Reviews

From the September 1980 issue of Car and Driver.A time comes in everyone’s life when there’s hauling to be done. Redi-Rents or U-Haul usually fills the bill quite nicely, but if the need persists, one’s thoughts inevitably drift toward capital investment. Like, “Why not trade in the old Guzzler GX for one of those nifty, thrifty little trucks?” A fine line of logic exists here. All seven (eight if you count both Dodge and Plymouth versions of the mini-Mitsubishi) of the small trucks on the market roll through life at 20 mpg or better. And every one of these half-ton haulers packs a pay­load with utmost proficiency. Make enough trips, and you could relocate the District of Columbia.The fallacy lies in the assumption that any of these pickups could replace a car. To a truck, they’re short on dam­age-resistant bumpers, steering-column locks, back seats, and that commodity we hold so dear in automobiles—fun at the wheel. Which is not to say that driv­ing them is boring. Each and every truckette is amusing in much the same way the nickel bronco keeps junior en­thralled while mommy shops at Kmart. But all seven lack the go, stop, shift, turn satisfaction that comes standard in even a mediocre car. Pick Your PickupAs with everything else, some are bet­ter than others. Fortunately, the Great Auto Revolution has touched down here and there in the truck field, leaving technological advance in its wake like a benevolent tornado. Every truck in this test comes with an overhead-cam, alu­minum-head engine. Slick-shifting five­-speeds have been common for years. Several interiors match car standards in trim level, if not in roominess. One die­sel-engined front-driver is now in our midst, and more are on the way. So we’ve stopped the whirlwind for a moment to see who’s done the best job with what. Each has a maximum payload it can safely carry, and this, with a steady hand on the tape measure, will tell you which will accommodate your dirt bikes or nasturtiums. The critical length, width, height, and avoirdupois are listed below. Once you’ve narrowed the field to those trucks with adequate boxes, pay careful attention to our fun-to-drive rankings. We’ve tested these mini-haul­ers unloaded, using our usual accelera­tion, braking, top-speed, sound-level, and skidpad test procedures. We’ve judged them using car fun-to-drive standards because most light-truck own­ers inevitably press their rigs into light-­duty service: for the daily commute to work or as an extra set of wheels. One last generality before we get down to specifics: most of the price in­formation here is obsolete because it was compiled just before large sticker in­creases. The U.S. Customs Service boosted import tariffs on trucks a few months back from 4 to 25 percent. Pres­ident Carter had the final authority to trim the increase back to 8.5 percent, as he saw fit. In any case, all but the VW are certainly more expensive. All the more reason to pick your pickup wisely.1st Place: Plymouth Arrow SportThe name “Plymouth” hardly springs to mind when one thinks “truck,” big or small, new or old. Dodge maybe, as in Power Wagon, but not Plymouth.Being new to the business is appar­ently to Plymouth’s advantage. It’s made terrific use of car styling, car en­gines and transmissions, car-grade inte­rior appointments, and sporty-car flair whenever appropriate. So the Plymouth Arrow Sport not surprisingly drives more like a car than the other six trucks.An exclusive power-steering option helps the Arrow change trajectory with ease, and its brawny 2.6-liter motor gives it plenty of punch. There’s also a long accessory list to console car folks new to the wonderful world of trucks. The Arrow’s steering column is up-and­-down adjustable, and its seats are actu­ally comfortable enough for a long drive. What they lack in backrest-angle adjustability they more than make up for in lateral support. And in the true “sport” tradition, the Arrow’s buckets have bolder stripes than a prison suit.Plymouth and Dodge have eschewed the short-bed rigmarole to offer one 81-inch-long “medium bed” on a 109.4-inch wheelbase. The Arrow’s cargo hold is a bit narrower and shorter in sidewall height than all but the VW’s, but there is some compensation in the fact that the Arrow has a heavier payload rating than any other mini but the LUV. It’s an unwritten rule in this business that what the Lord giveth in payload, He taketh away in ride: the Arrow’s up and down ride motions are a bit too jouncy for our tastes, although impact harshness is well damped.Under the Arrow’s hood, you’ll find the world’s largest four-cylinder engine, made happy by balance-shaft magic and a high-turbulence, three-valve combus­tion chamber. It neither tingles the palm at idle nor growls back at the 6000-rpm redline. Instead, this engine dutifully pumps out 105 horsepower and 22 miles per gallon.1980 Plymouth Arrow Sport105-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2760 lbBase/as-tested price: $5060/$6974Payload: 1555 lbBed, LxWxH (inches): 81 x 54 x 15C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 12.4 sec1/4 mile: 18.3 sec @ 74 mphTop Speed: 97 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 255 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.68 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 22 mpg2nd Place: Toyota SR5 Long BedYou might believe Toyota invented the little truck, since it’s dominated the field the last few years. Actually, Datsun was there first, but Toyota certainly did its share to hurry the little haulers on their way once the market took off in the early Seventies. (Mini-pickups currently account for 30 percent of all light-truck sales.)Toyota did indeed invent the ever-popular long bed, represented here by its top-of-the-line SR5 model. This truck was new in 1979, so it’s packed with all the latest technology: radial tires, a comfy interior, countless permu­tations of bed length and load capacity (all the way up to a 1950-pound payload), and even a high-riding four­-wheel-drive powertrain option for those who take their trucking off-road.The SR5 has the second-best ride of the trucks in this test and the second-­best ram-around ability. The combina­tion of the two is something you can live with quite handily. Both the engine and the transmission in the SR5 are straight from the Celica, so they’re ready to romp when you press the yes pedal.The SR5’s instrument panel is not from the Celica, but this truck has all the white-on-black instrumentation, steering-wheel padding, and wood­grain trim it needs to qualify for sports­-coupe duty. We love this truck’s excel­lent ventilation system and the conve­nience of a coin tray, wallet shelf, or map pocket everywhere you look. The seats, however, could be a whole lot better. As in all these trucks, they lack fore-and-aft travel. But they also, unforgivably, lack an adjustable backrest.Two other deficiencies while we’re on that subject: the floor behind the seats is rudely uncarpeted, even in the SR5, and a small percentage of Toyota trucks (ours was one) have a single-panel-con­struction tailgate. Which means the “TOYOTA” letters that announce your departure will soon be pockmarked with nasty inside-out dents.1980 Toyota SR5 Long Bed95-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2520 lbBase/as-tested price: $5863/$6742Payload: 1400 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 87 x 56 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 13.3 sec1/4 mile: 18.7 sec @ 71 mphTop Speed: 90 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 287 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 20 mpg3rd Place: Volkswagen Volkswagen, if you remember, was the firm whose trucks were booted from these shores way back when high import tariffs first descended on fully assem­bled trucks, so it’s only fair play that VW’s on top of the turnabout this time with an assembly plant in Pennsylvania.Just don’t call it a Rabbit truck. Sure, the front half is a dead ringer for the bunny, and powertrains are swapped back and forth, but no kidding, folks, this is a Volkswagen truck. That’s all.And it’s not just the first front-drive pickup, or the first mini offering a diesel engine. This is also the very first VW product conceived, designed, devel­oped, and manufactured in America.While they were at it, no paper-copy­ing was allowed. So the VW pickup is different. It came out more like an El Camino Junior than any of the Japa­nese-built trucks—smaller and more carlike in design. There’s no frame, as is common practice, so the cab section is welded in unit with the bed. The bed itself is substantially shorter and nar­rower than what the competition offers. Even so, the Volkswagen’s 1100-pound payload rating does equal or better a couple of the trucks here.The VW’s smallness pays off in a few instances. The short, 103.3-inch wheel­base is terrific for maneuverability, and since the load floor is a mere 21 inches high, those fertilizer sacks are bound to cause less pain than with the other trucks’ 24- to 27-inch load heights.Where you pay the piper is inside. The Volkswagen has the smallest interi­or going. If you’ve seen an all-vinyl, ful­ly color-keyed, U.S.-built Rabbit, you’ve seen the inside of this truck. (But don’t forget to subtract legroom.) There’s also a critical shortage of instrumenta­tion, ventilation, and backrest angle. In compensation, the ride, handling, and braking are excellent. As for the diesel engine, it makes the truck slow, noisy at idle, and a bit more expensive, but 40-mpg fuel-efficient. Pick your pleasures.1980 Volkswagen48-hp diesel inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2160 lbBase/as-tested price: $6355/$7255Payload: 1100 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 72 x 51 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 21.1 sec1/4 mile: 21.7 sec @ 61 mphTop Speed: 75 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 200 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 40 mpg4th Place: Datsun King CabDatsun’s gift to the world of mini­-trucks is the King Cab. Essentially, this is nothing more than a long-wheelbase chassis carrying a short bed behind a long cab. And also the debut of opera­-window styling on small pickups.The extra interior room goes to ad­justable-backrest buckets and a pair of jump seats. There is mixed goodness here. Since the back perches have no seatbelts and since you have to ride them sidesaddle, they’re really accept­able only for kids. And while we dearly appreciate the room to swing the seat­backs rearward, we were a bit surprised to find no additional legroom. The rear area is handy at times as a secure stor­age space, however. And ventilation is definitely improved by the flip-out op­era windows. Datsun has other bed-length, cab-­size, and wheelbase combinations, but we’re adamant about our recommenda­tion to buy the biggest front-to-rear-­axle span you can afford, in order to get a decent ride. Unfortunately, ride quali­ty was one of our disappointments in the Datsun. Up and down motions felt well-damped, but even so, plenty of jounce gets through to bottom your bottom in the seat now and then.Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverWe were even more disappointed in the Datsun’s powertrain. The engine died from fuel starvation in left-hand turns, it suffered miserably from an emissions-control device that desperate­ly defied deceleration, and the other­wise excellent transmission had the longest shift pattern in the free world. For driving, this thing is strictly a truck. Inside, however, it’s almost an LTD. A comprehensive set of instrumentation is bordered by the square-cornered, shiny trim Dearborn loves so much. And the seats have no detectable lateral support whatsoever. The ultra-contem­porary, two-spoke steering wheel would do a Z proud. This little Datsun is defi­nitely trying to be a car, but unfortu­nately the wrong kind.1980 Datsun King Cab92-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2740 lbBase/as-tested price: $5839/$6889Payload: 1100 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 74 x 62 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 15.5 sec1/4 mile: 19.8 sec @ 69 mphTop Speed: 91 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 241 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.59 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 25 mpg5th Place: Mazda B2000 Sundowner SportThis is where we get into the old school, where trucks were trucks and only modest attempts were made to help them look and act like cars. The mini-Mazda has a noisy, growly, long-stroke engine that never really set­tles until you get it out on the highway. There it kind of lies down and falls asleep. The B2000 turns in mid-pack performance in all respects except fuel economy, where this little truck excels (with 27 mpg). Inside, the luxury seems pasted on. The wood-grain windowsill trim is strictly Kmart contact paper. The burl surrounding the instrumentation is of much higher quality, but it has only three dials (speed, fuel, and water tem­perature) to surround. A few pieces do look suspiciously RX-7–like—such as the armrests and steering wheel—but things go downhill fast from there. This truck has a ventilation system no more sophisticated than a fifteen-cent fan. There’s not a vent register in sight, so don’t be caught without air conditioning in a Mazda (or its badge­-engineered twin, the Courier, either). The B2000 does enjoy a nice set of bucket seats. They’re upholstered in a breathable, woven vinyl, and the back­rest is—praise thee, Lord—adjustable. This at least offers you the chance to trade lower-back distress for cramped legs now and then, something you’re al­lowed only in the King Cab Datsun and this Mazda. As in most of these little trucks, im­pact harshness is not a problem, but the Mazda is at the low end of the totem pole for ride plushness. It knows it’s a truck and wants you to know too. The Mazda’s bed is competitive for volume and payload capacity, but we’re a bit concerned about the single-wall side construction of the box. Anything you don’t tie down back there will leave its mark on the outside of the truck as soon as you attempt tracking with car traffic around a few corners.1980 Mazda B2000 Sundowner Sport77-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2600 lbBase/as-tested price: $5795/$5795Payload: 1400 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 87 x 61 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 14.1 sec1/4 mile: 19.2 sec @ 71 mphTop Speed: 89 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 255 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.68 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 27 mpg6th Place: Ford Courier The Courier is not a Mazda B2000, even though Toyo Kogyo builds both these little trucks. For one thing, Ford supplies some engines (our tester had a 2.3-liter SOHC four-cylinder built in Lima, Ohio, and shared with Mustangs and Fairmonts). And there are also various trim, styling, and option differences be­tween the two. At least Ford has the good sense to offer radial tires (Mazda doesn’t yet), even though it chose not to install them on this particular unit. The Courier is the only short-wheel­base truck in the test, which further con­firms our philosophy that you need all the span you can get between the wheels in these little critters to help you over the bumps in life. What ride quality the Courier gains with its special “soft­-ride” package, it more than loses in this short-bed configuration. So go long, even if you don’t necessarily need the space. The so-called soft-ride option re­duces the payload rating from 1400 to 900 pounds, by the way, in both long­- and short-bed Couriers. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe performance of the optional 2.3-liter engine (a 2.0-liter is standard) is disap­pointing. There is plenty of torque for around-town hauling, but little sign of enthusiasm once the revs are up on the highway. This engine is also noisier and more rattly-sounding than most. Inside, the Courier offers a much broader range of trim choices than the Mazda and a few other trucks as well. We had a Sport group, which includes various black upholstery, carpeting, and trim pieces, as well as bucket seats in­stead of a bench. There’s also a Decor package (shiny exterior trim), an XLT group (color-keyed interior trim, more complete instrumentation, and lots of bright exterior moldings), and a couple of Free Wheeling packages (aluminum wheels, white-letter tires, a black cow­catcher, and enough accent tape to blind a used-car salesman). Only the Mazda’s adjustable-seatback mechanism has been left out.1980 Ford Courier82-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2600 lbBase/as-tested price: $5126/$6306Payload: 900 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 75 x 61 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 12.5 sec1/4 mile: 18.5 sec @ 73 mphTop Speed: 91 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 239 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.73 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 22 mpg7th Place: Chevrolet LUV If this is love, what could be the mat­ter? Actually, we’d rate the Mazda, the Courier, and the LUV together near the bottom of the heap, with only a few par­ticular personality quirks to separate them. The LUV loses points, first of all, because it has no radial-tire option, and secondly, because the particular one we tested was forced to bear a millstone about its neck in the form of an auto­matic transmission. We couldn’t recommend such a de­vice—except perhaps in the powerful Arrow—but the experience here was at least educational. The LUV has no ex­cess of horsepower to begin with, and it seems to fight its hydraulic transmission every step of the way because of it. Acceleration is down, fuel economy is lost forever, top speed is a mere 80 mph, and all fun-to-drive hope is tossed out the window. As if this weren’t enough, the LUV came equipped with a bench seat (albeit one covered in luxurious cloth upholstery), partly because the high-zoot Mikado interior-trim package permits bucket seats with only three of the five available exterior colors. (The seats are red and harmonize only with red, white, or black exteriors. This op­tion is not coded Catch-22.) Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverWorse yet, the 1.8-liter engine (no al­ternative), matched to an automatic transmission, set up a horrible boom during 70-mph cruising, registering an annoying 86 dBA on our sound meter. Furthermore, the LUV has one of the crudest rides this side of a farm wagon, partly due to its bias-belted tires. And its interior volume lies at the low end of this class. Ventilation is only fair. But wait. The day is saved. The LUV does have one redeeming feature: the biggest bed and heaviest payload going. The cargo hold is four inches longer than the second-longest bed, and the LUV’s 1635-pound payload beats them all—the Arrow Sport by 80 pounds and the soft-ride Courier by a whopping 735 pounds. 1980 Chevrolet LUV80-hp inline-4, 3-speed automatic, 2640 lbBase/as-tested price: $4787/$6345Payload: 1635 lbBed, L x W x H (inches): 91 x 62 x 16C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 19.0 sec1/4 mile: 21.6 sec @ 64 mphTop Speed: 80 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 286 ftRoadholding, 282-ft-dia skidpad: 0.59 g EPA fuel economy (est.): 22 mpg More

From the April 2023 issue of Car and Driver.To say we’re sad that Honda dropped the Accord’s previously optional turbo 2.0-liter four from the new 11th-generation model—only a few short years after it axed the nameplate’s manual transmissions—is an understatement. One of our favorite models is in danger of losing its mojo. While low take rates are largely to blame for those calls, history offers additional context: Satisfying sensibleness, not heady acceleration, has been the driver of the Accord’s success over the past 47 years, 37 of which have seen an Accord on our 10Best list. Fast-forward to today’s dwindling sedan market and looming emissions regulations, and the Accord’s survival depends on electrification playing a much greater role.You can still get a standard gas powertrain—a 192-hp turbo 1.5-liter four mated to a CVT—in the lowest Accord trims, which open at $28,390. But all mid- and upper-range models, from the $32,990 Sport to our $38,985 Touring test car, now feature Honda’s updated hybrid system, which is much like the one found in the latest CR-V. A novel design with essentially no transmission, this setup combines a 146-hp Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter four-cylinder, a 1.1-kWh battery pack, and two clutched electric motors, one spun by the engine as a generator and the other providing power to the ground. Combined output is 204 horsepower, a gain of two horses over the outgoing hybrid.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverAs before, electrons primarily motivate the Accord hybrid below 20 mph and during brief intervals of low-load cruising. Heavier lifting necessitates the input of the revised gas engine. It’s better insulated, which helped cut three decibels from our interior sound readings at full throttle. Under certain conditions at moderate loads, such as on the highway, the four-cylinder also can be clutched in to power the wheels directly. From the driver’s seat, this all comes together seamlessly. Though the four-banger still sounds a bit grainy when working hard, any droning is short-lived, thanks in part to simulated “shifts” that change the engine’s pitch yet don’t affect the car’s forward progress. The uninitiated likely won’t even notice the gas-electric wizardry.HIGHS: Polished driving dynamics, impressive real-world fuel economy, intelligent tech interface.At full tilt, acceleration is more deliberate than rapid, despite the easy highway merges provided by the traction motor’s instant 181 horsepower and 247 pound-feet of torque. Compared with the last Accords we tested, our example’s 6.6-second run to 60 mph is a half-second quicker than the previous hybrid’s and 0.6 second quicker than the last 1.5T but still a far cry from the 252-hp 2.0T version’s 5.4 seconds. More grunt and a larger battery would quicken our pulse, though the Accord’s still-reasonable ask and 3503-pound curb weight—already 56 pounds heavier than before—would surely suffer. The important stuff comes when you forget about the hybrid bits and just drive. The new car’s helm feels as light and reassuringly precise as ever, and its firm brake pedal beautifully blends friction and regenerative systems. Though the body is 2.7 inches longer, most dimensions carry over, save for a rear track that’s up to 0.4 inch wider. Its structure is also stiffer than before. Along with minor suspension tweaks and revised bushings, this family sedan tracks around corners with a grace that even its 0.88 g of grip and 173-foot stop from 70 mph—solid results from modest all-season tires—fail to suggest. Hit a challenging road, and body motions remain military-school disciplined, yet the ride never approaches harsh—qualities rarely found together even in heavier, higher-riding SUVs. Honda even managed to preserve the Accord’s massive 17-cubic-foot trunk. LOWS: Neutered straight-line thrust compared with the old 2.0T model, bland design from some angles, manuals remain firmly in the past.More on the Honda AccordAlso un-SUV-like: EPA combined estimates of 44 mpg for most models, on 19-inch wheels, and 48 mpg for the EX-L trim on its 17s (nonhybrids earn a 32-mpg combined rating). We couldn’t perform our 75-mph highway test, but we did average a strong 43 mpg over more than 1000 miles of Southern California byways, suburban sprawl, and demanding mountain roads. Six levels of regen, from virtually none to near one-pedal operation, are adjustable via paddles on the steering wheel, helping the car manage speed and quickly recoup energy. In addition, activating Sport mode (there also are Normal, Eco, and Individual settings) sharpens the powertrain’s responses and will engage the four-cylinder for engine braking on steep descents, which we found more useful than the heftier steering action and augmented engine sounds it also adds. Marc Urbano|Car and DriverWith its longer hood and fastback profile, the new Accord cuts a handsome figure, particularly on its bigger wheels. Minimalist detailing leaves it somewhat unadorned from certain angles, but we dig it. The same goes for the refined interior and its thoughtful enhancements, including a smidge more legroom (now 40.8 inches) for the already generous back seat and the replacement of Honda’s unintuitive shift buttons with a simple PRND lever on the console. New front chairs held us snug in all-day comfort, while straight-forward ergonomics and attractive details, such as the dash-spanning mesh trim that conceals the climate vents, appeased our senses. A standard suite of driver aids keeps watch, and the Touring trim bolsters the feature count with a head-up display, a premium Bose stereo, wireless device charging, front-seat ventilation, and heated rear seats.Sensible also applies to this Accord’s approach to technology, in that its interface is designed to mirror a user’s phone apps, including for navigation. All models get a crisp 10.2-inch digital instrument cluster, and hybrids sport a 12.3-inch center touchscreen with wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay (the standard 7.0-inch unit requires a cord). Thankfully, a volume knob is present, as is a useful hand rest for surfing the infotainment’s simplified menu layout. Stepping up to the Touring also adds Google Built-In with connectivity to the company’s Maps, Assistant, and Play services (three years of unlimited data are included). Although we’re not eager to have the tech giant intrude on our lives any more than it already does, Honda’s integration is refreshingly short of the annoyances that come with many factory systems.VERDICT: A smarter Accord for the modern age.For some, a hybrid powertrain, no matter how well engineered, will never be preferable to pure internal combustion. But even those folks must concede that evolution has been central to the Accord’s longevity. Practical, fun to drive, and a good value, this generation remains true to the Accord mission—and the tenets of our highest award. In becoming a more rational machine, the Accord is now a better fit for the times.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Honda Accord TouringVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $38,985/$38,985Options: none
POWERTRAINDOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-4, 146 hp, 134 lb-ft + AC motor, 181 hp, 247 lb-ft (combined output: 204 hp, 247 lb-ft; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery packTransmission: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 12.3-in vented disc/11.1-in discTires: Michelin Primacy MXM4235/40R-19 96V M+S DT1
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 inLength: 195.7 inWidth: 73.3 inHeight: 57.1 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53/50 ft3Trunk Volume: 17 ft3Curb Weight: 3503 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.6 sec1/4-Mile: 15.3 sec @ 90 mph100 mph: 19.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 125 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 173 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 43 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 44/46/41 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDTechnical EditorMike Sutton is an editor, writer, test driver, and general car nerd who has contributed to Car and Driver’s reverent and irreverent passion for the automobile since 2008. A native Michigander from suburban Detroit, he enjoys the outdoors and complaining about the weather, has an affection for off-road vehicles, and believes in federal protection for naturally aspirated engines. More

Buying a sports car is a lot like collecting art: The pieces with the richest histories from the biggest names command the most money. For the upscale connoisseur, the 2024 Maserati GranTurismo and its roughly $175,000 starting price satisfies a collector’s desire for both beauty and speed. While the all-new GranTurismo might not look much different from the previous generation, that was lead designer Klaus Busse’s intention. Rather than completely rethink the GranTurismo’s sheetmetal, Busse—who also created the stunning MC20—stretched and molded the previous-gen’s already shapely profile into one that could be roped off with “Please Do Not Touch” signs. The redesign helped lower the drag coefficient from 0.32 to 0.28, and an ever-so-slightly drawn-out roof has created enough rear headroom to where adults can actually fit.More Maserati? Molto Bene!Inside, the GranTurismo’s design is modern without being overwrought. From the supple driver’s seat, slimmer A-pillars improve forward visibility. The interior is draped in wonderfully stitched leather, as one should expect at this price point. A configurable 12.2-inch digital instrument cluster sits just beyond a nearly perfectly sized steering wheel. A 12.3-inch infotainment touchscreen resides in the center of the dash, featuring wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay smartphone mirroring. Those familiar with Stellantis’s Uconnect operating systems will appreciate the crisply rendered display and ease of use. Beneath the infotainment is an interactive 8.8-inch display that manages the climate control. The biggest change to the GranTurismo comes from the powertrain department. Internal combustion is alive and well, even if it now plays second fiddle to the stupidly quick, electric, 818-hp Folgore variant. In place of the Ferrari-sourced V-8 of yore is the Nettuno, a twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6 that debuted in the MC20 with 621 horsepower, albeit dialed back for GranTurismo use with smaller turbos and specific engine calibrations. The ZF-sourced eight-speed automatic gearbox is the sole offering, and to appeal to buyers who experience actual weather, the GranTurismo now comes standard with all-wheel drive. Mild-ish ModenaThe Modena trim is the bottom rung of the GranTurismo ladder. In its humblest form, the twin-turbo 3.0-liter produces 483 horsepower and 442 pound-feet of torque, but even this output surpasses the previous generation’s 4.7-liter V-8. Under load and at slower speeds, the clamorous pre-chamber combustion we experienced in the MC20 is nonexistent. Cruising along the autostrada on the outskirts of Rome, the GranTurismo flawlessly executes its primary mission as a luxury grand tourer. With the drive mode set to Comfort, the least aggressive of its three settings, the four-seat coupe’s standard air springs float along the highway. The V-6 hums in the background, occasionally dropping down to three-cylinder operation when the engine load is light. MaseratiWith a spin of the steering wheel’s rotary dial, Sport mode heightens the GranTurismo’s senses. The steering effort ramps up, the dual-mode exhaust is always open, and the electronically controlled dampers firm up. A press of the button within the center of the drive-mode dial toggles between two suspension calibrations; we generally preferred the softer setting. Whether left to its own devices or when you’re pulling on those large aluminum shift paddles, the ZF eight-speed automatic we know and love snaps off quick shifts with an affirming “BLAATT!” from the quad exhaust tips. If you’ve heard an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, it’s a lot like that. With launch control active, Maserati claims the Modena will reach 60 mph in 3.9 seconds and continue to a top speed of 188 mph. Turned-Up TrofeoTaking it up a notch is the GranTurismo Trofeo, the highest-performing internal-combustion variant. With the boost cranked up, the twin-turbo V-6 leaps to 542 horsepower and 479 pound-feet, gains of 59 and 37, respectively. While the Modena relies on a mechanical limited-slip rear differential, the Trofeo gets an electronically controlled unit. The all-wheel-drive system functions primarily as a rear-driver, but as traction changes, up to 50 percent of the torque can be delivered to the front axle. With egregious use of the throttle, the Trofeo’s tail will wag, but the front axle keeps the thing on a leash.The Trofeo model adds a fourth drive mode (Corsa) to the Modena’s three existing settings, and the electronic dampers pick up an even stiffer third setting. On the highway, the Trofeo exhibits the same cushy ride as the Modena, and the Italian hillsides reveal good body control, but the suspension’s most aggressive modes need some work. Even in the firmest setting, the vertical motions often feel underdamped.Aside from some carbon-fiber exterior trim and specific interior bits, the GranTurismo’s Trofeo variant looks very much like the Modena, leaving it difficult to justify the $31,000 upcharge to roughly $206,000. Maserati’s claim of 3.5 seconds to 60 mph throws some extra salt in the wound too, considering the breakneck acceleration delivered by less expensive cars such as the Porsche 911 and Mercedes-AMG SL. The Trofeo will, however, reach a claimed top speed of 199 mph.MaseratiWhen it’s time to shed some speed, both the Modena and Trofeo use a Brembo-sourced brake package. Six-piston calipers clamp 15.0-inch cross-drilled rotors in the front, and four-pot calipers pinch the 13.8-inch cross-drilled rear rotors. The brakes are strong, but we’d prefer more bite over the dead feeling we get from the first bit of pedal travel. When the 2024 Maserati GranTurismo arrives in the U.S. in the first half of this year, it may not win any speed records, but it’ll certainly turn heads. Inside and out, it’s a better GranTurismo than before—and with an entry-level price some $40,000 higher than the previous generation, it certainly should be. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Maserati GranTurismoVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: Modena, $175,500; Trofeo, $206,500
ENGINE
twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2992 cm3Power: 483 or 542 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 442 or 479 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.3 inLength: 195.2–195.5 inWidth: 77.0 inHeight: 53.3 inTrunk Volume: 11 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4500 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.5–3.9 sec100 mph: 8.2–8.6 sec1/4-Mile: 11.7–12.1 secTop Speed: 188–199 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 23–24/20–21/27–28 mpgSenior Testing EditorDavid Beard studies and reviews automotive related things and pushes fossil-fuel and electric-powered stuff to their limits. His passion for the Ford Pinto began at his conception, which took place in a Pinto. More

From the January 1980 issue of Car and Driver.Ask yourself this: If the world’s best­selling car were rolling smartly off your assembly line into the eager clutches of millions of happy customers each year, would you gamble success and play the market with a totally new and different automobile? Say no and the competi­tion will grind you under its front-wheel drive and spit you out flatter than a sail kitty. Say yes and you’re faced with one of the all-time toughest dilemmas of the auto biz: how to build a better (read, more successful) Corolla.Toyota certainly mulled this very problem over as the old Corolla steadily edged toward obsolescence year after year. But two energy crunches and a decade of raging inflation have stam­peded plenty of buyers back to basics, making the Corolla more popular than ever in the process. It became the Bee­tle of Japan with practically no help from the engineering department—a universally recognized benchmark of basic transportation. Leaving the Corolla alone all these years gave Toyota two distinct advan­tages: plenty of time to plan a new one, and plenty of justification for waiting another year to thrust it upon the world. Now that the day of reckoning has finally come, it’s obvious what a dilemma Toyota’s gone through. Last year’s Co­rolla is well and truly gone, but now there are two replacements to fill the old girl’s shoes. Apparently the split be­tween conventional and front-wheel­-drive forces runs deep through Toyota City, because both factions have suc­ceeded in bringing a new Corolla to market. The front-engine-rear-drive version requires no explaining; it’s the same Corolla that’s been such a hit in steno pools and with high-school sen­iors over the years, repackaged with a host of improvements. The Corolla Tercel in this test is the antithesis of those diehard traditions. It may look weird, but it’s the first Toyota designed to be the best possible economy car in­stead of just another miniaturized American sedan. Looking back at Toyota subcompactsBefore we dig deep into the Tercel’s soul to find out how it was all done, consider a few bottom-line facts about this car. In stripped-down, twelve-inch­-tire, rubber-floor-mat trim, it’s the cheapest Toyota money can buy, in fact the second-cheapest new car in Ameri­ca, at $3698. The Tercel is also Toyota’s fuel-economy star, racking up 29 to 33 miles for every gallon (depending on transmission) in EPA tests. Plenty of technical sophistication has been built in: a new overhead-cam engine, front­-wheel drive, and all-independent sus­pension. And even though the Tercel is the smallest Toyota on the outside, it’s bigger than the biggest in several key dimensions inside. Richard George|Car and DriverWhile the Tercel’s looks are “unique” in a way that will take more than the usual amount of getting used to, you can love the hard parts under its strange skin right off the bat. Subaru, Honda, and Datsun all struggled through rather miserable first attempts at front-wheel drive, but Toyota has left its false starts in the lab. The Tercel is a front-wheel­-driver that works, further justifying the “last-out, best-dressed” strategy. The steering feels rear-wheel-drive “nor­mal”: There’s no torque steer, not much understeer, and just enough lift-throttle oversteer to keep hard drivers amused. Oddly enough, there’s not much evi­dence in the hardware to suggest how all this was accomplished. The front suspension is a conventional MacPherson strut design, the back wheels hang from an iso­lated crossmember on pure trailing arms, and the engine is right where you’d expect to find it in a rear-driver. Though the rest of the world’s carmak­ers have almost universally accepted the Alec Issigonis system (1959, Austin Mini) of transversely mounting the en­gine to drive the front wheels through a transverse transmission, Toyota’s gone its own way with a resolutely fore-and-­aft design. The engine is merely elevat­ed a few inches to make room for a dif­ferential mounted under the number-­four cylinder. This makes the transmis­sion a rather bizarre, four-shaft affair that takes power in at the top, turns it around inside, and spits it out below into a fairly conventional hypoid differ­ential. A pair of half-shafts run power out to the front wheels. Toyota claims that serviceability was the prime motivation for this vertically stacked powertrain. It’s true that spark plugs and ignition components are easi­er to get at than if they had been squeezed between a transverse cylinder head and the firewall, but the real rea­son is more likely a simple case of economics. The Tercel’s parts are a lot more like rear-drive components than they would be if the engine were turned 90 degrees in the car, and therefore somewhat cheaper for an old-line, rear­-drive builder like Toyota to tool up for. As it turns out, this does penalize the design somewhat. Jacking the engine up in the car to clear the drive components hurts both handling (higher center of gravity) and fuel economy (a taller hoodline is necessary to clear the en­gine, slightly increasing aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption). But the strangest sacrifice of all is Toyota’s use of a hypoid-bevel-gear final-drive in the Tercel. Engineers love to avoid this power waster if at all possible. (GM an­nounced that eliminating a 90-degree transfer of power with the X-car’s side­winder design improved overall efficien­cy by 3 percent). Hypoid bevel gears originally came into popular use because they allow an offset between input and output shafts, facilitating a low drive­shaft tunnel in rear-drive cars. The pen­alty is lots of sliding friction, which most FWD designers to date have been all too happy to eliminate. We can only guess that Toyota swallowed the hypoid pill in the Tercel in order to use a few more parts (or tooling) that already existed.Richard George|Car and DriverThere is one last big plus in Toyota’s favor in the great East-West-versus-North-South engine-layout debate. With the transmission where it has end­ed up in the Tercel, the shift linkage is short and sweet. While cars like the Rabbit have what looks like an Erector Set under the hood to bell-crank motion from a remote shifter to the transmis­sion, the Tercel has one highly polished shaft sliding smoothly inside an alumi­num casting. You don’t have to be a safecracker to feel all the snicks and clicks that Japanese transmissions have been so good at delivering over the years; a light flick of the wrist produces the right gear every time. The slick-shifting transmission is one of the few traits that have been saved from old Corollas for the new Tercel. In contrast to the dark-tunnel mood of the old car, the new interior is as bright and airy as a phone booth. The cloth-cov­ered bucket seats in our top-of-the-line SR5 test car are a new record achieve­ment for Toyota. They’re firmly pad­ded and shaped to fit a person’s back­side. The lateral-support cushions could use some plumping up and the recliner mechanism is a little coarse in its adjust­ment, but otherwise, these seats are ready for long bouts on the road. The back bench is undoubtedly the best rear seating Toyota has ever built into a car with fewer than four doors. Two six­-footers fit comfortably with room to spare, and the backrest is split to maxi­mize potential combinations of people and cargo. Color coordination rules the interior decor. Razzmatazz is thankfully at an all-time low, so you really get the feeling you’re in a nice, simple car and not a Japanese pachinko parlor. The instru­mentation is neatly arrayed within the visual bounds of the steering wheel. Readouts are highly telegraphic, and di­rectly illuminated at night with soft, white light. The A/C equipment is inte­grated into and hidden behind the instrument panel, so no center console is necessary to cover plumbing and soak up legroom. Two things do stand out in their absence: there’s no dock and not a single gimmick in the gas-flap-release, trunk-opener, and rear-window-flipper ilk that virtually all new Japanese cars have spoiled us with lately. The Tercel comes straight. What Toyota’s done is sacrifice gimmicks and also convention­al good looks to build a rather uncon­ventionally roomy interior. Wheels are relegated to the far corners of the car, and the roof is almost as long as the wheelbase. The plan went awry on only one count: what’s left after four passen­gers are seated is more like a golf bag than a steamer trunk. The cargo hold’s opening is small and waist-high, and the space available is almost as deep as it is long and wide. So think not of the Ter­cel as a mini station wagon, but more as a Scirocco with headroom. Just don’t let your thoughts be swept away with dreams of Scirocco-like speediness. The Tercel is slow, in fact downright turtle-like, the way Corollas have always been. Our test car never saw the blurry side of 85 mph, and churning up to 65 mph in the quarter-­mile took more than twenty seconds. No doubt this has purposely been designed in so Corolla customers won’t miss all the gas stations they’ll be driving by. The Tercel does break with boredom in handling. Turn the wheel and it charges after apexes with a vengeance. There’s less understeer than Toyota’s ever dared to build into its sportiest Celicas, and if you’re willing to horse around with the throttle and steering wheel, you can produce quite a nice sideways view of the world in the Ter­cel’s windshield. The steering is a little wooden-feeling at times—too slow, a bit too heavy, and slightly numb to the touch—but any front-driver that can be cajoled into oversteer is all right by us. The Tercel does have one strength that supersedes handling, however: It’s already selling like crazy. The Toyota dealer up the block from us is sold out for six months. By now the word is out that Toyotas don’t break down every time it’s raining and you happen to be late for work. Furthermore, recession buyers are checking window stickers first and worrying later about the weird taillights and the fact that a Tercel looks nothing at all like a roadgoing rapier. Its 29–33-mpg EPA rating has the uncanny ability to lash out and snag innocent customers right off the sidewalk. The big five (and occasionally a four, or even a three) next to the dollar sign has them reaching for a checkbook before the salesman even utters “front-wheel drive.” All because the Tercel does ex­actly what the world’s-best-seller Corol­la did. It keeps the basic in basic trans­portation. CounterpointIt took Toyota a bunch too many years to get into the front-wheel-drive business. As good a basic transportation module as the Corolla has been, it’s been showing its technological staleness from the mo­ment the Rabbit and its string of copiers showed up. But now there’s the Tercel with its unique front-wheel-drive engine­-transmission layout, its weird styling, and its wheels-at-the-far-corners chassis—its own formula for success. And that’s what I’m predicting for it. Lots of huge big piles of success. The Tercel is going to be just perfect for umpteen thousands of buyers who are looking for small and cheap and economy and couldn’t care less about anything else. Enthusiasts will be looking elsewhere. Like the Corollas before it, the Tercel is about as exciting as mold. But really good mold, mind you. —Mike KnepperToyota’s success is the result of building one good car after another. Not great cars, not exciting cars, not cars bursting with personality—just good ones. I can’t think of a Toyota I’ve ever driven that was horrible—or one that really rang my chimes, for that matter. The Tercel is no different; there’s nothing bad about it. If Toyota had said the Tercel was the next generation of rear-drive Corollas, I might have been fooled. It has no nasty fwd manners, no rough edges, and it goes about its business almost unnoticed­—more like a travel appliance than a car. It has the kind of power and room and trim you’d expect in a low-roller econobox, and seems well worth its price. Most of all it’s familiar, another middle-of-the-road, durable, economical, reliable, well-built Toyota sedan—only with front drive. Which is why I don’t expect anyone to be shocked or dismayed or thrilled or as­tounded by the Tercel. But I do expect vast hordes of mileage seekers to suck up every Tercel that lands here. And I expect they’ll like it just fine. —Rich CepposWell, friends, with this Tercel I think Toyota has hit the economy-car nail smack on the head. It is not spectacular­—economy cars don’t need to be, remem­ber?—but it does everything you could reasonably request of it. I find it very comfortable, and ensconced behind the wheel I can see all the gauges and touch all the controls without having to move one tiny little bit in the pleasantly plaid seat. There are nice, big windows all around to watch the scenery rise up, slip by, and fade away. In back is enough car­go room to pack home an office chair—I tried it—and underneath a neat and tidy independent rear suspension that con­tributes to a surprisingly good ride. The engine won’t ravage much asphalt, but it is responsive and willing and seems hap­pily free of most of the buzzings, thrash­ings, and dronings so typical of the species econoboxus. I don’t know if you will ever fall in love with this car, but I’m cer­tain you’ll always like it. For a wallet-sav­er, what else is there? —Don FullerArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1979 Toyota Corolla Tercel SR5Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $4848/$5658Options: air conditioning, $520; aluminum wheels, $215; rear wiper, $75.
ENGINESOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 89 in3, 1452 cm3Power: 60 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque: 72 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/control armsBrakes, F/R: 8.9-in disc/7.1-in drumTires: Dunlop SP4 Steel165/70SR-13
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 98.4 inLength: 160.0 inWidth: 61.2 inHeight: 52.8 inCurb Weight: 2010 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 16.2 sec1/4-Mile: 20.3 sec @ 65 mph80 mph: 41.7 secTop Speed: 85 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 212 ft 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined (est.): 31 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the August 1980 issue of Car and Driver.We are born in one of two ways: to be drivers or to be passengers. Beyond the cosmic import of these two inclinations lie the facts of our lives, the ways we react to the highs and the lows of our lives. Pre­sented with a slate-black Porsche 911SC, a reasonable assumption fore­sees in us an immediate upswing of good vibrations, some heavy breathing, and rising blips of the old heart rate. For drivers, these burgeoning sensations crackle in Vesuvian poppings of rap­ture. For passengers, it’s much worse.Going along for the ride is less than a surefire way to live up to the passive side of one’s nature. Riding shotgun in a raging, spitting, hair-trigger 911SC is just about the most awful and impossi­ble way there is to remain passive. This 911SC, this Thing, could draw screams from the pope. Confronted with stream­ing, onrushing impedimenta, even the most stolid passengers collapse into be­yond-the-pale-of-reason seizures of fright. Their eyes pop, their knuckles get pasty, and they put teeth marks in their tongues. “This is like a roller coaster,” they whimper. “I hate roller coasters.” But the 911SC is addictive. If the driver knows how to wield this Tool of the Ultimate Whisk, the passenger comes around with an inspired turn of enthusiasm: “I want one, I want one!” It bursts forth uncontrollably. There isn’t a soul alive who somehow doesn’t pooch out the boundaries of his or her personal performance envelope with insistent regularity. One way or an­other there are things to be tried, risks to be taken. Everybody likes to take the deep breath of commitment every so of­ten. It begins with things as passive as cringing at Psycho and steps up to rush­-hour jaywalking. Then, somewhere about in the middle, come roller coast­ers, the chance-taker’s delight. They don’t often derail or spit people out into the stratosphere, but they feel as if they were built for nothing else. Roller­ coaster graduates move straight on to full-contact karate, black belts shift over to everybody’s favorite game show, “Celebrity Decapitation,” and finally the survivor here gets to be Denis Jen­kinson and rides with Stirling Moss at 180 mph for a thousand miles through darkest Italy. Riding in a 911SC with someone who exhibits every intention of going really fast is sort of the ultimate, pumped-up pooching out of the more passive side of our nutty little envelopes. The only bad thing is that you can’t get on your knees; you’ve got to do your best prayers sitting down. Andre LaRoche|Car and DriverAnd now the question is, How much longer will Porsche be building these portable pews? Stuttgart has made nois­es before about the end being in sight for its hoary old coupe (and its ongoing Targa version), but even at today’s bloated price, it snags the old faithful and the new converts year after year. For good reason. If one can afford a 911SC, it is a helluva value. If not, it doesn’t make any difference. In the two years since we tested the first 911SC, its base price has jumped $10,000. But what you get for your $30,000 these days is probably the best rear-engined Porsche ever loaded on a boat. We mention this boat-loading-for-America business because cars for the European home market are blessed with better (read, lower and firmer and more pre­cise) suspension settings, which make a tremendous difference in the way the cars feel and ultimately respond. Even so, the 1980 911SC is a happier com­promise for the American market than the now discontinued 930 Turbo was. The 911SC mixes strong perform­ance with what we have reason to be­lieve, based on history and typical Ger­man thoroughness and quality, should be outstanding reliability. This thing should run until your hair and teeth fall out and your family looks around for someplace to plant you. The air-cooled flat-six whump-starts to a noisy idle, fast and healthy, busy with its performance preoccupation. A three-­way catalyst and an oxygen sensor in the fuel injection take care of emissions without further add-ons. The resulting drivability and performance are second to none among mass-produced U.S.­-available cars this year. This is an en­gine full of itself, cocky about what it can do. Send it your message and it hol­lers right back. Zero-to-60 takes 6.0 seconds flat, top speed is 130 mph, and overall mileage, even figuring in plenty of hard beating through the boondocks, runs out at 16 mpg. For coming into corners we recom­mend close attention to the First Rule of Ongais, to wit: Get your braking done in a straight line, transition smoothly into the corner as you begin to feed throttle, bringing the car from basic un­dersteer to a neutral distribution of cor­nering forces—i.e., all four wheels squared up. Just don’t indulge in a pan­icky rethink about slowing down by backing out of the gas. This over-your-­head time is when you should dust off the First Rule of Bobby Allison, to wit: Floor it and steer like crazy. We’ve always known that out behind the rear axle is no place for an engine to be, and Porsche has spent years try­ing to compensate. Currently—and ulti­mately?—Porsche has jacked up the car and grafted a number of hi-tech beha­vioral fixes into its outdated chassis. At this, Porsche has done better than ever before. The suspension calibrations, the wide rear wheels and tires, and the fat Pirelli P7 supertires all contribute to the reformation of the 911SC, but, as with a reformed drunk, the real shortcomings (semi-trailing-arm rear suspension and the clumsy rear weight bias thanks to the tail-hung engine) are still ready to crop up in moments of character weak­ness. But Porsche has done a masterly job of bringing the 911’s behavior into reasonable line.Andre LaRoche|Car and Driver The tech editor climbed into the SC and dragged the poor thing off for some skidpad abuse, and even he of the hy­percritical persuasion came away im­pressed with Porsche’s progress. There is new and unexpected controllability at the raggedy edge. So we belted down to Ohio and molested its secret colloquial byways, ripping off as much as 600 miles a day in the depths of tightly en­meshed forests and hills. At last light, we got out and ran a sen­sory check, and discovered all our facul­ties to be in good shape, and, except for a serious case of cop-eyes, no signs of personal wear and tear poked out any ­place. Much of the credit must go to the 911SC’s ventilated four-wheel disc brakes, which are a godsend. With the possible exceptions of the windshield and the steering wheel, there is nothing more useful on the car. The brakes produce overwhelming inversions of speed, transferring your insides about down to knee level under maximum braking. There’s next to no nose dive, and the pedal is ridiculously easy to modulate, oomphing the car down into corners as if a king-sized suction cup has been acti­vated. The suspension absorbs whoop­ing dips with no loss of equanimity, but jumping to daylight over lopsided crests gives those confounded semi-trailing arms too much of a chance to tweak the thing off kilter into a lopsided, darting landing. The steering is direct and quick, if fraught with kickback over bumps, and the five-speed gearbox is undoubtedly pleased with its latest linkage update, which still produces notchy shifts but with much more definite gates than in the past. Porsche never stops fiddling.In the Porsche tradition, the instru­ments are thorough and splendidly ar­rayed. We wish this were true of the heating and ventilation controls, which are grouped in a panel unmarked ex­cept for defrost instructions. One of the reasons the base price has leapt so drastically is a long list of for­merly optional standards such as air conditioning, power windows, a center console, black outside trim, an engine­-compartment light, and a leather-cov­ered wheel. Our SC also has $2145 worth of fog lights, rear speakers, right­-side electric mirror, sport shocks, forged alloy wheels, and the P7s. A Blaupunkt AM/FM/cassette unit with Dolby for hiss reduction channels its sound cleanly through four speakers, two of which are on the doors below long, handy storage bins neatly inte­grated into the armrests. Our only problem with the 911SC, other than maintaining possession of the keys, was with the keys themselves. They are featherweight aluminum, and they bend easily, especially when igni­tion tumblers are slightly misaligned. Ours were. The key was bent a little, and one of them hung up in the start position instead of returning to the run position, which is supposed to disen­gage the starter. As a result, the starter toasted itself to a crisp and the ignition shorted out. We have Howard Cooper Volkswagen/Porsche+Audi in Ann Ar­bor to thank for a super-quick fix that allowed us to get the car into this issue. Andre LaRoche|Car and DriverThe people-packaging core within the 911SC makes a halfhearted attempt at providing spots for two kids or two cramped adults in back (these seatlets fold down, providing useful luggage space over and above the five-cubic-foot trunk in the nose of the car). But the place where you live and work up front is first-cabin in every respect. Ours was superbly finished (except for a single drip of glue on the carpet) and taste­fully colored. The soothingly shaped and padded seats were covered in fine, ventilated leather. Everything fits so snugly it seems to have been molded to­gether almost to the point of meltdown. Surrounding these fine appointments is one of the stoutest bodies ever, a clean design that incorporates the best-­looking 5-mph bumpers on the market. Lacking the 930’s bulbous fenders and whale tail, the SC is less a caricature, more a subtle and righteous-looking notice of intent to commit unspecified ille­galities, especially in fast corners.Very fast corners. It is the roller­ coaster syndrome again. It is what the 911SC does. What is so pleasing about the whole proposition is that it also does so many other things so well. As compromises go, the 911SC is right at the top of the most intriguing heap of all, the one that peaks with works of man’s imagination that really aren’t compromises at all, because they’re ca­pable of a near-infinite feat of the leap­ing-tall-buildings variety. Need a lift?Counterpoint For almost 30 years I’ve wanted to own whatever rear-engined Porsche has been in production at the time. I guess I’ve driven at least one example of every Porsche production car ever built, including a 1300 Super, and I’ve never been disappointed. Now, with this 911SC coupe, my boundless affection begins to wane. Certainly, the months and miles I’ve done in the Porsche 928 have done their bit to erode the love affair, but there’s more . . . This Porsche feels old, somehow. It feels as if it’s finally coming to the end of its allotted life space. I’m no longer willing to put up with the harshness, or the way the front end hunts and nibbles when you power it through a favorite country corner. I’m sure I would have liked it better without the Pirelli P7 tires, and I’m sure that I could still be tempted by a dark-gray Targa, but my 911 appetite isn’t as strong now. It didn’t help that the Audi 5000 Turbo passed through my hands simultaneously. Even with four doors and an automatic transmission, the Audi manages to do several things better than the Porsche. From now on, the Porsche of my dreams has a V-8 engine in the front. —David E. Davis, Jr.The writing, it would seem, is on the wall. And what is written is that the venerable and venerated 911 is in the twilight of its years. I can remember when there were so many 911 variations I couldn’t keep them all straight. Now there’s just this one. Porsche says there will be a 911 as long as there is a demand for one, but it’s difficult to see the car or the demand lasting more than another couple of years. At the most. The 911SC is as good as it can be made. Porsche has massaged, refined, reworked, and improved on it until the car is as near perfection as it can be. And that’s why it will go away. Innovation and challenge are very important to Porsche. The 911 no longer provides either. It has outlived its usefulness, and as attrition takes the die-hard traditionalists, the 911 will finally outlive its demand. I loved driving the SC, and I could live a long and happy life with it. It’s still that good, that satisfying. But we’re getting a 928 in a few weeks, and I know it will turn my head, and it’ll make my knees feel funny, and the hair stand up on the back of my neck. The 911 just doesn’t do that to me anymore. The 928 is the now Porsche, and that’s fine by me. —Mike KnepperPorsche hereby inherits enviable distinction as the most accelerative car money can buy in these United States. With no help from a turbocharger. There are those that peak out a bit higher, but the Stuttgart Super Beetle gets you there quicker. This demands a certain amount of respect even from those who—like me—decry the obsolescence of rear-engine layouts. You’ve also go to credit Porsche for the 911’s staying power. It holds the record as the oldest car design still in production for America (not counting the Avanti and the Checker). One thing that has changed over the years is the 911’s penchant for oversteer. I find it at an all-time low in this 1980 model with the Sport group. It stuck and stuck on our skidpad, finally drifting over the limit front first. Lifting abruptly off the throttle hardly made it twitch. So the P7s and wider rear wheels are a must. I was also happy with the real-world handling, but I wouldn’t touch the sport shocks with a stick. Over broken pavement and Michigan-class expansion strips (the one­-inch-high kind), the so-called dampers fit­ted to our tester went rigid. Two hours on a bad highway gave me a headache. Now I know what they were thinking of when the 911’s soft-ride package came out a few years back. —Don ShermanArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Porsche 911SCVehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $27,700/$30,470Options: F25 option group, $2145; metallic paint, $625.
ENGINESOHC flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2990 cm3Power: 172 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 189 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION[S]5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/control armsBrakes, F/R: 9.0-in vented disc/9.6-in vented discTires: Pirelli Cintuato P7F: 205/55VR-16R: 225/50VR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 89.4 inLength: 168.9 inWidth: 65.0 inHeight: 52.0 inPassenger Volume, F: 46 ft3Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight: 2700 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.7 sec @ 92 mph100 mph: 18.4 secTop Speed: 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 169 ftRoadholding, 218-ft Skidpad: 0.80 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined (est.): 16 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

There’s no denying the 2023 Chevrolet Colorado has received an extreme makeover that has considerably toughened its image, with a bold front end and creased chiseled flanks. The new third-generation example stands in stark contrast to the outgoing unit, which came across as little more than a scaled-down full-size truck. It failed to take advantage of its smaller size in a mid-size segment that was being increasingly defined by perceived toughness and off-road prowess. Thus far, the Toyota Tacoma has owned that territory, but the Colorado looks set to mount a serious challenge.That’s because the changes are also functional and go beyond mere styling. The truck’s reworked air dam and shorter front overhang result in a healthy 29.1-degree approach angle for the Z71, which formerly had a low-hanging and difficult-to-remove spoiler that would barely clear a parking block, let alone any off-highway obstacle worth the name. The prior Z71 “off-road” model couldn’t even clear a 20.0-degree Ramp Travel Index ramp, earning it a score of zero.ChevroletOut back, the spare has been tucked up some 2.5 inches higher for better departure clearance, because there’s no longer a need to create space for the discontinued diesel engine’s DEF tank. It’s easy to see the terrain in front because of the way the hood creases are shaped, and the lower rear shock mounts are less vulnerable to impact because they have been shifted closer to the rear springs. In other words, a Z71 can now readily head off-pavement, and the WT (work truck) and LT trims are better able to maneuver a job site or pole-line road.More on the Colorado PickupChevrolet’s engineering team didn’t stop there. The new Trail Boss is a budget-minded off-roader that slots in below the ZR2 while outperforming and costing less than a Z71. It combines 32-inch all-terrain tires, flared fenders, and nearly the same wide stance as the ZR2 with a 2.0-inch lift that’s more than just cosmetic. Compared to the WT, LT, and Z71, the Trail Boss sports 1.5 inches of extra front suspension travel and an extra 1.0 inch out back, enough to make a difference in the wild, not to mention on our RTI ramp. Its longer shocks are still twin-tube units, and it shares its rear limited-slip differential with the Z71. If you want Multimatic spool-valve dampers and lockable front and rear diffs, the not-yet-released ZR2 has those, plus a taller lift and even more rear suspension travel.Besides the move toward off-road legitimacy, another theme defines the new Colorado: simplification. There’s just one cab and bed choice this time, a crew cab with a five-foot-two-inch bed. That’s the most popular configuration by a ridiculously wide margin, so the loss of variety in the cab/bed realm isn’t liable to put off many buyers. Chevrolet has made a move to assuage those who might pine for a longer bed, adding an optional mid-level tailgate stop that aligns its upper edge up with the inner fender bulges to fashion a level base for hauling plywood or drywall.The engine lineup has likewise been streamlined. The 2.5-liter inline-four, 2.8-liter inline-four turbo-diesel, and 3.6-liter V-6 are history, replaced here by a turbocharged 2.7-liter inline-four gas engine across the board, albeit in three flavors. All are backed by an eight-speed automatic, and four-wheel-drive versions (optional on WT and LT and the sole configuration on the others) have an automatic four-wheel-drive engagement setting and 2.72:1 low-range gearing. No fuel-economy figures are available for its three guises, but one is allegedly more fuel efficient than the 2.5-liter four, two are more powerful than the V-6, and the top dog makes more torque than the diesel.A somewhat decontented 2.7 Turbo base version comes standard in the WT and LT, where it makes 237 horsepower, 259 pound-feet of torque and supports a 3500-pound tow rating. The 2.7 Turbo Plus is optional in those trucks and standard in Z71 and Trail Boss, and it’s good for 310 horses, 390 pound-feet, and 7700 pounds of tow capacity, which ties the Jeep Gladiator for best in class. The ZR2 gets the 2.7 Turbo HO (high output), with the same horsepower as the Plus but with 430 pound-feet of torque; that’s due to a software reflash, not mechanical differences. The best part: Turbo Plus owners can pay a dealer for the HO calibration upon delivery or anytime after purchase.ChevroletOur ZR2 drive will come later, but we sampled all the others. On pavement, all four shared a common trait: Their suspensions readily soak up irregular pavement without excess residual shake, and they are adept at gliding over coarse road surfaces. They feel smooth and well put together, the exception being the occasional rear kick any unloaded truck can produce when driven over the wrong sort of bump. All of them are similarly pleasing to wheel around town because they steer smoothly and exhibit a good sense of straight-ahead, with the 17-inch tire fitted to the WT a surprising standout.The base engine produces sufficient beans for an economy-minded powertrain, possibly owing to its low torque peak of 1250 rpm. It does sound a bit gravelly, though, in contrast to the 2.7 Turbo Plus, which is much less coarse while being perfectly capable of moving the heavier Z71 and Trail Boss with little apparent effort. We tend to prefer eight-speed automatics over the competition’s 10-speed units, and that was indeed the case here. But there’s no sport mode among the drive settings, which include Normal, Tow/Haul, Off-Road, and Terrain. ChevroletOff pavement, the Z71 and Trail Boss are impressive. Their suspensions absorbed rough terrain without passing any noise or undamped shake into the drum-tight cabin, and their limited-slip rear differentials maintained forward progress even with one rear wheel hiked high in the air through a diagonal ditch. The highlight may have been the brakes, which are linear and firm in normal use due to the use of an electronic booster instead of a vacuum unit. With the mode dial in Terrain, this booster supports a smooth one-pedal driving mode, the speed range of which you can tailor by setting the shift lever to L and tweaking the manual shift button. Unlike competing systems, the Colorado’s setup is utterly free of any ABS pulsing and feels like one-pedal driving in an EV, with delicate control that let us tiptoe down into dips and out the other side without ever thinking of touching the actual brake pedal. Don’t like the idea? Select Off-Road mode instead, and normal service resumes.The simplification theme continues inside, where all Colorado trims from WT on up get a keyless ignition—actually great for off-roading because there are no jangling keys. A large 11.3-inch touchscreen is also standard, and it supports wireless smartphone integration and Google Built-In, which is a bit of a laugh considering the latter only comes on the new Honda Accord’s high-zoot Touring trim.But simplification also brings a few quirks. The window lock button is on the touchscreen, as are the headlight controls (although the latter has an always-visible access icon). Perhaps that’s okay? Window lock isn’t something we toggle much, and the headlights are so comprehensively auto-controlled as to come on at dusk or whenever the wipers are running. But the least appealing aspect may be the interior materials, which are generally plasticky with an unconvincing grain that’s a bit too glossy. The Trail Boss keeps its price low by being based on the WT, so its interior is equally underwhelming. But even the Z71, the most luxurious, features a soft-touch dash and armrest treatment of a mysterious rubbery origin.ChevroletPricing has edged up, but not to an alarming degree—especially when considering the numerous improvements. A two-wheel-drive WT goes for $30,695, which is barely $1000 more than before. A four-wheel-drive WT starts at $33,995, which is $300 less than before. The Z71 goes for $41,395, only $900 more than last year. As for the Trail Boss, it starts at a very reasonable $38,495. The ZR2, which we’ll sample in a couple months, will command close to a $10K premium at $48,295.In many ways, the appeal of the new Chevrolet Colorado has risen to an all-time high. It has made the jump from pint-size pickup that didn’t know what it wanted to be in life to a more self-assured truck that should appeal to the outdoor lifestyle buyers who have traditionally gravitated to the Tacoma. Will it pan out that way? We’ll know for certain when the new Tacoma and Ford Ranger surface in the coming months. This is going to get interesting.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Chevrolet ColoradoVehicle Type: front-engine, rear- or rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICEBase: WT 4×2, $30,695; LT 4×2, $33,095; WT 4×4, $33,995; LT 4×4, $36,395; Trail Boss, $38,495; Z71, $41,395
ENGINESturbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.7-liter inline-4, 237 or 310 hp, 259 or 390 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 131.4 inLength: 212.7-213.2 inWidth: 74.9-76.3 inHeight: 70.7-71.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 58/43 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4300-4700 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.0-7.2 sec1/4-Mile: 14.7-15.9 secTop Speed: 100 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 20-23/17-20/24-26 mpg More

Hearing the Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe described as the “most fuel-efficient Jeep ever” gives us the warm fuzzies. It feels like a win for the world and makes us want to parade through an aisle at Whole Foods, high-fiving every farm-to-fork enthusiast until our palms turn red. But while the 4xe’s EPA-estimated 56 MPGe and 26 miles of electric-only range are good for a Grand Cherokee, the plug-in-hybrid option is an expensive one.That’s not to downplay the effort by Jeep to reduce its wonderfully luxurious SUV’s usage of gasoline. The Grand Cherokee, which was redesigned last year, is an absolute honey on the road. With a firm brake pedal, linear steering, and a smooth ride, the Grand Cherokee moves with confidence. Its lavish interior and robust four-wheel-drive system make it akin to a Kia Telluride that’s graduated from off-road boot camp. Unlike its Wrangler 4xe plug-in-hybrid sibling, the Grand Cherokee 4xe is subdued and quiet at speed. At idle, however, a grumpy 46 decibels from the inline-four echo throughout the cabin. Michael Simari|Car and DriverA 270-hp turbo 2.0-liter and two electric motors bring the total output to 375 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque, a combination potent enough to make passengers ask, “This is a four-cylinder?” (which, really, is the best compliment a four-cylinder can hope for). We noticed some hesitation when accelerating hard from low speed as the gas engine and electric motor bickered over whose turn it was. More on the new Grand CherokeeIn the Wrangler, we noted this powertrain’s rocky transitions between gas and electric propulsion, although they were somewhat lost amid the Wrangler’s general cacophony. In the vastly more polished Grand Cherokee, the powertrain’s hesitation and its abrupt transitions stand out.Eventually, the powertrain suffered a more serious fault, and the hybrid system went silent. As a result, we were unable to record an as-tested fuel economy, nor can we provide you with the 4xe’s 75-mph highway fuel-economy results.We were able to perform instrumented testing before the hybrid-system failure and found that the 4xe is the quickest version of the new Grand Cherokee. It springs to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds and hits 100 mph in 13.9 seconds, right as it reaches a quarter-mile. That’s 0.3 second quicker to 60 mph and 1.3 seconds sooner to 100 than the discontinued V-8 version. When it comes to lugging, the 4xe’s 6000-pound maximum towing capacity is 200 pounds short of the V-6 and 1200 less than the dead V-8 model.The Grand Cherokee 4xe starts at $61,660, which is $16,830 more than the base four-wheel-drive V-6 Laredo. The 4xe, though, skips the Laredo trim and is available only in Limited, Trailhawk, Overland, Summit, and Summit Reserve grades. Comparing like trims, the 4xe’s upcharge over the V-6 variants with four-wheel drive ranges from $8685 to $10,010—although that can be at least partially offset by the PHEV’s $7500 federal tax credit. Our Overland test rig rumbled in with a $77,525 price tag. The two largest contributions to its bill were optional packages. A Luxury Tech Group IV ($2155) included nappa leather seats with a massaging front row, wireless device charging, and window shades for the back seats. An Advanced Protech Group III ($2235) added head-up display, night vision, and additional driver-assistance features.Michael Simari|Car and DriverThis higher-trim model also had the available 10.3-inch front passenger interactive display screen. Taking the opportunity to nerd out, we connected Valve’s Steam Deck handheld gaming PC via an HDMI cable while waiting for a takeout order. Although playing the video game SnowRunner in a snowy parking lot sounds ironic and fun, we found the screen to be incredibly dim, even at night with the brightness fully cranked. Owners with short commutes may be able to avoid gas stations for months, bouncing between the workplace and home, where a typical 240-volt charging connection to the 4xe’s 7.2-kW onboard charger can juice up the roughly 14.0-kWh battery in about 2.5 hours. For folks plugging into a standard wall socket, the charge could take eight to 15 hours, depending on the home’s outlet. However, footing the bill for the pricey Grand Cherokee 4xe just to avoid gas stations seems like an overpriced convenience. Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xeVehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,660/$77,525Options: Overland trim (air springs, front tow hooks, hands-free liftgate, LED headlights, backlit door handles, heated and power folding exterior mirrors, 20-inch wheels, automatic wipers, ambient interior lighting, auto dimming rearview mirror power tilt/telescoping steering column, power-folding second row rear seats, McIntosh stereo, front-parking assist), $8015; Advanced Protech Group III (head-up display, night vision, surround-view camera, off-road camera), $2235; Luxury Tech Group IV (nappa leather seats, digital rearview mirror display, wireless device charging, massaging front seats, four-zone climate control), $2155; front passenger interactive display, $1095; Off-Road Group, (Goodyear All-Terrain tires, electronically controlled limited slip rear differential, underbody skid plates), $1095; black-painted roof, $775; Velvet Red Pearlcoat paint, $495
POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 270 hp, 295 lb-ft + 2 AC motors, 44 and 134 hp, 39 and 195 lb-ft (combined output: 375 hp, 470 lb-ft; 14.0-kWh lithium-ion battery pack (C/D est); 7.2-kW onboard charger)Transmission: 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 13.9-in vented disc/13.8-in vented discTires: Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure265/60R-18 110T M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.7 inLength: 193.5 inWidth: 77.5 inHeight: 70.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 56/51 ft3Cargo Volume, F/R: 71/38 ft3Curb Weight: 5664 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.3 sec1/4-Mile: 13.9 sec @ 100 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/23/24 mpgCombined Gasoline + Electricity: 56 MPGeEV Range: 26 miC/D Testing Explained More

Ford continues to channel the rich history of its iconic Bronco 4×4 with the introduction of two new retro-inspired special editions of its compact Bronco Sport SUV.The 2023 Bronco Sport Heritage Edition and Bronco Sport Heritage Limited Edition celebrate the birth of the Bronco brand with a classic-themed appearance package that takes styling cues from the original 1966 truck. Both variants feature a white roof, white rear badging, white 17-inch aluminum wheels, and a white grille with red BRONCO lettering.The Bronco Sport Heritage Edition, built on the Big Bend trim level, utilizes Ford’s 181-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-three, which is paired with an eight-speed automatic transmission and all-wheel drive. Suspension features include hydraulic front bump stops and specially tuned springs included in Ford’s High-Performance Off-Road Stability Suspension (HOSS) system package, plus five user-selectable “G.O.A.T.” terrain modes for off-road driving. The Heritage Edition’s interior styling includes white trim accents, plaid cloth seats, blue-and-red accent stitching, a microsuede center console armrest, and Navy Pier Blue accents on the door panels and dash. Buyers have a choice of seven paint options, including Robin’s Egg Blue, a throwback color based on one that was available on the original Bronco.More on the Bronco SportThe pricier Heritage Limited Edition is derived from the Bronco Sport lineup’s more off-road-focused Badlands package, which features the larger turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four, two additional G.O.A.T. modes, a torque-vectoring rear differential, and a lockable center clutch pack for the all-wheel-drive system. Our Peak Blue sample is one of three paint shades available, the others being the lighter Robin’s Egg Blue and the intense Yellowstone Metallic.Heritage Limited Edition–specific features include larger 29-inch all-terrain tires, leather-trimmed seats, and white door inserts. A retro-style plaque adorns the center console, while metal Bronco door badging in the classic ’60s script is satisfyingly eye-catching.James Lipman|Car and DriverDespite its basis in the humble C2 unibody platform as used in the Escape SUV and Maverick pickup, the Bronco Sport proves to be unexpectedly capable off-road, with the 2.0-liter’s 250 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque making light work of the steep gullies, embedded boulders, and deep sand that constitute the Johnson Valley area of the Mojave Desert. (So much of the model’s off-road development was conducted here that Ford chose to include a geographic coordinate from the area as an Easter egg hidden in the molding of the rear hatch trim.)An aluminum skid plate, part of the standard Badlands equipment package, eases concerns of stabbing the Bronco Sport’s underbody with spiky terrain elements. Despite the Sport’s modest ride height, its 8.8-inch ground clearance (on 235/65R-17 tires, the model’s largest available) proves to be perfectly adequate for comfortably brisk-paced desert driving as we follow the dusty wake of our guide, Melissa. She is well-versed in the Bronco Sport’s abilities, having taken a stock Bronco Sport Badlands to first place in the 1500-mile, off-road Rebelle Rally in both 2021 and 2022.It is the suspension that makes the Bronco Sport, and despite the plethora of off-road driving modes available, this SUV handles even soft trail running just fine in its standard drive mode. Locking in the all-wheel-drive system and the rear differential is more than sufficient for confident thrashing in deeper sand. All of that would be equally true for the less retro-tastic Badlands model, however. At $46,250, the Heritage Limited Edition is fully kitted out, carrying nearly $5000 worth of features that are optional on the Badlands. Screen that out, and you see that the retro look carries a roughly $2000 premium. One rung down, the $34,245 Heritage Edition represents a roughly $1500 upcharge over the equivalent Big Bend model. James Lipman|Car and DriverIs that worth it? Well, several miles east of where we drove this Bronco Sport, classic Broncos, stock and modified, are swarming the viewing areas of this year’s King of the Hammers desert road-race competition. For off-road enthusiasts, the appeal of those classic Broncos, the reborn Bronco, and this offshoot Bronco Sport is wrapped up in the combination of capability and aesthetics. The Bronco Sport Heritage Editions lean more heavily on the latter, but to no detriment of the former.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Ford Bronco Sport Heritage EditionVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: Heritage, $34,245; Heritage Limited, $46,250
ENGINES
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve 1.5-liter inline-3, 181 hp, 190 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inine-4, 250 hp, 277 lb-ft
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.1 inLength: 172.7 inWidth: 74.3 inHeight: 70.2–71.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 53–56/50 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3600–3800 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 5.9–8.2 sec1/4-Mile: 14.5–16.3 secTop Speed: 125 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23–26/21–25/26–28 mpg More