “heavy quadricycles”—and, with the exception of the Twizy, all of them were subsequently buried. But with regular cars becoming so big and expensive, Stellantis recently joined the game with the Citroën Ami and Opel Rocks-e, both of which are only available as smaller L6e “light quadricycle” models. They are easy to park and practical, but too slow for a lot of city traffic and not allowed on motorways.The Microlino aims to pick up where premium concepts like the NILS and the Rak-e left off. With a length of 99.2 inches and a width of 58.0 inches, it’s slightly smaller than the Smart Fortwo the States first got in 2008. But the Microlino is a different animal. While the Smart was a sturdy and safe car, capable of reaching nearly 100 mph and subjected to rigorous crash tests, the Microlino is just a quadricycle; regulation is far more lenient. The Microlino brings a lot of sophistication in the realm of styling. Made of steel and aluminum, it perfectly translates the motif of the original Isetta into the modern age. The proportions are captured accurately, the surface treatment is clean, and details such as LED lighting are decidedly futuristic. The front door opens with an electric switch, is pulled closed with a strap, and locked electrically. Once inside, there is room for driver and passenger, snug but not cramped. Above your head, there’s a fabric top; perfectly executed by supplier Magna CTS, it is one of the best-engineered and highest-quality parts of this vehicle. The trunk is surprisingly large at 8.1 cubic feet.Micro Mobility SystemsThe cockpit looks good too. There’s a conventional key, gears are selected by turning a knob, small screens indicate speed, and a touch bar on the front door allows you to select climate-control functions. But the steering wheel is a curiosity: a generic three-spoke unit without an airbag, it does not reflect the exterior’s higher level of sophistication. More importantly, Microlino representatives aren’t keen to talk about passive safety and when they do, they emphasize “compatibility.” But shouldn’t a car protect its owner first?The car’s lack of sophistication extends to unexpected areas, such as the noisy windshield wiper and the half-windows that need to be pulled open. There is no stability-control system. And thus, the impression emerges that the Microlino, most certainly, is not a real car. Once you stop, you need to yank the parking brake; the transmission lacks Park.And if you thought EVs are about silence, think again. The Microlino whirs and sings noticeably, right from the beginning and up to its 56-mph top speed. Thank heavens the semi trucks are limited to 54 mph in Europe; we can merge and, ever so slowly, move away from them. Acceleration is decent up to 30 mph, but beyond that, it becomes a bit of an imposition. Ride quality isn’t great, as the vehicle’s suspension bucks and bounces violently.The Microlino offers three available battery sizes: 6.0 kWh, 10.5 kWh, and 14.0 kWh, with the corresponding stated range of 59 miles, 109 miles, and 143 miles, respectively. But those numbers conform to the wildly optimistic European test cycle and should be taken with a huge grain of salt; in the U.S., those would equate to EPA range figures of roughly 50, 90, and 120 miles, respectively. Once depleted, Microlino’s battery pack has no fast-charging capability, so you need to plan for a three- or four-hour stop to recharge. Noise, vibration, harshness, and range are all sore topics for the Microlino. But the main obstacle may be the price. In Europe, the initial model comes in at a whopping $25,000, with upmarket equipment but only the mid-size battery. Prices will drop by a few thousand with fewer accoutrements.Micro Mobility SystemsThe Microlino is cute, nimble, and practical around town. But truthfully, it can’t hold a candle to any real car, including an old Smart. It’s a charming toy, but at this price point, it is no answer to the mobility needs of most people.Car and driverCar and driver Lettermark logoContributing EditorJens Meiners has covered the auto industry since 1996 and written for Car and Driver for much of that time. He is a juror on the World Car of the Year and International Engine of the Year and founder of German Car of the Year. Jens splits his time between New York and Nuremberg, where he keeps a growing collection of historic cars. More

  • in

    2024 Chevy Trax Transforms into a Budget Crossover with Real Value

    The 2024 Chevy Trax is one of the few new cars in recent memory that is significantly cheaper than the model it replaces. Starting at $21,495, the new Trax costs $1400 less than the outgoing 2022 model and now serves as Chevy’s entry-level vehicle. In fact, it’s the cheapest vehicle General Motors sells in the U.S. Even fully loaded, the new Trax comes in under $27,000. We hate to say it, but that’s cheap by today’s new-car standards.This reimagining of the Trax from a middling subcompact crossover into a value-focused price leader is similar to what Nissan did a few years ago when it replaced the Juke with the Kicks. This category of cheapo-utes, which also includes the Kia Soul and Hyundai Venue, prioritizes interior space and feature content over typical SUV traits such as optional all-wheel drive and rugged styling (if you want those things, Chevy will happily sell you a Trailblazer). They all start in the low-$20,000 range and come standard with front-wheel drive and Apple CarPlay. This is the new face of basic transportation.More on GM CrossoversBetter Inside and OutMeasured by that yardstick, the new Trax looks like a success. Significantly longer, lower, and wider than the old, awkwardly tall Trax, the nicely proportioned new model has an almost wagonoid look about it. The base LS model looks pedestrian with its hubcaps and lack of bright trim, but the LT, RS, and Activ trim levels are relatively stylish thanks to nice wheels, interestingly shaped headlights and taillights, and distinctive grille trim up front. Several bright paint colors are available too.ChevroletThe Trax’s stretched-out shape also pays dividends inside, as rear legroom and cargo space are significantly increased thanks to the drastically longer wheelbase and wider track. Chevrolet also managed to package a flat floor in the rear, making the middle seat habitable for shorter trips. This could be a popular choice for Uber drivers. Analog gauges and an 8.0-inch touchscreen are standard, but the optional digital gauge cluster and 11.0-inch central screen give the Trax a good amount of display real estate for a vehicle in this class.We’re not too down on the Trax’s cheap-feeling interior materials given the low price point. The plastics are hard and scratchy, but the crucial areas—the dashtop, the door panels, and the upholstery—at least have some interesting textures to keep them from looking too bargain-basement. The driving position is low and carlike, a welcome change from the chairlike seating arrangements in many of the Trax’s taller competitors, including Chevy’s own Trailblazer.Driving Experience Fits the BillThe 2024 Trax drives like an economy car, too, which isn’t a bad thing. The ride and handling balance is tuned appropriately—softly sprung enough to be comfortable on rougher roads while still offering enough damping to keep body roll in check when pushed. The steering’s lack of on-center feel is a letdown, though, and we would’ve preferred a quicker ratio for a small, relatively lightweight vehicle (3000-ish pounds, according to Chevy). If you think the RS trim offers any sort of dynamic upgrade, think again, as it’s mechanically identical to the others save for 18-inch (1RS) or 19-inch wheels (2RS).The only powertrain is a turbocharged 1.2-liter inline-three with a six-speed automatic transmission. Its 137 horsepower is meager, but the 162 pound-feet of torque comes on low in the rev range, and the Trax has enough power to get out of its own way. The three-cylinder has a distinctive warble, and turbo lag is minimal. The only real issue is the sluggish transmission, which doesn’t downshift as promptly as we’d like. That said, we’d still take it over a CVT any day. Fuel economy is rated at 30 mpg combined, which is not as good as compact cars like the Honda Civic but about on par for a crossover this size.It feels like we’re getting less and less for our hard-earned cash lately, which makes a legitimately inexpensive new car an increasingly appealing proposition. The Trax isn’t particularly engaging or refined, but its attractive pricing lowers expectations to the point where we can appreciate what it does offer: a generously sized interior, impressive feature content, and good looks. Chevy expects the Trax to become its third-bestselling model behind the Silverado and Equinox, and we don’t see any reason to doubt that. With better-equipped trims coming in under $25,000, it’s clear that the Trax’s low price is its top selling point—and nearly everyone can agree that value has universal appeal.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    2024 Chevrolet TraxVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
    PRICE
    LS: $21,495; 1RS, $23,195; LT, $23,395; 2RS, $24,995; Activ, $24,995
    ENGINE
    Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 73 in3, 1193 cm3Power: 137 hp @ 5000 rpmTorque: 162 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
    TRANSMISSION
    6-speed automatic
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 106.3 inLength: 178.6 inWidth: 71.7 inHeight: 61.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/45 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 54/26 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3000-3100 lb
    PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
    60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.5 secTop Speed: 115 mph
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 30/28/32 mpgSenior 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

  • in

    Tested: 2023 Lamborghini Urus Performante Lives up to Its Name

    The SUV arms race has gotten to the point where automakers are one-upping even themselves, introducing higher-performing variants of their already high-performance machines. The 2023 Lamborghini Urus lineup is a case in point. Last year’s Urus made 641 horsepower, but someone, somewhere decided this was insufficient, so they cranked the output up to 657 horses and called it the Urus S. But even that wasn’t enough, because they’ve also gone and built a Urus Performante, which makes the same power as the S but is decidedly more hardcore on account of lightweighting measures and a more performance-oriented suspension and tire package.Had either been available, the Urus S would have been the choice to do battle with the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT and Aston Martin DBX 707 in our earlier comparison test. Like them, the S has height-adjustable adaptive air springs to go with its active anti-roll bars, torque-vectoring rear differential, and rear-wheel steering system. It might have given the Porsche a run for its money because the Lambo is built on the same platform as the Cayenne, but with a 4.3-inch longer wheelbase. It utilizes the same suspension layout, eight-speed automatic gearbox, and 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8, but with the latter tuned to make 657 horses instead of the Porsche’s 631 horsepower. Thing is, money might also have been its undoing, because at $233,995 to start the Urus S is about as expensive as the Aston, which lost out to the Porsche on account of price.As for our extroverted Viper Green Performante, it literally lives on a different plane of existence from the S and those others. In a nutshell, it ditches the idea of height-adjustable air springs in favor of coil springs. The chosen fixed height indicates an indifference toward ground clearance, as the Performante’s permanent crouch slumps 0.8 inch lower than the “normal” height of a Urus S and matches the lowermost aero posture the S acquires at speed. If that wasn’t enough to put paid to the very idea of off-roadability, the Performante’s so-called Anima drive selector lacks all three off-road modes: Neve for slippery work, Terra for basic off-roading, and Sabbia for sand. In their place is Rally, which sits at the tail-out hooligan end of the spectrum, atop Strada (street), Sport, and Corsa (track).HIGHS: Undeniably quick, a certified G-machine, oddly compelling cabin.More on the UrusWith the performance attitude firmly locked in place, the engineers set to work optimizing the chassis to suit aggressive pavement work and little else. Those lowering springs are firm to give the Corsa drive mode sufficient teeth—not to mention the ability to keep this lower-slung machine out of its bump stops. The active anti-roll bars and torque-vectoring rear diff have been reoptimized, and the center differential is decidedly more rear-biased than on a standard Urus. But the Performante’s ace in the hole is its tires, Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R quasi-competition track-loving gumballs with a 60-treadwear rating that undercuts the 80-treadwear Pirelli Corsas on Porsche’s Turbo GT.Mash the throttle and the Performante delivers, but it’s not an across-the-board drubbing by any means. Though we’ve tested a quicker and stickier Cayenne Turbo GT, for this breakdown, we’ll reference the Cayenne Turbo GT from the comparison test. The Performante is 0.2 second quicker to 100 mph, four-tenths quicker to 130 mph, and a tenth or two quicker in our 5-to-60-, 30-to-50-, and 50-to-70-mph acceleration tests. But its 3.0-second 60-mph time is a tenth slower than the Cayenne’s, and it’s an 11.2-second tie at the stripe at the quarter-mile—albeit with the Performante rolling 2 mph faster. What gives? The transmission ratios are identical, but the Lambo’s diff ratios are fractionally lazier and its tires are an inch taller. Its effective gearing is therefore taller, and the shift points simply hit different. Meanwhile the Performante orbits the skidpad to the tune of 1.04 g’s, holding a slight tail-out posture as it pips the Porsche’s 1.03-g effort. It’s a monster on mountain roads, too, but in more than one sense of that word. On the one hand, it responds well when pushed and cuts an eager and precise arc when asked to turn in at speed. We attacked a favorite tight winding downhill road, and it never flinched. The carbon-ceramic brakes held up admirably through numerous heavy downhill applications with nothing more than the occasional excited squeak. At the track, its 70-mph stops of 152 feet only beat the Porsche by a couple feet, but its 100-mph stops of just 296 feet bested the Turbo GT by a full 16 feet—essentially a full Cayenne length.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverBut the pavement needs to be smooth to get the best out of the Performante, as the tuning is perhaps more Corsa-optimized than we’d like. Push hard on the lumpier mountain roads we know, and it feels less sorted, and even switching the dampers to their softest mode (which we gravitated to most of the time anyway) doesn’t seem to help because the aggressive rebound damping doesn’t let the suspension breathe. This also makes it a bear to tolerate around town, where the passage of time and heavy trucks does pavement no favors. The active anti-roll bars feel constrained within the stiff suspension and as a result don’t seem to decouple as effectively as the Cayenne’s to combat head toss. Here we’re reminded that this is an SUV, which means that somewhere out there there’s a well-heeled family with high-dollar car seats in back for their progeny. Ever heard of shaken butter? That’s what you may get with milk in a sippy cup.Despite the ride, the interior is nevertheless a very interesting place to be, with an overwrought-at-first-glance look that grows on you quickly. Our Performante’s numerous options included swaths of carbon-fiber trim that looked attractive and well integrated, and the dual-screen center stack worked logically—even if the upper infotainment one is a bit small. The strange dual Anima drive mode selectors grew on us due to their ease of use, and even the shift lever made sense in short order, even though we’d never seen one like it. Sure, selecting Drive with a steering paddle is weird, and the red flap over the start button is unnecessary, but it’s fun. None of this would pass muster in a Camry, mind you, but it made perfect sense in the context of a Lambo, where over the top flies under the radar.The Performante is not cheap, as you may have surmised. Its base price of $268,666 is some $35,000 more than a Urus S, and our test car rang in at a breathtaking $342,765 due to nearly $75,000 in options, most of which amounted to trim and color upgrades. The Viper Green paint added $18,941, and gloss-black and carbon-fiber interior and exterior goodies amounted to nearly $33,000. Weirdly, the Performante’s base price includes a $1300 gas guzzler tax that the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT does not incur even though rated fuel economy is identical at 16 mpg combined (14 city/19 highway), a number we matched during our time in the car. That’s because the Lambo is formally classified as a wagon (a.k.a. car), while the Cayenne is an SUV, a truck designation.LOWS: Brutalist ride, sky-high price, track-optimized tires won’t last.Thing is, we have a hard time coming to grips with who the Performante is for, even though Lamborghini expects half of Urus buyers to choose it over the similarly powerful and undoubtably more well-rounded Urus S. From the way it’s tuned and equipped, the Performante is clearly the more track-focused and least family-friendly of the two. Normally, such considerations wouldn’t matter in the least to a Lamborghini-intender, but this isn’t some scissor-doored supercar built for those bent on eschewing matrimony. On the other hand, Lambo fans gotta Lambo, and this does come across as part of that family, four regularly hinged doors notwithstanding.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    2023 Lamborghini Urus PerformanteVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
    PRICE
    Base/As Tested: $268,666/$342,765Options: Viper Green paint, $18,941; carbon fiber roof, shiny, $7361; 3D Bang & Olufsen premium sound, $7321; carbon-fiber hood, shiny, $5969; big carbon-fiber interior, matte, $5702; full carbon fiber exterior, shiny, $5573; full driver safety-assist package, $3616; ventilated and massaging power front seats, $3314; ambient light package, $3194; dark interior package, $2832; carbon-fiber kick plates, matte, $2469; 22-in shiny black rims, $1352; black brake calipers, $1288; contrast stitching, $901; wiper blades with washer nozzles, $868; floor mats with double stitching and piping, $703; premium air quality system, $594; steering-wheel contrast stitching, $422; gloss-black Lamborghini badge, $379
    ENGINE
    twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 244 in3, 3996 cm3Power: 657 hp @ 6000 rpmTorque: 627 lb-ft @ 2300 rpm
    TRANSMISSION
    8-speed automatic
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 17.3-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic disc/14.6-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic discTires: Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RF: 285/40ZR-22 (110Y)  L R: 325/35ZR-22 (114Y)  L
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 118.3 inLength: 202.2 inWidth: 79.8 inHeight: 63.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/49 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 56/22 ft3Curb Weight: 4986 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS
    60 mph: 3.0 sec100 mph: 7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 11.2 sec @ 122 mph130 mph: 13.1 sec150 mph: 20.0 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 190 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 152 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 296 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.04 g
    C/D FUEL ECONOMY
    Observed: 16 mpg
    EPA FUEL ECONOMY
    Combined/City/Highway: 16/14/19 mpg
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDTechnical EditorDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

  • in

    1980 Pontiac Firebird Turbo Trans Am: The Chicken and the Snail

    From the October 1979 issue of Car and Driver.It’s not gas distress that makes Ponti­ac’s bird of performance burp fire all over the Trans Am’s hood. It’s a turbo­charger, installed by Pontiac to ruffle the Firebird’s pinfeather and boost its potency to 205 horsepower for 1980. The decal fowl is now on a new flight plan—out of a rather primitive past to a future where speed and efficiency are precisely matched in importance. We should all tip our hats to the engineer and bean counter who’ve joined forces to keep the Firebird flying high, even if it did take a little heat under its tail to maintain altitude.The turbo Bird must carry around its old, heavy body for two more model years in spite of the fact that all the medium-to-big engines fit for this sort of duty are out of production. Faced with two “easy” alternatives to kick off the Eighties—building stone-slow Firebirds or borrowing engines from another GM division—Pontiac avoided both, and in­stead allotted more than a few engineer­ing dollars to discover some fresh horsepower. The biggest engine this di­vision builds, a 302-cubic-inch V-8 (la­beled a 301 by marketeers), was origi­nally conceived in 1977 as a smooth-­running, fuel-efficient station-wagon mover, but with lots of redevelopment it’s risen to the task at hand with turbo­charging. Though others have bolted the hardware together in almost exactly the same fashion as Pontiac did here (Buick’s turbo V-6 comes closest), the Trans Am’s new turbo V-8 does distin­guish itself as the biggest of its kind ever to see large-scale production.In case you hadn’t noticed, turbocharging is the universally accepted per­formance panacea for the times, and at the core of this particular system is an AiResearch TBO305 blower. Buick’s V-6 and Ford’s inline-four applications use the same basic unit, which features an integral waste gate controlled by intake-manifold pres­sure. Pontiac’s design is notably differ­ent in two respects, however. First of all, boost pressure is set higher than others have ventured (9 psi), and second, the compressor housing has a larger flow capacity to suit the requirements of the Trans Am’s larger piston displacement. Trans Am Tested!A Rochester Quadrajet carburetor feeds the turbo’s hungry mouth through a carefully designed cast-aluminum ple­num chamber. Air is picked up by a four-inch-diameter duct just above the front air dam, flows unimpeded to the carburetor, where fuel is added, and then turns through 90 degrees in the plenum to enter the turbo compressor in a horizontal stream. All passages are as smooth in shape and as generous in area as possible to minimize power-lim­iting restrictions. Heat is also detrimen­tal to a high-mass flow, so the normally aspirated 301 engine’s exhaust cross­over has been omitted from the turbo engine’s intake manifold. Instead, there’s a water jacket surrounding the plenum chamber. It heats the charge to maintain cold drivability, but once the cooling system reaches 217 degrees Fahrenheit, the thermostat shuts off flow to keep fuel-air mixtures as cool as possible. Nine psi worth of overpressure is a rather ambitious undertaking for an engine certified to run on 91-octane fuel, and realizing this, Pontiac has taken sev­eral precautions to avoid the mechanical destruction all too common when a tur­bocharger blows an engine the wrong way. Detonation is the principal enemy. It can be combatted by at least three means: by adding water injection, which Pontiac has avoided for a number of good reasons; by enriching the fuel-air mixture, which is unfortunately contrary to efficiency goals and therefore used sparingly; and by retarding ignition tim­ing. A side effect of using a later spark to limit detonation is the fact that it also sacrifices power. This is why Pontiac has adopted a very sophisticated spark re­tarder, pioneered by Buick in its 1978 turbo Regal. The system relies on an accelerometer-type transducer bolted to the intake manifold to listen for vibra­tions characteristic of unscheduled com­bustion. Upon hearing the first few rat­tles of detonation, the transducer tells an electronic module first to back off spark advance, and then immediately thereafter to restore just enough to keep ignition timing at the threshold of detonation. This happens continuously every few milliseconds, so the engine runs with optimum spark advance all the time. Several internal modifications have also helped the 301 stand the gaff of nine pounds of boost. Extra material was added to the block’s bearing webs and top deck, and main-bearing-cap bolts have been increased from seven-­sixteenths to one-half inch in diameter. Crankshaft fillets receive a pressure-­rolling treatment to make this part more fatigue-resistant. Pistons are cast-alumi­num, but they’ve been redesigned (along with the wrist pins) for greater strength. The compres­sion ratio has been lowered to 7.5:1. So far, this is standard turbo-engine practice, but all these conventional com­ponents were screwed together and di­aled in to produce some very un-turbolike behavior. Pontiac’s objectives were to match T/A 400 acceleration, to reap all the fuel-economy benefits offered by trimming piston displacement 25 per­cent, and to keep drivability up to GM’s usual high standards. Translated into street language, this means Pontiac wanted its turbo motor to act like a much bigger normally aspirated engine all the time, except at the gas pumps. In driving this new-world T/A, you’d swear Pontiac was trying to keep its tur­bocharger a secret. After a big buildup on the hood (rebulged for clearance and redecorated for flash), the instrument panel has neither a boost gauge nor even so much as an idiot light to tell you there’s anything special happening ahead of the firewall. The exhaust rum­bles the same sounds of the mellowed-­out, catalytic-convertered V-8 we’ve heard for years. Nailing the gas pedal only further confuses the issue: what you feel is the tug of an eager 350 cubic inches or so, doing its best against a 3700-pound curb weight. And don’t try to listen for the whistle of a turbine wheel spinning up to tell you good things are going on at the other end of the throttle linkage. Pontiac pays AiRe­search a few dollars extra per unit for turbochargers just to buy them without the tiny rotating imbalance that makes them whine the haunting melody turbo nuts learn to live by. Pontiac’s plan goes further. There is no surge in the T/A’s torque curve to tell you the booster’s just been lit. As soon as you hit the throttle, the turbo­charger goes to work and pumps up full boost by 3500 rpm. Likewise, this car lacks an acceleration lag and the attend­ant steep rush to the redline you get with Buick’s, Ford’s and, most assertive­ly, Porsche’s turbos. So the blown T/A is more in the Saab Turbo class of per­formance: soft-spoken but aggressive. It works hard all the time to keep you from knowing it’s working hard. There are, however, limits to the tur­bo’s enthusiasm. By the time the engine reaches 4000 rpm, the show is essential­ly over. So much spark has been backed out by the anti-detonation electronics that the horsepower curve droops like licorice in the sun. For maximum accel­eration, you’re best off leaving the shift­er in “D” and letting the transmission make the moves Pontiac programmed into its hydraulic heart. In hard-number terms, 60 mph hap­pens 8.2 seconds after the stoplight goes green, and a quarter-mile is over in 16.7 seconds. The speedo registered 86 mph at this distance in our testing, and will crank up to 116 mph if you happen to have a cross-county straightaway, as we did, to let it all hang out. Referenced to 1979’s performance peak—a 400 T/A four-speed—acceleration times are longer by 1.5 seconds, and about 10 mph has been lost from both quarter­-mile and flat-out speeds. As you can see, a few performance points have been lost for 1980. These sacrifices are predictable with tightening emissions and fuel-economy stan­dards, but the amount of bullet-biting we’ll have to accept in this instance goes beyond the pale. California will catch no more than a glimpse of the new turbo engines as they’re built into cars at GM’s Van Nuys assembly plant and promptly loaded on trucks and trains bound for the other 49 states. A rather cruel and unusual predicament. Even if you do happen to live where the turbo is certified and decide to step up to buy one, your gears will forever after be se­lected by Turbo Hydra-matic whims. That’s right, synchromesh fans, the four-speed’s been banned from turbo­charger duty. Or any T/A duty for that matter, since Pontiac plans to offer but one manual transmission to serve the whole Firebird line for 1980: a three­-on-the-floor as base equipment behind a 231-cubic-inch V-6.All of which makes the Trans Am’s former greatness seem really great this year. Fortunately, most of the non-en­gine past glory is intact. The all-disc brakes are second only to the Corvette’s for pure, made-in-America stoppability. The wonderful WS6 handling pieces still work road magic, although there is substantially less oversteer to play with now that much of the powertrain’s punch is gone.Chalk the loss up to this year’s tight­ened emissions laws if you’re planning any correspondence with your elected representatives. Pontiac says heavy, stick-shift models are all but impossible to drive smoothly enough to pass the new hydrocarbon standard. And four-speed turbo-T/A prototypes with cali­brations aimed at certification were sup­posedly so abysmal to drive that Ponti­ac’s chief engineer, Steve Malone, pulled the plug on their development. That’s not to say you’ll never see the turbo matched to a four-speed in the Trans Am. The folks at Pontiac realize this is their image leader, and they’re not all convinced the T/A can lose its four-speed, big-motor macho all at once and save face with a turbocharger. Final judgment awaits—at discothèques, drive-ins, and cruising loops across the nation, where the flaming hood bird is as much a part of the Saturday-night scene as tight slacks, Super Fly shoes, and gold neck chains. Until turbo fever plays here, the T/A’s mystique won’t be secure. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    1980 Pontiac Firebird Turbo Trans AmVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
    PRICE
    As Tested: $9000 (est.)Options: Turbo Hydra-matic transmission, air conditioning, WS6 special performance package, tinted glass, power door locks, power windows, AM/FM stereo radio with CB.
    ENGINEturbocharged pushrod V-8, iron block and headsDisplacement: 302 in3, 4940 cm3Power: 205 hp @ 4000 rpmTorque: 310 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION3-speed automatic
    CHASSIS
    Suspension, F/R: control arms/rigid axleBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/11.1-in vented discTires: Goodyear Polysteel Radial225/60R-15
    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 108.2 inLength: 197.1 inWidth: 73.0 inHeight: 49.3 inCurb Weight: 3717 lb
    C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.0 sec60 mph: 8.2 sec1/4-Mile: 16.7 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 24.4 secTop Speed: 116 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 186 ft 
    EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 14 mpg (est.) 
    C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

  • in

    Handles Like It’s on Rails: We Drive a Locomotive

    From the September 1990 issue of Car and Driver.We’ve been giddy from speed in Cor­vette ZR-1s and dizzy from the price of Cadillac Allantés, but we’ve never driven a General Motors product that affected us like this before. GM’s new SD-60 is a brutal-looking three-seater equipped with everything an enthusiast could hope for: all-wheel drive, all-wheel steering, a massive midship-mounted V-16 engine, and brakes powerful enough to stop a freight train. Developed exclusively for tracks, it corners on rails. It belts out enough power to light up a small town. And it’s packed with computer-con­trolled everything—in fact, it’s so complicated it takes an engineer to run it. Unfortunately, the SD-60 is one vehi­cle you won’t see much of unless you spend a lot of time hanging around tracks. That means the only way to sam­ple one is to undertake basic training­—which is just what we did. We were only too pleased when General Motors’ Electro-Motive Division saw fit to swing open the gates to its factory and test tracks in LaGrange, Illinois, for us. We came, we saw, we tested—and in the end fulfilled a childhood dream surely shared with many a responsible grown-up: We drove a train. The GM guy on the scene was Keith Mahalik, a young engineer—mechanical, not railroad—whose job it is to keep in touch with EMD’s customers and devel­op ever-better software for the computer systems on today’s locomotives. Mahalik also has automotive proclivities: He de­scribe himself as “a horsepower guy” who likes big engines of all kinds, some­thing his personal transportation fleet confirms. Parked in his garage are a 1967 Corvette convertible motivated by a 427-cubic-inch V-8, a 1971 Olds 4-4-2 con­vertible equipped with the high-output W30 package, and a 1967 Olds 4-4-2 street rod pumped full of vitamins by a Detroit Diesel 6-71 supercharger. View PhotosGeneral Motors Electro-Motive Division’s ft-103General MotorsMahalik showed us into his office be­fore our morning plant tour. Fittingly, the big brick building is past its prime and a little shabby—like an old train sta­tion. The 343-acre LaGrange plant com­plex was opened in 1935, several years after GM bought Electro-Motive Engi­neering Corporation. The offices of the service technical engineers are a labyrinth of gray desks and steel partitions on the third floor. You walk up. The 1940s were the glory days for La­Grange. That’s when diesel-electric loco­motives eclipsed their steam-powered forebears. Though it’s hard to imagine now, steam locomotives had ruled the railways up through the 1930s. They were immensely powerful—some pro­duced as much as 6000 horsepower—and they had the potential for speed. Today, Japan’s much-heralded bullet train averages 125 mph, and the French TGV, which hits 160 mph on its regular routes, is consid­ered a marvel. Sixty years ago, however, the fastest U.S. steam locomotives got passengers to their destinations at better than 100 mph. Then, in 1939, GM’s Electro-Motive Division introduced the first successful diesel-electric locomotive, the FT103. It took four of EMD’s new engines hooked in tandem to match the power of one big steam locomotive, but the FT103’s lower operating costs and cleaner-running powerplant—no soot, no cinders, no clouds of smoke—won the railroad over. Versions of the slab-sided FT103 were produced through 1955 and used for many years afterward. Inside a Locomotive FactoryAs we headed for the factory floor, Mahalik explained how diesel-electric lo­comotives work. “The basic layout is the same today as it was when the FT103 was introduced. The diesel engine powers a generator, and the electricity from the generator drives six direct-current elec­tric motors located at the axles.” Doing it this way eliminates the need for a transmission. “Each electric motor acts like an infinitely variable transmission,” Mahalik pointed out. As the output from the main generator is increased, the electric mo­tor puts out a smooth flow of power; the more juice that goes in, the more motive force that comes out. “Another advantage,” Mahalik added, “is that electric motors have tremendous low-speed torque.” More than just the layout of locomo­tives has remained the same for the past half-century. After just a few minutes on the factory floor, it became apparent that the way locomotives are made hasn’t changed much since the 1940s, either. The scene was pure Smokestack Ameri­ca; it could have been almost any time in the last 50 years. The woodblock floor was covered in a grimy black goop, and an oily haze hung in the air. We were in the engine shop. A lone worker labored at a forging press, stamp­ing out exhaust valves. They glowed red hot as they fell into their steel holding container. Farther down the line, a long valve stem was being fuse-welded to the stubby tulip in a spray of sparks. The fin­ished valve would be almost the size of a clarinet. It’s ironmongery on a grand scale. “The SD-60 locomotive you’ll drive to­day uses our latest engine, the 16-710G3,” said Mahalik. “It’s a V-16, with turbocharging and aftercooling. We rate them by cylinder displacement.” So the 16-710G3 engine in the SD-60 displaces nearly 710 cubic inches per cylinder. That’s, uh, a total of 11,353 cubic inches, about 186 liters. Mahalik smiled. Jeez.Then we saw one of the engine blocks sitting on the floor, waiting for assembly. Welded up from huge slabs of rolled steel and massive forgings, it was the size of a motorboat. A box of connecting rods was sitting nearby. They were as big as tennis racquets and a lot heavier. Picking one up required two hands. “It’s 25 pounds,” said Mahalik. To build an engine that’s going to move mountains—a single SD-60 loco­motive can haul as much as 12,000 tons of train—you’d expect all of the compo­nents to be massive. But pistons that weigh 59 pounds each? An 1800-pound turbocharger? How about a crankshaft that weighs 3400 pounds—as much as an entire Olds Cutlass? A fully assembled engine, ready to install, weighs 39,600 pounds. And it’s so big that workmen must perch on six-foot-high catwalks just to adjust the valves. The scale here is staggering. There’s so much metal to lubricate in a 16-710G3 that the oil pan holds 395 gallons. Keep­ing the engine running at a safe tempera­ture requires a cooling system with 276 gallons of coolant. And your VISA gold card would wilt from just one fill-up; the tank can hold 5000 gallons of diesel fuel. Under full load, an SD-60 gulps 187 gallons of that fuel every hour. The SD-60’s engine is a direct descen­dant of the powerplant in the original FT103, but it is technologically current. It is a two-stroke, meaning the combus­tion takes place every time the piston reaches the top of its travel. Each cylin­der head is fitted with a single overhead camshaft that operates 32 valves—four per cylinder, all of them exhaust valves. A mechanical fuel injector is located dead center in each combustion chamber. The huge turbocharger blows pressur­ized air through a pair of aftercoolers (“intercoolers” to car folks) and into each cylinder through several ports located near the middle of each bore; the ports are uncovered when the piston reaches the bottom of its stroke. The SD-60’s turbocharger, by the way, is also designed to act as a mechanical supercharger. The turbo is so big and heavy that it doesn’t spin of its own ac­cord until the engine is pumping out 75 percent of full power; only then is there enough exhaust flow to budge it. So until that point, a clutch-controlled mechanism drives the turbo off of the crank­shaft—just like a regular supercharger.We were walking down an open hall about the size of a hangar. A door opened to our left, and a roar issued forth that shook the earth. A man popped out and slammed the door shut. “That’s a dyno cell,” explained Mahalik. “We’re running one of our engines.” We walked down to where the dyno operator was sitting and looked over his shoulder. The engine was turning 903 rpm. “Red­line,” said Mahalik with a nod. It was hard to imagine so much metal spinning around at all, but spin it did. At 900 rpm, the 16-710G3 was at its power peak, booming out 4100 horsepower. When installed in an SD-60, the hulking V-16 loses about 300 horsepower to accessories—leav­ing 3800 horsepower to drive the generator, which drives the six 1000-hp electric motors that drive the train. You get a better idea of the SD-60’s power when you consider its torque, which measures—get ready for this—23,925 pound-feet at 900 rpm. As much as 65 Corvette ZR-1s. We went through a couple of doors and everything got quiet; we were in the electrical assembly area. The equipment was still imposing, even if the din was not. “The diesel engine actually turns three generators,” Mahalik explained. The smallest, which weighs a mere 800 pounds, is called the auxiliary generator, and it serves the same purpose as a car’s alternator: Its primary duty is to keep the batteries charged and to provide power to some accessories. It also energizes (“excites” is the technical term) genera­tor number two, called the companion al­ternator. The companion provides pow­er for any AC devices on the train, such as cooling fans, and excites the all-impor­tant main generator. We checked out some mains being wired up. Their outer rings, called stators, were as big around as the intake on a jet engine, and they contained thou­sands of strands of wire intricately woven together—by hand, not machine. “The SD-60’s generator makes 9900 amps near stall and 1450 volts at top speed, which for this locomotive is 70 mph,” said Mahalik. When we expressed confusion as to how much power that really was, Mahalik chuckled and launched into the kind of simple explana­tion engineers love to use to illuminate the dim cranial cavities of liberal-arts majors: “We like to say that it makes enough power to light 250 homes.” Lest those watts, volts, and amps fly out of control and give someone an awful shock, they are carefully managed by a complex computer-aided control sys­tem. These days, virtually every aspect of locomotive operations is, at the very least, computer monitored, if not controlled outright. The SD-60’s three pow­erful microprocessors keep tabs on all diesel-engine parameters and can report, diagnose, and log problems on the move. They watch over the rows of con­tactors that control direction and braking and power flow to the electric motors, determine the excitation of the genera­tors, and manage the SD-60’s advanced traction-control system. All of the electrical equipment re­quired to put the juice where it’s needed is housed in what’s called the high-volt­age cabinet. We watched as several of these large steel lockers—they’re about as high as a basketball hoop—were wired up. The job looked like an electrician’s nightmare—miles of multicolored wire looping everywhere, thousands of connections, a circuit board the size of two office desks. Later, the cabinets would be installed in the locomotives’ cabs, where they would take up the entire rear wall. “Everything comes together here,” Mahalik said as we entered the huge fi­nal-assembly hall. At one end, sheet­metal was being fitted to the locomotive chassis, prepped, and painted yellow. A giant overhead crane whirred. “Oh good,” said Mahalik. “They’re going to truck a locomotive.”At the far end, the crane picked up a freshly painted locomotive, sans wheels, as if it were a scale-model Lionel piece, and hauled it down to where a pair of six-­wheel trucks—the completed axle-and-­electric motor assemblies—sat waiting on a set of rails. Men, some of them in white shirts and ties, stopped to watch. Warning bells clanged. The crane low­ered the locomotive onto its trucks like a loving parent laying their baby in its cra­dle. Trucking a locomotive is always an event, explained Mahalik. A GM car plant might spit out a new vehicle every 60 seconds or so, but LaGrange turns out only one locomotive every couple of days (there’s another GM locomotive plant in London, Ontario).Time to Drive the Locomotive”Let’s go drive a locomotive.” Mahalik grinned and held out a pair of engineer’s coveralls he’d scrounged up. Scrounged, because absolutely no one at LaGrange dresses like Casey Jones. Until I arrived, that is. I skulked from the locker room out the back door into the train yard­—red scarf, engineer’s hat, and all, hoping none of the workmen would see me. Right outside the door was our ride—a spanking-new pair of SD-60s in red-and­-gray Kansas City Southern livery, cou­pled back-to-back. Sitting out in the sun­shine, all alone, they looked . . . big. Really big. Mahalik waved me up the steps. “Let’s fire it up,” he said. After turning on the elec­trics in the cab, he opened a door at the locomotive’s waist and motioned to­ward me. I twisted the single two-posi­tion switch to prime the big diesel. Then, as instructed, I twisted it the other way, pushed on the manual throttle handle with my right hand and . . . wheeeee, wheeeee, went the starter. Rumba, rumba . . . BAH-RUMBAAAHH. The V-16 lit off like ten semis.We marched up to the cab, and Mahalik threw the reverser lever to “for­ward” and eased us through the yard at a walking pace. There were rows of dere­lict locomotives parked to one side. “We actually take trade-ins,” he said, nodding in their direction. The cabin was basic: a rubber mat covering the floor, plain dark vinyl on the three bucket seats, gray paint everywhere else. It wasn’t quite as inhospitable as it first looked, though. These two KCS locomo­tives were equipped with optional air conditioning, electrically heated win­dows, and air-ride seats. A 99-channel two-way railroad radio, a toilet, and a re­frigerator are standard. All of this luxury is yours for a paltry $1.4 million. (Not to worry, there’s no such thing as annual model changes. You can expect your SD-60 to go about a million miles between overhauls and last 15–30 years.) Mahalik stopped the locomotive a cou­ple of times as several switches were thrown for us. Then we were on what is, quite literally, the test track—a three-­quarter-mile-long private straightaway on EMD property. “Let’s do an engine self-load test.” He motioned me toward the right seat, the engineer’s seat. The instrument panel angled to my left. It contained gauges for electric-motor current load, air pressure, and brake-cylinder pressure. Jutting out of the panel were levers for the throttle, the dynamic brake, the reverser, the loco­motive’s independent brakes, and another for the train’s brakes. Getting stopped is clearly a high priority in the train business. Mahalik punched a few keys below the computer display screen on the high­-voltage cabinet behind us. Dozens of green numbers winked on the screen—­engine parameters like coolant tempera­ture, throttle position, generator voltage. The two that interested me were horse­power and rpm. Mahalik explained that we would be standing still, but the main generator would be on full, providing resistance for the V-16 to work against—like an engine dynamometer. The current manufac­tured by the generator would be routed past the electric motors in the trucks and directly to a huge grid resistor—essen­tially a giant toaster—in the roof of the locomotive. The energy produced by the generator would be dissipated as heat. And to make sure the locomotive’s roof didn’t melt, a 100-hp blower fan would be blasting a gale-force wind across the glowing grid wires. “The grid resistor is normally used for dynamic braking,” Mahalik explained. In dynamic-braking mode, the electric mo­tors become generators. Now they’re try­ing to resist the train’s movement in an amount roughly equivalent to their pow­er, meaning you have about 5200 horsepower worth of brakes—enough to slow a freight train down in all but hilly terrain. The electricity produced by dynamic braking is spent through the grid resistors. “Open the throttle,” Mahalik ordered. There are eight throttle positions, and I watched the power readout climb as I notched the big lever through its travel. At position one, the engine was barely awake: only 190 horsepower. By position four, things were getting interesting: 570 rpm, 1310 horsepower. Position five: 1765 horsepower. The noise was getting raucous. Position six: 2280 horsepower and 729 rpm. Position seven: 3350 horsepower, 824 rpm. Position eight-wide open: 3855 horsepower at 903 rpm. But wait, there was more. I saw a flash reading of 4133 horsepower, and the engine settled down to a steady 4055 horsepower. I opened the cabin door. Whoa! Hell itself was bellowing at me. I slammed it shut. I eased the throttle back to idle. “Okay,” said Mahalik, “now put the re­verser in forward. It’s all yours.” I moved the throttle tentatively. The locomotive crept forward. The view over the stubby hood was surprisingly panoramic. I eased up to 15 mph, then went back to idle. Yeah, that’s it. Like driving a small motel. And we kept coasting. Three­-quarters of a million pounds doesn’t have much interest in slowing down, and the end of the track drew closer. I used the train brake. Ahead lay the main line, and the call of shiny steel rails going off into the distance. Maybe someday. Going forward was easy, but backing up was something else again. The view rearward was limited by the locomotive body; we were blind to the right. Maneu­vering just the locomotives was unnerv­ing, so backing a freight train around a railroad yard must be a laugh riot.After a few uneventful trips down the test track, Mahalik suggested we find out what it feels like to pull a load. “I’ll put the rear locomotive into dynamic brake, and we’ll drag it.” Sounded like a megadollar version of “irresistible force meets immovable object.” It had begun to drizzle, perfect for showing off EMO’s latest traction-con­trol system, according to Mahalik. “Okay, full throttle.” The SD-60 howled and shuddered and shook and began creeping forward. You could feel the traction-control system searching for grip, pulling back the voltage when any of the six driving axles began to slip. “A radar transceiver under the nose, aimed down at the track bed, feeds the comput­ers true ground speed,” Mahalik said over the thrumming. We were going less than 10 mph. “When the track gets really slippery, the computer automatically puts down sand to increase traction,” explained Mahalik, “but we don’t fill our lo­comotives with sand before delivery. “This is what it would be like dragging a heavy load in hilly terrain. You don’t want to run a locomotive under about 12 mph, because that strains the electric motors and they can overheat.” If more power is needed to get over the moun­tains, a railroad hooks up as many loco­motives as are required, then shuts them down on the flat sections. Having use of your own personal 4000-hp locomotive wouldn’t be worth much if you couldn’t engage in at least one act of juvenile delinquency, would it? I throttled back to a stop and jumped from the cab. At my signal, Mahalik eased the pair of SD-60s ahead and right on past me. There on the track was my handiwork: a dime and a penny, pressed as flat and smooth as your best shirt. Ah, life is sweet. “Time to park it,” said Mahalik with a shrug. But wait, Keith, we haven’t done the most important thing of all. Mahalik smiled knowingly and pointed to the big lever atop the instrument cluster. “Go ahead,” he nodded.Children of all ages, this one’s for you: WOOO—WOOOO—WOOOOOOOO . . . .Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
    General Motors Electro-Motive SD-60Vehicle Type: mid-engine, 12-wheel-drive, 3-passenger, 2-door, diesel-electric locomotive
    PRICE
    Base: $1,400,000Standard accessories: electronic control system with display, cab heaters and defrosters, toiletOptions on our test vehicle: air conditioning, refrigerator, electrically heated windows, air-ride seats, comfort cab
    ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled 2-stroke V-16 diesel, welded steel block and iron heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 11,353 in3, 186,037 cm3Power: 4100 hp @ 900 rpmTorque: 23,925 lb-ft @ 900 rpm 
    TRANSMISSION
    1-speed DC Electric
    CHASSISSuspension, Primary/Secondary: rigid axle/rubber spring pad between truck frame and steel bolsterBrakes: Electro-Motive Division 945-amp dynamic electromagnetic brakes with electronic anti-lock control, plus twelve Type 26L 2.5-inch-wide compressed-air-actuated shoe brakes acting on the drive wheelsWheels: 5.5 x 40-inch forged steel
    DIMENSIONSTrack: 56.5 inLength: 804.0 inWidth: 122.5 inHeight: 187.0 inCurb Weight: 390,000 lbFuel Capactiy: 5000 gal
    MANUFACTURER’S PERFORMANCE RATINGSTop Speed: 70 mphFuel consumption @ full power: 187 gallons per hour  Director, Buyer’s GuideRich Ceppos has evaluated automobiles and automotive technology during a career that has encompassed 10 years at General Motors, two stints at Car and Driver totaling 19 years, and thousands of miles logged in racing cars. He was in music school when he realized what he really wanted to do in life and, somehow, it’s worked out. In between his two C/D postings he served as executive editor of Automobile Magazine; was an executive vice president at Campbell Marketing & Communications; worked in GM’s product-development area; and became publisher of Autoweek. He has raced continuously since college, held SCCA and IMSA pro racing licenses, and has competed in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He currently ministers to a 1999 Miata and a 1965 Corvette convertible and appreciates that none of his younger colleagues have yet uttered “Okay, Boomer” when he tells one of his stories about the crazy old days at C/D. More