Reviews

From the March 1998 issue of Car and Driver.In the past 27 months, five new roadsters have been introduced in the United States. The sportiest of the five are the Porsche Boxster (which went on sale in January 1997), the BMW Z3 (which beat the Boxster to the showroom by a full year), and the Chevrolet Corvette, which has been available since last September. The two other roadsters, which are not included in this comparison test, are the Mercedes SLK230, introduced in February 1996, and Mazda’s latest Miata, which should be widely available as you read this. The soft-riding, automatic-only Benz is a luxury cruiser first and is notably slower and less athletic than the three ruffians gathered here, although they challenge it nearly dollar for dollar in the market. The venerable Miata continues to be a pure roadster, but its abilities are limited by its moderately powered motor, which contributes to its affordable $20,000 price, half the price of those in the group we’ve gathered. More Convertible ComparosThe Corvette, the Boxster, and the new more-powerful version of BMW’s Z3, called the M roadster, are all-out, go-for-broke roadsters, the performance benchmarks. We voted the Corvette and the Boxster two of our 10Best Cars for 1998 (the M roadster was still in the box). On the latest Corvette, many of the details—lack of rattles, the clean gauges, and extra storage space—are so well executed that you’d think each of these roadsters was hand-built. Porsche’s Boxster shares the new 911’s front fenders and doors and uses a 201-hp, 2.5-liter version of the watercooled flat-six engine in the new 296-hp, 3.4-liter 911 series. Do we like these cars? Does an owl hoot? BMW will begin selling the M roadster in April. It’s powered by the company’s strongest six-cylinder engine, also found in the M3 five-seat coupe and sedan. The engine swap required a thoroughly retuned suspension and steering gear, moving the battery from the right side of the trunk to the center to make room for a dual exhaust, filling the fenders with wider tires, and installing four chunky tailpipes that exit in back. All this extra work takes place on the same assembly line in Spartanburg, South Carolina, that builds the entire world’s supply of BMW roadsters. BMW’s famed M (for “motorsport”) department was responsible for the design and engineering and sends complete 240-hp motors from Munich, Germany, to the upstate Carolinians for installation. The lower-powered Z3 models’ engines come from Austria. The M roadster’s in-line six-cylinder is a rev-happy motor. It fits into the small chassis the way the Great Hot Rodder in the Sky intended, increasing output from the Z3 2.8-liter’s 189 hp to 240 hp. These three roadsters cost big money—$49,235 for the Corvette, $46,385 for the Boxster, and $43,245 for the M roadster as tested. Chevrolet predicts sales of upwards of 10,000 Corvette convertibles in 1998. Porsche hopes to sell 8000 Boxsters, and BMW figures 3500 of the 20,000 Z3s it makes for 1998 will be the M-roadster model. Exposure to the environment in our three test cars is as undiluted as in any convertible, but roadsters make no compromises for passengers behind the front seats. This selfish seating arrangement focuses the abilities of the Corvette, the Boxster, and the M roadster on pleasing the driver. Which one is the best at it?3rd Place: Chevrolet CorvetteWe’d drive the Corvette roadster about 40 percent of the time with its top down. Chalk that up to its interior spaciousness—there’s a lot of room inside for wind to swirl around and give you a chill. Although the stereo volume automatically rises with increased speed, the driveline and the exhaust make enough noise that you often need to withdraw from driving on challenging roads and just aim the car down a straight road, letting your senses cool down. The good news is the noises are good noises: Throaty, hot-rod-­style burbling and provocative “back pops” (just quieter than a full-fledged backfire) from the exhaust make playing with the throttle fun for the ears. Beginning at about 2300 rpm under part throttle, the exhaust booms like a subwoofer. HIGHS: Abundant power, balanced handling, and a trunk built for three. LOWS: You must get out of the car to lower and raise the roof, and the car’s bulk makes it tough to maneuver in tiny personal spaces. VERDICT: The fleetest of the pack, but it’s larger and feels less connected to the road than the others.Whining about the racket is not meant to subvert the Corvette’s expression of speed: Our test car got to 60 mph in just over five seconds, which is a blink slower than the first CS Corvette roadster we tested last October. It also climbed to 167 mph with the top in place and 160 with the top down. The Corvette roadster growls through the quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds at 107 mph. (Our last hardtop was just two­-tenths of a second and 2 mph quicker.) That puts the Vette a half-second ahead of the BMW and 1.2 seconds in front of the Porsche. The aluminum pushrod V-8 in the roadster makes 345 hp, but more notable in this field of roadsters is the engine’s 350 pound-feet of torque, which accelerates the car out of corners incredibly quickly, even at part throttle. You get a sense there’s a lot of power in reserve here. The six-speed manual transmission in our test car features a sixth gear so tall that at 70 mph the engine turns over at a mere 1550 rpm. It also features the annoying fuel-saver skip-shift feature that forces you to upshift from first to fourth gear when tooling along at part throttle at slow city speeds. More on the 1998 CorvetteFor our selfish and fuel-consumptive back-road business—conducted on some of the very tight 10Best Roads of the Southeast (C/D, January 1998)—we ignored the Corvette’s top three gears, saving them for highway cruising. The Corvette launches quickly from corner to corner on the roads that are the most fun to drive. It pulls so strongly you can sometimes avoid downshifting and still maintain as much speed. It feels balanced on the twisty roads and also in our handling and emergency-lane-change maneuvers. “The Corvette’s chassis deserves respect—it’s utterly predictable,” said senior technical editor Don Schroeder. The Corvette has better grip on the skidpad than the Porsche or BMW, and it out­runs both of them through the emergency-lane-change contest. So why does the car that generates the best numbers in so many categories finish third? In this test, its bulk got in the way, detracting from the complete roadster driving experience.”The Corvette is just too big here, in reality or perception,” said technical editor Larry Webster. We held this comparison test in South Carolina and set up a handling course on the fast and smooth Laurens proving ground owned by Michelin North America. The fast track should have favored the powerful Corvette, but Mother Nature gave the best time to the mid-­engined Porsche in the form of a traction­-limiting sprinkle of rain. “On the track it feels big and brutish, although fast, too,” said Schroeder. “On the damp track, though, it can’t put power down without extreme oversteer—not like the Porsche, which remains neutral. You find, getting out of the other cars and into the Corvette, that it takes a while to get used to the bulk.”Some staffers would be inclined to purchase the Corvette simply because of its sheer speed—no soft-top car that costs less can run faster. Others think the Corvette’s roomy 14-cubic-foot trunk, spacious interior, and amenities make it the best choice of the three for serving as both a weekday commuter and a weekend warrior. But we felt that the Corvette was happier on a dry test track than it was on these very twisty back roads. As a result, when it comes to delivering the variety of sensations that only come from a topless car, the Corvette loses by a whisker to its smaller, tidier competitors.1998 Chevrolet Corvette convertible345-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3260 lbBase/as-tested price: $45,619/$49,235C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.1 sec100 mph: 11.6 sec1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 107 mph120 mph: 16.8 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g C/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg2nd Place: BMW M RoadsterWe’d drive the M roadster about 60 percent of the time with its top down, for several compelling reasons: The heated seats and the reasonably draft-free cockpit mean you can drive alfresco in winter, your view out of the BMW is vast and expansive, and the top is electrically powered and lowers or rises in 10 seconds. Of the three cars in this group, this is the closest in feel to a motorcycle, and a lot of that sensation is because the doors seem low. Your left shoulder is several inches above the beltline of the driver’s door. The corner of your left eye picks up the texture of quickly moving pavement close to the car, which brings home the sense of speed you get in this roadster. HIGHS: Drivetrain-refinement perfection, stylish upholstery wardrobe. LOWS: The older-generation rear suspen­sion isn’t as flawless as the state-of-the-art M3 sedan’s, and you need more time to develop trust in the BMW roadster’s handling. VERDICT: The classic definition of a roadster.And that sense of speed is very real. The M roadster bests its M3-sedan sibling to 60 mph by a 10th of a second, getting there in 5.4 seconds. That’s approaching the acceleration of the Corvette, although the big-boy Chevy has 105 more horsepower. The quarter-mile blows by in 14 seconds flat at 100 mph, 1 mph better than the heavier M3 hardtop. “This motor sings along at 7000 rpm with nary a vibration,” said Webster. It’s also a flexible powerplant. In the conversion to the 3.2-liter engine, BMW added a freer-breathing dual exhaust system that the M3 doesn’t have yet. Output remains at 240 hp and 236 pound-feet, but the torque curve is widened a bit. Add that to the lighter weight of the little roadster—3080 pounds compared with the M3’s 3248 pounds—and the overall effect makes the M3 feel slower. BMW admits the four exhaust pipes were added mostly for the macho look, but the next generation of the M3 (due this summer) will likely get the new exhaust system and a power increase. The bigger exhaust doesn’t mean the car is noisier, however. At full throttle with the top up, the M roadster is notably more muffled than the two other roadsters. M roadsters destined for the U.S. have less sound-deadening material inside than do European-spec M roadsters, which have been on sale overseas for a year. The M roadster gets lower-profile front tires and wider rear tires than the Z3 2.8 we tested in our previous roadster comparison in April 1997, but it keeps the same size fenders as the Z3 2.8. Tuning the suspension for these tires required different spring rates and stiffer shock settings, but the goal of this tuning wasn’t to make the car quicker on a racetrack, but more civilized around town. It’s truly comfortable and easy to drive four-fifths of the way to its limits. Suspension bits start moving around an awful lot when the going gets quicker. Compared with the two other roadsters, the BMW exhibits the most body roll, squat, and dive. On some tight corners, you can lift the inside front wheel off the ground several inches. “You have to be absolutely precise and smooth through the lane change, or this thing slides around and is slow. Way twitchier than the Porsche,” said Webster. “It’s the least composed of the three roadsters on the damp track,” said Schroeder. “Steering requires frequent correction, and you must compensate for weight transfers.” What he means is that lovers of the older-generation Porsche 911 who liked driving sideways can reminisce in this BMW. The BMW’s leather seating surfaces and upholstery are beautifully color-contrasted, and the gauges get chrome bezels. Inside, this car is the most attractive of the three in this test. Outside, brake scoops replace the fog lights in front, and the rear license plate moves up from the bumper to the trunklid. We like it a lot. The Corvette costs $6000 more as tested, and it boasts a string of equipment unavailable on the BMW, such as dual climate controls, run-flat tires with integral pressure-sensor gauges, a power antenna, extra 12-volt outlets, a compact­-disc changer, memory seats, and more. Those who have come to expect all of this on a luxury-priced two-seater will miss it on the BMW.1998 BMW M Roadster240-hp inline-6, 5-speed manual, 3080 lbBase/as-tested price: $43,245/$43,245C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.4 sec100 mph: 13.9 sec1/4 mile: 14.0 sec @ 100 mph120 mph: 22.2 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg1st Place: Porsche BoxsterNot only would we take this car to the ski mountains in January with the top down, but we’d have to force ourselves to consider the downside of the latest flu before we’d put the top up, even when it rains in the summer. That means we’d want to drive this car topless about 80 percent of the time we spent in it. Maybe we’re dreaming, but just in case, we’d pack one of the Boxster’ two spacious trunks with extra jackets for the passenger. It’s not uncomfortable in wintertime (at least, a South Carolina winter) and we’re not exaggerating here: The Boxster’s high beltline means your shoulders ride level with the tops of the doors, so when the side windows are up, they block a lot of wind. Perforated panels covering the insides of the roll hoops and a plexiglass barrier between the seats also keep the air calm way down into the footwells of the car. All of this aids the heater’s ability with the top off. The Boxster is the most intimate-­feeling of these three roadsters. HIGHS: The intuitive communication through the controls to the driver creates the magic of true partnership. LOWS: Weak motor means it’s a dance partner not into full-tilt boogie. VERDICT: Although many will buy this new Porsche for show, its more secret abilities blossom in private on small, intimate roads.Successful top-down climate management is just one reason the Porsche is a good roadster. Agility, involvement, feedback, balance, sensitivity, comfort, and refined behavior in a variety of conditions are the others. At first, the Boxster feels less powerful than the two other roadsters here. It runs the quarter-mile more than a second behind the Corvette (at 14.7 seconds). Its 7.3-second rolling-start acceleration from 5 to 60 mph feels positively sluggish after you’ve driven the two other screamers, both of which manage the task in less than six seconds. Top speed is ungoverned at 146 mph—that’s about as fast as a V-8 Mustang. At that speed, the Boxster feels stable and doesn’t get blown around by sidewinds. Of course, the rocket Corvette goes 21 mph faster. While you’re indulging in other full­-throttle behavior, the Porsche feels quiet and confident. The two other roadsters seem to yell and shout. The Boxster is quieter than the others when cruising with the top up, and depending on how high you hold your head, it’s a whole lot quieter when the top is down. Roadholding ability is less than the two other roadsters’ at 0.86 g, and the Porsche was at least 3 mph slower than the others in the lane-change test. Yet the Boxster managed to run this test without leaving a mark on the asphalt. The first time through our cone-marked course, the BMW left long, wide, dark tire smears of cooked rubber—four of them. The Corvette, too, autographed the pavement and made screeching and wailing noises at its limit. The Porsche remained unruffled and unprovoked. Out on real roads the Boxster proves its mettle. While churning the steering wheels of all three cars back-to-back on no fewer than six of the roads we divulged in January as the 10Best Roads of the Southeast, the Porsche never fell behind, despite the enormous difference in accel­eration times. “Everything is so direct, quick, and immediate in this car—the chassis, the steering response, the roll control. It feels like the most nimble car here, which makes up for the lack of horsepower a bit,” justified Schroeder.”I think the M roadster is more fun, but the Boxster is pretty damn fun without scaring you. It’s a tough call which is better,” concluded Webster. It may be a tough call, but it’s one we’ve made twice now. In our comparison test last April, the Boxster earned almost exactly the same ratings that it received during this test, even though the tests occurred 2800 miles and 11 months apart. The scores for the early test’s Z3 2.8 and SLK230 were lower than those earned by this test’s Corvette and M roadster, which tell us these two latest roadsters are closer to our ideal. And our conclusion, once again, is that this Porsche is less handicapped by its moderately powered engine than you’d think. We can’t wait for the arrival of the rumored 250-hp Boxster S model this summer, with power enough for the truly impatient. 1998 Porsche Boxster201-hp flat-6, 5-speed manual, 2900 lbsBase/as-tested price: $40,077/$46,385C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.1 sec100 mph: 16.8 sec1/4 mile: 14.7 sec @ 94 mph120 mph: 27.6 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 164 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the May 1993 issue of Car and Driver.Before we got all kissy-­kissy with the Russians, “throw weight” was a trendy bit of Cold War argot that gauged the ability of lCBMs the size of double-wide house trailers to toss megaton nukes between Minsk and Memphis. Thank­fully, that entire mode of technology is becoming déclassé in this age of peace, love, and the col­lapsing ruble.But not with Dave Hops, the maestro of Monster Motorsports. His notion of throw weight is to stuff a 4.9-liter Ford HO V-8 under the hood of a Mazda Miata roadster and stand back to whiff the rubber smoke. Should you have a spare $13,995 fry­ing a hole in your wallet and a Miata yearning to be freed of its neat but tepid four-banger, you are best advised to make it to Hops’s shop in Escondido, California, where he will take five weeks to complete the rather vivid transformation. Hops, a San Diego State engineering grad, a former Formula Atlantic shoe, and an accomplished builder of both ERA and Contemporary Cobra conver­sions, has built 30 of his Monster Miatas (transacted strictly by word of mouth) and has a steady stream of orders ahead of him. Car and DriverThe basic unit is a miracle fit, as if somewhere in some secret Mazda scheme a V-8 the size of Ford’s was planned. After he and former partner Vearl Collins conceived the idea in 1991, they discovered the small-block Ford would drop into the Miata’s engine bay with only a tiny snip out of the frame. Structural integrity was not both­ered, and there is plenty of room for simple maintenance of the new power­plant. Coupled to a Borg-Warner T-5 five­-speed manual (an automatic is optional) and a Mazda RX-7 differential, the com­pleted package tips the scale at 2480 pounds, roughly 220 more than the stock unit. Hops explains that the Ford engine weighs about 170 pounds more than the Mazda, and the RX-7 rear end adds another 40 pounds to the package. Amazingly, the T-5 (from the Saleen Mustang) is 50 pounds lighter than the stock Miata unit. With a larger radiator and cooling fan, extra bracing, and some subtle reinforcing, the Monster Miata hits the road with a reasonable 52/48 weight distribution, nullifying initial suspicions that the little machine might be a nose-heavy slug with all the maneu­verability of a D-9 Cat. Hop also adds larger sway bars fore and aft and stiffer Eibach rear springs, plus larger rubber (BFGoodrich Comp T/As, 205/50ZR-15 in front and 225/50ZR-15 in back). Our test vehicle carried Panasport Minilite replica mag wheels ($1000 extra), a roll bar, and considerably more power than the base package. For $1995, Hops installs a 300-hp SVO package, complete with a GT40 manifold, larger injectors and throttle body, Flowmaster headers, and a less restricted two-chamber exhaust. Four More From 1993Expectation that a vehicle with an 89.2-inch wheelbase that weighs just over one and a quarter tons and offers nearly 300 horsepower might offer heady highway thrills are not unfounded. The Monster Miata squirts to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds. It rumbles through the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds at 103 mph (compared with the stock Miata’s 17.2-sec­ond meander at 80 mph). With the some­what-constricted RX-7 final-drive ratio of 3.9:1, top speed is limited to 135 mph in fifth gear at 6100 rpm. Mid-range performance is dazzling: in fifth gear, the Miata leaps from 30 to 50 mph in 5.4 seconds and finds 70 mph from 50 in 5.3 seconds. Hops has done a superb job of mounting the engine in the Mazda’s innards. The body remains taut, and there is no cowl shake, axle tramp, or unseemly rattles or vibrations, even at full throttle. The Mazda steering is more than up to the task, and the car tracks well even in bursts beyond 100 mph. Because of the short final-drive ratio, second-gear starts are recommended for routine driving, while 80-mph Interstate cruising forces toleration of a rather thunderous 3700 rpm. Engine noise and the naturally high sound levels of a roadster tend to disqualify the Monster Miata as a long-range cruiser, but that misses the point of the entire exercise. Hops’s intent was to create an inexpensive sports car in the theme of the 289 Cobra or the Sunbeam Tiger: a hoot to hammer through the twisty parts. With a nicely tuned suspension, balanced weight dis­tribution, and Mazda’s intrinsic chassis stiffness, the Monster Miata is a surpris­ingly neat and abundantly exciting little machine.Monster Motorsports, 2312 Vineyard, Escondido, CA 92029: 619-738-46731993 Monster Motorsports Miata300-hp V-8, 5-speed manual, 2480 lbAs-tested price: $30,695C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.4 sec100 mph: 12.3 sec1/4 mile: 13.6 sec @ 103 mphRolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.6 secTop speed (redline limited): 135 mphBraking, 70­-0 mph: 191 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

Modern pickup trucks have been blown out of proportion, literally. Full-size examples such as the current Ford F-150 can tow and haul like heavy-duty trucks of yore, while the Super Duty can tow up to 40,000 pounds—half the fully laden weight of an 18-wheeler. Meanwhile, mid-size trucks have followed suit, expanding in size and price to fill the void, leaving room for a truck that’s a lot more affordable and a lot less cumbersome. The Ford Maverick is the mini-truck America needs to unclog thoroughfares and parking lots packed with oversize four-by-fours. Not only is the Maverick a terrific tool in its fundamental form, but it becomes ruggedly cool when outfitted with the new-for-2023 Tremor off-road package.FordTremor TreatmentFord already sells Tremor versions of the mid-size Ranger, the F-150, and its Super Duty trucks. Now, one model year after the company resurrected the Maverick moniker in the form of a compact unibody pickup, the off-road-oriented treatment is trickling down. The $2995 Tremor package is reserved for the Maverick XLT and Lariat models with the turbocharged 2.0-liter engine. Trucks with the kit are identified by their bedside graphics, smoked headlights and taillights, and orange body accents. Along with an orange stripe in the grille and orange front tow hooks, each of the dark-painted 17-inch wheels has an orange pocket. There’s also a Tremor-specific appearance package that adds some black exterior graphics and a gray-painted roof, but we don’t think it’s worth the $1495 upcharge.More on the Maverick pickupThankfully, Ford takes the Maverick Tremor further than those superficial bits, starting with the front bumper. Unlike lesser models, its redesigned chin incorporates a steel skid plate and allows for an approach angle of 30.7 degrees, just over nine degrees steeper than other all-wheel-drive variants. The Tremor’s 1.0-inch lift raises ground clearance to 9.4 inches, which is 0.8 inch more than the truck without the off-road package and a half-inch higher than the mechanically similar Ford Bronco Sport Badlands. As with its Badlands sibling, the Tremor is the only member of the Maverick family to feature an all-wheel-drive system with a torque-vectoring rear differential. With its aggressively treaded Falken WildPeak all-terrain tires that stand 30 inches tall, the Tremor is well equipped to crawl up, over, or through rocky, sticky, or slippery surfaces. Helping it conquer diverse terrain are selectable drive modes, including Mud & Ruts, Rock Crawl, and Sand. A Trail Control feature that automatically adjusts the accelerator and brakes to maintain a set speed—think of it like off-road cruise control.Tough as TrailsDon’t confuse the Maverick for a dedicated off-roader like the Jeep Gladiator or even consider it on par with the Ranger, its body-on-frame kin. Ford’s tiniest truck has its limitations and won’t make it far on truly difficult trail systems. However, it has the hardware to take on obstacles most owners would likely shy away from.FordWhile we didn’t have the chance to push the entry-level Tremor to its limits, we did take it off the beaten path and came out the other end pretty dirty. It flexed its suspension, which features unique dampers as well as retuned front and rears springs. We felt the all-wheel-drive setup effectively transfer power to the wheels with traction, which was even more obvious when one of the rears is hung helplessly in the air. We enjoyed mundanely driving the Maverick Tremor as much as we liked tossing it around on the trails. That duality makes it a compelling package. Granted, its force-fed four-pot buzzes rather loudly at idle, and heavy doses of throttle cause coarse engine sounds to penetrate the cabin. But with 250 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque, the 2.0-liter packs a satisfying punch. Keeping the engine on boil is a dutiful eight-speed automatic transmission that oddly can’t be manually operated. We haven’t yet tested the Tremor-equipped Maverick, but a 2022 XLT model with the turbo four and the FX4 off-road package (featuring the same Falken WildPeaks) sprinted to 60 mph in a tidy 5.9 seconds.Despite its noisiness, the Maverick is comfortable cruising at highway speeds. It doesn’t bounce or fidget, thanks mostly to its direct steering and impressive stability. While it rides on the same C2 platform as the Bronco Sport, the Maverick is 28 inches longer overall and has an extra 16 inches between its axles; it’s also a couple of inches lower than the baby Bronco. This little truck feels more refined than its SUV counterpart, and it drives more like a car. Again, its accessibility and nimbleness are among the biggest reasons it’s preferable to big trucks, particularly in urban areas.The few downsides to the Tremor package include its towing and hauling compromises. Its 1200-pound payload rating is 300 less than other Mavericks, even the front-wheel-drive hybrid. Most all-wheel-drive models can pull up to 4000 pounds with the 4K Tow package, but Ford doesn’t make that available on the Tremor, so it’s limited to 2000 pounds. Perfect Pickup Package?Although we wish the Tremor could tow more, we’re still smitten with the Maverick because it’s incredibly useful in other ways. Its 4.5-foot cargo bed boasts 33 cubic feet of volume, enough to haul nine compostable bags of yard waste, and it’s a lot easier to climb into and out of than full-size trucks. The Maverick also has more passenger space than expected, with a rear seat that’s comfortable for most adults, although we wish it had HVAC vents in back. Still, Ford manages to make its budget-friendly interior appear more expensive than it is with plastic surfaces that have attractive textures, and cleverly designed storage bins are everywhere.FordOf course, the Ford Maverick isn’t the only new small pickup on the market. The Hyundai Santa Cruz is its closest competitor, with the mid-size-range Honda Ridgeline lurking on the periphery due to its similar unibody construction. All three have strong points, but the Maverick’s mix of capability, practicality, and value put it at the top. Plus, it’s the only one that offers a legitimate off-road package. Whereas the least expensive Santa Cruz with the turbo engine and all-wheel drive has an MSRP over $38K and no Ridgeline costs less than $40,000, the Maverick Tremor is a certified steal starting at $31,165. Our $39,075 Lariat example showed the upper reaches of its price range, thanks to the $2610 Luxury package and several other extras. With or without those options, the 2023 Ford Maverick Tremor improves on the mini-truck’s fantastic fundamentals by providing more fun for adventurous types.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Ford Maverick TremorVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door pickup
PRICE
Base: XLT, $31,165; Lariat, $34,665
ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1992 cm3Power: 250 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 277 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 121.1 inLength: 200.7 inWidth: 72.6 inHeight: 69.5 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 57/47 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 3900 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 6.0 sec1/4-Mile: 14.6 secTop Speed: 110 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 24/22/28 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the May 1993 issue of Car and Driver.If history and ad copywriters had shown a little respect for the term “sports car,” perhaps “budget sports car” would be recognized today as the redundancy it out to be. In the dawn of sports-car time, post-war Europe needed cheap transportation and couldn’t pay extra for fun. Skinny-tired MGs drew a clear distinction between sporty driving and other more serious forms of motoring, and a modest price was as integral to the formula as a roofless cockpit. So it’s a shame that “sports car” has been attached to every odd lump on wheels needing an image fix—so much so that when we want to use the term in a disciplined fashion, we have to specify that we’re talking about cars regular working folks can afford.For about five grand to either side of $20,000, there are exactly four cars available today that have the spirit and substance to be rightly called sports cars. They are Alfa Romeo’s gray-bearded but still handsome Spider, Honda’s incredibly well-thought-out Civic del Sol Si, Mazda’s retro-look MX-5 Miata roadster, and Mercury’s turbo-boosted Capri XR2.We collected this eclectic open-top fleet in Southern California and took to the mountains and deserts in search of truth, harmony, and transient response (and weird tourist stops, like these dinosaur/gift shops off Interstate 10 near Cabazon). Somewhere between beautiful downtown Chula Vista and the 8443-foot Onyx Pass, we found the test’s winner. And discovered something about the tradeoffs we can be coaxed to accept in pursuit of sheer driving pleasure.4th Place: Alfa Romeo Spider VeloceDedicated Alfisti may rave till the pasta goes limp, singing the praises of the Spider’s certain je ne sais quoi (or is that non so che dire?). But we have to say, “Basta! Enough, already.” Alfa Romeo first whipped the cover off Pininfarina’s design for the Duetto Spider at the 1966 Geneva auto show. Do you realize how long ago 1966 was? Liz Taylor won the best-actress Oscar for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and the Baltimore Orioles won the World Series. So to say the 1993 Alfa Spider is a little dated is an understatement of heroic proportion. (It happened that the Alfa public-relations people didn’t have a current example handy, so they offered a nicely-cared-for 1991 customer car. “There’s no difference,” we were assured, tellingly.) HIGHS: Dustin Hoffman snagged Katharine Ross with one…LOWS: …but that was in 1967.VERDICT: An all-too-faithful replica of a sports car from a quarter-century ago.David Dewhurst|Car and DriverWe included the old Italian roadster in this group because, like the others, its mission is to provide a spirited, open-air driving experience for a reasonable price. “Reasonable” means something different coming from the Old World, and the Alfa, at over $25,000, runs eight or nine grand more than the class norm. But the Spider is conceptually comparable to the Capri, the del Sol, and particularly the Miata. Out on the road, it is anything but comparable. The Alfa feels profoundly and prohibitively old. And we’re not talking details here, like defroster effectiveness (there is little) or differential whine (there is lots). It’s the fundamentals—chassis rigidity, ride and handling, steering response, braking action—that make the Spider seem quaintly antiquated in this company. More on the Alfa Spider VeloceYou can look at the performance figures and the subjective core and find the Alfa, caboose-like, generally bringing up the rear. To explain why feels like piling on: The engine, though the largest here at 2.0 liters and rated at a respectable 120 hp, does not produce the kind of power you can feel, and at 2700 pounds, this is the heaviest car of the bunch; the body flexes and shudder over imperfect pavement; the steering is vague yet darty; the brake pedal does nothing for the first inch of travel then bites suddenly; the clutch drags even with the pedal hard on the floor; the live rear axle lurches over bumps; and drivers over six feet tall have no place to stow their knees. Need we go on? It’s true that on a mild spring day, at a very relaxed pace over immaculate black­top, the Alfa Spider offers a heartwarming, offbeat ride. And even after all these years, its clean shape remains attractive. Its top also flips down easily—almost as quickly and casually as the Miata’s—though the boot cover’s hooks, snap, and zippers work awkwardly. But is that enough? Obviously, a few people still find the Alfa Spider irresistible—the company sells about three a day in the U.S.—and those good folks will pay no attention to what we say anyway. But this car needs to be retired gracefully. It became an instant classic in 1967 when poor, befuddled Dustin Hoffman chased up and down California in one, trying to come to grips with his life and a fetching Katharine Ross in The Graduate. We’d prefer to remember it that way, not see it continually shoved out to face rivals 25 years more modern.1993 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce120-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2700 lbBase/as-tested price: $25,815/$25,815C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.9 sec60 mph: 9.7 sec1/4 mile: 17.3 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 30.0 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 212 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g C/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg3rd Place: Mercury Capri XR2This one threw us a curve. We’ve never been smitten by Ford’s little Australian-built droptop, mostly because it just didn’t look like much, with its under­bite face, featureless flanks, too-high beltline, and drab interior. No offense intended to our many fine friends in the clerical arts and sciences, but it seemed to be a secretary’s car, intent on being more cute than cutthroat. So imagine our chagrin when, on any road we saw, the homely little Capri would up and vanish, leaving the rest of the group futilely checking parking-brake handles. With 132 horsepower worth of turbocharged thrust, lots of cornering grip, and resolutely unthreatening handling, the XR2 makes easy speed that is the envy of the class. No $16,000 car needs to apologize for running 0 to 60 in eight seconds flat or reaching 126 mph, and we have to think that this machine would be a rip­roaring success if it were draped in truly sexy bodywork. HIGHS: Sheer speed and back-road moves that get your attention.LOWS: Wallflower looks that don’t.VERDICT: Low self-esteem; if it seemed cocky instead of embarrassed, we’d be crazy about it.As it is, the Capri is a rip-roaring anomaly. Pace-setting performance not­withstanding, our ambivalence held it to third among the three real contenders. Why an anomaly? Why our ambivalence? Because the Capri’s performance is so out of step with its personality. Like the unpromising shape, the feel of the car is just not very sporty. The driver sits deep inside, as if in a bucket, peering out over that high, straight beltline. Though the steering is smooth, it does not snap the relatively weighty car (2560 pounds) into corners with much authority. The low­effort shifter works positively if moved slowly but turns doughy under a more intense hand. In conjunction with good 50­series Michelins, the all-disc brakes pull the car up short—but on the handling course we used for lap times, they faded quickly. And over any kind of bumps taken at any kind of speed, vigorous cowl shake betrays a lack of structural rigidity. Does the Capri sound like an easygoing economy car that just happens to generate good performance numbers? You’re getting the picture. Of course, the Capri also happens to have a fold-down roof. The open-air option is a wild card that gives the car a dash of flair and gets it invited to sports­car comparison tests. And a good folding top it is, with a neat hard-panel boot cover that only slightly complicates the top-dropping procedure but looks sleek and tidy. Other details go into the Capri’s plus column: the generous storage area behind you (with belts for two more—presumably legless—occupants), decent seats, a good driving position, lots of legroom, and good draft control with the top down. All the car really needs is a total makeover to sharpen its reflexes, stiffen its body, enliven its control feel, and make it look as fast as it is.1993 Mercury Capri XR2132-hp turbocharged 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2560 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,390/$15,670C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.6 sec60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4 mile: 16.0 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 24.7 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 192 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 gC/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg2nd Place: Honda Civic del Sol SiSome gotta win and some gotta lose, as the song says. Even though Honda’s inventive new Civic del Sol is by consensus the best all-around automobile in the group, this is a sports-car test. And in a photo finish worthy of Little Al and Scott Goodyear (0.04 second at Indy last year, remember?), the traditional-layout Miata played up its incontestably sportier character to overcome its compromises and slip past the del Sol at the wire. But this one could have gone either way, thanks to how clever and uncompromised the del Sol is. HIGHS: The regular-car details (legroom, luggage space, comfort, ergonomics) are uncompromised.LOWS: Is it trying to be too many things to too many people?VERDICT: The best car of the bunch, but not enough sports to nab the gold.Much of this Honda’s appeal lies in its “openable-coupe” concept. Not a traditional roadster, with little more than a scrap of fabric to keep out the elements and traffic racket, this newest Civic spin­off wraps its occupants in genuine sheetmetal, keeping them as snug and comfy as any closed car. Then when it’s time to open up, the removable aluminum roof panel and power rear window provide a top-down experience on par with a ragtop’s. The roof panel is stowed in a hinged carrier just beneath the trunk lid, so it remains handy, takes up little cargo space, and allows access to your gear. The open cockpit has very good draft control, with just a little wind noise from air rushing around the roof bar above your head. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverThough not the largest car here, the del Sol has the most stretch-out room for occupants and the largest trunk, thanks to the modem, space-efficient, front-drive Civic platform. It also has the best structural integrity of the group, showing only minor cowl flutter with the roof panel out and almost none with it latched in place. More on the Civic familyIn familiar Civic fashion, the 125-horsepower 1.6-liter engine spins freely and pulls flexibly. The five-speed box shifts sweetly, and steering action is buttery and predictable. All controls, in fact, work with the expected precision and feel, helping to give the Honda civility and sophistication that the others in this sporty crowd can’t match. On the road, the del Sol displays especially benign front-drive handling, suggesting it wouldn’t step out of line even if you asked it to. All of which would make the del Sol everyone’s choice as an only car to live with forever. But frame the question in sports-car terms, where driving fun and feeling close to the action count, and the picture changes a little. That steering isn’t as quick as it might be, is it? And front­-wheel drive, say what you will, leaves the driver fewer options when dancing over a gnarly mountain road or around a handling course. Also, for its size and engine output, this car carries quite a bit of weight (2460 pounds), blunting its poise a smidgen and preventing its power advantage over the Miata from translating into a real performance edge. So we applaud Honda for its clever and thoughtful work in conceiving the pop-top del Sol. But if it’s unadulterated driving fun you’re after—if sports car to you means wiring the tire contact patches directly to your brain synapses—then we call your attention to the top platform of the winner’s podium.1993 Honda Civic del Sol Si125-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2260 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,310/$16,460C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.6 sec60 mph: 8.9 sec1/4 mile: 16.9 sec @ 82 mph100 mph: 32.5 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 204 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 27 mpg1st Place: Mazda MX-5 MiataThe tight handling course at Willow Springs Raceway brought all this into focus. Yes, we know real people buy real cars to drive on real roads. And, no, we didn’t let racetrack performance unduly bias our final judgment. But this was where the true character, the driving character, of these cars could be most dramatically (and most safely) exposed. And it’s where the Miata showed itself to be much more than just a vintage-Lotus lookalike without oil leaks. The front-drivers in the group—the more powerful and heavier Civic del Sol and the much more powerful, lots heavier Capri XR2—swooped and slid around the course, trading understeer for forward thrust in an easy, no-brainer give-and-take. We simply pitched them into the corners and let them scrub off speed until it was time to unwind the steering and get back on the gas. HIGHS: Genuine, pure-sports-car virtues, from the control feel to the exhaust note.LOWS: Genuine, pure-sports-car vices, from trunk space to cockpit noise.VERDICT: The sports car of our day.But the Miata demanded an entirely different approach. It displayed delicate balance, reflex-quick steering, and opportunities for attitude adjustment that come only when the driven wheels are not also the steered wheels. Like a good dance partner, it showed a wide repertoire of moves and a steadfast willingness to follow our lead. Despite its skinny tires and modest 116 horsepower, it pirouetted its way to a lap time comfortably ahead of the del Sol’s—58.8 seconds to 59.0. More on the MiataOut on serpentine public roads, the handling trait that caught everyone’s attention after stepping out of any of the other cars was a quick-snap steering reaction coming off of center; at first, it felt like dartiness, but once we were acclimated to it, the lively response became just part of the Miata’s light-footed style. Combined with good stability (even when entering corners on the brakes), plenty of grip, and excellent overall balance, this quick-cut maneuverability made the Miata feel the raciest, though it was far from the fastest. In fact, Mazda’s little roadster—with a fairly green engine—posted the tamest top speed of the group (111 mph), and only barely dodged a last-place finish in the acceleration event. But the attention its backroad manner demanded, and then rewarded, made up for the shortfall in power. The Miata’s architecture and most of its aural and tactile feedback reinforce that close-to-the-road sense of sportiness—for better and worse. The front-engine/rear­drive layout steals space in the already snug interior, but it evenly divvies up the working loads among all four wheels and presents the neatest, most direct-feeling shifter you could want. The chassis telegraphs information about the road surface and tire traction straight to your fingertips and back pockets, although the freeway ride is noisy and busy. The Miata comes by its close-coupled feel honestly—it’s the lightest car here at 2260 pounds, and the shortest—but passenger and luggage space are squeezed to the minimum. Still, even drivers of above-average height have the working room they need, and major-control placement is about perfect for almost everyone. Finally, there is that impertinent exhaust snarl Mazda worked so hard to capture. It may get a little wearing on long drives, but who would dare complain? Certainly, no one will complain about the Miata’s folding top, a model of simplicity that can be unlatched and tossed back from the driver’s seat, while waiting for a light to change (if you’re not too picky about unzipping the plastic rear window so it can lie flat). This is spur-of-the­-moment convertibility that should be the rule among convertibles, but in fact is quite rare. That easy, frivolous manner in which the Miata flings itself open aptly characterizes the car’s whole attitude, and stands in fascinating contrast to the studiously refined ingenuity of Honda’s marvelous Civic de! Sol. “Hey, c’mon, will ya?” pesters the Miata. “Let’s get out, tear around have a little fun, leave some skid marks. Okay? Okay? C’mon, let’s go. Can we? Now? Huh?” The del Sol, for its part, quietly suggests, “It’s a lovely day. We can probably have a good time, I should think. And I’ll try not to inconvenience you too much along the way.” Commendable deference and all, but there’s something to be said for enthusiasm. And yet, in the final accounting, this contest wound up as close to a tie as we’d ever want to see. The voting staff members weighed the all-accommodating cleverness of the openable-coupe Honda against the Mazda roadster’s single-purpose eagerness…and found near-parity. What would we have done if the scoring had in fact produced a tie? One option (arbitrary but reasonable, given this magazine’s predilections) would have been to look at the Fun to Drive category core as a tiebreaker, on the rationale that if all else is equal, the car that we enjoy driving the most ought to take the gold. And on that basis, it’s really no contest. Mazda’s little Miata is the modern embodiment of driving fun. 1993 Mazda MX-5 Miata116-hp 4-inline, 5-speed manual, 2460 lbBase/as-tested price: $15,650/$16,480C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.4 sec1/4 mile: 17.2 sec @ 80 mph100 mph: 32.5 secBraking, 70­-0 mph: 201 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 gC/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpgThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the June 1992 issue of Car and Driver.It’s alive! The Corrado has been gifted with life anew. VW’s pocket GT comes to us revitalized by a heart transplant, dramatically upgraded with a V-6 engine.Designated SLC, for “Sports Luxury Coupe,” the latest Corrado blazes out of the Karmann coachworks, VW’s subcontractor, as a world-class runner from nose to tailpipe. In its pug nose, a free-revving, normally aspirated V-6 sends wholly unexpected power to the front wheels and passes rich sounds back to its outsize exhaust. The previous G60 Corrado buzzed with an overwrought, supercharged four-banger and languished in showrooms. (VW will keep the G60 on sale until it disposes of the 1500 still in stock; meantime, it will begin selling 3500 SLCs targeted for the U.S. during 1992). The blunt G60 had been in need of a new heart for three years, ever since the pointy Diamond-Star coupes appeared. The result of a venture between Mitsubishi and Chrysler, the turbocharged, all-wheel­-drive Eagle Talon (and the near-identical Plymouth Laser and Mitsubishi Eclipse) relegated the less-inspiring G60 to a fifth­-place tie with the Ford Probe GT in a field of eight “Fired-Up Fours” (C/D, April). The SLC now threatens to trounce the class. Look at its basic performance: 0 to 60 mph in 6.4 seconds, the quarter-mile in 15.0 second at 94 mph, and top speed of 141 mph. In short, this Corrado’s talent for speed makes it Germany’s wiseacre speedenheimer of pocket GTs (see sidebar below). It handily outstrips the best of the rest—the Talon/Laser/Eclipse all-wheel­-drive turbos—and flat leaves the old Corrado for dead. The higher the speeds climb, the greater the new Corrado’s advantage. HIGHS: Terrific performance, seats, sounds, and packaging.What this doesn’t relay is the engine’s delight in dishing it out, and that begins from deep within. The 1.8-liter four­banger with supercharger produced 158 hp at 5600 rpm and plenty of cacophonous sturm und drang to go with it, like the back-strasse bleatings of an overage oompah band. The normally aspirated 2.8-liter V-6 in the new Corrado develops 178 hp at 5800 rpm, plus an ecstatic accompaniment that sounds as if it came from the depths and heights of a great symphony orchestra with a feel for pops. It makes you feel as if you’ve tapped into a F1 engine. The four-banger churned out 166 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm, whereas the six whirs out 177 pound-feet at 4200 rpm. That may not look like much difference on paper, but out there on pavement, the V-6’s mercuric response allows you to level steep hills a gear or two higher than normal, even to gain rushes of speed in the face of gravity suddenly rendered inconsequential. The Corrado also laterally leapfrogs traffic about as quickly as a frog can snap flies out of midair. Response that feels this snappy in high-gear passing means lightning-like overtaking if you downshift the five-speed a gear or two. (Volkswagen also offers an optional electronically controlled four-speed automatic transmission for an extra $795—a bundle for a unit that’s sure to sap the Corrado’s newfound performance and yeeeeeee­hawww! feel, which come “free” at the base price.) The engine does more than run fast and freely. It looks terrific sitting sideways in the power bay under the seashell fanning of its astounding intake runners, and a deeper look reveals the engineering insight that’s gone into it. Volkswagen’s thinking began with a tight idea of what it was after—an extremely narrow V-type engine to allow the use of a single cylinder head, to provide narrow width for packaging and weight distribution, and to deliver exceptionally smooth running characteristics. VW dubs the engine the VR-6, with the “V” representing the configuration and the “R” standing for the German word Reihenmotor; together, VW says, they roughly mean “in-line vee.” This may sound like an engineering impossibility, but VW specified a single overhead cam for each bank of cylinders and only two valves per cylinder. Then the six’s V-angle was squeezed together very tightly—only 15 degrees, whereas common V-6s are designed as bulkier 60- or 90-degree layouts. Thus, Volkswagen’s V-6 can also be fitted (albeit with less power) to Passats, Jettas, and Golfs originally designed only for four-cylinders. Taking up less room than most of its ilk, the six provides added crush space for crashes. Despite the six’s extra cylinders, displacement, and performance, the SLC’s front/rear weight distribution of 60.9/39.1 betters the G60’s 63.6/36.4 distribution. LOWS: Dash and body buzzes.The downside: The SLC weighs 2837 pounds, versus the G60’s 2640 pounds. Blame part of the SLC’s gain on heftier running gear and a fuel tank enlarged to hold 18.5 gallons instead of 14.5. This easily offsets the thirstier six’s effect on cruising range. (The EPA city rating of 20 mpg for the previous model now drops to 18 mpg; despite storming around as fiercely as the six encouraged us to, we managed 20 mpg overall.) The final practical drawback to the SLC is that its bigger tank cuts trunk space from 19 cubic feet to 15—a small loss, as the Talon’s trunk measures a scant 8 cubic feet. Larry Griffin|Car and DriverOverall, whatever you think of its chunkiness—which suggests an updated Scirocco with lots of gym time—the Corrado’s basic packaging borders on brilliant. Its space efficiency shares the tradition evident in the neatly apportioned roominess of VW’s futuristic Passat. Once you lever in over the big bolsters of the Corrado’s velour sport seats, you find plenty of room. VW rightly supposes that a car as fast and agile as the SLC is bought more for driving in than clambering in and out of, and thus deserves solid Recaro-like shaping in its seats. They deliver support for backroad bulleting or long-distance driving. The lint-magnet seats hold you so well that you almost forget the lax tensioning of the motorized shoulder harnesses up front. VW’s split rear seats, unlike those in most pocket GTs, amount to more than watch pockets. Rear passengers who stand six feet or less can sit (upright, even) for 100 miles or more without losing legs due to circulatory blockage. The only pinching the driver perceives is the intrusion of the roof pillars and the motorized rear wing on outward visibility. They make you feel as if you’ve been thrown in San Quentin solitary. VW sneaks in plenty of standard equipment to keep all the perps making time in its SLCs contented: power everything, a premium sound system that sounds far better than VW systems of yore, central locking with one-touch-down windows that also close when the key locks the door, a trip computer, intermittent wipers (programmable over a range of 1.5 to 22 seconds), a rear washer/wiper, an antitheft alarm, and leather covering for the steering wheel and shift knob. There are also a few exterior trim changes: a hood bulge, a reduction from seven grille bars to four, clear turn-signal lenses, and convex BBS wheels mounted by five bolts instead of four.VW changed the transmission’s gear ratios to suit the new engine, replaced the G60’s vague cable-shift mechanism (praise be!) with precise mechanical linkage, and fitted an electronic limited-slip feature that only comes into play on tire­spinning launches. The chassis engineers revised the suspension geometry and tuning to suit the added performance and weight, yet noticeably improved the ride despite wider wheels and tires, bringing the Corrado’s road manners more in line with the new sophistication shown by the powertrain (with the exception of a weak first-gear synchro). The SLC steers with the lightfooted ease that comes from premium engineering and clings to the skidpad right up to 0.84 g. On the road, bumps and pokes of power move it around more than we’d ultimately like. But for a car that runs like Jack the Griz yet rides well, it rarely unsettles itself. It possesses that reassuring German trait we used to call “speed feel.” Its standard ABS brakes stop it from 70 mph in only 175 feet and show little fade even when snubbed hard from much higher speeds. VERDICT: A transformation and a hellacious delight.VW may also offer the V-6 in a lighter, simpler Club Sport Corrado for less money. Our base SLC lists for $22,210, so it runs only $950 more than a comparably equipped yet clearly more pedestrian G60—as in the difference between walking and running. A comparable Talon costs about $20,500, so it’ll undercut the Corrado by about $1700 … a factor right up until the Corrado leaves it sucking exhaust sufficiently toasty to Fahrverg your nugens. CounterpointHere’s the best news for Volkswagen fans since the debut of the original GTI. The new six has transformed the Corrado in an amazing way. Around our test-car sign-out board, what was once “a pretty nice car but” is now “a really, really nice car and I’m taking it home tonight no matter how much you beg me, so let go of my leg.”The SLC is a Corrado without rough edges. The six-cylinder engine is potent and sweet—the power delivery is so smooth and effortless you’d swear the throttle was a speed rheostat. The gearbox’s action is now fluid and positive. And the chassis, excellent from the start, feels even better now that it’s not playing against the incessant drone of the G60’s supercharger. Add the Corrado’s distinctive shape—which I’ve always liked—and you have a sports coupe that does just about everything right. The price is a little steep, as it’s always been, but at last the Corrado feels like a car worth paying something extra for. —Arthur St. AntoineThink BMW hatchback. Think reliable Alfa GTV6. Don’t think buzzy overpriced VW with boost lag. On a car that used to trade primarily on its styling, rarity, and Teutonic bank-vault body quality, Volkswagen is finally offering the ultimate sales incentive: 178 thoroughbred racehorses under the hood. The refinement, the performance, and—yes—the price of the quirky, low-volume Corrado are up for 1993, but the $22,210 SLC is a far better bargain than the $20,230 G60 model it replaces.The torquey VR-6 will bark its meaty tires on aggressive first-to-second upshifts and pull strongly to redline in all five gears, singing a Mozart aria all the way. Cruising at 75 mph in fifth, the engine turns a quiet 3500 rpm, from which the SLC accelerates briskly without downshifting to fourth. These characteristics are as rare among its hot-hatch competition as are the Corrado’s adult-sized rear seat and decent luggage compartment. Despite its many strong suits, rarity is likely to remain one of Corrado’s selling points. Fine. So think German Mustang SVO. —Frank MarkusWell, Volkswagen is finally back. And with a vengeance. Not since an NSX was parked in the Hogback Road lot have so many staffers pushed and shoved to get in line for the keys. Saying it goes from 0 to 60 in 6.4 seconds doesn’t in the least describe the sensation of this little red hellion—it’s like saying Van Gogh could paint. Through the gears, its tires chirp in first. In second. In third. And despite all the screwball power from its scorching V-6, it is well grounded, feels solid as a brick, and does not stutter and shudder like some other pocket rockets. The suspension is as stiff as a washboard, as it should be. Styling is apropos of its fierce performance: the car seems to lean forward in the stance of a pit bull poised to pounce. The paint job is Porsche-quality. If there’s a shortcoming, it involves the seats and ergonomics; they remind us of the Scirocco’s somehow ungainly setup for long-legged folks. Getting out is awkward. But getting in is well worth it. —Steve SpenceVW Corrado SLC vs. Eagle Talon TSi AWDThe 0-to-120 times got us: the hot VW, by a dozen seconds, kicks Talon and takes names. The Eagle won our April comparison of “Fired-Up Fours,” but suddenly the 4wd turbo and its Plymouth and Mitsubishi counterparts are no longer the fastest diet-size two­-plus-twos. The new 178-hp Corrado beats the 195-hp Talon in every speed test but one. And at only 2837 pounds, it weighs 343 pounds less than the Eagle. But there’s more to territorial takeovers than high speed and light weight.Styling: The Corrado dresses for dinner but wears the burly-herdsman look. The Talon bulges a bit but still looks to be a bullet Advantage: Talon. Interior: Both are businesslike, but the Talon’s wheel is more likely to hide the gauges. And the Corrado’s dandy seats grasp you much better for hard drives and cruises alike. Advantage: Corrado. Packaging: The Corrado is roomy, even okay in back for adults if you’re not off to Pluto (and the big trunk helps). The Talon’s puckered rear seating feels as if it sucked lemons. Advantage: Corrado. Visibility: The Talon may not be open and airy, but the Corrado’s loom­ing roof pillars and rear wing give you a more closed-off feeling. Advantage: Talon. Controls: The Corrado offers fine shifting, steering, pedal feel, and natural reaches, although you’d have to crow­bar the pedals to ease heel-and-toe downshifts (grownups, don’t try this at home). The Talon’s cable shifter clonks. Advantage: Corrado. Structure: The Corrado gets VW’s normal allotment of dashboard and body buzzes. The Talon feels tighter, but you won’t mistake either for a Benz. Advantage: Talon. Engine: The Talon’s turbo pulls with a vengeance but kicks up a fuss about it. The Corrado’s slick new engine proves that a magic six can beat a turbo four-banger on almost all terms. Advantage: Corrado. Acceleration: However you hammer it, the Corrado puts the motor on the Talon. This VW lives to run. Advantage: Corrado. Braking: Unless bumps upset it, the Corrado stops more easily on all but very slick surfaces. There the Talon’s four-wheel drive provides added stability. Advantage: Corrado. Handling: Your choice of feel—feathery Corrado or Talon heft. You’ll probably drive well in either. The VW carves into corners more gladly, but the Eagle often exits more surely. Advantage: Tie. Marathoning: The Corrado gives comfort, good tracking, a resolute cruise control, and huge distances per fueling, thanks to a big gas tank. The Talon travels well, too, despite its ever-droning exhaust. And it’s got cupholders. Advantage: Tie. Linescore: Corrado 8, Talon 5Not to fudge, but such a tally doesn’t necessarily represent the essence of an outcome. The Talon and the Corrado appeal to us equally. The VW feels livelier, handier, friendlier. Yet we can’t fault the Eagle’s sportiness, heartiness, and four-wheel drive. You could almost let your climate be your guide. Car and DriverSpecificationsSpecifications
1993 Volkswagen Corrado SLCVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback
PRICEAs Tested: $22,210
ENGINEDOHC 24-valve 2.8-liter V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 170 in3, 2792 cm3Power: 178 hp @ 5800 rpmTorque: 177 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beamBrakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/8.9-in discTires: Continental Sport Contact205/50VR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 97.3 inLength: 159.4 inWidth: 65.9 inHeight: 51.9 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 48/32 ft3Cargo Volume: 15 ft3Curb Weight: 2837 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.4 sec100 mph: 17.2 sec1/4-Mile: 15.0 sec @ 94 mph130 mph: 42.6 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 8.4 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 141 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCombined/City/Highway: 19/16/23 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

From the January 2023 issue of Car and Driver.When Audi’s e-tron electrified subbrand first appeared, it was on the unremarkable A3 Sportback plug-in hybrid. The first EV to bear the moniker came three years later, when a larger, far more expensive SUV called the Audi e-tron hit the market. That ute’s lack of an alphanumeric model name was confusing, and things didn’t become any clearer with the arrival of the e-tron GT performance sedan. Now comes the Q4 e-tron, and its designation at least helps place it within the greater Audi lineup.HIGHS: Conventionally handsome exterior, upscale and user-friendly interior, largely free of EV weirdness.Larger than a Q3 and tidier in size than a Q5, the Q4 50 e-tron Quattro is a platform-mate of the Volkswagen ID.4. Audi’s design language works well when draped over the shared 108.7-inch wheelbase and 62.3-inch front and 61.5-inch rear track widths, resulting in chunky bulldog styling that looks fetching in SUV form. The result isn’t nearly as handsome on the $2800-pricier Sportback model, but that’s often how it goes with slope-backed SUV derivatives.James Lipman|Car and DriverAs in the all-wheel-drive ID.4, a pair of AC motors that team up to produce 295 horsepower and 339 pound-feet of torque propel the Audi. Likewise, the same 77.0-kWh lithium-ion battery feeds both SUVs, giving the slightly heavier Q4 Quattro 241 miles of EPA range versus the ID.4’s 251 miles. The Q4 line’s marquee range of 265 miles comes from the 201-hp single-motor rear-wheel-drive version.LOWS: Mechanically identical to its Volkswagen sibling, ho-hum highway range, not as speedy as some rivals.Underway, the Q4 e-tron is no canyon carver, but it feels utterly composed and balanced because of its low center of gravity and near-equal front-to-rear weight distribution. It confidently cruises straight highways with segment-appropriate steering effort, though on-center feel is more authentic with lane centering switched off. The Q4’s 60-mph time of 5.6 seconds feels sprightly in suburbia even if it trails the results from some dual-motor competitors. The 0.2 second it gives away to the Volkswagen stems from the extra 80 pounds our top-drawer Prestige trim was packing.Inside, the Q4 Prestige feels far more upscale than the most expensive ID.4, as it should, considering the Audi’s $7990 price premium. The Q4 does retain some questionable touch-sensitive tomfoolery, but at least it avoids the grossest mistakes of the ID.4. The Audi’s climate controls are standalone physical toggles instead of capacitive-touch panels, and the driver’s window controls consist of four distinct switches instead of the Volkswagen’s irksome single pair that operate both the front and rear windows. Best of all might be the available head-up display, which uses hovering augmented-reality animations to underline vehicles within adaptive-cruise range and point you to the next navigation turn.Bottom line: If you like the idea of the Volkswagen ID.4 but are willing to pay for a more upscale and sumptuous experience, the Audi Q4 e-tron is just the ticket.AudiSpecificationsSpecifications
2022 Audi Q4 e-tron Quattro PrestigeVehicle Type: front- and mid-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $51,095/$60,895Options: Prestige package (adaptive cruise control with lane guidance, head-up display with augmented reality, dual-pane acoustic front side glass, Sonos premium sound, matrix LED headlights, headlight and taillight animation, heated steering wheel with regen paddles, Virtual Cockpit Plus, MMI Navigation Plus, memory for driver’s seat and exterior mirrors, hands-free power tailgate, wireless phone-charging pad), $7600; S-Line Plus package (20-inch 10-spoke aero wheels, S Line exterior, black exterior trim and roof rails, brushed dark-aluminum inlay, front sport seats, top- and bottom-flattened steering wheel), $2200
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: induction asynchronous AC, 107 hp, 119 lb-ft Rear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC, 201 hp, 229 lb-ft Combined Power: 295 hpCombined Torque: 339 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 77.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.5 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 125 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.1-in vented disc/11.0-in drumTires: Bridgestone Alenza Sport A/SF: 235/50R-20 104T Extra Load M+S AOR: 255/45R-20 105T Extra Load M+S AO
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 108.7 inLength: 180.7 inWidth: 73.4 inHeight: 64.7 inPassenger Volume: 97 ft3Cargo Volume, Rear Seats Up/Down: 25/53 ft3Curb Weight: 4964 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.6 sec1/4-Mile: 14.2 sec @ 98 mph100 mph: 14.9 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 113 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 177 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 93 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 190 miAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 87 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 44 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 95/100/89 MPGeRange: 241 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

For 2023, the dual-motor Polestar 2’s optional Performance package includes more in the way of actual performance. As before, it adds Brembo brakes, adjustable Öhlins dampers, gold seatbelts, and distinct 20-inch wheels, but now it also nets an additional 67 horsepower and 15 pound-feet of torque over the standard dual-motor 2. That brings its totals to 469 horsepower and 502 pound-feet of torque (figures shared with the limited-run BST Edition 270), making the Performance pack–equipped 2 noticeably quicker than its less powerful kin. Related StoriesBooting the right pedal pushes the all-wheel-drive model to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds and past the quarter-mile mark after 12.2 seconds, 0.2 and 0.5 ticks, respectively, ahead of a 402-hp Polestar 2 that we tested two years ago. This newfound muscle is not so evident at low speeds, however, with the 2023 car’s acceleration below 30 mph matching that of its less powerful 2021 counterpart. Dip into the two AC motors’ reserves while on the move, and the surplus power propels the 2 forward with formidable force, shaving 0.3 second from both the 5-to-60- and the 50-to-70-mph times and goading the driver to pin the accelerator and delight in the motors’ ample thrust.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverHIGHS: High-speed acceleration, more power as well as more range.Maintain a light right foot, and the EPA rates the dual-motor Polestar 2—with or without the Performance pack—at 100 MPGe combined, an improvement of 11 MPGe over the 2022 car. The 75.0-kWh battery pack is unchanged, but the 2023 model’s added efficiency raises the driving range by 11 miles to 260. Over the course of our test car’s stay, we averaged just 75 MPGe, and in our 75-mph highway range test it managed 210 miles. A dual-motor BMW i4 M50 with 536 horsepower returned 83 MPGe during its stay with us, against an 80-MPGe EPA rating. The Bimmer, also wearing 20-inch wheels, nets an EPA-rated range of 227 miles—33 worse than the Polestar—but went 220 miles on our highway test. The Tesla Model 3 Performance, meanwhile, offers competitive peak output to the 2 with the Performance pack, and yet it nets an EPA combined rating of 113 MPGe combined and an estimated range of 315 miles. Our issue with the Performance package centers on the adjustable Öhlins dampers. While the ride quality in the default Nominal setting struck some as just a little too stiff, things settle down nicely when the dampers are placed in their Comfort setting (others include Comfort Compliant, Rough Road, and Track). Alas, changing the dampers’ settings requires exiting the vehicle and manually adjusting each individual unit. We are not against a little manual labor, but our test car came in at just south of $70,000. Such a luxury vehicle should allow owners to accomplish this task with reasonable ease. This is not the case, though. Adjusting the rear dampers, for instance, involves raising the vehicle and removing multiple plastic nuts that hold the inner fender lining in place. Polestar offers one complimentary damper adjustment within the first year of ownership, after which it charges customers for this service.Marc Urbano|Car and DriverLOWS: Adjusting the dampers is a real PITA, not as efficient as segment leaders.Not all of Polestar’s cash grabs are this egregious. For instance, the automaker is offering owners of qualifying older dual-motor 2s the option to add the updated Performance pack’s power-adding software to their cars as part of an $1195 over-the-air update. That’s more than twice the amount the same lines of code tack on to the package’s price for 2023, which now stickers for $5500, or $500 more than last year. Even so, the update’s fee surely is less than the cost of upgrading from a one- or two-year-old dual-motor Polestar 2 to a 2023 model with the Performance package, which retails for $58,800.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Polestar 2 PerformanceVehicle Type: front- and mid -motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $58,800/$67,650Options: Plus pack (improved heat pump, panoramic roof, Black Ash wood interior accents, Harman/Kardon stereo system, wireless device charger, heated front seats, steering wheel and wiper blades), $4200; Pilot Pack (parking assist, 360-degree camera, adaptive cruise control, LED headlights, blind-spot information with steering assist, cross-traffic alert, auto-dimming exterior mirrors, LED fog lamps), $3400; Midnight metallic paint, $1250
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous AC Rear Motor: permanent-magnet synchronous ACCombined Power: 469 hpCombined Torque: 502 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 75.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 155 kWTransmissions: direct-drive
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.8-in vented, cross-drilled disc/13.4-in vented, cross-drilled discTires: Continental SportContact 6245/40R-20 99V POL
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.7 inLength: 181.3 inWidth: 73.2 inHeight: 58.0 inPassenger Volume: 91 ft3Cargo Volume: 16 ft3Curb Weight: 4714 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.9 sec100 mph: 8.9 sec1/4-Mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mphResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 1.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 1.9 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 128 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 160 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 317 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.92 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY AND CHARGING
Observed: 75 MPGe75-mph Highway Range: 210 miAverage DC Fast-Charge Rate, 10–90%: 72 kWDC Fast-Charge Time, 10–90%: 57 min
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 100/105/96 MPGeRange: 260 mi
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More

Ask anyone lined up at a courthouse trying to change their name why they’re doing it, and they’ll tell you a name change brings a new chance, a new path, maybe even a new life. Audi’s marketing team is hoping for that effect with its renaming of the e-tron SUV and Sportback for 2024. After five years as e-tron, Audi would like you to call them the Q8 e-tron and the Q8 e-tron Sportback from now on.The Q8 nomenclature is supposed to help buyers understand where the brand’s electric SUV fits in the lineup. Confused customers believed the e-tron was Q5 sized, making its $72K starting price a tough sell. Calling it a Q8 more accurately reflects the e-tron’s size and equipment levels. In the future, all Audi models will have an electric version denoted by “e-tron” appending the gas counterpart’s name.2024 Audi SQ8 e-tron SportbackAudiNew badges aren’t the only changes. To extend the old e-tron’s lackluster range, out goes the previous 86.5-kWh battery pack, and in comes a 106.0-kWh setup that occupies the same space under the floor. Increasing the capacity without a physically larger pack requires cells with more energy density, an improvement brought about by new chemistry. The new car’s EPA-estimated range is not yet available, but Audi expects the highest-range Q8 e-tron to hit 300 miles, far more than the 208 to 226 miles of the outgoing model.To get a roughly 30 percent range bump from a 23 percent battery capacity increase, Audi went to work on the body, reducing the drag from 0.29 to 0.27 for the SUV and from 0.27 to 0.25 for the Sportback. New grille shutters in the nose open only when the battery or the cabin needs to be cooled. Larger spoilers ahead of the front and rear wheels help move the air more efficiently, and in back, a new motor with more windings requires less current but provides the same power output. Favoring that more efficient rear motor in most situations helps stretch the battery’s charge.More on the Audi Q8 e-tron and SQ8 e-tronAudi offers up to 170-kW DC fast-charging capability (up from 150 kW) that can bring this larger battery from 10 to 80 percent in a claimed 31 minutes. The standard onboard AC charger will take in fresh electrons at a rate of up to 11.0 kW, with an optional charger capable of up to 22.0 kW (the most robust AC power supply commonly available today is a 19.2-kW connection). Replenishing an empty battery on the quickest AC connection would take about six hours, and the slower 11-kW hookup will require over 10 hours to take the battery from zero to 100 percent.Going from zero to 60 mph takes far less time. All Q8 e-trons have all-wheel drive, but two powertrains are available in the SUV and the Sportback. Base versions have 402 horsepower from a two-motor setup and take about 5.5 seconds to hit 60 mph, according to Audi’s figures. The 496-hp SQ8 e-tron adds a second rear motor and will effortlessly move to 60 mph in a silent 4.5 seconds. Add the three motors’ horsepower totals and you’ll get 581 horses, but the battery will output only 496 horsepower.2024 Audi Q8 e-tronAudiIn most driving, the Q8 e-tron is amazingly quiet, possibly even quieter than the outgoing Sportback model’s 63 decibels at 70 mph. Not much has changed inside, as the Q8 e-tron keeps the 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster and has dual center touchscreens. Seat comfort is excellent, and the interior materials and fits are as good here as in a gas-fed Q8.Revised steering in all versions is quicker and more responsive. Light efforts and air springs programmed to counteract body roll help reduce the apparent mass. In the sportier SQ8 e-tron, the two electric motors in the rear axle can provide torque vectoring to improve nimbleness. You might not ever suspect that each version comes in at about 5700 pounds, give or take 100 or so pounds.Regenerative braking is adjustable with a tap of the steering-wheel-mounted paddles, but it’s not quite aggressive enough for single-foot driving. As in the old e-tron, the braking is entirely by-wire, and there’s no physical connection between the brake pedal and the hydraulics. Hitting the pedal sends a request to a computer that determines whether regen, friction brakes, or a combination of both is best. You’d never know there are zeros and ones on the other side of the brake pedal, since it all works naturally and the tuning blends regenerative braking and the friction brakes invisibly. To prevent the rotors from rusting, the friction brakes are occasionally cycled, keeping things fresh.AudiMore than a mere marketing exercise, the new Q8 e-tron has been tweaked not only for efficiency, but also to make it more fun to drive. Audi wisely kept the ride and sound levels civilized, updated the looks, and bumped up the range. For buyers who are ready for an electric SUV, but not quite ready to swallow the unconventional freakiness of a BMW iX or a Tesla Model anything, Audi is here with an EV for someone who might have purchased a Q8.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Audi Q8 e-tron SUV and SportbackVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: Q8 e-tron, $87,000; Q8 e-tron Sportback, $89,500
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: asynchronous AC, 184 hp, 228 lb-ftRear Motor: asynchronous AC, 224 hp, 262 lb-ftCombined Power: 402 hpCombined Torque: 490 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 106 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0–22.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 170 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.3 inLength: 193.5 inWidth: 76.3 inHeight: 63.7–64.3 inCargo Volume, F/R: 2/23–25 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5600 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 5.1 sec1/4-Mile: 13.7 secTop Speed: 124 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 83–84/82–83/84–85 MPGeRange: 290–300 mi
—
2024 Audi SQ8 e-tron SUV and SportbackVehicle Type: single front- and dual rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE
Base: SQ8 e-tron, $98,000; SQ8 e-tron Sportback, $100,500
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: asynchronous AC, 211 hpRear Motors: asynchronous AC, 185 hp eachCombined Power: 496 hpCombined Torque: 718 lb-ftBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 106 kWhOnboard Charger: 11.0–22.0 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 170 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 115.3 inLength: 193.5 inWidth: 77.8 inHeight: 63.7–64.2 inCargo Volume, F/R: 2/23–25 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 5850 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4-Mile: 12.0 secTop Speed: 130 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 75–77/73–75/77–80 MPGeRange: 260–270 miThis content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. More