Reviews

From the December 1995 issue of Car and Driver.The Viper is the New Chrysler Cor­poration’s attempt at atonement, at making up for the sins it committed against cars—all those bogus wire wheel covers and limp shock absorbers and padded-vinyl roofs—during the reign of Lee the Imperious. And by the precise calculations of our test department, each Viper built since the 1992 intro cancels out 817 K-car New Yorkers. HIGHS: The way other cars let you go first, prodigious g-forces, sunny days.A lot of “nice” Chryslers were inflicted on the market in those years (more than it could stand, in fact), but the Viper goes about the work of offsetting them with a swaggering gusto. There’s not a nice fiber in its glass body. It’s so ornery it won’t even cancel its own turn signals. “Knife-in-the-back handling,” we said in our last test (“The Supercar Olympics,” July 1995). “Big, crude, deafening, and something of a cartoon,” we said. “Villainous.” (We don’t hold back once we get the adjectives flowing.) Now we learn that particular Viper was having a bad suspension day—month, actually—during our last test. Wheel alignment was way wrong. High-grip tires don’t like being pointed in contradictory directions. For the record, when we phoned Chrysler before the test to say the suspension had passed through indepen­dent and was well on its way to defiant, we were told: “They’re all like that.” Anyway, that was then and this is 1996 and the Viper has undergone, for the new year, its first change of underwear since its 1992 introduction. It has a new frame, new suspension, new tires and, what it really needed all along, more horsepower. Surely the New Yorker cancellation rate will be much enhanced by such extensive reengi­neering. Knowing how you care about such things, we set up an all-Viper com­parison—the exact same test car of last summer, fresh from alignment therapy, versus a pre-production 1996 model. It’s easy to spot the model-year differ­ences on the outside. There are no side exhausts on the new car, racing stripes now appear on both white and black cars, and wheels are different—they’re painted an astonishing yellow on red cars. Inside, the black cockpits are spiced up with vividly colored leather on the wheel rim, shift knob, and brake handle—it’s bright blue on white cars, lipstick-red on red cars. “I won’t go into the politics on that,” said engineer Pete Gladysz, who is chassis and design manager on the Viper Project. From the driver’s seat, it’s easy to spot differences, too. The new car’s ride is less punishing, the cockpit is much quieter now that exhaust goes out behind, the steering doesn’t squirm as much on truck-worn pavement, and the brake feel is more con­ventional—it’s very good too, thanks to Chrysler ending its infatua­tion with a quirky booster that gave remarkably short pedal travel instead of good modu­lation. “We thought it felt like a Ferrari F40,” Gladysz explains. Gladysz says most of the 1996 changes were made in anticipation of future model needs and to comply with reg­ulations. The first of the future models is the coupe, due in late spring. Inevitably, it will be heavier. So the engineers went looking for offsetting weight reductions to build into the basic car, and they found enough to lighten the roadster by 90 pounds (our test car, a prototype, is about 60 pounds overweight). Logically, the less drafty, less leaky coupe will encourage driving on colder, wetter days, so new tires were sought. “I didn’t say all-weather tires,” Gladysz reminds. On the regulatory side, lower noise standards are coming in Europe, and new emissions requirements are coming in the U.S., occasioned by the on-board diag­nostics OBD II rule. For both noise and OBD II, the side exhausts had to go. Everybody wins: the new system pipes the noise far behind the cockpit and away from the occupants’ ears, and it improves the exhaust note while reducing back-pressure. Output rises 15 hp as a result. LOWS: Interior hospitality of a grizzly’s den, assembly details that look homemade, rainy days.Weight reduction also brings gains. The frame loses 60 pounds while improving 20 percent in torsional stiffness. New suspension arms and knuckles are now aluminum, and the wheels are slightly lighter. Together, those changes reduce unsprung weight substantially. Front-sus­pension geometry remains as before, but the rear roll center was lowered to reduce tire scrub—to cut down on self-steering in the truck ruts. At both ends, shocks are new and their attachments were moved closer to the lower ball joints for better control of small suspension movements. Powertrain changes are numerous as well. Cooling-system capacity is increased, and the clutch, differential, and half-shafts have been upsized for more torque (Gladysz alludes to a future need for this extra beef, without confirming the limited run of high-output Vipers we expect in time for racing season). A power­-steering cooler was added. Tire sizes remain as before, but the carcass construction, tread pattern, and compound reflect an entirely different approach to performance in these new-to­-the-U.S. Pilot SX Michelins. Contrary to Gladysz’s prediction, we find them slightly less grippy on the skidpad than the Michelin XGT Z tires of the 1995 car on hand for comparison: 0.97 g versus 1.00 g. They seem to understeer more, too—for sure, they require larger steering angles at any given lateral force. And they make a shrill howl at the limit.That’s the bad news. The good news is that the car behaves better on them in every other way. Along with the suspension changes, they vastly improve handling. When cornering at the limit, the new Viper no longer seems balanced on a knife edge. It’s more gradual. The tail now slips into a drift angle. Even with alignment prop­erly set, the 1995 car is still snappish—it’ll bite if you change power or steering imprudently near the limit. The new ver­sion is far more tolerant. You can work with it, make corrections, adjust your path, even as you approach the hairy edge. Proof of this new attitude shows up during hot laps. At the Chrysler proving grounds road course, our man Don Schroeder drove a six-lap ses­sion in each car. His best time in the ’96 was 1:17.47, with a best-­lap-to-worst-lap variation of only 0.08 second. In the old car, he managed one lap in 1:17.32, but the best-to-worst variation exceeded two seconds and cumulative time was far behind. Heard from trackside, the 1995 exhaust at full power hisses like a shot-down blimp, seriously uncool compared with the disci­plined roar of the new one. On the road, the difference between new and old is no less dramatic. Tire noise on textured roads used to be deafening; now it’s merely excessive (like everything else about the Viper). Ride is much improved too, enough for us to upgrade our rating from the previous “terrible” to “bad.” Perhaps because of the additional frame stiffness, the body is less clattery. Gladysz says the new tires are signifi­cantly better in braking. Certainly they team happily with the new booster to shorten stopping distances from 177 feet in the realigned ’95 car to 163 feet. Pedal feel is much better too, which is particularly important because the Viper does not offer ABS. More Viper Reviews From the ArchiveThe Viper’s boun­tiful torque “flat”­—the curve, like Nebraska, is flat as far as the eye can see—gives a peculiarly constant acceleration, sort of a civilian substi­tute for a Saturn booster. The extra 15 advertised horses were definitely on the job the day we tested the two cars back-­to-back—0 to 60 mph improves by a tenth of a second to 4.1 seconds, the quarter-mile quickens by a tenth of a second and 1 mph to 12.6 seconds at 113 mph, and top speed rises to 173 mph from 167. A down-to­-weight production car should be slightly quicker. VERDICT: A raw-meat roadster for the folks who don’t care what anybody says.While the changes for 1996 add up to a more powerful and less belligerent machine, the Viper remains outrageous by intent: the cockpit smells like fiberglass, and its weather protection stows in the trunk. The big hospitality breakthrough for 1996 is sliding-glass technology for the side curtains. That, together with the less obstreperous road behavior, adds up to a better Viper, but no one will confuse it with a “nice” car. SpecificationsSpecifications
1996 Dodge Viper RT/10Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $61,975/$66,045Options: hard top with sliding side curtains, $2500; air conditioning, $1200; luxury tax on options, $370
ENGINEpushrod 20-valve V-10, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 488 in3, 7990 cm3Power: 415 hp @ 5200 rpmTorque: 488 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm 
TRANSMISSION6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/control armsBrakes, F/R: 13.0-in vented disc/13.0-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot SXF: 275/40ZR-17R: 335/35ZR-17
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.2 inLength: 175.1 inWidth: 75.7 inHeight: 44.0 inPassenger Volume: 49 ft3Trunk Volume: 5 ft3Curb Weight: 3484 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.1 sec100 mph: 9.8 sec1/4-Mile: 12.6 sec @ 113 mph130 mph: 16.9 sec150 mph: 29.0 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.6 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 9.3 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 9.1 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 173 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.97 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 13 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 13/21 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the April 1998 issue of Car and Driver.Executive sedans at the $60,000-plus altitude cruise in rarefied atmosphere. Their owners are a demanding lot. They are obvi­ously well-to-do, but value still figures prominently in their purchase decision. More opulent and expensive sedans boasting V-12 engines, flying-lady hood ornaments, and stratospheric prices exist for the money’s-no-object status seekers. But within the automotive troposphere, an executive demands com­fortable accommodations, strong per­formance, driving pleasure, and a level of features and amenities that justify the car’s lofty price and set his or her car apart from the merely great mass-market automobiles. Only the world’s best automakers compete at this level. We rounded up four from the old world—the Audi A8, the BMW 740iL, the Jaguar XJ8, and the Mercedes-Benz S320—and pitted them against the best sedan available from Japan, the Lexus LS400. Sadly, no American sedans compete in this price range. It is on these flagship cars that man­ufacturers trot out their latest and greatest technological and safety advances, many of which eventually trickle down to bread-and-butter cars. Side airbags, sta­bility-enhancement systems, xenon headlamps, navigation systems, solar­-powered ventilation systems, and other high-tech hardware are among the fea­tures that adorn the five cars we’ve gath­ered for this test. Although most owners in this price class still drive themselves, the five vehi­cles appearing in this test are high enough on the demographic scale that they invite that very old-school badge of wealth: the chauffeur. As such, rear-seat space and amenities are of great importance at this price point. Of the five blue­-bloods we corralled for this test, three (the BMW, the Jaguar, and the Mer­cedes-Benz) have that limo look and ride on stretched wheelbases. The two other (the Audi and the Lexus) achieve their spaciousness without recourse to long-­waisted bodywork. Of the five, only the aluminum-­bodied Audi A8 4.2 Quattro is a real newcomer, bringing its novel body structure, four-wheel drivetrain, and lusty 4.2-liter V-8 engine to bear against the big­-buck players. Soldiering on in familiar sheetmetal, the Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas boasts a new V-8 powerplant inherited from the XK8 coupe, along with new suspension and electrical systems and all the wood and leather British craftsmen could fit into the longer-than-standard 202.7-inch body (which, by the way, makes it second only to the Benz in length). Just a few years into its latest remake, the 1998 Lexus LS400 flaunts new vari­able valve timing under the hood, which substantially improves engine perfor­mance. It also features a new vehicle skid-control system (called VSC), and a resculpted front end with optional high­-intensity-discharge xenon headlights. Various upgrades have attended the BMW 740iL since its 1995 redesign. The latest of these include an inflatable tubular head-protection system for front­-seat passengers, optional side airbags for rear-seat passengers, an improved dynamic stability-control system (a new yaw sensor greatly improves its ability to prevent a spin), and a navigation system. The Mercedes-Benz S320, which is now getting a little long in the tooth as well as in the body, joins this company by way of its lofty $70,128 base price. That price dictated that this car be the only non-V-8 in the group. (The V-8-powered S420 starts at $78,581.) For 1998, the Benz S320 acquires brake assist (which applies full braking when it senses fast pedal operation), an adap­tive service monitor to determine main­tenance intervals, and a passenger airbag that deactivates itself when a Benz baby seat is installed. Add these to the com­prehensive array of engineering innova­tions included in every S-class car, and they help offset the S320’s power deficit. Which of these super sedans is best able to meet the needs and caprices of the cap­tains of American industry? Read on and see. 5th Place: Mercedes-Benz S320 The Mercedes finished in fifth place largely because buyers on a $70,000 budget are stuck with just six cylinders’ worth of Mercedes-Benz S-class. As such, the S320 suffers a 54-to-72 horsepower deficit in this company. Our long-wheel­base test car also sports the largest and heaviest body, as well as the highest base price—$70,128. (The shorter model saves $3531 and 20 pounds.) We weren’t sur­prised to learn that the bestselling S-class model is the $93,561 S500. HIGHS: Stability, space, undoubted engineering excellence.LOWS: Modest engine power, dated styling, spartan interior appointments. VERDICT: Too expensive, and needs more motor to play in this band.Despite its price and power handicaps, the big Benz continued to impress us with its vaultlike structure and superb high-­speed behavior. The 3.2-liter engine produced the slowest test figures, lagging the pack by at least 1.3 seconds and 6 mph in the quarter-mile, but the short-geared, torque-optimized six tugs the car around town with surprising verve. Okay, attack a mountain road with it, and you’ll be revving the bollocks off it, and you’ll encounter a gaping gear-ratio canyon between second and third gears. Nonethe­less, the gear-selector strategy is still the best available, and the car performs ade­quately in settings appropriate to its role.The chassis also does an admirable job of keeping this 4400-pound behemoth on track. The big Benz steered accurately—­if somewhat numbly—and felt stable—if less than responsive—in all conditions we encountered. Hard cornering rolled the front tires so far over that we buffed the letters off the sidewalls, but in doing so, the S320 managed to score second best on the skidpad, registering 0.80 g. If it’s space you’re after, the Benz has it. Voluminous up front, it tied with the BMW for the greatest amount of rear-seat space with three seat testers aboard, although they declared it to be less com­fortable back there than in all but the Audi. The interior is less inviting than in some of the others because its big, bland planes and surfaces lack inter­esting detail and are scaled a little larger than life. Even Mer­cedes’s renowned ergonomics fall short of perfection. The seat adjustment “pictogram” switch, the standard of the industry, is partly obscured by the door handle. Although packed with such features as self-closing doors and a rain­-sensing wiper system, the S320 feels like a stripper. All of which leaves us hoping that the new-for-1999 S-class will be prettier and priced lower. 1998 Mercedes-Benz S320228-hp inline-6, 5-speed automatic, 4400 lbBase/as-tested price: $70,128/$70,128C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.7 sec1/4-mile: 16.7 sec @ 87 mph100 mph: 22.8 sec130 mph: 62.6 secBraking, 70­–0 mph: 184 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg4th Place: Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas If it looks luxurious and it smells lux­urious, well, it probably is luxurious. Unless, of course, space is a necessary component of luxury. And in this com­pany, we think it is. Unfortunately, that’s the XJ8’s most glaring deficiency: It just isn’t quite big enough. Oh, sure, this is the Vanden Plas model, which has a wheel­base some five inches longer than that of the normal Jag and a rear door clearly longer than the original designer intended. Nonetheless, that low-slung and stylish roofline which stands the Jag three to five inches shorter than the others, dictates cramped packaging. So the driver’s position is tight for tall people, the front footwells are cramped, and headroom is at a premium. HIGHS: Styling and interior decor provide ample allure. LOWS: Poor space efficiency for a Jaguar on a stretch. VERDICT: The new engine and chassis give this cat another nine lives.Not surprisingly, the Jag scored lowest in the group in our two-passenger back-­seat test, although its wide, flat backrest accommodated three shoulders abreast without overlapping, helping it outscore both the Audi and the Benz for comfort. That’s the downside. The upside is a car with a great view down its sculpted hood and a clear view all around. Beau­tiful wood veneers, thick pile carpeting, and aromatic Connolly hides enfold the occupants as a melodic 4.0-liter V-8 wafts the car along on a soft, quiet suspension. So soft, in fact, that you detect the merest suggestion of float at the rear when driving alone in the car, causing one to wonder what that will mean in the corners.Well, the XJ8’s new spring and damping rates, its new vari­able-assist steering rack, and its superb Pirelli P4000 tires made it feel completely at home in the twisty, hilly bits. Its 60.0-mph speed through the lane change test was 2.1 mph faster than the next best, the Lexus. Endowed with steering that feels natural and organic, a transmission that is unconfused about its mission, and a sus­pension that is simultaneously supple and disciplined, the Jag inspires confidence. It is also more sensitive to transitions than the BMW or the Benz, and it will rotate more willingly than either of them. As long as you switch the automatic stability-control system off, that is. ASC controls wheelspin by retarding engine torque. We found that on dry roads it trims too much power, unbalancing the car into pronounced understeer. The brake pedal has unnecessarily long travel, as does the strange J-pattern gear selector, which man­ually selects gears in a counterintuitive for­ward-for-downshifts pattern. Ergonomics are improved in this-gen­eration Jaguar, but some functions remain inscrutable. How to toggle between the digital odometer and trip meter, for example. Also, it’s difficult to insert and turn the ignition key without triggering the windshield wiper/washer stalk. It’s not perfect, but the XJ8 has considerable charm and style, and it’s the next-to-least expensive car on offer in this group. That’s a seductive combination. 1998 Jaguar XJ8 Vanden Plas290-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3980 lbBase/as-tested price: $66,367/$67,223C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4-mile: 15.3 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.8 sec130 mph: 42.0Braking, 70­–0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg3rd Place: Audi A8 4.2 Quattro Now, here’s a car whose pedigree had us anticipating a strong finish in this con­test. Equipped with an all-aluminum body, an alloy V-8 of generous displacement, a five-speed automatic with Tiptronic, and an all-wheel-drive Quattro system to put the action down, we expected something spectacular. HIGHS: A buff new body, all-­wheel traction, and a sensational interior. LOWS: A little slower than we’d expected, less dry-pavement grip than we’d like. VERDICT: Very sweet in its sweet spot but doesn’t like to be hurried.What we discovered is that the Audi is a very nice car, but that it manifests some paradoxical elements. It’s a large car, almost as long as the BMW and almost as wide as the Benz, but its size is effectively camouflaged by its elegant styling. Alu­minum construction gives the A8 the second-lowest curb weight, at 3980 pounds (tied with the Jag). Inside the car, the occu­pants are surrounded by probably the most stylish trappings of the class, yet the ambi­ence for the driver is more sporty than lux­urious. It’s an extremely well-equipped car—the only one with four standard side airbags and sound-absorbing glass all around. Rear-seat comfort and space are on par with the Lexus (with two rear occu­pants), and the ride is quiet and smooth. The sound from the 300-horsepower V-8 is stirring; it’s burbly at low revs, hard and manic at high revs. But despite having the most advantageous power-to-weight ratio of any car here, tall gearing and fric­tion in the four-wheel-drive system slowed the A8 to fourth place at the drag strip. Other disappointments: Its skidpad per­formance, at 0.78 g, is the worst of the group, as is its 192-foot stopping distance from 70 mph. We blame the all-season Goodyear Eagle LS tires, which seem mis­matched to the car’s chassis.You see, whereas the A8 feels taut, lithe, and nimble at moderate speeds, it begins to feel less composed and less inte­grated as cornering speeds rise. Those Goodyears start howling early as under­steer sets in, and the car pushes relentlessly if you attempt to pick up the pace. The car also becomes increasingly difficult to drive smoothly. Whereas the BMW and Jaguar retain a fluidity of function even at their limits, the Audi becomes nebulous and discombobulated. In extremes, it seems to have neither the compliance nor the body-motion control of the best cars in this class. The A8 4.2 Quattro is a technological tour de force, and if you live where it snows a lot, this is probably the best choice. Drivers who spend all their time driving within the Audi’s “sweet spot,” below eight-tenths of its capacity, will think it’s a peach. At the limit on dry roads, however, we found the A8 to be a chore. Hence, its third-place ranking. 1998 Audi A8 4.2 Quattro300-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3980 lbBase/as-tested price: $67,565/$71,032C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 7.1 sec1/4-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph100 mph: 17.6 sec130 mph: 41.8Braking, 70­–0 mph: 192 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg2nd Place: BMW 740iL In the quest for the hearts and minds of the voters on this panel, the BMW easily cornered the hearts. The minds, however, had a tough time with a base price that is $13,562 higher than that of the Lexus. Equipped as they were for this test (both with expensive navigation systems), the BMW costs 10 grand more than the LS400. HIGHS: Beautifully integrated chassis, strong engine, communicative steering, loads of rear-seat space. LOWS: Shocking sticker price. VERDICT: One of the world’s best cars, and priced accordingly.What price excellence, readers? The BMW is probably the finest piece of chassis tuning you’ll ever encounter in a luxury car. This is a plush car that rides as quietly along the highway as the benchmark for these things, the LS400. Then it comes alive in your hands as you commit it to the canyon. The steering is firmly weighted, perhaps a touch too isolated, but it aims the nose with the precision of a vernier gauge, and its action is bionically linear. Even during hard driving, the new stability-con­trol system proved helpful and unobtrusive. The BMW’s ride motions are gracefully damped, and the car feels fluid and alive, even when you’re leaning hard on the 235/60HR-16 Michelins (which are the biggest tires in this group). The 4.4-liter V-8 waffles quietly most of the time, but it utters an awesome ripping snarl when working hard, and it propels the 4260-pound 740iL to 60 mph in the same time it takes the 3980-pound Jaguar to do it (6.8 seconds).Front passenger space is generous, and the rear passengers enjoy the best space and comfort in this group of cars. The rear cabin even has those little movable footrests, just like a Mercedes 600 Pullman. Our notebooks recorded few complaints: among them, grumbles about the lack of a center console box under the peculiar sliding armrest and an interior that feels more functional than luxurious. Fur­thermore, we thought its navigation system was less intuitively obvious to operate and less versatile than the one in the Lexus. Still, the imperfections are few, and the rewards to both driver and passengers are many. Only its price kept the big Bimmer out of the No. l spot. Then again, maybe you get what you pay for. 1998 BMW 740iL282-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 4260 lbBase/as-tested price: $68,175/$70,850C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.8 sec1/4-mile: 15.2 sec @ 94 mph100 mph: 17.3 sec130 mph: 35.0 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 183 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 gC/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg1st Place: Lexus LS400What can you say about a car that turns in the best acceleration and braking num­bers, the second-quickest lane-change results, the quietest overall sound-meter performance, and is priced about 10 grand less than everything but the Jaguar? HIGHS: Incomparable refinement, impeccable build quality, unbeatable value. LOWS: Not very intimate in its tactile responses. VERDICT: An almost perfect recipe for the luxury car.You can say it’s the winner. You can also say it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, given that the levels of refinement and iso­lation are so good that its communication with the driver is subtle rather than sen­sual. Even there, Lexus has sought to improve matters. For 1998, the engineers made changes to the car’s steering to pro­vide a more positive interaction with the driver. They also modified the suspension to provide better body-motion control. There never was much wrong with the car’s suspension geometries and compo­nents, and it still attacks a winding road with surprising poise and ability. A new vehicle skid-control system works quite well, although it steps in a bit more officiously than the BMW’s system does. It’s also a pity the thing beeps at you when it’s working, as this encourages the driver to switch the system off. Most notable among the car’s new attributes is the response that greets the throttle at low- and mid-range engine speeds. Courtesy of Lexus’s VVT-i continuously variable valve-timing system, the 4.0-liter V-8 now pulls like a loco­motive without having to spin like a dervish. The controls are still lighter to the touch than those you find in the European com­petition, but this-generation LS400 has moved some way toward BMW in the way it has been sharpened and tightened. It would have been a mistake for Lexus to forsake the luxury-car attributes that so shocked the world’s premium car manu­facturers, so it hasn’t. The almost eerie quietness and relaxed, detached sense of isolation are still there. So are the quality materials and the meticulous fit and finish. The LS400’s drivetrain is silken and flawless, the brakes strong and fade-free, and the car even uses fuel at a more miserly rate than its rivals. As Frank Markus noted in the logbook: “This car checks all the boxes on most luxury-car buyers’ shopping lists.” Not surprisingly, therefore, it also checks into first place. 1998 Lexus LS400290-hp V-8, 5-speed automatic, 3960 lbBase/as-tested price: $54,613/$60,869C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.4 sec1/4-mile: 15.0 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 16.4 sec130 mph: 31.9 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 172 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg More

From the August 1994 issue of Car and Driver.The year 1969 was a long time ago. How long ago was it? It was so long ago that most cars cost less in dol­lars than they weighed in pounds. Think about that as you tool around in your 2500-pound Neon, considered a good buy today at $13,000. But a few verities from that long-gone era remain. Among them is the fact that a bright-white, blue-striped convertible with a big honking motor still is a slam-dunk head-turner wherever it goes. Pontiac knew it then, when the Trans Am model was launched as the high-sport Firebird. And it knows it today, as it celebrates 785,000 Trans Ams with this 25th Anniversary special. Then as now, the closed coupe will account for the vast majority of sales. (Only eight Trans Am convertibles were minted in 1969, making it one of the most collectible Pontiacs of all time.) But for grabbing attention, sparking conversations, and indulging adolescent impulses on sunny backroads, nothing beats a drop­top. So that’s the flavor we chose in sampling Pontiac’s 1994 25th Anniversary Trans Am GT. Dick Kelley|Car and DriverWe also chose to back up the 275-hp Corvette-derived LT1 gut-rumbler with the automatic transmission, a power team we had not tested since the Camaro and Firebird twins got their makeover last year. We still think the U-shift-it six-­speed manual box better suits the sharp and reactive nature of the F-cars, espe­cially in Z28 and Trans Am guise. But the four-speed 4L60-E autobox does its chores effectively too, and we wouldn’t try to dis­suade anyone wishing to—as the French might say—take the auto route. Electronic controls (that’s the “E” suf­fix in 4L60-E) are new this year on the wide-ratio automatic. They allow finer management and smoother shifting by enabling interaction with the engine-con­trol computer. They also give the driver a choice of running characteristics. Push a console button curiously labeled “Trans­mission Perform” and the upshifts become joltingly firm and quick. Part-throttle shift points climb a bit up the rev scale, and manual downshifts execute faster. Selecting this mode tells the transmis­sion to act more as if it were seeing full throttle, so everything happens with greater intensity. This was, frankly, a pain around town, where we much preferred the more seamless action of the transmission’s normal program. But we did like the way “Perform” upped the energy level in brisk curvy-road cruising. Dick Kelley|Car and DriverOf course, when you really do go to full throttle, this higher-intensity shift mode has no discernible effect. Shift points and shift action are optimized for WOT anyway. So the selectable shift mode doesn’t improve performance in any measurable way. Not that this automatic’s acceleration needs much help. It’s an honest six-seconds-to-60 car, and it gave up surpris­ingly little time to the six-speed manual Firebird Formula we tested in January 1993. Weighing nearly 200 pounds more than that coupe (3668 pounds to 3471), the 25th Anniversary convertible reached 60 mph in 6.1 seconds, compared with the six-speed car’s 5.4. Quarter-mile results were 14.6 seconds at 96 mph versus 14.2 seconds at 99. You won’t notice a differ­ence that small without a stopwatch. In most other ways, the 25th Anniver­sary Trans Am works and feels just like the other new V-8-powered F-cars we’ve tested. (In addition to the Formula in Jan­uary 1993, we compared that car and a Camaro Z28 with a Mustang Cobra in February ’93, ran a Camaro Z28 convertible in October ’93, and compared a Z28 with a Mustang GT in December ’93.) That means we have a few quib­bles—front seats with slop in their mounts and marginal rearward visibility with the convertible top up—but the story is overwhelmingly upbeat. Like its brethren, this Trans Am is bold, tough, noisy, and fast. Especially fast, because Pontiac saw fit to stay with the high-per­formance Goodyear GS-C tires on the convertible. (Base Firebird Formula and Z28 ragtops come with Eagle GAs and an embarrassing 104-mph governor.) This automatic-transmission TA convertible whistled around the test track at 153 mph, the same as we’ve seen from the six-­speed Formula coupe. Dick Kelley|Car and DriverIn less intense duty, the TA convertible is easy to live with, though it’s never exactly relaxing, what with the hollering engine, pounding chassis, and darty steer­ing. Plus constant, unashamed ogling from your fellow motorists. But all that aside, the car works fine—especially as a con­vertible, from the no-fuss power top to the effective draft protection of the close-up, sharply raked windshield. More Trans Am Reviews from the ArchiveA Trans Am GT convertible lists for $26,969 these days. Add $995 for the 25th Anniversary package, a collection of cos­metic and identity items including the white paint scheme with blue stripe and bird decal, matching white alloy wheels, white leather seat faces with blue embroi­dery, and “25th” badging. The result is a white-on-white-on­-white stunner of a car, with the highest profile in traffic this side of a presidential motorcade. But if the rubberneckers get to be a bother, just put the throttle on the carpet and they’re history. As long gone as 1969.SpecificationsSpecifications
1994 25th Anniversary Edition Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $27,964/$28,965
ENGINEpushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 350 in3, 5733 cm3Power: 275 hp @ 5000 rpm 
TRANSMISSION4-speed automatic 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.1 inLength: 197.0 inCurb Weight: 3668 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.1 sec1/4-Mile: 14.6 sec @ 96 mph100 mph: 16.1 sec130 mph: 32.6 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 secTop Speed (drag ltd): 153 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 166 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g 
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 17 mpg 
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity: 17 mpg 
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Ever since a wheezy 88-hp 2.3-liter four-banger appeared under the hood of the much-maligned Mustang II, a Pavlovian recoil occurs whenever someone says “four-cylinder Mustang.” But turbocharged 2.3-liter Mustangs are another matter—especially today. That formula got a rocky, carbureted 132-hp start in 1979, but things improved, and in 1986 the Mustang SVO made 200 horses. Cheap gas, better emissions controls, and stale CAFE targets put them to pasture as V-8s reasserted their dominance. But after almost 30 years on the bench, the turbo 2.3-liter four returned in the 2015 Mustang EcoBoost making a heady 310 horsepower.HIGHS: Goes like stink, stellar handling, impressive highway mpg.That engine carries on in today’s seventh-generation 2024 Ford Mustang EcoBoost, with a 10-speed automatic the only transmission available. Ford substantially revised the engine, which now features direct and port fuel injection, a smaller twin-scroll turbo, and an electronic wastegate. Output barely budges, with a small bump to 315 horsepower and the same 350 pound-feet of torque. At least fuel economy is up a tick despite a slightly heavier curb weight.The optional High Performance pack doesn’t net the slight horsepower increase it did last year but otherwise includes a similar list of desirable upgrades. Chief among the goodies are 19-inch Pirelli P Zero PZ4 summer tires, a 3.55:1 limited-slip differential of the Torsen variety, and a performance-tuned suspension. You also get sizable Brembo six-piston front calipers and four-pot rears, a strut-tower brace, and an electronic pull-up parking brake activator that can lock the rear wheels using the hydraulic brakes to make getting sideways easier. Ford markets it as a drift brake—as if we need more Cars & Coffee getaway mishaps. At $3475, this stuff comes cheaper than last year, when you had to buy the $1995 Handling package on top of the $6150 High Performance package to get the Torsen and the Brembos. To make this possible, two features are now stand-alone options: the active performance exhaust ($1225) and MagneRide adaptive dampers ($1750, but the $5525 Premium package is also required).This new EcoBoost is the quickest four-cylinder Mustang we’ve tested, with a 4.5-second 60-mph time that feeds into a 13.2-second, 103-mph quarter-mile. The Brembos and Pirellis do the business under braking, hauling the Mustang to a stop from 70 mph in 149 feet and from 100 mph in 293 feet. There’s also plenty of stick on the skidpad, with 0.95-g orbits easy to pull off.But 10 gears are too many. With narrow gear spacing and an eagerness to upshift, this gearbox acts like a wannabe continuously variable automatic transmission. Sport mode helps, but then the adaptive performance exhaust switches on too, turning the exhaust into an overactive kazoo. Get the High Performance pack, but skip the active performance exhaust to save yourself embarrassment and $1225.LOWS: Sounds like stink, CVT-wannabe 10-speed auto, incongruent digital dash.If you’re not trying to set lap times, the Mustang EcoBoost drives like a champ. It changes directions willingly, gives the driver useful steering feedback, and cruises the interstate serenely, with comfy leather-trimmed buckets courtesy of the $3000 201A equipment package. We beat the 29-mpg EPA highway rating in our 75-mph test, getting 32 mpg. With a 16.0-gallon tank, this Mustang has long highway legs that can outlast your bladder for 510 miles of range. As we cruised along, some other 2024 Mustang developments started to gnaw at us. The huge curving screen feels like a mistake. While it’s conceptually similar to those in newer BMWs we love, and we tolerate it there, this execution isn’t good enough. Response times are slow, some of the operational details are strange, and the menu logic is obtuse. The physical buttons and knobs that remain are stuffed down below the A/C vents in an arrangement that lacks the cohesion of the previous car.More on the Mustang EcoBoostThe digital cluster has a choice of five layouts, one of which is a reincarnation of the classic 1987–93 Fox-body gauges. We rolled our eyes when this Easter egg was announced, but sampling the options shows the imitation analog instruments are by far the best choice, likely because they come from a time when the design brief said: Be legible, day or night. It makes the contemporary idea of customizable gauges seem pointless.VERDICT: A fun Stang despite some imperfections.At one time, the sting of the four-cylinder Mustang was its lame performance, but the 2024 EcoBoost gallops at a hearty clip. Today’s drawbacks are the lack of a manual transmission, the automatic’s overeager upshifting, and the unsatisfying exhaust note. If those are deal breakers, well, just across the showroom, there’s a Mustang GT calling your name.SpecificationsSpecifications
2024 Ford Mustang EcoBoostVehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $32,515/$48,085
ENGINE
Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 138 in3, 2261 cm3Power: 315 hp @ 5500 rpmTorque: 350 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 15.4-in vented disc/14.0-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4255/40R-19 96Y
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.0 inLength: 189.4 inWidth: 75.4 inHeight: 55.0 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/30 ft3Trunk Volume: 13 ft3Curb Weight: 3812 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.5 sec100 mph: 12.2 sec1/4-Mile: 13.2 sec @ 103 mph130 mph: 24.7 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.4 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.5 secTop Speed (mfr’s claim): 155 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 149 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 293 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.95 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 510 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/21/29 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDTechnical EditorDan Edmunds was born into the world of automobiles, but not how you might think. His father was a retired racing driver who opened Autoresearch, a race-car-building shop, where Dan cut his teeth as a metal fabricator. Engineering school followed, then SCCA Showroom Stock racing, and that combination landed him suspension development jobs at two different automakers. His writing career began when he was picked up by Edmunds.com (no relation) to build a testing department. More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.The Toyota GR Corolla’s assertive styling and trick all-wheel-drive system draw inspiration from rally cars, and the track-focused Morizo Edition, named for the pseudonym Akio Toyoda assumes when racing cars, commits to the motorsports bit. The rear jettisons some nonessentials: The seats, window motors, door speakers, and wiper all go (weirdly, the rear-seat floor mats stay). Weight-saving measures make the Morizo 84 pounds lighter than the Circuit trim. HIGHS: The quickest GR Corolla, sharp and agile handling, keeps the manual alive. The turbocharged 1.6-liter three-cylinder has 300 horsepower, as in other GR Corollas. The Morizo ekes out an extra 22 pound-feet of torque for a total of 295. The torque peak starts a bit higher in the rev range, at 3250 rpm (compared with 3000 rpm), and isn’t quite as broad, finishing at 4600 rpm (not 5500). In that rev range, the Morizo feels punchy and alert. While the smaller plateau might seem like a loss, you can feel an additional power surge as you run close to the 7000-rpm redline.Light and nimble through corners, the Morizo is fitted with grippier and wider Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires that replace Michelin Pilot Sport 4 rubber. The stickier tires lead to 1.02 g’s on the skidpad, way up from the Circuit’s 0.94.It also benefits from a close-ratio version of the six-speed manual and shorter overall gearing. The extra oomph, shorter gearing, and stickier rubber net the Morizo a half-second advantage in the ever-important sprint to 60 mph, which it dispatches in 4.4 seconds. The sprint to 100 mph is 0.8 second better, at 11.3. However, the extra boost (1.1 psi more) to make the midrange power comes with a bit more lag, as evidenced by the 30-to-50-mph top-gear acceleration growing by 0.7 second. Although, if you’re going wide-open throttle in top gear at 30 mph, you’re GRing wrong.LOWS: It’s a $50K Corolla, harsh ride for daily driving, you can only bring one friend.Like the Circuit, the Morizo’s standard front and rear Torsen limited-slip differentials deftly maximize traction, and the gearbox’s notchy shifter is a joy to work. The brake ducts are also revised, and the Morizo stops from 70 mph in 152 feet, 15 feet shorter than the Circuit, though most of the credit should go to the Cup 2 tires.Michael Simari|Car and DriverTo increase structural rigidity, the Morizo has additional bracing where the rear seat would usually reside. The suspension is retuned but remains on the hard side of firm. While this is welcome on the racetrack, the loud and teeth-clattering ride on Michigan’s pockmarked roads makes longer drives exhausting.More on the GR CorollaIt might cost $51,420, but when you sit behind the wheel and take in the interior, you can’t escape the fact that the Morizo has its basis in a $23K economy car. But the 200 lucky owners of a Morizo probably won’t notice the cheapness as they tear around a track. The GR Corolla Morizo is a hatchback, but its handling, steering feel, and power put it in the same class as two-seat sports cars, and that’s a good enough reason not to have a back seat. VERDICT: The GR Corolla is proof that when Toyota goes all-in, the results can be mighty impressive.SpecificationsSpecifications
2023 Toyota GR Corolla MorizoVehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 4-door hatchback
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $51,420/$52,063 Options: Wind Chill Pearl exterior paint, $425; door sill protectors, $179; frameless HomeLink mirror, $175; carpet floor mats and cargo mat, $289
ENGINE
Turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement: 99 in3, 1618 cm3Power: 300 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque: 295 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm
TRANSMISSION
6-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 14.0-in vented disc/11.7-in vented discTires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 Connect245/40ZR-18 (97Y) Extra Load
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 173.6 inWidth: 72.8 inHeight: 57.2 inCurb Weight: 3185 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.4 sec100 mph: 11.3 sec1/4-Mile: 13.0 sec @ 106 mph130 mph: 21.5 secResults above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.0 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 9.2 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.4 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 144 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 152 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 301 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 1.02 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 21 mpg75-mph Highway Driving: 32 mpg75-mph Highway Range: 420 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 24/21/28 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINEDAssociate News EditorCaleb Miller began blogging about cars at 13 years old, and he realized his dream of writing for a car magazine after graduating from Carnegie Mellon University and joining the Car and Driver team. He loves quirky and obscure autos, aiming to one day own something bizarre like a Nissan S-Cargo, and is an avid motorsports fan. More

From the August 1994 issue of Car and Driver.The ground crew for the Goodyear blimp Stars and Stripes was ner­vous. A windstorm had earlier sucked the letter “G” in their logo clean off the side of the blimp’s immense hangar. The “G” happened to be the size of my garage. Then it rained for ten hours. Then C/D showed up at the Pompano Beach Airport, in Florida, with a banana-yellow Porsche RSR 3.8. Between 120-mph blasts down runways, we began turning skidpad circles on the apron in front of the blimp, to keep the RSR’s tires warm. “Kind of a fast car,” observed an anxious blimp mechanic.”Yep,” I said, shouting over the shattering exhaust blat, a refreshing change following 18 years of turbo­charged, racing Porsches that just whooshed.Perplexed, he continued: “It won’t, you know, like swerve out of control and center-punch our blimp or any­thing, will it?” “I haven’t lost control since yes­terday,” I assured him. “Maybe, ah, you should move closer to the runway,” he suggested.We did.The car you see here—an RSR 3.8—is important. It represents Porsche’s return to grass-roots sports-car racing following acute disenchantment with multimillion-dollar GTP exotica. The company has rediscovered what it does best: build simple production-based racing coupes that run as predictably as lifelong politicians but require fewer bribes. The RSR 3.8 (named after the brutal coupes Porsche produced in 1973 and ’74) is in every sense a turnkey racing car. You could drive it on the street—although because it’s imported as a racing car, you could also go directly to jail.Owning one is simple. Place an order with the factory, then wait eight weeks as the RSR is hand-assembled in Germany. Jürgen Barth, director of Porsche AG Customer Racing in Weissach, then tests the car until he is satisfied it is perfect. Next, he parks it in the cargo hold of a Lufthansa 747 bound for Miami or New York.When this particular RSR 3.8 arrived, it didn’t even need to be washed. A mechanic topped off the brake fluid, checked the oil, filled it with 100 liters of 98-octane fuel, then twisted the ignition key. The engine fired instantly and idled happily at 1000 rpm. That weekend, the owner raced the thing at Sebring.As turnkey racing cars go, the RSR 3.8 has a shot at becoming the most successful, most reliable street-based coupe yet conceived. Directly from their Weissach shipping crates, RSRs have won outright at the 24 Hours of Spa and the 1000KM of Suzuka. Interspersed was a class victory at Le Mans. Then came another overall victory at the 24 Hours of Interlagos. But it wasn’t until the car made its North American debut that doubters masticated large portions of crow. At the 24 Hours of Daytona, the RSR 3.8 not only swept the first four spots in IMSA’s GTU class, but the lead car of the four also finished third overall—six places in front of the fastest WSC prototype. Weeks later, as if to emphasize the point to remaining non­believers, another RSR won its class at the 12 Hours of Sebring. It was fifth overall. Our chrome-yellow test car (RSRs are also available in white, red, blue, or black) was imported by Champion Porsche-Audi of Pompano Beach for a customer who prefers to remain anonymous. Champion is owned by Dave Maraj. Dave is happy. This is because his dealership sold more Porsches in ’93 than any other U.S. dealer. Actually, that is not the complete truth. Dave sold more Porsches than any other dealer in the world. This has advantages. For starters, Dave can afford to field an IMSA 911 Turbo driven by the likes of Brian Redman, Bill Adam, John Paul Jr., and Juan Manuel Fangio II. That car’s co-sponsor, H.H. Brown, makes shoes with Goodyear’s patented Aquatred soles, which—ah, this gets complex—is how we wound up on the blimp’s runway. But Maraj, a practi­cal guy (he says it’s because he was raised in Trinidad), prefers the naturally aspirated RSR to the troublesome turbo. “It’s more simple, more reliable, and still real fast,” he says of the RSR. “My customer wanted the RSR simply for Porsche club events, then maybe to get a competition license. But the nice thing is, if he wants to go pro racing—some really flat-out stuff—he can use the same car.” True enough. The RSR 3.8, with minor mods, is eligible to race in IMSA GTU/GT2, or you can slap a turbo on it and race in the GTS category. It is also legal in the SCCA World Challenge, in SCCA club events, in Porsche Club soirees, in German ADAC GT races, in the Italian Supercar GT Championship, at Le Mans and other FIA-sanctioned enduros and sprints, and in any driving school except the one you took as a high-school sophomore. “A gung-ho guy could race it 20 times a year,” says Maraj. Your basic RSR arrives with a flaw­lessly welded roll cage, a Recaro racing seat, six-point belts, a fire­-extinguishing system, a fuel cell, a racing clutch, 911 Turbo bodywork (but with aluminum hood and doors), and an adjustable wing reminiscent of the old Porsche 935. The 18-inch Speedline wheels are 9.5 inches wide in front, 11.4 inches wide in back. Glorious details abound. Like the Porsche logos on the chrome valve stems. The pinky-finger wheel-well clear­ance. And the red button in front of the gearshift, which uncorks a reserve jelly-glass of fuel, enough to complete one final lap. The suspension is fitted with stainless Heim joints, Bilstein racing shocks, and adjustable anti-roll bars. The brakes are lifted from the existing 911 Turbo S (but with racing pads) and avoid what Norm Crosby calls “heat prostitution,” thanks to a rat’s maze of cool-air ducts. There’s also a trick anti-lock system. Barth says the racing ABS’s pulsing cycles are briefer, the system returns to standard braking more quickly than regular ABS, and pedal feel also returns sooner after one wheel has become airborne and has been fooled into triggering the circuitry. We never got our test car airborne—a small concession to its owner—but we did discover that the car will stop from 70 mph in an ear-pinning 150 feet. It will do this repeatedly, all day, tomorrow, the day after, and into next week. The stopping grip is so great that if your shoulder belts aren’t cinched like the QE2’s hawsers, your body lifts out of the seat, is suspended magically aloft, then makes a concerted effort to drag you feet-first through the windshield. In the Mulsanne chicane at Le Mans, Barth’s RSRs commenced their braking at the same point as the Group C Peugeot prototypes. More massaged than any other com­ponent is the RSR’s engine. Compared with the new Carrera street car’s 3.6-liter aluminum flat six (producing 270 horse­power), the RSR gets a 146 cc increase in displacement, lighter pistons with an 11.4:1 compression ratio, a different crankcase, dual ignition, a remapped Bosch Motronic ECU (mounted behind the driver’s seat and with the owner’s name writ formally thereupon), and new intake manifolds. The result, says Porsche—a company notoriously prone to glib understatement—is 320 hp at 6900 rpm. Yeah, sure. What makes us suspicious? After you side-step the clutch at 4600 rpm, this 2679-pound banana fractures 60 mph in 3.7 seconds of sound and fury—significantly quicker than a Ferrari F40 or a Dodge Viper. Compared with a street-going 911 Turbo 3.6, the RSR is 0.3 second quicker to 100 mph and 0.3 second quicker through the quarter-mile. Up to 120 mph, the RSR 3.8 is more than five seconds quicker than the latest 911 Carrera. C/D’s fearless estimate: this little naturally aspi­rated two-valve-per-cylinder six belts out 375 hp at 6900 rpm, which is some 55 hp beyond Barth’s claim. Top speed? Well, it’s a race car, so it depends on gearing. Opt for a final­-drive ratio of 3.55:1 and you’ll achieve 165 mph—a velocity that is suited to most U.S. circuits, with the possible exception of Daytona. Behind the wheel, what you notice first is that this car is comfortable to drive slowly—one of the signs of a tractable drivetrain—despite its ridiculously short first gear (for pit work only) and its grabby racing clutch. The switchgear is stock, right down to the stalk for the wipers, the knob for the lights, the sun visor, even a cigarette lighter for a Dick Trickle–style mid-race smoke. The steering is synapse-fast and as communicative as any we’ve encountered in the previous two decades—although below 30 mph, it’s as dimwitted and heavy as a sack of Quikrete. Dynamically, the car’s greatest drawback is its shift linkage, whose throws, by racing standards, are both long and balky (ours was, admittedly, a brand-new car). On the third-to-second downshift, in particular, this imposes a needlessly deliberate heel-and-toe ballet. At Moroso Motorsports Park, at mod­erate speeds on a damp track, the RSR tends to oversteer mildly in fast sweepers and to understeer in tight corners. At any point between 4000 rpm and the 7200-rpm redline, however, there is enough power to punt the tail east or west. But the car generally feels so bal­anced that horsing it around is a little like using a Louisville slugger on the ninth green at Augusta. So far, so good. But this is, after all, a Porsche. So it costs, what, a quar­ter-million? Pleasant sur­prise. The base price for a race-ready RSR is $160,453. Okay, okay. That’s not as cheap as a season of church bingo. But as race cars go—particularly those designed to run flat out for a full season with not much more than a couple of oil changes—it is more fun and less expensive than dating Vassar grads. It is, in fact, less than the price of your basic street-legal 911 Turbo S ($165,311), two of which were on display in Maraj’s showroom. Of course, if you’re going to race more than SCCA club events, you’ll want to set aside about 20 grand for options that­—wow, what a coincidence—Porsche just happens to offer. Our test car was fitted with center-lock wheels ($4117), so that during pit stops you need to remove only one nut rather than five lugs. To hasten the process further, it was plumbed to accom­modate pneumatic jacks ($4970). Our owner also realized he’d need two spare sets of wheels (at $1400 per wheel, you are deeply motivated to avoid striking curbs), one spare transmission ($6572), and an extra Recaro seat ($2089), so that an instructor can ride shotgun and explain in what fashion the driver might possibly maim himself. To all of this, you must remember to add the cost of extricating a race car from the border guards’ Bureau of Red Tape­worms. In this case, the owner took the coward’s route and hired a New York lawyer who specializes in customs bro­kering. The lawyer said, “The EPA has a prejudice against granting waivers, espe­cially for Porches [sic].” So, we learn here that, if you import an entire porch, you’re gonna pay. More on the Porsche RSROnce all was said and done, $4236 was spent on duty, $2295 got flushed at U.S. customs, then there were fees for “mer­chant processing,” fees for the broker, fees for the harbor, for documents, for towing, plus a fee of $56.76 for “agriculture.” (Hey, these are the feds, so don’t even ask; possibly they thought this was some sort of tractor.) All of which raised the total price of this Porsche RSR 3.8 to $180,836. As we went to press, 45 RSRs had been assembled under the dangling cigarette and watchful eye of Jürgen Barth, who claims that his employer is making no deutsche marks on this foray but is nonetheless winning races. So, snivel before a merciful bank man­ager who understands Living Large car loans, then simply show him a picture of your Porsche without numbers or decals. He’ll think it’s your street car. Next thing you know, you’re at Pompano Beach air­port passing Cessnas and aimed straight for the gondola of Stars and Stripes. It could have been Germany’s revenge for the Hindenburg.SpecificationsSpecifications
1994 Porsche RSR 3.8Vehicle Type: rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $160,453/$180,836
ENGINESOHC 12-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 229 in3, 3746 cm3Power: 320 hp @ 6900 rpmTorque: 375 lb-ft @ 6900 rpm 
TRANSMISSION5-speed manual 
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 89.4 inLength: 168.3 inCurb Weight: 2679 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.7 sec100 mph: 8.9 sec1/4-Mile: 12.1 sec @ 116 mph120 mph: 13.1 secBraking, 70–0 mph: 150 ft  
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED More

The all-electric Hyundai Ioniq 5 is already a favorite, earning a spot on our 10Best Trucks and SUVs list. With strong range figures, sharp styling, and accessible pricing, it’s easy to see why. If you were looking for something with more inspiring performance, however, you’d have to look to the related Kia EV6 GT, but that all changes with the new 2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5 N, which should be arriving in the U.S. this coming March.Hyundai could have taken the path of least resistance and mimicked the EV6 GT. Instead, with former BMW M division chief Albert Biermann leading the charge, the madmen within the N performance brand decided that anything worth doing is worth overdoing. The N treatment is far more than just a boost in power, a suspension retune, and some extraneous badging and spoilers. Among other things, the chassis has been reinforced with more bracing, welds, and adhesives. Additional cooling has been added to handle more demanding power needs, and as for the suspension, it has been drastically overhauled for track-ready handling.The Ioniq 5’s unique styling remains, though the N variant sits 0.79 inch lower and expands 2.0 inches in width and 3.2 inches in length, courtesy of a pronounced rear diffuser. Additional aero panels and reddish-orange accent splashes further give it a high-performance look without being garish. As far as actual performance goes, the all-wheel-drive Ioniq 5 N increases its output to a maximum of 641 horsepower. That’s more than double the standard Ioniq 5’s 320-hp max rating. Battery capacity also increases from 77.4 to 84 kilowatt-hours. Standard 21-inch wheels are shod with 275-width, three-season, high-performance Pirelli P Zeros. The monoblock brake calipers have a distinct Brembo look to them in the same way the front seats resemble Recaros, but they’re both Hyundai-sourced. There is also a long list of new performance features and settings, all starting with the letter N.We had the opportunity to sample the Ioniq 5 N on an abbreviated Korea International Circuit, which hosted a few Formula 1 races last decade. Not surprisingly, acceleration is immediate. Hyundai estimates the car will reach 60 mph in less than 3.3 seconds on its way to a 162-mph top speed. What was surprising was the sound. The N Active Sound+ feature tries to approximate the sound of an internal-combustion engine with a video game–like synthesis. The sound could certainly be improved, but we found ourselves enamored with it when combined with the N e-Shift function that simulates an eight-speed dual-clutch transmission.You’re likely rolling your eyes as much as we did when we learned of this combo feature, but it fundamentally changes the 5 N’s character—for the better. Not only is it good enough to overcome our prejudice, it got us chuckling with joy. Using the shift paddles on full-throttle, no-lift shifts, you get an instant and violent race-like gearchange that snaps your head back. Lift off the pedal and you get a series of crackles and pops that reminded us of the raucous Jaguar F-Type. It adds an entirely new dimension of driver engagement that is missing in other EVs, in the way a manual transmission does for a Porsche 911 or a Mazda Miata. The sound can also be heard from the outside, but it’s not overly brash. Count us pleasantly surprised, but if you’re not convinced, you can turn these features off.Then there’s the handling. We had a Hyundai engineer riding shotgun to give us a taste of the numerous drive modes and settings during our seven laps around the track. With N mode activated, the Ioniq 5 N feels balanced and very controllable, which also equates to slightly boring for track use. Enter N Torque Distribution, which allows you to select how much power is sent to the rear wheels. We were partial to the maximum rear bias setting, as it allows for some tail-happy antics. The 5 N is incredibly easy to hustle around the curves, gently feeding in throttle and laying down thin stripes of rubber. We tried to provoke some snap oversteer with a quick lift and stomp of the foot midcorner, and the Ioniq obliged. In an instant we were pointing toward the inside of the turn, but it was easy to recover with some countersteering and measured pedal application. It behaves just as a typical rear-drive coupe might. Kudos, Mr. Biermann. His deft touch is also felt in braking, as the pedal is linear with an appropriate amount of effort. It’s as seamless as a conventional sports car when you’re trailing it deep into turns, and you can even left-foot brake if that’s your thing. The N Brake Regen feature increases the amount of deceleration when lifting off the throttle, allowing you to more gracefully weave from turn to turn. Biermann was aiming for enough regeneration to get the tail to break loose, but that was a battle he lost, at least for now. Impressively, regenerative braking is active even when dipping into anti-lock territory.Getting back to the N Torque Distribution, you can significantly change the handling behavior by shifting the power bias to the front, which dials in more understeer. This kind of adjustability is an intriguing addition, along with the many other settings. It might be a bit daunting for some, but if you’ve ever delved into tuning a car in the Forza or Gran Turismo game series, this could be geek heaven for you. If you’ve tuned your own suspension in real life, you’ll be amazed by how easy it is.Yet another feature, N Drift Optimizer, aims to allow novice drivers a limited drifting experience by selectively powering and braking specific wheels to induce oversteer. There’s also a Torque Kick Drift system that simulates a clutch dump; it’s triggered by holding both shift paddles and then releasing them. It seems plausible that this will work well, but on the skidpad, we found it challenging. We had better results by turning off all of the stability and traction nannies, sending all the power to the rear wheels, and having at it.Altogether, the Ioniq 5 N is a legitimate track-day weapon. It may not be the fastest car on track, but we’re convinced it’ll be one of the most entertaining. Outside of this specialized environment, it’s equally livable. The ride quality is firmer than the standard Ioniq 5 but not at all objectionable. Our public-road drive revealed the 5 N is just as easy to drive.Range is still an unknown, and official estimates aren’t expected until closer to the on-sale date. There are some notable drive modes to help ensure you won’t run out of juice mid-session, though. Hyundai claims the Endurance mode allowed the 5 N to complete two laps around the notorious Nürburgring Nordschleife without losing any performance on its eight-minute laps. The engineers also point to its 20-20-20 target (20 minutes of track time, 20 minutes of DC fast-charging, and another 20 minutes of track time). The Sprint mode throws all of that to the wind and unleashes maximum power.Related StoriesPrice is also an unknown, but considering the top Ioniq 5 Limited trim with all-wheel drive rings in just shy of $60,000, and the Kia EV6 GT stickers at almost $63,000, it’s not out of the question to assume the Ioniq 5 N will flirt with the $70,000 mark.We came away from the drive impressed by the Ioniq 5 N. It’s predictably playful and extraordinarily versatile. As the N brand’s first foray into the EV space, this apex Ioniq is an enticing portent of what’s to come. As Biermann proclaimed, “It’s like AC/DC meets BTS,” which is certainly one way to put it. Depending on price and range, it’s likely to be one of the most giggle-inducing EVs for less than six figures.SpecificationsSpecifications

2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5 NVehicle Type: front- and rear-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE (C/D EST)
Base: $70,000
POWERTRAIN
Front Motor: permanent-magnet AC, 235 hpRear Motor: permanent-magnet AC, 406 hpCombined Power: 641 hpBattery Pack: liquid-cooled lithium-ion, 84.0 kWhOnboard Charger: 10.9 kWPeak DC Fast-Charge Rate: 238 kWTransmissions, F/R: direct-drive
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 118.1 inLength: 185.6 inWidth: 76.4 inHeight: 62.4 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 55/51 ft3Cargo Volume, Behind F/R: 59/27 ft3Curb Weight (C/D est): 4900 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST)
60 mph: 3.1 sec100 mph: 7.7 sec1/4-Mile: 11.2 secTop Speed: 162 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST)
Combined/City/Highway: 74/80/70 MPGeRange: 195 miContributing EditorWith a background in design and open-wheel racing, Mark Takahashi got his foot in the door as an art director on car and motorcycle magazines. He parlayed that into a career as an automotive journalist and has reviewed thousands of vehicles over the past few decades. More

From the December 2023 issue of Car and Driver.Every so often, we get the notion to resurrect a story concept from long ago and produce a modern follow-up. For a variety of reasons, this often doesn’t work out—we figure out that Ferrari 250GTOs have gotten too expensive to huck around Laguna Seca, or John Phillips is banned from Tibet, and that puts the kibosh on that. But every now and then, we page through a favorite story in the vast Car and Driver archives, ask ourselves, “Could we do that again?” and come up with no good reason why not. Such was the case with our August 1998 story that pitted tuner cars in a race to 150 mph and back to a stop—an unforgiving and indubitably entertaining test of horsepower and braking acumen. We billed the test as defining “a new performance standard for the coming millennium” and then never did it again. Hey, stuff comes up. In our defense, it is difficult to find real estate suitable for 150-mph exploits, and our 1998 venue—Chrysler’s Chelsea, Michigan, proving grounds, where we still test—wasn’t going to work for these particular hijinks. Back in the day, we used its 2.2-mile straightaway, but the only one we have access to now is 1.5 miles. That sounds like a lot until you’re doing 145 mph in a Honda Civic, staring at the speedometer creeping up digit by digit as you cover about two-thirds of a football field every second. To find a suitable stretch of asphalt, we had to secure our tray tables and taxi to Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, about three hours north of Detroit.If you’ve never heard of Oscoda, that’s probably because you’re not a Cold War bomber pilot or part of a current DHL or Kalitta Air cargo crew. Oscoda was once a base for nuclear-armed B-52s to set off on round-the-clock trips to the Arctic Circle—just in case the Soviets got rowdy—but now it’s mainly a cargo depot and maintenance destination. Oscoda also has a freshly paved 2.2-mile taxiway. Airport manager Jamie Downes advised that even though we’d be off the main runway, we shouldn’t wander too close to the Kalitta Air 747s running engine tests down beyond our starting line. “Did you see the MythBusters where they put cars behind a jet and throttled it up?” he asked. “They shot that here. The only vehicle that didn’t get blown away by the jet wash was a 57,000-pound plow.” We don’t have anything that weighs 57,000 pounds. Not even the Bentley Bentayga.Yes, our 150-mph roster includes SUVs, which would have been unthinkable last time. So would including a stock Civic, although we brought one of those—the Type R, of course—along with its Korean antagonist, the Hyundai Elantra N, but not a Toyota GR Corolla, as it maxes out at 144 mph. Representing attainable German speed, Volkswagen sent a Golf R, and representing half-attainable and half-German speed, Toyota furnished a GR Supra 3.0. That car seemed a natural foil to the Ford Mustang Dark Horse, our lone thundering American pony car (we asked for a Dodge Demon 170, but no luck). Beyond the Mustang, prices got mighty fancy, with the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing dicing with the Bentley Continental GT Speed in a battle of large-format autobahn dominators. At the top of the food chain, Porsche fielded a 911 GT3 RS and a 911 Turbo S, and Chevy countered with a Corvette Z06.To break up the internal-combustion hegemony, the Kia EV6 GT flew the flag for electric vehicles everywhere. It wasn’t supposed to be the only EV, but the Tesla Model S Plaid we’d rented caught a nail in a tire the day we were heading to Oscoda, and we couldn’t get a replacement in time for testing. We did, however, run it later at our usual test venue since the straightaway there is long enough for a car that hits the required speed in a quarter-mile, and we ran a Lucid Air Sapphire on the straightaway at Virginia International Raceway. The results don’t count for the official scoreboard, but they were certainly enlightening [see “Heroic Electrics,” below].A note about our results: They’re more like lap times than our typical performance figures. We didn’t subtract the initial one-foot rollout or apply any correction for ambient conditions, and the results are simply the best run, not an average of passes in both directions or a merging of acceleration and braking segments from different runs. All of the foregoing, and the fact that Ocsoda’s fresh asphalt isn’t nearly as grippy as the concrete from our usual test venue, means that the 60-mph and quarter-mile times from this test aren’t comparable to other test results.As for our methodology, you might wonder how we attained precisely 150 mph before hitting the brakes. Answer: That was part of the challenge. Drivers had to eyeball the VBox display on the dash and attempt to max out at precisely 150 mph, which was easier in some cars than in others. At 145 mph, the 911 Turbo S was still scrolling numbers like Satan’s slot machine, while the less powerful cars aided precision.View PhotosThis image shows the field arranged in accurate relative finishing position, with the 911 Turbo S in front coming to a stop 1.1 miles sooner than the Civic Type R.Michael Simari|Car and DriverIn all but the slowest couple of vehicles, drivers would ideally initiate braking (as recorded by a trigger affixed to the pedal) at a hair under 150 mph. Then there is a fraction of a second as the pedal strokes down, hydraulic fluid pulses through the lines, calipers squeeze, and rotors begin transforming kinetic energy to heat. And that sliver of latency is the window for the car to clear the buck-fifty hurdle before initiating its brutal trip back to a stop. Judging that lag was its own black art, but if a driver actually saw 150 mph on the VBox display before braking—with the left foot in cars with an automatic transmission to save time—then that was probably too late. Some of the faster cars gained a half-mile per hour or more before the brakes took over. And, of course, if the Vmax speed was under 150 mph, the run did not count.Indeed, for a seemingly simple exercise, a lot can go awry. You can duff the launch, brake too early, or brake too late. Maybe the car gives a wiggle while hauling down and strays onto the dust at the edge of the lane. Perhaps you forget to turn off the air conditioning or fail to set the car in its most advantageous launch or aero mode. The preflight checklist differs from an Elantra N to a Z06 to a 911 Turbo S. But they all have one thing in common, both with one another and with those tuner cars from a quarter-century ago: Visiting 150 mph is always a thrill, even if you only stay there for a moment.The ContendersBase: $44,890As-Tested: $45,345315 hp • 3183 lb • 10.1 lb/hpread moreBase: $34,015As-Tested: $34,015276 hp • 3196 lb • 11.6 lb/hpread moreBase: $47,405As-Tested: $47,405315 hp • 3419 lb • 10.9 lb/hpread moreBase: $234,250As-Tested: $302,910542 hp • 5432 lb • 10.0 lb/hpread moreBase: $62,925As-Tested: $63,100576 hp • 4815 lb • 8.4 lb/hpread moreBase: $58,745As-Tested: $60,365382 hp • 3376 lb • 8.8 lb/hpread moreBase: $67,155As-Tested: $74,500500 hp • 4025 lb • 8.1 lb/hpread moreBase: $312,155As-Tested: $376,025650 hp • 5045 lb • 7.8 lb/hpread moreBase: $99,765As-Tested: $107,225668 hp • 4243 lb • 6.4 lb/hpread moreBase: $287,380As-Tested: $301,420518 hp • 3207 lb • 6.2 lb/hpread moreBase: $144,280As-Tested: $167,605670 hp • 3672 lb • 5.5 lb/hpread moreBase: $233,560As-Tested: $253,510640 hp • 3691 lb • 5.8 lb/hpread moreCar and Driver0–150–0 mph: 52.7 secondsFlat-earthers might change their beliefs after watching the Civic Type R complete its trip to 150 mph, which requires so much pavement—8389 feet of it—that the white Honda seemed to disappear over the horizon. In the time it took for the GT3 RS to make two runs, the Civic was busy completing a single pass down in the here-be-dragons territory of the Oscoda airport map.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 47.0 secondsAs our own Csaba Csere pointed out in 1998, overcoming aerodynamic drag at 150 mph requires 3.38 times as much power as it does at 100 mph. That’s why Bonneville land-speed cars all look more like the sleek Elantra than the big-winged Civic, and it’s surely one reason why the Elantra N pulled ahead of the Civic by more than five seconds at 150 mph despite its 39-hp deficit.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 40.2 secondsAfter the tricky, tire-frying clutch drops of the Civic and the Elantra, launching the automatic, all-wheel-drive Golf R was as routine as clocking in for your shift at the 150-mph factory. One driver noted, “Put it in Special mode that’s labeled Nürburgring, push on the gas, push on the brake, rev it up, and it goes.”read the full story0–150–0 mph: 32.8 secondsReaching 150 mph in the Bentayga was no big deal. There’s no launch control, so you just brake-torque its conventional eight-speed automatic and go, bracing for a violent one-two upshift. The 542-hp twin-turbocharged V-8 is healthy enough to dispel most W-12 FOMO, muscling the bodacious SUV to 150 mph in 25.7 seconds.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 31.2 secondsOn a recon run, without the complete array of test equipment active, the EV6 notched a 30.8-second pass, which would have put it ahead of the Supra. Alas, without the granular data, the score from the Russian judge got tossed, and the EV6 officially finished 0.1 second behind the Supra.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 31.1 secondsAlthough this test doesn’t involve much lingering at triple-digit speeds, some cars spend enough time there to reveal foibles. And in the Supra’s case, the low-speed agility that makes it such fun on a twisty road manifests as unsettling jitters at high speeds.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 29.7 secondsWe’ve driven a lot of 5.0-liter Mustangs, so launching the Dark Horse was a familiar exercise: Be patient with the throttle, get it rolling, then go wide open. Get it hooked up, and 60 mph arrives in 4.3 seconds, which is normal Mustang stuff, really. It’s pretty much all as expected until you hit the brakes and your eyeballs get sucked out of your head.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 24.8 secondsThe GT Speed messes with your mind because you expect it to be quick—it’s got “Speed” right there on the badge—but it’s hard to fathom how 5045 pounds can launch like this. The Speed uses an eight-speed dual-clutch transmission that enables real-deal launch control, with a 5000-rpm clutch drop lobbing the twin-turbocharged 6.0-liter W-12’s 650 horsepower and 664 pound-feet down to the pavement like a grenade over a wall.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 24.7 secondsWith 6.2 liters of supercharged V-8 crammed into the Caddy’s engine bay, power-robbing heat soak was the primary obstacle to a quick run. Well, that and traction—Oscoda’s fresh pavement posed a challenge for our more muscular rear-drivers.We kept dialing down launch control—all the way down to 1300 rpm—and there was still a whole lot of torque modulation going on all the way through first gear. But the Caddy’s 668 horsepower asserted itself at high speed with the fourth-quickest 150-mph time, and its trackworthy brakes shrugged off that speed in 664 feet and felt like they’d be happy to keep doing so all day long. read the full story0–150–0 mph: 24.4 secondsThe GT3 RS wasn’t the quickest car of the test, but it sure sounded like it. When the GT3 RS headed for the starting line—pausing for a launch-control start or two to warm up the tires—airport workers lined up at the fence to watch. It was always a worthy spectacle, the GT3 chattering at 6500 rpm before shrieking off the line and kissing 9000 rpm while sounding like the devil’s dirt bike.read the full story0–150–0 mph: 22.5 secondsThe Z06 is a road-course car, not a drag racer. But its performance here proved that it’s game to trip the beam at your nearest staging lights, cracking off an 11.3-second quarter-mile. The Z06’s launch control is manually adjustable, but we got the best times in auto mode, letting the car learn the surface and adjust its aggression accordingly. read the full story0–150–0 mph: 19.3 secondsThe world’s premier business-class rocket ship required less than a half-mile to hit 150 mph and return to a stop. Setup was easy: Select Sport mode, which keeps the active front and rear spoilers in their low-drag position, then hit the Sport Response button to increase the launch-control threshold from 4000 to 5000 rpm. After that, hang on for a four-wheel burnout, followed soon thereafter by the quarter-mile mark (10.5 seconds) and 150 mph (13.5 seconds).read the full story Heroic ElectricsThe 0-to-150-to-0 leaderboard of the future seems destined to be battery powered.When our rented Tesla Model S Plaid showed up with a nail in its tire, we attempted to overnight a replacement tire. But Tesla-spec rubber is hard to come by, and the 1020-hp Model S couldn’t make it to Oscoda in time. Instead, we ran it the next week at our regular test venue. Because of the different track surfaces, we’re not including the Tesla in our official results. A further disappointment is that we couldn’t get a Plaid with the $20,000 Track package that offers upgraded wheels, tires, and carbon-ceramic brake rotors; our test car was on the base 19-inch Pirelli P Zero PZ4s.Since we were already adding asterisks, when we found ourselves at Virginia International Raceway with a 1234-hp Lucid Air Sapphire, we figured we might as well make a few 0-to-150-to-0 passes. Obviously, VIR introduces yet another incomparable surface, and its straightaways are far from test-track flat.Nevertheless, both megapowerful EVs ran more than three seconds quicker than the Porsche 911 Turbo S. As expected, the EVs’ advantage is in acceleration. The Plaid gets to 150 mph in 9.7 seconds and the Sapphire a second quicker still, putting them 3.8 and 4.7 seconds, respectively, ahead of the Porsche. That edge more than offsets their stopping distances, which were, thanks to their hefty curb weights, roughly 100 feet longer, hurting their overall times by less than a second. Very unofficially, the Sapphire’s time of 15.5 seconds beat the Plaid’s 16.2-second time. —Dave VanderWerpMoving the Goal PostBefore gasoline lost its lead, the 0-to-100-to-0 test was the benchmark of measuring a vehicle’s ability to accelerate and decelerate in one swift pass. In 1960, Aston Martin claimed the DB4GT did the deed in 24 seconds. Today it would likely be trampled by the average three-row SUV.In 1965, Carroll Shelby boasted that his 485-hp Cobra 427 could do it in 14.5 seconds. Engineer, Shelby test driver, and racer Ken Miles was said to have done it in 13.8. For its time, the accomplishment seemed unfathomable; however, analyzing our test numbers gives it some legs. When we tested the 2529-pound Cobra 427, it got to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and arrived at 100 in 8.8. It covered the quarter-mile in 12.2 seconds at 118 mph—that’s quicker than a Mustang Dark Horse. But without anti-lock brakes, stopping the Cobra 427 would require a master’s in threshold braking.To compare the ’60s metal with modern machines, we ran the Porsche 911 Turbo S through the 0-to-100-to-0 wringer. It needed just 9.7 seconds to complete the task. The Cobra paved the way for a more strenuous test, which is why we added 50 mph in the 1990s. At 150 mph, overcoming aerodynamic drag requires 3.38 times as much horsepower as it does at 100, and the brakes must dissipate 2.25 times the energy. With today’s active aero, huge brakes, and massive horsepower numbers—and the fact that a Honda Civic can reach 150 mph—perhaps it’s time to add another 50 mph. —David BeardSenior 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