Reviews

“Reset your trip odometers when you get to the steer standing on the small hill next to the trail,” came the call over the radio. You’d think that using a potentially mobile animal as a waypoint would be an unwise move, but the longhorn was on his territory. He stood stock-still (as only stock can do) and stared balefully as the queue of 2023 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 pickups filed respectfully past.Once clear, we dialed our ZR2 into Baja mode, put the hammer down, and sent stones and dirt flying. This was our second day attacking the highly variable and uneven terrain of the Best in the Desert series’s Las Vegas-to-Reno off-road race course, and the new ZR2 was completely in its element. Plumes of dust erupted from the truck’s haunches as we careened along the various rocky, silty, and dusty two-track trails and wash-bottoms, and we found ourselves chortling when the lead truck called out the occasional “good graded road” that made us question the applicability of all three words.play iconThe triangle icon that indicates to playThe previous-generation Colorado ZR2 would not have fared nearly as well on this terrain, particularly at this pace. Sure, it also had off-road tires, decent clearance, front and rear locking differentials, and durable Multimatic DSSV spool-valve dampers, but the underlying Colorado on which it was based was not great source material. The new 2023 Chevrolet Colorado is demonstrably better in almost every respect, and that makes for a significantly more capable and credible ZR2 off-roader. More on the Colorado PickupAs it turns out, the Colorado’s 2.9-inch wheelbase stretch looms large here. GM essentially moved the front axle forward by that amount relative to the front door hinge line and nearby body mount, and that created space for much larger tires. The last-gen ZR2’s 31-inch rubber looks puny next to this year’s standard 33-inch Goodyear Wrangler Territory Mud Terrains, but the magnitude of this change will also allow for the fitment of 35-inch tires on the ZR2 Bison prototype that Chevy teased at trail’s end. It’s enough to bring a Tacoma owner to tears, because the dubious “body mount chop” is necessary to fit similar-size tires on that truck. Larger tires allow the new ZR2 to roll over cross-grain gullies that would snag smaller tires, and the extra inch of tire radius also amounts to one inch of the new truck’s 1.8 inches of extra ground clearance, now 10.7 inches instead of 8.9 inches. The rest comes from a suspension lift, but it’s more than rejiggered springs. There’s also a significant gain in suspension travel; the front’s total increases from 8.7 to 9.9 inches, and the entire surplus has been allocated to the compression side. In back, total travel increases from 9.8 to 11.6 inches, with compression and rebound sharing the bounty. Extra travel equals less bottoming out and an enhanced ability to progressively absorb uneven terrain, but it also leads to better crawling articulation on boulders—and our RTI ramp. Up front, the approach angle improves from 30.0 degrees to a healthy 38.3 degrees because the transformative wheelbase stretch was offset by a similar reduction in front overhang to keep the truck’s overall length in check. The front fascia retains the ZR2-signature cutouts ahead of the front tires to make the approach angle in that crucial area even more aggro, but they’re more cleanly integrated into the overall design because less cutting is necessary when you have a stubbier nose to work with.Additional significant changes are found in back. The last ZR2’s lower rear shock mounts were positioned extremely inboard and low down. You had to cope with three points of potential contact when straddling rocks, not just the differential in the middle. Normal 2023 Colorados position them closer to the leaf springs, but they’re still inboard. The wide-track ZR2 has the right answer: Its rear Multimatic DSSV dampers now live outboard of the leaf springs and the frame rails, and the lower mount is tucked up tight against the brake backing plate, like on a Tacoma. What’s more, the spare tire is positioned some 2.5 inches higher and no longer looks like someone forgot to crank it all the way up, letting it drag ass through ditches.The new-to-the-Colorado turbocharged 2.7-liter inline-four engine was a welcome surprise, because it pulls strong and sounds powerful–especially in Baja mode, where the eight-speed automatic transmission willingly holds onto gears under power and downshifts when braking. The ZR2’s high-output tune makes 310 horsepower versus the old V-6’s 308 horses, but torque is the big differentiator, with 430 pound-feet of the stuff on tap at 3000 rpm versus the old model’s measly 275 pound-feet at 4000 revs. No one should mourn the discontinued diesel, which only gave up 369 pound-feet and a meager 181 horsepower and saddled you with a six-speed automatic. This new singular ZR2 powertrain is miles better than both predecessors in all respects, and its EPA rating of 18 mpg combined (17 city/19 highway) is 1 mpg better across the board than last year’s V6.The Baja mode we relied on is exclusive to the ZR2, and you can engage it in two- or four-wheel drive. In addition to the more aggressive shift action, Baja also runs with traction and stability control off, which let us hang the tail out and rally the truck through tighter bends. The same aggressive approach in the more straightforward Off-Road mode leads to frequent ESC interventions, less fun, and stinky rear brakes. Terrain mode, which caps the truck’s speed at 50 mph, is an exceptional off-road creep mode with one-pedal drive action that seems more at home tiptoeing over rocks than it does on any EV. Tow/Haul mode is here, along with an integrated trailer brake controller, befitting a ZR2 good for 6000 pounds instead of last year’s 5000 pounds.Inside, the ZR2 is clearly better than its predecessor, looking more bespoke than parts-bin. Like the other trims, the ZR2 features the same 11.3-inch touchscreen with Google built-in, along with logically arrayed climate controls. Its stitched-dash treatment looks better than the Z71’s padding, and the faux-camo trim insert is attractive. The seats feel full-size, not seven-eighths scale. But the indoors is also where the ZR2’s biggest flaws reside. The rental-spec dash and door-panel graining and gloss make no attempt to hide the truck’s hard-plastic composition. The headlight controls are on the touchscreen, albeit with a clairvoyant “Auto” setting and ever-present access icon. Too much usable stuff is buried in said touchscreen, such as the trip-meter reset we went hunting for when we drew level with the bull. All told, the new Colorado ZR2 is something its predecessor was not: an extremely well-rounded and capable off-road mid-size truck that performs at a high level and wants for little. That it costs just $1600 more than last year’s model is frankly remarkable. The Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro is no longer a match, and the 2024 Tacoma is going to have to make a giant step of its own to keep up. What about Ford’s upcoming Ranger and Ranger Raptor? Time will tell, but there’s an even more capable ZR2 Bison waiting in the wings.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base ZR2, $48,295; Desert Boss Special Edition, $58,285
ENGINEturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 166 in3, 2727 cm3Power: 310 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque: 430 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.4 inLength: 212.7 inWidth: 76.3 inHeight: 81.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 58/43 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5000 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.5 sec1/4-Mile: 14.0 secTop Speed: 100 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 18/17/19 mpgTechnical 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

From the July 1982 issue of Car and Driver.When Volvos first rolled ashore in these United States just over 25 years ago, they were enthusiastically received because they reminded Americans of American cars. They looked like ’47 Fords, had the same sort of guts, and ran faster. There was an American temperament about the Volvo, albeit about 10 years behind what Detroit was doing in the marshmallow years of the late Fif­ties, and we Yanks welcomed Volvos in a way we never did the Saabs, Peugeots, English Fords, and Mercedes-Benzes of the time.With the new 760GLE, you might say that Volvo is returning to its American ways. From the sedan’s squarish appear­ance, you might even say it’s the Ameri­can car of the future, Volvo having tak­en GM’s creased-and-folded look one step further in the evolution. Could this be what GM will do next? And some would say it’s an improvement over the present A-body design because the Volvo is consistently sharp-cornered while the abruptness of the Celebrity-6000-Ciera-Century roofline is not faithfully continued in the lower body. In any case, if you turn the Volvo side­ways, you see the same ramp nose, stiff rear-window angle, and high tail of the GM intermediates, and this look is rap­idly becoming as familiar to Americans as the molded–Jell-O profile of the ’47 Ford was in Volvo’s early days. The new Volvo is also virtually identi­cal in size to the new GM A-body, which puts it right in the mainstream of Amer­ican automobiles. Its length and width are comparable to the A-body dimen­sions within about an inch, though the Volvo is 2.7 inches taller and has 4.1 inches more wheelbase. The extra dis­tance between the wheels keep the rear wheelhouses from biting into the cor­ners of the rear seat. This is a downsized Volvo, 4.0 inches shorter and approximately 75 pounds lighter than the GLE it replaces, yet it’s still as big as—and a bit heavier than—the lat­est American intermediates. Early Volvos were relatively small cars; to­day’s are not. Early Volvos made no pretension to luxury either. The 760GLE is a top-of­-the-line model, the best Volvo’s got, a direct competitor with the bottom end of the Mercedes spectrum in Europe. Here it’s meant to tiptoe right up to the $20,000 mark (prices have yet to be announced) with a full load of equipment, including leather seats, climate control, AM/FM/cassette stereo, power win­dows, power sunroof, cruise control, central locking system, bun-warmer seats, etc., etc. That may or may not be your idea of royal treatment, but it sure leaves the ersatz-Ford days behind. By the way, this new model replaces only the top-of-the-line CLE in the Volvo lineup, leaving the rest of the old­-style range intact. Significantly, the 760 is also the only Volvo bereft of mud flaps, which could limit its appeal to traditionalists. More on Volvos of the PastPeeling off the mud flaps is said to be an aerodynamic consideration. As a by­product, it further Americanizes (per­haps de-Swedes is more accurate) the appearance. But once you look under the skin, the 760 is still very much a Volvo. There has been no following of the Americans to front drive. A longitu­dinal engine and a solid rear axle make up the drivetrain, just as before. There are two engine choices for America: the all-aluminum 2.8-liter V-6 that Volvo has been sharing with Renault and Peugeot for years, and the 2.4-li­ter inline-six diesel from Volkswagen, used by Volvo since 1980 but newly turbocharged for the 760. The turbo pumps output to 106 horsepower at 4800 rpm, making this a peppy little unit and one of the quickest diesels going. Transmis­sion choices are limited to an automatic with the V-6, modernized with a button on the side of the shift handle to summon or reject the overdrive as the driv­er sees fit. The diesel can be backed up with either a three-speed automatic or a four-speed-plus-overdrive manual. We sampled some of each in our test­ing: a manual diesel camouflaged by the older 260GLE body, and a 760GLE with a Euro-spec V-6 and an automat­ic. The diesel was about the right weight for an American-spec 760, and it was a fine runner, clocking 60 mph in 11.8 seconds. First gear is on the short side for anything but drag racing or trailer pulling; starting in second works fine in normal driving. Also, the turbo has considerable lag in routine traffic unless you keep the engine buzzing. But you always know when to expect results, because you can hear the compressor spooling up like some old J-47 under the hood. The gas version was even quicker at 9.2 seconds to 60 mph, but this would be a very optimistic estimate of what to expect from a U.S.-spec version, since the car was down at least 60 pounds from the real thing and the engine was somewhat stronger. The automatic is sort of fun, however; it shifts firmly, both up and down, with none of the dithering between gears that we find on some of the allegedly more sophisticat­ed boxes. The O.D. button is really only a lockout, however, allowing the driver to prevent the transmission from auto­matically selecting cruising gear. For ef­ficiency’s sake it’s probably the best course to leave that button unpushed. A quick look at the suspension finds MacPherson struts in front and an axle with trailing arms in back, the usual Volvo stuff. But in fact there are many minor revisions. Positive camber has been reduced to zero from 0.8 degree in front, and caster has been increased to 5.0 from 3.5 degrees, which should give the front tires more cornering bite and more feel in the steering. Alloy wheels with greater offset (in the direction that narrows the track) reduce the scrub ra­dius to 28 mm from 37 mm. This still produces a positive radius (the tire con­tact patch outboard of a line through the upper and lower strut pivots), as op­posed to the negative radius now fash­ionable on front-drive cars, but it should improve stability when one side of the car brakes across a slipperier sur­face than the other. Other changes in­clude more accurate Ackermann angles and a rack-and-pinion gear mounted very low in the car. The payoff here is that the gear can be contained within the front crossmember for protection. Moreover, the slack that develops from wear in the gear will have minimal effect at the wheels. Notable in the rear are a pair of axle-­stabilizing torque links that attach to a huge bracket that, in turn, is rubber-iso­lated from the body. This is designed to improve ride without sacrificing control of the axle. There are also height-level­ing shock absorbers. How does all this reengineering feel to the driver? Fine. No problems. The 760 still acts like a Volvo, although it’s a bit crisper in the steering. And body-roll angles seem better managed. But this newest of Volvos is no Ford in the ride department. It’s decidedly direct in the way it transmits chuckholes, expansion strips, and individual pebbles to the seat of your pants. Real U.S.-spec cars will have low-rolling-resistance Pirelli P8s in the 185/65R-15 size; there were 195/60 P6s on the Euro car we drove. This will change the ride some, but there is little chance it will become plush. Any plushness that you feel will be a product of the interior. Very likely, you will not be disappointed. Leather has a way of winning over almost everyone, and the 760’s broad horizontal pleats give it a sumptuous appearance (velour is standard on the Euro model). The front seats are typically Volvo, with ad­justments for backrest angle, height, and lumbar stiffness. The cushions are somewhat softer and less supportive than those of the old GLE, which are as good as car seats come. Some of us liked the new seats less. The 760’s rear seats are magnificent by any standard. They are extremely high-chair-height without a doubt­ and remarkably firm. The fact that the gas tank and rear suspension are right underneath has a lot to do with this. Nonetheless, though you are positioned high, where you can see forward over the driver’s shoulder, you still have plenty of head and knee room even if you’re a six-footer. The undersides of the front buckets have been scooped out for shoe clearance, so you can put your feet well forward. Everything is copacetic back there. It’s not bad in front either. The low beltline eliminates the confining feeling of old Volvo interiors. The driving posi­tion is good. The dash is much like that of past Volvos, but more complex. Now there are five dials in the instrument cluster instead of three, and we are aware of more grilles in the vent system, creases in the molded padding, and knock-out panels for yet-to-be-added switches—more complex but not bewil­dering. There’s a continuity of style here that past Volvo owners will recog­nize immediately. We’d like to see a few improvements in the 760. The body of this particular car is a bit clattery, and wind rush is conspicuous around the A-pillars. The ride doesn’t quite seem up to 1983 stan­dards either. But perhaps these items will be less objectionable when the official U.S. models roll in this fall. In any case, this new Volvo is not a car of surprises. Like its predecessors, it eschews the trendy in favor of a com­mon-sense approach to car building. That theme has attracted a pretty sub­stantial throng of buyers over the years, and if any of them have $20,000, it should continue to work with the 760. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1982 Volvo 760GLEVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICEAs Tested: $20,000 (est.)
ENGINEturbocharged SOHC diesel inline-6, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 145 in3, 2383 cm3Power: 106 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 139 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in disc/11.1-in discTires: Pirelli P6195/60R-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 109.1inLength: 188.0 inWidth: 68.9 inHeight: 55.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/43 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3
C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.6 sec60 mph: 11.8 sec1/4-Mile: 18.3 sec @ 73 mph80 mph: 23.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 15.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 13.8 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 191 ft 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 32/29/37 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

Mercedes-Benz has been preoccupied with high-profile EV introductions and shuffling the attendant corporate EV-nomenclature strategy for the future. But while the automaker’s agenda to become an EV-only concern by 2030 continues to dominate headlines, it quietly slipped the Mercedes-Benz GLE-class 450e plug-in hybrid (PHEV) into its U.S. mid-size SUV lineup for 2024 with little fanfare. This isn’t the GLE’s first foray into the world of plugs. For a couple of years now, the GLE350e and GLE350de gas and diesel PHEVs, as well as the smaller GLC PHEV, have been available to Europeans. Select versions of both plug-ins were earmarked for earlier North American debuts, but word is that European demand proved so strong they’ve been in a holding pattern. As a consolation prize, the standard GLE450 has utilized a 48-volt hybrid system since 2020, but the new 2024 GLE450e is the first GLE model sold here with a plug-in-hybrid powertrain and a significant electric range. Mercedes-BenzThe GLE is the second-bestselling model line in Mercedes’s stateside roster behind the compact GLC, and the 2024 GLE450e joins the returning GLE350, GLE450, and GLE580 models, which use turbocharged four- and six-cylinder and V-8 powertrains, respectively. For 2024, the 48-volt hybrid-assist previously standard on the GLE450 and GLE580 models extends to the GLE350 as well. All-wheel drive is standard across the board. The Mercedes-AMG GLE53 and GLE63 S models are still in play, too, and we’ve reviewed them separately. Plug ’em all inAs for the 2024 GLE450e’s powertrain, the fossil-fuel side of the equation relies on a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated for 248 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. The electric componentry consists of a 134-hp synchronous motor that provides an additional 325 pound-feet of torque, drawing on a lithium-ion battery pack with a usable capacity of 23.3 kWh. The tag team is rated for a combined 381 ponies and 479 pound-feet, placing it above both the GLE350 (255 horses and 295 pound-feet) and the GLE450 (375 horses and 369 pound-feet). Mercedes pegs the 60-mph time of the GLE450e at 5.8 seconds, a full 1.2 seconds swifter than the automaker’s 7.0-second claim for the GLE350 and just 0.5 second behind the GLE450’s stated 5.3-second time. It’s tempting to think of the 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLE450e PHEV as a baby step to the electric future or as a placeholder for drivers who remain skeptical regarding the promised EV Babylon. And without a doubt, it is both of those things. But the GLE450e is also a fully baked PHEV that operates with seamless precision in any environment while ensconcing its passengers in the same level of luxury and features as the rest of the GLE lineup. It’s tranquil at any speed, largely thanks to the dogged persistence with which the software favors electric operation in nearly every driving situation. In town, on the highway, or on the rural two-lanes of the Smoky Mountains, the GLE450e displays remarkable restraint, dialing in assistance from the internal-combustion engine only when absolutely required. Indeed, my co-driver and I engaged in quiet conversation for a long enough time that we were startled when the four-cylinder fired up to aid the nearly depleted battery.Official EPA fuel-economy and range estimates for the GLE450e are pending, and Benz officials were cagey about nailing down a firm EV-only range number. Still, in our hands, the GLE450e covered an indicated 43 miles of electric range during combined city and rural driving in a decidedly typical driving fashion. Mercedes-BenzAll the fundamental GLE driving dynamics remain: It feels smaller and more agile at the helm than its footprint suggests, and the ride is cushy. But our car’s 21-inch AMG wheels, as part of the AMG Line appearance package, ensure that significant road imperfections do not pass unnoticed. The electric motor provides eager acceleration from a stop with the slightest throttle input; jumping into the PHEV from a traditional GLE requires a little readjustment to avoid leaping away from a stoplight. It’s a rock at or above highway speeds and, like its siblings, has an electronically limited 130-mph top speed.Unfortunately, the regenerative properties of the GLE450e left us wishing for a little more refinement in the brake pedal and a bit more productivity in the recharging department. Manufacturers have been wrestling with dodgy pedal feel and uneven braking action for as long as hybrids have been a thing, and the GLE450e still struggles. But the amount of reclaimed energy—or lack thereof—as indicated by the battery status indicator on the instrument panel has us scratching our heads. Like most hybrids and PHEVs, regeneration occurs when braking or coasting as directed by the software, with two different regen levels selectable via the wheel-mounted shift paddles. The first setting provides mild regen; the second increases regeneration and will bring the vehicle to a stop—pretty standard stuff. Mercedes-BenzBut it’s worth noting that we barely managed to nudge the juice meter during a nearly 3500-foot descent down the mountain to approximately 761 feet above sea level. An anecdotal observation, to be sure, but getting something for “nothing” is a cheap hybrid thrill that we’ve come to expect. We’ll explore this observation in depth when we get a GLE450e to test in-house.The GLE450e comes equipped with an 11.0-kW AC and a 60-kW DC onboard charger, but no official U.S.-specific charging data is available yet. Cribbing from its European cousin, which specs a slightly larger 31.2-kWh battery, we estimate that the GLE450e should be able to be recharged from 20 to 80 percent in roughly 20 minutes on a 60-kW DC fast-charger. Homebodies looking to restore a fully depleted battery will want to budget up to 26 hours on a standard 120-volt household outlet or just under four hours on a 7.0-kW Level 2 charger. We expect Mercedes-Benz to have the relevant star-spangled figures closer to launch. Price, too, remains a mystery at this point. We estimate the 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLE450e will start around $76,000, roughly $8K more than the standard GLE450. That’s significantly more than the $56,595 figure for the base Audi Q5 Premium PHEV (though that model fell short of its EPA-estimated 23 EV miles in C/D testing). Furthermore, the Benz feels far more polished in terms of interior materials. The Porsche Cayenne E-Hybrid is also in the mix, but it starts at nearly $90K and has an estimated EV range of only 17 miles. The Volvo XC90 Recharge hews closely to the blueprint of the GLE450e and slides in at just over $70K ($81K for the Recharge Ultimate) with an EPA-estimated 36 miles of EV range (29 miles in C/D testing).However, the GLE’s real bogey here is the new 2024 BMW X5 xDrive50e (which replaces the X5 xDrive45e). The X5 Drive50e starts at $73,495 and claims up to 40 miles of EV range from its 25.7-kWh battery—it’s almost as if Munich and Stuttgart shared a focus group during development.As with most PHEVs, the decision is a numbers game. When you consider Benz’s fully electric EQE SUV offers a claimed 253-279 miles of range for $79,050, buyers have the option of sidestepping the PHEV and taking the full EV plunge at a relatively minor upcharge over the GLE450e. On the other hand, if their use cases involve less than 40 miles of driving on a typical day, the PHEV offers the ability to live the EV promise while still providing a gas-powered safety net for longer trips. The GLE450e is built alongside the rest of the GLE lineup at Mercedes-Benz’s facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Look for the GLE450e to arrive in U.S. showrooms late this summer.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-Benz GLE450eVehicle Type: front-engine, mid-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: $76,000
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 248 hp, 295 lb-ft + permanent-magnet synchronous AC motor, 134 hp, 325 lb-ft (combined output: 381 hp, 479 lb-ft); 23.3-kWh lithium-ion battery packOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 60 kWTransmission: 9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 117.9 inLength: 194.3 inWidth: 76.7 inHeight: 70.7 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 75/33 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 5.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.2 secTop Speed: 130 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 24/25/23 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 60 MPGeEV Range: 40 miOnline EditorAndrew Wendler brings decades of wrenching, writing, and editorial experience with numerous outlets to Car and Driver. A rust-belt native and tireless promoter of the region, he once won a $5 bet by walking the entire length of the elevated People Mover track that encircles downtown Detroit. More

The Smoky Mountain region of the American Southeast has much in common with Germany’s Black Forest. Both feature dense forestry, are steeped in local tradition, and host a vein-like network of tight, twisty two-lane roads carved into the mountainsides. Traveling those roads behind the wheel of the 2024 Mercedes-AMG GLE53 and GLE63 S performance SUVs, it’s easy to experience brief moments of intercontinental singularity. Corners appear without warning; heavy braking orders a firm downshift and a bark from the exhaust before the driver dives back into the accelerator and sets up for the next one.It’s all pretty heady stuff, especially when you think about the fact that the machine you’re piloting also has room for five and their luggage in the cargo hold. And like the topography, the Mercedes-AMG GLE53 and GLE63 S don’t get hung up on the where but focus on the why and how: Envisioned and developed by Mercedes-Benz’s AMG division in Affalterbach, Germany, the Mercedes-AMG models we drove are assembled at Mercedes-Benz’s facility in nearby Tuscaloosa, Alabama, as verified by the VINs. Critically, the V-8 in the GLE63 S is assembled at AMG’s HQ, employing its “one man, one engine” philosophy that assures quality and—equally important—maintains prestige; the inline-six in the GLE53 is bolted together in Stuttgart. Mercedes-AMGChanges for 2024The 2024 model year brings mild revisions to the GLE53 and GLE63 S—both those with the traditional SUV profile and those with the almost-a-coupe body style with a rakish backlight. Specifically, the AMG GLE53 and GLE63 S lead off with fresh LED daytime running lights. In addition, the GLE53 models benefit from a slight redesign of the front fascia, complete with side air intakes, to bring its look closer in concept to the 63 S. Revised taillamps benefit from some internal manipulation to create a new pattern of illumination. Related StoriesTwo new colors join the lineup: a bold enamel-looking solid finish called Alpine Grey and Twilight Blue Metallic, a hue that Mercedes has been splashing over much of its portfolio recently. The latter color brings some sizzle, but it’s far from tacky—a defining theme for the GLE53. A new 22-inch forged wheel in a 10-twin-spoke design is fitted standard on the GLE63 S Coupe and available as an option for the other models.As expected, the AMG interior is a leather affair. New color combos include Bahia Brown/Black and Macchiato Beige/Black. Trim elements in High-Gloss Brown Linden Wood and Black Piano Lacquer Flowing Lines are optional. Mercedes-AMGThe list of standard frippery is cranked up a notch for the GLE53. Items include an AMG Performance exhaust system (with user-selectable levels of obnoxiousness), a panoramic sunroof, and heated and ventilated front seats. There’s also some electronic tweaking in the form of the enhanced Burmester surround sound system with Dolby Atmos, MBUX augmented video for navigation, and a surround-view camera system with a “transparent hood” feature that stitches together an image of what’s immediately in front of the vehicle. The GLE63 S and GLE63 S Coupe up the ante with massaging front seats, a head-up display, the Winter package with a heated steering wheel and heated windshield washers, and—to the amazement of onlookers—a logo projector with AMG-specific animation when the front doors open. Driving the GLE53 and GLE63 SWhile the feature content is necessary to keep the well-heeled interested, the powertrain and driving experience ostensibly defines an AMG product. The GLE53 kicks things off with a turbocharged 3.0-liter inline six-cylinder engine with a 48-volt hybrid assist. It’s rated at 429 horsepower and 413 pound-feet of torque, the latter an increase of 29 pound-feet thanks to a larger turbocharger and a mild software tweak. Uniquely, the GLE53 also employs an electric supercharger to build boost until the turbo gets up to speed. The result is a 60-mph time Mercedes estimates to be 0.3 second quicker than before, which would put it at 4.4 seconds based on our last test of a GLE53. Output is funneled through a nine-speed automatic transmission and to all four wheels as determined by the standard 4Matic all-wheel-drive system. The GLE63 S adds a lot more intensity by way of a twin-turbo 4.0-liter V-8, its output unchanged at 603 horsepower and 627 pound-feet of torque, numbers that would’ve made headlines a decade or so ago but now seem almost pedestrian in a world of forced induction and software sorcery. When we last tested that combo in a 2021 model, it proved good for a 60-mph time of 3.4 seconds.The 48-volt hybrid assist for the 53 and 63 S uses an Integrated Starter Generator (ISG) that resides between the engine and the transmission. In addition to providing additional torque, the versatile device is responsible for regeneration and the restarting of the engine for the stop-start function. That motor can output as much as 21 horsepower in either model, with the GLE53 getting a maximum torque boost of 148 pound-feet, and the V-8 a claimed 184 pound-feet when the ISG leaps into action. Figuring it best to start small, figuratively speaking, we began the day in the Mercedes-AMG GLE53 SUV. A bit of an anomaly in the world of bruiser SUVs where absurdity is often the norm—we’re looking at you, Lamborghini Urus and Porsche Cayenne Coupe Turbo S—the GLE53 is neither a baller nor a sleeper. Instead, think of it as the GLE with a secret wild side for when you’re feeling frisky. Balance is its forte, and it delivers that slightly elusive cerebral and dynamic feeling of satisfaction inherent to the architecture of an inline-six-cylinder engine. While forced induction, electric assist, and software conspire to deliver maximum torque starting at a low 2200 rpm and maintain it until 5800 rpm, it remains buttery smooth and stays well shy of raucous. Mercedes-AMGThe GLE63 S, on the other hand, never lets you forget there are 603 horses under the hood, each one of them a willing partner in your poor decision-making process. Mercedes claims a top speed of 174 mph—although we only surpassed the century mark on one occasion, the engine was still pulling and seemed disappointed in our decision to back off and not lose our driver’s license. Seven separate drive modes (Comfort, Sport, Sport +, Individual, Race, Trail, and Sand) are on tap to help you break laws in nearly any environment or weather. We were eager to learn the significance of the 178-hp delta between the GLE53 and GLE63 S in the real world, so we participated in an impromptu mountain-climb challenge with another driver. From a rolling start in a relatively flat stretch, the GLE63 S pulled to an early lead. It then proceeded to walk away from the GLE53, disappearing into the fog and treetops, never to be heard from or seen again. That left us to pretend it never happened in the first place and revert to making small talk about how ideally suited the turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six is for a refined Mercedes product. Mercedes-AMGHandling for both AMGs is impressive for vehicles comfortably above 5000 pounds. Steering via the thick AMG wheel is typically light, but the speed-sensitive variable-rate system is direct and accurate without being overly flinty in casual situations. Likewise, the adaptive suspensions work hard to shield you from the reality of our nation’s deteriorating roadway infrastructure. Still, pneumatics and software can only go so far as to mitigate the impact of 22-inch wheels (21-inch on the GLE53) with low-profile tires rolling through a concrete minefield. Only rarely did impacts jar the vehicle, but when they did, there were no rattles or disturbing noises. Mercedes says the anti-roll system and air-spring suspension software are updated for 2024. We can confirm that both AMG GLEs are capable of near-physics-defying acts of agility that would have had their forebear (the Mercedes ML) lean over and grind its door handles into Charivari jewelry.The brakes hold up their end of the bargain, too, the pedal in the GLE63 S, in particular, engaging with strong bite and responding to pressure rather than pedal travel. Fade was not an issue, even on the long downhill sections. They’re still a bit synthetic-feeling, but a nation of drivers raised on video games rather than go-karts won’t have an issue. Mercedes equips both SUVs with the latest generation of MBUX with an AMG-specific screen design. Tech enthusiasts will undoubtedly be thrilled that the multi-location collection of system control interfaces remains. Indeed, commands are issued via the touchscreen, the console touchpad, the steering wheel controls, and the “Hey Mercedes” voice assistant. There’s a fairly steep learning curve, but it all works as promised, even if it sometimes feels like the voice assistant needs to have the wax removed from its ears. As expected, the price of AMG’s pavement-pounding SUVs is significant. Mercedes hasn’t announced official 2024 pricing yet, but we expect the GLE53 to land around the $80K mark and the GLE63 S at about $125,000. These numbers represent an increase of roughly $2000 and $4000, respectively. Look for the 2024 GLE53 and GLE63 S to arrive in showrooms this summer. And watch for them looming large in your rearview on twisty two-lanes in the forest soon thereafter.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Mercedes-AMG GLE53 and GLE63 SVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon or hatchback
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: GLE53, $80,000; GLE63 S, $125,000
ENGINES
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve 3.0-liter inline-6, 429 hp, 413 lb-ft; twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve 4.0-liter V-8, 603 hp, 627 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION
9-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.6–117.9 inLength: 194.4–195.3 inWidth: 79.3–79.4 inHeight: 67.7–70.2 inCargo Volume, Behind F/R: 63/28 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5400–5700 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.4–4.5 sec1/4-Mile: 11.9–13.2 secTop Speed: 155–174 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 17–19/15–18/19–22 mpgOnline EditorAndrew Wendler brings decades of wrenching, writing, and editorial experience with numerous outlets to Car and Driver. A rust-belt native and tireless promoter of the region, he once won a $5 bet by walking the entire length of the elevated People Mover track that encircles downtown Detroit. More

From the March 1984 issue of Car and Driver.After years of telling the world that front­-wheel drive was the hottest tip since Secre­tariat in the Triple Crown, Audi suddenly began to beat the four-wheel-­drive drum for all they were worth. When the original Quattro turbo coupe appeared in Europe, hoopla was piled atop hype un­til even the most objective observers could scarcely see the truth. Would the driving of all four wheels prove so far superior that anyone without it would simply be left floundering? As Audi patted itself on the back and laid plans to convert its entire line of already excellent hardware to four-wheel drive, the first turbo Quattros arrived in the United States (C/D, June 1982). Compared with European Quattros, they offered less horsepower, slightly softened running gear, and a penchant for being even trickier to drive. Quattros certified for sale in America also arrived with price tags bloat­ed to the $37,000 plateau, and droves of potential buyers decided to make do with so-called lesser (and certainly less expen­sive) machinery.Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverWelcome to the second round of four-wheel-drive fanfare. Audi’s “S” designa­tion in “4000S Quattro” could stand for “Son of Quattro.” The turbocharged Quattro coupe continues as the ne plus ul­tra of transport for the beautiful ski people, while the 4000S Quattro, true to Audi’s promise, dips closer to regular folks’ status. It offers the new 5000’s normally aspirated engine, the 4000’s glassy-sedan configura­tion, and a price tag only half as steep as that of the turbo coupe. The 4000S Quattro is not only far and away a better dollar deal than the coupe but a better­-balanced car in the bargain. Does this mean four-wheel drive should be summarily bolted into every car designed from this day forward? We shall see. Before we can view this bigger picture, we must view Audi’s application in the con­text of sports-sedandom. The action here is hot and heavy. Cars like the BMW 318i, the Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport, the Dodge 600ES Turbo, the Mercedes-Benz 190E, the Pontiac 2000 Sunbird Turbo, the Pontiac 6000STE, the Saab Turbo, the Volkswagen Quantum, the Volvo Turbo, and Audi’s own 4000 and 5000 tightly pack the gap from $11,000 to $25,000. This is some frisky bunch, and now here come the German techno-tweakers, Audi’s 4000S Quattro primed to redefine the sports se­dan as completely as BMW’s 1600 did in the mid-Sixties. Holy traction aids!Audi brings to battle a car that takes a sturdier stance than its front-wheel-drive 4000. On 6.0-by-14.0-inch spider-spoked wheels (the same pattern as the inch-taller alloys on the turbo Quattro, which also car­ries tires one size bigger), the four-door sports 195/60R-14 Firestone S-660s. The leading and trailing edges of our test car are sculptured with an air dam and a rear spoiler, and screaming-red paint vacuum­-wraps the trim shape of Giorgetto Giugiaro’s original 4000 (even if it is aging quickly alongside Audi’s own ultra-aerody­namic 5000). Wide side moldings and an abundance of matte-black trim pay hom­age to the modern German design ethic. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverAaron Kiley|Car and DriverLooking in through the tinted glass as you unlock the door, further matte black awaits you, from the leather-wrapped, four-spoke wheel to a roomy and comfort­able back seat. The upholstery is a dusky velour with a warm brownness that appears pure black in dim light. Comfort up front is decent, if lacking in ultimate lateral sup­port. The bolsters are good along the low­er torso but erode too much up higher. Audi uses a single lever to control both the height and inclination of the lower cushion; in this respect, Japanese technology is considerably more advanced. The Quattro’s gauges are lighted in red in order not to interfere with eyes adjusted to headlight brightness (which is good on high beam, not so hot on low), though this can be an annoyance to drivers with a low sensitivity to red. The information array consists of a big tach, a big speedo, smaller temp and fuel gauges, and a clock. Power windows and mirrors are stan­dard, as are cruise control and an electron­ic “Audi Design” AM/FM/cassette stereo system. Buttons for the windows and radio are either poorly located or too small to use easily, but the functioning of the windows and the sound quality are both fine. Not so the standard air-conditioning system, which is very slow to react to changes in settings and varies widely in effectiveness with the car’s speed. The windshield wip­ers, on the other hand, are probably the smoothest we’ve encountered on a Ger­man car. An exquisitely clever touch is visi­ble to followers on frosty mornings: the lower bands of the rear-defogger wiring spell out “Quattro.” Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe variable-assist power steering makes light work around town but firms up at higher speeds, transmitting excellent feel. The shift linkage is light and generally accurate (except for reverse), and the pedal placements have been improved, easing heel-and-toe effort. The braking feel has been freed of the sponginess that’s plagued Audis for years. There are discs on all four wheels (two more than on the regu­lar 4000), and those in front are vented. The brakes exhibit moderate fade, but they also produce good balance and control and very short stops. More Archive Audi ReviewsWelcome back to the running-gear de­partment. Up front, the uprated version of Audi’s five-cylinder engine brings to bear an additional 15 horsepower. Our test­ing, however, indicates that the power in­crease is more than offset by the extra weight of the 4WD powertrain. Comparing the two-wheel-drive, 2450-pound 5+5 we tested almost three years ago with the 2820-pound Quattro of today, 0-to-60-mph times have increased from 9.6 to 10.1 seconds. This isn’t really slow, but it’s less than the 2.2-liter’s new KE continuous fuel injection and electronic mixture actuator might lead you to expect, as are the quar­ter-mile performance of 17.3 seconds at 77 mph and the top speed of 111 mph. Nei­ther do the engine and the close-ratio five­-speed transmission make for exceptional fuel mileage, the EPA city figure of 21 mpg ranking no more than so-so in this hard-­fought category. We are less ambivalent about the Quattro’s four-wheel drive. Given slippery conditions in which to showcase its mettle, it is terrific. This four-door, because of less horsepower, better ride-motion control, and improved visibility, is considerably eas­ier than the turbo coupe to drive smoothly. It transitions better, corners flatter, and makes its driver look better. On-board ad­justments allow you to tailor its characteris­tics to road conditions. For best dry-weather handling, leave the console-mounted control button pushed in to take advantage of the better agility offered by the free­-turning differentials. For moderately slith­ery conditions, pull the button out to its middle notch, locking the middle of the car’s three differentials for firmer steering, greater stability, and reduced braking dis­tances. Pulling the button all the way to its third position locks the center and rear diffs, producing the shortest stopping dis­tances and the impression that even standing water can’t unhinge this car’s composure. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverTo quote Audi’s press material: “Snow-­covered roads and even loose surfaces can now be negotiated easily. Most people have experienced the problem in winter when their car refuses to move, even though the engine starts readily. Or, how often is one forced to take a good run to pass another car stranded on a hill, in the hope that nothing comes the other way? These are all things of the past. There is no longer any need to maintain speed for fear of losing traction.” This, at least, is exactly true. The Quattro possesses a singular ability among sporting passenger cars to put your mind at ease. Planning a trip and bad weather’s on the way? The Quattro, for all practical purposes, eliminates the need to listen to the weather report. Sud­denly, it’s a simple matter of packing the car and going, of being at ease with the tasks of dealing with road conditions and other traffic, both of which take on a new and less threatening character when viewed with the circumspect judgment af­forded by the capable Quattro. It isn’t so much that the Quattro gives you a truly enormous edge over elements otherwise beyond your control; it’s that it gives you a reasonable edge, an overall stability that no rear-wheel-drive car can provide and few front-wheel-drive cars can approach. In this context, the Quattro is exactly the right answer to the question first asked by Audi and soon echoed by others—engineers, journalists, and everyday drivers alike. Finally, there are several important things to remember. First, the Quattro can’t go around corners much, if any, faster than its rivals for the sports-sedan crown, whatever the conditions, although it can approach and leave corners more quickly when the slime is heavy on the surface. Sec­ond, the Quattro is in possession of a chas­sis layout that does, indeed, generally lend it greater stability than is enjoyed by some of its rivals. It is here, in the balance of the thing, that the owner of the 4000S Quattro will take the greatest pleasure in the invest­ment of that $17,000. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe upshot is that full-time four-wheel drive pays off for anybody who lives with really awful weather. It can also pay off for a sensitive driver who understands how to use Quattro to maintain good speed over wet roads. Otherwise, a driver would be just about as well off with, say, the front-­wheel-drive 4000, from which the Quattro springs, although they wouldn’t get good wheels and tires, the better suspension rates, or the four-wheel disc brakes. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1984 Audi 4000S QuattroVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $16,500/$17,000Options: sunroof, $500.
ENGINESOHC inline-5, iron block and aluminum head, electronic fuel injectionDisplacement: 136 in3, 2226 cm3Power: 115 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 126 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION[S]5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/strutsBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/9.5-in discTires: Firestone S-660195/60R-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 99.4 inLength: 176.6 inWidth: 66.4 inHeight: 53.8 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/38 ft3Trunk Volume: 12 ft3Curb Weight: 2820 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.1 sec1/4-Mile: 17.3 sec @ 77 mph100 mph: 48.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 11.0 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.8 secTop Speed: 111 mphBraking, 70–0 mph, differentials unlocked/locked: 191/181 ftRoadholding, 282-ft Skidpad: 0.75 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/21/28 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

MoonBikes’ electric snowped looks like a toy. It’s a refrain the French startup’s founder and CEO Nicolas Muron has heard countless times, especially from snowmobilers. Yet once those people experience the small machine’s instant acceleration and innate agility, Muron claims their skepticism typically turns into enthusiasm. Admittedly, we were also skeptical when MoonBikes invited us to sample one at Boyne Mountain ski resort in northern Michigan. Boyne is the largest U.S. resort where customers can rent them, with two-hour tours starting at $129. Following an obligatory safety talk from our guide and short familiarization period, we set out on the snow-covered golf course and surrounding trails. Just like Muron said, we went from skeptic to advocate.Eric Stafford|Car and DriverEntertaining at Any SpeedThere’s a memorable scene in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi where Luke and Leia are on speeder bikes chasing scout troopers through a forest on the planet Endor. Although the MoonBike’s speeds were dramatically slower, and the sound of firing blasters was replaced by a subtle whir from its 10-inch track clawing over soft powder, driving the electric snowped felt like the movie came to life.Even after an hour-plus of riding, the novelty never wore off. Instead, our confidence grew by the minute—mainly thanks to the MoonBike’s sure-footed stability. While this author has driven motorcycles and snowmobiles (including an electric one), most novices should also have a small learning curve. The biggest hurdle is understanding that cornering requires leaning rather than turning the handlebars, so skiers and snowboarders familiar with the concept of “carving” will have an edge.More EV Snow MachinesFirst-timers who want a figurative set of training wheels will select the Eco drive mode, which limits power output and maximizes regenerative braking. The latter quickly slows the machine when the thumb-operated accelerator lever is released, even without using the handbrake, which automatically cuts power when squeezed. These baked-in safety features could save poor souls from crashing face-first into a tree. We might’ve picked bark out of our skin early on too if it weren’t for the MoonBike’s strong regen and unerring resilience to remain upright.Eric Stafford|Car and DriverEco mode was still enjoyable, but the excitement rises in Normal and climaxes in Sport. It unlocks the full potential of the direct-drive 6.0-kW electric motor; peak output is 8 horsepower and 125 pound-feet of torque. Thankfully, the accelerator isn’t overly sensitive, because pinning it rockets the MoonBike to its 26-mph claimed top speed lickety-split. While take-offs are instantaneous, speed builds rapidly rather than uncontrollably. Still, we think newcomers and veteran riders alike will be entertained by the EV snowped.More About MoonBikesWhile it’s billed as an electric snowbike, we think snowped is more accurate, considering its light weight (about 192 pounds with a single standard battery) and relatively compact size. MoonBikes measure roughly seven feet long from tip to tip, with a seat that’s nearly two feet six inches high off the ground. The handlebars stand about a foot taller and connect to a set of adjustable front forks with a wide ski at the end. That combined with its boxy rear half makes it look like a bicycle, a moped, and a snowmobile had a baby.Cute design aside, it’s a capable machine that can be ridden in up to one foot of snow. It has a max payload of 265 pounds, including the rider. Beneath the seat is an easily accessible battery box with a heated pad. The battery is said to require the most maintenance, as we’re told it must be stored at 50 degrees Fahrenheit or warmer to avoid reducing its lifespan. Eric Stafford|Car and DriverThere’s a 2.5-kWh Standard pack (28 pounds) and a 3.2-kWh Performance pack (35 pounds). The company estimates the smaller version provides up to 90 minutes of riding time; the bigger one is claimed to deliver up to two hours. A second Standard pack ($1900) can be equipped—raising the estimated riding time to three hours. The optional 2.2-kW charger ($490) is claimed to refill the Standard battery in two hours and 20 minutes and the Performance battery in three hours. Without it, charging requires four-and-a-half hours or five hours and 45 minutes, respectively.Those details are only important to models purchased for personal use, but that’s apparently the majority. The company, which has been selling MoonBikes in America since 2021, claims about 75 percent of sales are direct to customers. Prices currently start at $8900, and there are lease-to-own options starting at $275 per month.MoonBikes aren’t a substitute for traditional snowmobiles, but they’re not trying to be. Their niche is providing an approachable and eco-friendly way to explore wintry locales. We think anyone who can ride a bike can ride a MoonBike, and now we know snowmobilers will be entertained, too—once they realize it’s more than a cute winter toy.Senior EditorEric Stafford’s automobile addiction began before he could walk, and it has fueled his passion to write news, reviews, and more for Car and Driver since 2016. His aspiration growing up was to become a millionaire with a Jay Leno–like car collection. Apparently, getting rich is harder than social-media influencers make it seem, so he avoided financial success entirely to become an automotive journalist and drive new cars for a living. After earning a degree at Central Michigan University and working at a daily newspaper, the years of basically burning money on failed project cars and lemon-flavored jalopies finally paid off when Car and Driver hired him. His garage currently includes a 2010 Acura RDX, a manual ’97 Chevy Camaro Z/28, and a ’90 Honda CRX Si. More

From the June 1985 issue of Car and Driver.If you had been the guy assigned to pound the stakes by which the progress of Chrysler Corporation was to be measured over the past few years, you would have needed about thirteen arms. Used to be that glaciers had more top end than Chrysler Corporation. Now the company is mak­ing noise and dust. And new cars that have inspiration behind them.Consider this fresh-baked H-car, called Lancer if it’s a Dodge, LeBaron GTS if it’s a Chrysler. It has all the right stuff: front-wheel drive, aero styling, hatchback utility, room for five to rattle around in the passenger compartment, and a turbocharged four­-cylinder engine option to put some mobile into this auto. Never mind whether the “Made in ______” label says Stuttgart or Tokyo or Detroit; doesn’t this sound like a serious car?Conceptually, the Lancer/LeBaron GTS may be the most intriguing four-door built in America these days. In the flesh, some aspects of it are second to none. Other as­pects are, well, second to some, maybe even third, but by no means out of the ballpark. It’s a car that, if it were a little more refined, could be the answer. Certainly the overall package is first-rate. The styling department did a nice job on the hatchback, which manages to offer enough of a sloping tail to interest the fast­back crowd and, at the same time, an undeniable notch to avoid turning off those who think anything but a conventional silhou­ette is funny-looking. Neither contingent can complain about the cargo hold. Oh, they probably won’t like the lift-over, which comes to about the top of the taillights, but the space inside is substantial and the floor is flat. Fold down the rear seat and the floor becomes flat and huge. The seminotchback lid, along with a hinged panel beneath, does a fine job of hiding the contents of your trunk from prying eyes. If there are to be any complaints about the passenger accommodations, probably they’ll focus on vehicle width, which is just a bit narrow for three-across rear seating. May­be the blame should more properly be lev­eled against the rear seat itself. It has a very nice pocket on each side of center where a body can find a comfy spot. But two bodies in their respective comfy spots leave not enough room in the center for a third. Anyway, that’s it for complaints about the interior. Headroom is top-hat friendly. Adult knees and feet will fit in back. The from buckets have a welcome—and, from Detroit, unexpected—firmness. A few sec­onds with the power-seat buttons and the column-tilt lever, and just about anybody will be comfortable in this car.There isn’t much difference on the out­side between the Dodge and Chrysler ver­sions: grille in front and chrome name­plates in back are about it. Inside, there’s even less. These are conspicuously “corpo­rate” cars, with the corporate pentastar getting top billing and the divisions fight­ing over what’s left. We could find neither “Dodge” nor “Chrysler” written inside. The car-line names appear only once, and that’s on the respective hatch lids. We did, however, find an instrument panel that should be required reading for all Detroit interior stylists. It’s to the point: six round dials directly before the driver tell them all they need to know. It’s in good taste: the dial markings suggest not a video game, not a jet plane, not a jukebox, but—ta­-dah!—an automobile. (An Atari panel is available for Motor Trend readers.) And it’s free of conspicuous mistakes: the lenses covering the dials don’t reflect the sky back into your face, and the actual dial markings aren’t skewed off center in a bogus attempt at parallax correction, as they are in some GM cars. The beveled buttons on the radio and heater controls are an original treat­ment, too, and a pleasing contrast to the jellybean shapes that are the fad elsewhere in Detroit. Chrysler got this part right.In the car world these days, the Ameri­can makers are searching their souls, trying to divine the true path between what they’ve always done and what the outsiders do. Which way is really better? The GTS represents, in effect, Chrysler handing in its midterm exam for the buyers to grade. The instrument panel is as astute as any German’s on the market, so give the corporation an A here. But how’s it doing elsewhere? On the floor to the left of the driver’s seat are two lever releases for the hatchback and the gas door—pure Japa­nese. On the dash are a pull button for the headlights and, beneath, a foot pedal for the parking brake—pure Detroit. A nifty two-hole cup holder folds out of the mid­dle of the dash, which is also pure Detroit. The dimmer switch is activated by pulling the turn-signal lever toward you, which used to be the foreign way but now is uni­versal, but in the GTS you have to pull it about two inches to do the job, which is pure Detroit. The blue high-beam light on the tachometer face is so bright, it blinds you about a much as your brights would blind an oncoming driver, which is a mistake in any language. And the “Front Drive” proclamation centered in the PRNDL window (otherwise the window would be empty in models with console shifts) remind one of the curious Motor City practice of bragging about your transmission choice in chrome letters on the deck lid. In any case, what you see from the driver’s seat is a hodgepodge of interna­tional cues, which we interpret as evidence that Detroit is questioning its ways. Chrys­ler’s answers are generally astute in the GTS. And where they fall short of perfec­tion, they at least show a serious search for a better way. Chrysler has obviously been searching for an international solution to the upscale­-sedan problem, and we are sufficiently en­couraged by the results to judge the LeBaron GTS on the same set of interna­tional standards. Sure, confusion abounds, and Chrysler has deliberately contributed to it. Its showroom menu offers the LeBaron, which is the old, block-shaped K­-car derivative with the loose-pillow uphol­stery meant for the traditional B-O-P buy­er, and then this new LeBaron GTS (also a K-car derivative, though it is significantly farther down the evolutionary path), meant for the Audi-Volvo-Saab-Maxima-Cressida kind of yuppie. The difference between the two LeBarons is a whole lot more than the names would suggest. From an enthusi­ast’s point of view, the GTS is a real car, compared with the non-GTS version, which would make a smart lease ride for some computer-company executive. This is our highest compliment. Chrysler is on the real-car game board now, which is a tough league. You don’t just stroll onto this court and knock off the pros. And Chrysler hasn’t. But the GTS doesn’t get skunked, either. The turbo 2.2-liter is a decent performer in view of its lack of an intercooler, an item of equipment that is becoming a common fea­ture in this class. It’s relatively quiet as well, but the texture of its sound is unappealing, agricultural rather than visceral. Chrysler more than covers the basics in roadholding by offering 205/60HR-15 Goodyear Eagle GT tires on 6.0-inch-wide alloy wheels. The adhesion is good, and the look is good. The GTS’s dynamics, however, don’t always live up to the car’s concept. If you just motor around as you would in the cream-puff LeBaron, you’ll think the GTS is a pretty rocky-riding car, and by cream-puff standards it is; but if you’re used to cars with aggressive tires, you probably will have no complaints. If you drive the GTS to the limit of the tires’ adhesion, however, you’ll notice an unwel­come dose of willy-nilly in the suspension. The straight-to-curve transition into cor­ners at speeds the tires are easily capable of produces some wiggles in the steering that will stand the hair up on the back of your neck, particularly if the road is less than ter­razzo-smooth. The front buckets don’t help much, either: the supportive firmness you feel in the showroom turns marshmal­low when the side forces build, leaving you hanging on to the wheel to stay upright. Hurrying is not a lot of fun. The stiff tires also show up the lack of structural rigidity in the body. You can feel the doors working in their openings and hear them rustling against the weather­stripping. Don’t get the wrong idea here. You expect some flex in a hatchback, and, by Detroit’s standards of just a few years ago, the GTS is a solid citizen. But today, we might ask for more starch. The fun quotient of the drivetrain scores lower than we would hope, too. Chrysler has the notches and the nasties pretty well worked out of its cable-shifting mechanism now, but the feel is, well, like pulling cables rather than shifting gears. The clutch effort is on the grunt side, too. Then there is the matter of throttle response, never an easy matter with a turbo. Driving as though you were in a cream-puff LeBaron, there’s no problem making smooth shifts, but when you get the boost up, the engine responds abruptly to sudden openings and closings of the throttle, resulting in jerky shifts un­less you concentrate more than is fun. Some makers do better on this matter. Some do worse, too, which brings us to the final point. This Lancer/LeBaron GTS project is an ambitious one, a Chrysler at­tempt to build a Euro-style touring car. Pontiac has managed to do this with the 6000STE, Chevrolet is taking a shot with its Celebrity Eurosport, the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe is a solid hit, and now Chrys­ler is stepping into the batter’s box for its first try in what we enthusiasts would con­sider the major leagues. That the first swing produces a triple rather than a home run shouldn’t discourage anybody.CounterpointThe LeBaron GTS Turbo is one year ahead of its time. That’s how long it will take GM and Ford to come up with anything close. Unfortunately, Chrysler too will need a year (or more) to rid this machine of the bugs it was born with. I’m talking buzzes and rattles, nothing really serious. For example, the clutch lets out an agonizing groan when you de­press it at high rpm. The window seals whistle. The exhaust system fills the interior with sonic boom at certain speeds. The suspension occasionally feels soft when it should be firm, hard when it should be supple. The seats let you down in the hips.I’m positive the right engineers could shape this car up quite nicely, given a generous year’s budget to do so. The size, weight, style, and horsepower essentials are all neatly in place, ready for the fairy godmother to come along and bestow true star quality on the LeBaron. I’m sure that Lido has her phone number, so let’s hope he reaches out for a little developmental magic. —Don Sherman Chrysler does it again! Yet another new car based on the same bits and pieces that the New Chrysler Corporation inherited from the Old Chrysler Corporation. But the LeBaron GTS promises much more than that. Seen rolling by on the highway, it looks almost as fresh and exciting as the Chrysler minivans did a couple of years ago. It is a neat looking car, no question, and it has a number of endearing practical virtues. But why does it have to be so noisy in the lower gears? Why are the front seats so skimpy and lacking in support, lateral or otherwise? Why did I have a backache every mile that I drove it? Why is the shift linkage so vague and rubbery? Why isn’t it as nice to drive or to sit in as an Omni GLH? Chrysler has spent enormous amounts of time, talent, and treasure to produce a car that’s a great leap forward in concept but a retrograde step in exe­cution. It’s clear that their hearts were in the right places on this one, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with . . . —David E. Davis, Jr.Heading to Europe on business and in a rush, I once handed in a story as rough as the LeBaron GTS Turbo I drove last night. I had worked myself ragged do­ing the research—a solid week of nights at the library, transatlantic telephone calls and interviews, the tedious double­-checking of names, dates, and titles. All of the pieces were in order and the in­tent was pure, but I ran out of time, bundled the story together with baling wire and Band-Aids, and was off for the Con­tinent. I’m here to tell of my shame only through the patience and forgiveness of my superiors. One rewrite, guys; the LeBaron GTS needs a simple rewrite. As it lands, only the exterior can escape the blue­-pencil treatment. Inside, we’re faced with a wraparound dash that ends in thin air, nicely shaped seats with side bolsters that dissolve under attack, a scrunchy shifter, a rock-hard clutch pedal, and an engine that sounds as if it were laundering peastone. Now I know why Sherman was so mad at me. It’s discouraging to see the slipshod and unprofessional execution of a basically sound piece of work. —Jean LindamoodArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1985 Chrysler LeBaron GTSVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $9659/$13,733Options: luxury equipment group (power windows, locks, mirrors, and driver’s seat; tilt steering wheel; cruise control; rear defroster; console; light group; tinted glass; intermittent wipers; floor mats) $1288; air conditioning, $757; sport handling package, $688; 2.2-liter turbocharged engine, $610; electronic AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, $515; rear wiper/washer, $125; leather steering wheel, $91.
ENGINEturbocharged SOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 135 in3, 2213 cm3Power: 146 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 168 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/trailing armsBrakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/8.0-in drumTires: Goodyear Eagle GTP205/60HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.1inLength: 180.3 inWidth: 68.5 inHeight: 52.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/45 ft3Trunk Volume: 18 ft3Curb Weight: 2844 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.3 sec1/4-Mile: 16.2 sec @ 84 mph100 mph: 26.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 15.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 13.3 secTop Speed: 115 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 202 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY City/Highway: 19/29 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the May 2011 issue of Car and Driver.Guess what? Minivans are still uncool. Automakers know this. Even the latest ads for the Honda Odyssey and the Toyota Sienna acknowledge the squareness of the segment. Sales have stabilized at about 500,000 units per year since tragically hip moms and dads fled to crossovers. As a mature segment with little potential for growth, minivans are getting comfortable with their squareness. For evidence, we direct your attention to the new Nissan Quest, which not only acknowledges its one-box silhouette but drapes a metaphorical trench coat over the whole thing.So minivans are cool with being uncool. Can we move on? The premise remains the same as before: Maximize people and cargo space, and forget about the styling. Driving dynamics get second billing. The point is to get you and your kids (or, for aging boomers, your dogs) to and from every destination with the least amount of hassle and the most comfort.The newest in our assembled quartet is the Nissan Quest, back after a two-year hiatus. Now based on the company’s D platform (shared with the Altima, Maxima, and Murano), the Quest is similar to the Japanese-market Elgrand. For 2011, the Chrysler Town & Country (and its sibling, the Dodge Grand Caravan) gets freshened exterior and interior styling, a retuned suspension, and–most important–a new 283-hp V-6 mated to a six-speed automatic, which replaces all three previous powertrain offerings.The Odyssey and the Sienna are also new for the 2011 model year, but both offer carry-over engines lashed to new six-speed automatics (available only in Touring trim on the Honda).Minivan Buying AdviceThere’s a lot of common ground among this set. All four are powered by 24-valve V-6 engines, with only 35 horsepower separating the strongest (Chrysler) from the weakest (Honda). In the top-of-the-line trims we specified for our test group, each minivan comes with power side doors and a power rear hatch. They all offer some sort of flat load floor when the seats are folded and/or removed. It’s worth noting that although the vans tested here all ring in at about $40,000, each can be had for closer to $30,000. The price of the Sienna, the highest in this test, drops as low as $25,370 for a base four-cylinder model. In light of the targeted use of these vehicles, we focused on the passenger compartments as much as we did on behind-the-wheel impressions. We watched Team America: World Police multiple times in an effort to evaluate the rear-seat entertainment systems. We also wore a pregnancy-simulation vest while examining each minivan for ease of child-seat installation. And yes, we left some small part of our dignity behind these sliding doors. 4th Place: Toyota Sienna LimitedThe Sienna is a perfect example of the—dare we say—pleasures of owning a minivan. A flat, wide floor underneath the driver’s seat makes getting in and out easy. The interior boasts two glove boxes, plus a handy storage cubby on the floor between the instrument panel and the center console in which to store your purse—sorry, “European man-satchel.” The center console deploys rearward to dispatch two cup holders for second-row passengers. And in our Limited model, the second-row residents get captain’s chairs with slide-out leg rests. They even almost work. To fully extend, the second row needs to slide completely back, obliterating third-row leg space. Even then, the leg extensions accommodate only the shorter lower limbs of children. But we like the idea. The same goes for the power-folding third row, which won’t work if the second row is too far aft. We expect better execution from Toyota. HIGHS: Barcalounger second-row seat, two glove boxes, parking-lot friendly. LOWS: Cheesy-looking fake wood, light on refinement, bland as a Camry.VERDICT: Looks great on paper but fails to inspire in person.A good idea executed poorly also describes the Sienna’s ride, which we deemed too harsh. We commend Toyota for attempting to inject a bit of sportiness into the Sienna, but it seems to have taken things a little too far. Light steering, however, makes for effortless parking-lot navigation, which counts for a lot in this segment. But the power assist doesn’t trail off at driving speeds; as a result, the steering effort stays light, which is at odds with the Sienna’s sporty pretensions.The Sienna earns points for ergonomics, with easy-to-find buttons for the power doors and the tailgate. The radio and nav system are clustered logically and high on the dash; the climate control has large, legible buttons and is likewise easy to use. Car and DriverKudos also go to the Sienna’s interior space, which is the largest in nearly every category. But with the exception of a best-in-test, 177-foot braking result, the Toyota is at or below average in most perform­ance categories. That backs up our overall impression of the Sienna, which is unremarkable. On paper, everything looks good, but in person and behind the wheel, the Sienna comes off as milquetoast. In that respect, the Sienna is the Camry of minivans. Like its sedan counterpart, it’s not that there is anything wrong with the Sienna—it’s just that it doesn’t make us care about what’s right. 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited265-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4499 lbBase/as-tested price: $39,610/$46,782C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.7 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 89 mph100 mph: 21.0 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g EPA fuel economy, city/highway: 18/24 mpg3rd Place: Nissan Quest LEOkay, we did say that minivans are uncool, but the Quest is about as funky as minivans get. We consider the tall, slab-sided exterior and wraparound rear glass a styling success, but then, we also watch Japanese cartoons. Inside, the Quest feels as tall and blocky as it looks outside, and a high cowl restricts forward visibility. But large windows and Dumbo-ear side mirrors mean that vision in every other direction is expansive.HIGHS: Funky styling, tight turning radius, comfortable front seats.LOWS: Low-rent center-console plastics, only one 12-volt power port in front.VERDICT: Not the Holy Grail of minivans but headed in the right direction.The Quest takes a different approach to seat acrobatics than the other three vans do. Open the rear hatch, and the floor is level with the bumper; cargo stows below a removable panel. The third-row seats fold forward onto the seat cushions, level with the false floor and leaving the rearmost luggage area intact; the other minivans flop the seats backward into the cargo pit. The compromise is a higher load floor—the second-row seats fold and lower themselves to make for a flat cargo area—and less storage space: 19 fewer cubic feet behind the second row and 36 fewer with everything folded versus the next-biggest interior of the Chrysler. If you’re looking to fit Neil Peart’s drum kit into the Quest, you might be short on storage, but we think the ability to fold the third row without moving any cargo will find supporters. Despite high marks in more advanced subjects, the Quest struggles a bit in Minivan 101. There is only a single 12-volt port in the front of the cabin—the rest have two ports up there. The buttons for the power doors are shaped like Tic Tacs, and our adult fingers had trouble using them. The radio controls are small and situated low on the dash. The front and rear center consoles are made of  hard plastic and feature minimalist cup holders that won’t accommodate the larger beverage containers favored by thirsty Americans. Otherwise, the interior looks and feels like an Infiniti’s, with high-gloss wood trim and thoughtful touches such as padded armrests on the front doors. Material quality is top-notch. We were also impressed with the Quest’s smooth ride, which is almost limo-like. The Nissan’s first-place, 55.6-mph performance in the emergency-lane-change maneuver is more the result of an effective stability-control system that keeps the Quest going where it’s pointed than any handling prowess. Through corners, it feels like the front and rear suspensions were tuned for different vehicles. But going back to minivan priorities, consider the 36.7-foot turning circle, which is slightly better than the Sienna’s, equal to the Odyssey’s, and 2.4 feet tighter than the Chrysler’s. Another plus for the Quest is the familiar VQ engine, making 260 horsepower in this application. Unlike the 3.7-liter variant, the 3.5-liter is smooth in the Quest, and the continuously  variable automatic responds quickly and without the usual drone we’ve come to expect from these transmissions. Unfortunately, that didn’t translate to quick numbers at the track, where the Quest was slowest to 60 mph. The CVT is also frustrating; it allows the engine to rev for a second when you are pulling into traffic. Nissan’s return to the minivan market is a solid effort, with high-class material quality, distinctive looks, and a buttery-smooth ride. Only the minor details—which the other automakers have already sorted out—keep it from a higher ranking.2011 Nissan Quest LE260-hp V-6, continuously variable, 4508 lbBase/as-tested price: $42,160/$42,340C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.1 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 20.3 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 185 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 19/24 mpg2nd Place: Chrysler Town & Country LimitedIn our most recent minivan comparo, we said the Town & Country’s twin, the Dodge Caravan, would have fared better than a third-place finish if it provided its driver a better connection to the road. Clearly, the engineers at Chrysler agreed. Updates for 2011 include a new, stiffer steering rack and retuned shocks and springs. There are also improvements in noise isolation, including better sound-insulating material and improved door seals. The result is a revelation. Gone is the old Town & Country shuffle, in which every shudder echoed through the chassis. The new T&C; is the best-driving minivan of the bunch—rock solid over L.A.’s notoriously undulating freeways, roads that got the best of the Toyota and the Honda. The steering is quick, weighty, and tuned for Turn Nine at Watkins Glen, but we do wonder if the minivan crowd might prefer the lighter steering found in the three other vehicles. HIGHS: Sporty steering, balanced chassis, high level of refinement. LOWS: Underwhelming engine power, dowdy exterior styling.VERDICT: Chrysler fixed everything that was wrong and kept everything that was right.We’re impressed with the interior updates as well. A couple of caveats: As with the exterior, Chrysler designers followed the maxim of “when in doubt, add chrome,” so there is plenty of—perhaps too much—brightwork outlining the abundant soft-touch plastics. The center console prevents the driver from crawling into the back of the van with any ease. Precocious brats take note: Dad actually will have to park and get out of the van to administer justice, should you fail to knock it off. On the upside, the T&C’s center console has plenty of storage, and the bottom section slides back to reveal second-row cup holders and an additional bin. Of all the high-end features in the Town & Country—automatic high-beams, remote start, even a heated steering wheel—we found most overrated the $320 luxury second-row seats, which are robust captain’s chairs with a pair of armrests. They’re perfectly comfortable but lack the slick fold-flat feature of the standard Stow ‘n Go second row. The third-row seats can flip backward into a tailgate mode for stationary, rear-facing seating. Car and DriverChrysler’s face lift didn’t fix everything, especially the dowdy exterior. The spongy brake pedal clearly didn’t get the memo sent to the steering, and the T&C’s 70-to-0-mph stopping distance was a last-place 190 feet. The new engine feels good, with much smoother delivery than the instant-on nature of the previous 4.0-liter, but the best power-to-weight ratio yielded only average acceleration. Is it possible that Chrysler’s new Pentastar engine is low on output? Stay tuned.2011 Chrysler Town & Country Limited283-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4585 lbBase/as-tested price: $39,495/$41,085C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.6 sec1/4 mile: 16.0 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 21.9 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 17/25 mpg1st Place: Honda Odyssey Touring EliteGive Honda its due: The automaker might be cautious, but it also knows not to fix something that isn’t broken. The Odyssey’s interior is instantly recognizable as a Honda, to the extent that we weren’t exactly sure the cabin was new (it is). Ergonomics reign supreme in this van, with the usual mess of  Honda buttons to control the radio and navigation system made tolerable by their large size. The interi­or employs every spare inch of space for storage, including a second bin in the door just above the map pockets. The Odyssey also features a “cool box” to keep those Odwallas chilled; it’s located between the front seats at the bottom of  the dash.HIGHS: Excellent ergonomics, seating for eight, trick folding third row.LOWS: Slow and numb steering, contrived exterior styling.VERDICT: Good for drivers, great for passengers.Most of the updates, such as the Touring’s six-speed automatic, were similarly well considered. This gearbox earned top marks for its responsiveness and, combined with cylinder deactivation, gives the Odyssey a class-leading 28-mpg EPA highway rating. Some of the credit also goes to Honda’s use of high-strength steel—the Odyssey uses more than any other Honda—which gives it a 135-pound-slimmer curb weight than the next-heaviest minivan in the test, the Toyota. And despite the worst power-to-weight ratio, the Odyssey wins the 0-to-60-mph and quarter-mile sprints, with results of 7.3 and 15.6 seconds, respectively. Not that any of that really matters in this segment. Except that it does—ever try to merge onto the freeway while juggling a tube of Desitin? Then you’ll appreciate the Honda’s lane-owning oomph. But the Odyssey’s steering—which is a slow, 3.5 turns lock-to-lock and feels dead on-center—could be better. The Honda also exhibits more road noise than we expected (especially after driving the Chrysler), and the ride is choppy over highway expansion joints. Car and DriverWhere the Odyssey really wins is in versatility. The Honda has two child-seat LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren) mounts in the third row versus a single position in the other minivans. The Honda also has one more second-row child-seat mount than the rest; it’s the only minivan in the test with a second-row bench seat. The middle position folds down into an armrest proffering three cup holders. That kind of flexibility is what makes the Honda so good, even if second-row buckets give the other vans an air of luxury. The Odyssey’s third row is the most comfortable of the lot, and the easy-fold “magic seat” operation makes us wonder what all the fuss is about with the power-folding nonsense. The Odyssey provides a detailed picture of the current state of the mini­van. Despite a decent styling effort, it still looks uncool. It drives well but not so well that you’ll be tempted to lace up the Alpinestars. But load it up for a weekend and buckle us into one of the rear seats? We’re in. Passengers rule in the minivan, and none treats passengers better than the Honda.Lacking any knocked-up staffers in our crew, we foolishly decided we’d try faking it. We called Realityworks (www.realityworks.com), which promptly loaned us a pregnancy profile vest used in prenatal classes and child-development education. With its rib constrictor and a removable bladder (filled with water), the vest simulates the physical discomfort of pregnancy.Saddled with about 25 additional pounds, we were extra aware of any difficulties presented by getting into and out of the driver’s seat, such as how the Quest requires an extra lurch to settle into the seat. We did find it particularly easy to slide into the Sienna, however.The Quest also requires careful positioning to get a child seat through the narrow opening of the side doors. In the cabin, however, the Nissan exhibits the most-trouble-free LATCH mounting points. The Sienna’s second-row seats are far more problematic, with padding around the mounting loops that is reluctant to budge. In the Chrysler, fixed second-row headrests make it hard to get a child seat properly aligned. We were able to shed the pregnancy weight by peeling off a few Velcro straps, but the lingering effects of the vest—lower-back pain, irritability, and a compulsion to straighten everything up—stayed with us for a few hours. Mothers, you have our respect. Car and DriverThe DVD entertainment system is the vehicular equivalent of a pacifier. The Honda’s screen is wide enough to display two programs side-by-side. So is the Toyota’s. But Honda’s system sounds better and is the only one to offer an HDMI input. Chrysler’s setup gives you two screens, and it’s the only one available with Sirius satellite TV. Nissan’s screen is big, but it can display only one signal at a time. That it pivots open and shut under its own power makes it vulnerable to damage by brats.2011 Honda Odyssey248-hp V-6, 6-speed automatic, 4364 lbBase/as-tested price: $44,030/$44,030C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.3 sec1/4 mile: 15.6 sec @ 91 mph100 mph: 19.4 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 179 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gEPA fuel economy, city/highway: 19/28 mpg More