Reviews

From the January 1980 issue of Car and Driver.Hi there, this is us in our automotive zoot suit. The one with the whitewall spats and the padded shoulders. For our formal informal photography ses­sion, we’ve slipped into our silver threads, but the outfit we’ve spent most of our time in has red pants and an off­white jacket. If you’re not right off fond of its cut, you’ll find it grows on you. Maybe it will even change your person­ality. It will certainly change what every­one else thinks of you. Your Volkswag­en dealer is offering you the chance to become instantly in. And, somewhat less obviously, very clever.These German cars are almost proving an embarrassment to us. They’re getting too good. When we say so, it gets us a mountain of mail complaining we’ve sold out our objectivity and our credibility, and in turn probably gained grotesquely swollen bank accounts. No such luck. But there’s no way around it, the Rabbit convertible will once again bring the postlady to her knees with hate mail. She will come to loathe this car for the burden it will bring her, but she will be all alone. Volkswagen has everyone else in the bag and loving it. It’s happened before. Last time we tested a VW convertible, it was the time-honored and dearly be­loved Beetle version. More peculiar­-looking cars existed only in the minds of drug-addicted individuals and in deep­est France. If there was a more universal love in the world of automobiles, we don’t know of it. Leering perversity was loose in the world in the form of the Beetle convertible. David E. Davis, Jr., said it was a compelling argument that automotive progress isn’t everything. Patrick Bedard admitted he was in­trigued by a car shaped like molded Jell-O when everything else looked like a block of cheese. Don Sherman called it the fastest four-place lawn chair he knew of. Volkswagen sold more than a quarter of a million of its lawn chairs, and somewhere people are sitting in them today, taking the sun. When the Beetle convertible disappeared recently, the demand clamored on. More Classic VolkswagensVolkswagen boxed up the demand and wheeled it off to the Karmann coachworks along with a bundle of Rab­bit mechanicals. Karmann, of course, was the birthplace of the sleek-lined Ghia of yore and the aforementioned topless Beetle. With such VW experi­ence at hand, it didn’t take VW long to pull an open-air Rabbit from Karmann’s magic hat, and the car is a dandy me­chanical entity. It makes you want to play ticker-tape parade, a national hero waving, standing behind you with fore­arm on roll bar, surrounded by the Thirties bulges of the folded top, get­ting the ride of his life in one of the neatest of all little cars. Like the Beetle, the Rabbit convert­ible disregards fashion to start one of its own. It’s cute with the top up, and what might be described as . . . interesting with the top down. There’s not much visual question that the convertible was an existing car whose top was carved off. The rear fenders are kicked up a lit­tle now, and perched atop them is the mechanism for the top. When the top’s down, it’s down only in the sense of be­ing collapsed, because it still sticks way up, a huge reading pillow with armrests, and a blocker of rear vision. Beneath the folded top is a handy, if shrouded, trunklet that opens to the rear. The back seat folds forward for greater car­rying capacity. The remainder of the body is unmistakably Rabbit, its lines otherwise undiluted except for the up­right roll bar that provides rollover pro­tection and strengthens the unit-body structure. The bar is padded and trimmed in black, matching the dash and add-on door trim. The top fits exceptionally well. The outside will never creep in uninvited. Inner and outer layers sandwich smooth, substantial padding that pro­vides weather and sound insulation. The inside of the top is finished like that of a snug sedan, and the back window is real live glass embedded with real live defogging wires. Hot stuff! The two roof-mounted release handles at the sides of the windshield are the only hardware visible. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverNow that’s just terrific, having an open-air Rabbit and all, but it gets bet­ter. We expect Rabbits to be congenital­ly nice, but the convertible transcends niceness. Extra sound deadening seems to have been poured wholesale into the engine compartment, and the first crank of the engine hints of the refinement to come. Everything about the physical behavior of the car says effortless. It is strong, blithely willing, and very eco­nomical. It will return 25 mpg in city driving and quietly requests 90-mph cruising. With less than 500 miles on its optimistic odometer, our convertible ran 0 to 60 mph in 12.8 seconds; more break-in miles will probably get the job done quicker. VW’s smooth five-speed overdrive aids and abets the engine with well-staged gearing and feather-light linkage so slick that it defies the rest of the industry. Hooked to perhaps the smoothest and quietest four in memory, it sets a lofty standard. We are told our car came straight off the boat into dealer and press intros, where we laid claim to it. There was no pre-delivery prep other than a wash job. Even so, the only physical faults we could find were of the easy-fix variety: a nonfunctioning fuel-injection cold-start connection (which could be handily overcome even in snowy weather by a solid tromp on the gas pedal); a slight rattle in the exhaust caused by a loose hanger; an optional sport steering wheel rotated one notch too far to the right; and a missing inside rearview mirror. With a pre-delivery service un­der the car’s belt, we’d have found nothing physical to complain about ex­cept a brake-locking problem at the right rear, which added at least 20 feet to our last sedan Rabbit’s 203-foot 70-to-0-mph stopping distance. Short of that point of lockup, the brakes have been improved by virtue of better feel and more reassuring pedal action than VWs have ever had. A quick service of the rear brakes should eliminate our problem, and it’s not likely to show up in other cars.The Rabbit convertible’s over-the-­road controls function with such well-­oiled directness and consistency, you’d swear you have $20,000 worth of ma­chinery at your beck and call. The con­vertible’s inner masses and individual pieces are surpassingly well coordinated, furnishing the driver with a smooth and stable platform, free of unnecessary harshness, from which to direct the flank-speed passage of a most amusing world. The pop-top’s center of gravity feels considerably lower than an every­day Rabbit’s. Less body roll, dive, and squat interfere with the sensations of rapid progress through the countryside. The suspension and steering are ideally compromised, resulting in outstanding and soft-spoken control. Slight under­steer stabilizes the car, which can turn into corners with surprising ferocity if you suggest it. The car seems capable of more than you could ever reasonably ask, and certainly more delightful than almost any traditional roadster you might put it against. The world will soon be awash with a lemming-run of roadster owners bending their dealers’ ears in search of handling fixes to rectify the dirt done them by Rabbit convertibles. It could happen on any kind of road that changes direction often. Smooth, coarse, or downright cratered, it makes little difference to the Rabbit convert­ible. The Continental TS771s are flex­ible enough to complement the bump­-adaptive front-wheel-drive layout of the Rabbit, yet they allow you simply to fly into corners, track around, and feed im­peccably out the other side. Transitions are smooth, wheel movements small, and the steering among the very best. Place the car exactly where you want it. The light, microscopically correctable steering draws apexes in with a free­wheeling but irresistible magnetism, to brush flawlessly beneath the inside tires. Those apexes pass by, but the art of their passage lingers along. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe optional sport seats (not shown) are responsible, in large part, for the driver’s ability to make use of all this excellence. They are deeply bucketed and comfortably bolstered, and they sit solidly among the top three or four fac­tory-available seats in the world. Mount­ed high off the floor, the angled thigh cushion shores you up for relaxed con­trol, and for comfort that carries you from an early start to well beyond the twilight zone. The back seat offers its lap even to adults, and even though the rear side windows don’t roll all the way down, they do fend off the stronger gusts of high-speed turbulence that threaten havoc with anything but kinky perms. There is no discounting the value of this happy little car. It betters some pretty pricey competition both in its physical functions and in the results it gives in comfort and satisfaction. And its operating economy is up there with the best. The changes wrought by Kar­mann take the Rabbit convertible way far out of the econobox price range, but Volkswagen hasn’t concerned itself with that. Instead, it’s concentrated on build­ing a dynamite mini funster that does more things well than most product planners could write on a large piece of paper, let alone blend into something that goes down the road with this car’s grace. The Rabbit convertible sparkles with a good humor not one car in a hun­dred has.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1980 Volkswagen Rabbit L convertibleVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $8895/$9105Options: sport seats, $165; sport steering wheel, $45
ENGINESOHC inline-4, iron block and aluminum headDisplacement: 97 in3, 1588 cm3Power: 76 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 83 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/trailing armBrakes, F/R: 9.4-in vented disc/7.1-in drumTires: Continental TS771175/70SR-13
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 94.4 inLength: 155.3 inWidth: 63.4 inHeight: 55.6 inCurb Weight: 2170 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 12.8 sec1/4-Mile: 18.8 sec @ 71 mph90 mph: 52.8 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 223 ft
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined: 25 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the April 2022 issue of Car and Driver.Chipotle—or, as my family calls it, “Taco Bell with some book learnin'”—has an ingenious menu. There’s really only one dish, but the fast-food chain presents the basic ingredients in so many ways that a veneer of individuality disguises the homogeneity. The same can be said of Land Rover’s lineup, which stuffs the same fillings into different wrappers. You want a six-cylinder all-wheel-drive SUV? Have a Range Rover Velar, which looks like a smaller Range Rover Sport, which is a slightly smaller Range Rover, which is like a fancier Discovery, which is a more polished Defender. In this analogy, the Discovery Sport is a lifestyle bowl, and the Evoque is a quesadilla off the kids menu.The Range Rover Sport is a staple of the company’s SUV menu. The prior generation enjoyed a nine-year run without aging into dowdiness, which is probably why Rover decided, for the 2023 redesign, to keep it looking pretty much the same. The new Sport’s headlights are squintier, but the overall shape is so similar to the previous model that you’d have to park them alongside each other to figure out what changed. The main giveaway is the new power-operated flush door handles, which contribute to the slick looks and slippery 0.29 coefficient of drag. View PhotosNo matter how shattered the surface, the Range Rover Sport paves the road ahead with lightly toasted marshmallows.Greg Pajo|Car and DriverHIGHS: Looks fast even when it’s parked, amazing ride quality, decent gas mileage.The Sport is slick to drive too, even in the lightly optioned SE trim. At $90,145 as tested, this is about as inexpensive a Range Rover Sport as you can build. The base SE comes with a 355-hp variant of the electrically supercharged and turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six that appears in various other tunes and configurations elsewhere in the lineup (there’s a 395-hp flavor and a 434-hp plug-in hybrid). And while the straight-six’s output doesn’t exactly impress when BMW and Jeep are wringing 500-plus horsepower out of the same displacement, the engine is unfailingly buttery and refined. Goose the throttle at low rpm, and the supercharger delivers instantaneous boost, ramping up the torque until the turbocharger blows a gale. You hear a brief high-pitched whine at throttle tip-in, but that’s the only clue to the supercharger’s existence.Greg Pajo|Car and Drivermore range rover contentThe Range Rover Sport doesn’t exactly lollygag when you crack open the throttle, but neither does it hustle the way you might expect based on its rakish looks. The Sport hits 60 mph in 5.7 seconds and covers the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 96 mph. Those numbers are decent enough, but the Sport’s 5-to-60-mph time—7.1 seconds—is a better indicator of how it feels in real-world traffic, which is to say like a 5387-pound vehicle with 355 horse-power. In this case, “Sport” implies a diminutive (see Ford Bronco Sport, Mitsubishi Outlander Sport) rather than a sporting intent. At least the Sport SE delivers decent fuel economy, returning 25 mpg in our 75-mph highway test. And it is a comfy place to dispatch some miles. Get the eight-speed automatic settled down in a tall gear and the straight-six snoozing at low rpm, and you could be convinced you’re driving an electric vehicle. It’s that smooth and that quiet. In fact, at 70 mph, you’ll hear a mere 66 decibels of interior din, which is verging on luxury-sedan levels of quietude. Some of the credit there goes to the active noise-cancellation system, which uses microphones in each wheel well to sample the sound boiling up from the road and then nullify it, like you’re riding around in a giant pair of noise-canceling headphones.The standard air springs and adaptive dampers also further the impression of luxurious, untroubled heft, even with the 22-inch clodhoppers fitted to our test car. No matter how shattered the surface, the Range Rover Sport paves the road ahead with lightly toasted marshmallows. Switch to Dynamic mode, and the Pirelli Scorpion Zero All-Season tires can generate 0.81 g of grip on the skidpad, but doing so also introduces head toss and flinty ride motions. As with its powertrain, the Sport SE’s chassis is happiest when you’re not asking much of it. Which, we concede, is how most people use their cars most of the time. Granted, other trims would push the Sport’s numbers closer to the realm of legit performance SUVs. The Stormer Handling package, unique to the $122,975 First Edition P530, brings active anti-roll bars and rear-wheel steering, and we’re sure that model’s BMW-sourced 523-hp V-8 makes for considerably sprightlier acceleration. LOWS: Not actually all that quick, shiny interior parts are a smudgefest, just a few options push the price over $90,000But our test vehicle is almost as close as you can get to a Range Rover Sport at its $84,475 base price. Options included the 22-inch wheels ($1450), a full-size spare tire ($500), and the Cold Climate package ($640), which heats the steering wheel, washer jets, and windshield. The heated steering wheel is available à la carte for $300 in case you find the heated windshield’s embedded filaments distracting, which some of us do. You can, of course, pad out the options list with thousands of dollars in other add-ons, but the Sport comes pretty thoroughly equipped in the first place. Without a buyer checking any options, the SE includes front and rear heated leather seats, a Meridian sound system, a panoramic sunroof, and adaptive cruise control with lane-keeping assist. Whether the generous standard equipment amounts to an interior that befits an $84,000 Range Rover is up for debate. When most surfaces are hard and shiny—glass, black wood veneer, aluminum—you end up with a cabin that shows every microbe of dust and smudgy fingerprint. Other odd decisions: The USB-C port behind the flowing center console sits above a sloped plastic tray, so any phone put there will soon go flying toward one footwell or the other before forcibly unplugging itself. There’s also an inductive charging pad under the touchscreen, but it lacks a lip on the back edge, so you face the same dilemma on a different axis. Punch the throttle, and your phone will be on a spelunking journey in the center console, which is approximately the shape and depth of an elevator shaft since it shares between-the-seats real estate with another storage area hidden beneath the cupholders. And why would you need hidden storage under the cupholder? We’re law-abiding citizens, so we have no idea what you might put under there after, say, a day trip from Ohio to Michigan.VERDICT: A Sport that would rather not play.The Range Rover Sport’s role in the lineup has always been clear: It’s like the full-size Range Rover but more oriented toward performance on pavement. This particular trim, though, stakes its appeal on the relaxed luxury it delivers at its (relatively) affordable price. The Sport is the Range Rover for people who say “Never mind” when informed that the guacamole will be an extra $2.65. Is that really making a difference to your bottom line? Maybe not, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.Greg Pajo|Car and DriverCounterpointsModel-handsome design and nattily attired cabins make Range Rovers the preening fashionistas of their peer group. But beauty comes at a price, which, for the Range Rover Sport, is on the level of couture—whereas competitors from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and even Porsche are more like ready-to-wear. With options, our base-trim test example is over $90K. And to think, the Sport was once the attainable Range Rover. —Joe LorioThe new Range Rover Sport is a symbol of progress for the Land Rover brand, so why continue to include those redundant flip-down armrests? Of all the heritage design features to stick with, these seem the most irrelevant. The cushy center console is already nicely positioned for resting your elbow, and these flimsy, narrow appendages only block easy access to the seatbelts. At the very least, Land Rover should offer buyers an armrest-delete option on the spec sheet. —Drew DorianArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Land Rover Range Rover Sport SE P360Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $84,475/$90,145 Options: 22-inch wheels, $1450; Black contrast roof, $1000; Giola Green paint, $710; Cold Climate package, $640; LED headlights, $600; 22-inch full-size spare, $500; Natural Black veneer trim, $410; Wi-Fi with data plan, $360
ENGINEsupercharged, turbocharged, and intercooled, DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2996 cm3Power: 355 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 369 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.0-in vented disc/14.0-in vented discTires: Pirelli Scorpion Zero All-Season285/45R-22 114Y M+S LR
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.0 inLength: 194.7 inWidth: 80.6 inHeight: 71.7–74.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/50 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 66/32 ft3Curb Weight: 5387 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.7 sec1/4-Mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 15.7 sec130 mph: 33.2 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.5 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 140 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.81 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 25 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 590 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 22/19/26 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDSenior EditorEzra Dyer is a Car and Driver senior editor and columnist. He’s now based in North Carolina but still remembers how to turn right. He owns a 2009 GEM e4 and once drove 206 mph. Those facts are mutually exclusive. More

From the July 1985 issue of Car and Driver.One cannot take life too seriously when one looks at it from inside a Monte Carlo SS, a Buick Regal Grand National, or—to a lesser degree—an Olds 442. These cars are for taking large numbers of friends and great quantities of beer to the beach. Nobody worries about Central America or school prayer when sashaying down the highway in a car that’s the rolling embodiment of everything the Beach Boys sang about in the Sixties.Television and the weekly news maga­zines would have us believe that every young person in America was out on the barricades in the Sixties and early Seven­ties, tossing tear-gas canisters back at the cops and praying the old VW bus could make it over the border to Canada. The truth is that the vast majority of kids never even saw a barricade or got a whiff of tear gas. Hordes of America’s flaming youth drank beer, raised hell, tore around in cars not unlike the three we have here today, and waited to see if they were going to get called up for Vietnam. Nostalgia is what these three vehicles are all about. When you’ve been driving any one of the three for more than about five minutes, you begin to wish that you’d brought along all of your Frankie Valli/Del Shannon/Jan and Dean/Lovin’ Spoonful cassettes—not to mention everything ever produced by Phil Spector or recorded by the aforementioned Beach Boys. With “My Little Runaway” blasting out of the speak­ers, you’re not really concerned with the fact that these cars have been left in the dust by modern automotive technology. You don’t even mind too much when some adolescent in an Omni GLH Turbo does the same thing. We’ve long admired the appearance of the Buick Grand National and the Chevro­let Monte Carlo SS, and we were finally moved to bring GM’s three more-or-less muscle cars together for a test by the rather pleasant weeks we’d spent driving an Olds 442 through the snowdrifts and slop of a nasty Michigan winter. It’s possible—to some degree—to forecast the good, the bad, and the ugly high-speed dynamic characteristics of a car based on its behav­ior at lower speeds on snow and ice, and the 442 behaved admirably when tossed around on the local low-coefficient sur­faces. Thus, when the weather began to clear and spring made an appearance, we lined up all three for a nostalgic romp through what’s left of Muscle Car Land. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverView Photos1985 Buick Regal Grand NationalAaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe Buick is by far the meanest-looking. It is also the fastest, because it carries mar­ginally less weight, and because its turbo­charged V-6 engine puts out 20 more horsepower than either the Olds or the Chevy (200 to their 180). The Buick defi­nitely makes the greatest impression on the mob. It really carries the same feeling of menace as an attack helicopter, and its ex­haust note has a lovely, moaning rap that’s guaranteed to raise a young male’s pulse rate by about fifteen points. The Chevy looks more like a NASCAR stocker, and of course, that was the idea. As clunky as a standard Monte Carlo looks, it is nonetheless one of NASCAR’s most successful racing shapes, and Chevrolet’s styl­ists didn’t have to do much to capture the character of the race cars in the SS. Every­thing about the Chevy is skewed toward that perception except the interior. The paint­-and-decal scheme, the wheels and tires, the suspension settings, the front and rear aero aids, and a burbling V-8 noise all combine to enhance the Darlington 500 effect. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe Olds doesn’t seem to have its heart in this competition. Aside from its wheels and tires and a handful of 442 decals, it could be any other Cutlass two-door sedan. Similarly, the interior is all Cutlass, so the car turns out to be less a theme car or character car than a regular Cutlass with some worthwhile performance options. In fact, we’d be delighted to see all of the old front-engine, rear-drive Cutlasses come out of the factory equipped like our 442. . . Then the Oldsmobile Division could devote itself to creating a 442 perfor­mance-and-personality package that would really make a statement. The Chevrolet, the Buick, and the Olds all share a common body shell, as well as an automatic transmission, front and rear sus­pensions, brakes, tires, and front-seat frames. Each division was able to fiddle with spring and shock-absorber rates, anti­roll bars, bushings, and steering ratios, and to install its own engine and torque-con­verter calibrations. (None of the three of­fers a manual gearbox, worse luck.) When you drive all three back to back, the degree to which their respective divisions have been able to make them different from one another is surprising. All three driving seats feel the same, which is to say substan­dard, and all control relationships are more or less identical, but after that, the three cars begin to separate. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverView Photos1985 Oldsmobile 442Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverAs we’ve said, the Oldsmobile is the least imposing of the three. It is powered by a five-liter version of the old Olds 350 V-8, and the emphasis is on low- and midrange torque. The cast-iron engine is dressed with the same Rochester four-barrel carbu­retor that’s on the Chevy, and the power flows through the same four-speed auto­matic transmission, but there the resem­blance ends. The factory specifies tire pres­sures of 35 psi all around, and this made the 442 a little harsh and thumpy. Yet the overall feeling in the 442 was one of softness and undamped wheel movements. We were thus a little surprised to find that the Olds was quite happy when driven fast on our test roads—Southern California’s Mulholland Drive and Angeles Crest Highway—even when the pavement was rough and the shoulders were crumbled. Much like the true muscle cars of days gone by, with their flabby suspension and vague steering, one simply tossed the 442 into the corner, allowed the suspension to com­press all the way, and then rode it around on the rubber bump stops. Worked fine, despite all kinds of early warnings of immi­nent disaster. The Buick was another matter altogeth­er. The Buick, on the strength of its exteri­or appearance and its wonderful V-6 en­gine, promised everything but was really unhappy when the road got rough and twisty at the same time. The shock absorb­ers just seemed to give up. And since the engine’s performance was so far superior to that of the other two, it only took a small squirt of throttle to get oneself well and truly launched into the next corner. After about three such corners, filled with sturm und drang and flying elbows, we learned to modulate the pressure on the loud pedal. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverView Photos1985 Buick Regal Grand NationalAaron Kiley|Car and DriverBuick’s 3.8-liter turbo V-6 is a great en­gine in search of a great car. Its perfor­mance is so good that it cries out for a more stable platform than the one offered by the Grand National. Let our technical editor describe it in greater detail: “Although it has only three-quarters the displacement and uses the same pushrod valve gear of its competitors’ V-8 engines, the Buick motor easily outmuscles them both. The source of its power is a comput­er-controlled AiResearch T3 turbocharg­er, which is allowed to generate up to 15 psi of boost under favorable conditions. The proper fuel quantity to match the blown engine’s deep breathing is determined by the same computer, using a mass-airflow sensor and various temperature and pres­sure sensors. Each cylinder’s dose of fuel is then metered very accurately by sequen­tially firing electronic injectors. The com­puter also determines the optimal spark timing and ignites each cylinder’s charge with a high-precision, distributor-less igni­tion system. The result of this exotic tech­nology is a nice, round 200 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque.” Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverView Photos1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SSAaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe Monte Carlo’s L69 engine is an American classic: a 305-cubic-inch version of the 30-year-old Chevy small-block V-8. Think of it as either the carbureted Z28 en­gine or a regular old Chevy V-8 with a 9.5 compression ratio and a Corvette cam­shaft. Either way, it delivers a very pleasing 180 horsepower. Not as spectacular as the Buick’s turbo V-6, but more than ample for styling and profiling, it moves the Monte Carlo along at a pace that would have been unimaginable five years ago. These cars are true enthusiasts’ vehicles, in that they really don’t make a lot of sense. They’re performance cars that don’t really go all that fast; flash cars with the look and the smell and the roar of race cars, but the soul of mom-and-pop sedans. But it’s as­tonishing how much fun they are. And that’s the whole point. People stare at them. They look terrific. The Buick is about perfect as automotive graphics go, but the Olds and the Monte Carlo have their own songs to sing. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverView Photos1985 Oldsmobile 442Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverEvery one of the three deserves a better interior. The seats just don’t get it, but our guess is that the target customers for the Olds and the Chevy don’t worry too much about seats and ergonomics—that’s for Porsche people and other poseurs. The Buick, though, is different. First of all, it’s a bit more expensive, and it’s so black, so sleek, that one really ought to be able to yank the door open and be stunned by a gorgeous high-tech interior, including an up-to-date package of analog instruments. The Monte Carlo SS was our overall fa­vorite, with the Buick a very close second. The Monte Carlo doesn’t go as fast or look as mean as the Buick Grand National, but the Monte Carlo offers its driver a nicely balanced portfolio of acceleration, braking and handling, and NASCAR style. It’s clear that Chevrolet gave this car a great deal of thought, because it delivers. The decals and special trim mask no disappointments. The car is what it says it is, and does what it looks like it ought to do. It rolls along the freeway just like a grown-up automobile, yet handles the swoops and humps of the Angeles Crest and Mulholland Drive like a great big sporty car. It ought to be sensa­tional for delivering the beer and friends to the beach for this week­end’s volleyball tournament.Arrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1985 Buick Regal Grand National200-hp turbocharged V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3460 lbBase/as-tested price: $13,565/$16,289C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.5 sec1/4 mile: 15.7 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.9 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 198 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g C/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg
1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS180-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 3530 lbBase/as-tested price: $11,608/$14,430C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.8 sec1/4 mile: 15.9 sec @ 86 mph100 mph: 25.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 204 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
1985 Oldsmobile 442180-hp V-8, 4-speed automatic, 3570 lbBase/as-tested price: $11,745/$14,366C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 9.1 sec1/4 mile: 16.6 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 31.3 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 204 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g C/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg More

From the September 1986 issue of Car and Driver.New automotive nameplates don’t come around very often. For one thing, new car companies aren’t started every day. And among established automakers, staking millions on a nameplate that has no image, status, or history to back it up is a risk that few are willing to take.In general, low-end buyers are the most willing to embrace products without pedi­grees. If a car is cheap, as the Hyundai Ex­cel and the Yugo are, that seems to be good enough for the transpo-appliance customers. Once out of the bargain-base­ment class, though, new nameplates face an uphill battle. All the advance publicity in the world failed to convince a respect­able number of buyers that the De Lorean was a worthwhile investment. Similarly, Ford’s Merkur has not exactly set the sales charts on fire in its first two years, despite offering reasonable value for its price and the backing of America’s second-largest car company. The problem is that new nameplates must compete with a large ex­isting population of good-to-great cars­—cars whose virtues are well known to the public. There just aren’t many virgin mar­keting niches left these days, particularly in the highly profitable upmarket segment, which virtually every car manufacturer in the world is going after. Honda’s marketing people nonetheless feel that the time is right to move beyond the limits of their existing nameplate with a new franchise called Acura. The strategy behind the new brand is to supply the tra­ditional Honda virtues of superb quality, driving excellence, and a fair price in a more upscale line of cars. Honda and Acura Archive ReviewsTwo models make up the Acura Auto­mobile Division’s introductory line. The Legend (C/D, August), an all-new luxury car, fits the Acura strategy perfectly, for it’s larger and more expensive than any Honda ever sold in America. The smaller Integra models, however, are not very dif­ferent either in size or in cost from existing Honda products. In fact, the Integras aren’t even all-new. Honda is relying in­stead on premium hardware and all­-around driving performance to create an upmarket image for the Integra line.The foundation of the Integra models is Honda’s highly adaptable and capable Civ­ic chassis. The three-door version is based on the 96.5-inch-wheelbase platform of the Civic four-door sedan and five-door wagon. The five-door Integra rides on a 2.8-inch-longer version of the same chas­sis. Both models employ the Civic’s strut front suspension, located by lower control arms and sprung by torsion bars. The Civ­ic’s power-assisted rack-and-pinion steer­ing is standard. In the rear is the familiar coil-sprung rigid axle located by two trail­ing arms and a Panhard rod; just as on the Civics, the right-side trailing arm is free to rotate on the axle tube, preventing the ax­le’s torsional rigidity from restricting sus­pension motion. As with the Civics, anti­roll bars are fitted at both ends. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverThe Civic foundation aside, the Integra departs from its forebears with a host of improvements. Its brakes are upgraded, with larger vented discs fitted up front and solid discs replacing drums at the rear. Traction is improved by fitting all Integras with 195/60HR-14 Michelin MXV tires, mounted on 5.5-inch-wide wheels. Not only are the Michelins larger than any pre­vious Civic tires, they’re even larger than any rubber available on Accords. The Integra’s engine (see Technical High­lights below) is derived from the all-aluminum, 1.3- and 1.5-liter Civic motors, but a twin­-cam, sixteen-valve cylinder head has helped boost its power output to 113 hp, a solid 21-hp improvement. The Civic line’s five-speed manual and four-speed auto­matic transaxles have been fitted with gear ratios and reinforcements appropriate to the uprated engine. And, as with the fuel-­injected Civics, the Integra employs equal-­length half-shafts to keep torque-steer effects to a minimum.Technical HighlightsHonda has been building high-output four-valve motorcycle engines for America for years, and many of these motors offer brilliant high-rpm performance. Honda’s first four-valve automotive engine is a much more se­date performer, as impressive in mid-range flexibility as it is in peak power. One reason for this equanimity is the small-bore, long-stroke layout of the Civic engine family to which the Integra powerplant belongs. In fact, the 1.6-liter Integra engine’s 75.0 mm bore and 90.0 mm stroke dimensions are even more under-square than the 74.0 and 86.5 mm figures of the 1.5-liter Civic en­gine. Such a design limits both the en­gine’s revving potential and its valve di­ameter, thereby encouraging the use of a four-valve cylinder head that is special­ly tuned to provide its benefits in the less frenetic rpm ranges. Mild valve timing was selected to fat­ten the torque curve. A finger-follower valvetrain multiplies the lift at the cam lobes to a generous 9.5 mm at the valves. Long (370 mm) intake runners also en­hance midrange breathing. Good high­-end breathing was ensured by the four­-valve layout, which employs two 30 mm-­diameter intake valves and two 27 mm exhaust valves. (For comparison pur­poses, the Civic’s 1.5-liter engine uses twin 27 mm intake valves and a single 33 mm exhaust valve per cylinder.) As a result, power is up from the smaller engine’s 91 hp at 5500 rpm to 113 hp at 6250 rpm. Torque is increased from 93 pound-feet at 4500 rpm to 99 pound-feet at 5500 rpm, and the torque curve is well endowed above and below the peak. About the only trade-off for these increases is a 21-pound weight in­crease (to 207 pounds) over the Civic engine. At a cost of less than one pound apiece, the extra horses are a bargain. —Csaba CsereAlthough the Integra’s designers made good use of Civic hardware for their new car, they realized that familiar styling would not assist in the development of an upmarket image. Consequently, the Integra looks nothing like any Civic. It has much sleeker and more rakish lines; if any­thing, it resembles a shrunken Accord hatchback. The Integra’s shape creates a sporting image by virtue of its low nose, hidden headlights, steeply raked wind­shield, and sloping hatchback design. But sporting clichés have been avoided, and there is a minimum of unnecessary surface detailing and brightwork. The Integra looks as if it belongs in the fast lane but doesn’t look like a boy racer’s car. This no-nonsense design approach car­ries over into the Integra’s interior. The dash is clean and smooth, with a simple layout of controls and white-on-black ana­log instruments. There isn’t a tumorous switch cluster or a glowing electro-screen to be found. Instead of gimmicks, the Integra’s interior offers solidly worked-out fundamentals: a pair of very supportive and comfortable bucket seats in front, a tilt steering column, a proper dead pedal for the driver’s left foot, and gas and brake pedals appropriately positioned for heel­and-toe operation. Everything required for serious driving is present and account­ed for. That isn’t to say that workaday concerns have been neglected. The three-door Integra offers plenty of room for two front passengers; the rear compartment has low bottom cushions and limited headroom but can accommodate a pair of adults for short trips. The five-door, with its longer wheelbase and roofline, offers more head­room and a more comfortable seating po­sition. Both body styles provide a split rear seatback, so the aft compartment can readily be converted into a voluminous cargo hold. Aaron Kiley|Car and DriverWhat we have here is a sporting and practical compact sedan with first-rate run­ning gear—in other words, an ideal foun­dation for an attractive small car. Performance is in no way lacking, either. With just under 2400 pounds to motivate, the sixteen-valve engine can push the three­-door Integra from a standstill to 60 mph in 8.8 seconds and through the standing quarter-mile in 16.5 seconds at 82 mph. The Integra is one quick small sedan. But more important than sheer speed is the joy of winding the Integra through the gears. The five-speed transmission shifts with typical Honda precision and delicacy, and the twin-cam engine revs as if there were no tomorrow. The 7000-rpm redline is easily reached in the first four gears, and the engine will even pull 6250 rpm in fifth, for a top speed of 117 mph. Buzzes and shakes are well muted at high rpm; the eager engine sings the hard-edged song of first-rate machinery working overtime. For all its willingness to rev, the Integra’s powerplant is also happy at doc­ile paces. In normal driving, shifting at 3500 rpm provides plenty of thrust for dealing with everyday traffic, and there’s enough urge in top gear so that not every call for more speed has to be accompanied by a frenzied downshift. This powertrain is just as happy going to the grocery store as it is zapping unsuspecting Z28s and Supras. In between, the Integra squeezes 26 miles from each gallon of fuel, accord­ing to the EPA’s city test. The Integra’s suspension complements its well-rounded powertrain very nicely. The sporty Acura rides better than any Civic, with less harshness over small ruts and a more supple action over large bumps, and yet it is plenty capable in the twisties. Its power steering is quick and precise, with plenty of on-center feel, and a respectable 0.78 g of well-balanced grip is available. When the front end finally does start to slide, reducing power restores grip immediately and causes the Integra to con­tinue turning in. In short, the Integra is easy to drive, even when pushed to and be­yond the edge. As capable as the Integra is, though, don’t expect it to run away from such com­mitted sports sedans as the Chevrolet Cava­lier Z24 or Dodge Shadow ES. The Integra lies much closer to the middle of the comfort-performance spectrum than such cars, which trade away a great deal of refinement for their raw speed and corner­ing ability. Like the Volkswagen GTI, the Integra is an all-around player: Its speedy virtues are blended nicely into a mature personality that offers comfort and perfor­mance in approximately equal measure. Such a mix can only be accomplished by combining first-class hardware with pains­taking development. In addition to being a wonderful car to drive, the Integra is well equipped with features and conveniences that contribute to everyday satisfaction. The base Integra, labeled RS, comes with dual remote-con­trol mirrors, a rear defroster, a rear wiper/ washer, a center console, and a very well-finished interior. The higher-level LS model adds aluminum wheels, a pop-out sunroof, plusher carpeting, cruise control, and an AM/FM-stereo radio/cassette, complete with an equalizer. The LS five­-door also gets power windows, which would be a nice touch on the three-door as well. We’d also like to see a height adjust­ment for the excellent seats, but there’s really very little missing from these cars. That makes the $10,848 base price of the three-door LS look pretty good. And the RS comes with all of the same basic hardware for $1400 less. Both Integras, judged by any standard of speed, comfort, utility, or refinement, are the kind of auto­motive bargains that should attract the so­-called upmarket buyers in droves. Wheth­er the Acura name will attract their attention is still an open question, but good automotive values seldom remain se­cret for long. CounterpointLooks like another success for Honda—er, Acura. But then we’ve come to expect as much from the Japa­nese maker that’s currently producing some of the best cars in the world. The Acura Integra is everything a sporty hatchback should be. If you’ve driven a Honda before, you’ll feel right at home in the Integra. The seating position is upright, com­fortable, and well-located in relation to the excellent controls and instruments. The Integra’s 1.6-liter four is a gem. It won’t kick you back into your seat, but it will wind out easily, feeling taut and smooth right up to 7000 rpm. Add the slick five-speed and you have sheer driv­ing pleasure. I have but two complaints. The air conditioning in our test car had to be left on high on an 80-degree day, and still the interior never got American-style icebox-cool. And the steering had a vague on-center feel, with too much free play when returning to a straight line. One other thing: Who needs the Acura label? The Honda name already defines a premium line. —Arthur St. AntoineHonda is one carmaker that never shrinks from a challenge. This year’s project is the amalgamation of a new nameplate, fresh fenders, and some old Civic parts to create the Acura Integra. Many manufacturers would sweat and strain over such an undertaking, but Honda makes it look like child’s play. The Integra’s sixteen-valve engine tech­nology has been racing around Europe­an and Japanese streets and Formula 1 circuits for a few years, so it lands in America fully matured. The modest Civ­ic underpinnings have been elevated to a new plateau with minor refinements and a major upgrade in rolling stock. The interior fittings and the exterior de­cor have class without being crass. The real magic, however, comes from refinement. The Integra’s engine matches its suspension, which jibes with the cockpit, which makes sense with the exterior envelope. What we have here is an automobile so nicely integrated that even its name fits. —Don Sherman Like the great major-league pitchers, Honda has a repertoire that just won’t quit. When this company winds up, you never know what kind of pitch to expect—big car, small car, cheap car, luxocar—but it’s sure to be a strike. Well, here we go again. This new Acura is a lovely automobile that should be contemplated by anyone in the mar­ket for a rocket box of the VW GTI per­suasion. The Integra, though, is soft where the GTI is hard-edged, creamy where the little VW is brazen. We’re talking relatively small increments, mind you, but differences you can see and feel. The lntegra packs plenty of sportiness, but Acura’s spin on the ball adds a touch of refinement and plush­ness and backs off a notch on pure aggression. So if you like GTis, or GLis, or Sis, or Colt Turbos, you’ll like this little filly just fine. Just don’t ask me for advice when it comes time to buy. In this league, every one of these cars is in strike territory. —Rich CepposArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
1986 Acura Integra LSVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $11,098/$12,334Options: air conditioning, $986
ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 97 in3, 1590 cm3Power: 113 hp @ 6250 rpmTorque: 99 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: strut/live axleBrakes, F/R: 9.5-in vented disc/9.4-in discTires: Michelin MXV195/60HR-14
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.5 inLength: 168.5 inWidth: 65.6 inHeight: 53.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/34 ft3Cargo Volume: 9 ft3Curb Weight: 2396 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.8 sec1/4-Mile: 16.5 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 30.2 sec110 mph: 58.3Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 12.1 secTop Speed: 117 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 194 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 26/30 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDContributing EditorCsaba Csere joined Car and Driver in 1980 and never really left. After serving as Technical Editor and Director, he was Editor-in-Chief from 1993 until his retirement from active duty in 2008. He continues to dabble in automotive journalism and LeMons racing, as well as ministering to his 1965 Jaguar E-type, 2017 Porsche 911, and trio of motorcycles—when not skiing or hiking near his home in Colorado.  More

From the April 2023 issue of Car and Driver.One tour around the BMW M4 CSL is all you need to size it up. With its Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R tires, prominent ducktail spoiler, and deep front splitter, the CSL is clearly a track-focused thoroughbred. That impression continues inside, with an empty space where the rear seat used to be and standard carbon-fiber front buckets that scoot fore and aft but require an allen wrench for any angular or height adjustments. Lift the hood and you’ll realize it’s an immaculately built hunk of carbon fiber (as is the trunk), with stripes on top that are merely unpainted swaths that show through. A plastic engine cover blocks your view of the 543-hp twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-six, but the exquisite birdcage brace that connects the radiator core support, strut towers, and firewall is worth its own Instagram post.On the test track, the launch control’s synchronization of the engine and transmission isn’t fully baked. We gained a few tenths by going full Skywalker and switching off launch control, regulating wheelspin with our right foot and manually pulling the upshift trigger.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverStill, the 3.3-second 60-mph result trails the M4 Competition xDrive and its superior all-wheel-drive launch by a half-second. The setback is temporary. Leave your foot in it, and the CSL draws even at 6.9 seconds to 100 mph, then pulls well clear after that, hitting 120 mph in just 9.5 seconds and 150 mph in only 15.4 ticks. HIGHS: Crushing top-end acceleration, awesome on the track, grip for days.The Cup 2 R tires utterly bolt down the CSL to the tune of 1.10 g’s around the skidpad. But the Bimmer’s 148-foot stop from 70 mph is only two feet better than what the M4 Competition xDrive managed. From 100 mph, however, the CSL’s 278-foot stop bests the xDrive’s by a full 24 feet. Put all of that together and it’s no wonder this bad boy clocked a 2:47.5 at Lightning Lap (where the dash to 60 mph means little) to become the quickest BMW around the place.More on the M4 CSLBut that doesn’t necessarily mean a riotous good time on California’s canyon roads, which are less than racetrack smooth. The car has a hard time putting down power if corner exits have any imperfections, and it seemingly hates getting out of tight hairpins, where echoes of its transmission hesitancy make their presence known. Despite weighing 1483 pounds more, a BMW i4 M50 we took through the same section strikes us as being much more engaging and compliant, plus quicker point to point. The CSL feels somewhat more connected when the corners are smooth and flowing, and the powerful brakes never give up when you’re charging back downhill through tight sections. But this BMW is never a grin machine.LOWS: Intolerable seats, unforgiving on-road ride, steering has a mind of its own.What unseals the deal is what you must tolerate driving home after the adrenaline drains away. The CSL tramlines like a slot car. The fixed buckets become a literal pain in the ass. And the ride is so unforgiving that even the softest mode is the very definition of head toss. Finally, we’d actually prefer a cupholder over the wireless phone charger, especially since the seat’s weird central ridge makes the old-school thigh-clamp method untenable. Track focus can go too far.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverArrow pointing downArrow pointing downSpecificationsSpecifications
2023 BMW M4 CSLVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $140,895/$145,395Options: Frozen Brooklyn Grey metallic paint, $4500
ENGINEtwin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 183 in3, 2993 cm3Power: 543 hp @ 6250 rpmTorque: 479 lb-ft @ 2750 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.7-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic disc/15.0-in vented, cross-drilled carbon-ceramic discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 RF: 275/35ZR-19 (100Y) ★R: 285/30ZR-20 (99Y) ★
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.5 inLength: 188.7 inWidth: 75.6 inHeight: 54.6 inTrunk Volume: 12 ft3Curb Weight: 3580 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.3 sec100 mph: 6.9 sec1/4-Mile: 11.2 sec @ 131 mph130 mph: 11.1 sec150 mph: 15.4 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 191 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 148 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 278 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.10 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpgEPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 18/16/23 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED Technical 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

It will take a range of solutions to realize the carbon-neutral operations many automakers, including BMW, have pledged to reach by the middle of this century. Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) will shoulder the bulk of the clean-energy load going forward, but the German manufacturer is not alone in believing that hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles (FCVs) will be an essential part of the mix. Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota also share that sentiment with their current and upcoming FCV models. After driving a new iX5 FCV prototype in Belgium, we came away thinking that BMW may be onto something, even if that something likely won’t come to fruition for another decade or two. Fewer than 100 iX5s will be built this year as part of a demonstration fleet for various regulatory bodies and marketing endeavors. Only a small handful will come to the United States, where—unlike Central Europe and parts of Asia—hydrogen infrastructure is practically nonexistent outside of California. Production entails shipping an X5 from its Spartanburg, South Carolina, birthplace to the BMW Research and Innovation Center in Munich. There, they fit a new floor to accommodate the iX5’s two cylindrical, carbon-fiber hydrogen tanks nestled in its center tunnel and under the rear seat. Fuel capacity amounts to about 16 pounds of gaseous hydrogen pressurized to 10,150 psi, which is good for around 310 miles of estimated range per Europe’s optimistic WTLP methodology (that equates to about 260 miles of range in the U.S., according to the EPA’s cycles). Unlike with a BEV, refilling the iX5 at one of the hydrogen stations around Antwerp only takes a few minutes and will be familiar to anyone who has ever pumped their own gas. BMWUnder the iX5’s cargo area is a rear drive axle and current-excited synchronous motor from a BMW iX. Sitting atop it is 400-volt lithium-ion battery with about 2.0 kWh of usable capacity, which exists as a power buffer to the fuel cell to aid in acceleration and also to recoup energy under braking. The fuel-cell stack itself resides under the iX5’s hood and includes core cell elements from BMW’s longtime FCV partner, Toyota. BMW developed the rest of the assembly, including the stack’s cooler and humidifier that optimize the system’s air quality, plus a powerful compressor to quickly shove oxygen into the cells’ membranes, where the main chemical reaction takes place. According to BMW, these enhancements result in both quick response to accelerator inputs and the fuel cell’s ability to continuously run at maximum power. As with all FCVs, electricity and water vapor are the only byproducts, with total system output a respectable 395 horsepower. More on HydrogenYou’ll be able to spot the iX5 by its many blue accents and the stickers running across its hood and down its flanks. From behind the wheel, the experience is wholly uneventful, which is the point. This vehicle drives exactly as you’d expect an electric X5 to—smooth, quiet, and refined. Its steering is pleasantly direct, and its air springs and adaptive dampers return nicely balanced body motions. Ride comfort on our sample car’s 20-inch run-flat winter tires was good, though the standard 22-inch Pirelli P Zeros surely will degrade that a bit. Several drive modes vary the iX5’s sportiness accordingly, while paddles on its steering wheel adjust the regenerative braking from a little to quite a lot. Mat the right pedal, and the Bimmer accelerates briskly with the low-end punch of a BEV, thanks in part to the fuel cells’ ability to simultaneously contribute energy to the traction motor and help maintain a high state of charge for the battery. Traffic congestion during our drive provided us with zero opportunity for fun, but BMW’s claims of acceleration to 62 mph in around six seconds and a 115-mph top speed are entirely believable. Along with being easier to refuel, the iX5 highlights additional benefits of FCVs over comparable BEVs. For one, fuel-cell vehicles tend to be lighter, mostly because they require only a modestly sized battery; BMW says the iX5’s curb weight is similar to that of the X5 plug-in hybrid, the last of which we tested weighed 5627 pounds. Of course, the similarly sized electric iX, with its large 105.2-kWh pack, is barely heavier, but its structure employs more lightweight materials than the X5’s that are worth a couple-hundred-pound weight reduction. Another benefit for FCVs is that their smaller battery means they require substantially fewer elements that are now in high demand to produce, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, though small amounts of platinum are needed for the fuel cell itself. The performance of fuel cells is more stable in extreme temperatures, too, particularly in the cold. While freezing water emissions inside of a fuel cell can indeed be a problem, BMW says the iX5 overcomes this by employing compressed air to blast residual water out of its cells and into drainage circuits. As for those wondering what happened to BMW’s previous work on hydrogen internal-combustion engines, technical issues and the inherent similarities between FCVs and BEVs have killed that business case. Proponents of FCVs argue that because of their strengths, especially their reduced mass and lessened need for exotic materials, fuel cells scale up well in larger applications, such as heavy trucks and ships with ample space to house sizable storage tanks. Big industries such as steel processing are beginning to utilize hydrogen as well, and BMW is betting that such applications will be key to the future development of FCVs. Indeed, the company’s strategy rests on hydrogen becoming more practical (and affordable) for transportation use as its popularity in other sectors increases. “It’s all about timing,” says Oliver Zipse, chairman of BMW’s Board of Management, likening a coming trigger point from hydrogen’s expected broader adoption to what lithium-ion batteries have done for BEVs. BMWBut don’t expect to see an iX5 in your driveway anytime soon. BMW considers this FCV pilot program akin to its initial limited rollout of BEVs, which included the first Mini E in 2009 and the BMW ActiveE in 2012. Yet even as the company develops versatile vehicle architectures to support fuel-cell powertrains, FCVs will primarily be a complementary—and likely subsidized—technology in markets that are willing to tackle the convoluted economics of getting hydrogen to consumers. Ongoing supply disruptions in Europe, for example, have significantly increased the cost of hydrogen well above that of gasoline and diesel fuel on a per-mile basis. Of course, none of this helps with long-term sustainability unless hydrogen is produced using clean energy sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear, among others. In short, as compelling as BMW’s hydrogen tech may be, it’s only a small piece in the future energy puzzle. Technical 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

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